Quote of the week #20 – ding dong the stick is dead

UPDATE: The Climate Audit server is getting hit with heavy traffic and is slow. If anyone has referenced graphs in blog posts or news articles lease see the mirrored URL list for the graphs at the end of this article and please consider replacement in your posting. I’ve also got a mirrored article of the Climate Audit post from Steve McIntyre.  -Anthony

UPDATE2: Related articles

Update: A zoomed look at the broken hockey stick

A look at treemometers and tree ring growth

===

We’ve always suspected that Mann’s tree ring proxies aren’t all they are cracked up to be. The graph below is stunning in it’s message and I’m pleased to present it to WUWT readers. I’m sure the Team is already working up ways to say “it doesn’t matter”.

qotw_cropped

The QOTW this week centers around this graph:

rcs_merged_rev2

The quote of the week is:

I hardly know where to begin in terms of commentary on this difference.

- Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit in Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem

The graph above shows what happens to the “Hockey Stick” after additional tree ring data, recently released (after a long and protracted fight over data access) is added to the analysis of Hadley’s archived tree ring data in Yamal, Russia.

All of the sudden, it isn’t the “hottest period in 2000 years” anymore.

Steve writes:

The next graphic compares the RCS chronologies from the two slightly different data sets: red – the RCS chronology calculated from the CRU archive (with the 12 picked cores); black – the RCS chronology calculated using the Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive. The difference is breathtaking.
rcs_chronologies_rev2

I’ll say. Ding Dong the stick is dead.

This comparison to CRU archive data illustrates the most extreme example of scientific cherry-picking ever seen. As Steve writes in comments at CA:

Also keep in mind the implausibly small size of the current portion of the Yamal archive. It would be one thing if they had only sampled 10 trees and this is what they got. But they selected 10 trees out of a larger population. Because the selection yields such different results from a nearby population sample, there is a compelling prima facie argument that they’ve made biased picks. This is rebuttable. I would welcome hearing the argument on the other side. I’ve notified one dendro of the issue and requested him to assist in the interpretation of the new data (but am not very hopeful that he will speak up.)

See the complete report on this new development in the sordid story of tree ring proxies used for climate interpretation at Climate Audit. And while you are there, please give Steve a hit on the tip jar. With this revelation, he’s earned it.

The next time somebody tells you that tree rings prove we are living in the “hottest period in 2000 years” show them this graph and point them to this Climate Audit article.

Here’s a “cliff’s notes” summary written by Steve’s partner in publication, Ross McKitrick:

Here’s a re-cap of this saga that should make clear the stunning importance of what Steve has found. One point of terminology: a tree ring record from a site is called a chronology, and is made up of tree ring records from individual trees at that site. Multiple tree ring series are combined using standard statistical algorithms that involve detrending and averaging (these methods are not at issue in this thread). A good chronology–good enough for research that is–should have at least 10 trees in it, and typically has much more.
.

1. In a 1995 Nature paper by Briffa, Schweingruber et al., they reported that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium – right in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. But the reconstruction depended on 3 short tree ring cores from the Polar Urals whose dating was very problematic. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=877.

2. In the 1990s, Schweingruber obtained new Polar Urals data with more securely-dated cores for the MWP. Neither Briffa nor Schweingruber published a new Polar Urals chronology using this data. An updated chronology with this data would have yielded a very different picture, namely a warm medieval era and no anomalous 20th century. Rather than using the updated Polar Urals series, Briffa calculated a new chronology from Yamal – one which had an enormous hockey stick shape. After its publication, in virtually every study, Hockey Team members dropped Polar Urals altogether and substituted Briffa’s Yamal series in its place.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=528. PS: The exception to this pattern was Esper et al (Science) 2002, which used the combined Polar Urals data. But Esper refused to provide his data. Steve got it in 2006 after extensive quasi-litigation with Science (over 30 email requests and demands).

3. Subsequently, countless studies appeared from the Team that not only used the Yamal data in place of the Polar Urals, but where Yamal had a critical impact on the relative ranking of the 20th century versus the medieval era.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3099

4. Meanwhile Briffa repeatedly refused to release the Yamal measurement data used inhis calculation despite multiple uses of this series at journals that claimed to require data archiving. E.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=542

5. Then one day Briffa et al. published a paper in 2008 using the Yamal series, again without archiving it. However they published in a Phil Tran Royal Soc journal which has strict data sharing rules. Steve got on the case. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3266

6. A short time ago, with the help of the journal editors, the data was pried loose and appeared at the CRU web site. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142

7. It turns out that the late 20th century in the Yamal series has only 10 tree ring chronologies after 1990 (5 after 1995), making it too thin a sample to use (according to conventional rules). But the real problem wasn’t that there were only 5-10 late 20th century cores- there must have been a lot more. They were only using a subset of 10 cores as of 1990, but there was no reason to use a small subset. (Had these been randomly selected, this would be a thin sample, but perhaps passable. But it appears that they weren’t randomly selected.)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142

8. Faced with a sample in the Taymir chronology that likely had 3-4 times as many series as the Yamal chronology, Briffa added in data from other researchers’ samples taken at the Avam site, some 400 km away. He also used data from the Schweingruber sampling program circa 1990, also taken about 400 km from Taymir. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of pooling samples from such disparate locations, this establishes a precedent where Briffa added a Schweingruber site to provide additional samples. This, incidentally, ramped up the hockey-stickness of the (now Avam-) Taymir chronology.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7158

9. Steve thus looked for data from other samples at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size in the Briffa Yamal chronology. He quickly discovered a large set of 34 Schweingruber samples from living trees. Using these instead of the 12 trees in the Briffa (CRU) group that extend to the present yields Figure 2, showing a complete divergence in the 20th century. Thus the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series. Bear in mind the close collaboration of Schweingruber and Briffa all this time, and their habit of using one another’s data as needed.

10. Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields the green line in the 3rd figure above. While it doesn’t go down at the end, neither does it go up, and it yields a medieval era warmer than the present, on the standard interpretation. Thus the key ingredient in a lot of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series (red line above) depends on the influence of a thin subsample of post-1990 chronologies and the exclusion of the (much larger) collection of readily-available Schweingruber data for the same area.

MIRROR URL’s FOR MAIN GRAPHICS IN THE CLIMATE AUDIT POST:

If anyone has referenced the Yamal graphs at CA in blog posts, please use these URL’s so that they get loaded from WordPress high traffic server.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/count_comparison1.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rcs_merged_rev2.gif


Sponsored IT training links:

Pass 70-270 exam in 1st try using certified 70-236 dumps and 642-515 video tutorials.


About these ads

268 thoughts on “Quote of the week #20 – ding dong the stick is dead

  1. Truth will out.

    Thank you, Steve McIntyre et al. Each one of these weakens the AGW juggernaut and brings us a bit closer to a long overdue return to common sense.

  2. Watching a pre-season hockey game the other night, the commentators were talking about how the composite sticks kept breaking, whereas the all-wood ones didn’t. A rather nice analogy to the hockey-stick graph.

  3. ok…now i feel stupid, but not sure if i follow. someone put it in layman’s terms for me. i think i get it, but i would rather be sure!

    REPLY: In a nutshell:

    1- In 1998 a paper is published by Dr. Michael Mann. Then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper is named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. The paper becomes known as MBH98.

    The conclusion of tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever.

    See the graph http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/mann/manna_99.gif

    Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician in Toronto, suspects tree rings aren’t telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the “hottest period in 1000 years”, which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW. The graph is dubbed as the “Hockey Stick” and becomes famous worldwide. Al Gore uses it in his movie An Inconvenient Truth in the famous “elevator scene”.

    2- Steve attempts to replicate Michael Mann’s tree ring work in the paper MBH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph publish a paper in 2004 criticizing the work. A new website is formed in 2004 called Real Climate, by the people who put together the tree ring data and they denounce the scientific criticism:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

    3- Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.

    4- Having the Yamal data in complete form, McIntyre replicates it, and discovers that one of Mann’s co-authors, Briffa, had cherry picked 10 trees data sets out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal.

    5- When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand picked to get the desired result.

    These are the relevant graphs from McIntyre showing what the newly available data demonstrates.

  4. The hockey stick has morphed into something that has a serious drooping problem.

    A quick read of CA suggests there have been many peer reviewed papers written by the Team using this graph so although the hockey stick is now officially dead the damage its already done is incalculable and cant be undone. But a heavy dose of web-based ridicule aimed at the creators and users of this graph would help people understand the extent of the extremism adopted by some notable and reputable scientists.

  5. [snip - this comment is causing a lot of downstream comment trouble due to people responding with ad homs thus it has been removed]

  6. If I’ve understood this correctly, The Team have hung themselves out to dry; made themselves look irreversibly stupid; the laughing stock of what remains of the scientific community that hasn”t whored thesmelves to AGW.

    Let’s see them fight their way out of this paper bag of their own making.

  7. Mann and Briffa knew that their data was a lie….. They actively tried to stop anyone from scrutinizing their data, so they knew it was dodgy. This isn’t an honest mistake, but rather a deliberate attempt to propagandize the climate debate….

    They have abused science in the worst way possible.

  8. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Tree rings as a “climate” proxy are roughly equivalent to the patterns in chicken guts as a “future” proxy. Put that in your game boy and tell me how long these charlatans have left.

  9. Even with this, clearly, obvious result, being accurate or correct, doesn’t matter anymore. There are still far too many people who believe AGW is real and they need to be saved (Via taxes of course) and it appears all the leaders of the western world appear to be hopping on the ETS/Cap & Trade inter-iceage high speed train.

  10. In my opinion,
    a close second in the running for this weeks Quote of the Week is
    steven mosher’s comment on that thread:
    “Nice work Steve.

    What a trainwreck. Somebody should get off the ice and back to the bench.

  11. John F. Hultquist (21:11:09) :
    The “divergence problem” is explained in this abstract

    The explanation is bogus because it ASSUMES that the divergance is consistent across all time scales. i.e. the ASSUME that a tree that does not diverge today did not diverage at any time in the past. That would be a rediculous assumption in any field other than climate science yet it is accepted as reasonable in climate science.

    The willinging to accept rediculous assumptions as fact as a long as they produce the ‘correct’ results makes the climate science consensus highly suspect.

  12. Wait a minute…weren’t tree ring proxies discredited for purposes of indicating ambient temperature? Weren’t other factors found to be more important in tree-ring growth, such as precipitation?

  13. One question I have is how do we CLONE more Steve McIntyres?

    BRILLIANT sleuth work.

    I hope Michael Mann is shaking in his boots.

    He ought to be.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  14. Raven (21:38:02) : problems explained

    New readers to these pages frequently encounter strange terms and issues. For example, the divergence problem, RCS, detrending, hockey stick, and one or two others come to mind. My previous comment was meant to point out two such strange terms. When you, and maybe others respond, the knowledge base expands more easily than it might otherwise.

  15. Robert Wood (21:03:10) : “If I’ve understood this correctly …”

    It’s far stranger than that. I work with archaeological chronology – both C-14 and obsidian hydration data – all the time. No one I know would willingly paint themselves into such a corner, short of someone taking their children hostage. You might grumble if the data shot your pet theory in the head, but empirical data trumps mathematical models every time because the data is reality, while the model is just someone’s blood, sweat and tears. You might snarl if it became obvious that some lab mixed up C-14 samples and the results they sent you are obviously wrong, but you still report not only the results but the problems with them so that the next schmuck doesn’t use your flawed data to erroneous conclusion. As Steve wrote, it is very “disturbing.”

  16. This scandal will never be shown to the public at large in any form, the Mann ‘creation’ will be allowed to fade away silently untill the Mk 3 version can be invented.
    The MSM(main stream media) has been largely bought off, can you imagine the BBC/CNN/ABC allowing this to air? Editors are already being leaned to peddle a whole raft of bogus/rehashed reports in time for the Copenhagen festival of lies’N’denial.

    The conference is dedicated to one goal, the actual truth doesnt enter into the equation, the political classes have bought themselves a consensus and that is what they will see, nothing will be allowed to tarnish and undermine the political show.
    The atendees will only be shown what they want to see, the ‘evidence’ has all been manufactured beforehand, they will be shown flooding/droughts/melting in easy to digest visual format.
    Anti ‘science mumbo jumbo for dummies’ the equivolent of a flashy powerpoint display/hardsell by a producer of junk bonds, it wont matter to them if the venue is snowed under 10 feet of snow and if the polar ice caps reach Newfoundland and the Falklands island chain, it wont matter if the global temp avg plummets.

    The constructed man made global warming narrative is sacred now, without that narrative the polititians do not have the excuse they so desperately need to create a whole new political reality, the wholesale theft of democracy, the huge transfer of power to the new political paradigm.
    The political classes have worked too hard for too long to give up just because of a small unimportant thing like actual reality, the stakes are just too high, the amount of time and money too great for the AAM based narrative to be allowed to fail, the political classes need and long for the endless power that will flow to them if they can hold off reality long enough to enact their new world order.

  17. Pure Scientific Forgery… what happened again to that guy in Japan (?) when he fudge all the data on cloning? He was fired and won’t be able to have any grant for research… What about Mann now?

