WUWT readers may remember when Bishop Hill wrote Caspar and the Jesus paper. It was a wonderful narrative of the complex subject of tree rings and Steve McIntyre’s quest with debunking the Mann MBH98 paper, which created the original hockey stick. Now Bishop Hill has done it again with another great narrative. – Anthony
September 29, 2009 ClimateThere is a great deal of excitement among climate sceptics over Steve McIntyre’s recent posting on Yamal. Several people have asked me to do a layman’s guide to the story in the manner of Caspar and the Jesus paper. Here it is.
The story of Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick reconstruction, its statistical bias and the influence of the bristlecone pines is well known. McIntyre’s research into the other reconstructions has received less publicity, however. The story of the Yamal chronology may change that.
The bristlecone pines that created the shape of the Hockey Stick graph are used in nearly every millennial temperature reconstruction around today, but there are also a handful of other tree ring series that are nearly as common and just as influential on the results. Back at the start of McIntyre’s research into the area of paleoclimate, one of the most significant of these was called Polar Urals, a chronology first published by Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. At the time, it was used in pretty much every temperature reconstruction around. In his paper, Briffa made the startling claim that the coldest year of the millennium was AD 1032, a statement that, if true, would have completely overturned the idea of the Medieval Warm Period. It is not hard to see why paleoclimatologists found the series so alluring.
Some of McIntyre’s research into Polar Urals deserves a story in its own right, but it is one that will have to wait for another day. We can pick up the narrative again in 2005, when McIntyre discovered that an update to the Polar Urals series had been collected in 1999. Through a contact he was able to obtain a copy of the revised series. Remarkably, in the update the eleventh century appeared to be much warmer than in the original – in fact it was higher even than the twentieth century. This must have been a severe blow to paleoclimatologists, a supposition that is borne out by what happened next, or rather what didn’t: the update to the Polar Urals was not published, it was not archived and it was almost never seen again.
Read the rest here at Bishop Hill’s blog, and be sure to leave a nice comment if you like his writing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
nick wrote: “the problem with our models, is like religion I think. we first devote huge emotional resources into erecting the edifice then we spend the rest of our time finding reasons/justifications to believe the models are correct. we make the assumptions which the models are meant to prove, first, then the model is created, or theory, or such, then the facts are sought to boost our faith in the edifice we have built., –like religion.”
That’s a good observation of human nature – and allow me to point out that this is the exact OPPOSITE of what Science done properly and honestly is all about! A true researcher following the Scientific Method first collects *all* of the data it is possible to collect; then looking at *all* the data he may venture a hypothesis that would explain something he’s seen. However, he continues to collect data and test new data against his hypothesis – if it does not fit into his theoretical framework, then that hypothesis must be ruthlessly junked and a new one examined. This process *never* ends, which is why it is an idiotic lie to say “the science is settled” on anything in which measurements are still being taken.
Models are fine as long as the scientists using them know that they go into the trash when that first bad prediction comes out of them. Of course, we are years past that point with the warmist climate models.
No true Scientist can ever love his Theory more than his Data – that is the realm, as you say, of religion, not to mention politics.
and for Bret, who asked: “Don’t we need to give Briffa a chance to explain himself…”
Briffa explaining himself – “hamina hamina hamina….” (looks at ground and pushes an imaginary rock around with his toe)
Anthony – love the Star Trek illustration for this post, complete with the hockey stick data in the background!
Bones: “Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor not a dendroclimatologist!”
Bret (04:44:41) :
Don’t we need to give Briffa a chance to explain himself before we can declare the hockey stick to be dead?
How long should that take? It’s been going on for three days now. The rebuttal should be simple. Did he select the 12 cores for a specific reason? Did he not know there were other cores available? Was it a simple mistake? The fact that it is taking an extended period to respond smacks of scheming a dodge.
Nick-ynysmom
Thank you for your comments. You raise some important points.
They would be far easier to read and grasp if you would use a paragraph break where needed, and a capital letter at the beginning of sentences (the way you do at the beginning of your name).
Please indulge us with this next time. Cheers,
The silence of the warmists.
Easy explanation, Gore’s PR team are working on an official response.
Some warmist sites like RC are helped out by green lobby groups supporting ‘green’ PR campaigns for ‘green’ business. Not really any different to the accusations levelled at sceptics being in the pockets of ‘big oil’. There’s no conspiracy as such, it’s just business.
The fun thing about all this are the implications for science in general. Which is a more effective peer review process, opening it up to the ‘net, as happens here or at CA, and on other blogs, or keeping to the cosy, closed world of traditional peer review.
The best thing about this affair is it clearly demonstrates the importance of full disclosure for good science, which should benefit everybody. Congratulations to all involved in this research.
