McIntyre gets some new Yamal data – still no hockey stick

Steve McIntyre writes:

Yesterday, I received updated Yamal data (to 2005) from Rashit Hantemirov, together with a cordial cover note. As CA and other readers know, Hantemirov had also promptly sent me data for Hantemirov and Shiyatov in 2002. There are 120 cores in the data set, which comes up to 2005. I’ve calculated a chronology from this information – see below.

Figure 1. Yamal Chronologies. Green – from Hantemirov _liv.rwl dataset; red- from Briffa et al 2008.

How interesting it is that the Hantemirov data in green, diverges from the CRU 2008 “Hockey Team” data in red. No wonder they had to “hide the decline”. The trees lie!

Give it up fellows, your cover’s blown.

I was going to run a larger excerpt of Steve’s latest post, but these two comments on the thread seem to sum it up pretty well.

morebrocato: Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM

It is utterly fascinating to me to see that Steve McIntyre and the folks at RealClimate have essentially the same rundown of events, yet in the way it’s presented and framed, you’d think they have nothing in common.

You state:

“A URALS regional chronology had been calculated as of April 2006. This was a version of the regional chronology which remained unchanged for many years” and then he ‘concludes’: “The regional chronology has not been a “work in progress” for years.”

But the reply is:

This is a very clear statement that of what he thinks (or rather he thinks he knows). But the reality of science is that finished products do not simply spring out of the first calculation one does.

So it’s absolutely true that this whole ‘late-night-at-the-office’ thing was indeed had by the Briffa et al researchers when the new data came in, and it could be assumed that they did (as you say, “99.9%”) similar calculations (the differences are meaningless) that perhaps showed identical results to your charts posted here and earlier regarding the wider regional Urals-Yamal data set.

So then, when Steve McIntyre sees the results of the ‘insta-reconstruction’ he immediately throws it out there… (one camp says this is the ‘a-ha’ moment of voluminous data, the other says ‘not-so fast’).

People generally try something, find something wrong, try something else, fix one problem, test something else, deal with whatever comes up next, examine the sensitivities, compare with other methods etc. etc. All of those steps contribute to the final product, and it is clear that the work on this reconstruction is indeed ongoing.

So the question then becomes… What gave the original researchers the idea that there’s something wrong with the data, rather than thinking this new data instead challenged their original findings? I suppose we’ll see the flags that were raised when the actual paper comes out in October (which will be a fascinating thing itself), but it could boil down to simply the thought that the presently measured temperature record (and its recent HS shape) should either be matched in the cores, or there may then need steps to be taken to refine the sample in an Esper-ian Mann-er.

In my head, isn’t that the only way they could come up with the idea that it’s going to take ‘too much time’ to go through the data? Otherwise, why do the initial ‘insta-reconstruction’ in the first place if you know in advance the large number of samples are going to need to be filtered.

When it finally comes out, it will be interesting to see if these same methodologies described in that paper were applied to the smaller Yamal area/cores. Perhaps they won’t be because of an ascribed anomalously high value of the site itself in supplying unvarnished windows into regional temperature. But, whatever that site selection methodology is, it still would then have to be applied to the other sites in the regional chronology (though it is on record in at least one place that on site-selection alone the Khyadyta River passes muster).

To continue…

For an analogous example, the idea that the first simulation from a climate model would be a finished product is laughable – regardless of the existence of that original output file. It would obviously be part of the work in progress. Although science is always in a work in progress in some sense, it is punctuated by milestones related to the papers that get published. They stand as the marker of whether a stage has been reached where something can be considered finished (though of course, it is always subject to revision).

My thought here (which I’ve been having a lot lately), is when new science revises and/or corrects old science, there should be some sort of acknowledgement of an incorrect or unadvisable procedure from a previous paper that henceforth should be avoided– included in the new stuff, no? It could/should be easy to say that the original MBH paper relied on substandard data and/or methodologies— particularly when corrected in future ‘milestone’ publications come out, regardless if they ‘confirm’ the original. It would be great for climate science communication if this happened, but unfortunately there’s too much poison in the well because only folks like Steve McIntyre figured out ‘publicly’ what all the climate scientists were conversing about often (in the climategate emails). The same thing could be said about the early Yamal papers.

I guess scientists have at least some right to hold onto their own data until their ready to publish it, and Gavin may be right about the ‘insta-reconstruction’ not constituting ‘adverse results’ that went unreported, but that depends on what comes out as the grand dendro methodology we’re all waiting for. But, in all this, it begs the question of why bother publishing the 2008/9 paper on Yamal? Even the researchers themselves would have known that that paper was near irrelevant compared to what the larger regional chronology would say when they ever got it done. For all the talk that NW Siberian dendrochronologies are such minor players in modern Climate Science, there certainly seems to be quite an apetite for even re-hashing that data occasionally while the Big One is tinkered with back at the lab.

In summary, McIntyre is wrong in his premise, wrong in his interpretation, and wrong in his accusations of malfeasance. – gavin]

It’s like there’s a “Connect the dots” game going on, but at the same time, it’s an M.C. Escher drawing or some optical device…
“A ha! I have found a rabbit! No, you idiot… You’re staring right at a duck”.

To Gavin’s credit, in situations like these it’s best to award the benefit of the doubt to the scientists themselves who are describing their own work/motives. However, they do have a high burden of explanation for their methodology.

======================================

Nosmo King Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:33 AM

It must be really humiliating to “The Team” that they, with their grants and tenured positions, are getting eaten alive by Steve and a few others — the real scientists in the discussion — who work for the love of the truth and not much else.

Keep up the amazing work, Steve! You may not think of it in these terms, but you are doing a huge service to millions of people who, without your noble efforts, might fall victim to the tyranny of what it is the warmists are truly trying to achieve.

=======================================

Read Steve McIntyre’s latest here

UPDATE: Richard Baguley of the UK writes to me to advise of this post on Suyts Space, which is quite interesting:

Why Are Dendro Shafts So Straight?

I am perpetually flabbergasted at the outright denial of scientific facts by alarmists.  When I comment on alarmist blogs and the conversation turns to dendrochronology, I point out the facts that bristlecone pines have a very limited temperature growth range.  I’ll include a picture from the Treering Society(pdf).  The reason for this is two fold.  One, to demonstrate the very narrow range of the growth in terms of temps and time (the right side of the graphic) and then 2) to give the people with biology backgrounds something to mull over what this graphic is actually stating, which I’ll get to after my main point. (and how it relates to the left side)

image

We see that we have no lower bounds (or upper for that matter) of the regional temps.  So, the sensitivity to temps are constrained within this narrow margin of time and temps.  Even if all of the other factors going into tree growth were quantified to such an exacting purpose as to be able to pick up on a few 1/10ths of a degree (they are not) the physical limitations of growth means we would see see a flattening in the plotting of temperatures.  No extremes could be plotted because the trees are incapable of divining such a signal.

He goes on to demonstrate how – well worth a read here.

About these ads

138 thoughts on “McIntyre gets some new Yamal data – still no hockey stick

  1. Sticky Post? Suggestion of course only… This yamal thing needs to be hammered to the end

  2. Let’s see how these late night Briffa et.al. sessions may go:

    1) collect data
    2) sort data
    3) select last twenty years’ (or so, say 1991-2011) trees that are one or two sigmas over the mean. Store for later splicing
    4) Select previous twenty years’ or so (say 1970-1990) trees that are one or two sigmas below the mean. Call these “normal”.
    5) Put the two sets together.

    Do not worry that you do not have many, even 10% of all trees included. No one will ever know—refuse all FOIA, calling these data “copyrighted”.

    This is the nature of climate “science” today. It would be a joke if not that so many billions of people are hurt or killed by these charlatans.

