UPDATE: The Climate Audit server is getting hit with heavy traffic and is slow. If anyone has referenced graphs in blog posts or news articles lease see the mirrored URL list for the graphs at the end of this article and please consider replacement in your posting. I’ve also got a mirrored article of the Climate Audit post from Steve McIntyre. -Anthony
UPDATE2: Related articles
Update: A zoomed look at the broken hockey stick
A look at treemometers and tree ring growth
===
We’ve always suspected that Mann’s tree ring proxies aren’t all they are cracked up to be. The graph below is stunning in it’s message and I’m pleased to present it to WUWT readers. I’m sure the Team is already working up ways to say “it doesn’t matter”.
The QOTW this week centers around this graph:
The quote of the week is:
I hardly know where to begin in terms of commentary on this difference.
– Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit in Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem
The graph above shows what happens to the “Hockey Stick” after additional tree ring data, recently released (after a long and protracted fight over data access) is added to the analysis of Hadley’s archived tree ring data in Yamal, Russia.
All of the sudden, it isn’t the “hottest period in 2000 years” anymore.
Steve writes:
The next graphic compares the RCS chronologies from the two slightly different data sets: red – the RCS chronology calculated from the CRU archive (with the 12 picked cores); black – the RCS chronology calculated using the Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive. The difference is breathtaking.
I’ll say. Ding Dong the stick is dead.
This comparison to CRU archive data illustrates the most extreme example of scientific cherry-picking ever seen. As Steve writes in comments at CA:
Also keep in mind the implausibly small size of the current portion of the Yamal archive. It would be one thing if they had only sampled 10 trees and this is what they got. But they selected 10 trees out of a larger population. Because the selection yields such different results from a nearby population sample, there is a compelling prima facie argument that they’ve made biased picks. This is rebuttable. I would welcome hearing the argument on the other side. I’ve notified one dendro of the issue and requested him to assist in the interpretation of the new data (but am not very hopeful that he will speak up.)
See the complete report on this new development in the sordid story of tree ring proxies used for climate interpretation at Climate Audit. And while you are there, please give Steve a hit on the tip jar. With this revelation, he’s earned it.
The next time somebody tells you that tree rings prove we are living in the “hottest period in 2000 years” show them this graph and point them to this Climate Audit article.
Here’s a “cliff’s notes” summary written by Steve’s partner in publication, Ross McKitrick:
Here’s a re-cap of this saga that should make clear the stunning importance of what Steve has found. One point of terminology: a tree ring record from a site is called a chronology, and is made up of tree ring records from individual trees at that site. Multiple tree ring series are combined using standard statistical algorithms that involve detrending and averaging (these methods are not at issue in this thread). A good chronology–good enough for research that is–should have at least 10 trees in it, and typically has much more.
.
1. In a 1995 Nature paper by Briffa, Schweingruber et al., they reported that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium – right in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. But the reconstruction depended on 3 short tree ring cores from the Polar Urals whose dating was very problematic. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=877.
2. In the 1990s, Schweingruber obtained new Polar Urals data with more securely-dated cores for the MWP. Neither Briffa nor Schweingruber published a new Polar Urals chronology using this data. An updated chronology with this data would have yielded a very different picture, namely a warm medieval era and no anomalous 20th century. Rather than using the updated Polar Urals series, Briffa calculated a new chronology from Yamal – one which had an enormous hockey stick shape. After its publication, in virtually every study, Hockey Team members dropped Polar Urals altogether and substituted Briffa’s Yamal series in its place.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=528. PS: The exception to this pattern was Esper et al (Science) 2002, which used the combined Polar Urals data. But Esper refused to provide his data. Steve got it in 2006 after extensive quasi-litigation with Science (over 30 email requests and demands).
