Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[Reality Check]

The level of "debate" from the AGW Truthers has descended to the level of the Tea Party goons, RC. That is to say an utter subjugation of science and truth to a very fascist notion of how the world would work if only they could run it.

I know.
But it is such fun poking fun at their dumb tactics and inability to understand the simple fact that the "hide the decline" remark was all about making a pretty graph.

 

[mhaze]

Hiding the Decline was "right" for a given defintion of "right".....

Yes, the definition that caters to pre existing beliefs and biases.

Thank you for if not coming out of the closet, daintily placing one toe outside the closet.

 

[a_unique_person]

Hiding the Decline was "right"?

This only shows that you, and those who think like you, would:

Hide the Decline!

what decline where they hiding?

 

[mhaze]

what decline where they hiding?

Essentially, vainly, and unsuccessfully, they would hide the decline of their own credibility.

.....Is your real name Kafka?

Hehehehhe....

I am sure (and of course this will no doubt generate another Warmer derail into Argument Ad Minutae) that if we check we shall indeed find that one Warmer fearful forecast from Anthropogenic Global Warming is....

Kafkaian Giant Cockroaches!!!

Wheee!!!!

 

[Yoink]

Not "just as in the case".

If we start by defining the DOW for modern times as 30 stocks, then add the next in line in when one drops out, we are following the initial rule set.

Citation needed.

 

[r-j]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average#Former_components

The DOW is an average of 30 stocks, it is price-weighted, and to compensate for the effects of stock splits and other adjustments, it is currently a scaled average. The value of the Dow is not the actual average of the prices of its component stocks, but rather the sum of the component prices divided by a divisor, which changes whenever one of the component stocks has a stock split or stock dividend, so as to generate a consistent value for the index.

The individual components of the DJIA are occasionally changed as market conditions warrant. When companies are replaced, the scale factor used to calculate the index is also adjusted so that the value of the average is not directly affected by the change.

 

[Yoink]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average#Former_components

The DOW is an average of 30 stocks, it is price-weighted, and to compensate for the effects of stock splits and other adjustments, it is currently a scaled average. The value of the Dow is not the actual average of the prices of its component stocks, but rather the sum of the component prices divided by a divisor, which changes whenever one of the component stocks has a stock split or stock dividend, so as to generate a consistent value for the index.

The individual components of the DJIA are occasionally changed as market conditions warrant. When companies are replaced, the scale factor used to calculate the index is also adjusted so that the value of the average is not directly affected by the change.

I'm not sure if you thought you were replying to me. I've already explained all of this in post #491. What I said needed evidence was that the "initial rule set" of the DOW envisaged the continual replacement of the component stocks.

 

[r-j]

Why?

 

[mhaze]

I guess I'm not sure what is being asked or what the relevance is to the original assertion, if any.

From Bobroerge we had:

So what do they, in financial circles, do to the DOW industrial average when one of the DOW companies undergoes a merger or gets kicked out of the DOW?

I'm sure they use some sort of mathematical "trick"
​

Alfie noted:

Can you please show us where and when this has occured exactly? You might be right, but I have never heard of such a thing.
That aside, even if the DOW do such things, do you think that is ok?
​

And then we have the beginnings of the current issue, which was my refuting that there was any similarity between the DOW and either the specific use of the phrase "trick" as understood in the Climategate debacle, or the more general use of the phrase "mathematical trick".

Manipulations are not made to the DOW to hide a decline or propagate a pre existing set of prejudices or belief sets to my knowledge, except as I already noted, they refuse to incorporate the results of inflation and debasement of the currency in the numbers (but that would create more problems than it solved, likely).

Further, splicing of dissimilar data sets is not part of DOW techniques.

 

[Yoink]

Why?

Because it is an assertion that has not been supported by any evidence (and could you please learn to use the quote button?).

I guess I'm not sure what is being asked or what the relevance is to the original assertion, if any.

