The decline is not hidden from anyone who has enough scientific background to go read the original papers. The "hidden" data is included in the paper and it is explained why they are not used. The words "hide the decline" refer explicitly to not using the data since it was shown to be wrong by other measurements. To quote the scientists over at RealClimate:
As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
As DeadCatX2's post explained "hide the decline" simply refers to a technique to make the graphs look cleaner by removing irrelevant data. The decline is hidden in plain sight since the reasons for not using the data are fully explained in the published work. Problem is that those sorts of details seldom make it out to news reports on the work.
The beauty of science is that some one else can reproduce the work and evaluate how good it is. Mann's Hockey Stick has been supported by a number of other researchers using different proxy data who come up with similar results to Mann. I'm not aware of any peer reviewed published work that contradicts Mann's work.
So even if hypothetically Mann were to be found intentionally lying it's irrelevant. The actual published work is what matters.
The reason Mann has fought all of that discovery is because he's standing up for other scientists. The discovery is not after anything relevant to anything. What's relevant is his published work.
You know, I don't think Mann is afraid of discovery at all. As far as I can tell his work has always been honest. The reason he's fought it is that a scientists work should be judged by the science they produce, the published results of their work, not some gotcha quote mining of working papers and communications with peers.
Ah, but Mann's Hockey Stick is repeatable. A number of other studies since the original was published have shown substantially the same thing as Mann's work using different proxy datasets. Here's a number of them plotted along with the Hockey Stick Graph. See if you can figure out which is which.
I think the point of this article is that before this, they could only really look back 14,000.
No, carbon 14 dating is good for around 60,000 years before its level gets to low for accuracy. They could measure that all along. This research merely extends the accuracy that tree rings provided back to 52,000 years thus narrowing the range of years found for a specimen.
Sustainability will be accomplished at some point whether we get there by taking action ourselves or nature forces it on us. There is not other choice. Technology may put off the day of reckoning but it won't prevent it from happening if population continues to rise.
In my opinion, they still won't be able to build an accurate model until they can calculate the interactions of every single particle in the solar system.
Quantum physics says even that wouldn't work. It's like predicting the weather, it'd be reasonably accurate for a short period of time and quickly deteriorate in accuracy at time went on.
About 4 times as much sea ice has been lost from the Arctic as has been gained in the Antarctic. The Antarctic ice sheets have been losing more ice than than the Antarctic sea ice has gained so the net there is still negative.
The gain in Antarctic sea ice is interesting. It has to do partly with the ozone hole over Antarctica and partly to do with global warming. The ozone hole causes stratospheric cooling which strengthens the circum-polar winds, blowing the existing sea ice around which opens up leads which subsequently refreezes. Global warming causes more precipitation which when falling on the ocean surface freshens the water making it less dense which reduces the mixing between the warmer saltier waters below and the colder surface waters reducing the ice melt at the surface and making the water easier to freeze.
No climate models "successfully predicted 15 years of stagnation" because that's not what they're designed to do. In fact you probably couldn't write a model that would be successful at predicting a 15 year stagnation because of natural variability. The climate models I'm familiar with generally use 30 year averages for their projections and have since the 1980's. A paper from last year statistically analyzed the issue and found it requires at least 17 years of temperature records to separate the signal of warming from the noise of natural variability.
Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8C. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.
15 years of data is simply too short a time to make definitive statements about warming in the face of natural variability.
I'm not sure if it really addresses the asker's needs but Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein had a profound effect on me when I read it the first time as a young teenager.
The company I worked for helped develop ADS-B and was heavily involved in the Capstone Program. ADS-B essentially forms a network between all airplanes and ground stations equipped to send and receive the signal. An airplane periodically (like every few seconds) broadcasts its location and vector so anyone who can receive the signal can tell where the other plane is and where it's heading in relation to it. The GPS that's a part of it also had terrain maps and will warn you if you're headed for a mountain. I'm pretty proud of the work we did on ADS-B. It's improved the safety of flying small airplanes in Alaska immensely and it's coming to the lower 48 States gradually.
Slashdot Mirror
The decline is not hidden from anyone who has enough scientific background to go read the original papers. The "hidden" data is included in the paper and it is explained why they are not used. The words "hide the decline" refer explicitly to not using the data since it was shown to be wrong by other measurements. To quote the scientists over at RealClimate:
As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Mann's data and methods are not hidden. You and anybody can find the information for the original hockey stick graph here.
I'd say 8 or 9 other graphs that show substantially the same thing using different proxy data provide independent verification of the Hockey Stick Graph.
