AGU presentation backs up McIntyre's findings that there is no late 20th century hockey stick in Yamal

If you are just joining us, the story is this. After 10 years of data being withheld that would allow true scientific replication, and after dozens of requests for that data, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit finally was given access to the data from Yamal Peninsula, Russia. He discovered that only 12 trees had been used out of a much larger dataset of tree ring data. When the larger data set was plotted, there is no “hockey stick” of temperature, in fact it goes in the opposite direction. Get your primer here.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif?w=420&h=360

Red = 12 hand picked Yamal trees Black = the rest of the Yamal dataset

Now there’s independent confirmation from a study presented at the American Geophysical Union Conference in 2008 that there is no “hockey stick of warming” at Yamal.

The presentation is” Cumulative effects of rapid climate and land-use changes on the

Yamal Peninsula, Russia by D.A. Walker, M.O. Leibman, B.C. Forbes, H.E. Epstein. (click link for PDF)

In the hallway poster for their AGU presentation, they have this graph, with the caption saying a “nearly flat temperature trend” for Yamal, especially for the late 20th century period where the “hockey stick” from those 12 trees emerges:

Yamal_temp_trend_AGU08

See the AGU poster here (warning, big 18 MB PDF file)

Here is how they summarize the graph above in the AGU presentation:

  • Sea ice: -25%
  • Summer surface temperature: +4%
  • Maximum NDVI: +3%
  • None of the trends are significant at p =0.05 because of high interannual variability.

NDVI is the vegetation index.

There’s also an interesting polar sea ice, temperature, and vegetation index trend map that is similar to what Lucy Skywalker recently plotted.

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

I’m sure we’ll see an explosion from “Tamino” any minute now to refute this, oh wait, he’s gone on record as saying:

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.

OK then, one less angry, sciency, rant by an anonymous coward who won’t put his name to his own work to worry about. Talk about credibility. Sheesh.

Here is the conclusion Walker et al makes in their AGU presentation

  • Satellite data suggest that there has been only modest summer land-surface warming and

    only slight greening changes across the Yamal during the past 24 years. (Trend is much

    stronger in other parts of the Arctic, e.g. Beaufort Sea.)

  • Kara-Yamal: negative sea ice, positive summer warmth and positive NDVI are correlated

    with positive phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation.

So it seems sea ice extent, the NAO, and the AO are the bigger factors for temperature in Yamal. It also appears that the Arctic is getting slightly more green.

If anyone has access links to the full paper, feel free to post it here.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
cbone

Re: Tamino
I can’t really blame him. I mean after all would you wade into a fight knowing beforehand that you were going to get your keister handed to you. I see his comment as an acknowledgment of the validity of Steve’s work. His ‘relative obscurity’ has never stopped any of the climate harpies from criticizing his work before…
Bottom line, the evidence is clear and compelling that the hockey stick was a product of the fertile imaginations of a few climate scientists.

Fred from Canuckistan . . .

Tamino is acting like a spoiled child – he’s taking his hockey stick and going home.
Maybe his Mummy will buy him a Unicorn to make him feel better.

MartinGAtkins

Juraj V. (10:04:09) :
Interestingly they nearly all show the 1940s warm period and the 1970s cool period. None of them suggest anything unusual about the current warm temperatures.

Eric

wow – they even imply that the cause of the modest recent warming may be positive NAO phase. From one of the summary slides:
“Kara-Yamal: Negative sea ice, positive summer warmth, and positive NDVI are correlated to positive phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation”
I really don’t want to pile on, but this keeps getting worse. It seems that the one weak justification for the Yamal selection (correlation to instrumental temp record) is out.
I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

MikeN

The temperature records form Salehard near Yamal also don’t show warming. If anyone followed Tamino’s rant on Lucy’s Arctic temperature records last time, well this time I ran 5 year averages and still didn’t see a trend.

Greg, San Diego, CA

OT – any explanation of the recent upward spike in the DMI Polar Temperature chart – which now seems to be going back down?

AnonyMoose

Has Walker been informed that his work has been confirmed by McIntyre?

Henry chance

Mann made global warming is kinda in remission?
The penalty box seems appropriate.