3. Subsequently, countless studies appeared from the Team that not only used the Yamal data in place of the Polar Urals, but where Yamal had a critical impact on the relative ranking of the 20th century versus the medieval era.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3099
4. Meanwhile Briffa repeatedly refused to release the Yamal measurement data used inhis calculation despite multiple uses of this series at journals that claimed to require data archiving. E.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=542
5. Then one day Briffa et al. published a paper in 2008 using the Yamal series, again without archiving it. However they published in a Phil Tran Royal Soc journal which has strict data sharing rules. Steve got on the case. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3266
6. A short time ago, with the help of the journal editors, the data was pried loose and appeared at the CRU web site. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142
7. It turns out that the late 20th century in the Yamal series has only 10 tree ring chronologies after 1990 (5 after 1995), making it too thin a sample to use (according to conventional rules). But the real problem wasn’t that there were only 5-10 late 20th century cores- there must have been a lot more. They were only using a subset of 10 cores as of 1990, but there was no reason to use a small subset. (Had these been randomly selected, this would be a thin sample, but perhaps passable. But it appears that they weren’t randomly selected.)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142
8. Faced with a sample in the Taymir chronology that likely had 3-4 times as many series as the Yamal chronology, Briffa added in data from other researchers’ samples taken at the Avam site, some 400 km away. He also used data from the Schweingruber sampling program circa 1990, also taken about 400 km from Taymir. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of pooling samples from such disparate locations, this establishes a precedent where Briffa added a Schweingruber site to provide additional samples. This, incidentally, ramped up the hockey-stickness of the (now Avam-) Taymir chronology.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7158
9. Steve thus looked for data from other samples at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size in the Briffa Yamal chronology. He quickly discovered a large set of 34 Schweingruber samples from living trees. Using these instead of the 12 trees in the Briffa (CRU) group that extend to the present yields Figure 2, showing a complete divergence in the 20th century. Thus the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series. Bear in mind the close collaboration of Schweingruber and Briffa all this time, and their habit of using one another’s data as needed.
10. Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields the green line in the 3rd figure above. While it doesn’t go down at the end, neither does it go up, and it yields a medieval era warmer than the present, on the standard interpretation. Thus the key ingredient in a lot of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series (red line above) depends on the influence of a thin subsample of post-1990 chronologies and the exclusion of the (much larger) collection of readily-available Schweingruber data for the same area.
MIRROR URL’s FOR MAIN GRAPHICS IN THE CLIMATE AUDIT POST:
If anyone has referenced the Yamal graphs at CA in blog posts, please use these URL’s so that they get loaded from WordPress high traffic server.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/count_comparison1.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rcs_merged_rev2.gif
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass 70-270 exam in 1st try using certified 70-236 dumps and 642-515 video tutorials.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As far as I know, Mannian methods produce a hockey stick even if you put random noise in, nevermind tree ring proxies. I’m not sure Mann actually advances his point any further by dropping trees from the analysis.
“Specifically, why the subset of ten chronologies were chosen and why the others were discarded. ”
The climate swindlers do that all the time. Why did Steig choose only three specific RC’s for his Antarctic study and attempt to smear those across the entire continent as representative of the temperatures of all of Antarctica?
Might it be because that would validate the agenda? Who knows but we see this more and more lately where data is selected and further manipulated and the result is always the same. If you produce research that is counter to the agenda, you are called horrible names, shunned by your field of science, and even called “mentally disturbed” if you do not follow the agenda. Your funding may also be cut off and you could well end your career.
On the other hand, there is no down side to producing flawed results. You are likely to see your funding increase and be cited by future papers as well as see your name published in prominent global news media.
There is an extremely strong disincentive in academia to produce conclusions counter to the AGW agenda and manufactured results supporting the agenda are rewarded. We should not call the field climate science. It should be called, instead, climate “science”.
It is a complete and total farce.
“Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes”
Is it possible to measure temperatures by proxy to tenths of a degree in accuracy when we can’t even get it right with thermometers?
