More broken hockey stick fallout: Audit of an Audit of an Auditor

http://www.blisstree.com/files/232/2008/11/magnifying-glass.jpgFor those that don’t read a lot of the WUWT comments closely, there has been a scholarly argument going on between  Tom P of the UK and several WUWT commentators over the methodology Steve McIntyre used to illustrate the “breathtaking difference” between the plot of  the hand picked set of 12 Yamal trees and the larger Schweingruber tree ring data set also from Yamal. Tom P. reworked Steve’s R-code script (which he posted on WUWT) to include both the 12 excluded and the Schweingruber and  thought he found “insensitivity to additional data”, saying “There is no broken hockeystick”.

Jeff Id audited the auditor of an auditor and found that Steve’s work still holds up “robustly”. – Anthony


Jeff Id writes on The Air Vent

Just a short post tonight I hope. Tom P, an apparent believer in the hockey stick methods posted an entertaining reply to Steve McIntyre’s recent discoveries on Yamal. He used R code to demonstrate a flaw in SteveM’s method. His post was on WUWT, brought to my attention by Charles the moderator and is copied here where he declares victory over Steve.

Tom P writes on WUWT:

===========

Steve McIntryre’s [sic] reconstructions above are based on adding an established dataset, the Schweingruber Yamal sample instead of the “12 trees used in the CRU archive”. Steve has given no justification for removing these 12 trees. In fact they probably predate Briffa’s CRU analysis, being in the original Russian dataset established by Hantemirov and Shiyatov in 2002.

One of Steve’s major complaint about the CRU dataset was that it used few recent trees, hence the need to add the Schweingruber series. It was therefore rather strange that towards the end of the reconstruction the 12 living trees were excluded only to be replaced by 9 trees with earlier end dates.

I asked Steve what the chronology would look like if these twelve trees were merged back in, but no plot was forthcoming. So I downloaded R, his favoured statistical package, and tweaked Steve’s published code to include the twelve trees back in myself. Below is the chronology I posted on ClimateAudit a few hours ago.

TomP s plot. Source: http://img80.yfrog.com/img80/1808/schweingruberandcrud.png

TomP' s plot. Click to enlarge Source: http://img80.yfrog.com/img80/1808/schweingruberandcrud.png

The red line is the RCS chronology calculated from the CRU archive; black is the chronology calculated using the Schweingruber Yamal sample and the complete CRU archive. Both plots are smoothed with 21-year gaussian, as before. The y-axis is in dimensionless chronology units centered on 1.

It looks like the Yamal reconstruction published by Briffa is rather insensitive to the inclusion of the additional data. There is no broken hockeystick.

=============
Jeff Id writes:
He did a fantastic job in reworking R code to create an improved hockey stick graph. To see his code the link is here.
.
tomp
Jeff Id’s version of TomP’s graph – Click to expand
I spent some time tonight looking at his results. Time planned for analyzing Antarctic sea ice. I found that essentially the only difference in the operating functions of the code is the following line.
.
Steve M —- tree=rbind(yamal[!temp,],russ035)
Tom P —– tree=rbind(yamal,russ035)
.

The !temp in Steve’s line removes 12 series of Yamal for the average while Tom’s version includes it. I’m all for inclusion of all data, but I am a firm believer that Briffa’s data is probably a cherry picked set of trees to match temp or something. Therefore by inclusion of the sorted Briffa Yamal version, we have an automatic exclusion of data which would otherwise balance the huge trend. However, this is not the problem with Tom’s result. The problem lies in this plot, also created by Tom P’s code.

tompcntTom P’s Yamal Reconstruction – Count per Year. Click to Expand

Here is the zoomed in version:

tompcntzoom

Above we can see that everything in TomP’s curve after 1990 is actually 100% Briffa Yamal data.

So the question becomes – What does the series look like if the Yamal data doesn’t create the ridiculous spike at the end the curve?

I truncated the black line at 1990 below.

tomptruncsh

The black line is truncated at the end of the Schweingruber data and it looks pretty similar to the graph presented in the green line by Steve McIntyre again below.

rcs_merged_rev[1]

Don’t be too hard on Tom P, he honestly did a great job and took the time to work with the R script which is more than most are willing to. Steve is a very careful worker though and it’s damn near impossible to catch him making mistakes. Trust a serious skeptic, it’s not easy to find mistakes in his work and some of us check him just as I spent over an hour checking Tom’s work. In my opinion Tom deserves congratulations for his efforts and checking, this way we all learn.