Pascvaks

Those with character will out those without. Perhaps (let us hope and pray), the Great Tree Ring Snafu will serve science better than some of science served their craft and lowly tree rings. Dendrochronology is a true science and deserves better than the lowlife scum who sought to use it to sell themselves and their wares to the highest bidders. Politicians are like pimps and drug pushers, they’ll use anyone to further their own interests and they don’t give a tinkers damn what it ends up costing you or I. Why and how did this happen? Because it could. Because the safeguards within the system were undermined, insufficient, none existant. Because too many members of the Guilds of Science worshiped the Golden Calf and forgot to remember the first law. I believe many more spoke and wrote against the Hocky Stick but their shouts were seldom heard. May G_d save science, and the rest of us too.

Boudu

If I were a Global Warming Alarmist I would probably say this is worse than we thought !

Corey

OK then, one less angry, sciency, rant by an anonymous coward who won’t put his name to his own work to worry about. Talk about credibility. Sheesh.

I am sure you knew, but I do believe that Tamino is [snip – no outing ~ Evan]. I would consider him one of the Team.
[snip]

Jimmy Haigh

At least Tamino has said something. Over at Real Climate they are in complete and utter denial.

Kevin Schurig

At what point does a “believer” accept the fact that the data does not support AGW. I have been watching the ruckus over McIntyre’s paper and am just marveled at how the “believers”/drinker can just ignore the remaining data set that Mann and his cohorts conveniently pushed aside since it did not fit with their theory. That’s right, I am saying Mann and his cohorts CHERRY-PICKED the cores from those they had available to them in order to achieve the desired results. And how can I make that assessment? Simple. When McIntyre uses the data from other cores collected the “hockey stick” is non-existent. No small difference. N-O-N-E-X-I-S-T-E-N-T. Are we supposed to submit to the massive destruction of our respective economies based on TWELVE cores????? Mann’s results are not repeatable for his entire study is biased. McIntyre provides true peer-review. And with the data now available expect more papers in the very near future showing the same result as McIntyre, no “hockey stick.” Another card in the house of AGW gone.

Adam Gallon

Interesting to see land-use changes popping up. Should please Pielke Snr!
Tammy-boy = [snip]
RC will carry on ignoring this, trouble for them, is that it’ll hang around like stink from a dead skunk under the porch!

Corey

Jimmy Haigh (11:06:35) :
At least Tamino has said something

I agree. Even though he has only said the he will not say anything. I have tried, three times, to post a comment on RC. Once with direct links to climateaudit and JeffId’s web pages, and twice with a tinyurl link. All three were “lost”. I even waited a day and a half, just in case there was a “back log” of posts. Here is my last one:

Corey says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
30 September 2009 at 11:10 AM
I tried posting this comment the other day, so I am trying again today. Someone had said that it takes a day or so sometimes, so I waited to repost, just to be safe.
Corey says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
28 September 2009 at 8:16 PM
Speaking of ‘communicating science’, it seems that that Steve McIntyre has found a problem with some tree ring data. What do you make of this? Any comments?
Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem
http://tinyurl.com/ya856cm
Also, Jeff Id has some words of his own about the whole thing:
http://tinyurl.com/yemnfmv
Here is a screenshot, too.
http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad234/Patriot_Vet/RealClimate/RealClimateScreenshot-AwaitingModer.jpg
Do you know why my original post didn’t get posted?

I really do not think that they can stick their heads in the sand and hope this goes away, and they will have to answer questions, soon. It looks as though they are the ones in denial.

Dean

Of course, now the argument will shift from “is he still around? why hasn’t he published in a peer-reviewed journal by now? Don’t listen to him, he is irrelevant” to “well, this is OLD NEWS and is therefore irrelevant”…

Not just Denial, but shock, anger, gnashing of teeth and fear. “Whats that mate!” “Footsteps of an angry crowd coming our way” “Run away Run away, hide hide.”

