Hide the decline Explained by Berkeley's Richard A Muller

Thanks to Roger Pielke Jnr (link in title)

Berkeley's Richard Muller gives a concise summary of "hide the decline." Full talk link at end of this short video.

Quote from Richard Muller:
As a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore. You're not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards.
It is terrible that the climategate cabal scientists are blackening the name of science.Isn't it also frightening that people believe tripe that they read on denier sites like skepticalscience who claim: "... the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomen(sic).

From skepticalscience to Science-Skeptical:

 Each small diagramme above is a link to a peer-reviewed paper. At random, some of the papers refer to Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctica; Laguna Aculeo, central Chile; South Africa; New Zealand.

If skepticalscience is correct about the MWP being regional, the region is our planet in the universe.


  1. Bring on the truth - great post well explained!

  2. Let’s side aside the fact that the various groups involved from NASA to NOAA to the Met Office have been undertaking their own reviews (see The deniers were half right: The Met Office Hadley Centre had flawed data — but it led them to UNDERestimate the rate of recent global warming


    and “Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one“).


    Let’s start with Muller.

    It is hard to imagine a worse choice to co-chair a study on anything to do with the temperature record aimed at using mathematics to restore some supposedly lost credibility. Muller himself has actually worked to undermine credibility in well-established science. He doesn’t have a great grasp of basic climate science (see “Confusing Future Presidents, Part 1“). Or energy (see “Confusing Future Presidents, Part 2“).

    You’d never know it from Muller but the Hockey Stick was affirmed in a major review by the uber-prestigious National Academy of Scientists (in media-speak, the highest scientific “court” in the land) — see NAS Report and here.

    Muller claims that “In the end, there was nothing new left in Mann’s papers that the National Academy supported, other than the idea that using principal component analysis was, in principle, a good one.” More objectively, the news story in the journal Nature (subs. req’d) on the NAS panel was headlined: “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph“! Nature wrote, “In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph.”

    Muller seems completely unaware that the Hockey Stick has been replicated and strengthened by numerous independent studies:




    Muller appears to be the one who went out and raised money for the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study. It’s hard to imagine anyone else associated with LBNL or the University of California, Berkeley who would ever have asked the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation to fund a re-examination of climate date in an effort to restore credibility. After all, UCB has already been widely criticized for taking $500 million from British Petroleum for its biofuels Institute — see “UC Berkeley’s BP Deal Tainted By Oil Spill.”


    Bi-ofuels - look good to public whilst earning your trillions of dollars getting more oil. While your at that funding get spokespersons who stall or confuse the public over the science through the the likes of Muller.

    That's a half a billion dollars folks. Show me the money - I have!

    It's a bit hypocritical of warming unprecedented deniers (WUDs for short).

    Are you a WUD ?

    Do you deny connections or turn a blind eye to them - and go back to what you believe?

    Will the real science stand up!

  3. Never mind that if the power companies were to cease operations, it’s likely heat-related deaths from the lack of air conditioning would be far more real than the casualties from these imaginary catastrophes. Still, it’s enough for the ‘60s-era radicals who traded their tie-dyed T-shirts for judicial robes that someone claiming to be a scientist says it’s true. That includes people like Pennsylvania State University Prof. Michael E. Mann, who created the famous hockey-stick graph that served as the centerpiece of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning global-warming infomercial, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

    Ever since the Climategate e-mail scandal exposed how Mr. Mann’s graph used “a trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, public support also has declined for the fable that cosmic irritation at mankind’s exhalations has made things hotter by an imperceptible one-third of one degree over the course of a decade. In 2000, media-driven climate hysteria peaked with 72 percent of those surveyed by Gallup indicating they were worried about global warming. That number fell to 51 percent in a Gallup poll released Monday, with four in 10 Americans saying the seriousness of global warming was being exaggerated.
    From Ending the Global Warming Debate:

  4. Climate has always changed when the globe goes through times of warming.

    Regional Climate Changes like the Medieval Warming Period were regional.

    Even the Little Ice Age was a regional climate Change.

    Two compelling episodes in our climate.

    One caused by Major Solar Activities combined with very low volcanic activity.

    The other caused by massive dust clouds from some of the worst volcanic dust activity ever recorded.