I’ve now been all the way through SteveM’s scripts from beginning to end and can’t find any problems with the script, maybe others can!


Steve McIntyre adds in WUWT comments :

Steve McIntyre (21:35:13)

Here is some conclusive evidence in respect to the following misrepresentation by Tom:

Steve McIntyre said they may well have been just the most recent part of Hantemirov and Shiyatov’s dataset and no selection would have been made.

In my first post in this sequence http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142, I identified a common pattern to the IDs for cores and observed:

There are 252 distinct series in the CRU archive. There are 12 IDs consisting of a 3-letter prefix, a 2-digit tree # and 1-digit core#. All 12 end in 1988 or later and presumably come from the living tree samples. The nomenclature of these core IDs url (POR01…POR11; YAD04…YAD12; JAH14…JAH16 – excluding the last digit of the ID here as it is a core #) suggests to me that there were at least 11 POR cores, 12 YAD cores and 16 JAH cores.

It is “possible” that they skipped ID numbers, but this is a farfetched theory even for Tom. As surmised here, the missing ID numbers are “evidence” of at least 39 cores and that the present archive is not only too small, but incomplete.

=========

and also this comment:

Steve McIntyre (20:13:22)

I am online too much, but I am not online 24/7. I’ve been out playing squash. Surely I’m allowed to be offline occasionally without a poster commenting adversely on this.

While I was out, CA crashed as well. Thus, it was “quiet.

Contrary to Tom’s speculations and misrepresentation of my statements, it is my opinion that there is considerable evidence that the 12 cores are not a complete population i.e. that they have been picked form a larger population. Rather than quote form actual text, Tom puts the following words in my mouth that I did not say:

Steve McIntyre said they may well have been just the most recent part of Hantemirov and Shiyatov’s dataset and no selection would have been made.

This is not my view.

The balance of Tom’s argument is:

No, they are the twelve most recent cores. There’s been no evidence provided to suggest they are in any way suspect. ..There is no obvious reason to exclude them.

I disagree. I do not believe that they constitute a complete population of recent cores. As a result, I believe that the archive is suspect. There is every reason to exclude them in order to carry out a sensitivity as I did. The sensitivity study showed very different results. I do not suggest that the sensitivity run be used as an alternative temperature history. Right now, there are far too many questions attached to this data set to propose any solution to the sampling conundrum. It’s only been a couple of days since the lamentable size of the CRU sample became known and it will take a little more time yet to assess things.

Reasons why I “suspect” that a selection was made from a larger population include the following. A field dendro could take 12 cores in an hour. We took a lot more than that at Mt Allegre and a field dendro could be far more efficient. Thus, it seems very unlikely that the entire population of cores from the Yamal program is only 12 cores and on this basis, it is my surmise that a selection was taken from the cores. Standard dendro procedures use all crossdated cores and definitely use more than 10 cores if they are available.

This doesn’t “prove” that a selection was made, but it is reasonable to “suspect” that a selection was made and to ask CRU and their Russian associates to provide a clear statement of their protocols. There’s no urgency to do anything prior to receiving a statement of their sampling protocols. For this purpose, it doesn’t matter a whit whether the selection was made by the Russians or at CRU or a combination. In my first post on this matter – which Tom appears not to have read, I canvass the limited evidence for and against. There is certainly evidence supporting the idea that the 12 cores were among 17 selected by the Russians, but in other parts of the data set, the CRU population is larger than that used in the Hantemirov and Shiyatov chronology. The construction of the CRU data set is not described in any literature; the description in Hantemirov and Shiyatov has something to do with it, but doesn’t yield the CRU data data set. Some sort of reconciliation is required.

