Sunday, June 29, 2014

It's the Effing Details

So what's new?  Well the Weasel is going after a sci-fi comic drawing in the H.H. Lamb series, this one first appears to have appeared 2006 in the Torygraph in an article by the Monkers (don't blame Eli, that was Wm's description) part of which was reproduced as part of an amazing mathterbation exercise by David Evans over at Nova's.  More on that next post.

and since republished here and there.  Wm wants to know where this came from.  Whatever it is it is not the from the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR), but somebunny's "modification" of same for Europe.

What was in the IPCC FAR was a free hand sketch by H.H. Lamb that has since been abused every which way, as described by the Weasel and others)

So when Christopher Monckton claims that in an article showing the first graph that
The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today.
He is wrong about which IPCC assessment report had the Lamb sketch, and wrong that the graph that appeared in the bottom pane of the figure shown in his piece was the one that appeared in the IPCC report and wrong when he said the graph demonstrated that the temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today, because, well, because of Mike's trick.  Eli is a helpful little bunny, so he hopped over to Wood for Trees, ran a graph of HADCRUT 4 global and smoothed it on a ten year basis, ran a line over the global temperature variation and nailed it to the 1900 value shown in the first graph above, voila, Mike's trick.
If Eli had used the Northern Hemisphere instrumental temperature record, the rise would be even higher.  As for Europe, well Eli will leave that to Zeke, but dollars to donuts it is going to be even higher.

The fun thing is that Chris Monckton is running about Sgt. Schultzing that he knows nothing, nothing about that graph. 
Mr Connolley falsely accuses me of having fabricated a graph in whose selection, drafting and publication I played no part whatsoever. I should be grateful if he would remove all references to my having “faked” or fabricated this graph, and if he would kindly notify me when he has done so.
and being met with an OK, who put it into an article you wrote and had published and have you written to the Telegraph asking them to post an error notice.  Eli notes that in 2008 Monckton got the IPCC report version right, and the curve, but somehow erased the y axis and did not note how the instrumental record sort of falsifies the Lamb sketch.

Indeed, if you look at the IPCC First Assessment Report, the instrumental records in the same chapter falsify the the Lamb sketch, it being known even then that there had been a ~0.7 C increase in global temperature over the 20th century.  And so it goes.


Anonymous said...

I think a slow clap is in order here.

Kevin O'Neill said...

My model (Ouija Board, Rev 2.1) predicts that you're blog will be threatened with a libel suit.

"don't blame Eli" is not going to absolve you :)

John Mashey said...

Note also the falsification of the first graph, which shows a horizontal shaft, as did Montford's 201 book The Hockey Stick Illusion.
MBH99 had a clear sloped regression line.

John Mashey said...

Note: the graph isn't even Europe, it's a sketch of Central England.

The key reference is Jones, Briffa, et al(2009) "High-resolution palaeoclimatology of the last millennium: a review of current status and future prospects", Appendix A, p.36.

"In summary, we show that the curve used by IPCC (1990) was locally representative (nominally of Central England) and not global, and was referred to at the time with the word ‘schematic’."

I would also point out that polar amplification works, and that CO2 was a bit higher during the MWP era, such as it was, compared to earlier and especially to the later LIA.

EliRabett said...

Well John, England is in Europe, at least for the moment, however the figure in question has some interesting differences with the one in the 1990 FAR . . .

John Mashey said...

Of course it has interesting differences, as do the myriads of versions and copies of versions. I've found ~10 just in books.
One can argue whether or not England really is in Europe, :-) but Central England certainly is not equal to Europe, and it is likely to be more subject to North Atlantic jiggles than most of Europe.

Lionel A said...

So I take it that you won't be interested in chipping in to his ludship's 'The Monckton Foundation', charitable and educational as it is and demonstrated by the image at the head of the 'Charter':

cleverly using RSS data to show that there has been no warming between September 1996 and November 2013.

Kevin O'Neill said...

