Steve McIntyre published an update tonight showing the last 200 years of the Yamal tree ring data versus the archived CRU tree ring data used to make the famous hockey stick. For those just joining us, see the story here.
First here’s the before an after at millennial scale.
Steve McIntyre 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.
Figure 2. A comparison of Yamal RCS chronologies. red – as archived with 12 picked cores; black – including Schweingruber’s Khadyta River, Yamal (russ035w) archive and excluding 12 picked cores. Both smoothed with 21-year gaussian smooth. y-axis is in dimensionless chronology units centered on 1 (as are subsequent graphs (but represent age-adjusted ring width).
Now lets have a look at the data for the last 200 years where that hockey stick lives (and dies):
Here is a comparison of the Briffa chronology of the spaghetti graphs (red) versus the “SChweingruber” variation i.e. using russ035w instead of 12 recent of 252 CRU cores, leaving 240 unchanged. (The red curve here is the archived CRU chronology, which varies slightly from my emulation of the RCS chronology.)
The best antidote to this is AGW hysteria,is Empiricism-that elegant result that was best
described by Mark Twain:”Once she sets on a hot stove,a cat will never sit on it again,but she will not set on a cold one, either..” When we hav ea very, cold nasty,winter,you will see a very slow backing away,surely,inexorably, even the moonbat
er,Monboits, of the world will,if not admit they were wrong,will at least scream “Ice Age!!” again…
Yet we foolishly convert food to fuel..
Henry chance
September 29, 2009 7:07 am
Must have been Oak trees. ACORNS are falling.
It requires a lot of vigilence to monitor experimental design.
They worry about dirty coal and use dirty sampling methods to create dirty Power Point Presentations.
kim
September 29, 2009 7:17 am
Question. How do I get funny ticks amongst the vowels on screen?
Answer. Forty-two.
============
Antonio San
September 29, 2009 7:20 am
For one the full record is much more compatible with the meteorological evolution as described by the late Marcel Leroux…
steven mosher (00:45:06) : Simply, you can’t say that the MWP was warmer or colder than the present.
There may not be certainty from ice cores yet. But Greenland was green. There’s only evidence in history that it was warmer on earth 1000 years ago.
Science will catch up with that some day. 😉
John in L du B
September 29, 2009 7:45 am
I have to go with Steve Mosher on this one. I know we’re not supposed to think the worst of people on these blogs and SM would probaly snip me, but I can’t help believe that cherry picking will not start to happen in the field before archiving. The peer pressure (Is that what peer review has become?) to get the correct “AGW signal” is so intense now I can’t believe there is any independence in the establishment climate community.
Of course the FDA and the medical device and pharmaceuticals sectors long ago abandonned peer review as a sufficient condition for establishing quality. What is needed to restore the climate science to credibility is not only data audits like Steve McIntyre is doing but actual independent laboratory and field practice quality audits with registration and accreditation against an international laboratory practice standard. I just can’t believe their results anymore until indepenedent audits of their complete operation become the norm.
Gene Nemetz
September 29, 2009 7:47 am
Lucy Skywalker (06:54:02) : GISS UK looks so awful that I want to keep checking that I’ve really got my basic facts right about this, it seems too awful to be true.
I’m sorry that you’re seeing this Lucy, and for how it makes you feel.
What you are being made aware of now is what I and some others had seen already. We feel frustrated, and even sad sometimes too about it.
I think it comes down to grant money, fame, and in some cases wanting power, that has created this AGW Godzilla.
But King Kong is better than Godzilla and King Kong is the data, the real science. As Richard Lindzen said, “We will win because we are right and they are wrong.” 🙂
Steve Fox
September 29, 2009 7:56 am
Anthony – What I don’t understand about this issue is why tree proxy data are being used to determine 20th century temperatures. I have followed your investigations with interest, so I know there is a lot of dispute about UHI, and Soviet versus post Soviet records.
Perhaps it is in order to maintain integrity with regard to the earlier condotions, which necessarily are only available in proxy form.
I would much appreciate clarification…
Steve S.
September 29, 2009 8:26 am
But with this commentary, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html
and the comments below, the AGW cult is alive and well.
Smart guy Krugman could not be more convoluted and misguided.