In addition, the age distribution of the CRU 12 is very different than the age distribution from the nearby Schweingruber population. In my opinion, the uniformly high age of the CRU12 relative to the Schweingruber population is suggestive of selection – in this respect, perhaps and even probably by the Russians. Again this isnt proof. Maybe they were just lucky 12 straight times and, unlike Schweingruber, they got very long-lived trees with every core. Without documentaiton, no one knows. In any event, this doesn’t help the Briffa situation. If these things are temperature proxies, the results from two different nearby populations should not be so different and protocols need to be established for ensuring that the age distribution of the modern sample is relatively homogeneous with the subfossil samples (and they aren’t.)

The prevailing dendro view is that an RCS chronology requires a much larger population than a “conventional” standardization. Thus, even if the data set had been winnowed down to 10 cores in 1990 and 5 cores at the end, this is an absurdly low population for modern cores, which are relatively easily obtained. Use of such small replication is inconsistent with Briffa’s own methodological statements.

Tom also misses a hugely important context. There is a nearby site (Polar Urals) with an ample supply of modern core. Indeed, at one time, Briffa used Polar Urals to represent this region. My original question was whether there was a valid reason for substituting Yamal for Polar Urals. The microscopic size of the modern record suggests that there was not a valid reason. However, this tiny sample size was not known to third parties until recently due to Briffa’s withholding of data, not just from me, but also to D’Arrigo, Wilson et al.

Until details of the Yamal selection process are known, my sense right now is that one cannot blindly assume – as Tom does – that what we see is a population. Maybe this will prove to be the case, but personally I rather doubt it. A better approach is to use the Polar Urals data set as a building block.

As to Tom’s argument that none of this “matters”, the Yamal data set has a bristlecone-like function in a number of reconstructions. While the differences between the versions may not seem like a lot to Tom, as someone with considerable experience with this data, it is my opinion that the revisions will have a material impact on the medieval-modern difference in the multiproxy studies that do not depend on strip bark bristlecones.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
philincalifornia

Steve McIntyre (20:13:22)
I am online too much, but I am not online 24/7. I’ve been out playing squash. Surely I’m allowed to be offline occasionally without a poster commenting adversely on this.
While I was out, CA crashed as well. Thus, it was “quiet.
————————–
Yeah right !!! You were sleeping off a champagne-induced hangover.
Actually, I believe you, but congratulations with glasses raised is certainly in order. Massive perseverance, massive result.

Al

Following Tom P’s plan for the Greybill area would require the inclusion of Ababneh’s data. Which, if I recall correctly, has a similar lack of hockeystick. Divergence here

Ray

So, let me get this straight… the faith of our economy and politics rest in a few dozen old trees somewhere that grew in a limited little spot on the earth?
UFB!

paullm

For myself, I can only summarize this still ongoing 19 year episode by saying: Damn, you guys, Jeff, Ross and very especially Steve, in this case are great!
Phenomenal!….May the hijacking of climate change science be denied by basic, honest, thorough scrutiny and be a grand lesson that will vindicate Science in the eyes of laymen who otherwise may scorn it as a result of feeling betrayed by it through a Media/Government hyped “scientific” AGW Alarmist “Consensus”.
‘Let them die by their sword’

Michael

CO2 is not the culprit, it is not the cause of global warming and climate change, nor is it a pollutant.
CO2 is an integral part of their strategy to control the world. Who are they? They are the Bilderbergs and the global wealthy elite human beings of the planet who’s only desire is to rule the whole entire place.
There is no basis for claiming CO2 causes global warming, now referred to climate change. There is no basis in fact or science. All your bases Bildreberg’s are belong to us.

Bulldust

I think I am going to have to forward some links to Senator Fielding as ammunition against the CPRS in Australia. Yes the Aussie Government has the temerity to call their version of an ETS a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.”
At least Fielding has the proverbial pair to call the other politicians to account for the lack of warming in the last decade despite increasing CO2 levels. Maybe he should take a broken hockey stick into parliament as a prop.