  18. A rather BIG nail in the coffin of the IPCC climate clique, or Hockey Team, if you prefer.

    First the UNEP releases an easily traceable MANN-o-matic hockey stick, now we learn that the source data for it (and whole pile of subsequent work by and with Briffa was “worse than we thought”.

    Copenhagen is very close. A big of a thing as this Yamal scandal is, will it sway the politicians before they wash the economy of the world down the drain?

    I certainly hope so, but there are some powerful enemies of the truth out there. Enemies who, regardless of the good intentions of some, can and will use whatever tools they possess to suppress any information that hurts their cause.

  19. OT: Google Earth has new layers “showing” what “will” happen in 40 years if we don’t reduce Co2 emissions… http://www.google.com/landing/cop15/#intro

    P.S. Sorry if I had to put it here… the comment box in the tips page is not showing. Could it be because it is too full?

    REPLY: page reached the comment limit, cleaned now. thanks -A

  20. Problem: “Tips & Notes to WUWT” has not been updating on my computer for some 24 hours.
    Last entry is:
    paullm (22:07:18) : I meant to suggest that ALAN CARLIN joins Sen. Inhofe, not all of the WUWT readers. Sorry!

    REPLY: yep we reached the comment limit, cleaned now. – A

  21. I subscribe to Scientific American, and I’m often irritated by their tendency to push agendas in politics, religion, and AGW that I find offensive and marginally scientific, if at all. I mentioned one such example recently in a comment to another WUWT article, in which the relevant SA article is here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stumbling-over-data

    The current posting strikes me as an excellent rebuttal to the above article, which portrays Watts and McIntyre as overzealous amateur scientists whose goal in life is to embarrass real scientists when the latter commit minor mistakes in data presentation.

    I would very much enjoy at least a “letter to the Editor” by Anthony and/or Steve that contrasts the SA article with the facts described here in the current posting.

  22. ” Roger Sowell (21:52:39) :

    Wait a minute…weren’t tree ring proxies discredited for purposes of indicating ambient temperature? Weren’t other factors found to be more important in tree-ring growth, such as precipitation? ”

    Agreed, isn’t precipitation a major variable that confuses temperature estimation?

  23. This is a body blow to Science. For all the wisdom spoken about how science is impartial, here is proof that papers were published to give a desired result, and not what was there.

  24. In Australia, much is lauded by both major parties of the previous change over, many quote AGW or climate concerns. Primarily though it was labor regulation issue that drove the change. The majority of the swell, was in seats in Australia we call regional seats, outer urban or rural.

    An article today in the Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26135086-601,00.html

    Outlines that there is quiet concern in these swinging seats, they are by and large centrist from a policy perspective, not taking PC and other blackmail or fraud well. (the poll is on the front page of the Oz online).

    There have been a series of newspolls that show trends or samples finding concern with the AGW mythology, in these centrist or marginal seats.

    It is to be noted, these seats are blue collar, SME businesses, Farm or Grazing communities and sa lot of elf employed, they tend because of isolation to be people who research issues as issues. Because it their nature in self reliance, this is not to say they are right wing or anti environment. Just issues as issues.

    I mention this here because in the various threads, people are not aware of an almost universal turning point occuring. I have a mate in the UK and they are not buying this AGW stuff either unless they get advantage of course.

    I apol for the length of the Post, But I once debated Gavin as a bank manager would do, you have had ten years show me the money put up or shut up.

    In finance if financial data is asked for and not given, this does not inspire confidence in three areas.

    1. Possible Fraud or the business is on the verge of bankruptcy. 2. Incompetence or 3 the Tax mans after them for failure to provide returns, of course a fair bit of arrogance may be mixed in, 1 ,2 or 3..

  25. The front page of [Real]climate is still:

    Communicating Science: Not Just Talking the Talk

    Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt

    oh the irony!

  26. Here here! to Jerry Lee Davis and his suggestion about getting this story out into the mainstream media.
    to Phillip Bratby: According to a comment on Steve’s article at Climate Audit, Briffa is ill and won’t be answering e-mails for a while.
    Please note that Briffa works in England. There is not the slightest chance of him being pulled up before the equivalent of a Senate enquiry to answer awkward questions about the use or misuse of public funds. His work is funded by the European Commission. No criticism of anything green would ever get past the Euro-cracy, given the strength of the Green Party in the European Parliament. The best chance of getting this story out in the open would be if some journalist told it in a fashion which would force the people concerned to go to court. (Merely telling the facts as they are recounted here by McKitrick could be considered libellous..)

  27. Dear Environmentalists (both fake & real),
    In recent years the strategies of the environmental movement have become too narrow & too deceitful. Without a sensible & prudent correction of course, there is the ominous risk of triggering a backlash that will leave the door wide open for an era of political corruption.
    Paul Vaughan
    Ecologist, Parks & Natural Forests Advocate

  28. Clearly, the Schweingruber tree population sample suffers from that well known arborial disease ‘Hockey Droop’.

  29. Keith Minto (22:50:23) :
    ” Roger Sowell (21:52:39) :

    Wait a minute…weren’t tree ring proxies discredited for purposes of indicating ambient temperature? Weren’t other factors found to be more important in tree-ring growth, such as precipitation? ”

    Agreed, isn’t precipitation a major variable that confuses temperature estimation?

    I seem to recall a posting here, sometime last year, about a paper on a study that claimed to show that the foliage of trees maintained temperatures within a much narrower range than the ambient temperatures the trees inhabited. Since the foliage is the only part of a tree with any active interaction with the atmospheric environment, I sort of assumed that, unless this work was discredited, dendrochronologies would be pretty much a dead issue for creating temperature proxies. Although I haven’t seen much discussion of this work in the interim, I’ve seen absolutely nothing that contradicts it, yet we keep seeing works based on tree ring proxies of temperatures, which even if they weren’t full of the faults noted here would still seem to be completely worthless.

  30. Yes this is saddening and devastating. The problem is always the same with this stuff, whether its Thompson’s refusal to publish, Mann’s refusal to supply his algorithm to Wegman, CRU’s refusal or inability to supply their raw station readings, Jones’ attempt to withhold the names of his Chinese Stations, well, lots of others.

    The problem is that the conduct of the leading lights of the AGW movement is now the main obstacles to any reasonable person taking the hypothesis seriously. And, we should recall, there might be some truth to it. So it really is important to get to the bottom of the evidence.

    As it is, based on this stuff, more and more people are going to simply dismiss it out of hand. Which is fine if it is totally wrong, but catastrophic if it is correct.

  31. Also, the Yamal proxy is the key to creating hockey stick shapes in many different papers, including the latest Arctic warming paper, Kaufmann 09.

  32. Can we say that there is better evidence from the tree ring record now that the temperature has been dropping like a stone now for the last 20 years instead of rising? Is it also not possible that surface temperatures and satellites have been calibrated using the ‘erroneous’ data?

    It may indeed be worse than we thought!

    I saw this story break on Climate Audit but I hadn’t a clue what it was all about until I saw Ross McKittrick’s post which explained it. I could see that it was pretty significant though. I saw another quote there from Steve MacIntyre, on an earlier post, talking of when he was trying to figure out what was going on.

    “Perhaps these 5 cores plus the 12 cores from living trees (with 6-digit IDs) are the same as the 17 cores from living trees selected in the H and S chronology. But maybe this is a coincidence. One never knows – it’s climate science. ”

    Yup! That sums ‘climate science’ up pretty well.

  33. tallbloke (23:30:11) :
    Clearly, the Schweingruber tree population sample suffers from that well known arborial disease ‘Hockey Droop’.

    That should be a contestant for a quote of the week

  34. janama (23:18:46) :
    The front page of [Real]climate is still:

    Communicating Science: Not Just Talking the Talk

    Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt

    oh the irony!

    I visited RC today for the first time in a while and would note that for the month of Sept. there is only one other post up there, a report of an attendee at World Climate Conference-3 which included the following wonderfully self-revelatory paragraph:

    One concern expressed during WCC-3 was that global climate models still do not give a sufficiently accurate description of the regional and local aspects of the climate. The models also have serious limitations when they are to be used for seasonal and decadal forecasting. Climate models were originally designed to provide the large picture of our climate system, and the fact that ENSO, cyclones, various wave phenomena (observed in the real world) appear in the model output – albeit with differences in details – give us increased confidence that they capture real physical processes. For climate prediction, these details, often caricatured by the models, must be more accurate.

    What a tremendous return on the billions we’ve invested in the climate modelers and their supercomputers. We should feel proud that things like cyclones and ENSO now appear as caricatures in the output of the climate models, even if they may be somewhat lacking in minor “details”, such as what, where, why, and how they appear. At least this lad sees this development as confidence enhancing for their capture of “real physical processes”. It’s no wonder the output of posts is so limited over there, they’re all probably busy at their therapists getting their Prozac dosages raised.

  35. KimW (22:55:35) :

    This is a body blow to Science. For all the wisdom spoken about how science is impartial, here is proof that papers were published to give a desired result, and not what was there.

    Unfortunately I tend to agree, and it saddens me greatly. For most of my scientific career I have always pursued honesty even tho it was unpalatable to my clients. This whole temperature fiasco is disgraceful, from UHI adjustments to proxy interpretations. While proxies are useful it does appear that the “wood in the trees” problem has become a major issue. Sad.

  36. What I can’t understand is why there isn’t an up tick of growth in all tree ring samples for the second half of the 20th century. Surely increased CO2 should have had some impact on tree growth?

    Or

    a) Those types of trees don’t respond to more CO2 in their diet and/or the response is very small.
    b) Researchers remove a portion of the growth expansion observed to compensate (yeah, right).
    c) CO2 levels weren’t as static as reconstructions suggest.
    d) Some of the trees respond, some don’t.

  37. This needs to be read in conjunction with the global temperatures to 1850, as constructed by Phil Jones at CRU. Myself, and many others here, query how they are constructed, and the value of a global temperature in the first place.

    Phil Jones refuses to release the data, and as far as I understand the current situation it appears the dog ate it.

    Perhaps Anthony or the moderators can provide a direct link to a couple of the reports on these topics (covered here and elsewhere) and append it to this article, as that would put this thread into a better context-especially for those readers not familiar with the whole saga-which resembles an Icelandic epic in its complexity and longevity.

    tonyb

  38. Perhaps Dr Mann is the innocent victim here, deceived from the very beginning by unnon-scrupulous associates seeking international renown. hmmmm, or not.
    .

    The thing about tree ring chronologies is that you have this beautiful record going back centuries, millennia, and it can be absolutely dated to the year. So what can you use if for? The urge is irresistible, find something! Temperature sounds reasonable, so Mann et al have, to their fame.

    Several problems, though easily ignored.
    a) Trees also respond to precip and CO2 changes.
    b) Trees don’t record at night or winter.
    c) If I follow John Hultquist’s ‘divergence problem’ link above correctly, most trees in the study (with identical precip and CO2) didn’t even agree with each other.

    When a certain ring width and density can mean either a cold, wet season, or a warm, dry season (or something in between), we’re better off dropping the tree ring temp proxy and using it for a C14 sunspot proxy.

    Where’s Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?

  39. Ray (22:27:43) :

    >Pure Scientific Forgery… what happened again to that guy
    >in Japan (?) when he fudge all the data on cloning? He was
    >fired and won’t be able to have any grant for research…
    >What about Mann now?

    Hey, wait a moment Ray. The guy you mean is the deposed Professor Lee of Korea, not Japan! Maybe you Americans (?) find it hard to distinguish Koreans from Japanese by visage, but…………….

  40. But we’ve got to verify it legally, to see
    If it is morally, ethic’lly
    Spiritually, physically
    Positively, absolutely
    Undeniably and reliably Dead.

  41. At Climate Audit, Geoff Sherrington says I’d be trying to crack the CRU temperature problem as well as the dendro problem, because in combination they might tell a stronger story than each alone.

    With this in mind, I’d like to refer folk here to my second visual piece, this time on the thermometer records circling Yamal that Jeff Id has just published: Delinquent Treering Records To be sure, the records I used are not from CRU but from Daly and GISS – but they are another wedge of good evidence that might help push CRU to release their temperature records that back up the dendro work.

  42. Roger Sowell (21:52:39) :

    Wait a minute…weren’t tree ring proxies discredited for purposes of indicating ambient temperature? Weren’t other factors found to be more important in tree-ring growth, such as precipitation?

    The analysis was done assuming tree ring chronology is a good proxy for temperature. Even with this assumption, the data don’t support the AGW contention.

    Add to all this the simple fact: Trees make terrible thermometers.

  43. Keith Minto (22:50:23) : refering to ” Roger Sowell (21:52:39)

    Wait a minute…weren’t tree ring proxies discredited for purposes of indicating ambient temperature? Weren’t other factors found to be more important in tree-ring growth, such as precipitation? ”

    Agreed, isn’t precipitation a major variable that confuses temperature estimation?

    ######

    It all depends on whether you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Mountain hemlock located along coastal ranges of Alaska and Canada
    have tree ring widths that are temperature-sensitive, at least on decadal to centential times scales.

