If you are just joining us, first you should read about what started it all here.
While Realclimate.org continues deleting the ongoing river of comments posted on their threads ( Note: Any of you who find that your posts to those sites are being rejected {as usual without any explanation} can keep a copy of the post, and post it at http://rcrejects.wordpress.com if you want. Keep those screencaps going folks) asking about the McIntyre Yamal data development, Jennifer Marohasy of Australia is drawing a bit of a line in the sand. Given the churlishness of the Team and the blockades put up by Hadley, I can’t say that I blame her stance. – Anthony
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign
By Jennifer Marohasy
MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year of the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over the last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years – the infamous hockey stick graph.
Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking for since 2003 – suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom’s Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1]
Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the ‘hockey stick’. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used – as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.
This week’s claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the methodology is laid bare.
This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is archived at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets are kept hidden from the public – including from scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.
***********
Notes and Links
[1] Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
The above chart shows the difference when the entire data set (black line) as opposed to a subset (red line) is used to reconstruct temperature. The chart is accompanied by the following comment from Mr McIntyre: “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 [leaving the rest of the data set unchanged i.e. all the subfossil data prior to the 19th century]. The difference is breathtaking.”
Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. (1998), “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” (PDF), Nature 392: 779–787, doi:10.1038/33859, http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann,%20et%20al.%20Global%20scale%20temp%20patterns.pdf
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#cite_note-17
CRU Refuses Data Once Again
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6623
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/09/the-hockey-stick-is-dead/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Main stream media comment would be interesting. I’ve only seen this from the UK Telegraph…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/
What else ?
If this gets wide exposure prior to Copenhagen, the rivets holding AGW together may start popping and key players will begin ducking for cover.
A Mann is to be slapped with a straight Stick out of the Hockey arena?
OT: I have just put up some comments about the recent Australian red dust storms here.
If McIntyre’s work gains traction in the press, and Copenhagen fails as expected, then science classes throughout the world will have to start retraining children that what they thought they knew isn’t true….right???
Yeah, and I’m really thinking that’s going to occur -given most teacher’s mindset…
Mike
Pieter F (21:28:00) :
If this gets wide exposure prior to Copenhagen, the rivets holding AGW together may start popping and key players will begin ducking for cover.
A primary alarmist concern. Hence I would expect every attempt to ignore/hide/discredit this news will be made to ensure that the political goals of increased global governance, taxation and government intervention into peoples lives are not de-railed at the Copenhagen Conference.
For too long WWF, Greenpeace etc have been attacking those who they say are misleading the public. Will these green groups now admit they are the ones doing the misleading?
Well in Canada here is the response of the Canadian Press to my complaint about the Bob Weber account of Kaufman et al. 2009 in the Globe and Mail and the new developments:
September 29, 2009
“Dear Mr. San:
Thank you for your continued interest in our coverage of an important public issue. Before I address the substance of your complaint, allow me to point out that Bob Weber’s job as a reporter is to fairly reflect the nature and conclusions of the research. He did that in this case and so, with respect, I submit that your charge of bias is unwarranted.
Your main concern is with the conclusions of the scientist whose work is described. In rebuttal, you draw on the writing of Steve McIntyre, a one-time stock analyst who I believe has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. His previous attacks on the “hockey-stick” theory have been examined and did not result in substantial changes to it. As we understand it, you agree with McIntyre’s contention that proxies used in this particular climate reconstruction have been pre-selected or weighted to give a conclusion that agrees with climate orthodoxy. The Kaufman paper, while based on previous research, did not simply regurgitate older data sets. The data used were significantly deeper both in regard to time (2,000 years) and space (the entire circumpolar world). Its conclusions were widely reported and accepted by major science journalists around the world.
It is not our intention to debate the truth of climate change with you. The Canadian Press, like most reputable news organizations, seeks to accurately report scientific findings that have been judged legitimate by experts in the field. When peer-reviewed science appears that questions current models, we will report on it. In fact, Bob Weber has done exactly that in the past.”
Since your concerns seem to have more to do with the article’s subject matter than with the accuracy of the reporting, we will respectfully consider this matter closed.
HEATHER BOYD
Prairies Bureau Chief”
My Complaint letter to them:
“As a follow up to my initial complaint about the biased tone of Mr Bob Weber story related to the Kaufman et al. 2009 “Arctic Warmer than it has ever been for the past 1,000years” that appeared in the Globe and Mail: A new development has happened thanks to the sleuth work by Steve McIntyre at climateaudit showing that there is a divergence between the full data and the Briffa data archived at CRU used by Kaufman et al. 2009. The late 20th century warming recorded is only shown on selected after the fact data while the entire dataset shows no “unprecedented warming”, in fact shows slight cooling. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7229 The demonstration links are below: “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 the 10 following 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: 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.” All these papers were peer-reviewed and published in prestigious scientific journals… The latest debunk by Steve MacIntyre at climateaudit invalidates the so called “unprecedented” XX century warming shown through dendrochronology proxies (tree rings studies). This includes the Kaufman et al 2009, about the “Arctic being the warmest in the past 1,000 years” reported in the Globe and Mail by Mr. Weber of the Canadian Press… http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 The AGW proofs are melting fast too… Perhaps the Canadian Press should pay attention to the great work being done in this country!”