Richard

“Don’t be too hard on Tom P, he honestly did a great job..”
That is being charitable to the extreme. The guy was clutching at straws.
Tom P is desperate to find some fault with Steve McIntyre’s destruction of the Briffa hockey stick. So much rests on these little pieces of wood. The IPCC spaghetti graphs, the Current Warm Period’s unprecedented warmth, the whole climate alarmism industry.
First he tried to justify the cherry picking by saying “I am rather at a loss to see what all of the fuss is about. A tree-ring series that demonstrably does not reflect the recorded temperature has not been included in a reconstruction.”
and repeatedly tried to defend this position (like the Alamo?) until shot down by the “Texas sharpshooters” on CA
At one point he posted that “The excellent correlation between the two Yamal datasets strengthens confidence in both before 1850.”
It was pointed out by Steve McIntyre that that “excellent correlation” between the two datasets was perhaps due to the fact that they were exactly the same. They weren’t in the the 19th and 20th centuries and there the “correlation” kinda broke down. I mean one graph goes up and the other down even I could see that.
The statement that Tom P is “honest” is perhaps marginally more “robust” than saying the MWP didnt exist.

John F. Hultquist

It is amazing to me that folks all over the world have spent many hours of the last two days reading about trees. Steve M., Jeff Id, Tom P., and others have carried on a peer review of each other in near real-time. What would have taken years to do in paper journals has occurred in just a few days. Fantastic!
However, I am saddened by the need for all of this because of the lack of cooperation and sharing among research scientists.
Both stories are still being played out – and I’m reading as fast as I can in the time that I have. Steve, Jeff, Anthony, please take some more time off. Find a harvest festival or something else to do for half-a-day. I’ve got some outside chores to do before it snows. Please.

Frederick Michael

Congratulations to Tom P also. This blog wouldn’t be what it is without dissent. Tom has added something of inestimable value.
Those blogs that do not permit dissent are now realizing that their existence adds nothing.
REPLY: Well put. We welcome debate here as long as people leave the labeling and name calling at the door. While I may not agree with Tom P. he has been civil and stuck to facts. – Anthony

Michael

At least the Buildeberg’s got a consolation prize. It’s called the Internet. They wanted a controlled collectivist society? Well the got it. Here we are.

Richard

Please read Bishop Hill’s layman’s summary of the Yamal affair . The Yamal implosion – its fantastic gives the whole sordid saga of the Briffa affair.

Richard,
Tom made a point with code and calculation and transparency which is unusual for the agw class. After this post I was informed by an email that he is actually quite skilled in math so I’m currently wondering how he missed these not insignificant details.
Hopefully he will stop by and explain.
Perhaps I was overly gracious to his work, but consider how fast Steig et al would have gone if we had the code and data. With openness, honesty is guaranteed, and Tom was open.

steven mosher

Now of course Tom will say that I tricked him into running Steve’s code without understanding that one series ended in 1990 or that we laid a trap for him. Folks should consider Tom’s ability to understand statistics and data analysis from this example. When he makes an argument about cherry picking or blathers on about it not mattering, remember this episode. You know Tom, when I looked at your code and saw that only difference…Let’s just say I grinned. Congrats to Jeff Id for the lightning fast debunking. ha, and u know what, all he did was run your code and zoom in on your graph. THATS ELEGANT.

Richard
Claude Harvey

Not just any old tree can be a “temperature tree.” Apparently, you really have to dig through the pile to find a genuine temperature tree and for that you need a “tree-talker” to interview those trees. He asks them, “Are you a temperature tree?”
If they answer,”Yes”, he knows they’re lying through their bark.
He knows he has a real temperature tree on his hands when he asks his question and the tree answers, “No, I’m a hockey stick.”

Michael

It should be called the “Yamal Briffa Affair”. Maybe for the movie?

Bulldust

I am willing to bet this gets very little media exposure, despite the implications. I did send off a quick email to Senator Fielding, and cc’d Prof Bob Carter for good measure. Not sure what good it will do, but getting the ammunition into the right hands is half the battle methinks.

Michael

You can’t control the Internet just like you can’t control the weather.

