More Yamal tree ring temperature data: this data is flat as roadkill

Today while looking for something else I came across an interesting web page on the National Climatic Data Center Server that showed a study from 2002

A continuous multimillennial ring-width chronology in Yamal, northwestern Siberia (PDF) by Rashit M. Hantemirov and Stepan G. Shiyatov

That study was tremendously well done, with over 2000 cores, seemed pretty germane to the issues of paleodendroclimatology we’ve been discussing as of late. Jeff Id touched on it breifly at the Air Vent in Circling Yamal – delinquent treering records?

A WUWT readers know, the Briffa tree ring data that purports to show a “hockey stick” of warming in the late 20th century has now become highly suspect, and appears to have been the result of hand selected trees as opposed to using the larger data set available for the region.

OK,  first the obligatory Briffa (Hadley Climate Research Unit) tree ring data versus Steve McIntyre’s plot of the recently available Schweingruber data from the same region.

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

Red = Briffa's 12 hand picked trees Black = the other dataset NOT used

The Hantemirov- Shiyatov (HS) tree ring data that I downloaded from the NCDC is available from their FTP server here. I simply downloaded it and plotted it from the present back to the year 0AD (even though it extends much further back to the year 2067 BC) so that it would have a similar x scale to the Briffa data plot above for easy comparison. I also plotted a polynomial curve fit to the data to illustrate trend slope, plus a 30 year running average since 30 years is our currently accepted period for climate analysis.

Compare it to the Briffa (CRU) data above.

Yamal-Hantemirov-Shiyatov-0_2000_full

Click for larger image

When I first saw this plot, I thought I had done something wrong. It was, well, just too flat. But I double checked my data import, the plot, the tools used to plot, and the output by running it 2 more times from scratch. Then I had Jeff Id over at the air vent take a look at it. He concurs that I’ve plotted the data correctly.

The trend is flat as road kill for the past 2000 years, though it does show an ever so slight cooling.

So the next task was to look at more recent times. Here’s the last 200 years of the data:

CZoomed to last 200 years - click for larger image

Zoomed to last 200 years - click for larger image

Still flat as road kill.

Finally, since Tom P made a big deal out of the late 20th century with his analysis where he made the mistake of combining two data sets that had different end points, I thought I’d show the late 20th century also:

Yamal-Hantemirov-Shiyatov-0_2000_zoomed2

Zoomed to last 50 years - click for larger image

Still flat.

Note that in the graph done by Steve McIntyre showing both Briffa and Schweingruber data, both of those data sets are also quite flat until we get into the late 20th century. So out of the 3 data sets we’ve looked at, the Briffa data, the data kept hidden for almost 10 years,  is the only one that shows any propensity for sudden 20th century warming.

But don’t take my word for it that this record is so flat. Look at the authors results. Their results seem identical to what I’ve plotted. Here is the last 2000 years of data charted taken from their paper:

Yamal-Hantemirov-Shiyatov-study-results

Figure 8 Reconstructed southern Yamal mean June–July temperature anomalies relative to mean of the full reconstructed series.

But for those that want more close up views, I’ve done some additional graphs. Since the authors used a 50 year window in one of their graphs I did the same. I also changed the Y scale to show a zoomed in +/- 0.3°C as the range rather than the +/- 4.0°C the authors used in the plot above. Some details begin to emerge, but once again the trend is essentially flat, and slightly negative.

Click for larger image

Click for a larger image

And here are the last 200 years zoomed

Yamal-Hantemirov-Shiyatov-0_2000_50year_zoomed

Click for a larger image

The period around 1800 was warmer than the late 20th century according to the data viewed this way, but we can see that slight rise in temperature for the 20th century. However compared to the rest of the Yamal HS data record it appears insignificant.

The authors insist that this wood contains a valid climatological record.

Holocene deposits in the southern Yamal Peninsula contain a large amount of subfossil tree remains: tree trunks, roots and branches. This is the result of intensive accumulation and the good preservation of buried wood in the permafrost. The occurrence of this material in the present-day tundra zone of the Yamal Peninsula was described for the Žfirst time by Zhitkov (1913). Later, Tikhomirov (1941) showed that, on the evidence of remains of trees preserved in peat, during the warmest period of the Holocene, the northern tree-line reached the central region of the Yamal Peninsula (up to 70°N), whereas today the polar timberline passes through the southernmost part of the peninsula at a latitude of 67°309 N.