Actually, Mann managed to sneak Greybill into Hockey Stick 2008, and used flawed data. But hey, It’s Mann, so he can’t be questioned.
crosspatch at (10:19:09) “I sincerely feel that someone should go to prison for this”.
Remember, Briffa is based in England. Not a single MP here voted against the recent Climate Change Bill which dictates energy policy for the next 50 years at a cost of untold billions. In the unlikely event of an official inquiry, you’ll get some High Court Judge hearing witnesses in private, and concluding in 5 years’ time that, though a few unfortunate mistakes were made, everyone has behaved like a perfect gentleman. The cult of secrecy, plus the absurd libel laws, mean that the story is unlikely to be aired here in the UK. Thanks to the Royal Society though, for applying their own rules and allowing Steve to break the story.
REPLY: Let’s tone this back. I have on good word just now that Dr. Briffa is seriously ill, facing the loss of a kidney. I’ll not have anyone bashing him. The data is what it is, lets wait until such time that we can get a rebuttal. – Anthony
Yep had an experience in censorship on the Guardian last night, but hey what do you expect from a paper that wants you to help them decipher 200 pages (which are going to) save the world – the Draft version of global deal on climate change, which will form the basis of Copenhagen talks.
There seems to be hope however. The talks maybe scuppered because ‘US climate illiteracy could scupper deal’.
Three cheers for illiteracy (US), which may as yet, inadvertently, save the world.
These illiterates just cant seem to spot the Emperors glorious new clothes
JWDougherty (22:10:25) : “…empirical data trumps mathematical models every time…”
Except in the media
I didn’t hear what the illness was. He has my best wishes.
crosspatch at (10:19:09) “I sincerely feel that someone should go to prison for this”.
Remember, Briffa is based in England. Not a single MP here voted against the recent Climate Change Bill which dictates energy policy for the next 50 years at a cost of untold billions. In the unlikely event of an official inquiry, you’ll get some High Court Judge hearing witnesses in private, and concluding in 5 years’ time that, though a few unfortunate mistakes were made, everyone has behaved like a perfect gentleman. The cult of secrecy, plus the absurd libel laws, mean that the story is unlikely to be aired here in the UK. Thanks to the Royal Society though, for applying their own rules and allowing Steve to break the story.
I love it when I’ve been away from a pc for a couple of days and find a juicy article on WUWT. And what an article !
Can there be any doubt that this is sheer scientific [snip]?
REPLY: let’s see what the rebuttal is before we conclude to use the f-word. – a
congratulations to artwest, stacey foxgoose and others for keeping up the pressure at Guardian Environment.
US readers may not appreciate how important this newspaper is in pushing the AGW programme in the UK. Derail their Pravda-like propaganda machine by swamping their pro-AGW blogs, and the editors may start to question the wisdom of their environmental journalists’ lemming-like quest for oblivion.
I’m not much interested in Climate Change (though of course I’m pushing for a joint Nobel for Anthony and Steve – aren’t we all?) I AM interested in a free press.
Scott Mandia,
I would urge caution in relying on Mann et al 2008 as authority. In their purported demonstration that they could get a Stick without tree ring data, they used the Tiljander sediment series (which has a huge HS). Unfortunately, they used this series upside-down – Tiljander attributed the recent portion to farmer’s ditches. Kaufman also used Tiljander, but truncated values after 1800. Ross and I submitted a comment to PNAS pointing this out. In response, Mann denied using it upside down, but this denial is itself untrue.
Steve McIntyre
@Scott Mandia-
Before you start defending ‘hockey sticks,’ I suggest you spend a LOT of time at Climate Audit. Make sure you bring an open mind.
As a word of advice: It would be wiser to hold the Met Office here to account than the Guardian. They are the source of this disingenuous campaign. The Guardian is trying to keep afloat by selling/creating panic and concern.
addendum: If you do write into the Met Office via mail or email – be polite and stick to the facts and data.