John F. Hultquist (23:10:34) said :
“It is amazing to me that folks all over the world have spent many hours of the last two days reading about trees. Steve M., Jeff Id, Tom P., and others have carried on a peer review of each other in near real-time. What would have taken years to do in paper journals has occurred in just a few days. Fantastic!”
I agree. I often make the point that I positively welcome the input here of intelligent warmists such as TomP and Joel Shore.
TomP has taken the time and trouble to defend his well known position, so all credit to him. Open debate and accepting the rights and wrongs-whatever side you are on-is an essential part of science. However, open debate seems to have been lost as scientists have painted themselves into a corner over the years and face risking damaging their reputation (and perhaps personal beliefs) if they admit they were wrong.
Well done TomP and Jeff Id and the others involved in achieving something that would take the conventional peer review process two years to achieve. Perhaps online scientific debate and peer review is at last coming of age.
tonyb

ROM

As a layman and with only a limited understanding on the way science is published in the major science journals can I ask, just what will be the fallout from Steve McIntyre’s demolition of Briffa’s paper and by inference the rest of the “Team’s” climate papers on the standing of the “Science” and “Nature” publications in the general science community?
These publications and their responsible editors had after all, the power to demand the full archiving of ALL relevant material on each and every one of those papers.
Yet they have repeatedly refused to enforce this power and the requirement to archive all relevant material that backed the various paper’s conclusions from the various members of the Team and they have apparently refused to do so for a very extended number of years.
And this despite their own requirements that the public archiving of this material and data backing a paper’s conclusions was a part of the obligation imposed on the authors of those papers if they wanted to be published.
Furthermore, the Editors of Science and Nature repeatedly avoided imposing their own stated standards and requirements for publication on the Team’s authors even after being heavily and repeatedly prodded by McIntyre and others.
The backlash, the fallout and the doubts that must now be raised about the accuracy and scientific truthfulness of Nature and Science must now have a possibly devastating impact on the veracity of these publications.
Surely these “science” publications have failed dismally in their obligations to science and to the public who pay for that science and have abrogated that unwritten contract with the science community to provide the rock solid, open and scientific foundation that supposedly backs every paper they publish.
Even worse, the “Science” and “Nature” publications have either unwittingly or deliberately allowed the whole gamut of this scam to roll on for over a decade until our society is faced with draconian legislation and heavy economic penalties which are based on what is now demonstrably false data and a deliberately promulgated scam of epic proportions.
The responsible editors in these publications should be asked by their governing boards for their immediate resignations as they have had within their power for a decade or more, the means to provide this all important data and computations on Briffa’s, Jones and other “Team” authors of the various climate papers but have failed totally to enforce the open publication of this data.
As has been demonstrated by one single dedicated and unpaid member of the public, Steve McIntyre, and in only a few days of work, full access to this all important data and computations backing these so called climate research papers could have stopped this whole nauseous political and economic landslide scam in it’s tracks and truth would have prevailed.
And will Science and Nature now demand without exception, the unabridged, full and complete data and documentation that underlies each and every paper they have published by Team members over the last decade?
Will they withdraw those papers if this backing material is not immediately supplied in full without any caveats, by the authors?
Or will they just continue on in their role as co-conspirators in this whole scam until their credibility no longer exists?
Science and Nature are just as culpable in this whole scam as are the actual authors of these papers which are now known to be based on cherry picked and completely misleading data.

ROM
Great post. I think we are at a stage where mere facts are incidental to the great AGW bandwagon. Those currently driving it-politicians and scientists-have no intention of jumping off it. I suspect its eventual derailing will come via the media, as members of the public start to ask questions when extra costs and loss of freedoms are imposed on them.
The UK is unfortunately ahead of the game on this, and we are being faced with a plethora of new ‘green’ taxes. It has also been seriously suggested we have a personal carbon allowance.
We now need the climate to play its part-that is the great imponderable- as our modest period of natural warming since the end of the Litle Ice Age may well have more years to run if we look at historical precedence.
If the weather cools it becomes easier to get over our message-if it remains warm it is more difficult.
tonyb

Actually, the green “merged” curve in the last graph quite resembles temperature reconstruction by Loehle for example: pronounced MWP, LIA and present relatively warm times, but still bellow MWP.
The final way to resolve the puzzle is to obtain all tree series from Yamal area and create an average curve of all of them. CRU boys obviously picked up only the hockey ones.