But hey Guys
The 20 or so years by Walker et al do neither support nor refute the (corrected) Yamal chronology, they are over entirely different time spans.

vg

This is the only comment i think related to this story that got through RC poor ol Gavin did not cop on!
8.I’m sure you want to update this
It’s got some problems.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
— 22 December 2004
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes.
One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time.
Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.
[Response: Not following your point at all. What do you think is wrong with this? – gavin]

Jim Steele

Of course RealClimate will deny. As Gavin once roughly stated ..’We are in a battle for the meme of Anthropogenic Global Warming.’ They must protect their position at al costs!
They have already sacrificed scientific objectivity. They have encouraged totalitarian efforts to prevent debate. They supported all the emotional advocacy that science once shunned. They will shamefully be responsible for many future casualties as dedicated objective environmental scientists will suffer greatly from lost credibility from the RealClimate team’s bastardization of the scientific process!

Saaad

As a regular reader (if not contributor) to your excellent blog, I really must say that I think you, SM, Jeff Id, Steve Mosher, Bob Tisdale et al have perhaps finally found the ‘smoking gun’…..THE evidence, hidden from all, secreted away, protected even by the so-called “Scientific Journals” from scrutiny by us – or at least me, as one of the ‘great unwashed’. The really cool thing is that I am a direct descendant, as are we all in the ‘western world’, of the people who, as a product of the great libertarian movement started way back in France 1791, were able to become educated enough to at least hope that rational thought and freedom of expression would be able to recognise extremism and religious fundamentalism, in whatever guise it presents itself.
I guess that, like so many of your readers, I feel that I’ve become something of an ‘expert layperson’ over the last four years in the field of climate science. I started my journey a bit like Lucy Skywalker…..someone told me that the melting Arctic Icecap was going to cause the world to flood – I remembered a bit of Secondary School Physics about ice cubes and density, displacement etc and, after a bit of surfing, I found WUWT…back in ’05’.
WUWT gave me the starting point for an intellectual journey which has involved much research, a three year crash course in physics, a few problems – one of which was some fairly major prejudice as far as my own industry was concerned – hence the return to the pseudonym ( I know, I know….coward etc etc) but finally a thirst for knowledge about a subject
which I honestly feel has been hijacked to satiate some kind of deep-seated
need we have, in the Western World, to feel somehow unworthy. It’s as if
AGW has become the new Puritanism, the hair shirt we somehow must wear for becoming, broadly, an educated free society.
Green agendas trumpet the idea that we, homo sapiens, are the great villains of the peace. Somehow we have become, in their eyes, the great pariah. We are, at the same time, as far as they are concerned, both hopelessly guilty of every single bad thing that happens here and yet also somehow uniquely powerful in our ability to control our planet, to choose, somehow, the fate of our earth. Our shame, it appears, knows no bounds. Our very existence will lead to a new version of Dante’s Inferno…….and, thank the heavens, in the face of this new fundamentalism, one can still encounter the likes of Anthony Watts, Steve Macyntire, the Pielkes, Jeff Id, Steve Mosher, Lucy Skywalker et al…Quietly but persistently going about the business of being sceptical, scientific, true and, above all, not cowing to the falsehoods of what has fast become the next big thing in global political movements.
I like human beings….I feel privileged to be one myself. Perhaps now, thanks to you guys, we can all get back to the business of just being us.
Cheers!
Saaaad.
, whilst being this apparently alien force we must subjugate ourselves to some version of reality which currently, at its core, has the idea that we are inherently evil to the planet and must change our evil ways to preserve some kind of notional “eden”?……guess what? In my corner of this blue planet, termites whack waaaay more CO2 into the atmosphere than us piddly human folk.

Man. My fork has never been this ready to stick into the alarmist hockey stick sausage…. want to see if it’s really done!

Roger Knights

“I really do not think that they can stick their heads in the sand and hope this goes away …”
They’ll say (in effect), “The sand looks fine down here!”

Jimmy Haigh (11:06:35) : At least Tamino has said something. Over at Real Climate they are in complete and utter denial.
hehe, have to laugh. Tamino did three posts in response to my “Circling the Arctic” so evidently my credibility is a lot higher that Steve Macintyre’s. More likely I touched a raw nerve (as did Lucia) and he’s still in recovery.
Thanks Anthony for the mention again. I did a second piece Circling Yamal just before Steve’s breakthrough, which compares thermometer records from stations in all directions from Yamal, to the treering claims of temperature, and right through a long period of overlap. With thermometer records going back to 1880 and even 1860, this squarely covers the time when the temperatures were supposed to change from flattish into a dramatic rise – say between 1900 and 1950. Thus in both space and time, I think my work (based on that of John Daly) has an important contribution and an edge over the AGU presentation. But it’s nice to see good confirmation from a good source.