By 1964, attention had been drawn to the potential significance of Yamal subfossil wood for reconstructing climatic and other natural processes over many thousand years, as a result of Ž fieldwork carried out within the valley of the Khadytayakha River in the southern part of the Yamal Peninsula (Shiyatov and Surkov, 1990).

I was impressed with the amount of field work that went into this paper. The authors write:

We travelled by helicopter to the upper reaches of the river to be sampled. Small boats were then used for locating and collecting cross-sections from wood exposed along the riverbanks. It was also possible, when going with the stream, to explore the nearest lakes.

The best-preserved material from an individual tree is usually found at the base of the trunk, near to the roots. However, many of these remains are radially cracked and it is necessary to tie cross-sections, cut from these trunks or roots, using aluminum wire before sawing. This wire is left in place afterwards as the sections are air-dried.

Here’s how they got many of the tree samples using a rubber boat:

yamal_riverbank_sampling

And here is how they sum up the last 2000 years from a tree line analysis they did:

From the beginning of the first century bc to about the start of the sixth century ad, generally warm conditions prevailed. Then began a quasi 400-year oscillation of temperature, cooling occurring in about 550–700, 950–1100, 1350–1500 and 1700–1900. Warming occurred in the intermediate periods and during the twentieth century. The more northerly tree-line suggests that the most favourable conditions during the last two millennia apparently occurred at around ad 500 and during the period 1200–1300. It is interesting to note that the current position of the tree-line in Yamal is south of the position it has attained during most of the last three and a half millennia, and it may well be that it has not yet shifted fully in response to the warming of the last century.

Interestingly while the authors note some warming in the last century, they don’t draw a lot of attention to it, or refer to it as being “unprecedented” in any way. There’s no graphs of nor mention of “hockey stocks” either.

Here’s the link to the source data:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/asia/russia/yamal_2002.txt

Feel free to make some plots of your own.

===

UPDATE: While I had originally surmised this data supported Steve McIntyre’s recent findings with respect to Briffa, Steve notes in comments that the methodology is different between the two data sets:

Steve McIntyre: I’ve made MANY references to Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 in my posts on Yamal. In my first post on Yamal after getting access to the data, I discussed the Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 reconstruction as archived at NCDC see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142

In that post, I observed that the standardization method used in H and S 2002 was different than Briffa 2000, that the H and S method would be unable to recover centennial scale variability and that it was not relevant to the issues at hand.

The H and S reconstruction does not “support” my point in respect to Yamal. It’s irrelevant to it.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
tokyoboy

Hence there was no MWP at all in western Syberia??

Ray

Apparently, Climate is not Global.

Gene Nemetz

tokyoboy (20:57:19) :
The more northerly tree-line suggests that the most favourable conditions during the last two millennia apparently occurred at around ad 500 and during the period 1200–1300. It is interesting to note that the current position of the tree-line in Yamal is south of the position it has attained during most of the last three and a half millennia, and it may well be that it has not yet shifted fully in response to the warming of the last century.
It looks like they infer a delay, a ‘shift’. So the 1200-1300 could be the delay to the MWP.

This was a very thorough study with over 2000 tree cores and no ridiculous hockey stick.

bill

from another thread:
Here’s another interesting dissertation with descriptions of the Yamal trees and environment:
http://vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog/2009/13-07/KHantemirovRM.pdf
From the same document a hockey stick!:
Figure 18- of change in the mean temperature of summer (deviations from the average), smoothed by 50-year filter, and the dynamics of polar timber line

Trees make lousy thermometers. Tree-lines however, I have no problems with.
REPLY: Tree lines are absolutes for temperature, plotting the movement of absolutes would seem more sensible since there are so many competing factors at play for tree ring growth as I’ve already noted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/
-Anthony

Keith Minto

Wonder how a Yamal rainfall overlay would look. I am thinking in particular of that upswing from 1966 (approx) to 1990 on the graph above “Fig 8” (they may need to be renumbered),that could be a good rainfall period. That cross sectional analysis with aluminium wire to stop splintering sounds thorough.

Gene Nemetz

It looks like they find, as has been noted by others like Craig Loehle, that tree rings are not a reliable proxy for determining temperature. Tree lines have value for that, yes. Tree rings, no.