As DeadCatX2's post explained "hide the decline" simply refers to a technique to make the graphs look cleaner by removing irrelevant data. The decline is hidden in plain sight since the reasons for not using the data are fully explained in the published work. Problem is that those sorts of details seldom make it out to news reports on the work.
The beauty of science is that some one else can reproduce the work and evaluate how good it is. Mann's Hockey Stick has been supported by a number of other researchers using different proxy data who come up with similar results to Mann. I'm not aware of any peer reviewed published work that contradicts Mann's work.
So even if hypothetically Mann were to be found intentionally lying it's irrelevant. The actual published work is what matters.
The reason Mann has fought all of that discovery is because he's standing up for other scientists. The discovery is not after anything relevant to anything. What's relevant is his published work.
You know, I don't think Mann is afraid of discovery at all. As far as I can tell his work has always been honest. The reason he's fought it is that a scientists work should be judged by the science they produce, the published results of their work, not some gotcha quote mining of working papers and communications with peers.
Ah, but Mann's Hockey Stick is repeatable. A number of other studies since the original was published have shown substantially the same thing as Mann's work using different proxy datasets. Here's a number of them plotted along with the Hockey Stick Graph. See if you can figure out which is which.
In a couple of places in both the old and new testaments it implies that life begins with your first breath.
Money is not speech! It is merely an amplifier of speech.
The last magnetic reversal of the poles was 780,000 years ago, 720,000 years before carbon 14 dating is useful. I doubt it has any effect.
I looked up the Würm glaciation on Google and found this map. Being west of Tokyo there wasn't a lot of glaciation there.
I think the point of this article is that before this, they could only really look back 14,000.
No, carbon 14 dating is good for around 60,000 years before its level gets to low for accuracy. They could measure that all along. This research merely extends the accuracy that tree rings provided back to 52,000 years thus narrowing the range of years found for a specimen.
Sustainability will be accomplished at some point whether we get there by taking action ourselves or nature forces it on us. There is not other choice. Technology may put off the day of reckoning but it won't prevent it from happening if population continues to rise.
I think dcblogs had a typo and meant to write "or".
In my opinion, they still won't be able to build an accurate model until they can calculate the interactions of every single particle in the solar system.
Quantum physics says even that wouldn't work. It's like predicting the weather, it'd be reasonably accurate for a short period of time and quickly deteriorate in accuracy at time went on.
The MET Office has refuted this story.
About 4 times as much sea ice has been lost from the Arctic as has been gained in the Antarctic. The Antarctic ice sheets have been losing more ice than than the Antarctic sea ice has gained so the net there is still negative.
The gain in Antarctic sea ice is interesting. It has to do partly with the ozone hole over Antarctica and partly to do with global warming. The ozone hole causes stratospheric cooling which strengthens the circum-polar winds, blowing the existing sea ice around which opens up leads which subsequently refreezes. Global warming causes more precipitation which when falling on the ocean surface freshens the water making it less dense which reduces the mixing between the warmer saltier waters below and the colder surface waters reducing the ice melt at the surface and making the water easier to freeze.
No climate models "successfully predicted 15 years of stagnation" because that's not what they're designed to do. In fact you probably couldn't write a model that would be successful at predicting a 15 year stagnation because of natural variability. The climate models I'm familiar with generally use 30 year averages for their projections and have since the 1980's. A paper from last year statistically analyzed the issue and found it requires at least 17 years of temperature records to separate the signal of warming from the noise of natural variability.
Here is a direct response from the MET Office on that subject. There's a nice graph at the bottom that ranks years from hottest to coldest colour coded by decade. To quote them:
Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8C. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.
15 years of data is simply too short a time to make definitive statements about warming in the face of natural variability.
I suspect you're right. Yeager doesn't suffer fools gladly. As I get older I'm more like that myself.
Cool. Too bad everybody doesn't already have it but it is expensive to get installed. Something like $20K last time I heard.
I'm not sure if it really addresses the asker's needs but Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein had a profound effect on me when I read it the first time as a young teenager.
The company I worked for helped develop ADS-B and was heavily involved in the Capstone Program. ADS-B essentially forms a network between all airplanes and ground stations equipped to send and receive the signal. An airplane periodically (like every few seconds) broadcasts its location and vector so anyone who can receive the signal can tell where the other plane is and where it's heading in relation to it. The GPS that's a part of it also had terrain maps and will warn you if you're headed for a mountain. I'm pretty proud of the work we did on ADS-B. It's improved the safety of flying small airplanes in Alaska immensely and it's coming to the lower 48 States gradually.
They use ILS at larger airports but there is also WAAS (similar to DGPS) that can be used for approaches to smaller airports without ILS systems.