Decline Initials Order with airSlate SignNow

Decline initials order

20 years ago in April 1998 a paper appeared in the prestigious journal Nature that would go on to be one of the most contentious and influential climate science papers of all time its lead author was Michael Amen at the time the young researcher just starting his career from the initials of man and his co-authors the paper came to be called MBH 98 but to many people it's best known for introducing the famous hockey stick graph based on a statistical analysis of tree rings and other natural formations it purported to show the average annual temperature of the northern hemisphere back to ad 1400 as basically flatlining the handle for hundreds of years until it suddenly shot upward the blade in the 20th century a year later the same authors published an extended version going back to ad 1,000 both versions presented the same stunning picture the world's climate had apparently followed a steady gentle cooling trend for nine hundred years then in the 20th century a violent warming trend began unlike anything in the past millennium the authors fingered rising co2 emissions as the culprit within two years the hockey stick rocketed to international fame after becoming the centrepiece of the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change where it appeared six times always in full color and was heavily promoted at an international press conference by IPCC chairman Sir John Houghton governments around the world began using the hockey stick with the full authority of the IPCC behind it to promote the global warming alarm [Music] John Robson this is a climate discussion that's his background err on hiding the decline [Music] there was always something dubious about this chart and not just the way it erased the well-known Medieval Warm Period it's also that the man series switched from tree rings to temperature readings at the precise point that the line changed direction dramatically which would normally get scientists excited about possible weaknesses in the methodology particularly the discrepancy between the data sets rather than pretending there was nothing to worry about and finally it was very strange at least from a scientific perspective that this one paper got so much publicity because back in 1998 Matt and his colleagues were not the only ones studying ancient tree ring data and other researchers did not find what they did just two months after MBH 98 appeared nature published another climate reconstruction this time by the late British scientist Keith Britta and four co-authors like man's study it used tree ring records from all over the northern hemisphere to estimate temperatures back to the Year 1400 but unlike man's paper the result looked nothing like a hockey stick it showed a lot of variability over time and record warmth in the 1930s but no special warming patterns since then in fact it showed cooling up to 1993 with temperatures ending below the average of the past six centuries the climate science community was confronted with two studies at the same time both using similar methods to study the same thing and coming up with very different answers normally that kind of result means the science is not settled the data may not be reliable and the uncertainties need to be explained in this case apparently it meant instead that a body needed to be buried for political reasons and the story of the disappearance of the brief of data is one of the darkest episodes in modern science and now a word from our sponsor and that's you because the climate discussion Nexus is supported by ordinary Canadians who want to see more common sense more logic and more facts in the discussion on climate and less yelling if you want to help us subscribe to our YouTube channel go to our patreon page make a pledge become a monthly sponsor now back to our regularly scheduled programming it's long been known that the Earth's climate is naturally variable the study of ancient climate conditions is called paleoclimatology in the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 1990 they summarized the conventional view among Paleo climate experts then at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago the climate warmed for about 4000 years reached a state much warmer than the present and stayed there for several millennia then began cycling between cooling and warming the Roman era and the medieval era were both relatively warm compared to the present and the Little Ice Age which ended in the early 1800s was relatively cold and now we're in another warm phase of the cycle though according to the conventional view as of 1990 it's nothing special compared to previous eras the 1990 IPCC diagram of the familiar cycle matches other records such as this long-term temperature reconstruction from ice cores taken out of the Greenland ice cap [Music] similar evidence for past warming episodes comes from the Riviera boniface region Indian gave a peninsula of northern Quebec in 1997 scientists from Laval University in Quebec published evidence of the remains of a black spruce forest preserved in peat in the Arctic tundra the trees grew over an interval spanning a thousand BC to almost 1600 ad how could there be a forest in the Arctic simple it used to be warmer there than it is to this day periods of rapid forest growth there happened to during the Roman and medieval warm periods but a major fire in the late 1500s wiped out the trees and it's been too cold for them to grow back ever since in fact it's been considerably too cold the authors point out that the forest remains they stated are 130 kilometers north of the present tree line for a forest to have grown so far north a thousand years ago means it had to have been much warmer there for a long time compared to what we're now experiencing the problem for alarmists is that the existence of the Medieval Warm Period made it hard to claim that recent climate warming is anything unusual so it had to go which made the man hockey stick very attractive to the IPCC MBH 98 s headline conclusion was that today's warming was unlike anything the earth had seen in a thousand years but the critics would say that's based on studying tree rings maybe the warming happened and the tree rings simply don't show it which is where briefest data was critical the 20th century is the one interval where we have both thermometer data and tree ring records and we can see that the trees don't show any warming so if they fail to respond to twentieth-century warming how do we know that they don't also miss it in earlier centuries [Music] a third paper published in 1998 emphasized these challenges the lead author was UK scientist Phil Jones and his list of co-authors included Keith Brava and two others they said that of the various ancient climate records available tree rings were probably the best but they can be very unreliable their own result fell between man's and preface with a clear little ice age and a modern interval about as warm as the medieval period but since it was based on a very small dataset they cautioned against reading too much into it man's paper by contrast swept aside the uncertainties he and his co-authors claimed quote moderately high levels of confidence end quote that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium of the last thousand years and that brought the IPCC calling in 1999 the IPCC was starting to work on its third assessment report out of all the people doing tree-ring temperature analysis they picked Michael Mann to write the summary George and Griffin were invited to serve as contributors but under IPCC rules it's the lead authors who decide what goes in by appointing man the IPCC was signaling what message they were looking for and soon they would be even more explicit about what they were after on September 1st 1999 the IPCC convened a meeting of the authors in Arusha Tanzania where they spent three days discussing what the first draft of the report should include ten years later a large library of emails among Jones Griffith Mann and other climate scientists would be leaked onto the Internet which is how we came to possess the inside details of what happened next on September 22nd 1999 three weeks after the Arusha meeting IPCC coordinating lead author Chris