Duncan

At some point, the idea of trees as thermometers is going to end up flushed down the toilet. What McIntyre’s work really shows is that the long handle of the hockey stick isn’t any more valid than the bogus blade.

Justin Sane

What the heck happened between 1800-1840?

Pamela Gray

Tongue in cheek warning!!!!!!
Sarcasm alarm!!!!!!
Snip alert!!!!!!
This reminds me of perspective. The predators hunting for ants in the world probably don’t see much difference in ant size. But zoom in to the ant’s view and you get huge differences between humans, monkeys, ant eaters, birds, and bugs that eat ants.
Skeptics look at ants and go “eh”. AGW’ers are ants looking at things that eat ants and die from alarm! Could explain why Skeptics see “flat”, and AGW’ers see “unprecedented warming”.

TerryBixler

We talk of reality here while those in power talk of regulating CO2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093002854.html The message is that our government wants to control and tax everyone based on CO2 stories, while the science does not even remotely support Boxer, Lisa Jackson, Pelosi, Waxman or Obama. Have they not heard the facts or are they just not listening.

Claude Harvey

And I repeat:
I think that I shall never see
A worse thermometer than a tree

I’ve made MANY references to Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 in my posts on Yamal. In my first post on Yamal after getting access to the data, I discussed the Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 reconstruction as archived at NCDC see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142
In that post, I observed that the standardization method used in H and S 2002 was different than Briffa 2000, that the H and S method would be unable to recover centennial scale variability and that it was not relevant to the issues at hand.
The H and S reconstruction does not “support” my point in respect to Yamal. It’s irrelevant to it.
Sorry bout that, Steve
REPLY: No worries, I was just following something I thought was interesting. I’ll change the title to reflect your points. – Anthony

tokyoboy

Gene Nemetz (21:11:31) :
tokyoboy (20:57:19) :
>It looks like they infer a delay, a ’shift’. So the 1200-1300
>could be the delay to the MWP.
Thanks. A possibly relevant fact is that most temperature measuring sites here in Japan show a clear peak at around 1960, not around 1940 as is the case for many sites in other countries. This may reflect a difference in the modes of ocean currents, I suppose.

Phillip Bratby

The science of dendroclimatology is not settled.

Pamela Gray (21:25:37) : “…zoom in to the ant’s view and you get huge differences between humans, monkeys, ant eaters, birds, and bugs that eat ants…”
For those of you who simply must see the world from the ant’s point of view:
http://flashfictionpost.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/the-problem-of-rocks-that-move/

kmye

I’ve seen the “Tom P” response mentioned above on Open Mind as well, but am not familiar with it and have not been able find it. Can anyone help me out with a link?
cheers
REPLY: Read all about it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/more-broken-hockey-stick-fallout-audit-of-an-audit-of-an-auditor/

Phillip Bratby (22:10:33) : “The science of dendroclimatology is not settled.”
I still think it’s dendrophrenology. Or diddlerclimatology.

Keith Minto

“At high latitudes, interannual variability in ring width is known
to correlate well with variations in summer temperature. To deŽ ne
the optimum season for this study, we correlated individual
monthly mean temperature series with the prewhitened chronology.
The temperature data used were observations from the
Salekhard meteorological station located 150 km to the southwest
of the research area. Correlations were calculated for the period
ad 1883–1996.
The largest correlation coefŽ cients show that ring width is
increased in association with warm conditions during June and,
more especially, during July, with correlation coefŽ cients for June
of 0.35 and for July of 0.63. An average of June and July mean
temperatures was therefore selected as the predictand to be reconstructed
using these tree-ring data.”
This is from page 5 of the H&S link,and it it boils to ‘are the correlation coefficients high enough’ to assume a reliable temperature estimate. Also one uncertainty is correlated against another(Met station data and ring width).
June and July were combined and the correlations do not look high to me but then I am not a Dendro.

Richard111

A brilliant effort. But I am deeply worried as to why the data was suppressed in the first place and why it took so long to surface. There is more than just a few unscrupulous scientists involved in this matter.