=================
September 8, 2009
“Dear Mr. San.
Thank you for contacting The Canadian Press to express your concerns about Bob Weber’s story on climate change in the Arctic.
I apologize for the delay in responding to your messages.
We have discussed your concerns with Bob Weber. We’re not in a position to say whether Kaufman’s previous work was “flawed,” and I note that you do not provide evidence to support your contention. Even if you had, we believe that even if Kaufman et al had published flawed studies in the past, that wouldn’t necessarily affect the current paper, which was peer-reviewed and published in a highly prestigious journal.
Bob Weber did ask Kaufman about the reliability of the proxies (i.e., tree rings and sediment data used to suggest temperature) and was told they are standard scientific tools that have been in wide use for many years. He also said the protocols for their use have been established by experimental means. In other words, tree rings and sediments have been compared to years for which actual temperature records exist and the relationships between codified empirically. Those relationships are then used to suggest temperatures in times and places for which no records exist.
You also infer that in coming up with a hockey-stick graph, Kaufman simply “rehashes” previous IPCC studies, drawing data from them. Kaufman collected his own data, analyzed it, graphed it and then compared it with the IPCC’s hockey stick.
We have taken your concerns so seriously that Weber looked carefully at the climate blog to which you refer and he could find little evidence that Kaufman distorted his findings to conform to scientific orthodoxy. The blogger teases out specific components of Kaufman’s data set and demonstrates that focusing on them yields different results, but surely that is not a surprise. One of the points of Kaufman’s research is that it averages different data sources to account for the biases in each.
After a careful review of all of your concerns, we stand behind our story.
Best regards,
HEATHER BOYD
Prairies Bureau Chief”
Despite my initial complaint 24 hours ago, the story by Bob Weber has not been altered to reflect the reality of the science behind the Kaufman et al. Science 2009 paper described in his article. If this serves as an example of the Canadian Press ethics, what credit can be attributed to reports issued from your institution on domain where my knowledge doesn’t allow me to point out the bias? “The Bob Weber The Canadian Press Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 03, 2009 05:11PM EDT A groundbreaking study that traces Arctic temperatures further back than ever before has shown the region is now warmer than at any time in the past 2,000 years… is truly an incomplete description of the state of scientific knowledge in this field. In particular it completely fails to check the co-authors past history of flawed studies, the validity of the proxies and take the PR from Science and the lead author at face value, despite the existence of a significant amount of peer reviewed literature demonstrating the flaws in the previous studies by IPCC co-authors, rehashed in the Kaufman et al. 2009 paper. A scientific case is built at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932 where Mr. Weber could find all the information he needs to amend his article and transform a piece of propaganda into a piece of information.”
Oh Canada!
From the not so mainstream The Register
Treemometers: A new scientific scandal
If a peer review fails in the woods…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
QUOTE
The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science.
The IPCC’s mission is to reflect the science, not create it.
UNQUOTE
“It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.”
Not just at the Met Office. Several members of the IPCC senior climatologist’s cabal should also be offered the same challenge. Time some real scientists who understand the scientific method start to developing a good understanding or how our complex and chaotic climate really works.
Edward Lorenz must be spinning in his grave!
Can someone explain what the “scandal” is? We’re shown a graph which shows the effect of including some data that Briffa didn’t use. And as far as I can see, up to 1976 whether you include it or not makes no visible difference. After that, there’s a big difference, but we don’t need proxies to determine the temperature when we have satellites.
These new cores can be found . Some go back to 1782; most start 1848 or later. Not much use in a 2000 year chronology!
So there are some new proxies, which offer little extra info, and that make no perceptible relevant change, and which behave divergently in the recent instrumental period. And Briffa should resign for not using them????
This is what I gather is the larger implication of the Yamal hockey stick saga:
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…”
All the spaghetti graphs of the temperature in the IPCC report breakdown.
The IPCC says, based on these spaghetti graphs utilising Briffa’s cherry picked Yamal data, – “Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.”
Now suddenly this is not so. The medieval warm period, when all the Yamal data is used, without cherry picking, shows up clearly as warmer than the present. There is nothing unusual in the warmth of the last half century.
The IPCC also says 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.”
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 then possibly be there is something commonly wrong in all these climate models?
Also if there is nothing unusual in the warmth of the last half century, then where is the cause for alarm? Why are we spending billions of dollars trying to alleviate or avoid a problem that doesnt exist? Why must we shut down our power plants, curtail our manufacturing and production, reduce our gross national products and legislate global poverty as a solution to a threat that doesnt exist?
We are spending billions of dollars frantically trying to button up the Emperors new coat only to discover he has no clothes.
