Wheeerrre’s Climate Waldo
Posted by Jeff Condon on June 23, 2010
Ok, Steve M is back at it today with a cool post on another blog’s criticism of Steve Mosher and somewhat collaterally, Climate Audit. In this post, Steve describes how Arthur Smith has mischaracterized what has been said at CA about hide the decline. Now I’m not here to defend CA -cause Steve does fine by himself but let’s look at this stolen without permission plot from CA.
Gee the green line is all from the same data, at least it is supposed to be—- I wonder, which one is the real green line? Which one has meaning in the physical world. I wonder why the right side image didn’t exist prior to climategate?
Waldo is faster than we thought…tricky bastard him..
Update: TTCA in comment 1
It all started as the same data, I think, but wound up being statistically molested into a barely recognizable state (more accurately, multiple barely recognizable states). The “Climategate AR4″ figure is the data as Briffa originally found it, which was then smoothed with padding to get the figure “Briffa AR4″, which mostly, but not entirely “hides the decline”. This already dubious at best, stunningly idiotic at worst, procedure was not misleading enough however. For the purposes of the figure “Mann TAR”, a different smooth and padding were not only used, but the data were scaled differently, literally reducing the variance. The “WMO” graph is the most baffling-Jones appears to have used an even more aggressive smooth than Mann, used either the original scaling, or slightly enhanced for Briffa’s data-and adds to this by apparently padding not with averages from observations, not averages from proxies, but the actual observed data, there by making it appear as thought the reconstruction of temperatures in the 20th Century was nearly perfect, which gives precisely the opposite impression one would get if one looked at Briffa’s original data (that the proxy’s performance was rather poor).