Rhys Jaggar

Am I to understand that a major contributor to our assertions on ‘hockey stick’ runaway ‘global warming’ is not directly measured temperature data using a Stevenson Box (or whatever you use to measure temperatures in winter in deepest Siberia), but a series of TREE RINGS?
Given that we are talking about temperature changes, across the globe, of less than one degree centigrade, does it not strike a lot of people as odd that an argument of such magnitude, partisanship, certitudes and career-threatening ego-trips is to be based on a set of data PROXIES?
I have to say that the world can wait 50 years for 100 years of reliable direct measurements, be they by satellite or by land-based measurement (which should happen anyway to validate/detect deviations in the sensor-based satellite approach), rather than tear itself to pieces when the evidence, viewed dispassionately, of runaway global warming, simply is not sufficiently clear to justify such a premature battle between a jungle lioness and a pack of wilderbeest, being eagerly awaited, anticipated and fed upon by a pack of rapacious vultures.
Does anyone else agree with me??

steven mosher

ROM,
are you suggesting a letter writing campaign?
Trivia question whats the relationship between Nature and the Piltdown Man
episode?

Richard

Nature a scientific journal? Since when does a scientific journal indulge in wholesale censorship? They have censored my post on “Climate sizzle could come soon”.
“You can be as critical or controversial as you like,..” says they – indeed!
And just look at their news: “Climate change will hit developing world harvests hardest”, “Climate sizzle could come soon”, “Chinese dam may be a methane menace”, “Instant climate model gears up”. How scientific is a any claim that “the science is settled”
It has become an activist political mouthpiece.

Robinson

I honestly didn’t understand Tom’s argument anyway. I give you a group of so called proxies, you reject those that don’t match the instrumental record. Your conclusion should be that none of them are proxies (if at all) and those that fit may do so purely by chance. It seems to me a rather banal observation to make!

ROM (00:25:04) : …As has been demonstrated by one single dedicated and unpaid member of the public, Steve McIntyre, and in only a few days of work…
Actually ROM, as I’m sure you’ll remember, Steve has been on the case a lot longer than this (and effectively unpaid too, I think). Personally I think Steve deserves a double Nobel, one for persistence and statistical excellence and breaking new stats ground, and one for integrity and unfailing demands for appropriate courtesy and breaking new ground for the whole future of Science.

… but also this has been a team effort (the Real Science team) since Steve could not have done without Jeff Id, Roman, Hu, Mosh, Bender, and more than I can name.

Pragmatic

ROM (00:25:04) :
“The backlash, the fallout and the doubts that must now be raised about the accuracy and scientific truthfulness of Nature and Science must now have a possibly devastating impact on the veracity of these publications.”
Indeed. The wanton destruction of venerable institutions of science all for impossible political ambition… Selfish hubris.

Rabe

I notice that some spammer means repeating trivialities all over the place is a sensible contribution to the otherwise excellent discussion.

…oh and for God’s sake, thanks and congrats, Jeff, on spiking the spiker.

tallbloke

Michael (23:41:49) :
It should be called the “Yamal Briffa Affair”. Maybe for the movie?

“The Dendro Dozen”

Trust a serious skeptic, it’s not easy to find mistakes in his work and some of us check him just as I spent over an hour checking Tom’s work. In my opinion Tom deserves congratulations for his efforts and checking, this way we all learn.
I’ve now been all the way through SteveM’s scripts from beginning to end and can’t find any problems with the script, maybe others can!

That is real peer review, unlike what we seem to have been getting from the Hockey Team.

Well done TomP and Jeff Id and the others involved in achieving something that would take the conventional peer review process two years to achieve. Perhaps online scientific debate and peer review is at last coming of age.
I am in total agreement. What is needed, however, is an impartial and honest host for such a Forum. I believe we have that in “Anthony and the mods” – Many thanks, guys!

bill

Why did you look though Tom P’s code for the changes He admits the change at the same instant that he shows the code!
Tom P (15:24:58) :
jeez (15:12:26) :
Tried to -the code appears headed to the spam filter.
The tweak is simple enough – just remove the occurrences of [temp,] from the yamal index.