    The present climate change era is caused by human interference in the free CO2 levels.

    We are recording some of the warmest regional areas in seas since 2000 years ago and some of the warmest regional land temperatures since 10,000 years ago!

    The Little Ice is a compelling time of climate change - its cause WELL KNOWN.

    Wikipedia will confirm all this as one quick source of collated studies of our climate past and present.

    All its takes is a few days of study to confirm all this. The links within any document are compulsory reading

  5. Annie Mouse said: "Climate has always changed when the globe goes through times of warming."
    Silly statement - climate has always changed.

    Annie Mouse said: "Climate Changes like the Medieval Warming Period were regional. Even the Little Ice Age was a regional climate Change."

    Not done your research, Annie? On;y true if the regions that you mention are the northern and Southern Hemispheres. For instance, the Hilalayas (and the IPCC has been caught out fudging things there)

    "Mann and others have argued tried to 'contain' the MWP by suggesting that it was a regional anomaly largely confined to Europe and parts of North America. However, a recent study by Ravinder Kumar Chaujar of the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology in Current Science magazine has now put paid to that idea.

    ....He then used a variety of lichenometric techniques to date the lichens on the rocks to see when the glacier had retreated in the past. This showed a correlation with the onset of the LIA: “We consider that glaciations in the region started during the mid-14th century, i.e. the beginning of the Little Ice Age”.
    ....So, it would seem that the MWP and the LIA were in fact a global phenomenon and that glacier retreat is not necessarily a symptom of AGW.

    Chaujar, R.K. 2009. Climate change and its impact on the Himalayan glaciers – a case study on the Chorabari glacier, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Current Science, 96, 703-708.

    All its takes is a few days of study to confirm all this. The links within any document are compulsory reading

  6. For Annie Mouse and some of the others who deny that the Medieval Warm period was a global event, see world map above with links to peer-reviewed papers from all over the globe. Admit that you are wrong, deniers!

  7. email from joe romm

    Climatologist Ken Caldeira sent me the following email message for publication this weekend:

    I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.


    john byatt

    Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

  8. Johnny - You didn't make it clear, did you receive an e-mail from Joe Romm? Is all that follows the email from Joe Romm?

    THis is the nasty Joe Romm who wanted to "strangle Skeptics in bed...."
    THe Joe Romm who was too scared to debate Roger Pielke Junior...
    The Joe Romm who used false population growth in a paper claiming "2010 growth rate is 1.8%. In fact, it hasn't been that high in about a quarter century... Claims 'the population will be '13 billion in 2050'. This assumes a) the current growth rate is 1.8% and b) the growth rate is constant. Neither one of those assumptions is anywhere near true, so the conclusion is also invalid"

    Must do a post on the studidity of Rev. Romm

  9. How many times do we have to tell you all that CO2 lag is in the historical records is when concentrations at those times were much less. Over time as the cause of orbital changes the trigger of extra energy reaching the earth is known. Releasing the locked up Carbon Dioxide and Methane and other gases REACTIVATED into the environment over the LAG period.

    Today it is well established science that CO2 increases have a very SHORT term magnifying trigger. We are the FIRST cause with our industrialization. What would take 800 years to free up the locked gases has taken us approximately 200 years of ever increasing additive man activity based released free CO2.

    The number does not stop and by the third hundredth year of our activity we will have increased likely to 600ppm plus.

    Alum in water is natural - increase its background levels by industrial activity and it becomes poison in the water supply. Other trace ELEMENTS are actually good for human health. However increase those trace elements beyond natural background and we poison ourselves. Copper, Cyanide, Magnesium, Iron - all occurring in natural levels are good for health. Even the radiative isotopes found in some rock types are often beneficial to health of plants and animals.

    Natural occurring CO2 at even 300pm is good in keeping our globe much more warmer then normal. When we go ever higher the LAG shortens by a division of the lagged warming duration.

    A string model is best for this. We have a meter of string. This is the lag timing of effect. We start at 280ppm - we increase to 560ppm. We halve the string. The lag time being calculated in the example by the time it took to double the quantity and the doubling itself OVERTIME.

    So suppose 10,000 year ago globe warms.
    Locked up greenhouse begin to be slowly released over the 800 years.
    Globe warms.

