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.
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:
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OK then, one less angry, sciency, rant by an anonymous coward who won’t put his name to his own work to worry about.
Might I suggest, in an homage to Colbert Report, the use of “scienciness” in analogy to “truthiness”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
Scienciness is something that you just feel has to be Science like and you don’t really need to do all that actual work to show it is valid; just like all those Mann graphs and the other AGW Scienciness work…
For us dumb electrical engineers, could somebody please tell me what the labels are for the X and Y axes on that graph? Is that years AD for the X axis and degrees C [F?] for the Y axis?
This story is certainly encouraging news for all skeptics following the AGW debate. However I wonder how much impact is it going to have on the average person out there who follows the AGW debate through the MSM. IMHO I suspect that it will have little or no impact on them and the majority of western society will continue to believe our only hope is to engage in the folly of carbon trading schemes and the like.
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.
Tamino who?
Steve’s didn’t reconstruct the hockey stick using the Schweingruber variation overnight, and the team needs a little time to go over the data and react.
I’m pretty sure though I already know the conclusion: “It’s worse than we thought.”
He just doesn’t have the credibility to merit attention.
Even if that were true the data itself does merit attention. If Tamino had wanted to be respected as a scientist he would have respected the data. Tamino needs to consider how others view him as a scientist with the way he handles data.
Because what is science without respect for data??
I have to agree with AJ Abrams (@ur momisugly 13:25:06). Michael, you are not getting it. Science is science. It doesn’t matter what the “intent” of that satellite was, if it generated useful data, it was going to be of value to us as a civilization.
Would you rather be RIGHT because high quality data and good science prove you right, or because you have an unshakable faith in your position? You can’t be in the former camp unless you have this high quality data to do that good science on.
“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.”
Talk about a ‘tree ring circus!’
Gene Nemetz (16:48:43) Tamino needs to consider how others view him as a scientist
Also, the way Tamino views someone who not only respects data but goes through pains to do so, i.e. Steve McIntyre, says a lot about him.
“… It has been reported that a catastrophic down trend in Mann made AGW Credibility is occuring. If the trend is allowed to continue a tipping point will be reached where Mann made AGW Credibility will collapse into itself dragging the rest of the AGW Movement with it. To forestall this disaster of epic proportions, a new tax on fossil fuel usage is to be deployed to provide the funding necessary to promote Mann made AGW Credibility…”
“… Al Gore has released a new documentary warning about the decline in Mann made AGW Credibility, it is titled – An Inconvenient Canadian – …”
“… This loss of Mann made AGW Credibility is occuring faster than predicted and is worse than we thought …”
Sonicfrog (13:24:00) :
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!!!
Nah – it’s a “virtual hockystick” of future warming… You see – the warming is all in the pipeline, those few trees are ‘sensitive to the future’ …. It’s a true marvel of nature they are “leading indicators” of future warming, not “Lagging Indicators” of past warming…
Now why didn’t anyone else think of that….
I’m sure this a stupid question, but why did the skeptics have to get Mann’s data? Aren’t there other old trees that could have been sampled and studied? Couldn’t skeptics have generated their own data without waiting ten years and going through a lot of hassle to get Mann’s? Thanks for any explanation.
KLA (14:56:51) :
from that German blog :
picture of headstone for the burial of the Hockey Stick
http://www.readers-edition.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/tomwe.jpg
An additional advantage of online publication is that corrections and addenda can be made “in place,” not in a subsequent, separate issue.
Another advantage is that all supporting data can be posted and made accessible. Potential critics needn’t write to the author to get access. This is very important.
Graeme Rodaughan (16:52:07) : “… Al Gore has released a new documentary warning about the decline in Mann made AGW Credibility, it is titled – An Inconvenient Canadian – …”
Also titled :
“Al Gore’s First Class Pain in the [self snip}” 😉
Good question, John Galt. Could it be that the skeptics are not generally on the research gravy train and able to spend days and weeks traveling on other peoples dimes? (unless they give those other people quarters in return)
That said, I support Lucia’s tip jar to help pay for real science peer reviewed publications.
“Treemometers: A new scientific scandal
If a peer review fails in the woods…
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.
At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a “reconstruction” of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.
Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called “divergence”. The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples – a choice open to a scientist’s biases.
Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold claims using tree ring data.” (more)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
“”” 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. “””
Extracted from what purpotrs to be a comment by Gavin Schmidt at RC.