Tim S.

“I have tried, three times, to post a comment on RC. Once with direct links to climateaudit and JeffId’s web pages, and twice with a tinyurl link. All three were ‘lost’.” – Corey (11:44:12)
That’s because the good folks at RealClimate are cherry-picking the comments! 😀

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

You guys are doing incredible work and yet the media……silent

J. Bob

Hope Tamino gets well soon, his comments are “interesting”. Still, he bungled that east England data set, so he shouldn’t be so condescending to his betters.

Ray

Look at the positive side… The MET office will surely disconnect their models from that graph and will now be able to give better weather predictions.

Yarmy

“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.”
The coward’s lament. You can bet your life he’s spent every waking minute trying to refute it.

wsbriggs

The Register (UK webloid on what’s what in computers) has picked up the story. I was delighted, The Register is read all over the world (motto: Biting the hand that feeds IT).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

SeanH

2 news hits in google so far, and 618 web hits. Not quite silent, but I think maybe they’re waiting to see how robust the analysis is – as has been said before, this is not in itself a new reconstruction.

Haryo

It is not for the best interest to only publish the analysis on the blogosphere. The analysis must be submitted to a peer-reviewed, recognized journal as soon as possible, with a copy at the arxiv server. Once the analysis has been submitted, spread out news about the preprint so interested parties can download and read the preprint way. In this way the news will be propagated among the scientific circle.
Before this work is published, it will be really hard to use this work in the battle against climate change alarmists in official meetings, because they will always first point out that the results *has not been* submitted/published in a peer-reviewed journals.

SeanH
The media is probalbly deliberating if it should just ‘look away’ and hope that it also will ‘go away’ or if should prepare for any competion which will pick it up and force them to acknowledge its existens and handle inte somehow.
We can be pretty sure that journalists who usually cover climate-stuff generally lean heavily towards the alarmist side, and that they tend to rely on RealClimate and other similar ‘reliable’ sources for their interpretation. The more alert ones among them will of course be aware of the rumble drummed up by Steve and others, but since RC is silent they are at a loss regarding how to respond.
Give it some time. This one will not go away …

Michael

The CO2 haters lost their precious satellite.
How about this 1.9 billion dollar boondoggle. I don’ know how the MSM missed this one too. The comments are precious.
NASA’s Carbon Satellite Fails, See Video of Launch
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/launchfailure/

David

I agree with Haryo. The sooner Steve publishes his work, the harder it will be to ignore or discredit it (even for Tamino!).

Cold Lynx

No Haryo;
This time i think it is better to not play their game again.
The Yamal stick have a momentum that, wisely used can change the way the scientific elite use to hide behind platitudes as peer-reviews, consensus, to name a few.
This is a on line internet audit that change the way science publishing is audit from now on. That may be the largest impact of this story 100 years from now.

Lucy et al. You realize there is a way this will all be salvaged….. Teleconnections!!! The tree rings are showing the warming that was happening in Reno, Nevada, North America!!!

AJ Abrams

Michael –
I vote your post the dumbest thing I’ve seen written on this blog in some time and that is saying something with some of the alarmist minutia I’ve seen written here.
That was my tax dollars that just fell back to earth you imbecile also that particular satellite might just have easily found evidence to refute MMGW , hence we ALL lost an important tool today.
I’m a skeptic…please change sides, We don’t need nonsense like your post.

theduke

“I have tried, three times, to post a comment on RC. Once with direct links to climateaudit and JeffId’s web pages, and twice with a tinyurl link. All three were ‘lost’.” – Corey (11:44:12)
They are circling the wagons and gathering the ammunition. Unfortunately, they are nearly out of ammo and arrows are flying everywhere. I predict there will be a weak round of return fire and then the silence of the massacre’s aftermath.
And if I may switch metaphors, you have to remember it’s a Team effort. The Team needs to huddle up and decide what play they are going to use, since they are about to lose big in overtime. What must be most discouraging to them is that McIntyre now has their playbook, (i.e. the data.)