How is it that these supposedly brilliant people are so entirely convinced and loyal to the cause?
RR Kampen
September 29, 2009 8:47 am
Re: Steve S. (08:26:53) :
“How is it that these supposedly brilliant people are so entirely convinced and loyal to the cause?”
—
They know and accept reality.
CoonAZ
September 29, 2009 8:58 am
I have the same question as Mr. Fox. Why are we all worked up over a supposed global temperature spike (as interpreted using trees) during a time period when we have a better tool: a calibrated thermometer? All Mr. Mann has done is given the evil Gorebot fuel for his gigantic propaganda machine. Mr. Gore has been laughing all the way to the bank for the last 15 years. I really doubt that he gives a rat’s behind about AGW.
David Ball
September 29, 2009 9:14 am
RR Kampen, have you not been paying attention? “They know and accept reality” as has been dictated by false scientific assumptions. Now who is in denial. I apologize if this totally upends your world view, but isn’t that what you wish upon the rest of us? The burden of proof is still on you.
David Corcoran
September 29, 2009 9:17 am
RR Kampen (08:47:03) :
They know and accept reality.
__
Unfortunately their reality seems to have nothing to do with physical reality.
Overly high predictions by Hansen, 30, 20 and ten years ago, and cooling in the last decade show that. 30 years isn’t “weather”. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and so far we have jiggered charts instead of proof. And with each year the countering proofs of climate insensitivity to accumulate. The effect that alarmists scream of is apparently small enough to be swamped by the noise of weather.
Ray
September 29, 2009 9:20 am
It would certainly be interesting to see the exact location and local weather of those 12 trees… maybe they are in a damp and temperate valley.
DaveF
September 29, 2009 9:21 am
Hallo folks,
The BBC has just announced that the Met Office predicts a “milder than average” winter for the UK. That’s pretty vague, of course, but, going by the accuracy of their last three summer forecasts it looks like it’s time to buy snow-tyres.
RR Kampen,
Know and accept?
You’re missing the point.
Krugman doesn’t know and ignores the bulk of reality as science currently demonstrates.
What he does know and accept is the political AGW campaign.
But like so many leftists he is deliberately ignoring the whole story and the broader science that is engaging climate from every angle by experts around the globe.
Blind dismissal of contradiction is the act of a fool.
The Krugman Syndrome causes widespread foolishness at levels the world has never seen.
The comments section at his NYT piece displays the ultimate fool’s parade.
You apparently are marching proud.
It would be interesting to see the surfacestations CRN 1&2 site data properly scaled and overlaid on the chronologies graph.
RR Kampen
September 29, 2009 9:31 am
Re: David Ball (09:14:17) :
“RR Kampen, have you not been paying attention? “They know and accept reality” as has been dictated by false scientific assumptions. Now who is in denial. I apologize if this totally upends your world view, but isn’t that what you wish upon the rest of us? The burden of proof is still on you.”
—
Proof of what? What kind of proof: mathematical proof derived from empirical evidence?
What I wish ‘upon the rest of you’ is integrity and wisdom. Also a minimum of respect for those who something about the subject of climatology – e.g. a projection of own ingnorance onto those people is not done.
A very realistic piece of Krugman’s, except I doubt his action strategy. Dropping CO2 emissions will not work during our lives. So forget Kyoto and emission trades. Anticipate on the vast consequences GW is going to have. Are you now going to tell me that it is more realistic to expect cooling (like Svensmark, who in the same paragraph admits climate cannot be predicted at all thus making rather a fool of himself), or simply continued warming given the physics and facts around CO2?
RR Kampen
September 29, 2009 9:37 am
Re: David Corcoran (09:17:23) :
“Overly high predictions by Hansen, 30, 20 and ten years ago, and cooling in the last decade show that.”
—
What cooling? How come last decade saw so much melting ice – particularly the latter half of that decade?
I think you mean this cooling: http://agwobserver.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globalcooling.gif?w=514&h=409 .
O well, if thermal records and the freezing point of water can’t be trusted, I can only rely on my own eyes. They see the changes in Holland, where I lost one of my prime hobbies: skating on canals and lakes. The saw the desertification of Australian fringe areas, the fantastic erosion of Alpine and Norwegian glaciers. How unfortunate I should have only visited or lived in the areas where it gets warmer.