  3. There’s real science and there’s climate science.

    If there were only two out of the 120 cores which showed a hockey stick, you can be sure Mann, Briffa etc would only use those two cores and ignore the rest, hence “hide the decline”.

  4. Hah! Nice work. Now let’s watch the warmies playing ‘twister’ as they try to provide a convoluted explanation for why “It doesn’t matter”.

  5. LOL…..we’ve been trying to point you to James blog for days………………Suyts Space,

    REPLY: Timing is everything. Even Dr. Jones might understand this after the courtesy email I sent him last week. – Anthony

  6. It’s hard to guess scale on the chart but my eye always gets drawn to 1998 to look for the El Nino warming. It seems to be missing here.

  7. tallbloke says:
    May 15, 2012 at 8:34 am

    You know the answer to that one. “Multiple independent lines of evidence”.

    MoveOn. Nothing to see here.

  8. Wonderful! Now add the investigations of regional temperatures by John Daly and Lucy Skywalker, and one sees that that graph may actually be a reasonable temperature reconstruction, because it’s not entirely clear if the current warm period is any different from the 30s and 40s.

    Btw the Yamal trees aren’t bristlecones, but Siberian larches, afaik.

  9. Some years ago there was an operating system called MS-BOB. It has been reported that Steve Ballmer said of BOB something of this sort ~~ it has not been successful so lets stop.

    Maybe at some point McIntyre and Gavin can get together, sip a little Canadian Rye, and agree that temperature reconstructions using tree rings has not been successful – and ‘the team’ and everybody else can stop making like trees are thermometers.

    Then Steve should be given an award.

  10. Kudos to Hantemirov, and as always thanks Steve for the invaluable work you are doing in advancing not just climate science but the cause of science in all fields, with your open disclosure of original data, methodology, programs and your willingness to engage in debate.

  11. No extremes could be plotted because the trees are incapable of divining such a signal
    ===========================
    The biggest problem with dendrochronology is that trees have a lower and upper limit of growth….like the three bears, they only grow/rings when it’s just right

    It’s impossible to divine low of high temps………all they can tell you is when it was “just right” or not “just right”

  12. Anthony, thanks for the linkage! I’m hopeful others can pick up on some of the glaring questions which scream at us. The way I see it, concerning dendro, Steve Mac has, through the years called into high question about the methodologies employed by the dendro people. (Mann and the rest of the cast) His tenacity and skill is unrivaled in this regard. But, the biological limits and processes of the actual underpinning science itself haven’t really been examined. At least, not by a bunch of skeptics.

  13. Suyt’s article makes a lot of intuitive sense – a lot more than the idea that trees are hypersensitive proxies for the past thousand years. That isn’t to say that he is correct, things can be intuitive and incorrect, but it certainly does seem to favor his line of thinking.

    I would love a “Realclimate” response on his thoughts.

  14. Brilliant! Every squiggle matches so there is absolutely no question that the green line is exactly the disappointing result that the team did get and then the red was fudged. Gavin even says that it is all a work in progress – you don’t necessarily accept the first result (unless it fits your preconception, of course, GP)..

  15. So the science and the facts are settled.

    The only question remaining concerns the red line. Does it represent incompetence or fraud?

  16. I challenge Gavin Schmidt to show one instance where Steve McIntyre published “accusations of malfeasance”. Go head Gavin, show us just one instance. Just one.

  17. This is interesting. SM originally had no problem with global warming per se. I wonder if he has chnaged his mind, because he never set out to disprove anything. He was the original suspect of hockey sticks as he saw in the mining industry where he worked. My bet is that he will not make a statement but by now he is entering the denier zone!

  18. What has this chronology got to do with temperature? It bears little resemblence to temperature because the tree growth is severely temperature limited.

  19. This is huge, I think its so big that many other skeptical sites are awaiting some major postings or news. I think its bigger than all climategates put together. I think SM has put up clear cut evidence of data manipulation (twice now) and this is why everybody is waiting?

  20. Btw the Yamal trees aren’t bristlecones, but Siberian larches, afaik.

    OT, I know, but… everyone who thought of Monty Python’s “How To Identify Trees From Quite A Long Way Away” when they read this, raise your hand.

    …I thought so.

    The “LARCH”!

  21. Why would they pick trees that “lie”? That seems counterproductive for the Cause.

    So, just because he found ONE Yamal tree that fit his needs, he sticks with trees that “lie.”

    TIme to go fishing in another forest.

  22. Mountain, meet mole hill, or is that mole hill, meet mountain?

    Can anyone but “The Team” create a hockey stick?

  23. Warm weather can have little rain and cooler weather, more rain. These would produce very similar growth (rings). Infestations can also seriously alter growth when it should be high. Trees suck for this kind of knowledge seeking.

  24. here’s a simple observation as to why is the hockey stick shaft straight, denying the LIA and MWP while we’ve got a huge blade at the end. It’s all about the (automated?) selection criteria. If one chooses data because it shows a rise at the end (or in some cases – a decline) then what we have may be a random collection of pure noise that has lost the temperature signal all together. The blade is present because that was the selection criteria for each piece of data. If we have a truly random collection of data – except for the selection criteria of the recent higher temperatures, then the randomness of the stick body will average out to 0 variation, losing the MWP and LIA and giving us what is potentially a meaningless result for the blade. True temperature data would have to show the LIA and MWP as it happened at each location as well as show the more recent correspondence to the local temperature record – for each series of the overall data. Short of that, all one can do is pick a random population of all the series and not apply a selection criteria and hope there’s actually data in the noise.

  25. “People generally try something, find something wrong, try something else, fix one problem, test something else, deal with whatever comes up next, examine the sensitivities, compare with other methods etc. etc. All of those steps contribute to the final product, and it is clear that the work on this reconstruction is indeed ongoing.”

    This is a transparent apology for “work on it til you get the result you want.”

  26. FWIW,
    There are many 400+ yr. old Oaks and 1000+ yr. old cedars in Oklahoma.
    Core samples, anyone?

  27. What is really interesting here is that the ONE FOI granted has shown the whole thing to be scam. This will indeed help Horner etc and their case against UVA? They now have De Facto evidence.

  28. It seems to me that there is an obvious explanation for the Team’s refusal to release the data, and the failure of anyone else to come up with anything remotely resembling a hockey stick whatever substitute data they use.

    The Team simply made the whole thing up from the beginning. There is no data at all, not any. To answer Mike Smith’s question, it’s fraud, plain and simple.

    The Team are fraudsters and serial liars, all of them.

  29. It is getting pretty hard to defend the position that ‘trees reasonably capture the prevailing climate’ from a biological perspective. Gavin and the Americans are not going to admit this, it’s their job not to. Each time the Russians get involved more of the truth comes out. Why is that? Could it be they have no axe to grind, that they are just interested in the science and the truths that emerge from its proper conduct?

    It is interesting to see the good science coming out of the Canadians and Russians and then the shenanigans going on south of the of the 49th parallel. Hard not to think about that book, “Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why America’s Children Feel Good About Themselves but Can’t Read, Write, or Add”. Excerpt at http://www.sntp.net/education/education_stats.htm

    “American students lag far behind their counterparts in both Asia and Europe, especially in math and science.”

    Let’s not forget the Great White Norths. Break dancing on oiled cardboard in the streets as entertainment has been replaced by idle, partial and uninformed talk about climate change and how to sue the oil companies for the coming Consequences of Our Evil Ways. It is Hollywood’s “Original Sin meets Godzilla” as envisioned by Scorsese. Team….it’s time to grow up!

    Gavin’s arguments in defence of the, ‘We never knew about that regional chronology’ meme are not paper thin, they are as evanescent as the moral fibre of the CRU Senate, itself only out-zypher-ed by that lot in Pennsylvania. [In literary circles a zypher is a light wind from the West.]

    Hang in there Steve. I’d really like to pop over for a French Vanilla with you at Timmy’s sometime.