Ray

The other obvious conclusion from all this is: There is no link between the rising concentration of CO2 and the global temperature. But we knew this already.

Jeremy

“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.”
So many directions to go with this. The best part about this post/quote is that it is pure denialism. The very thing skeptics have been accused of for years now, expressly manifest in one of AGW’s biggest bulldogs. It is like a Swedish massage of the mind, that quote. In spite of all the things I’ve been called by (mostly) people online over my questioning of the official party line… that quote demonstrates that any remaining tension and/or self-doubt over my own skepticism was misplaced. It says that questioning is and remains the right thing to do. It says this because that quote isn’t a quote at all, it is silence. It is the internets biggest AGW bulldog closing his mouth. And that, my friends, is music to my ears.
Tamino, I know you read this site. I have been where you are. I have been in a situation where my mind would not allow me to accept alternative paradigms from what I knew to be true. My family was in a christian 7th-day cult during most of my childhood wherein we were forced to live by certain rules and believe certain complete faleshoods or face ostracism. I’m telling you that I know what it feels like when you’re forced to start thinking about what you know in a way that feels too socially painful to admit. Just please know that people won’t think less of you if you start to question what you know, they will actually think *BETTER* of you. It doesn’t feel that way, but it’s true. I’ve been there, I know. The best thing I got out of it was a promise to myself never to suspend disbelief again, it’s too healthy.

Ray

Cold Lynx (13:21:56) :
I agree that free on-line publication is the way to go.
– Lots of “peers” can review your work.
– Makes the whole publishing process much faster.
– Removes all circular review circles.
– Forces you to write your work in layman terms since they are opened to general public
– Free to publish and free to read.
– Easy access.

Roger Knights

The warm is turning.

D. King

Haryo (12:55:52) :
Before this work is published, it will be really hard to use this work in the battle against climate change alarmists in official meetings, because they will always first point out that the results *has not been* submitted/published in a peer-reviewed journals.
What about this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/more-on-the-hanno-wikipedia-graph-in-the-un-climate-report/#more-11214

gtrip

I don’t care much for the phrase “cherry picking”. Where does it come from? When I was a lad of 13 years up in Michigan, I had a job of picking cherries one summer. Three dimes for each 1 1/2 gallon pail full. It was hard work and I was lucky if I made $3.00 for eight hours of work.
So out of respect for real cherry pickers around the world, call them what they really are: Cheaters!!!

Michael (13:08:29) :

How about this 1.9 billion dollar boondoggle. I don’ know how the MSM missed this one too. The comments are precious.
NASA’s Carbon Satellite Fails, See Video of Launch
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/launchfailure/

It was covered here, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/24/bad-week-for-hardware-orbiting-carbon-observatory-satellite-burns-up/ and that quotes a Bloomberg News story. I remember hearing several other news accounts at the time.
Do you have specific examples of news sources that didn’t cover it?

KLA

Well,
The news is worming up in the blogoshere and has reached German blogs as well:
http://www.readers-edition.de/2009/09/30/das-ende-der-klima-wissenschaftlichen-glaubwuerdigkeit-ein-drama-in-5-akten/

Michael

I’m thinking of starting a petition drive for accredited climate scientists it sign expressing their discontent with the junk climate science.
The petitions can be delivered to the world climate summit at COP15 – Copenhagen · United Nations – Climate Change Conference – Dec 07, which by the way is, the day that will live in infamy, the attack on Pearl Harbor.
climatesciencefraud.com is available for the drive.

Michael

This from the Bloomberg article on the carbon satellite.
“Man-made CO2, which traps heat in the atmosphere, is largely produced by power plants, vehicle engines and factories.
The data gleaned from the satellite was intended to help guide government global-warming policy, NASA said.”
Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to study the trace amount of man made CO2 of the trace amount of all CO2 seems like a waste of my money. Especially since it looks like they intended to use it against me to justify the carbon tax.