Eli may wish to inquire of VisionLearning why this page - that used the 'Battle of the Graphs' image as an example of 'Misuse of scientific images' and attributed it to Monckton's Telegraph article was changed in the past day omittimg the 'Misuse of Scientific Images' section.

I suspect our dear peer has a hand in the matter.

Anonymous said...

Nearly eight years after the publication in London's The Telegraph of the erroneous graphs that accompanied Monckton's 2006 attack on climate science and the IPCC, and still without any correction demanded by Monckton, he and Anthony Watts have come up with a more or less plausible explanation for the provenance of those graphics, aided by some web research by Nick Stokes and a less than reliable Steve McIntyre.

Although Mr. Watts himself, as Monckton's defender, states that "Based on the simplest available evidence, I was ready to conclude, as were many, that indeed Monckton had created the graph, that it was in error, and that he had refused to admit to any of this. I was ready to censure him myself...," the ever-indignant and litigious Monckton wrote a letter to Watts’ blog promising legal action against his antagonists, "for if they say I have no reputation they have to be able to come up with evidence that any material detrimental to my reputation on which they may try to rely is true. And most of it is no more accurate than their accusations that I “faked” a graph that I had plainly not faked [emphasis added]. In fact, so plainly had it not been faked that it had gotten him nearly censured even from Watts’ execrable anti-science blog.

Why did it take nearly eight years for Monckton, with Watts' assistance, to clear up their dear readers' misapprehension of the provenance of these graphics? Could it be that in the denialsphere, the gears of science grind more slowly because of their deep mistrust of the peer review process? Or, in his zeal to defend "true science" against the global climate conspiracy, he hadn't ever bothered to check the "artwork" that illustrated his refutation of the IPCC? No, Monckton's excuse is that the dog ate his homework, i.e., "What I had not realized until very recently was that for several years allegations had been circulated all over the place to the effect that I had fabricated the graphs that had appeared in the Sunday Telegraph article. Yet not one of those who had made these allegations had ever contacted me to verify the facts. And not one of them had said what was wrong with the Telegraph’s graphs anyway." Yet, Monckton "thought it might be time to reveal the steps we have to take on an almost weekly basis to try to stem the tide of false allegations directed at us" [emphasis added]. Apparently, he's been so busy taking steps on an almost weekly basis against false allegations that he never had time to notice the false allegations that had been circulated all over the place all these years.

Taylor B

Anonymous said...

According to Monckton, although apparently his champion Watts disagrees since he found them worthy of nearly censuring Monckton, the graphs are "blameless," "harmless schematics." "So I,” says Monckton, “am going to court. My lawyers say the libels are plain and indefensible. They comment additionally that no judge would regard the schematics in the Telegraph (whoever had drawn them) as significantly misrepresenting the difference between the 1990 and 2001 reports’ images of the past millennium’s global temperature anomalies. As far as they can see, there is not a lot wrong with the graphs in any event."

No, there is not a lot wrong with the graphs, except as Monckton relates, for example, "With the article I supplied some background material for Telegraph readers on its website. In that material, the IPCC’s 1990 graph also appeared, mistakenly captioned as 1996 rather than 1990." Or that they artistically compare a schematic of temperatures in "central Europe" with a schematic of temperatures in the "northern hemisphere," while Monckton claims they fairly represent the IPCC's "1990 and 2001 reports’ images of the past millennium’s global temperature anomalies" [emphasis added]. Not to mention all the rest of the ridiculous assertions in his Telegraph piece and subsequent statements.

As a defender of "true science" and "skepticism" against the global conspiracy of climate scientists, Monckton isn't shy to admit that he holds his father's dowsing skills in high esteem; in fact he seems compelled to relate his late father's dowsing story despite its marginal relevance to the allegations he's defending himself against. He uses it as an example of the unfairness of his and other pseudo-skeptics' mistreatment by the global climate conspiracists.

Taylor B