I have checked the page where the raw data is, and it’s interesting to see the timestamps involved with the different objects on the page. It seems to have happened on Sep, 8th. But what intrigues me Steve is the TayBavRing.raw file; it also seems to be new. Might it also represent something special?
Ecotretas
Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:38:27 GMT – http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/
Sat, 21 Apr 2007 07:33:04 GMT – http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/EurasianGridBox.dat
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:29:20 GMT – http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/Column.prn
Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:01:00 GMT – http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/RCS_TRW_SSA.xls
Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:50:18 GMT – http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/TornFinADring.raw
Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:31:04 GMT – http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/YamalADring.raw
Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:31:08 GMT – http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/TayBavRing.raw

ROM

Lucy Skywalker (01:25:50) :
Yes, I do well remember the many, many long months that Steve McIntyre has been on this case and I have been reading or at least trying to read and understand as much as my old brain can of Mr McIntyre’s calculations and conclusions on this and the many other examples of doubtful climate science that he has opened up for examination.
And when he did finally get that data it seems it only took him a few days to put together the basic case that has demolished Briffa’s paper.
In no way did I wish to diminish the contributions of Steve McIntyre’s dedicated “band of brothers” who, to me as a statistical ignoramus, are incredibly gifted and an integral part of and major contributors to the breaking open of this whole case as I have understood it.
May I apologise to those gentlemen if it seems that I have neglected your contributions.
That was not my intention at all but Steve I think has been the real driving force to continually work at opening up this whole scam and show it for what it is.
I just hope that somewhere, somehow, there is still a decent, honest politician or a person of great political influence reading this who will see to it that Steve McIntyre and his band of fellow workers who have exposed this whole sordid episode will quietly work to see that Steve and his invaluable co-researchers get the recognition that they all undoubtedly deserve.

Robert Wood

Always, the teram’s reluctance to reveal data was problematic. Now we know why. Can we conclude that these poeple, Briffa, Jones, Mann et al. knew what they were doing? Or were they just incompetent 😉

Ray (22:23:54) :
So, let me get this straight… the faith of our economy and politics rest in a few dozen old trees somewhere that grew in a limited little spot on the earth?
UFB!
Priceless !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tim Clark

Rhys Jaggar (01:02:40) :
Am I to understand that a major contributor to our assertions on ‘hockey stick’ runaway ‘global warming’ is not directly measured temperature data using a Stevenson Box (or whatever you use to measure temperatures in winter in deepest Siberia), but a series of TREE RINGS?
Robinson (01:21:46) :
I honestly didn’t understand Tom’s argument anyway. I give you a group of so called proxies, you reject those that don’t match the instrumental record. Your conclusion should be that none of them are proxies (if at all) and those that fit may do so purely by chance. It seems to me a rather banal observation to make!

I agree. Correct me if I’m wrong. It appears the intent of the Briffa and subsequent tree ring analyses was to determine if those rings could be used as proxy for temps and therefore extend the temperature record back in time to the MWP and LIA. Then you select those cores that match the current temperature record. Is that not circuitous logic? If all the available cores don’t match the current temperature record, then either tree cores are not a proxy, or the current temperature data to which the limited core samples were matched is suspect. Is there any truth in Science?

P Wilson

mrpkw (04:32:22) :
Tree rings are no measure of temperature, given the variables that take place such as total sunlight, humidity, drought, precipitation, competing nutrients, and many other biologial, climatic and ecological factors, even to disease and pestilence. IE. Its taken out of context.
Congrats to McIntyre for locating the bias, and to Biffra for undertaking the venture nonetheless
Its quite remiss that UEA would be so lazy as to infer a temperature from tree ring width and density without undertaking more forensics. Others have, such as oxygen isotope levels in sediment fossils, peat bogs and quite a considerable legend of other proxies. However, they infer a very warm MWP and so are not considered part of the aceptable range for official climatology

bugs

CO2 is an integral part of their strategy to control the world. Who are they? They are the Bilderbergs and the global wealthy elite human beings of the planet who’s only desire is to rule the whole entire place.
Are you here for the rest of the week?