Gene Nemetz

The over 2000 cores, the thoroughness, reminds of another post here at WattsUpWithThat about Morton D. Winsberg and his work on climate in Florida being affected by land use. He likes to be thorough too.
“I don’t play golf,” he explains. “I prefer to play with aggregate data.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/10/floridatrend-its-hot-but-dont-blame-global-warming/#more-5542
WattsUpWithThat : 2009 Best Science Blog!

Tree rings are obviously a waste of time when looking at temperature reconstruction, thankfully they are good at storing 14C enabling a reliable solar proxy record as confirmed now by 10Be.
[snip too sly on self promotion there, sorry]

Jeff Id (21:18:37) : said
“Trees make lousy thermometers. Tree-lines however, I have no problems with.”
REPLY: Tree lines are absolutes for temperature, plotting the movement of absolutes would seem more sensible since there are so many competing factors at play for tree ring growth as I’ve already noted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/
-Anthony”
I have no problem either with tree lines-I have cited them before as marking Bronze age and MWP settlements on nearby (to me!) Dartmoor in South West England.
However, even reading the link Anthony provides I can not find any indication of the time scales needed for tree lines to shift, nor if this time lag differs according to the type of trees. Can anyone define any time lines to go with the tree lines?
tonyb

Hugh

Whatever happened to the Medieval Warm Period? That seems to have disappeared too.

tallbloke

Justin Sane (21:23:53) :
What the heck happened between 1800-1840?
The Dalton Minimum.

MikeN
Adam Gallon

It’s a cherry-picker’s delight isn’t it?
Start your graphed period around 1850 and it’s uphill all the way, with “unpresendented warming” (Or should that be dendrowarming ?) all the way. Spin in something about pollution or volcanoes to cover the 1970s & we’re sorted!
“The more northerly tree-line suggests that the most favourable conditions during the last two millennia apparently occurred at around ad 500 and during the period 1200–1300.”
Roman & Medieaval Warm Periods anyone?
That is, of course, if the concept of the treemometer is actually factual.

Adam Gallon

Oh, re MikeN (00:25:04)
I get a 403 Forbidden “You don’t have permission to access /common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog/2009/13-07/ on this server.
——————————————————————————–
Apache Server at vak.ed.gov.ru Port 80”
For that link.
Try using Babelfish yourself, for a rough translation.

Nick Stokes

The link to H&S was well acknowledged in Briffa08:
“Siberian larch (Larix sibirica) data from the area immediately east of the northern Ural Mountains, previously used by Hantemirov & Shiyatov (2002), were used as the Yamal regional chronology”
Hantemirov was a coauthor of Briffa08.

Mike Ewing

I do have a Q for anyone in the know on these things… i take it the “hockey stick”(one o the various) climate reconstructions hasnt been used for hind cast calibration of the GCM’s?

John Wright

Whether, when all comes to all tree rings count as reliable data or not is surely beside the point. What counts is that these auditors have caught people with an agenda red-handed cooking the books. But I always thought that’s what auditors were for and these have done it off their own bat – free of charge.
We can only heartily thank them for it.

Stu

I would trust 2000 cores over 10-12 cores but either way the whole process of teasing out temperatures by these means still seems extremely messy and uncertain. I actually can’t understand how this was the real proof, the poster boy for AGW, the thing kids had to sit down to and believe because ‘the climatologists’ had it all worked out. Sorry kids, I guess you can go now.
Tamino’s response to Steve is really very revealing. I mean, cmon. Who’s the one doing the science here? Who’s checking the data? Who’s putting in all the effort? Tamino sounds like he’s hardly able to muster enough curiosity to check anything, except perhaps the responses on his blog that say he’s great. Real scientific. What’s he actually going to do now? Just keep on with the claims that 20-21st C temperatures are ‘unprecedented’. How? Why?

Steve McIntyre deserves a Nobel Prize for this effort.
It would be best for him to hunker down, as the he is unlikely to receive any approbation from the zealots….. who will be painstakingly sifting through his life to prove that he is in the pay of Big Oil or Big Tobacco.
What he has achieved, in one fell swoop, is to destroy the holiest of Holy Icons of the AGW movement.
Hopefully without offending anyone, this is comparable to proving that Jesus Christ was not crucified, and that the high symbol of Christianity is based upon error.
There are far too many AGW zealots out there, and we can expect them to be appropriately enraged as their Holy Icon is decimated before their eyes.
Congratulations and fervent thanks, Steve, but keep your head down!!!