Nick Stokes (02:25:42)
So how accurate is the past reconstruction from these proxies considering the divergence with the full set when compared to measurements? Wouldnt that suggest that the past climate “may” have had as much natural fluctuations in the past as the current climate trends? Obviously they weren’t able to calibrate the pre-industrial cores with climate measurements to determine which cores where actually “robust” and which should be discarded… that seems kinda obvious too me.
Nick Stokes (02:25:42) : Can someone explain what the “scandal” is?
Yes – go here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
It is as if an audit of Lysenko’s lab techniques has been performed and Pravda is sitting on the results, and the good Stalinists are defending Lysenko and dismissing those counter revolutionaries who dared to do the audit in the first place.
Go Jennifer.
It is nearly impossible to use a tactic of insults and shame to get people to buy a belief system. Deniers, anti-science etc.
We are seeing data unfold that is not only destructive but shame creating. I wonder what will come out of the Meltdown Mann.
Human nature says people like Joe Romm and other zealots will become more insultative and come on attack.
Science is about honesty and bullying is totally not necessary.
Now if we were of the activist bent, we would be lining up with placards waving and bullhorns bleating in front of the CRU establishment calling for resignations and shutting down of the institution for a clean-up
I believe Jennifer Maharosy hit it on the head when she likened this to the Piltdown man hoax. It fit a consensus view that was unshakable for years. Thank the Brits at CRU for giving us a 21st century version that may be a trillion dollars more costly.
Nick Stokes:
The hockey stick is probably the best example of a “fingerprint” of the uniqueness of present climate, and by implication then, of mankinds influence. This is why it garners attention bordering on the emotional from so many scientists. To not treat it objectively and fairly is tantamount to the police lifting and then planting fingerprints in the hope of indicting a suspect that they just “know” is guilty. To downplay or countenance misconduct in the defense of this false fingerprinting is to be an accessory.
Such efforts destroy credibility of science with large segments of the public, and divert untold amounts of money from more worthy pursuits.
It may not be criminal in the strict sense, but it is wrong just the same.
Nick Stokes:
“We’re shown a graph which shows the effect of including some data that Briffa didn’t use.”
Some data Briffa didn’t use? Some! Surely you are joking. It sounds like Briffa used hardly ANY of the data, because most of it didn’t show the hockey blade.
If you pull 10 samples out of 60 or 70 because they provide the results you desire, then reject the other 50 or 60 because they disagree, and then tell me with a shrug of your shoulders, “well, so what’s the big deal if I left a few samples out,” I would have to retort, Don’t piss on my boots and tell me it’s raining!
A parliamentary call for explanation or else resignation would be much more significant than one from Jenny (wonderful as she is). As such, I found the headline a bit misleading. ‘Should’ is a more appropriate modifier than ‘must’ within it as obviously no requirement has yet been extended.
“Nick Stokes (02:25:42) :
Can someone explain what the “scandal” is?”
Nick, character reveals itself when faced with difficult choices. Briffa chose to ignore more suitable data in favour of data which gave the result he wanted. Ergo, nothing in his body of work can be trusted, because when it counted, his needs and wants trumped scientific honestly. If you don’t find that scandalous, or want to try to defend the indefensible by parsing words like some oily lawyer would, then it speaks to your charcter as well.
From Jennifer’s narrative of Steve McIntyre’s graph:
No! No! NO!
Although I think Steve is the 21st-century equivalent of Norman Borlaug, he is notoriously inept at showing us the Big Picture before relentlessly hammering away at the details. He’s even managed to confuse Jennifer Marohasy, in addition to TomP.
It seems clear to me now [someone correct me if I’m wrong] that Steve’s hypothesis is that the Yamal data is BIASED. And to test his hypothesis, he REMOVED the data he suspected of bias. And for good and valid mathematical reasons, he substituted some data that was NOT suspected of bias.
Yet Jennifer narrates his work as if BOTH the red and black lines include the Yamal data. It does not. Steve was not attempting to improve Briffa’s graph by adding data to it. He was not asserting that his temperature reconstruction was better than Briffa’s. He was merely demonstrating BIAS.
Consider an analogy. Let’s say you had a cake. And let’s say you suspected the baking powder you put into that cake might actually be rat poison. You want to test your suspicion before feeding cake to your guests. Very wise, you are.
Here’s a terrible way to test your hypothesis: Bake another cake, but this time add a lot more eggs and flour and sugar, but keep the same baking powder you used before.
Here’s a good way to test your hypothesis: Bake another cake, but this time substitute some baking powder that you KNOW is baking powder. Feed the cakes to a pair of rats.
AGW will not go away easily. Too many people have invested too much in it, especially politicians who have made it an important part of their platform. In this instance I think they will just ignore the wilting hockey stick. The mainstream media will give it little or no attention and the average person will never become aware of it.
So it is now Mann made global warming claims and not actual warming.
The hysteria is Mann made. I suspect protecting the ego is much more of a priority than protecting the planet. It is a personal threat.