  30. Luther Wu says:
    May 15, 2012 at 10:03 am
    personal to:
    Gavin A. Schmidt-
    Sir,
    The ball is in your court.
    Regards,
    L. Wu

    He’s on the sidelines, trying to convince the judge that his first lob was so devastating, no one could possibly have returned it.

  31. (Reposting. Sorry – messed up tags above)

    If one trusts Steve McIntyre’s reconstructions (I do), and the data they represent, one should conclude that there has been no significant warming in that area since about 1925. This flies in the face of the CRU findings, and points to the fact that all CRU codes and data are suspect. I don’t understand the impulse …to award the benefit of the doubt to the scientists themselves who are describing their own work/motives.

    I’m not a scientist, but Steve’s work suggests to me that the particular climate scientists we are most concerned with on this web site over the years (the Team) are (at best) mistaken about their own findings in Yamal, and at worst, are perpetrating a contemptible lie.

    Pretending that we don’t believe in dendro to begin with, and that analysis of their work is just playing a game of “gotcha” doesn’t seem to be too helpful. Hantemirov’s work means something.

  32. I’m pretty sure their response will be either “You are wrong because, shut up.” or “Look over there, a squirrel.” In scientificky terms, of course!

  33. As a former accountant, I can only say that raw data proves when someone is cooking the books.

  34. Latitude says:
    May 15, 2012 at 11:00 am

    don’t forget…..China couldn’t find a hockey stick either

    Perhaps the Chinese need to look harder for a tree where a huge animal may have died and left extra nutrients for a long time. : -)

  35. When climate-alarmists withheld their “science” from dissenting scientists they, inadvertently or not, mounted an assault on falsificationism as the bedrock of the scientific method. The result: science is put to the service of narrative, or rather enslaved to it.

  36. If you are a tree you have a finite amount of resources which one can, from an evolutionary sense, allocate in two ways:
    1) on yourself by investing in growth of branches, roots and girth; as one is a member of a long lived species and investment in self means more years whereby one can produce seeds.
    2) one can invest in the next generation by producing seeds, which is a loss to self.

    The proportion of investment for a species growing in a marginal ecology is going to be quite complex. Successful trees had ancestors which the ‘best’ investment strategy, for the long term.
    It maybe that a cool, wet spring is ideal for giving seeds a chance to actually become a tree and this signals the trees to invest in seeps and so have low self investment; hence narrow tree rings. Or a cool, wet spring could be the signal that there will be an overabundance of grazing animals in the Fall and that investments in seeps is a waste of time, and so self investment is the best strategy; wide tree rings.
    The lead time for a tree is long; they have to make a decision to go for seed production in the spring, they cannot make it up as they go along, awaiting the summer before they allocate resources.

  37. The way I understand Steve McIntyre’s thrust in this and the other recent Yamal posts is, although there are still significant dendrochronology issues with trying to use trees as thermometers he focuse rather on the problems he finds in the CRU/Briffa reconstructions/regional chronologies are centered around their inconsistent discourse on their studies and their propensity for ignoring data in their pocession that they know is contrary to their findings.

    Look forward to more from Steve.

    John

  38. I can just imagine the contents of e-mails (On G-mail, Hotmail or the like!) that would be sent from our dear friend Dr Mann, to Dr (?) Hantemirov, for having the temerity of willingly sending data to this Canadian Antichrist!

  39. jaschrumpf says:
    OT, I know, but… everyone who thought of Monty Python’s “How To Identify Trees From Quite A Long Way Away” when they read this, raise your hand.

    *hand*

    Thank you for reminding me of that – LOL!

  40. The Yamal dispute is too long and deadlocked for an outsider to understand each side’s arguments. So please correct me if I’m totally missing it. Could Steve’s failure to reproduce be explained by the following?: We know from the instrument record that there has been a warming in the recent decades, so if tree growth is to be used as a temperature proxy, the trees that don’t show a clear correlation with the instrument record have to be thrown out, and this has been poorly documented. What then remains is a subset of trees that do correlate with the recent instrument record. That is, showing warming, which is known as a fact, and the more reliable instrument record, the more trees can safely be regarded as junk and thrown out. And the longer we go back, relatively fewer trees get thrown out and we get more noise than signal, and the more noisy trees, the flatter their average. Which is bound to produce a hockey stick. So, if some trees don’t show an obvious temperature correlation, how can know that trees generally did grow according to temperature in the past, even if they’re showing a correlation now?

  41. Its really basic stuff this , if you leave out data you should have included you need to make a job justify it, you cannot ans should not leave it out becasue it undermines your case our ‘the cause ‘ . That is so basic its what you expect from an science undergraduate let alone a ‘professional ‘
    And that’s before we get to the to how little data they actual used , given the great claims they made with it and if trees are can provide anywhere near the accuracy being claimed for them .

    Out of ‘the Team’ is there one person that actual has good experience and qualifications in the area of biology/tree growth or does being a ‘climate science’ make you an instant universal expert. Well if you ask the Team we known the answer to that , as ego is something that is never in short supply when these boys are around .

    The academic standard is so poor you have to ask do they give out climate science professorships for collecting newspapers coupons?

  42. Not being a climate psientist, I am not qualified to ask this question…

    Does anyone else see the anecdotal warmings of about 1920 & 1940 in the Arctic?

    DaveE.

  43. I could backtrack and figure this out but maybe someone will be able to answer without much trouble – has the CRU 2008 red line successfully been recalculated/recreated, or is the red line simply grafted in from that CRU 2008 article?

    Red is amazingly redundant with green. I would not be surprised to learn that red was green combined with some coefficient.

  44. Finding a single instrumental trend would be hard. Lucy Skywalker’s summary of local instrumental records shows a mixed bag (of rises and declines) at best. But it appears that the area has had an overall decline in temps since the 1950′s.

    Thermometer records: (1) time-wise, thermometers show temperatures rising from 1880 to 1940 or so; (2) temperatures fall a little from 1940 to 1970; (3) temperatures then rise a little but do not quite regain the heights of the 1940’s; (4) despite mean temperatures ranging from -2ºC to -15ºC (total means range 13ºC), and a range of temperature anomalies from each mean of only 9ºC from warmest year to coldest year, when mean temperatures are aligned, clear correlations emerge; (5) there are high variations between adjacent years. We shall investigate all this more closely in a minute.

  45. Steve;
    Please make the necessary plotting adjustments just before printing your graph:
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
    densall=densall+yearlyadj

    For example, your graph entry for 1995 is missing the climate science adjustment of +1.95.
    Once you correctly adjust the data your output should more closely resemble the properly re-processed output.

    The divergence you see looks to be caused by using a valadj of:
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,0.]*0.00 ; fudge factor
    Which is not a proper climate science adjustment, since it does not lowers older values and does not incrementally increase recient values.
    See:
    http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
    For further clarification.

  46. These guys ARE going to court, right? There ARE going to be charges, yes? I hope it all gets big and loud with the whole world watching.

  47. “If you can’t trust your tree, who can you trust?”

    Certainly not thermometers, and those darn satellites must be debunked!
    -end irony–

    New meme may be arising to avoid those darn heatmeters–rising and falling sea levels together as proof of global warming! From the New York Times, no less, so practically out of the mouths of the NGO division of Oglivy:

    “Sea level does not rise uniformly around the world, and so far, Dr. Fletcher and other geologists said in interviews, Hawaii has escaped some of the rise that has occurred elsewhere as earth’s climate warms. ”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/science/hawaiis-beaches-are-in-retreat-and-way-of-life-may-follow.html?_r=2

  48. John A says:
    May 15, 2012 at 9:46 am

    What has this chronology got to do with temperature? It bears little resemblence to temperature because the tree growth is severely temperature limited.
    =================

    ….let’s say a tree makes the widest rings in a temp range of 60-75 degrees..
    ….did that wide ring tell you that temps ranged from 60 – 120 degrees?
    or did temps range from minus 20 – 75 degrees

  49. How interesting it is that the Hantemirov data in green, diverges from the CRU 2008 “Hockey Team” data in red
    ————-
    It find it interesting that they both do show an upward trend.