    D’Arrigo, R., Villalba, R., and Wiles, G. 2001, Tree-ring estimates of Pacific decadal climate variability, Clim. Dyn., 18, 219−224

    This can be comfirmed by comparing the D’Arrigo et al. (2001) tree ring PDO reconstructions with proxy SST reconstructions that have been obtained by Linsley et al. (2000 & 2004) using the Sr/Ca ratios measured in corals at Rarotonga in the South Pacific.

    Linsley, B.K., Wellington, G.M., and Schrag, D.P. 2000, Decadal sea surface temperature variability in the subtropical Pacific from 1726 to 1997 A.D., Science, 290, 1145−1148.

    Linsley, B.K., Wellington, G.M., Schrag, D.P., Ren, L., Salinger, M.J., and Tudhope, A.W. 2004, Geochemical evidence from corals for changes in the amplitude and spatial pattern of South Pacific interdecadal climate variability over the last 300 years, Climate Dynamics, 22, 1−11.

    Other tree ring widths are precipitation sensitive e.g.

    The tree ring sites used by MacDonald and Case (2005) were specifically chosen to be at opposite ends of the PDO precipitation dipole that exists between the SW United States and Rocky mountains of western Canada. The tree-ring records used in their study come from James pine (Pinus flexilis), a species that is known to be useful in producing dendroclimatological records of precipitation and stream flow (MacDonald and Case 2005).

    MacDonald, G.M., and Case, R.A. 2005, Variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the past millennium, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L08703.

    I whole heartily agree that you must be careful in using tree-ring chronologies as temperature proxies temperature but it is just stupidity to claim that all of the temperature data based on tree-ring chronologies are
    wrong!

  44. The most important aspect of this revelation is that the word “uprecedented” can now be deleted from the AGW lexicon.

    Future corrected proxy studies alongside projected global cooling now have the potential to completely undermine the standing of AGW advocates. The reputations of people like Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Romm, Revkin, Stern, Monbiot, et al, now look certain to be trashed. No politician worth their salt will entertain opinion that will lose them votes.

  45. Is it just me? What is the problem with getting this century ring-data? We have several trees in our park that go back some 300 years, and I am sure a core-sample can be extracted from each.

    What was so special about the trees that were actually used?

    .

  46. Having watched a piece on climate change yesterday, which seemed to involve John Prescott (who, for the uninitiated is a UK labour party, and ex-government oaf, and who now appears to be some sort of “climate spokesperson” for the British government), and the showing of the film “The age of Stupid” (hot on the heels of the Al Gore disaster), I am beginning to wonder if this AGW campaign is unstoppable. What chance have schoolchildren got of forming their own considered opinions when they have this tosh forced down their throats without recourse to the alternative point of view and related science?

  47. Is there even one reporter in the ranks here that has the connections and the cojones to place this in the major news outlets?
    Mike

  48. Ross McKitrick:

    Here’s a re-cap of this saga that should make clear the stunning importance of what Steve has found… the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series… Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields .. a medieval era warmer than the present…

    Now let me get this straight.

    The IPCC says – “Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.”

    Hello hello – if the Medieval era was warmer than present then that statement would be incorrect wouldn’t it? Palaeoclimatic information does not, suddenly, support the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is in any way unusual, even within the previous 1,300 years.

    In order to explain this allegedly extraordinary, inexplicable, unusual warmth of the last half century many climate models were used, crunched out by massive computing power. They came to the inescapable conclusion, pronounced by the IPCC that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”

    Why? Because “Observed patterns of warming and their changes [in the last 50 years] are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.”

    But hello hello, this warmth is no longer “unusual”. It has happened before, not so long ago, palaeoclimatically speaking.

    And if the models couldn’t simulate the changes of the last 50 years without including “anthropogenic forcings”, which are due to “the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”, they could not possibly simulate the warmer medieval era either without these “anthropogenic forcings”.

    This is enigmatic. There were no “anthropogenic forcings” in the medieval era.

    Could it possibly be there is something commonly wrong in all these climate models?

    But then what happens to all those dire warnings based on these models? What happens to cap n trade? carbon tax? CO2 sequestering? closing down our power plants? reducing our carbon footprint? compulsory reduction of our production and wealth in order to “save the world”? All founded on the belief that the warmth of the last 50 years is unusual and alarming.

    What happens to Copenhagen? Al Gore? The climate modeling research alarmism industry?

    We were fussing over the Emperors coat buttons only to discover he has no clothes.

  49. As explanation to my post above – in the data they only managed to get between 10 – 15 tree samples covering the last few deacdes of tree-ring data.

    Again, what is the problem here? Trees covering this era abound the continents by the billion. What was so special about the ones used?

  50. I’m waiting for the facile explanations and spin usually seen from some of the AGW proponents that regularly visit here. Wouldn’t it be nice if one or two of them actually said that this type of “science” should be outed and not tolerated? I can only imagine the words we will soon hear explaining how that this is very minor compared to the gigantic body of ‘evidence’ that has already been presented, how this doesn’t really matter that much, how that since I am not a scientist I cannot possibly understand the beauty and precision involved in manufacturing science sausage…
    Mike Bryant

  51. You know what the worse thing about this is?

    It’s not that Mann or the IPCC have skewed the data to fit their proposition – that is to be expected of people or groups that use science to push a political agenda.

    The worst thing is that the Royal Society – an institution dedicated to impartial science for almost 400 years – has become politicised and corrupted by the current incumbents. That is the most damning indictment of modern society there can be.

  52. Ninderthana (02:27:40) :

    It all depends on whether you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Mountain hemlock located along coastal ranges of Alaska and Canada
    have tree ring widths that are temperature-sensitive, at least on decadal to centential times scales.

    This can be comfirmed by comparing the D’Arrigo et al. (2001) tree ring PDO reconstructions with proxy SST reconstructions that have been obtained by Linsley et al. (2000 & 2004) using the Sr/Ca ratios measured in corals at Rarotonga in the South Pacific.

    I whole heartily agree that you must be careful in using tree-ring chronologies as temperature proxies temperature but it is just stupidity to claim that all of the temperature data based on tree-ring chronologies are
    wrong!

    Given that tree ring temp proxies tend to be offered with resolution far finer than decadal or centenial time scales, that the only confirmation you offer for the single example you quote is another proxy, of perhaps equally, dubious provenance, that there seems to be mounting evidence that the correlations quoted between various proxies for temps is more a product of the statistical manipulations arising from between the ears of the people constructing the proxies than of anything happening in the real world, and that you failed to address the argument I offered that tree foliage maintaining temp ranges narrower than ambient makes it virtually impossible for a tree to create an accurate record of that ambient temp, I’d have to say you fell miserably short of providing proof for your final assertion.

  53. to Foxgoose
    Your Guardian “Comment is Free” re-comment has already disappeared. Even more bizarre, on the Monbiot thread, IanFremantle posted a simple link to the ClimateAudit story, which was quickly taken down, but not before one IvyMantle had posted a reply along the lines of “what’s all this complex science stuff?’ and quoting three paragraphs of McIntyre verbatim. This wasn’t simply taken down, but disappeared without trace while I was reading it. It’s possible that Guardian lawyers have spotted the fact that any comments on Briffa could, under Britain’s extraordinary laws, be interpreted as libellous.
    Reading about Climate Science at the Guardiian is like reading about Berlusconi’s problems in the Italian media. You can see official spokesmen denying things, but no-one knows what it is they’re denying.

    REPLY: Keep before and after screen captures of these things, submit them to the newspaper omubudsman if they have one. -a

  54. Repeated Grauniad CIF link yo this item lasted 22 mins.

    They’re speeding up!

    “Facts are sacred” unless they risk undermining the “consensus”.

  55. “it’s standard practice to reject data that is ‘obviously wrong'” said a commenter on Steve’s site. And yet just last week I spent an hour telling a research student that when we have six sets of data that agree tolerably well, and a seventh that doesn’t, we include the seventh in the paper too. We can, if we tell the readers, exclude it from the subsequent analysis, but we can’t exclude the data from the paper. That isn’t so much a matter of scientific practice, more a simple matter of morals. So many climate scientologists seem to be crooks that others who are merely incompetent, or guilty of bad judgement, are going to be tarred with the same brush. And I don’t suppose that only their branch of pseudo-science is infected with this – only yesterday a friend told me of a recent discussion with a physicist about a headline-grabbing colleague of his who had issued apocalyptic predictions that were mutually contradictory. The physicist smirked and said that you have to grab the public’s attention somehow.

  56. Dave Wendt (23:38:09) : Try this link, Dave:

    Surveying 39 tree species ranging in location from subtropical to boreal climates, researchers found a nearly constant temperature in tree leaves. These findings provide new understanding of how tree branches and leaves maintain a homeostatic temperature considered ideal for photosynthesis and suggests that plant physiology and ecology are important factors to consider as biologists tap trees to investigate climate change.
    Tree leaves control their own temperature

  57. Third re-post lasted about 5 mins – then was removed, without even leaving the usual greyed-out trace.

    Kafka-esque!

    Clearly Steve & Anthony’s news has made a big impression with the Grauniad’s mods – even if the poor saps who read the rag never get to see it.

  58. Quote of the week? But it’s only Monday. I’m sure something even more cretinous will come along before the weekend.

  59. Foxgoose:
    “I posted a polite, non-controversial item with a link to this site, and the original CA article, on a Guardian CIF discussion today – it was taken down within 45 minutes.”

    They deleted a post I made some time ago when I suggested that if they were really serious about carbon emissions, and if they wanted to send a message about how urgent this is, they might do well to consider how much emissions they are making in trucking newspapers thousands of miles each day.

    But perhaps it was when I added that they ought to close themselves down that the moderator took exception. However, at least one reader saw it because they gave a thumbs-up!

  60. Telegraph! Telephone! Tell-a friend! Has anyone told Foxnews? They love being out front and ahead of the MSM.

  61. It doesn´t matter how much actual data WUWT shows, they will keep on preaching the end of the world because of “global warming”, they are doing it right now, through the media, in all countries all over the world. It is the biggest marketing campaign ever.

  62. I suspect Christopher Booker might be relied upon to get this story out to a wider public in his excellent Sunday Telegraph (UK) column. But, correct me if I’m wrong, folks, but I thought the hockey stick had already been trashed by the USA’s chief statistician.

  63. Energy Secretarty Chu has said that the AGW sceptics have made up data. And he probably believes that. How can the actual situation be conveyed to people like him who refuse to believe scientific facts which undermine what they strongly believe?

  64. Mike Bryant (03:02:28) :
    (…)

    I can only imagine the words we will soon hear explaining how that this is very minor compared to the gigantic body of ‘evidence’ that has already been presented (…)

    The problem is that so much of this ‘evidence’ turns out, on closer inspection, to be speculation based on very few foundations. Tree ring proxies being one of those few.

    Much of the IPCC work is just speculation based on those few foundations. What would be the likely effects of a 5C rise on US agricultural production? If there is no 5C rise then any answers become, like Science Fiction, purest speculation with a scientific look and feel. What would be the effect of a lottery win on my life. Who knows? Pure speculation. Even more so if I don’t participate in the lottery.

    It doesn’t matter how many papers, conferences, lectures and newspaper articles (or ‘consensus’ science) came out of the miasma theory of disease. The basic foundation was wrong.

    (back OT) It could be just me but the ‘secrecy’ surrounding this and other aspects of climate science seems to be storing up problems for the future. In most other areas of science there is a ‘chain’ to be followed. How we got here from there. Providing I have the requisite background I can follow the discoveries and reasoning, in many cases over hundreds of years. Experiments can be reproduced, mathematics scrutinised and I can even re-examine the ‘dead ends’, perhaps something was missed. Could a future researcher do any of this with the ‘proprietary’ world of Team climate science?

  65. Ninderthana (02:27:40) :I whole heartily agree that you must be careful in using tree-ring chronologies as temperature proxies temperature but it is just stupidity to claim that all of the temperature data based on tree-ring chronologies are wrong!

    No one has made such a claim. Read the post again. It doesnt say all temperature data based on tree-ring chronologies are wrong. What the study shows is – the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series, and Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields .. a medieval era warmer than the present.

  66. So this appears to combine the best of both worlds: cherry picking, while completely ignoring contradicting data.

    Brilliant….

  67. This is really interesting, and potentially very important. I look forward to seeing this research in print in a good scientific journal after peer review.

  68. “The problem is that so much of this ‘evidence’ turns out, on closer inspection, to be speculation based on very few foundations. Tree ring proxies being one of those few. ”

    I agree. It’s like evidence of alien abductions or psychic phenomena. There’s lots and lots of evidence, but none of it stands up to scrutiny. And that’s in situations where the proponents allow their evidence to be scrutinized.

  69. So, the “Team” will now be forced to keep their “sticks” on the ice? ;) The spin should be, um, interesting.

  70. Why do they so strongly need to undertake this data selection in order to prove global warming?

    Can’t a scientist just present all the data objectively and say “there it is”. Shouldn’t that be the purpose of their profession?

    For the most part, the objective data is going to show some warming anyway (maybe it will also show some other cycles as well) but there is no need to exagerate and sacrific one’s integrity in such a way.