Steve S.
September 29, 2009 9:39 am
Does Krugman Know and accept this?
“All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who mutually support each other’s work. All use Yamal data.”
No, and he will never know and accept it.
Krugman Syndrome
Patrik
September 29, 2009 9:54 am
RR Kampen>> I’m sorry you lost your favourite hobby, but… You do know that climate changes, sort of, all the time..?
More from the factual side, all data supports that global T has sunk somewhat since 2001 and it has definitely not risen: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/trend
That climate zones change continously is no news.
Very warm 1930s.
Is this the same divergance that was used to argue against the solar connection to recent global temperature changes?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
The best antidote to this is AGW hysteria,is Empiricism-that elegant result that was best
described by Mark Twain:”Once she sets on a hot stove,a cat will never sit on it again,but she will not set on a cold one, either..” When we hav ea very, cold nasty,winter,you will see a very slow backing away,surely,inexorably, even the moonbat
er,Monboits, of the world will,if not admit they were wrong,will at least scream “Ice Age!!” again…
Yet we foolishly convert food to fuel..
Must have been Oak trees. ACORNS are falling.
It requires a lot of vigilence to monitor experimental design.
They worry about dirty coal and use dirty sampling methods to create dirty Power Point Presentations.
Question. How do I get funny ticks amongst the vowels on screen?
Answer. Forty-two.
============
For one the full record is much more compatible with the meteorological evolution as described by the late Marcel Leroux…
Frank Lansner (04:59:48) :
……….
José, when i tried, the link was down, I also tried from their website:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/iuppage/psa/2001/amsrop.html
to press “AMSR-sea ice charts” but it is taken down / “error”….
So, just when Antarctic break yet a max record, the chart is down?
Too many visitors? Or?
None of them. I have no problem now.
Maybe censored in your provider?
I have a copy in my blog
http://descubriendolanaturaleza.blogspot.com/2009/09/record-de-banquisa-en-el-oceano.html
Have lucky!
steven mosher (00:45:06) : Simply, you can’t say that the MWP was warmer or colder than the present.
There may not be certainty from ice cores yet. But Greenland was green. There’s only evidence in history that it was warmer on earth 1000 years ago.
Science will catch up with that some day. 😉
I have to go with Steve Mosher on this one. I know we’re not supposed to think the worst of people on these blogs and SM would probaly snip me, but I can’t help believe that cherry picking will not start to happen in the field before archiving. The peer pressure (Is that what peer review has become?) to get the correct “AGW signal” is so intense now I can’t believe there is any independence in the establishment climate community.
Of course the FDA and the medical device and pharmaceuticals sectors long ago abandonned peer review as a sufficient condition for establishing quality. What is needed to restore the climate science to credibility is not only data audits like Steve McIntyre is doing but actual independent laboratory and field practice quality audits with registration and accreditation against an international laboratory practice standard. I just can’t believe their results anymore until indepenedent audits of their complete operation become the norm.
Lucy Skywalker (06:54:02) : GISS UK looks so awful that I want to keep checking that I’ve really got my basic facts right about this, it seems too awful to be true.
I’m sorry that you’re seeing this Lucy, and for how it makes you feel.
What you are being made aware of now is what I and some others had seen already. We feel frustrated, and even sad sometimes too about it.
I think it comes down to grant money, fame, and in some cases wanting power, that has created this AGW Godzilla.
But King Kong is better than Godzilla and King Kong is the data, the real science. As Richard Lindzen said, “We will win because we are right and they are wrong.” 🙂
Anthony – What I don’t understand about this issue is why tree proxy data are being used to determine 20th century temperatures. I have followed your investigations with interest, so I know there is a lot of dispute about UHI, and Soviet versus post Soviet records.
Perhaps it is in order to maintain integrity with regard to the earlier condotions, which necessarily are only available in proxy form.
I would much appreciate clarification…
But with this commentary,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html
and the comments below, the AGW cult is alive and well.
Smart guy Krugman could not be more convoluted and misguided.
How is it that these supposedly brilliant people are so entirely convinced and loyal to the cause?
Re: Steve S. (08:26:53) :
“How is it that these supposedly brilliant people are so entirely convinced and loyal to the cause?”
