I notice that Elizabeth did a good job of explaining the trick but failed to realize it was indeed a trick and a fraud. Somehow she is fine with using temperature data on the end of their interpretation of tree ring data because the tree ring data was no longer convenient. It is almost as bad as arguing that the Piltdown Man was valid because it included a real ape jaw.
I doubt it will actually end up as the hottest year on record but its easy to show an increase in temperature for nearly any year you choose by using Hansens Had/cru- Rss/Amsu trick.
This is similar to Mikes Nature trick of changing data sources in mid-chart.
Since we're talking hundredths of a degree differences & Had Cru - Rss amsu - nasa Giss temps for any given year nearly always vary from one another by hundredths of a degree its easy to choose the lowest 2013 temp from one source & the highest 2014 temp from a different source to show a rising line.
One doesn't have to be an accomplished con man to sell this simple trick but only a very willing & gullible audience will buy it.
Mike's Nature Trick is a way to keep audiences from knowing about the decline. This decline is not exactly in temperatures, but in records that are claimed to be proxy for temperatures.
Instrumental temperatures would not be handled by Mike's Nature Trick. More likely there is a smearing of urban heat island effect over rural thermometers. Even rural thermometers have the same problem with just a small increase in density.
Not sure, but the UAH certainly does not have 2014 as anywhere near the hottest year on record.
I know it makes good news and all, but I generally don't care about the hottest year. When Climate Realist lists off the years in order of temperature, I could care less.
Why?
Because we are not really talking about AGW being a problem. We are talking about "records". SO WHAT??? Each consecutive year could be the warmest on record from now until 2100, and it would nto matter. If each year was 0.01 degree warmer than the last, we are still only talking about .86 degrees warmer by 2100, which would in effect make AGW a NON-ISSUE.
This would literally mean that we have plenty of time to allow emerging technologies for clean fuel to developed without rushing them with taxes.
Heck, even IF AGW were happening and as catastrophic as the worst of the alarmists predict, it would not matter. Why? Because the only plans the warmers give are tax non-solutions. Sure they think that taxes will HELP reduce CO2, but even they know that their absurd tax schemes are not going to eliminate the problem.
In fact, I can PROVE they would have little to no effect overall. Simple logic. You tax the US coal and oil industries. This would increase the cost of coal and oil in the US, causing a drop in usage. BUT, the otehr countries who have not artificially raised the price of their coal and oil, will have an increase in supply due to the fact that the US is using less. This means a drop in price for other countries and thus an increase in usage.
OM is right, if NASA is bold enough to fraudulently claim 2014 as the hottest year ever (in spite of multiple data sets that show clearly it's not even close) then it will be due to a different kind of trick. The trick that seems to have become NASA's favorite. Just 'adjust' the data until you get what you want --- that's their not-so-new trick.
-----------------------
Only if an enormous quantity of greenhouse gasses were emitted when Mike spliced the proxy data to the instrumental record. I told him not to order from the Mexican restaurant.
Come on guys. we have the Lima conference ongoing, and the Paris conference not far away and they need all the publicity possible, so yes it is bound to be the warmest year.
I just hope it is snowing in Paris next march.
No. The premise of your question is completely at odds with the actual reality.
The quote is 'I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline'.
The decline and 'Mike's Nature trick' are two separate issues. Deniers have decided to truncate that quote to 'used Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline' to imply something is done to the temperature data to hide a decline in temperatures. That's not what the quote means at all.
So, the actual science is as follows. Tree growth has been shown to be a good indicator of temperature, so in order to determine the temperature of past centuries, scientists examine tree rings. However, in some high latitude areas, we know that the measurements of temperature determined from the rings doesn't match the actual temperatures measured by instruments. Therefore scientists consider the temperature data obtained using tree growth as unreliable after 1960 for those latitudes.
So the 'decline' discussed in the emails is referring to the decline in temperatures obtained when using tree-growth data after 1960. The 'Mike's Nature trick' is a mathematical technique that allows you take the instrumental data after 1960 and continue the graph from that point. What the email actually means is that Jones' has applied the standard peer-reviewed method of combining two sets of data from two different measurement techniques to obtain a continuous graph that includes modern temperatures and those from previous centuries.
Now, the question that follows is 'if the tree growth data isn't reliable after 1960, how do we know it's reliable for previous centuries?'. The answer to that is that we know that temperatures based on tree growth *do* match the instrumental record back to the 1880s. It only diverges in modern times. It also is dependent on latitude. We know, for example, that high and low latitude tree data is consistent from the 1960s all the way back to the Medieval Warm Period. The divergence only occurs with high latitude data from the 1960s onwards.
The explanation for this depends on location. Studies in Japan suggest that sulphur dioxide emissions were responsible for the stunted tree growth. Studies in Alaska suggest the divergence is due to warming-induced drought. The point is that this issue is possibly anthropogenic in origin, hence the tree data in higher latitudes isn't now a reliable indicator of temperature but is clearly and demonstrably an indicator prior to that.
Now, would you care to rephrase your question in light of what the quote you are referring to actually means as opposed to what you thought it meant?
Of course cooking the books and adjusting the graphs .
When it got 11 below this year it was really hotter that day .
No, not that "trick" but rather some other "trick"....I mean scientific homogenization technique.
Leaked emails showed that global warming "scientists" use obscure filtering techniques to obtain the results they desire from the raw data. Since there is more ice in the Antarctic, the artic has more ice coverage then it did 2 years ago, and Greenland has a normal ice level, do you suspect that techniques like 'Mike's Nature Trick' was used to make 2014 the hottest year on record?
No; if it happens, it would be thanks to nature's nature trick of responding to increasing ghg's in the atmosphere.
yes. there is no way emails change reality.