He says they can make a graph of atmospheric 13C/12C ratio versus year.
Well not exactly; they CAN make a graph of TREE RING C13/C12 ratios; assuming they did the tree ring assays correctly; whcih I certainly am going to assume; lacking evidence that they did not.
Well we know; or at least botanists know that some plants/trees take up C13 differently from C12; although I am lead to believe that different types of plants have different metabolism and do different things vis-a-vis C isotope.
So now here’s a question for you botanists out there who have studied this isotope sensitive plant carbon metabolism.
How does the plant C13/C12 preference vary, with temperature, moisture, sunlight (spectrally), soil minerals; etc, etc.
In other words over what range of environmental variables that trees might be subject toi has this plant isotope preference been measured; and where can such data plots be found; if at all.
I would be amazed if the plant isotope ratio is a function of nothing but the atmospheric isotope ratio.
I have another problem with this C13/C12 metrology. My first query/curiosity concerns the assertion that “fossil fuels” primarily coal/petroleum/natural gas; not to mention other carbonaceous fuels being burned like the earth’s forests, and grasslands, etc are all supposed to be either plant materials or fossils of plant materials; and if that is true (assuming it is) would not fossil fuels be identical in carbon isotope to actual observed modern plants/trees/grasslands etc.
So why is the isotope ratio of fossil fuels not identical to that in plants.
But hey; that is only a part of my problem with this carbon origin proxy called isotope ratio.
Let us suppose (mental experiment) that somebody; say some big coal miner/big oil company discovered a large new deposit of coal/oil/fossil fuel and started to mine it/refine it/butn it etc.
Now this mental coal source is unique among coal deposits, in that it is very porous stuff; and lo and behold those pores in this wonder coal are filled with trapped atoms of Argon gas. So naturally the boig oil/big coal company is going to extract SOME of this new source of trapped argon, and sell the stuff. But he doesn’t need all of it so most of that coal is going to go untreated, and sold as is with Argon in place. So it’s a bit lighter than other coals but he sells it by weight anyway; so it is just a bit more bulky than regular coal.
Well now once industries start burning this Arcoal in their factories and power plants, all that Argon just goes up the chimney into the atmosphere; so as a result, the abundance of Argon atoms in the earth’s atmosphere starts to increase, as this new source of coal is burned.
Now maybe this Arcoal dposit is much easier to mine than some other coals; so the company takes some regular coals off line for the future, and concentrates on mining the easy stuff with Argon in it.
So absolutely nothing is going to happen to the changes in carbon content of the atmosphere; what ever changes would have happened due to the ongoing fossil fuel consumption still goes on; but now the atmospheric abundance of Argon is increasing from its 0.96% or whatever it is.
But you see that that increase in atmospheric Argon, is clearly not evidence of increased fossil fuel consumption; it is simply evidence that SOME of the carbon in the atmosphere came from a mine that is full of Arcoal.
There is no way that anyone can say that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning because only our wonder Arcoal contains Argon, which is clearly increasing in the atmosphere.
So back to reality; scratch Arcoal; we haven’t found any yet.
But we do know (or some atmospheric scientists know) that fossil fuels are being burned because they contain a different C isotope ratio than non fossil sources of carbon; and the C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere is changing.
But what we cannot say; based on just that statement, is that THE INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 must be due to fossil fuel burning; only that some of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must come from burning fossl fuels; but how do we determine whether the increased carbon came from fossils.
Now I am not going to claim that we cannot tell how much of the atmospheric CO2 INCREASE is due to fossil fuel burning; there is likely evidence of just exactly how much of each type of fuel, whether trees/grasslands/agricultural burn-offs/natural gas/petroleum/coal etc etc is consumed every year since fire was discovered.
So I’ll buy that the C13/C12 atmospheric isotope ratio shift is evidence that so-called “fossil” fuels; which contain anomalous isotope ratios, are being burned, and thus changing the atmospheric CO2 ratio; but I am yet to be convinced that it can be proven that the increase in atmospheric CO2 can be ascribed to fossil fuels; although I expect some of it might be.
So count me skeptical that the isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon is as sound a proxy for fossil fuel contribution to CO2 increases; it might just be another Arcoal situation.
” gtrip (14:14:10) :
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!!! ”
Some cherries are hard to reach at least on my trees, but trust business to come up with a better term………..”low hanging fruit”.