    What is the fail from denier is that CO2 began to warm in the beginning much slowly then the ending. The lag is not COLD FOR THE 800 YEARS THEN SUDDEN WARMTH.

    Crude but logical calculation estimate:

    200 YEARS AGO
    LAG TIME 800 YEARS @ 240ppm
    800 / 2 = 400 - 200
    LAG TIME 200 Years @ 480ppm
    100 Years from now
    200 / 1/3 = 67 - 100
    LAG TIME MINUS 33 Years @ 640ppm

    I know the maths are crude but you can clearly see when taken into account the warming factor of increased CO2 - along with increasing free CO2 with its required duration time LAG. We see clearly what the scientists are trying tell the world. We will enter a dangerous period for our earth's climate with business as usual.

    The SHORTENING LAG times is a huge mistake the deniers fail to see at all when it comes to HUMAN intervention and INVESTING in renewables. They are extremely shortsighted

    The argument of former ICE AGES were states whereby the entirety of Canadian Northern parts were locked under trillions of tons of ice.

    Commonsense by observation would then dictate we are already at the extreme of global warmth. If we continue the cycle of more released free CO2 we will pass any former ice event cycle and go into states of warmth that earth has not seen since millions of years ago. The life on earth since that time has evolved in a temperate condition on the average and comparison.

    That is the danger of ever increasing global warming. Many plants and regional areas will be substantially changed. Whole nations may go backward whilst whole nations may go forward with challenges beyond imagination.

    This is why you the people here are in denial. Denial of what scientists are telling us.

    If all governments of the world sent scientists to your domains - you would NOT listen to them because it presents like your land and ownership and care of it will be under threat in the coming decades to many unknowns of droughts, floods and increasing events we could never predict.

  10. If you were diagnosed with cancer and the cancer had spread throughout your body and was picked up on microscopes yet you felt fairly okay and fit, you could do one of a few things. Go into denial and hope it all goes away or you could participate in finding strategies to go into remission. Or you could do nothing and await your untimely death.

  11. What a load of hogwash - Annie Mouse.

    You say: "How many times do we have to tell you all that CO2 lag is in the historical records is when concentrations at those times were much less."
    You can say it as much as you like, but without scientific evidence it is just hogwash. I can say that there is a definite correlation in the rise in the price of postage stamps for a standard letter and the rise is the ppmv of Co2. Did you say "hogwash?" Of course you didn't. I am sure that you said "bleep."

    Later you write: "What is the fail from denier is that CO2 began to warm in the beginning much slowly then (clue - it's Ross B isn't it?) the ending." Funny English! So let's see if the last part of your sentence is the main gist of it:- "CO2 warms less in the beginning than at the end."

    If that is what you meant in your convoluted sentence, Ross, it is just so much tripe. In fact the reverse is true.

    Surely you know about the logarithmic relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature?



    I don't mind you posting here Anonymous Ross, but don't post B/s posing as science.

  12. Questions that should create understanding (but not doubt) as the data is disputed.

    1. Are the CO2 free levels present in the atmosphere greater then 2,000 year ago?
    2. Are the CO2 free levels present in atmosphere greater then 10,000 years ago?
    3. Are the CO2 free levels present in atmosphere greater then 100,000 year ago?
    4. Are the CO2 free levels present in atmosphere greater then 1 million years ago?
    5. What is sensitivity for a doubling of 390ppm +/- 385ppm calculated variable by 2300 as projection sensitivity variability?
    6. Will we run out of oil/coal by 2300?
    7. What is the projected increases in electricity prices to a consumer WITHOUT a CARBON TAX.
    8. What cost is required for infrastructure development in power generation over then next 5 years?
    9. Will Abbott's plan actually take from revenue and give it to the power generation industry without any compensation to the consumer?
    10. What do a majority of scientists say is sensitivity ranges for a doubling of CO2 at present levels?
    11. What is established rise in temperatures over the last 160 years? Hint: Bolt got this incorrect.
    12. Is there correlation of these temperature rises to the weak radiative forcing of increased CO2 taking into account and deducting/adding Solar, Volcanic and ENSOs etc.
    13. Is it true that Alan Jones got the estimated present CO2 contribution by mankind wrong?
    14. If any media or media presenter or scientist make a claim that is questionable should we bring in laws to correct that presented mistake by that person clearly stating the alternative that undermined their statement as absolutely being valid?
    15. As we have laws governing false labelling of products or requirements for labelling as to its substance - should we develop laws whereby opinion pieces by media in whatever form check their own presented "labelling" for compliance to established domains of truthfulness?