  50. LazyTeenager says:
    May 15, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    It find it interesting that they both do show an upward trend.

    Want to give that to us in deg/century?

  51. LazyTeenager says:
    May 15, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    Oh purleeese! FFS, can you not see the absurdity in your statement? do you not see the DOWNWARD at the end of the green line (say post 1970′s)? as opposed to the upward trend of the CRU (red) line?
    as has been mentioned – presumably the trees LIE – in which case, of course, they may have told fibs in the past and perhaps we shoudl discount them altogether! LOL

  52. Anybody heard from Briffa himself or is Schmidt just using his proxy ?

    Lazy’ you know that the LIA DID exist.

  53. “It find it interesting that they both do show an upward trend.”

    Indeed that is interesting. If one were to explain it is a warmth record, and that the totally and exclusively caused by increases in man-made global warming gases, such would indicate a climate sensitivity re: doubling of 1 deg. or less. Such would be scientifically fascinating and proof that man can affect global-scale change on the climate. However, acknowledging such a truth would be totally devastating to the climate change gravy train. Warming up about a degree in about a century has little scare quotient.

    Indeed, the raw data temperature record might arguably correlate well with the green line. That could be evidence that yes, indeed, it’s we humans causing that. But such “truth” presents no crisis. No crisis, no money.

  54. Those trees are clearly lying. They need to be put on the Naughty Step until they apologise.

  55. Both mann and schmidt consider briffa and his work Irrellevant. One could wish briffa would stop by here and tell us how he feels about being thrown under the bus.

  56. When McKintyre came up with the idea that his analysis of the Yamal Chronology proves that Briffa and his co-workers did a faulty or fraudulent analysis, and that the Hockey Stick is a fraud, Briffa did come up with a reply, based on an analysis that included data from the new site. Their reconstruction showed little difference from the original.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

    There are climate reconstructions that show a hockey stick without Yamal and without tree rings. McKintyre’s focus on Yamal appears to be an obsession that gives talking points to the AGW “skeptics”, but is scientifically unimportant.

  57. OK guys there is definitely something going on. Climate Depot, Jo Anne Nova, Icecap, Even Steven Goddard, Booker etc., No mention of this story. The really big one. Is there a class action happening?

  58. by now i figured there would be plenty of MSM coverage on Yamal/McIntyre, but there’s nothing whatsoever, tho Kubany’s piece which does not mention the recent data published by McIntyre, is a breath of fresh air:

    14 May: News Virginian: Susan Kubany: In climate science, there’s no ‘there’ there
    Of course we should be good stewards of the earth. But that has little to do with creating a new commodity market for the likes of Goldman Sachs, trading carbon chits around the world: you “pollute” (are all the living things emitting carbon dioxide really evil “polluters”?) less and sell your carbon token to someone in China who, then, gets to “pollute” more. And big banking gets the commission. Is this your vision of the earth’s future?…
    You don’t need a degree in physics to understand what’s happening in “official climate science.” The Climategate correspondence is a hoot of idiotic arrogance. The wonderful Harry_ReadMe file is the showcase of sloppy science.
    The global-warming science and advocacy community is perpetuating an international fraud many times larger and more complex than the Lysenkso fraud which held the Soviet Union in thrall from the 1930s into the 1950s…
    The good news is that the curtain has been whisked back and the fraud exposed. More important, the blogosphere is awash in smart, thoughtful folk who care about the climate and about honest science. Please see for yourself: My favorite sites are WattsUpWithThat.com and JudithCurry.com.
    WattsUp was created by a brilliant former meteorologist and TV weather man, Anthony Watts. Curry’s site is pretty new. She is head of atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech and is almost the only mainstream scientist to debate and engage outside academe…
    can’t finish this column without a mention of Steve McIntyre, a retired Canadian mining engineer. More than a decade ago, McIntyre saw a graph of global warming catastrophe that looked suspicious to him. Being curious, he wrote for information, for data. Denied. He wrote formal FOIA requests for the data. Also denied.
    McIntyre, a soft-spoken, gentle, respectful — but persistent — (and quite brilliant) man, kept writing. For years. McIntyre’s gentle persistence precipitated Climategate and the fraud of contemporary climate science. McIntyre crashed the walls of science fraud. His story is too long for this space, but his name will be written in bright lights 100 years from now, and beyond, in the annals of scientific greats. (His website is ClimateAudit.org.)
    Come on in, folk! Take care of the earth. Take care, and be respectful, of all its creatures (including man). But don’t be stupid.

    http://www2.newsvirginian.com/news/2012/may/14/kubany-climate-science-theres-no-there-there-ar-1912425/

  59. Werner Brozek says:
    May 15, 2012 at 11:24 am
    Latitude says:
    May 15, 2012 at 11:00 am

    don’t forget…..China couldn’t find a hockey stick either
    …………………………………………………………………………..

    Perhaps the Chinese need to look harder for a tree where a huge animal may have died and left extra nutrients for a long time. : -)
    ———————————————————————

    Umm, maybe the Chinese just haven’t found a hockeystick tree.

  60. People generally try something, find something wrong, try something else, fix one problem, test something else, deal with whatever comes up next, examine the sensitivities, compare with other methods etc. etc.
    ======
    There is a basic rule in statistics that you never do this. You choose your method ahead of time, otherwise the temptation is to simply cherry-pick the methodology until you get the answer you are looking for. So, if you are a researcher looking to prove warming, you will reject any statistical technique that doesn’t show warming, and only report those techniques that show warming.

    That is simply cherry-picking your method instead of your data.

  61. @ fred berple
    “That is simply cherry-picking your method instead of your data.”

    Or you’re honest and report the results of all the methods instead of just the one you finished up with pretending it’s the only option you tried. It’s called transparency.

  62. I tried posting to RC. Instant Borehole!

    Here is my post:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-18/#comments

    892
    ferd berple says:
    15 May 2012 at 8:04 PM

    People generally try something, find something wrong, try something else, fix one problem, test something else, deal with whatever comes up next, examine the sensitivities, compare with other methods etc. etc.
    ======
    There is a basic rule in statistics that you never do this. You choose your method ahead of time, otherwise the temptation is to simply cherry-pick the methodology until you get the answer you are looking for. No matter how unbiased the researcher, our subconscious directs us to obtain the results we expect, unless we are very careful in the design of our analysis.

  63. Two home runs in a row! I’m batting 1000 at RC!

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-18/#comments

    893
    ferd berple says:
    15 May 2012 at 9:12 PM

    Scientific American
    An Epidemic of False Claims

    quote:

    “The best way to ensure that test results are verified would be for scientists to register their detailed experimental protocols before starting their research and disclose full results and data when the research is done.”

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=an-epidemic-of-false-claims

  64. Let’s see. Little mammals are not moving toward the poles as they are suppose to according to CO2 imposed Global Warming. Trees are not growing rings the way they are supposed to according to CO2 imposed Global Warming. Ice sheets are not melting the way they are supposed to be according to CO2 imposed Global Warming. The atmosphere is not warming the way it is supposed to according to CO2 imposed Global Warming. Oceans are not warming the way they are supposed to according to CO2 imposed Global Warming. All in papers peer-reviewed.

