“hide the decline” – worse than we thought
Some background from the original “hide the decline” from Steve McIntyre here
Despite relatively little centennial variability, Briffa’s reconstruction had a noticeable decline in the late 20th century, despite warmer temperatures. In these early articles [e.g. Briffa 1998], the decline was not hidden.
For most analysts, the seemingly unavoidable question at this point would be – if tree rings didn’t respond to late 20th century warmth, how would one know that they didn’t do the same thing in response to possible medieval warmth – a question that remains unaddressed years later.
He writes now in Hide-the-Decline Plus
Indeed, they did not simply “hide the decline”, their “hide the decline” was worse than we thought. Mann et al did not merely delete data after 1960, they deleted data from 1940 on, You can see the last point of the Briffa reconstruction (located at ~1940) peeking from behind the spaghetti in the graphic below:
Detail from Mann et al (EOS 2003) Figure 1. Arrow points to Briffa series peeking out from behind the spaghetti
Had Mann et al used the actual values, the decline would have been as shown in the accompanying graphic:
Figure 3. Re-stated Mann et al (EOS 2003) Figure 1 showing the decline.
Had Mann and his 13 co-authors shown the Briffa reconstruction, without hiding the decline, one feels that von Storch (and others) might have given more consideration to Soon et al’s criticism of the serious problem arising from the large-population failure of tree ring widths and density to track temperature.
Read the whole article Hide-the-Decline Plus
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
I rate it half a mouse fart. Outside. On a windy day.
Ott, it is sad to me that you would defend such decidedly non-scientific action. I mean seriously. If these guys were selling you an option strategy, and you found out that they eliminated one of the trades because it went against them, and just cut the bad trade out of their marketing literature, would you be able to justify that? Yet that is exactly what they have done.
ott and woodshedder, when you feed a randomized series of points into the hokey stick equation, you get a hockey stick every time.
in other words: whatever you feed into it, whatever temperature measurements, the so called model always predicts a hockey stick outcome.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-email-briffa-replicates-mcintyre-mckitrick-produces-hockey-sticks-out-of-noise/
so even if they screwed around with the chart, it just makes it worse… it doesn’t reveal anything new…
it’s all a scam to funnel money towards the global warming syndicate
Yes, I realize that. Have you seen the email to Mann from one of the researchers where he states that his son has entered a school science fair with a project that sampled tree rings from behind his Dad’s research facility? Guess what, once his son plugged the data in, it made a hockey stick.
Anyway, that is a separate issue. Here, we have tree ring data that shows a COOLING in the late 20th century and it is purposefully cut (literally) from the graph and data.
Now that doesn’t really matter because now we know that no matter what data used would have made a hockey stick. But it does, because it shows that the Global Warming Team will do ANYTHING for the cause.
yeah, lol, I’ve read that 😉
I didn’t mean your post here was a bad idea… I always appreciate every dirty detail on these disgusting scam artists….
I just wanted to show on how many levels this is all a giant fraud.
these mobsters should go to prison for this.
billions of tax dollars have been routed into the pockets of these criminals.
this is worse than Madoff