  71. There were two groups of trees in the woods
    Which saw drought and occasionally, floods
    One group grew real well, as the ring widths now tell
    But the other has come up with the goods

  72. The tree ring data was hand picked to get the desired result

    I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again:

    Given that these studies are being used to promote restrictive tax and energy policies in many nations, at what point does this type of activity rise to the level of:

    [snip]

  73. Vacationing in Duluth yesterday, kids riding around without shirts, celebrating one of the warmest and driest Septembers ever, rather like the August we didn’t have.

    Going home and today, angry skies, cold, stiff winds with punishing rain, rather like Novembers of recent decades.

    AGW is about to fall off everyone’s table.

  74. Those who control the purse strings control the arts (and sciences). Michaelangelo, Leonardo, and Alfred would starve today and produce nothing of value.

  75. Looks like the Guardian is falling behind in its snipping, but the ad-hom squad is now on the job over there. Gotta wonder if maybe the AGW trogs are organized…. sheesh, now I’m starting to sound like Bill Clinton: “… a vast AGW conspiracy…”

    let’s see….

    Bishop Hill chronicles shenanigans at the IPCC and in the peer-reviewed literature in his Caspar and the Jesus Paper;

    Jeff Id and his crew of merry wreckers at the Air Vent find Dr. Eric Steig’s analysis of Antarctic Warming… a tad over-stated;

    Anthony hasn’t released his surface station report yet, but if I had to make a prognistication….

    Arctic sea ice is staging a startling three year recovery, but we are told by everyone, including the President of the United States, that the Arctic is melting;

    SM gets his hands on some early Phil Jones data and suddenly the whole data set vanishes and Hadley is putting out that the original data is lost and only the “value-added” version remeains;

    And now this….

    And it goes on and on and on…. when do we finally quit attributing this nonsense to incompetence?

  76. I’m sure Gavin will scrutinize for the truth as was done here.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

    False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
    December 2004
    A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (1998) proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). MM claim that the main features of the Mann et al (1998–henceforth MBH98) reconstruction, including the “hockey stick” shape of the reconstruction, are artifacts of a) the centering convention used by MBH98 in their Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank (’ITRDB’) data, b) the use of 4 infilled missing annual values (AD 1400-1403) in one tree-ring series (the ‘St. Anne’ Northern Treeline series), and c) the infilling of missing values in some proxy data between 1972 and 1980. Each of these claims are demonstrated to be false below.

  77. I would be surprised if this makes much of a dent in the news. You may see a efw stories, but it won’t get much play.

    Now, it will be interesting to see how RealClimate responds. I can guess what the gist will be:

    Paper not published
    Graphs are done wrong
    They are not qualified Climate Scientists
    Paper not published….

  78. Robert Phelan hits nail on head:
    When does this cross the line form mere Manniac incompetence to Manniac cynical bad faith?

  79. Robert E. Phelan (07:30:34) :

    ………………………..

    “And it goes on and on and on…. when do we finally quit attributing this nonsense to incompetence?”

    Right now!

  80. Question: What caused the increase in global average temperatures of the late 20th century ?
    Answer:’ Man made models caused the increase in average global temperatures in the late 20th century.

  81. This appears to be the RC thread where they put all the tree rings on the table.
    How bad does this look now?

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

    “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
    — 22 December 2004
    Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes.

    One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time.

    Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.”

  82. Foxgoose:

    Yes – what is going on with CIF? I too, posted a comment this morning, only to find it had been “removed by a moderator” within the hour. My comment was mildly ironic, but otherwise completely harmless, I would have thought – it contained no offensive language or references to any other poster. It was, however, critical of the Met Office’s latest report, the subject of the Guardian’s article.

    Up until now I’ve always been impressed with the light touch of CIF moderators. But as Maurizio Morabito has pointed out in his “Unbearable Nakedness Of CLIMATE CHANGE” blog (http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/), there seems to have been a change of policy recently at the Guardian, with CIF moderators becoming much more intolerant.

    Pity, but I guess the poor dears must think they’re fighting a losing battle with us sceptics.

  83. Time for an updated remake of the great global-warming swindle?

    Because this evidence is not of scientific conclusions merely being wrong. But of the entire scientific process being fundamentally abused to create deliberately dishonest results.

    This is where Mann et al cross the line from the merely mistaken, into the realms of the con-artist, the swindler and the wilfully deceitful.

  84. Don B (06:10:16) :
    Energy Secretarty Chu has said that the AGW sceptics have made up data. And he probably believes that. How can the actual situation be conveyed to people like him who refuse to believe scientific facts which undermine what they strongly believe?
    ______________________________

    When he was accepting the $5-600 million grant from BP at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, Chu’s comments regarding AGW were far different from what they are now. Strangely, although I can’t say I have Googled extensively, links to those press releases do not appear to be readily available.

  85. @ geoffchambers (03:36:18)

    Geoff – my apologies. I’ve just read the “The Union of Soviet Climate Change Writers” article again, at “the Unbearable Nakedness Of CLIMATE CHANGE” blog, and I see you wrote it. Didn’t notice the first time I read it, I’m afraid.

  86. ralph (02:59:09) : You wrote:
    “Again, what is the problem here? Trees covering this era abound the continents by the billion. What was so special about the ones used?”

    This is just a guess but is not global warming supposed to show up first and foremost in the high latitudes? It would be easier and cheaper to study trees on university campuses – hardly one’s idea of exciting field work – but not many universities are in the “rapidly warming” Arctic.

    Further, one can’t study and report climate change where there isn’t any – specifically where most people live. Thus, by going to where no one lives, “worse than expected” warming can be reported and you won’t have locals reporting to the contrary.

  87. “Energy Secretarty Chu has said that the AGW sceptics have made up data. And he probably believes that. How can the actual situation be conveyed to people like him who refuse to believe scientific facts which undermine what they strongly believe?”

    Steven Chu isn’t interested in facts. He’s a “watermelon environmentalist”. Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

  88. Dave Wendt (03:21:43) : tree foliage maintaining temp

    I wonder if some foliage does this and some not so well? I know some plants generate warmth and grow through snow, others do not. Maybe that study you mention can be extended to explain when or what type of plant moderates its temperature versus those that do not.

  89. Carbon isotopes? So we are to believe that man-made CO2 produces different isotopes of carbon (and CO2) than natural sources. Burning oil in various forms and natural gas is different than burning trees (as in forest fires). What of arson? If some nutcase starts a forest fire, is that different from a lightning strike?

    And, given that man-made CO2 is about 3% of the total CO2 production, can that really make the C13/C12 ratio “decline dramatically “. Even if true, we didn’t start a dramatic consumption of fossil fuel until after WWII. Yet CO2 increase has been reasonably linear since 1850, assuming that data has not been “adjusted”.

    Me finds all this a wee bit hard to believe.

  90. Off the thread a bit, but came across a review of a British Medical Journal, Lancet, regarding use of population control to reduce global warming. The Catholic Online review “Population Control to Combat Climate Change?”

    http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34507

    called the current climate change “a theory” and speculated if the billions poured into it was worth it.

  91. Steve S. (07:48:31) :

    This appears to be the RC thread where they put all the tree rings on the table.
    How bad does this look now?

    In a word…BAD.

    You think we haven’t seen Gavin’s spin before? Or the rest of the Team’s spin when they’re caught with their data in a knot?

    That 2004 post does nothing to defend the blatant cherry picking that’s been exposed by Steve McIntyre in use of the Yamal series.

  92. Paulus (07:57:19)

    Guardianistas know they are on borrowed time
    1. The paper loses money at terrifying (if you are a Guardianista) rate
    2. It is kept afloat (just) by advertising state funded non-jobs and the sale of ‘Autotrader’ (via a ‘tax-efficient’ offshore company’ NB this is not a joke!).
    3. 2. is likely to change by May 2010.

  93. Steve McIntyre the coroner does aver,
    That he thoroughly examined her.
    And she’s not only merely dead,
    she’s really most sincerely dead.

  94. Biffra’s 2008 Royal Society paper shows a clear instrumental temperature increase over the last few decades for the Yamal peninsula, most pronounced during the summer growing season. This is in contradiction to the RCS tree-ring chronology for the Schweingruber series calculated by McIntyre.

    Rejecting the Schweingruber series as a good proxy therefore seems reasonable, unless there are doubts about the instrument record in Northern Siberia. Why the Schweingruber series doesn’t appear to be a good recent proxy is an important but separate point.

  95. Great, a Janus Graph.
    This reminds me of Korf’s clock.

    Christian Morgenstern
    Korf’s clock

    Korf a kind of clock invents
    where two pairs of hands go round:
    one the current hour presents,
    one is always backward bound.

    When it’s two – it’s also ten;
    when it’s three – it’s also nine.
    you just look at it, and then
    time gets never out of line,

    for in Korf’s astute invention
    with its Janus-kindred stride
    time itself is nullified.

  96. Obviously the cherry picking was not innocent but very deliberate. The stonewalling regarding raw data archival was (is) not innocent: after this one, what is HADCRUT hiding? Some scientists obviously have been less than honest in their work. Yet It is really strange to see how the media were all over Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein were heroes but here it’s silence…

  97. We really need some labels on the axes of the graphs, or else the graphs are pretty much meaningless. I can “guess” what I am looking at, but a graph requires labels.

    Thanks!

  98. Retired Engineer (08:33:16) :
    ” Yet CO2 increase has been reasonably linear since 1850, assuming that data has not been “adjusted”
    It is currently being adjusted by Mauna Loa volcano itself….

  99. RE Stan, 9/28 03:03:49,

    The worst thing is that the Royal Society – an institution dedicated to impartial science for almost 400 years – has become politicised and corrupted by the current incumbents. That is the most damning indictment of modern society there can be.

    Actually, the Royal Society and its journal the Philosophical Transactions of the RS are the heroes here. Although they published an article by Briffa using this data, they actually compelled Briffa to archive his data as required by their policies, thus enabling Steve McIntyre to expose his cherry-picking. Other big-name journals like Science and Nature have published articles with this data, but haven’t bothered to enforce their similar rules.

  100. Probably been said already. But facts don’t matter with a religion. They help, but in the end, it comes down to what feels right. Unfortunately, science tends to make peoples heads hurt. They’d rather hurt themselves when given the chance.

    Right! I’m off to annex Washington state. Film at eleven.

  101. If folks could keep copies of their posts to The Guardian, and the dates/times they were submitted, I think we have the basis for another good article… on Freedom of Speech. If, that is, it is plain from the extant Guardian posts that only warmists (and possibly obviously asinine skeptics) are given the floor. Any volunteer to collect them all?

  102. CA getting slammed apparently. Caught the thread last night before Steve published the code. Was up late enjoying the comments.

    Can’t get enough of this.

  103. Of course this finding on Steve’s part ties in very well with the earlier finding about the North American bristlecone series that was used by Mann. When Lenah Ababneh published her bristlecone series from the same locations, they diverged widely from the series used by Mann and others. Ababneh’s used a much larger sample, and she checked the significance of using strip bark trees. Bottom line was that Ababneh’s trees showed no 20th century warming. This left us with a data set problem. The Yamal series used by Briffa and others did show warming, but no access to the data was available. Now that we have the access, the same divergence appears that was found in the North American series. I don’t think that we want to use only the trees that Briffa didn’t select. I think the best line on the graph is probably the combinatin line.

  104. Wow. This is just unbelievable.

    This is one of those blog articles where I’d love to have an “e-mail this!” option. We all know the media isn’t going to give this the recognition it deserves, so it will be up to all of us to inform anyone & everyone we know.

  105. J. Bob (08:35:36) :

    Off the thread a bit, but came across a review of a British Medical Journal, Lancet, regarding use of population control to reduce global warming.

    There are times I am tempted to have another kid when I hear this nonsense. This would make the point that brilliance, humor, and good looks will always be more valuable resources than rice or whatever.

  106. Thanks for the posting – and Steve McIntyre’s unyielding efforts.

    Also, to John F. Hultquist (21:11:09), for the linked reference to the “divergence problem”. I read abstract:

    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clim-past-discuss.net%2F4%2F741%2F2008%2Fcpd-4-741-2008.html

    And it’s worth quoting:

    Abstract. Recently, an increasing off-set between tree-ring based temperature reconstructions and measured temperatures at high latitudes has been reported, the so called “divergence problem” (here “divergence effect”). This “divergence effect” seriously questions the validity of tree-ring based climate reconstructions, since it seems to violate the assumption of a stable response of trees to changing climate over time. In this study we eliminated the “divergence effect” in northern Alaska by careful selection of individual trees with consistently significant positive relationships with climate (17% of sample) and successfully attempted a divergence-free climate reconstruction using this sub-set.

    Perhaps Wilmking and Singh deserve some credit for trying to deal with this apparent paradox, but… I’m once again, they make is sound like an absurdity, and the contrived effort to neutralize it, merely absurd.

    Still, I don’t agree with the sentiment of: “…the sordid story of tree ring proxies used for climate interpretation”

    It seems clear by now that many scientists have corrupted this science by announcing results to support preconceived notions of climate warming. They are showing us no results at all, but something manufactured for a particular end that serves their self-interest. Maybe it was true of the science’s founder, Andrew Ellicot Douglass, an astronomer who looked so hard for a link between tree rings and sunspots that he was bound (doomed) to find them.