    Let’s take Occam’s razor to their “CO2 imposed Global Warming” piece by piece…. the most simplest and logical explanation is there has been no large amount of Global Warming, just about 0.2 – 0.4 C globally since 1920 and that was solar imposed during the later twentieth century grand solar maximum. Even the small mammals, the trees, the Arctic ice and even the bigger brother oceans seem to scoff at climatologist’s “global data”. The animals, trees, ice, and oceans see correctly all climate is local. Most of the additional “shown” is one, some purely manufactured by algorithmic methods of adjustments and rounding, and two, some from UHI at cities and airports, and the world is finally waking and learning to think on their own, skeptics galore, and that is how it is supposed to be, to science that is.

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
    ~ Richard P. Feynman

    “I am compelled to fear that science will be used to
    promote the power of dominant groups rather than
    to make men happy.”
    ~ Bertrand Russell, Icarus, or the Future of Science, 1925

    I agree with both.

  65. Nosmo King Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:33 AM

    Keep up the amazing work, Steve! You may not think of it in these terms, but you are doing a huge service to millions of people who, without your noble efforts, might fall victim to the tyranny of what it is the warmists are truly trying to achieve.
    ________________________

    Fall victim to the tyranny of what the warmists are trying to achieve? What kind of paranoia is this?

    Plus, there are other reconstructions using different methods that corroborate the work discussed here.

  66. It is never over – not by a mile. This form of proxy may never address an absolute certainty or “proof” of anything.

    False allegations in keeping data out because it does not fit warming temperatures (which is not a proxy BTW) are not only misleading but only aids in inflaming both sides of this debate. I stand on that opinion and by all counts we must always be ethical and truthful.

    At the end of the day the only way to finalise this debate (without these false allegations) is to compare McIntyre’s methodology with Briffa’s. This means who has greater more accurate methodology. If we find flaws in that methodology the one with calculated flaws should own up and admit their mistakes. Yes – I do mean ALL tree use or sound reasoning behind any exclusion.

    Now I am implying that if we are responsible internet bloggers we should publish clearly those results – whether we like them or not. Global warming could become a serious issue into our future.

    Now this means both must release their methodologies – not just their conclusions. Graphs – that imply one thing or another are not evidence and should not be taken on face value. That is not science. Science must always remain skeptical of anyones finding. This is more so when it comes to proxies.

    The following paper explores the pitfalls in using these tree proxies.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/Briffa_HB_2008.pdf

    The email describing that “someone” with a bout of amnesia concerning the release of tree ring data:

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1548.txt&search=yamal

  67. Which other reconstructions are they otter17?

    Moberg 2005

    Ljungqvist 2010

    Liu 2011

    Rising recent temperatures common to all but NO hockey sticks. You do understand this is all about the hockey stick?

  68. Luther Wu says:
    May 15, 2012 at 10:03 am
    personal to:
    Gavin A. Schmidt-
    Sir,
    The ball is in your court.
    Regards,
    L. Wu
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Wrong sport Luther. It is a puck. And, it is in his net.

  69. Do you see some complications here? If the temperature/tree calibration rises steeply, that means that there is a high sensitivity to be used in calibrations to reconstruct temperatures by proxy over the last 1,000 years or more. So, the balancing act is to make the modern slope just right (by methods like cutting it off a few years early), so that on the shaft the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age do not become large enough to notice.
    The next little complication is that when new growth in trees is sampled in future years, following the almost flat temperature of the last 15 years, the temperature parts of the calibration will turn out to be rather different to those that are used up to now. Some published calibrations stop when the temperature was still rising in the 1990-2000 period. Plug in new ring measurement and new temperatures since then and there is a problem, because you can’t derive a useful calibration relationship when the temp is not changing. This means that you have to find a temperature record local to the new trees and, if needed, give it a hefty, useful slope by some adjustment based on past recording errors or whatever appeals to your scientific creativity.
    For reasons like these, and more, I have now rejected dendrothermomentry unless and until -
    (a) there is a new breakthrough in understanding/methodology; and/or
    (b) the past compendium is rationalised and made absolutely clear to all concerned; that is, no obfuscation, no hiding of data, no excuses.
    (c) there is honest examination of past publications by their authors and/or associates, then retraction or correction of those which are methodologically deficient.

    Lest I be misunderstood, I strogly wish that research would produce a valid proxy method (or several), based on whatever is available and plausible all round. Whatever its basis might be, it would reduce the seemingly endless argument about “My method is bigger than yours.”

  70. “Ally E. says:
    May 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    These guys ARE going to court, right? There ARE going to be charges, yes? I hope it all gets big and loud with the whole world watching.”

    Yes Ally E, one hopes ‘they’ are called to account. Such restitution was once called Nuremberg but it came tragically after a very large and unpleasant ‘stand up and be counted’ kind of fight.

    Nevertheless, it’s hard to see a benign and quiet slide away from UN policy supported by IPCC modeled CAGW. Make no mistake. This is the greatest, unfettered grab for global power and control by the Ministry of We Know Best. Whether UN or your own local elected national body, the ruling class find it utterly irresistible, namely: the ability to agreeably tax you for your exhalation in the name of saving the planet. This combo is pure political heroin. Such addicts will not permit themselves to be forced against the wall by reason and science, so it may take substantially more than these to restore sense and sensibility all about. One fervently hopes though that the price paid for such restoration is not calamitous.

  71. just some guy~

    Is it getting warmer? Yes

    Is it going to be anywhere NEAR as warm as the Holocene Climate Optimum, by the end of this century? NO.

    It is going to be a disaster for life, both on land and in the seas? NO.

    Is it going to cause more and more catastrophic weather? NO.

    Is it going to get colder again? YES.

    Does this help?

  72. davidmhoffer says:
    May 15, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Luther Wu says:
    May 15, 2012 at 10:03 am
    personal to:
    Gavin A. Schmidt-
    Sir,
    The ball is in your court.
    Regards,
    L. Wu
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “Wrong sport Luther. It is a puck. And, it is in his net.”

    I would say that the hockey stick is well and truly pucked now.

  73. Eric Adler says:
    May 15, 2012 at 5:03 pm
    There are climate reconstructions that show a hockey stick without Yamal and without tree rings.

    See DavidA at May 15, 2012 at 9:42 pm for the rebuttal, and this thread *is* a discussion on the importance of the Lone Larch.

    McKintyre’s focus on Yamal appears to be an obsession that gives talking points to the AGW “skeptics”, but is scientifically unimportant.

    It may be scientifically unimportant, but it is a crucial tenet in the dogma of AGW. It was also crucial to Al Gore receiving the Nobel for his PowerPoint™ slide show and becoming a billionaire, it was crucial to Michael Mann’s canonization in the CAGW pantheon, and it is a useful tool to bring you guys out from behind the lurker-drapes before your hair catches fire…

  74. Geoff Sherrington says:
    May 15, 2012 at 10:17 pm
    The next little complication is that when new growth in trees is sampled in future years, following the almost flat temperature of the last 15 years, the temperature parts of the calibration will turn out to be rather different to those that are used up to now. Some published calibrations stop when the temperature was still rising in the 1990-2000 period. Plug in new ring measurement and new temperatures since then and there is a problem, because you can’t derive a useful calibration relationship when the temp is not changing.

    Therein lies the problem with dendrothermometry — growth rings are completely dependent on the growing conditions during the season, and temperature is a relatively minor factor. A warm dry season will result in pretty much the same width ring as a cool dry season, a cool wet season with an increase in available nutrients will result in a wider growth ring than a warm wet season with few available nutrients. Trees located on a slope will have narrower rings than trees located at the base of that same slope, and trees growing in thin soil overlying bedrock will have narrower rings than those of trees growing on a stream bank 50 feet away.

    You can intuit whether growing conditions in any particular year were favorable or unfavorable by analyzing tree rings, but coaxing each separate condition — temperature, nutrients, available light, water — out of them is pretty much an exercise in futility.