As they will certainly try to control the Media, by not talking, we have to secure other means. I have requested comments from the European Union, as they have funded Briffa’s work. I don’t expect much of a reply, but I believe we have to push the message ahead of the media, right to politics. Once they find they have been funding, and will be funding, one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated on Earth, they will start moving in their chairs. Madoff is indeed nothing compared to this…
Ecotretas
There is a 200year temperature record. If tree grows do not support this record then that tree should be removed from the series. The data is wrong!
If invalid data should not be removed, just statistically incorporated in the whole then this of course would change the need for WUWTs surface station project. The siting/equipment quality etc. of the site is irrelevant. Statistics will give the correct result – no need to throw away the data for the thermometers sited next to an airconditioner fan, in a broken screen, on a hectare of tarmac. All data is valid!!!!
Frank K. (05:16:00) :
‘Bones: “Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor not a dendroclimatologist!” ‘
Brilliant! And another reason we frequent WUWT, apart from the science, is the humour.
Being Scottish my favourite Star Trek quote is: “Ye cannae change the laws o’ physics!”
And what does the data say , bill ?
The really annoying aspect of this is that AGW was never alive in the first place.
We have wasted billions of dollars and countless hours of time, exploring nothing, accomplishing nothing, and doing nothing productive.
We could have provided drinking water for the poor int he world, developed clean burning coal technology, cleaned up large amounts of environmental damage.
Instead, we have made climate profiteers rich, damaged real industries, and held an endless number of conferences for climate insiders to attend.
We have disrupted the world food markets and still have not built significant numbers of nuclear power plants.
The entire AGW movement has been a tremendous subsidy of stupidity.
And when ever something is subsidized, you get more of it.
The UK Telegraph will follow up James Delingpole’s blog with one from Chris Booker this Sunday, you can depend on that.
Sooner or later some “scientist” will have to answer. The contempt and silence will not serve as a response. Finally have to comply with Anthony, Steve M, etc. ..
Robinson (05:13:38),
Thanks for that link:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
It shows the shenanigans of the AGW crowd like his previous excellent exposé, Caspar And The Jesus Paper.
I feel I am in the presence of giants, a mere layman, when I try to educate myself through your and Steve McIntyre’s tireless and uncompromising work.
A deaf world is slowing hearing the whispers of truth and questioning the roar of deceit.
Interestingly, almost the entire AGW movement (religion) has been based on 12 trees in Siberia. That is true faith.
bill (05:45:00) :
There is a 200year temperature record. If tree grows do not support this record then that tree should be removed from the series.The data is wrong!
If invalid data should not be removed, just statistically incorporated in the whole then this of course would change the need for WUWTs surface station project. The siting/equipment quality etc. of the site is irrelevant. Statistics will give the correct result – no need to throw away the data for the thermometers sited next to an airconditioner fan, in a broken screen, on a hectare of tarmac. All data is valid!!!!
You are displaying inverted logic. If the data is wrong, which data. If the temperature data is wrong, then all the more necessity to do a Siberian surface station project. It appears that the twelve tree core data is in fact an incorrect subsample of a much larger series indicating that the temperature data is flawed.
McIntyre is a modern Copernicus. We need more people like him.
Tamino wrote:
“As for Steve McIntyre’s latest: I’m really not that interested. He just doesn’t have the credibility to merit attention. I have way better things to do.”
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/message-to-readers/
There is also an editorial about this mess in today’s (Sept 30) National Post:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/09/29/peter-foster-climate-policy-bust.aspx
michel (01:46:12) :
This is harebrained conspiracy fantasizing, which adds nothing to the important fact.
Thanks. I was tempted several times over the last few days to respond to this loon, but could not find the right words to express myself adequately. Yours do an excellent job.
Anthony,
Perhaps I’ve missed something in all the posts on this, but why doesn’t Steve go to the russians for the data? i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov
Tim Clark (05:25:50) :
How long should that take [to give Briffa a chance to explain himself]? It’s been going on for three days now.”
I scanned McIntyre’s posts but there was no indication Briffa has been contacted. After all, Briffa probably doesn’t read Climate Audit or WUWT.
Secondly, McIntyre’s work of the last 3 days is voluminous. There’s more to it than just the selection criteria. It could take more than three days to come up with a well thought out response.
We’ve been waiting 10 years. Watt’s a few more weeks?
Tim Clark (05:25:50) :
Bret (04:44:41) :
Don’t we need to give Briffa a chance to explain himself before we can declare the hockey stick to be dead?
How long should that take?
Keith Briffa is gravely ill. Let’s bear that in mind.
Cheery-pickers R Us – CRU
So what’s going to happen to the scientists responsible for this blunder?
Who is going to write to the Nobel Prize Committee that they have awarded a price
based on “cooked” science?
Jennifer Morohasy made a clear statement about the scientists.
They have to defend their work or resign.
She is right.
The reputation of science (and the Nobel Prize) is at stake.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/