Various climate studies have used tree rings as a proxy for temperature. This is actually quite difficult because things like the amount of water available also affect tree ring width. If you look at the Michael Mann picture you can see that the sample he is holding has different widths of tree rings on different radial directions. So, in a particular year does the wide ring give you the temperature data of the narrow ring?
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/b...
The decline "trick" can be seen in this article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
Basically, Mann believes what the tree rings tell him right up to the present day. That is fairly safe because it is difficult to check those. However, the recent tree rings show that temperature is going down when the thermometers say it is going up.
Did we get an open and honest exposition of that point in the Mann et al paper? Well, no, they decided to hide the decline in current temperatures as shown by the tree rings. Was this so that the credibility of the other tree ring data would not be undermined? Who knows? Once it was discovered some people did become suspicious - even sceptical!
Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising.
P.S. As Gary F predicted already one denier doesn't even bother to answer the question that was asked, but instead rants about taxes...
Usually refers to the so called "divergence problem" in tree ring data where tree rings indicate rising temperatures until roughly the1960's but not since then.
Sagebrush, globally 2009 was the 7th warmest on record so I doubt very much there was panic among climatologists.
The US is but one small part of the planet and this forum is about global warming not you opinion of things happening in one place. it's like all you deniers clamering about the polar vortex when Australia, and Brazil were experiencing excessive heat this winter.
It refers to a change (decline) in tree growth response to temperature in the northern hemisphere and, particularly, at high elevations. The issue has been discussed in the professional literature since the mid-1990s.
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Bri...
Deniers claim that is refers to any number of things that it does not; but, they are mostly just spreading lies and misinformation because they are ignorant, dishonest, and too lazy to bother with actually learning anything..
My spouse and i highly recommend using VPNPower to unblock internet sites. I have been with them since four years. http://www.vpnpower.net
It's a way to change data that does not fit your theory. In real science, if your data does not match your hypothesis you adjust your hypothesis. In climate pseudo-science, if your data does not match your hypothesis you adjust your data.
If your proxy data shows is going in the wrong direction, you add in heavily upwards adjusted temperature data to get the warming you want.
"Hiding the decline" and "Adjusting past temps down and current temps up" are both accepted practices in the climate pseudo-science community to get the data to fit with their religion.
Mann made a 'hockey stick' and it displayed the temperatures going up reminiscent of the curve of a hockey stick. Taxes were raised according to this imminent danger, legislation was pass trying to prevent this danger. Then the earth didn't cooperate and these con artists, like Mann, were found out. The earth really wasn't in peril like Mann had said.
Now there were a lot of so called scientists who were duped or paid to go along and they really looked bad. their credibility as scientists was shot. So a great smoke screen was set up to hide the decline in the temperature. Here is a link to some panicked scientists.
http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”
Ha! Ha! But trust old reliable James Hansen. He had to justify his shenanigans so he could get his $750,000 from Soros. So here is what he did. It is so easy. If the data is against you, change the data. Ha! Ha! Ha! See that was easy!
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
So the 'honorable' Jimmy Hansen did just that.
What was being hidden, from whom was this being hidden, and why were they hiding it?