    But how many centuries after Antony van Leeuwenhoek first saw his “wee beasties” under a microscopes (he died in 1723), until scientists had a working and accurate germ theory? And how many subsequent years of bickering, self-serving, data-hoarding (-and hiding) researchers since then, til notions of spontaneous generation were put to rest? and every workng vaccines thereafter?

    Just don’t toss out the baby with the bathwater.

    Besides, I believe most of the improprieties that Steve has found to date have been associated with so-called “strip bark” trees. Dendros love them for their age. There are many chronologies out there, including oak and other long-lived deciduous tree type. I don’t think they are all corrupted.

  107. [snip - Adolfo you need to stop trying different names to get around security or I'll complain to your ISP next]

  108. Came over here from Ace of Spades.

    A couple years ago I was searching for evidence of a global chill in the 660s AD. There’s mentions of bad winters in the Ulster Chronicle (Ireland) and the Maronite Chronicle (Syria); and an Italian flood in the Book of the Popes (Rome). I had some trouble with the relevant dendrochronology and eventually gave up.

    Also I’ve delved into dendrochronology when trying to sort out the chronology of the Late Bronze Age, in Wikipedia. I tell you that is a special can of worms right there.

    I don’t really have a side in the AGW debate. There’s been some BS flung around on both sides. And there are political careers, and cash, to be made from suckers and taxpayers either way. But anybody who suppresses dendrochronology isn’t just screwing with modern science; they’re screwing with our ability to do history. They’re on my turf.

    Briffa, Schweingruber and their pals in the 1995 paper claimed that 1032 as “coldest in the millenium” – a millenium which sported a near Ice Age, and the Tambora year 1815. Since this was during a solar maximum there must have atmospheric shock that year on the level of 535 AD. There should have been reports of famines, plagues, the sun not shining, invasions, rivers of eroded soil, dustbowls and the apocalypse. I’m not exaggerating in the slightest – read David Keys’ Catastrophe. There is no such record for 1032.

    I’ll just say that Dendrochronology has enough problems without the introduction of bad, cherry-picked data. Most of the rest of my thoughts were too angry to post even at Ace’s site and I won’t dare print them here.

  109. If the media weren’t wholly corrupt they would give this more coverage [snip] than they have, over the years given to the Hockey Stick.

    I doubt, at least here in Britain. that they will give 1,000th as much. Thank Ghod for the net.

  110. ah, no, just exceedlingly slow, heavy traffic no doubt

    REPLY: I’m working t offload traffic right now by moving the Yamal images to my server.

    If anyone has referenced the Yamal graphs at CA in blog posts, please use these URL’s so that they get loaded from WordPress high traffic server.

  111. This explains why they have been loath to release their raw data and the methods they use on those data. They have been caught cheating. And once they have one lie out there, other lies must be fabricated to support it. And so we have the wholesale deletion of global rural surface temperature recording stations leaving an urban-biased network that reflects UHI in order to back up their earlier conclusions.

    In the meantime, the worry that we might be boiling ourselves alive creates a huge surge in research grants for their field of study and launches various climatologists onto the jet setting speaking circuit making celebrities out of them and advancing their career. All of this being done with the expectation that once the world discovered what was going on, they would be retired or dead and their kids would be quite rich.

    That puts the “carbon credit” kiosk at SFO selling credits for 60x market value in a whole different light. We now have proof that the foundation science for AGW was based on the selection of data that would guarantee the desired outcome. Practically every AGW paper out there can trace its origin back to those tree ring studies either directly or indirectly (referencing a paper that references the study).

    Most importantly, Steve M’s work shows NO 20th century temperature anomaly. And so again, people who in their hearts believe they want to do something good for their neighbors and future generations have been taken to the cleaners hook, line, and sinker and have been parted from considerable portion of their hard earned income.

    I sincerely feel that someone should go to prison for this. This wasn’t an accident. This was not a mistaken conclusion. This shows that the conclusion was “cooked” from the start. Billions and possibly trillions of dollars have been wasted on this nonsense globally.

    It’s pitchfork and torch time.

  112. Steve McIntyre has replicated the ancient practice of turning “sticks into snakes”. Steve turns “sticks into Manns”.

  113. Put this most recent revelation into context with the fact that CRU has not only “lost” the surface data that supposedly backs up these tree ring studies, they have “lost” the list of original stations so the original data set can not be recreated.

    So BOTH sets of data that supposedly show 20th century AGW turn out to be nothing.

    How many of YOUR dollars is YOUR local government spending on “fighting global warming” this year?

  114. KimW (22:55:35) :

    “This is a body blow to Science. For all the wisdom spoken about how science is impartial, here is proof that papers were published to give a desired result, and not what was there.”

    Nonsense. What do you think people like Steve and Anthony are doing, tatting? Quite the opposite, it shows that scientific analysis properly applied catches bad or even fraudulent analysis quite elegantly. What it IS a body blow to is the clique-ish definitions of “peers” being used to limit who should review papers. There’s nothing “special” about the statistical methods used in climatology that a statistician wouldn’t understand. Nor is there anything about trees and tree growth that a climatologist would know that a forester wouldn’t, and wouldn’t know better.

  115. DENDO-CHRONOLOGY ?? Isn’t that what tree ringers call their niche of bio-science ?

    Not being a Latin/French/Greek/Whatever scholar, I would have to get out my dictionary to find out what dendo means but I would wild guess it as something to do with rings or layers or something like that.

    But chronology I think I understand, and the one thing I think tree rings are good for is for telling the age of any particular ring on a tree, so long as you have all of them to the surface.

    Last time I checked, if you bore a core out of a tree, it is fairly common to succeed in getting at least the outermost ring. You may not hit the center of the tree, and get that first year of its birth; unless you cut the tree down; but it is reasonable to expect that you can get all the layers from the present back to some innermost ring that your core drill cuts into.

    Perhaps Dendo-chronology’s most famous success has been the correction of the Radia-carbon dating time scale. Originally based on a completely unwarranted assumption that the production of C14 from N14 in the atmosphere by incoming particles, happened at an absolutely constant rate. It was then assumed that the percent of C14 in the atmosphere remained fixed, and was taken up by trees and other plants.

    Since you can actually count the rings down from the tree surface; you have a pretty good chance of getting the age of any ring right to the year; so by carbon dating that ring or at least measuring the radiocarbon C14 in it, you can connect the acytual counted date, to the C14 half life imputed date.

    That correction had a major impact on the understanding of some important human history, by correctly dating the appearance of certain pottery technologies.

    So dendochronology has earned its place in science history.

    But now we have tree rings being used as proxies for almost any other physical parameter someone wants to get a time line on.

    So we have all the arguments as to whether tree ring growth rates and cellular structure depend, on Temperature, rainfall, sunlight exposure, ground mineral content, wind patterns and so on and on.

    Well other than the poor degreed idiot who cut down the oldest known Bristlecone Pine on earth in order to determine its age at the time of execution; I have a high degree of confidence that tree ringers are pretty good at dating tree rings; either by cutting the tree down, which is usually fatal to the tree; or better still by core boring.

    But core boring, and treeslaughter demonstrate only too vividly, why tree rings should not be used as proxies for anything but the age of tree rings.

    Anyone who has ever examined a sizeable treeslice, perhaps at one of the better known national forest museam type places, can immdeiately discern the problem.

    TREE RINGS AREN’T THE SAME WIDTH ALL THE WAY ROUND THE TREE !

    What’s more, if you take a cut tree and slice it into wafers; you will also find out that tree rings aren’t the same width all the way up the tree either; so in general, the width and structure of any core bored ring segment, will vary significantly with height above the ground, and position around the circumference of the tree.

    Core boring of a tree to get a ring sample, is a classic case of failure to observe the rules of sampled data systems; the Nyquist theorem problem.

    If you had core drilled on the Elandsfontein farm, 20 miles north-east of Pretoria in 1905; not knowing where you were; and your rock core had brought up a 3,106 carat diamond crystal ; you might have jumped to the conclusion that there was a whole layer of such huge rocks down there. Well you likely would have been shot dead on the spot, by the owner of the famous Premier Mine; a chap named Thomas Cullinan. There’s a good chance that your accidental choice of where to drill the hole actually resulted in merely whacking off that smaller 3,106 carat piece of what is believed to have been a much larger diamond. The remaining piece of the Cullinan Diamond was never found; but the cleavage face on the piece that was found inside the Premier Mine, imbedded visibly in the wall, proves it was part of a larger stone.

    Well core drilling into trees may not be as lucrative as diamond mines, but the sampling process is just as hazardous, in terms of making unwarranted assumptions based on inadequate sampling.

    So Steve’s new essay here is just a part of the problem of relying on tree rings; at least from core drilling, for anything other than the approximate age of the ring.

  116. I tried to be a bit more round about on CiF.

    In response to one post:

    ” Malchemy:
    @deniers, please be so kind as to put you favourite “refutation” into google and have a look at what comes out…”

    I replied:

    “OK, my favourite current Google search term is “McIntyre Yamal hockey stick”.
    Enjoy.”

    A few more “recommends” might encourage people to try the search for themselves before it gets deleted.

  117. It appears an onslaught of referrals from Ace of Spades HQ, and perhaps here has crashed Steve’s server. Didn’t he just rebuild it recently?

  118. Dang, looks like Climate Audit is swamped. Can’t get through to the site anymore. This is a huge story, possibly the most important blog posting so far this century.

  119. Might be time to raise the bandwidth limit at CA :)

    “Didn’t he just rebuild it recently?”

    I believe Anthony rebuilt it.

    REPLY: problem now is number of database connections, working on it – A

  120. @Foxgoose
    I saw your Guardian post earlier today and thought that won’t be up for long, as Geoff chambers pointed out. Geoff I think you used to be a regular poster there. Unfortunately I have been moderated many times only to fight again.
    Comment is free if you agree?

    Now to matters in hand, Ding Dong Leslie Phillips is alive but the hockey stick is not broken it is intact and in a shape us poor souls always thought it should be?

    We delude ourselves because my Gav and his mates are very clever, they new that about the unused data all along and of course the data was excluded for very good reasons.
    He’s a lovely boy and has an answer for everything.

    The results using the data do not accord with the models and the long term trends as determined by Professor B Blocks, PhD Camel hygiene at the University of Noscience, Rockall, Uk

    Guys and Gals for goodness sake please don’t tell Steve what to do:-)

  121. Robinson (09:23:32) wrote:

    “If you haven’t already, it’s time to write to your MP, Senator, Congressman, representative, etc.”

    I suggest the “etc.” include Penn State University, the current home of Dr. Michael Mann.

  122. Crosspatch, don’t you mean “teh most important blog post THIS MILLENNIUM!!one!1″?

    But if this IS going to be the century of changing every national economy for the sake of Green Jobs, before we have to clean up after those mistakes throughout the 22nd century, then you’re probably right. Although I’d personally nominate Lee Harris’s “Civilization and Its Enemies” as a more important essay.

  123. I predict that the response will be in the form of an ad hominem. Following the lawyer rules

    1) If you have the law, argue the law
    2) If you don’t have the law, argue the facts
    3) If you don’t have the facts or the law, attack the person.

  124. @ Artwest

    It won’t be on the site for long?

    My guess is 1 hour max.

    You mentioned words the Gurdian cannot cope with, hence my expulsion all the time for telling the headmaster to stop playing with himself:-)
    I have pushed my luck so I better go before the Cat AW comes back?

  125. I have a feeling that the real turning point will come as soon as the ‘AGW Faithful’ start sensing that they’ve been betrayed, or lied to, by their high priests. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, or believers who discover that their idols have feet of clay.
    I wonder how long it will take before the pro-AGW media do an about-turn.

  126. tokyoboy (00:55:35) :

    I was citing from memory… this is why I put an interrogation mark after Japan. But thanks for clarifying.

  127. Paul Vaughan (23:29:25) :there is the ominous risk of triggering a backlash that will leave the door wide open for an era of political corruption.

    Paul, what do you call what is going on right now, if not political corruption? It certainly has nothing to do with science.

  128. “Well I’m starting a lively exchange”

    Jerome, it appears there are a whole bunch of deleted posts over there….

  129. Re: Main Topic: I suspect that the ‘official’ reply to this will be something to the effect that the modern tree-ring data is not valid because tree-growth during this era has been stunted by man-made industrial pollution.

  130. I read the post and comments at climateaudit and I do agree that there are issues that need to addressed. Specifically, why the subset of ten chronologies were chosen and why the others were discarded. Could these ten just be the best calibrated to recent measured temps? Can one assume that treemometers preserve this calibration or do they cycle in and out? I am not a dendrochronologist so I do not know. As scientists though, we need to make sure that our methods are transparent and it appears this might not the case with Yamal data and methods.

    Something that should also be understood is that the Mann et al. 2008 paper reproduces the hockey stick without using tree rings. Here is the abstract and the entire paper is free to download at:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract

    Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If
    tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

    Another tidbit from the Mann et al. (2008) paper is:

    It is intriguing to note that the removal of tree-ring data from the proxy dataset yields less, rather than greater, peak cooling during the 16th–19th centuries for both CPS and EIV methods (see Figs. S5a and S6b, respectively), contradicting the claim (33) that tree-ring data are prone to yielding a warm-biased ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ relative to reconstructions using other high-resolution climate proxy indicators.