It’s funny how I never thought of myself as an activist… honestly I was always happy to live and let live and get on with being happy and content in my own little sphere. But, I am of a scientific mindset (ok, ok I admit I was a bucket chemist by training – mineral processor and later mineral economist) and have an inherent drive to educate people… ignorance is a real turn off. Somehow the more I read about climate science the more I feel the need to expose the truth – it’s been quite the turn around. Maybe it is an age-related thing.
Anywho… Bob Carter replied to my email and said thanks for the links and brief to Senator Fielding (re. the recent hockey stick breaking stories). I am also cheesed off that the mainstream media is not running this remarkable story, so I posted on the The Australian:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/markday/index.php/theaustralian/comments/chattys_in_daggys_out_in_changing_news_world/
Maybe john Day will turn it over to some science reporter and get a story up. It’s all well and good scientifically open minded types aagreeing that this was poor science (I am being kind) but until the word gets out to the average voter in the proverbial street the politicians are very unlikely to take heed (assuming they would regardless).
Where to next?
“”” Joel (17:24:19) :
Good question, John Galt. Could it be that the skeptics are not generally on the research gravy train and able to spend days and weeks traveling on other peoples dimes? (unless they give those other people quarters in return) “””
Well Joel, as you know, I am not a skeptic; and I am also not on any gravy train; if I travel anywhere for any reason; it is always on my dime. But I do contribute via my tax burden to the source of some of those gravy train grants; what’s more I even approve of much of it. I am sure that somehow, I also pay the cost of some of those “big oil” research gravy trains; those people do have a vested business interest in really knowing what the truth of all of this is; and they are willing to pay for the research to get at that truth.
And I feel I have a right to get thoroughly PO’d if either of those gravy train groupies starts fudging their results to stay on the train (or for any other reason). So I’ll watch their published output; and I’ll holler if it doesn’t seem to add up; either way.
George
John Galt (17:02:17) :
yes there are other litanies trees and fossils that are independently researched. When bias occurs, then the source of the bias is investigated. A fair proportion of this biophysical research isn’t advocacy based, then neither is climate data and some excellent climate reconstructions It is research and data.
Here for instance if the Had which has its CRUT in a glut can’t release any information because its privileged or misplaced, then they’re merely being sententious. It is afterall the taxplayer who pays them over what they are telling us is a future disaster
The advocacy is a different issue. When an agenda is imposed or infiltrated into paid learning and research institutions then they are no longer seats of learning.
I’m not sure that empirical facts are, or could be described as official. The agenda that is manipulated around them may well be described as official.
To all you Michael bashers out there,
It is not my intent to argue every subtle innuendo of all the nuances pertaining to the science involved in the global warming aka climate change debate. There will be plenty of time for the climate brainiacs to hash that out.
My main focus is to defeat the Cap-and-Trade carbon tax bills similar to the ones the European socialists have already been defeated by. Once implemented in our country, the damage will be irreversible. The energy bill passed by the House now before the Senate must be defeated by all means necessary, there is very little time left to accomplish this task. The defeat of the bill is backed up by the science, of that I am sure.
I doubt you guys have the skills to make them see the light before it is too late, that is why I am here to help. I do have that unique ability to provoke some angry responses to some thought provoking material I have at my disposal. Anger stimulates thought and also makes for some interesting reading. Jut look at the most interesting thread and comments of praise to date on WUWT from yesterday, A must read: The Yamal Hockey Stick Implosion in laymans terms. These are the types of threads the lurkers like to read, and why a good amount of participation is necessary.
I do not profess to know everything, I am a philosopher and a machinist by trade, with an extensive knowledge of everything mechanical, psychological, and esoteric. I will try to limit my contribution here to science and understanding. Just remember, science does not exist in a vacuum. Throw all the punches you want at me, you will not get a rise, I have the hide of a rhino.
As an incentive to get rid of me as fast as possible, get the Cap-And Trade Bill defeated.
Yes. It makes one wonder. Couldn’t Al Gore have paid independent palaentologists, oceanographers, research chemists, and solar physicists to have conducted an unbiased research into the climate?
“”” 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. “””
I guess this is the central point. Gavin’s statement is not correct. The declining 13C/12C ratio may be evidence of the increased consumption of fossil fuels from around 1850; but you need more than that information to assign the increasing atmospheric CO2 to the fossil fuels; there were other sources of increasing burning of carbon materials; like increasing agriculture; deforestation and so on; increasing populations of both humans and domestic livestock populations.