    For example statements like CO2 is harmless gas when clearly it is not a harmless gas in contextual case analysis. Example Mammoth Mountain USA. Goto to the web site and research and verify.

  13. To further move along the debate I post the following:

    Estimates of 21st Century global-mean surface temperature increase have generally been based on scenarios that do not include climate policies.

    Newly developed multigas mitigation scenarios, based on a wide range of modeling approaches and socioeconomic assumptions, now allow the assessment of possible impacts of climate policies on projected warming ranges. This article assesses the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, radiative forcing, and temperature increase for these new scenarios using two reduced-complexity climate models. These scenarios result in temperature increase of 0.5-4.4°C over 1990 levels or 0.3-3.4°C less than the no-policy cases. The range results from differences in the assumed stringency of climate policy and uncertainty in our understanding of the climate system. ... The results show that, although ambitious mitigation efforts can significantly reduce global warming, adaptation measures will be needed in addition to mitigation to reduce the impact of the residual warming.

    Their conclusion? Even with a strong and concerted effort towards rapid carbon mitigation, we are committed to 0.5 to 2.8°C additional warming (on top of what has already been experienced), due to the combined effects of climate system, economic and technological inertia.
    This sobering view is supported by many climate scientists in this field; most prominently, by Prof V Ramanathan of University of California — San Diego. Ram is the scientific guru of the study of tropospheric aerosols (soot, dust, sulphates, nitrates and other chemicals that together constitute the low-lying ‘haze’ seen over polluted cities worldwide, and now, large parts of Asia). Aerosols can cool the climate by ... Also known as ABC.

    Last year, Ramanathan and co-author Y. Feng published a remarkable paper in PNAS called “On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead“). Here, once again, is the abstract:
    The observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the preindustrial era has most likely committed the world to a warming of 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) above the preindustrial surface temperatures. The committed warming is inferred from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of the greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity. The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels but without any other anthropogenic forcing such as the cooling effect of aerosols. The range of 1.4°C to 4.3°C in the committed warming overlaps and surpasses the currently perceived threshold range of 1°C to 3°C for dangerous anthropogenic interference with many of the climate-tipping elements such as the summer arctic sea ice, Himalayan-Tibetan glaciers, and the Greenland Ice Sheet. IPCC models suggest that ≈25% (0.6°C) of the committed warming has been realized as of now. About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century, determined by the rate of the unmasking of the aerosol cooling effect by air pollution abatement laws and by the rate of release of the GHGs-forcing stored in the oceans. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C.


    You can download the PDF of the full paper, for free, here.


  14. What a lot of questions. Is that you , Rosco?

    How about you answer your questions and I will mark you, right or wrong. Let's see how many you can get right and how many links that you can add to back up your shtuff.

    As to your last two garbage sentence,google gives "Convenient daily non-stop flights to Mammoth.."
    by air. By air Annie Mouse, and that air contains less than 400 ppmv of carbon dioxide and of that 400ppmv - the man-made content, and I think you must agree with this is around 3% so 400x3% equals 12ppmv. 12 ppmv is harmless, isn't it Roscoe er sorry Annie Mouse. So, the man-made proportion of CO2 is definitely harmless. Now, Australia's contribution to world-wide harmless CO2 emissions, as you know is only 1%. So Australia's contribution is 1% of 12 ppmv, are you still with me, Roscoe er sorry Annie Mouse?
    !% of 12ppmv = 0.12ppmv- 0.12ppmv. And, although a tax has not been shown to reduce anything, (think of the alcopops tax) they armchair admirals of the carbon tax say that they want to reduce Australia's emissions of HARMLESS CO2 by 5%. Get that Annie? 5% reduction of our 0.12ppmv is an amazing amount of 0.006ppmv. This is the projected result of sending jobs off-shore and making people (depending on the season) boil or freeze due to not being albe to afford the one thing that Australia should be able to provide very cheaply - Electricity from Coal-fired power stations.

    I think that it is amazing that the team, no the Gang - Green won't to make people suffer.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!