  75. Steinar: Over at climateaudit, commenter DocMartyn linked to this highly interesting Norwegian research report from Yamal: http://met.no/Forskning/Publikasjoner/filestore/Ealat_Yamal_climaterep_dvs-1.pdf

    Look at Figure 7: The station Mare-Sale is on the Yamal peninsula proper, and as you can see, it was possibly warmer during the early 20th century warm period than during the current warm period. Figure 5, showing sea ice in the Kara sea, is also an eye-opener!

    There is no divergence problem! The divergence only appears to exist because of the strong confirmation bias of some climate scientists.

  76. It would appear the climate science cornerstone has a crack in it. The foundation is crumbling.

  77. Regarding “Complications”: The real challenge to credibility (for publishers, but especially for non-expert readers like myself) comes from attitudes like those expressed by Jan Esper (posted by Steve McIntyre on CA:

    Steve:
    Esper et al 2003 (see here)

    However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.

    Kenneth Fritsch’s comment (Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:52 PM) seems like a partial answer to this:

    There is much that the reviewer will not know about the origins and selection of data and even deeper potential mysteries going into a paper submitted for publication. That should not be a point of discussion here given that the practice in publishing papers about proxies/reconstructions should include, by the authors own free will and interest in science, and in this case, good statistics, an impeccable list of physically based and reasoned criteria used for the selection of proxies and when those rules where applied and what exclusions were made on a posterior basis and why. If an author was not forthcoming in this process they well could be embarrassed or even suffer a worse fate by future revelations.

    In the meantime the judgments on the validity of the temperature proxy and reconstruction publications to date has to be based on what was revealed by the authors in efforts to avoid a real or perceived selection bias. Whether the authors (and the journals and reviewers) were aware or unaware of the consequences of a poorly documented and/or performed selection process really matters little in these judgments.

    Further it should be noted that even given a proper documentation of the selection process a sensitivty test is always in order. Best it be by author but even the citizen-scientist doing it on a blog is a valuable addition to the discussion.

    It would seem to me that publishers and peers would want to see every issue raised by Geoff above in “complications” addressed in painful detail. Every decision about tree choice, soil conditions, sample harvesting, methodologies of ring analysis, logging of data, standardizations, omission of cores, etc. is recorded in the supplemental information accompanying the article, and transparently available upon request. It is clear that every one of these decisions – and many more – should be challenged and verified (audited) to give better results in the future.

  78. Still mystified as to why some of the major skeptic sites have not posted this story. So far WUWT and tallbloke and Bishop at bit. What is going on? Anyone know anything about this or is it because its an ol story (but it actually isn’t)?

  79. otter17 says:
    May 15, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Nosmo King Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:33 AM

    Keep up the amazing work, Steve! You may not think of it in these terms, but you are doing a huge service to millions of people who, without your noble efforts, might fall victim to the tyranny of what it is the warmists are truly trying to achieve.
    ________________________

    Fall victim to the tyranny of what the warmists are trying to achieve? What kind of paranoia is this?

    Plus, there are other reconstructions using different methods that corroborate the work discussed here.
    =============================================
    Sure there are other reconstructions. How many used proxies which were flipped like Tiljander? As far as falling victim to the tyranny…., Otter, make no mistake, these people are global totalitarians. They are misanthropists in the most vile form. I don’t state this because of what I believe they are trying to accomplish. These are their own words. I did a short series called “How I Know”….. I know these people are Marxists, they are global totalitarians, their fervor stems from a neo-theology, they advocate the most vile forms of misanthropy and wish to impoverish humanity. And, they are trying to accomplish this by misleading the public. I know all of this because they stated all of this. It isn’t paranoia, these are their stated goals and how they have set to acccomplish them.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/how-i-know-enviro-alarmists-are-global-totalitarians/

  80. Reading the RC Borehole I came across this:
    890
    Mike Lewis says:
    15 May 2012 at 2:00 PM

    “science”. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved 2011-10-16. “3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena”

    “RealScience”. a: Antonym of science. b: A laughable website where opposing viewpoints are relegated to the “bore hole” (how cute) while sycophants are allowed to slander, demean, and otherwise make fools of themselves.

  81. On behalf of everyone who is red/green colour blind- could you avoid red/green comparisons on the graphs?The data is complete gobbledegook if you are like me. Try something in blue, and keep up the good work!

  82. Ken McMurtrie says:
    May 16, 2012 at 2:24 am

    Is the planet warming or not? Still awaiting some settled science!

    That depends on the time scale you are asking about and the data set you wish to use. Here is the latest as I see it.

    With the UAH anomaly for April at 0.295, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.09 -0.112 + 0.108 + 0.295)/4 = 0.05025. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year.

    With the RSS anomaly for April at 0.333, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.058 -0.12 + 0.074 + 0.333)/4 = 0.05725. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 21st. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year.

    With the GISS anomaly for April at 0.56, the average for the first third of the year is (0.34 + 0.39 + 0.46 + 0.56)/4 = 0.4375. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year.

    With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for March at 0.305, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.239. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 18th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year.

    With the sea surface anomaly for March at 0.242, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.225. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.273.

    So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average is colder than their 2011 average value.

    On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00055083 per year so this one really cannot be considered to be flat.)

    1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (includes April)
    2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3months
    3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (includes April)
    4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 7 months (includes April)
    5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months
    6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months
    7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 5 months (includes April using GISS. See below.)

    See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend

    For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0055 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 5 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with GISS gives the same conclusion, but includes April in addition.) See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/trend

  83. Hantemirov himself has made a comment on Climate Audit in typical ‘robust’ climate “scientist”style: I thought it was a troll but apparentlythe comment is genuine.

    Rashit Hantemirov

    Posted May 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didn’t you ask me for all the details? You even aren’t ashamed of using information from stolen letters.
    Do carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the
    necessary concomitants of your job?
    With disrespect…

  84. Yes. The Y axis values are divergent.
    From what? What is actually being measured on that axis?

  85. I just tried to post the comment below on Real Climate and it got blocked by the hall monitors. Geez! :)

    Another commenter said: “Just remember, though. There are valid reasons, perhaps only understood by scientists who are well versed in dendrochronology, for including or excluding particular regional chronologies”

    To which I replied (and was blocked): “As a layman, I would have agreed with you 10 years ago. Unfortunately, due to the “climage gate” emails, it is now impossible to bestow that amount of trust in climate scientists. Once they started behaving like activists and politicians, they lost that right.”

  86. @ferd berple – I succumbed to bad judgement and attempted to rebut comment 149 “over there” but was promptly dumped into the hole; which prompted the response you cited above. I was so furious I even screwed up the website name. No more RC for me though; I’ll stick to sites that allow/encourage real debate.

  87. I would really love to have the ammunition of these observations being formally presented in a journal. Perhaps a partnership with an open minded dendro guy and Steve working together?

    Publish the results and make the other side defend theirs.

  88. Phil C asked
    What is being measured on the Y axis?

    The Y axis references dimensionless chronology units centered on 1.0 as a baseline.
    And these chronology units are age-adjusted ring widths, because the theory of dendrochronology supposes that tree ring width/density is representative of temperature – hence the apparent graphing of supposed rise and fall of “temperature” demonstrated in the tree chronology over the roughly 2000 years in that graph.

  89. mikegeo says:
    May 16, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    You are being too kind!
    The Y axis measures ‘something’ – where ‘something’ is the sum of one or all growth variables in any given year that result in a measurable tree ring thickness change from the previous year. The reference line to the Y axis is a ‘calibrated’ (read estimated/assumed) value for temperature caused ‘growth’ change…..
    or in simple terms, Y axis refers to some semi-arbitrary and semi-empirically assessed change in tree ring size relative to something that may or not be ‘temperature’ dependent……
    or even simpler – a general guesstimate of how a tree may have changed due to temperature in the past….
    or – in AGW speak – an excellent temperature proxy, accurate to 1/10th of a degree, that can be cross correlated to almost any fecking thing they want! PMSL

  90. The following posts sparked my reply:

    ONE:

    sycodon says:
    May 16, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    I would really love to have the ammunition of these observations being formally presented in a journal. Perhaps a partnership with an open minded dendro guy and Steve working together?

