Comments on: Provenance of the Briffa File in the Jones 1998 Archive

By: manicbeancounter

manicbeancounter — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:53:04 +0000

One would think that the climate scientists would learn to become a little more sophisticated in their manipulation of the data. But I have a current example that contradicts this assertion.

We know, from the data that 2010 was the hottest year ever. This is demonstrated on the NASA Earth Observatory site. Only not is all that it seems.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=48574

I have recorded on my own website. Beware – my explanation is not as articulate as the one’s you find on this blog!

By: BMcBurney

BMcBurney — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:38:47 +0000

I think its striking how similar many of the tricks and bodges actual climate scientists are to “Dr Thompson’s thermometer” in their underlying concept. I suppose everybody now recognizes the Gore graph as an embarassment but what is supposed to be the fundamental difference between it and Phil’s trick? Just smoothing?

By: Phil R

Phil R — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:34:59 +0000

I like the way he phrases it: “…I’m happy to do it and let the reviewers tell us if they see any problem.”

Not being an Academic my Academic language skills are not fluent, but I would interpret this to say, “I know this is wrong but let’s do it anyway and see if they catch us.”

By: Layman Lurker

Layman Lurker — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:51:51 +0000

This is a good point Craig. A good example of your point is comparing the varying alignments of the Briffa series in different publications. It can’t be calibrated the same way as Jones and Mann in the TAR because of the 1960 truncation. The email version sent by Osborn which was ultimately published in the TAR calibrated the series against the 1881 – 1960 instrumental mean but still called it anomaly wrt 1961-90 because that is how the instrumental series is expressed. Osborn goes on to say in his email to Mann that other instrumental calibration periods could be considered (and suggests 1931-60) which would obviously change the alignment (offset) of the series. As we all know, the published version of Briffa in the TAR used the email version sent by Osborn however Mann adjusted the series with an offset to the 1881-1960 calibration (however, not to 1931-60 as suggested by Osborn). In another twist, Steve’s passages in this post quote Mann’s suggestion of aligning Briffa not with instrumental – but with the means of the *other series* in the first half of the 20th century (I checked on this angle and could not reconcile the alignment of Briffa as published in TAR with the 1901 – 1950 means of Jones and Mann) .

Taking this logic to it’s extreme, there is obviously a significantly wide range of possible alignments for the presentation of Briffa in the TAR and the various other published graphs, while still describing it as a 1961 – 1990 temp anomaly. If one is going to express the truncated Briffa series as temperature anomaly in this manner, then the uncertainties need to reflect this range.

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:21:04 +0000

I’m sure TFP will be here any second now to apologize…

yup…

any…second…now…

By: dearieme

dearieme — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:32:58 +0000

“It’s interesting that the very first incident of hide-the-decline in IPCC literature was in a graphic prepared by the UK Met Office.” “Interesting” is a wonderfully restrained choice of adjective, Mr Mac.

By: bernie

bernie — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:57:50 +0000

Craig:
It strikes me that “looks better” suggests some preconceived notion of how it should look. It also suggests that the procedural method is being selected to create a “look” rather than by the nature and form of the data. It is hard to see how such an approach would get through a dissertation committee!

By: Barclay E MacDonald

Barclay E MacDonald — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:50:55 +0000

Peter Wilson:

Yes, I like the use of the word “we” by Phil Jones, which I take to mean he and Briffa. And I note the quote with which you are concerned appears to follow Mann’s Sept 23 email, cited above, in which Mann apparently says about his now intermediate Briffa reconstruction, “So already, the reconstruction I’m using is one-step removed from the published series (as far as I know!) and that makes our use of even this series a bit tenuous in my mind, but I’m happy to do it and let the reviewers tell us if they see any problem.” Mann’s email could have been interpreted by Jones and Briffa to be Mann’s approval of the three of them proceeding with the “better” Briffa reconstruction, even though it is now another step removed from the published reconstruction. Also I’m wondering how much detail the “reviewers” were informed of these two “steps” from the published reconstruction and to what extent the reviewers may have included or been influenced by Mann, Briffa and Jones.

By: stan

stan — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:31:08 +0000

That’s what struck me. It’s more than a glimpse into their attitudes. It’s a summary. It’s all about telling the ‘right’ story. [or is that the left's story?]

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:54:45 +0000

That you can get, and use, various versions of the data by how you treat it means you don’t know the proper way to treat it. This is the fundamental problem with the whole thing–no reality check is available to constrain the data massaging.