From Bobroerge we had:

So what do they, in financial circles, do to the DOW industrial average when one of the DOW companies undergoes a merger or gets kicked out of the DOW?

I'm sure they use some sort of mathematical "trick"
​

Alfie noted:

Can you please show us where and when this has occured exactly? You might be right, but I have never heard of such a thing.
That aside, even if the DOW do such things, do you think that is ok?
​

And then we have the beginnings of the current issue, which was my refuting that there was any similarity between the DOW and either the specific use of the phrase "trick" as understood in the Climategate debacle, or the more general use of the phrase "mathematical trick".

Manipulations are not made to the DOW to hide a decline or propagate a pre existing set of prejudices or belief sets to my knowledge, except as I already noted, they refuse to incorporate the results of inflation and debasement of the currency in the numbers (but that would create more problems than it solved, likely).

Further, splicing of dissimilar data sets is not part of DOW techniques.

Of course "Manipulations are...made to the DOW to hide a decline." When the original companies in the Dow Industrial Average went broke, got taken over etc. etc. the Dow average would eventually have declined to zero. Therefore other companies--not originally part of the "average" were brought in as replacements. This was done because the people issuing the Dow average recognized that the original data set they were using (the average stock price of their originally chosen companies) would eventually be a poor indicator of the overall state of the stock market, although it originally was a good indicator of the overall state of the stock market. Switching from one set of stocks to a completely different set of stocks because you think that the data from the original set is no longer representative and you think you can make a good case for why the new set IS representative is EXACTLY parallel to what they did in the case of this one relatively insignificant graph. At a certain point one set of data became unreliable (showing a "decline" which was not, in fact, representative of global temperature changes--just as the "decline" of the original Dow stocks was not representative of the total stock market movement) and so a new set of data was brought in instead--because it showed the "increase" which was, in fact, occurring.

 

[Wangler]

It wasn't done "covertly" in the case of AGW. Nobody lied to anybody about where the data for the graph came from or how the graph was derived from the data.

Yoink, do you have a reference to a paper that discussed the adjustments to the data clearly and concisely; hopefully one contemporaneous with the orginal data release?

 

[bobdroege7]

Further, splicing of dissimilar data sets is not part of DOW techniques.

this is demostrably wrong as once there was a data set with General Motors in it and no Cisco, and then there was a data set without General Motors but with Cisco, and between these two times the data sets were spliced.

Can you ever get anything right?

Edited to add: Thanks to Yoink for taking the football and running with it. Nice Job.

 

[bobdroege7]

Yoink, do you have a reference to a paper that discussed the adjustments to the data clearly and concisely; hopefully one contemporaneous with the orginal data release?

Start here and follow the links

RealClimate: The CRU hackNov 20, 2009 ... As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum .... had tried to substitute the odd moth in order to “hide the decline. ...
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

RealClimate: The CRU hack: ContextNov 23, 2009 ... Added: Note that the 'hide the decline' comment was made in 1999 – 10 ..... the producers of a single MXD series (Briffa and colleagues) ...
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

RealClimate: Jim Hansen's opinionDec 18, 2009 ... Are there peer reviewed articles other than Jones, Briffa, Mann, ..... The comment “hide the decline” apparently refers to a trick (Mike's ...
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/jim-hansens-opinion/

RealClimate: 650000 years of greenhouse gas concentrationsNov 25, 2005 ... before CO2 levels started to decline (see trend and data at NOAA. .... Atkinson, T.C., Briffa, K.R. and Coope, G.R. (1987) Seasonal temperatures ... The recent 80ppm raise is very hard to hide in ice cores if this is ...
www.realclimate.org/.../650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/

RealClimate - Comments on Unsettled ScienceBriffa showed to 'hide the decline' in the tree ring proxy. If he'd done this the other way around, that would be something to complain about. ...
www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2187

RealClimate - Comments on The CRU hack: ContextThe decline of which you speak is not hidden at all (Briffa et al, 1998, Nature). - gavin]. Comment by Hide the Decline — 25 November 2009 @ 3:45 PM ...
www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019