“I have on good word just now that Dr. Briffa is seriously ill, facing the loss of a kidney. I’ll not have anyone bashing him. The data is what it is, lets wait until such time that we can get a rebuttal.” – Anthony
Is there a get well card we can sign?
Will they make a movie – this is like Watergate – a smoking gun if there ever was. I suggest they use Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Now what about a title – we need a good moniker for this unravelling scandal.
Something I’d be curious to know, if Steve McIntyre cares to take a swing at it: Is there any other selection of ten trees (or is it twelve?) from the overall available data that would drive the red line even higher?
OT: La Nina is coming back. SOI about +5:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Well, I’ve just been posting on that Guardian blog Foxgoose mentioned under the handle vincent456 on page 4. I’ve had a running battle with several warmists all spouting the same science is settled nonsense, or stating “facts” that just aren’t true. But I’m tired now and heading for bed.
Goodnight.
Cassandra King (22:17:39) is right. The political and media class has invested too much in time, effort and credibility, for them to retract. Besides, once they have climate treaty in place, along with the Lisbon treaty, it is goodbye to democracy, and a Big Hello to the New World order.
As for Mann, it dose not matter – he may be thrown to wolves, thrown under a bus, or offered an obscure but well paid sinecure. As for the “no expenses spared politicos”, Mann would have done his job, thats all that matters.
woodNfish (11:24:32) “Paul, what do you call what is going on right now, if not political corruption? It certainly has nothing to do with science.”
It seems you appreciate what motivated my comment. (Also, you do not appear to be a member of the target audience.)
To be clear: I do not favor corruption of any political stripe.
Elaboration: Swinging violently between extremes of political corruption as political stripes alternate power is not my idea of a good ride. There are profitable opportunities for stable balance in the centre. Extremism of all stripes is due for a trip to the penalty box – or better yet a game misconduct – for relentless high-sticking.
“Remember, Briffa is based in England. ”
It isn’t Briffa that I was thinking about in particular. Maybe start with a certain astrophysicist and a Tennessee politician. Completely investigate their personal financial interests in the AGW scam in the glare of the public spotlight. Then lets trace those financial connections to others who might also have some of the same financial interests. Do they have any considerable personal investments that would stand to benefit from any validation of AGW? What are their conflicts of interests? How much have they cost this country in wasted research funding, unnecessary regulations, steps taken to mitigate a non-problem. What about investments by politicians who are the most strident supporters of the agenda? Do they have a material interest in seeing the agenda go forward? Are they enriching themselves at the public expense and using their roles to improve their own personal financial situation?
To date there is not a shred of verifiable evidence that we are experiencing any unusual warming at all. I have seen no verifiable information that there is any planetary climate change caused by human activity.
They have been playing a game of producing papers and hiding the data and methods from view. They rely on a circular citation scheme and the voices of prominent world leaders to gain credibility rather than allowing their conclusions to see the light of day and stand or fall on their own merit. One *has* to be suspicious of anyone who promotes a conclusion but will not allow the process of reaching that conclusion to be revealed. When someone claims that something is so, yet hides the data, one must be skeptical. And then when they claim they lost the data, claim to have lost the descriptions of the data so the original data can not even be re-created but claim to have only a modified version, what is one to think? And here where yet again, data that doesn’t validate the agenda is thrown away, on what grounds can anyone support these conclusions other than by “faith”?
It appears to be a conspiracy on a global scale to milk the treasuries of the Western world of cash to support spending on things that directly benefit those making the claims.
Does Briffa have any personal investments that would benefit from his claims?
P. Wilson:
However, can you imagine any newspaper, including the Guardian, turning down the most sensational story of the century – “Global warming proved false, heads must roll”
Let’s continue to give them ammunition.
People who wish to expend effort at blogs and forums might want to aim at the middle ground, even if the Guardian website is more amusing. The wider the message spreads the more likely it is that more people start to understand. Most people accepted the consensus because they feel guilty, and because they have no reason to question the science.