The hidden decline…. found!
“Contrary to Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the decline is “hidden in plain sight”, the inconvenient data has simply been deleted.”
And what an IPCC reviewer had to say…
Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)
Not that it mattered.
Bill Illis (who occasionally guest authors at Watts Up With That) explains what “Hide the Decline” means, in the comments;
The scientific rationale to “hide the decline” can only be that the tree rings started showing spurious cooling trends starting in about 1960 – there was no actual cooling, it is just that the tree-rings started showing a spurious decline in 1960 for non-climatic reasons.
There could be an actual explanation for this which might include pollution, acid rain, aerosols blocking sunlight, increased forest fire fighting creating increased competition from other trees, CO2 fertilization creating increased competition etc.
But none of these other rationales have been shown in the science to produce a spurious decline. In fact, the NH forest cover increased substantially after 1960. There is no substantiated rationale.
And if the “other” rationale was to just show “actual measured temperatures” instead of the proxy measurements, then the truncation should have started in 1850 rather than the day tree-rings started showing the divergence.
So, if there is no science backing up the truncation starting in 1960, then it is truly “hiding the decline” and it is just attaching a line going up instead. It is also admitting that tree-rings are not temperature proxies after all. They are just mathematical constructs designed to produce a hockey stick.
Science should never be “illogical”. It should never make you say to yourself “Well that makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering the evidence. In this case, you will have to prove it which you have not done so far.” Yet, no proof is offered or demonstrated.
What about the Inuit, rebarbarian? They used to eat the stomach contents of the cariboo who fed on plants. If they hadn’t done that, they would not have had any source of several of the essential nutrients necessary to sustain human health. I rest my case. Heck, even sea animals eat plant food, or at least other sea animals that eat plant food. No plants. No cariboo. No Inuit.
No plants. No cariboo. No Inuit.
~Louise
There’s always baby seals and sea weed.
The oceans are teaming with life.
“Well, I hope that the PM opens his ears and listens to the other leaders. Climate change will affect those island states drastically. And that he goes to Copenhagen with a strong commitment to action. But from what we’ve seen so far in this country, he is not predisposed to change his mind – even when he is wrong. So I guess he is there for the photo op and a little R&R in the warm sun. Don’t forget to don your sunscreen Stevie.”
I like this comment on the CTV blog.His ignorance and stupidity is further compounded by the fact he doesn’t even know that Denmark is in the northern hemisphere and “its fall/winter there now.
LOL H.T. They are everywhere, one got so twisted up in her moma-gaia is dying right now(!)belief that within a few comments she actually stated something along the line of, “why don’t you just go and research the climate scientist’s research papers yourselves then if you don’t beleive in AGW”…this was on a threat from an article that Colby Cosh has done on this Climategate at the MacLeans magazine site.