    Ding, dong, the stick might not be wrong. :)

    • Scott A. Mandia:

      Mann 2008 shows an uptick under only if they include the inverted tiljander proxy or if they include the stripbark bristlecone pines which the NAS proscribed. Mann plays three proxy Monte.

      Studies which likely should be revised but are unlikely to be are:

      Briffa 2000, Mann and Jones 2003; Bradley, Hughes and Diaz 2003; Jones and Mann 2004; Moberg et al 2005; D’Arrigo et al 2006; Osborn and Briffa 2006; Hegerl et al 2007; Briffa et al 2008; Kaufman et al 2009. Esper 2002 ; Juckes 2007

      These are the “dozens” of “independent” studies confirming Mann’s work.

  131. Scott Mandia,

    Yes, the hokey stick is dead. That’s easy to prove.

    Even that propaganda organization, the UN/IPCC, deleted Mann’s hokey stick from AR-4. Why? Because McKitrick and McIntyre, independently verified by Prof Wegman, thoroughly debunked it.

    The IPCC loved Mann’s hockey stick! And you don’t boot out something you truly love. It was visually better than any of the subsequent imitations in AR-4. With Mann’s chart, anyone could see at a glance that climate catastrophe was headed our way. It was frightening!

    But the IPCC was forced to delete Mann’s hokey stick — because it was bogus. So, ding dong, the stick is wrong.

  132. Could these ten just be the best calibrated to recent measured temps?

    I find it hard to understand the concept of “best calibrated”. You can’t calibrate a tree, can you? If you’re finding those that most closely match the instrumental record, what have you gained by doing the study in the first place? If you have 100 trees and 90 of them don’t match the record, you have a problem. Chosing the 10 that do holds no significance. They may match it purely by chance!

    This is my understanding of the situation. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

  133. Anthony

    See your intro.

    He may well have Staved them but his name is Steve:-) No need to post this.

    Reply: Fixed ~ ctm

  134. Ding, dong, the stick might not be wrong.

    As far as I know, Mannian methods produce a hockey stick even if you put random noise in, nevermind tree ring proxies. I’m not sure Mann actually advances his point any further by dropping trees from the analysis.

  135. “Specifically, why the subset of ten chronologies were chosen and why the others were discarded. ”

    The climate swindlers do that all the time. Why did Steig choose only three specific RC’s for his Antarctic study and attempt to smear those across the entire continent as representative of the temperatures of all of Antarctica?

    Might it be because that would validate the agenda? Who knows but we see this more and more lately where data is selected and further manipulated and the result is always the same. If you produce research that is counter to the agenda, you are called horrible names, shunned by your field of science, and even called “mentally disturbed” if you do not follow the agenda. Your funding may also be cut off and you could well end your career.

    On the other hand, there is no down side to producing flawed results. You are likely to see your funding increase and be cited by future papers as well as see your name published in prominent global news media.

    There is an extremely strong disincentive in academia to produce conclusions counter to the AGW agenda and manufactured results supporting the agenda are rewarded. We should not call the field climate science. It should be called, instead, climate “science”.

    It is a complete and total farce.

  136. “Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes”

    Is it possible to measure temperatures by proxy to tenths of a degree in accuracy when we can’t even get it right with thermometers?

  137. crosspatch at (10:19:09) “I sincerely feel that someone should go to prison for this”.
    Remember, Briffa is based in England. Not a single MP here voted against the recent Climate Change Bill which dictates energy policy for the next 50 years at a cost of untold billions. In the unlikely event of an official inquiry, you’ll get some High Court Judge hearing witnesses in private, and concluding in 5 years’ time that, though a few unfortunate mistakes were made, everyone has behaved like a perfect gentleman. The cult of secrecy, plus the absurd libel laws, mean that the story is unlikely to be aired here in the UK. Thanks to the Royal Society though, for applying their own rules and allowing Steve to break the story.

    REPLY: Let’s tone this back. I have on good word just now that Dr. Briffa is seriously ill, facing the loss of a kidney. I’ll not have anyone bashing him. The data is what it is, lets wait until such time that we can get a rebuttal. – Anthony

  138. Yep had an experience in censorship on the Guardian last night, but hey what do you expect from a paper that wants you to help them decipher 200 pages (which are going to) save the world – the Draft version of global deal on climate change, which will form the basis of Copenhagen talks.

    There seems to be hope however. The talks maybe scuppered because ‘US climate illiteracy could scupper deal’.

    Three cheers for illiteracy (US), which may as yet, inadvertently, save the world.

    These illiterates just cant seem to spot the Emperors glorious new clothes

  139. crosspatch at (10:19:09) “I sincerely feel that someone should go to prison for this”.
    Remember, Briffa is based in England. Not a single MP here voted against the recent Climate Change Bill which dictates energy policy for the next 50 years at a cost of untold billions. In the unlikely event of an official inquiry, you’ll get some High Court Judge hearing witnesses in private, and concluding in 5 years’ time that, though a few unfortunate mistakes were made, everyone has behaved like a perfect gentleman. The cult of secrecy, plus the absurd libel laws, mean that the story is unlikely to be aired here in the UK. Thanks to the Royal Society though, for applying their own rules and allowing Steve to break the story.

  140. I love it when I’ve been away from a pc for a couple of days and find a juicy article on WUWT. And what an article !

    Can there be any doubt that this is sheer scientific [snip]?

    REPLY: let’s see what the rebuttal is before we conclude to use the f-word. – a

  141. congratulations to artwest, stacey foxgoose and others for keeping up the pressure at Guardian Environment.
    US readers may not appreciate how important this newspaper is in pushing the AGW programme in the UK. Derail their Pravda-like propaganda machine by swamping their pro-AGW blogs, and the editors may start to question the wisdom of their environmental journalists’ lemming-like quest for oblivion.
    I’m not much interested in Climate Change (though of course I’m pushing for a joint Nobel for Anthony and Steve – aren’t we all?) I AM interested in a free press.

  142. Scott Mandia,

    I would urge caution in relying on Mann et al 2008 as authority. In their purported demonstration that they could get a Stick without tree ring data, they used the Tiljander sediment series (which has a huge HS). Unfortunately, they used this series upside-down – Tiljander attributed the recent portion to farmer’s ditches. Kaufman also used Tiljander, but truncated values after 1800. Ross and I submitted a comment to PNAS pointing this out. In response, Mann denied using it upside down, but this denial is itself untrue.

    Steve McIntyre

  143. @Scott Mandia-

    Before you start defending ‘hockey sticks,’ I suggest you spend a LOT of time at Climate Audit. Make sure you bring an open mind.

  144. As a word of advice: It would be wiser to hold the Met Office here to account than the Guardian. They are the source of this disingenuous campaign. The Guardian is trying to keep afloat by selling/creating panic and concern.

  145. addendum: If you do write into the Met Office via mail or email – be polite and stick to the facts and data.

  146. “I have on good word just now that Dr. Briffa is seriously ill, facing the loss of a kidney. I’ll not have anyone bashing him. The data is what it is, lets wait until such time that we can get a rebuttal.” – Anthony

    Is there a get well card we can sign?

  147. Will they make a movie – this is like Watergate – a smoking gun if there ever was. I suggest they use Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Now what about a title – we need a good moniker for this unravelling scandal.

  148. Something I’d be curious to know, if Steve McIntyre cares to take a swing at it: Is there any other selection of ten trees (or is it twelve?) from the overall available data that would drive the red line even higher?

  149. Well, I’ve just been posting on that Guardian blog Foxgoose mentioned under the handle vincent456 on page 4. I’ve had a running battle with several warmists all spouting the same science is settled nonsense, or stating “facts” that just aren’t true. But I’m tired now and heading for bed.
    Goodnight.

  150. Cassandra King (22:17:39) is right. The political and media class has invested too much in time, effort and credibility, for them to retract. Besides, once they have climate treaty in place, along with the Lisbon treaty, it is goodbye to democracy, and a Big Hello to the New World order.

    As for Mann, it dose not matter – he may be thrown to wolves, thrown under a bus, or offered an obscure but well paid sinecure. As for the “no expenses spared politicos”, Mann would have done his job, thats all that matters.

  151. woodNfish (11:24:32) “Paul, what do you call what is going on right now, if not political corruption? It certainly has nothing to do with science.”

    It seems you appreciate what motivated my comment. (Also, you do not appear to be a member of the target audience.)

    To be clear: I do not favor corruption of any political stripe.

    Elaboration: Swinging violently between extremes of political corruption as political stripes alternate power is not my idea of a good ride. There are profitable opportunities for stable balance in the centre. Extremism of all stripes is due for a trip to the penalty box – or better yet a game misconduct – for relentless high-sticking.

  152. “Remember, Briffa is based in England. ”

    It isn’t Briffa that I was thinking about in particular. Maybe start with a certain astrophysicist and a Tennessee politician. Completely investigate their personal financial interests in the AGW scam in the glare of the public spotlight. Then lets trace those financial connections to others who might also have some of the same financial interests. Do they have any considerable personal investments that would stand to benefit from any validation of AGW? What are their conflicts of interests? How much have they cost this country in wasted research funding, unnecessary regulations, steps taken to mitigate a non-problem. What about investments by politicians who are the most strident supporters of the agenda? Do they have a material interest in seeing the agenda go forward? Are they enriching themselves at the public expense and using their roles to improve their own personal financial situation?

    To date there is not a shred of verifiable evidence that we are experiencing any unusual warming at all. I have seen no verifiable information that there is any planetary climate change caused by human activity.

    They have been playing a game of producing papers and hiding the data and methods from view. They rely on a circular citation scheme and the voices of prominent world leaders to gain credibility rather than allowing their conclusions to see the light of day and stand or fall on their own merit. One *has* to be suspicious of anyone who promotes a conclusion but will not allow the process of reaching that conclusion to be revealed. When someone claims that something is so, yet hides the data, one must be skeptical. And then when they claim they lost the data, claim to have lost the descriptions of the data so the original data can not even be re-created but claim to have only a modified version, what is one to think? And here where yet again, data that doesn’t validate the agenda is thrown away, on what grounds can anyone support these conclusions other than by “faith”?

    It appears to be a conspiracy on a global scale to milk the treasuries of the Western world of cash to support spending on things that directly benefit those making the claims.

    Does Briffa have any personal investments that would benefit from his claims?

  153. P. Wilson:

    The Guardian is trying to keep afloat by selling/creating panic and concern.

    However, can you imagine any newspaper, including the Guardian, turning down the most sensational story of the century – “Global warming proved false, heads must roll”

    Let’s continue to give them ammunition.

  154. People who wish to expend effort at blogs and forums might want to aim at the middle ground, even if the Guardian website is more amusing. The wider the message spreads the more likely it is that more people start to understand. Most people accepted the consensus because they feel guilty, and because they have no reason to question the science.

  155. If it can be shown that certain climate scientists, irrespective of whether they are paid out of the public purse or not, have quite deliberately and knowlingly produced peer reveiwed documents that were designed to deceive policy makers, (who represent these self same tax payers), can some one explain to me why:

    1. They authers/perpetrators,and their employer’s should not be named,censured and/or sued by the State.

    2. The Journal that published the offending documents should not also be named, censured and/or sued.

    They surely cannot be allowed to get away with this deliberate deception scot free.

  156. ‘REPLY: let’s see what the rebuttal is before we conclude to use the f-word. – a’

    Anthony, you are of course right. It would be foolish to base a conclusion on insufficient data.

  157. JWDougherty (10:38:38) :

    KimW (22:55:35) :

    “This is a body blow to Science. For all the wisdom spoken about how science is impartial, here is proof that papers were published to give a desired result, and not what was there.”

    Nonsense. What do you think people like Steve and Anthony are doing, tatting? Quite the opposite, it shows that scientific analysis properly applied catches bad or even fraudulent analysis quite elegantly. What it IS a body blow to is the clique-ish definitions of “peers” being used to limit who should review papers. There’s nothing “special” about the statistical methods used in climatology that a statistician wouldn’t understand. Nor is there anything about trees and tree growth that a climatologist would know that a forester wouldn’t, and wouldn’t know better.

    What WUWT is doing is unofficial or amateur or uncredentialed science. But that’s not what ‘science” means to science-groupies and other “critical thinkers.” “Science” has been defined by them to mean institutionalized science; everything else is ostracized as “pseudoscience.” Outsiders are cranks. This definition has been foisted upon the mainstream, and accepted.

    What’s worse, the procedures of institutionalized science have been credited with the power of being self-correcting, given time; and therefore the results of a an extensive period of attention by official science to an issue like global warming are taken to mean that a very strong consensus is virtually infallible. I.e., infallible enough that $trillions should be spent based on its say-so, and that uncredentialed critics of ‘settled science” can be dismissed, based entirely on their paucity of peer-reviewed publications.

    Science needs a Reformation–i.e., it needs to be, socially, less of an in-group activity; it needs to make a place at the table for outsiders. Let’s hope this is a Reformation-moment.