    Publish the results and make the other side defend theirs.

    TWO:

    Rashit Hantemirov says on Climateaudit:

    Posted May 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didn’t you ask me for all the details? You even aren’t ashamed of using information from stolen letters.
    Do carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the
    necessary concomitants of your job?

    With disrespect…
    _______________
    My reply:

    When you say publish the results- well it cannot just be just found in graph commentary. Already concerned parties have expressed concerns about McIntyre’s assertions about the proxies. Already there is growing body of disinformation being wrapped around this latest “back to the past”.

    Look at above – is this comment worth anything from Hantemirov?

    Are all scientists warning the world that the climate we have known for the last two thousand years may change regionally too rapidly for many populations to cope? Is it more important to keep “the hate” directed toward any scientist who dares to tell you an opposing finding?

    It is not comfortable. It is not easy. It must be really tough on the older generation thinking when they pass away their legacy will be a very different world: left in a state of collapse for future generations.

    Truly this is developing into yet another flash in the pan. A complex science like this is now supposed to prove to those with confirmation bias that it has been a fraud all along.

    By all means rest your weary head. Stake your claim on the findings of well eh….tree rings and supposed neat and tidy graphs of hockey sticks that do not exist. Never again we will any catastrophes into the future hurt us because you like the idea graphs do not contain hockey sticks.

    Heed the history. Folks. It may not be the same things we may face over the next century. But learn from your past just how sensitive the earth is to climate change over the last two thousand years. It’s all there: dying resources, industrialisation, virus outbreaks, collapse of great nations and dramatic dislocation of populations that ensured.

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_roman.html

    We live in a very narrow band of good healthy global climate. But lately there is not a day goes by that niggling worrying signs exist everywhere you look. We have upset the balance. We cannot simply go into the future ignoring what those tree rings of the past are really trying to tell us all.

    To quote again……………

    “Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work.”……………. “You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didn’t you ask me for all the details?”

    And that my friends is what this is REALLY all about.

    Why did you not ask for ALL the details? Why?

    Lets get beyond confirmation bias.

  91. If anyone is a late comer to this topic and you just don’t really “get it all” in this topic, try reading Lucia’s post on cherry picking… Tricking Yourself into Cherry Picking on the Blackboard and the article on Tallbloke’s TalkShop, here… Hey! Whassup Ya-mal-feasant pseudo-scientists?, thanks to Roger and especially Lucy Skywalker in a great in-depth comparison. After reading those two I finally understand this entire mess Steve McIntyre has meticulously deciphered in dendroclimatology without too much pain! ;-)

    Lucia describes in code Steve’s first discover long ago how the Hockey Stick was created and within the methodology how a hockey stick will pop out using simple random noise.

    Lucy shows how, tree sample by tree sample, how this mess all narrowed down to one single tree, YAD061, it being the one sample that should have been tossed out if any were to toss out at all. Any intelligent scientist can see that. Really, NONE should have been excluded. That is cherry-picking (see Lucia’s article).

    Thanks all, this post and those two put it all together, for me anyway.

  92. rossbrisbane says:

    “… lately there is not a day goes by that niggling worrying signs exist everywhere you look. We have upset the balance. We cannot simply go into the future ignoring what those tree rings of the past are really trying to tell us all.”

    That is a perfect example of the placebo effect. Ross believes it, so everything he sees confirms his belief. That is ‘confirmation bias’.

    Ross says: “It’s all there: dying resources, industrialisation, virus outbreaks, collapse of great nations and dramatic dislocation of populations…” &etc.

    Actually, everything is improving. In 1918 there was a terrible virus outbreak. We have seen nothing like it since.

    And industrialization has made life immeasurably better for people, while enormously raising the average standard of living. How is that a bad thing?

    And ‘collapse of great nations’? Where? History is littered with the remains of great nations. But like everything else, things are getting better now, not worse.

    And ‘dramatic dislocations of populations’? Sure, folks are crossing borders for economic reasons. But CO2 has nothing to do with it.

    Finally: ‘dying resources’. What does that mean?? There are more oil reserves now than ever before. When the free market is allowed to operate, all needs are provided for. There are plenty of resources today, more than ever before.

    Only Malthusian Luddites believe the things that rossbrisbane is worrying himself sick over. There are no problems that cannot be easily handled. Life is an endless series of problems, but we are made to be able to handle them.

    It’s all about attitude; if you think you can handle the problems, then you can. But if you believe you can’t handle the problems, then you can’t. You’re either a ‘Can-Do’ guy, or you’re a ‘we can’t do it’ person. For guys like rossbrisbane, the glass is always half empty. Folks like that should step aside, and let the Can-Do people handle the job.

  93. So its the same temperature now as it was in the 1940′s? What does this say about GISS’s graphs? Too bad we didn’t have satelittes back then.

  94. Rossbrisbane, you suffer from just about the worst bout of projectionitis I’ve encountered. It seems to be a depressive disorder, caused by a growing awareness the warmista bubble is collapsing. Look around you, big NGOs moving out of “climate change,” climate scientists talking less and less about thermometers.

    Really, the best thing you can do on a temporary basis is dump the dendrochronologists. They were late comers to the game. Dump the treemometers, there so much else at the IPCC! Unless you are a dendro, then I’d advise you to grab every grant you can as fast as possible.

  95. The CAGW crowd says that CO2 is the big player here. Mann’s part has been in mannipulating tree rings (or should I say The One Ring) and sediment corings to say that it’s hotter now than in the past 1000 or so years. Implying the reason is man’s CO2 output.
    Hansen’s part has been in predicting that future increases in man’s CO2 output will result in Venus on Earth.
    A question: Has anybody tried to match past CO2 levels with Mann’s Weather Tree Channeling? For example, carbon dating has been around for awhile now. Have any of these trees been carbon dated? Do the carbon dating data bases have or give some indication of past CO2 levels? If so, do past CO2 levels back up or refute Mann’s leveling of the Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age?

  96. A follow up to my question about carbon dating: Can the individual rings be carbon “dated”? Not so much to get the “date” but an idea of the CO2 levels? It might be expensive but it would certainly be cheaper than betting a few trillion dollars and surrendering personal liberties based on the “CO2 is going to kill us all” hypothesis.

  97. Must be terribly depressing being a warmist. Seeing the world through (snip) coloured glasses. You’d think they would be happy the “end” has been called off. Perhaps there is some benefit to thinking the world is spiralling down.

  98. So I got to thinking about contributions to science and Steve’s blog and where it fits in the grand design, and how it compares to other offerings in the blogosphere, and it came to me that Steve has a site that is a source of information and not a regurgitation of information as so many are. I’ve seen evidence in posts that say “reblogged here at blahblahblah.com” which is just leeching. And there is more than that which separates Steve’s blog from blahblahbla.com – the tone at CA approaches neutral. Missing is the huzzah of fan boys, the enraptured chorus of “me too!” adulation, and jolly kindred showing of thumbs down. Science happens there. Cold, hard, science. Thumping of chests happens elsewhere because it is actively discouraged at CA and tabulated elsewhere. Red meat is served elsewhere – go there and you will find it and thump your chest in response and be tabulated. And while his blog is better for it – or lack of it, it will never be the most popular climate blog, because he discourages spiking the ball, and people that are drooling like Pavlov’s dog want to see the spike and need that will go elsewhere and when the time comes, vote for that elsewhere. That it does not happen at http://climateaudit.org is sooo refreshing.

    I’m just rambling – somebody has to.

  99. Calling off global warming by placing ones dependence on the finding of ONE inexperienced in dendrochronology is also placing far too much trust in dendrochronology.