Tom P

To repost from a lower thread:
Steve McIntyre’s chronology above shows the data before the inclusion of the Schweingruber cores, but not after. I have shown the entire combined chronology.
Here is the period when cores from both series are contributing, namely 1780 to 1990:
http://yfrog.com/03schweingrubercru1780199p
I’ve reduced the truncated Gaussian smooth to three years to prevent the post-1991 CRU archive contributing to this series, hence the increased scatter in the points.
Here’s the entire series up to 1990 plotted on this basis:
http://yfrog.com/9gschweingrubercru0019903p
It still doesn’t look like the blade has been broken.
===============
For those who would like to duplicate this, the R code changes:
yamal[temp,]
to
yamal[temp,]
truncated.gauss.weights(21)
to
truncated.gauss.weights(3)
ts.plot(f(chron.var1$series),ylim=c(0,2.8))
to
ts.plot(f(chron.var1$series),xlim=c(0,1990),ylim=c(0,2.8))

D. King

Steve McIntyre
Thanks so much Steve.
Now it’s time to look at sea ice satellite sensors, calibration,
AGC, receiver antenna pointing, and signal bias values.
Me thinks, something “hinky” this way comes.

P Wilson

Tom P. The concept of using tree rings to show nothing more than temperature is like showing how much coke there is in someone’s fridge to indicate how wealthy they are.
Lets not be silly

P Wilson

Rhys Jaggar (01:02:40)
Actually, i was thinking about this and if were were to be selective we could take the average temperature of Libya alone as a proxy for world temperatures, and then expect someone to refute it by taking the average temperature of Antarctica alone as a measure of world temperatures.
It still doesn’t explain: Why are comparative biochemistry and tree line studies not appearing in the future plots of past temperatures? The treeline during the period in question in Norther Russia was a good deal further north anyway. Its attributed thats because we haven’t reached MWP temperatures yet, although others say growing conditions are not as favourable yet. Either way, it shows that tree rings only indicate the growing conditions and not the temperature

P Wilson

ok, how would this anomaly be explained? In the UK, summer temperatures were greater than in 2008, yet my garden produced more vegetation than in 2006..
Should I infer that therefore, 2008 was a warmer summer than 2006?

Robert

Congrats too, to the Royal Society and their enforcement of policy, slow though it may have been.
And one wonders what interpretation Tom P. may give to the low number of cores in the modern data, and what motive he may ascribe to the obfuscation of that fact. Now that the data is out many such defenses may emerge, but they will now be forced to contend with some rather stubborn facts.
The withholding of data and methodology is all too common these days and there is only one reason for it. Perhaps the Royal Society policy – written 100 years ago no doubt – will serve as a reminder of this from back in the day when science was science and politics was politics.

Tom P

Steve McIntyre:
“Here is some conclusive evidence in respect to the following misrepresentation by Tom:
“”Steve McIntyre said they may well have been just the most recent part of Hantemirov and Shiyatov’s dataset and no selection would have been made.””
You have taken my comment out of context – this was with respect to the twelve cores in the CRU archive which you wish to omit from the record. There is no evidence that Biffra selected for this archive a subset of Hantemirov and Shiyatov’s cores – the published core-count plots for the most recent cores look very similar between Biffra 2008 and Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002.
You further write:
“There are 252 distinct series in the CRU archive. There are 12 IDs consisting of a 3-letter prefix, a 2-digit tree # and 1-digit core#. All 12 end in 1988 or later and presumably come from the living tree samples. The nomenclature of these core IDs url (POR01…POR11; YAD04…YAD12; JAH14…JAH16 – excluding the last digit of the ID here as it is a core #) suggests to me that there were at least 11 POR cores, 12 YAD cores and 16 JAH cores.”
“It is “possible” that they skipped ID numbers, but this is a farfetched theory even for Tom. As surmised here, the missing ID numbers are “evidence” of at least 39 cores and that the present archive is not only too small, but incomplete.”
If you wish to exclude core series on the basis of incomplete label sequences, how about the Schweingruber series you first wanted to put against the CRU archive?
The live cores in the russ035 NCDC archive are numbered:
878012
878042
878072
878081
878101
878151
878152
878161
878162
878171
878172
878012
878042
878072
878081
878101
878151
878152
878161
878162
878171
878172
878181
878182
878191
878192
878202
878161
Shouldn’t suspicion fall on this core archive as well? Excluding one subset of a core archive on the basis of incomplete label sequences but including another series with the broken label sequences might lead to accusations of cherry picking.

Tim Clark

Tom P (06:12:58) :
So why does you graph disagree with the green line from the graph labeled Yamal RCS Chronologies above?