  158. Peter (14:33:36) asks:
    “Can you imagine any newspaper, including the Guardian, turning down the most sensational story of the century – ‘Global warming proved false, heads must roll’?”
    But that’s exactly what is happening. On Bishop Hill’s blog I asked – rhetorically – if there wasn’t a science correspondent on a major newspaper who wanted a scoop. The fact that there isn’t shows that crosspatch’s theory that it’s all about money doesn’t explain it. Remember the journalistic cliché: “dog bites man – no story. Man bites dog – story”.
    “Science wrong: no warming” is a classic man-bites-dog story. The journalist who breaks it will make his name, and maybe his fortune. But for the moment, nobody with an established reputation as a scientific journalist will touch it.

  159. Phil:
    Is that an escape hatch that will be used to say they never really believed the things they were promoting but they were following the crowd. It is possible that CRU can lay the blame at the feet of the US researchers that promoted AGW and duped the UK chaps into following suit!

  160. Sean Houlihane (14:44:00) says:
    “People who wish to expend effort at blogs and forums might want to aim at the middle ground, even if the Guardian website is more amusing”.
    In Britain the Guardian is the middle ground. It’s centre left, but influences thinking across the political spectrum. Though its environment pages only publish alarmist articles, a sceptical comment can receive hundreds of positive responses. In the US, I suppose I’d comment at Revkin’s on the NYT. Any other suggestions?

  161. Something that should also be understood is that the Mann et al. 2008 paper reproduces the hockey stick without using tree rings.

    Well, yeah, I mean if they cherry picked one set of data, surely they wouldn’t cherry pick another set.

  162. Steve S, not sure why you keep publishing the RC piece about the isotope ratio. It has nothing to do with using tree rings as temperature proxies. All it shows (correctly) is that the increase in the ratio in the atmosphere match qualitatively (although not quantitatively) with the ratio in fossil fuels. All it means is that fossil fuels are (qualitatively) behind most of the increase in CO2. Again, nothing to do with tree rings.

  163. REPLY: In a nutshell:

    Thank you Anthony for that simple summary. Anyone can understand it.

    THANK YOU!!!!

    Also, it makes great drama! If only a script writer and a good director could make it into a movie!

  164. Expat in France (02:45:23) : I am beginning to wonder if this AGW campaign is unstoppable.

    Harsh winters and cooler summers make people put little value in what the tv tells them about global warming.

  165. Greenorblue (05:57:49) : they will keep on preaching the end of the world because of “global warming”, they are doing it right now, through the media, in all countries all over the world. It is the biggest marketing campaign ever.

    When Al Gore says he put profits he makes from global warming into ‘raising awareness’ what is really happening is he is putting that money into this ‘marketing campaign’. His money then begets money.

    He comes to do good and is doing quite well by it.

  166. Robert E. Phelan (07:30:34) :

    when do we finally quit attributing this nonsense to incompetence?

    I agree with you.

    But, maybe there is incompetence—at the point when they thought they could get away with it.

  167. “The fact that there isn’t shows that crosspatch’s theory that it’s all about money doesn’t explain it. ”

    It isn’t ALL about money, directly but it is eventually about money. More government control of energy, for example, puts more power in the hands of politicians to regulate economic growth. This allows them to collect more cash from people who would want to influence their decisions.

    My late wife was a journalist. I met many of her friends and co-workers. Flat out Marxists every single one that I met. The topic of conversation would often turn to how horrible some Republican is and how wonderful some socialist theme of the week was. If a journalist published this story, he would be an outcast among his peers. No matter how much he might want to write this story, doing so would be professional suicide. And it would never get past the editor and into print anyway. Because if it made it into print, the media outlet would become “evil”. It would be casting itself with Fox News who dares report blasphemy.

    Any paper printing such a story would hear its access to various movers and shakers being cut off because the printing of that story would endanger the politicians’ ability to manage industrial production and therefor potentially cost that politician millions in campaign contributions which might cause him not to be re-elected and so the party that is most desirable by most reports might lose power.

  168. Geoff C (17:07:47) : “Anyone like to comment on New Scientist not buying into the dead stick?”

    Denial is not just a river in Egypt. :-)

    New Scientist has been a CAGW cheerleader for a long time.

  169. HANNOGRAPH: A mechanical machine that produces a hockey-stick, independent of input.

    MANNOGRAPH: A computer program that produces a hockey stick, without an input.

  170. Jeremy (13:52:01) : “Will they make a movie – this is like Watergate – a smoking gun if there ever was. I suggest they use Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Now what about a title – we need a good moniker for this unravelling scandal.”

    Brokeback HockeyStick.

  171. Please note that the growth cycle for these trees is quite short, and onset is triggered by various conditions. Also, these pines are dependent on many, many conditions that seem to either be irrelevant to ‘temperature information’ or actually work to defeat an objective data point for temp. only. Slope, aeration, water, drainage, nutrients, pests, etc. It is misleading to claim that measuring the width of a pith cambium pair is related in a definitive way to temperature, less so by far for Atmospheric CO2.

    Some pines grow only for ten days per year, and never more than once/year.

  172. Bill P (09:53:20) :

    “Also, to John F. Hultquist (21:11:09), for the linked reference to the “divergence problem”. I read abstract:

    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clim-past-discuss.net%2F4%2F741%2F2008%2Fcpd-4-741-2008.html

    And it’s worth quoting:

    Abstract. Recently, an increasing off-set between tree-ring based temperature reconstructions and measured temperatures at high latitudes has been reported, the so called “divergence problem” (here “divergence effect”). This “divergence effect” seriously questions the validity of tree-ring based climate reconstructions, since it seems to violate the assumption of a stable response of trees to changing climate over time. In this study we eliminated the “divergence effect” in northern Alaska by careful selection of individual trees with consistently significant positive relationships with climate (17% of sample) and successfully attempted a divergence-free climate reconstruction using this sub-set.”

    —–

    So, note that, in the abstract itself – of a paper trying to”prove” tree ring data CAN be used to accurately determine temperature over the past 1000 years (or 1700 years, as Mann wants us to believe – only ONE tree ring set out of SIX actually “successfully (yielded) a divergence-free climate reconstruction”!

    (If I were allowed to choose only one data set out of every six available, I could “prove” that every visible planet was identical to earth.)

  173. philincalifornia says:

    When he was accepting the $5-600 million grant from BP at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, Chu’s comments regarding AGW were far different from what they are now. Strangely, although I can’t say I have Googled extensively, links to those press releases do not appear to be readily available.

    Well, with your description, it took me about a minute to find this press release: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/01_ebi.shtml And, I don’t I don’t see where Chu addresses AGW directly but he talks of “clean sustainable alternative energy sources”.

    But, I am also a little confused as to why you think his views would have been different in 2007…The implication seems to be that this would be because he was accepting money from BP. But, are you aware of the fact that BP was amongst the first oil companies to accept the science on AGW…back in the late 1990s I believe? Here is their current position ( http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9028012&contentId=7050978 ):

    BP accepts the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming is unequivocal and ‘very likely’ due to human activity. We accept that in order to avoid the dangerous consequences of climate change, temperature increases will probably need to be limited to about two to three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

    And, here ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/magazine/08BP.html ) is a New York Times magazine piece from 2002 in which the CEO John Browne of BP describes how BP exceeded a Kyoto-sized cut in emissions, eight years ahead of schedule and at a net cost SAVINGS to the company of hundreds of millions of dollars. Here is a quote from the article:

    ”If you say to people, ‘Do you want to develop the world and have a good living standard, or do you want a safer environment?’ people are terrified by the choice,” Browne said to me last spring. ”That is a failure of leadership.” Speaking of leadership, I asked, what did he think about Bush’s position on the issue — that caps on emissions would be too costly for American businesses? Browne paused, then answered, careful not to mention any names in particular: ”Well, it’s unfair to the world to say that none of this is possible when it is.”

  174. OT I guess but while working from home today, watching a short documentary about the solar system, this episode is about the Sun. They state that the Sun drives weather (Can I assume climate too?) on Earth.

    Doco was made by York Films, England.

    http://www.yorkfilms.com/about.html

  175. Dave Wendt (03:21:43) :

    I know that this may come as a shock to you but people actually measured the tree ring widths of the mountain hemlock in the Pacific North West and compared these widths with actual measured temperatures experienced at the sites to come to the scientific conclusion that tree-ring widths (at least for these trees) were good indicator of ambient temperature.

    Why are humans so willing to rush after the herd? Just because Steve Mc. shows that one particular tree ring proxy record [all be it an extremely important proxy record] is wrong, it is totally unscientific to then brand all tree-ring width proxies as being shonky.

    I sure that Steve Mc. does not believe that we should stop using all tree-ring proxies to measure past temperatures. What (I beleive that) he is saying is that we need to be very careful to rule out other factors, other than temperature, that could have an effect upon tree-ring growth.

    And of course, we should always realize that proxy records should always a
    little suspect because they are never as good as actual measured temperatures.

  176. Ninderthana nobody said all tree ring data is fraudulent. They said the particular tree ring data which on which Mann’s Hockey Stick theory was, with statistical certainty, not only wrong but deliberately fraudulent.

    Scientificaly that is enough, by definition, to discredit the entire catastrophic warming movement who, at the very best, accepted it without attempting verification.

  177. Joel:
    “New York Times magazine piece from 2002 in which the CEO John Browne of BP describes how BP exceeded a Kyoto-sized cut in emissions.”

    And now that idiot Browne has gone, hasn’t BP done well!

    And I’m not even sure what the point is you’re trying to make, other than that Browne is another rent seeker.

  178. Sorry to pick a nit, but how about fixing the “it’s” (should be “its”) in the paragraph below?

    We’ve always suspected that Mann’s tree ring proxies aren’t all they are cracked up to be. The graph below is stunning in it’s message and I’m pleased to present it to WUWT readers. I’m sure the Team is already working up ways to say “it doesn’t matter”.

    It’s getting quoted, e.g. on CCNet.

    /Mr Lynn

  179. It was the apparent over-perfection of the Mann Hockey-Stick as pointed out in several convincing climate-science skeptic videos and the revelation that the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect was self-limited by a logarithmic law of diminishing effect that led me to doubt the scientific validity of the publically accepted global warming theory.

    This state of doubt remains even in the face of finding other sources that seem to debunk those videos as being nonscientific propaganda from various industrial and political interests.

  180. Ninderthana–

    See the “REPLY: In a nutshell at (20:45:26) above. To selectively include data is not science. To frustrate access to the source data is telling.

  181. Surprisingly, my CIF comment lasted until sometime today – presumably because of a lack of overnight mods.

    Not only has it been modded, it’s been completely disappeared. Further sad evidence that a once-honourable newspaper has become an evidence-burying propaganda rag, on some issues at least.

  182. Neil Craig said at (02:47:18) :

    Ninderthana nobody said all tree ring data is fraudulent.

    ###################
    My comments:

    Below is the comment by Dave Wendt that ridiculed the use of tree-ring data as temperature proxies. I was responding to that particular post.

    I have no dissagreement with the Steve Mc. original post.

    ###################
    Dave Wendt (03:21:43)

    Given that tree ring temp proxies tend to be offered with resolution far finer than decadal or centenial time scales, that the only confirmation you offer for the single example you quote is another proxy, of perhaps equally, dubious provenance, that there seems to be mounting evidence that the correlations quoted between various proxies for temps is more a product of the statistical manipulations arising from between the ears of the people constructing the proxies than of anything happening in the real world, and that you failed to address the argument I offered that tree foliage maintaining temp ranges narrower than ambient makes it virtually impossible for a tree to create an accurate record of that ambient temp, I’d have to say you fell miserably short of providing proof for your final assertion.

    ############

    This is a complete load of rubbish.

  183. RACookPE1978 (18:51:14) :

    I didn’t proofread carefully.

    Wilmking and Singh claim that in their research, they

    eliminated the “divergence effect” in northern Alaska by careful selection of individual trees with consistently significant positive relationships with climate (17% of sample) and successfully attempted a divergence-free climate reconstruction using this sub-set.”

    Like you, I consider such intense cherry picking unprofessional, and hence, as I tried to point out below the paragraph, their claim of “eliminating” the divergence, absurd.

    Two questions that might be asked: should they get some points for admitting their selectivity? (And) What did the unused 83% of their database show?

  184. Joel Shore (19:59:27) :
    philincalifornia says:

    When he was accepting the $5-600 million grant from BP at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, Chu’s comments regarding AGW were far different from what they are now. Strangely, although I can’t say I have Googled extensively, links to those press releases do not appear to be readily available.

    Well, with your description, it took me about a minute to find this press release: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/01_ebi.shtml And, I don’t I don’t see where Chu addresses AGW directly but he talks of “clean sustainable alternative energy sources”.

    But, I am also a little confused as to why you think his views would have been different in 2007…The implication seems to be that this would be because he was accepting money from BP.
    ———————————-

    No actually, that would be the wrong implication. I don’t know why his publicly stated views changed.

