“Mike’s Nature Trick”
15Mar. 10
Cross-posted from my blog, Moth Eyes
One of the most hyped emails from the Climategate hack was this one, sent by Phil Jones:
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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
“Proxy records” for temperatures provide a method measuring temperature without having to have a convenient thermometer around. Many natural phenomena occur at different rates depending on climate conditions, and these differences can be observed in, for example, rocks, ice cores, corals and trees. Obviously, Earth has had a climate for a few billion years, rather than the few hundred years for which we’ve had thermometers. Accordingly, if you want to understand long-term climate you’ll need proxies. Tree rings are one common proxy record for spring-summer temperature, and, in general, closely match other proxy records and (when available) the instrumental (thermometer) record.
Until the late 20th century.
The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”, documented in Briffa et. al. (1998). Basically, during recent years, the tree ring proxy record has been diverging away from the instrumental record, as shown in the figure on right.
There are several variables which can influence tree growth. At extremely high or low latitudes, temperatures are typically a major factor. If each of these other variables is held constant, changes in temperature will be echoed in the tree rings. However, if another of those variables starts changing, the tree ring trends will no longer reflect the temperature trends.
It seems that, late in the previous century, another of these variables started changing. Several hypotheses as to which variable(s) are changing have been made, and are discussed, for example, in D’Arrigo et. al. (2008).
So what was “Mike’s Nature trick”? The “trick” was used in Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1998). Basically, it involves a diagram of the Northern Hemisphere temperature record from 1610 – 1995, the “NH” portion of figure 7.

From 1610 – 1980, they use the tree ring record. However, from 1981, the proxy record diverges away from the instrumental data, and so they use the instrumental data for that period. If you look closely (click to embiggen), you’ll notice that the last part of the diagram is drawn differently — the proxy record (1610 – 1980) is a dashed line, the instrumental record (1981 – 1995) is a dotted line. This is explained clearly in the diagram’s caption:
‘NH’, reconstructed NH temperature series from 1610 – 1980, updated with instrumental data from 1981 – 95.
And that’s it.
So “Mike’s Nature trick” consisted of a legitimate way of displaying the most accurate available data, clearly documented in Mike’s Nature paper.
Other posts
Here are a few other relevant posts discussing this (feel free to let me know about any other good posts):
- Greenfyre: “Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline.”
- Island of Doubt: Hacked emails, tree-ring proxies and blogospheric confusion
- Pharyngula: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
- RealClimate: The CRU hack
- Skeptical Science: What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
References
Briffa, Keith; et. al. (1998) Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B January 29, 1998 353:65 – 73; doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0191 [fulltext]
D’Arrigo, Rosanne; Wilson, Rob; Liepert, Beate; Cherubini, Paolo (2008). On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes. Global and Planetary Change (Elsevier) 60: 289 – 305. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.03.004 [fulltext]
Mann, Michael; Bradley, Raymond; Hughes, Malcolm (1998). Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392, 779 – 787. doi:10.1038/nature02478 [fulltext]



March 15th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
[…] Cross-posted on Youn Australian Skeptics […]
March 15th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I find it funny that “the decline” is in the tree ring derived temperatures and not the actual measured temperatures. So dissidents want us to throw out the thermometer readings?
Devils advocate question:
If the tree ring dat is unreliable now and it could be for one of a number of reasons, what makes us believe its reliable for the previous 400 years?
March 15th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Tree rings match up very nicely with other tree rings, other proxy records (ice cores, coral rings, etc) and the instrumental record… until recently.
March 17th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Once again we see what happens when scientific language meets lay ears, with an agenda behind it.
*sigh*
March 19th, 2010 at 12:25 am
“If the tree ring dat is unreliable now and it could be for one of a number of reasons, what makes us believe its reliable for the previous 400 years?”
Yes Joel, what is the falsification criteria for any given dendroclimatology proxy?
When could it be empirically proven false?
March 19th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
A few thoughts (I’m just riffing here):
* Discovery of other ancient (i.e. too early for humans to be changing other climate variables) proxy records that contradict the tree ring proxy record
* If you wanted to be really fancy, you could even do an experiment… plant a bunch of trees in a room with controlled growing conditions (genetics, temperature, humidity, gasses, nutrients, etc), cyclically varying temperatures, and check that these have consistent rings. Then have another room in which you add a long-term trend to the temperature, and that should show up in the tree rings.