RealClimate: Les Chevaliers de l'Ordre de la Terre Plate, Part II ...Dec 21, 2007 ... Courtillot now claims that the data came from a study by Briffa et al. ... indeed in some regions this even shows up as an actual decline in temperatures. ...
www.realclimate.org/.../les-chevali...te-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/

RealClimate - Comments on The CRU hackAs for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density ...... I must point out that “hide the decline” doesn't mean, ...
www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1853

RealClimate - Comments on CRU Hack: More contextThe 'decline' was discussed first in Briffa et al 1998 and the full ...... The latest issue on data being massaged to “hide the decline” has to do with the ...
www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2177

RealClimate: Plimer's homework assignmentAug 24, 2009 ... Osborn and Briffa, 2006) reveals that the pattern of warmth during the ..... period used for the past two versions will hide the warming. ..... in the 14th explain the decline of the English wine industry into the ...
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/.../plimers-homework-assignment/

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Real climate is a porn site for warmers and I think we could say - without too much disagreement - that they are not an unbiased source.

Do you have anything else?

 

[Reality Check]

Real climate is a porn site for warmers and I think we could say - without too much disagreement - that they are not an unbiased source.

Do you have anything else?

Perhaps he should cite a porn site for deniers? Maybe Climate audit?

Real Climate does have a anti-denier bias.
The description of the "hide the decline" remark made in a 1999 email that mhaze is obsessed with is quite clear. Note the anti-denier bias in the first sentence.
The CRU hack

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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 paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. 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.

I disagree with the 'hidden' in plain sight bit. A climate scientist would know about Keith Briffa’s recommendation. But the general public would not.

As far as I know the final graph presented in the IPCC (I think that this is IPCC Third Assessment Report Figure 2.21) made it clear that Briffa’s data was not plotted for recent years. For complete clarity they should have mentioned why in a footnote.

 

[mhaze]

this is demostrably wrong as once there was a data set with General Motors in it and no Cisco, and then there was a data set without General Motors but with Cisco, and between these two times the data sets were spliced.

Can you ever get anything right?

Edited to add: Thanks to Yoink for taking the football and running with it. Nice Job.

No, actually that neither is a splice, nor does it involve dissimilar data sets.

As I mentioned, it is simply the method used and that's understood.

 

[mhaze]

Real climate is a porn site for warmers and I think we could say - without too much disagreement - that they are not an unbiased source.

Do you have anything else?

And the answer you get is yet another link from the same Warmer porn site?

Most curious.

Here is your answer as per the request made that it not come from Warmer porn sites.



ClimateGate Analysis by John Costella

Or just download this pdf of the timeline and get yourself a 4x8 foot wall chart made for the office.
ClimateGate: 30 years in the making (Edition 1.1)

 

[BenBurch]

An anti-denier bias is an anti-woo bias.

And that is bad exactly why?

 

[Reality Check]

And the answer you get is yet another link from the same Warmer porn site?

Most curious.

Here is your answer as per the request made that it not come from Warmer porn sites.
ClimateGate Analysis by John Costella

Or just download this pdf of the timeline and get yourself a 4x8 foot wall chart made for the office.
ClimateGate: 30 years in the making (Edition 1.1)

What he got was an explanation about why Real Climate is just as much a Warmer porn site as Climate Audit ia a Denier porn site.

That specific article is quite clear why the "hide the decline" remark was a bad choice to describe what actually happened - a bad caption for the diagram that was produced.

Wrangler:
That PDF has nothing at all to do with your original question about the papers. It is an fairly denier biased analysis of the stolen emails, e.g. it links to Climate Audit (does this make it a Denier porn PDF ).

 

[lomiller]

that they are not an unbiased source.

Please, enough of your science hatred. The only bias realclimate has is they are scientists. I suppose to someone like you who views science as the enemy this qualifies as biased, but it’s not an argument anyone but political ideologues are going to listen to.