—
They know and accept reality.
I have the same question as Mr. Fox. Why are we all worked up over a supposed global temperature spike (as interpreted using trees) during a time period when we have a better tool: a calibrated thermometer? All Mr. Mann has done is given the evil Gorebot fuel for his gigantic propaganda machine. Mr. Gore has been laughing all the way to the bank for the last 15 years. I really doubt that he gives a rat’s behind about AGW.
RR Kampen, have you not been paying attention? “They know and accept reality” as has been dictated by false scientific assumptions. Now who is in denial. I apologize if this totally upends your world view, but isn’t that what you wish upon the rest of us? The burden of proof is still on you.
RR Kampen (08:47:03) :
They know and accept reality.
__
Unfortunately their reality seems to have nothing to do with physical reality.
Overly high predictions by Hansen, 30, 20 and ten years ago, and cooling in the last decade show that. 30 years isn’t “weather”. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and so far we have jiggered charts instead of proof. And with each year the countering proofs of climate insensitivity to accumulate. The effect that alarmists scream of is apparently small enough to be swamped by the noise of weather.
It would certainly be interesting to see the exact location and local weather of those 12 trees… maybe they are in a damp and temperate valley.
Hallo folks,
The BBC has just announced that the Met Office predicts a “milder than average” winter for the UK. That’s pretty vague, of course, but, going by the accuracy of their last three summer forecasts it looks like it’s time to buy snow-tyres.
The Register has picked up the story. See Treemometers: A new scientific scandal: If a peer review fails in the woods…
RR Kampen,
Know and accept?
You’re missing the point.
Krugman doesn’t know and ignores the bulk of reality as science currently demonstrates.
What he does know and accept is the political AGW campaign.
But like so many leftists he is deliberately ignoring the whole story and the broader science that is engaging climate from every angle by experts around the globe.
Blind dismissal of contradiction is the act of a fool.
The Krugman Syndrome causes widespread foolishness at levels the world has never seen.
The comments section at his NYT piece displays the ultimate fool’s parade.
You apparently are marching proud.
It would be interesting to see the surfacestations CRN 1&2 site data properly scaled and overlaid on the chronologies graph.
Re: David Ball (09:14:17) :
“RR Kampen, have you not been paying attention? “They know and accept reality” as has been dictated by false scientific assumptions. Now who is in denial. I apologize if this totally upends your world view, but isn’t that what you wish upon the rest of us? The burden of proof is still on you.”
—
Proof of what? What kind of proof: mathematical proof derived from empirical evidence?
What I wish ‘upon the rest of you’ is integrity and wisdom. Also a minimum of respect for those who something about the subject of climatology – e.g. a projection of own ingnorance onto those people is not done.
A very realistic piece of Krugman’s, except I doubt his action strategy. Dropping CO2 emissions will not work during our lives. So forget Kyoto and emission trades. Anticipate on the vast consequences GW is going to have. Are you now going to tell me that it is more realistic to expect cooling (like Svensmark, who in the same paragraph admits climate cannot be predicted at all thus making rather a fool of himself), or simply continued warming given the physics and facts around CO2?
Re: David Corcoran (09:17:23) :
“Overly high predictions by Hansen, 30, 20 and ten years ago, and cooling in the last decade show that.”
—
What cooling? How come last decade saw so much melting ice – particularly the latter half of that decade?
I think you mean this cooling: http://agwobserver.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globalcooling.gif?w=514&h=409 .
O well, if thermal records and the freezing point of water can’t be trusted, I can only rely on my own eyes. They see the changes in Holland, where I lost one of my prime hobbies: skating on canals and lakes. The saw the desertification of Australian fringe areas, the fantastic erosion of Alpine and Norwegian glaciers. How unfortunate I should have only visited or lived in the areas where it gets warmer.
Does Krugman Know and accept this?
“All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who mutually support each other’s work. All use Yamal data.”
No, and he will never know and accept it.
Krugman Syndrome
RR Kampen>> I’m sorry you lost your favourite hobby, but… You do know that climate changes, sort of, all the time..?
More from the factual side, all data supports that global T has sunk somewhat since 2001 and it has definitely not risen:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/trend
That climate zones change continously is no news.