    The findings of many remain. The counter findings are indeed very weak.

    We shall all remain in this state of fear.

    Those afraid of the long projections like Global Warming are the ones remaining in a “pool of fear”. Consider this. You pundits who think the globe is cooling. We’ll burn more coal and oil and run out even faster. It’s a no win for you because you do not want to develop the alternative methods of energy production.

    My biggest fear for me is this: If an anti-science global based citizen based movement gets an unjust upper hand it be mob mentality with a witch hunt to kill off the “fear mongers” – your words. The world will be beset by unstable governments with anarchists taking over.

    We live knowing something greater then ourselves always exists – that’s aspirational. We either live in an attempt to embrace it, get to know it and prepare or do nothing and deny it. Preparation is wise – doing nothing is ignorance.

    …..the third part of the earth was burnt up, and the third part of the trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up…..a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; and there died the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, even they that had life; and the third part of the ships was destroyed. Revelations

  100. Gunga Din says:
    May 16, 2012 at 7:55 pm
    The CAGW crowd says that CO2 is the big player here. Mann’s part has been in mannipulating tree rings (or should I say The One Ring) and sediment corings to say that it’s hotter now than in the past 1000 or so years. Implying the reason is man’s CO2 output.

    They can’t manipulate the archeological evidence that the MWP *was* warmer, so they divert the debate back to CO2. They can’t manipulate the written records from the times, so they imply the people who wrote those records were too stupid to make accurate observations.

    GD followup of May 16, 2012 at 8:09 pmCan the individual rings be carbon “dated”? Not so much to get the “date” but an idea of the CO2 levels? It might be expensive but it would certainly be cheaper than betting a few trillion dollars and surrendering personal liberties based on the “CO2 is going to kill us all” hypothesis.

    That’s an interesting idea, but it’s playing their game — they’ve proven that they can and will manipulate, skew, or invert data to further their cause. The only card they have is to continue spouting the fiction that their theory is proven fact — as loudly and publicly as possible.

  101. Smokey says:
    May 16, 2012 at 6:02 pm
    Only Malthusian Luddites believe the things that rossbrisbane is worrying himself sick over.

    He’s a Concern Troll. With more practice at faking sincerity, he could actually become very good at it…

  102. rossbrisbane says:
    May 16, 2012 at 5:15 pm
    We cannot simply go into the future ignoring what those tree rings of the past are really trying to tell us all.

    Nice try at anthropomorphizing wood. The only thing those tree rings are telling “us all” is whether growing conditions — water, sunlight, nutrient availability, temperature, the impact of insects and disease, all taken together — were more favorable or less so.

  103. “…by placing ones dependence on the finding of ONE inexperienced in dendrochronology….”

    Ross, I’m not dependent on anyone to formulate my own opinions. Thanks.

  104. Jimmy Haige at May 16, 2012 at 10:05 am (above)

    Rashit Hantemirov’s outraged note to Steve McIntrye at Climate
    Audit includes a “Why didn’t you ask me for the details ?” thought.

    Steve had something drafted to email to Rashid, but he forgot to “send” it.
    Rashid responded to Steve’s posting and analysis (sans code) before Steve
    could correct the ommissions. Rashid didn’t get back directly with McIntyre
    to voice his concerns before posting a decidedly unhappy comment at
    Climate Audit.

    “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” Twice.

    Meanwhile, behind the curtain, Rashid Hantemirov is getting an earfull
    of caustic comments from his “fellow” climate scientists for passing along
    the updated/expanded Yamal data to the person whom they characterize
    as the devious and evil Steve McIntyre.

    Briffa, Jones, Mann, et al., can slip off the hook of public opinion using
    Hantemirov’s comment… which sounds a lot like many of the RealClimate
    contributions to anything Steve, Anthony, and others post that
    comes near to accusing the Team of manipulation of data or tends to confirm
    old information found in the ClimateGate emails.

    Sometimes there are landmines to step on even when you’re traveling
    through friendly fields.

  105. rossbrisbane says

    “Heed the history. Folks. It may not be the same things we may face over the next century. But learn from your past just how sensitive the earth is to climate change over the last two thousand years. It’s all there: dying resources, industrialisation, virus outbreaks, collapse of great nations and dramatic dislocation of populations that ensured.

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_roman.html

    We live in a very narrow band of good healthy global climate. But lately there is not a day goes by that niggling worrying signs exist everywhere you look.”

    ——- ———–

    Ross, I’ve not seen you around here much before so it may well be that you will sow your doom and disaster seeds and never appear again. I’ll take it however that your comments and concerns are made in good faith and answer accordingly.

    I am a historical climatologist so am always trying to put the modern climate into its historic context. You make much of tree rings and this thread is primarily about Dr Manns tree rings. Consequently my study here is probably of greatest relevance. It compares the temperature reconstructions of Dr Mann (using primarily tree rings) with those of Hubert Lamb first director of CRu (who used broader measures)

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

    In addition, this article contains my own reconstruction using historic references and scientific studies.. The raw data supporting that is contained within the article, but I have referenced it here for your convenience

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/long-slow-thaw-supplementary-information.pdf

    It follows the observations made by our contemporaries in the period 1538 to the beginning of the English instrumental temperature record in 1659. They were gleaned from many thousands of references contained within dozens of books (some several centuries old) Please take half an hour to read the artice and the supplementary information. There are no signs whatsoever that what we are seeing today our ancestors haven’t seen in the past. Our climate is hugely more variable than is shown in Dr Mans Hockey stick graph and admitted to by the Met office from whose archives -ironically-I gleaned much of the information.

    I’m off to the Exeter Cathedral library today to look at their 13th century and 14th century records to see if there is any climate information contained in them. If you respond to this and indicate that you are genuinely open minded to revising your mistaken belief that we are going to hell in a hand cart I’ll tell you how I got on. Cordially yours

    Tonyb

  106. Thanks Tony, I have begun to read your research with great interest.

    Kind Regards,

    R.B.

  107. Steve McIntyre deserves a nobel prize and a knighthood and ought to be elected President of all of the world’s scientific Academies and Societies. An an endless free beer pass valid at any establishment anywhere in the world. And a new car of his choosing. And a back stage pass at all future Miss World competitions.

  108. Lol, @ this Ross character. Ross, we’re not running out of anything.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/malthus-is-getting-destroyed-before-our-very-eyes/

    We’ve recently discovered more oil and gas than we’ll ever use. Once the Malthusian Luddites move out of the way, different technologies will be discovered and we’ll have a nice smooth transition of different energy sources. It just isn’t going to be wind or solar in the manner the alarmists are conceiving.

    How do I know we’re not running out of anything? We can’t create nor destroy matter or energy. Now, tell me about who is and who isn’t “anti-science”.

  109. rossinbrisbane
    Thanks for your comment which I have just seen upon my return from Exeter Cathedral. If you post here again I wil let you know how I got on. All the best
    Tony

  110. Robert S. Brown

    Thanks for your helpful comments here and at Climate Audit on making sense of the Rashit Hantemirov matter. One must suspect that considerable pressures were being exerted on him behind the scenes. Even allowing for language and cultural distances, it seemed pretty clear that he has been “told” all sorts of things about the nefarious (sic) Steve McIntyre. When I think of the squalid character assassinations which we common in the Climategate emails as well as in the public utterances of many “climate scientists” I can easily imagine the kinds of emails and calls Hantemirov has received since the recent Yamal posts went up. Hantemirov may well have had some institutional and bureaucratic pressures to repudiate Climate Audit. One doesn’t see “climate scientists” trying to police their own in this way, although heaven knows there have been many occasions which actually merit this kind of treatment whereas it seems to be quite over-the-top in relation to any perceived failing of SM’s postings.

Comments are closed.