Folland sent around a note stating a proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favorite for the policymakers summary but the current diagram with the tree-ring only data briefed us somewhat contradicts the man Multi proxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly so he asked that man's curve be given the priority now hold on a moment it's 1999 almost two years before the report was due to be released and before the expert view process had even started yet the IPCC leadership had already decided on the message they wanted in a summary for policy makers and they didn't want to vote diluted end quote even though they knew the available data was contradictory and inconclusive clearly the IPCC didn't see their job as surveying the science and writing a summary that reflected the full range of data and of opinions instead they decided ahead of time on a compelling message that manmade climate change was a pressing crisis and then they looked for the science to support it men proposed doing what falun wanted by circulating a diagram showing only his hockey stick and the jones diagram while leaving out Britta's altogether jones objected and in brief Oh likewise was furious he wrote to the author team I knew Mike thinks his series is the best and he might be right but he may also be too dismissive of other data and possibly overconfident in his after all the early pre instrumental data are much less reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern calibrations but brutha also understood the problem the data didn't support the story the IPCC wanted to tell I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data but in reality the situation is not quite so simple we don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do at least a significant number of tree proxies contain some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming I do not think it is wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter he then acknowledged what was really at stake they were being asked to override their scientific judgment and service of the IPCC's political agenda I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene man then offered to put the briefing data back in but he warned they didn't understand why the datasets differed and climate skeptics might use this to cast doubt in their work and undermine the people's faith so if we show Keith series in this plot we have to comment that something else is responsible for the discrepancies in this case we would need to put in a few words in this regard otherwise the skeptics will have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and thus can undermine faith in the paleo estimates the real problem wasn't that skeptics would cast doubt on their message it was that the contradictions in the data would cast doubt on their message the end result many months later was that man's hockey stick graph appeared alone in the summary for policy makers backed by this figure in the main report [Music] the black line is man's curve the pink one is jones's and the green one peeking from behind was brief 'as modified data attributed to a later paper published in 2000 the red line leading upwards at the end was from modern thermometer data the diagram suggested amazingly that all the data were in perfect agreement where did the discrepancy go for the next five years nobody asked that question then in 2005 Stephen McIntyre of Toronto a semi-retired mining consultant who had taken an interest in Paleo climate studies got curious about it and looked up the brief of paper right away he noticed something odd the green curve was supposedly the one brief was submitted to the IPCC but it goes up to 1994 in the journal article whereas the IPCC version stopped at 1960 they deleted the final 33 years of data the declining portion McIntyre hunted through some online data archives and found the full Bertha series then drew what the IPCC diagram would have looked like if they had used all the data what a difference by deleting the last part of the blue line they concealed the contradictions among the data sets and the questions are raised about the validity of the methods the reason why Britta's data was a problem for them was that his temperature reconstruction from tree rings went sharply down in the last half of the 20th century when temperatures were going up so the question for any rational observer was if tree-ring data went down while temperature went up what makes you think that these are a good measurement or a good proxy for temperatures and if they went down when it was warm in the 20th century how do we know that they didn't do that in the past these are questions that every scientist would ask if they were presented with this data and by concealing the data they stopped people from asking that question Macintosh discovery didn't attract much immediate attention but when the Climategate emails came out he began digging into the issue further one of the most notorious emails was from Phil Jones dated just two months after the Arusha meeting on November 16 1999 when he was preparing a similar diagram they would go on the cover of a major apart from the World Meteorological Organization writing to manage MBH 98 co-authors Jones said quote I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years that is from 1981 onwards and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline Jones was referring to this charge which like the IPCC diagram made it look like all the datasets agreed and showed unprecedented recent warming it achieved this effect by deleting the Burford data after 1960 splicing and here ometer dated each series up to the year 2000 then smoothing over the splice as jones said to hide the decline that's quite the trick to give you an idea of how big a story it was the Climategate emails were released at approximately the same time as Tiger Woods's implosion and there were more there were 22 million hits for Climategate and 21 million hits for Tiger Woods it was a huge social media story but that was very barely covered in national media in the aftermath of Climategate a number of inquiries were convened by the UK government into the conduct of Jones Griffith and their British colleagues but as would be expected in bureaucratic circles the reports mostly served to whitewash new revelations to protect the reputations of the universities involved and of course to preserve the notion that there was a proven man-made global warming crisis the main investigative team was headed by Moore Russell and it conceded that a minor wrist slap was in order for this incident in relation to hide the decline we find that given its subsequent iconic significance not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC report the figure supplied for the wmo report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1964 the figure and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together the operative word is there were sort of enquiries none of the inquiries however squarely addressed or even addressed at all the idea of senior IPCC scientists directing junior scientists to not dilute quote dilute the message or what the junior scientists had done in order to quote not dilute the message the message that they were trying to put out was that the change in climate was alarming and so any data that they had that showed that it wasn't alarming they didn't want to show it would dilute the mass [Music] the IPCC has never owned up to what happened or issued a correction in fact the fraudulent diagram is still on their website by hiding the decline they misled world leaders and citizens on an issue that they themselves judged to be critically important they falsified data to conceal their own uncertainty and the potential and reliability of the methods they were using and that is not how science is done it's been 20 years now since this body was buried but it still stinks so next time you see an apparently tidy and compelling message from the IPCC judge its credibility accordingly thanks for watching to support the climate discussion Nexus subscribe to our YouTube channel and to our newsletter like us on facebook follow us on twitter and go to our patreon page and make a pledge for the climate discussion Nexus I'm John Robinson