    If you had found the press release(s) I was talking about you would understand, but those releases seem to have disappeared from the net. His position was one shared by many, which is that he didn’t believe the science was settled on AGW, but that even if the AGW theory turned out to be wrong eventually, it would be a mistake not to work right now on, for example biofuels (the subject of the BP grant), in case it turned out to be right. I think you’re going to have a hard time believing that one Joel, but at the time, I was consulting on a cellulosic biofuel program that was funded by another large oil company, so it was my business to absorb such information into my brain.

  185. cross-posted from Tim Blair, I couldn’t resist my own bon mot:

    “The Hockey Stick is now re-named the Limp Stick.”
    Do spread the word…

  186. George E. Smith (10:38:58) :

    DENDO-CHRONOLOGY ?? Isn’t that what tree ringers call their niche of bio-science ?

    Hey, George, it is called DENDRO-CHRONOLOGY.
    Dendro=tree in greek (same linguistic root btw), so it is “tree chronology”.

    I agree that the discipline has been very useful in dating ancient stuff, and also that its use as a universal proxy is unwarranted.

  187. Artwest

    Our “evidence-burying propaganda rag” seems to have deleted most of this afternoon’s comments! I have just left one suggesting that this lacks democracy, so I don’t suppose it will be there for long.

    Dear old Grauniad – you’d think the arts graduates that run the place would at least have read some George Orwell, but maybe they have and didn’t realise it was satire…

  188. Ninderthana (08:15:04) :
    ###################
    Dave Wendt (03:21:43)

    Given that tree ring temp proxies tend to be offered with resolution far finer than decadal or centenial time scales, that the only confirmation you offer for the single example you quote is another proxy, of perhaps equally, dubious provenance, that there seems to be mounting evidence that the correlations quoted between various proxies for temps is more a product of the statistical manipulations arising from between the ears of the people constructing the proxies than of anything happening in the real world, and that you failed to address the argument I offered that tree foliage maintaining temp ranges narrower than ambient makes it virtually impossible for a tree to create an accurate record of that ambient temp, I’d have to say you fell miserably short of providing proof for your final assertion.

    ############

    This is a complete load of rubbish.

    Nicely reasoned counterpoint. The paper I referenced is still behind the paywall at Nature, so I’ll have to make do with this quote from UPenn’s press release about its publication;

    The research, published online in this week’s Nature, contradicts the longstanding assumption that temperature and relative humidity in an actively photosynthesizing leaf are coupled to ambient air conditions. For decades, scientists studying climate change have measured the oxygen isotope ratio in tree-ring cellulose to determine the ambient temperature and relative humidity of past climates. The assumption in all of these studies was that tree leaf temperatures were equal to ambient temperatures.

    Researchers at Penn, using measures of oxygen isotopes and current climate, determined a way to estimate leaf temperature in living trees and as a consequence showed this assumption to be incorrect. This is an unfortunate finding for the potential to reconstruct climate through tree-ring isotope analysis but a boon to ecologists because it creates potential for the reconstruction of tree responses to both average climate and climate change over the last couple of centuries.

    In the light of this information and that provided by Anthony in this post

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/

    perhaps you could detail for me the exact mechanism by which you envision a tree managing to encode precise temperature information about the environment where it grows within its growth rings. I’m generally of a skeptical nature but I am always willing to accept new learning if I find it convincing.

  189. What appears to be under discussion here is ‘dendro-thermography,’ a science so new that I find only a few web-hits on this term. My apologies if there is a more official term for this study. I *presume* that the width of each tree-ring primarily indicates how favorable growing conditions were during the year it formed.

    That might include the average annual temperature and precipitation, health of the tree, insect attacks, PH of the available moisture, carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, and the altitude at which any given tree was collected. It may also be possible to do a detailed chemical and isotopic analysis of each ring to further define the conditions that obtained during its growth year.

    I make no claim as to knowing the exact methods of analysis or data-reduction being used.

  190. Climate Change doesn’t really matter in terms of the need to transition into a renewable energy economy. Fossil fuels will run out eventually and will keep on increasing in price until they do.

    As the debate over warming continues the permafrost melts releasing CO2 and CH4. So even if you win your battle it doesn’t really matter because the war is out of your reach…

  191. Ding Dong the Stick is dead,
    the Stick is dead, the Stick is dead,
    Ding Dong, the wicked Stick is dead……..in the land of OZ

  192. Anyone hear of cognitive dissonance? The belief amongst the AGW devotees will now strengthen. For same reason that anyone who believes strongly in something will find a way regardless of the facts to continue in that belief. People hate to be wrong.

  193. “”” anna v (12:19:44) :

    George E. Smith (10:38:58) :

    DENDO-CHRONOLOGY ?? Isn’t that what tree ringers call their niche of bio-science ?

    Hey, George, it is called DENDRO-CHRONOLOGY.
    Dendro=tree in greek (same linguistic root btw), so it is “tree chronology”.

    I agree that the discipline has been very useful in dating ancient stuff, and also that its use as a universal proxy is unwarranted. “””

    Thanks Anna; both for the speeling correction, and for the Greek translation; it’s good to know you are out there, to mind our pi-s and rho-s for us.

    You see I was thinking in terms of “dendrites” which admittedly does have the rho in it; but is dendrite derived from the same Greek root as tree ?

    Learn something new every day at Anthony’s Playpen.

  194. Spector (14:29:22)

    My previous point was a disagreement with ring proxies for Temps. Given the dozens of factors in play for tree ‘growth’, and the tendency of any environment to differentiate in very noticeable ways, though the area may be small (see ‘clos’), the short length of this tree’s cycle can represent one tenth of the ‘available time’ for growth in its niche, working rather robustly to eliminate the possibility of a ‘generalized’ datum for a substantial area. In essence, one may as well define a growth ring as indicative of soil aeration due to subterranean nematodes. That vector not well dispersed, as well.

  195. Let me quote from an email to a colleague with the link to this article:

    “I will criticize these guys for their lack of lucid conclusions. You have to catch the drift out of the entire article to see the glaring truth.”

    I have seen the light, but I am a hopeless old science-nerd. Not everybody is, but they will put it together if you spell it out at the end. They will look back at the graphs and say “AHA, I see what he means!”

  196. When can we expect to see him publish these results in a peer reviewed journal? Until that happens, this is all just noise from outside the boxing ring. If McI wants to make a real impact, write an article and get it published in a scientific journal. Publishing on the net or in a newspaper is meaningless.

  197. As stated here, this entire “Global Warming” is insanity! How do we, or can we, stop this worldwide mind-set and acceptance? How have people become so gullable…is the general population of earth that ignorant? I think a whole lot of people are educated BEYOND their intelligence!! Common sense and proven science must prevail once again or we are all domed as a human race. Wake up folks and understand that corrupt, unethical and immoral politics are destroying our lifes! We are being feed lies every day bu the news media and we are laying back and accepting it…this to too sad!!

  198. The Global Warming scare is not really a result of ignroance or stupidity.

    It’s a matter of the human impulse to manipulate and gain power over others, via the amazing strength of the herd instinct. In other words, human nature.

    It causes me to consider mankind a failing experiment in evolution.

  199. Yeah, this is bad, but it is not the “most extreme example of scientific cherry-picking ever seen”. That title belongs to Ancel Keys cherry picked 7 nations to “prove” the lipid hypothesis. The Low-Fat bunkum has killed untold millions and caused the suffering of God-only-knows how many millions more.

    This hockey stick debacle has not killed millions yet, though it could have, gone unrebuked.

  200. George E. Smith (18:10:59) :

    Hi George. Yes dendrites come from the same root, and are used to describe branchings similar to tree branches. I think it is an artificial word, in the sense that somebody used a greek root and created the word according to the grammar. Most of the scientific words are constructs from greek and latin, some of the ungrammatical.

    Most every day words over four syllables are of greek or latin origin anyway. I used to get great grades in reading comprehension examinations because of this, having had six years of ancient greek and four years of latin.

  201. It looks to me that the signal to noise ratio in this dendro-data is very low. If these numbers are based on tree-ring width alone, ignoring, for example, the O16 to O18 isotope ratio in the wood of each ring, then I can understand why the quality of such data might be so poor.

    But the stick may not be dead yet. I see that Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry have just introduced a proposed Cap-and-Trade bill with goals of lowering greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2020, 58 percent of 2005 levels by 2030, and 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2050.

  202. It’s just amazing how these tree rings have shown the world how wrong all the thermometers and satellites, and all the technology is! The science community will have to find a new way to measure temperature, now that it’s shown just how wrong all the measurements are! It’s cooling into a new ice age, not warming!

  203. I’m wondering if my previous question was overlooked. Do we have any info re when this work will be written up and submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal? If it won’t be, why not?

    This is the only way this sort of work will change anything. It has to be submitted for review and published in an accepted scientific journal. If it isn’t, this is wasted effort.

  204. Kevin (15:36:02) :

    I would certainly encourage publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Would it go to ethical impartial reviewers without an agenda ?? I would hope so.

    I’ve been involved in peer review (on both sides) for over 30 years now, and I would submit to you that the playing field is changing dramatically with regard to peer review. Publishing on this and other ethical non-censored sites invites vastly more intense and critical review than any private peer review would. Although this is just my opinion, I think it’s there for all to see and form their own opinions. In other words, this is not, as you say, a wasted effort, because Briffa himself, and Mann, and Al Gore even can come on here and try to refute the scientific analysis.

    Good luck with that. The sophomoric responses from Tamino and Gavin tells me that they would need it.

  205. hey,am dhaval from India. i appreciate Mr. McIntyre’s data evaluation. he has done a great job.thank you sir.the world needs to come out of ignorance. If you are confident over your data.then you should approach media. I think so there are many countries which are using the concept of global warming for their political interest. Also there is one request can u pl z send me the detail email of these result and comparison with the previous hockey stick graph on my mail. thank you.

  206. > This wasn’t simply taken down, but disappeared without trace while I was reading it.

    A blog post disappeared while you were reading it? Didn’t think that was possible.

  207. Even when I read blogs, I generally do not comment or participate in discussions – well, may be you could say that it is a retired attitude… But, I thought that this does invite a comment, even if late in making it.

    The total carbon content of the world (when you include the core and the mantle of our earth) doesn’t change much as there aren’t many carbon rich meteorites striking our world…

    Given this, it is only the atmospheric content of carbon that is of concern. I would like, being a person not in the community, how much of carbon (as dioxide) a volcano gives out to what is given out by us mining these out and burning these.

    There may be fluctuation in climate that would encourage multiplication of carbon-fixing organisms to carbon-releasing organisms like us. Again another indicator would be the quantity of carbon-releasing organisms that exits compared to the carbon-fixing ones.

    Whichever way you go the release of carbon to atmosphere cannot be slowed down whether we mine it or whether it is because of a natural causes like a volcano, or because of organisms like us.

    The increase in temperature due to higher CO2 will be compensated as there will be more water that will evaporate and cause a cloud cover that will decrease the temperatures over significant areas so as to lower the overall surface temperatures…

    So, it would be a cycle – what is causing harm is deforestation to fix back the carbon that WE are emitting (not only through supposedly fossil fuels, but more by our own biological mechanisms – I would really like to have a figure as to the amount of CO2 that we as humans are releasing to the atmosphere). Fortunately we can not control the algae that grows in the Oceans which will/may revert back the equilibrium – but with epsilon deviation as time goes on, more carbon is released from our core and mantle, which cannot be stopped…

    So, we need to accept that the average carbon content of the surface of earth will keep increasing (only if our Earth’s core and mantle has not captured in their formative years those fragments with more carbon)

    Two solutions…
    One – take tones of carbon lump formed by our life forms in space ships and throw it out in space.

    Two, accept the climatic change, and increase the carbon-fixing organism and reduce the carbon-emitting organisms (this would mean that in the next million years, tentatively more that 80% of life here should be carbon fixing organisms)…!!!

    I request all to understand the overall dynamics at a planet-level and think accordingly – people who cannot take a pike and do the ground work to contribute to the society by planting more plants, will talk anything to keep their bread/funds coming their way…

  208. Great data…

    But, I do not understand the classification of human CO2 emissions – when I meant human, I did not mean the human activity but we as biological organisms (and other higher organisms that give out CO2) that contribute to the atmospheric carbon (as dioxide) – each of us probably (do check this) exhale 1 kg of CO2 every day; with population of 6 billion for humans alone, this would be 6 million tons a day – what about the other species that are around…?

    And out of volcanoes on land that we can measure what is the ratio of the CO2 emitted by them to us burning the fossil (if it is really fossil – it could be from carbon compounds from even earlier in formation of our planet or is being formed right now under us) fuels – any data there?

    But, wouldn’t you think that the total carbon content of this planet as a whole that includes its crust would not change much and the atmospheric carbon would increase with time (whether man/life-form made or not)…?

    And, are we really so much advanced to have understood all the processes that are involved – aren’t we making tall claims one-way or other…?

    My suggestion (what ever it is worthy of) is to follow the path of minimalism for a coming few centuries by every individual who has the conscious power to alter the surroundings – it is, maybe a distant hope…

    I hope that these doesn’t offend anyone established in this field and it is just that I would like to highlight an alternative way of looking at things – do apologize my ignorance, if any…

Comments are closed.