Stoic

I am struggling with the logic but……. The Yamal tree ring data apparently show no MWP. They also appear to show neither the Little Ice Age nor the late Twentieth Century warming. Are they, therefore, any use at all as accurate proxies of past global temperature?

Sean Houlihane

Lol. I fell into this trap too last night, then noticed that Steve had already posted on the fact that the methodology makes the reconstruction unsuitable for comparisons over wide time ranges. The tree line data is interesting though, and the reconstruction permits accurate dating. One point I believe is relevant is the short-term modern part of the record – in that it shows no pronounced uptick (but only 2 data points for the last 2 years?).
I was also interested to note how their report down-plays the warmth indicated in their reconstruction in the 7140-1800 period (approx), almost as if they are reluctant to admit to it.
Brings us back to the modern instrumental record, it’s relevance in terms of tree line variation, and exactly how to graft it on. Has anyone looked at how the instrumental reconstructions represent SUMMER temperatures in this region (I think that is what the tree-rings are postulated to correlate to)

Disputin

Interesting that the “temperatures” shown show no correlation with things like the LIA and MWP. In fact, H&S’ list of warming and cooling phases for the last two millenia seem to be in perfect antiphase with the generally accepted chronology for western Europe, e.g. “cooling occurring in about 550–700, 950–1100…”.
Also, Anthony and Briffa’s original dendro graphs had a “tree ring width index” on the Y axis, whereas this seems to have transmogrified into temperature for the later graphs.
Seems to show that tree rings do make lousy thermometers.

Rik Gheysens

Does the new reconstruction by Rashit M. Hantemirov and Stepan G. Shiyatov refute the thesis of IPCC, Ch. 6:
1. The additional variability shown in some new studies implies mainly cooler temperatures (predominantly in the 12th to 14th, 17th and 19th centuries), and only one new reconstruction suggests slightly warmer conditions (in the 11th century, but well within the uncertainty range indicated in the TAR).
Here i read: cooling occurring in about 550–700, 950–1100, 1350–1500 and 1700–1900.
The presumed cooling (by IPCC) in the 12th to 14th century can hardly be found validated within the new reconstruction! The question remains: Are valid data yet available relative to the past 2000 years?
2. IPCC, ibidem:It is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. It is also likely that this 50-year period was the warmest Northern Hemisphere period in the last 1.3 kyr, and that this warmth was more widespread than during any other 50-year period in the last 1.3 kyr. (“very likely” means >90% likelihood, “likely” means >66%)
The latter graphs of this thread seem to contradict the IPCC-thesis.
Is it now an open-and-shut case that the IPCC-thesis is wrong?

Sean Houlihane

kind of interesting that if this raw data is being used to generate 2 reconstructions, as shown in one of steves posts from 2006? the end-points differ so much.
An update to the ‘still living’ part of this chronology may be in order. Sounds like a great place for a field trip to me – although politically I’m not sure how possible that would be.

Alan the Brit

Great piece, Anthony. Really good reading. One can clearly see the Dalton min & the solar min at theturnof the 20th century, although clearly not conclusive that the big shiney thing in the sky containing 99% of the mass of the solar system 5which gives us 100% of all our natural light, & a considerable amount of our heat too, affects climate.
As to graphs generally, about a year or so ago after reading an article on global temps by Prof Richard Lindzen, followed by an article on chartmanship by Prof John Brignall, I took a few sheets of graph paper & plotted a vertical scale of global temp to the left, against time over 100 years along the base line. I did however do a piece of chartmanship myself, by reducing the temp scale to read 1°C as 1mm, & 100 years (1900-2000) over 3 taped sheets of A4 graph paper. The 6/10ths °C rise in temperature over that time was astonishing, I could hardly see it if I hadn’t used a red pen against a black inked datum!

The fun will start, when Steve McIntyre makes similar HadCRUT analysis. Both historical reconstruction and modern global data sets, the IPCC claims are based on, being intentionally flawed, who would say that? 😮

Mick

To cherry-pick the data and get away with it, Briffa et al had to know before they started the project.
I mean they wouldn’t try if the publisher demanded the data before publishing.
So this is a kinda conspiracy.
How many institution and key person involved before they got the green light (no pun intended) : “no worries, nobody get your data”
Have to be an inner circle of gatekeepers…

James Griffiths

“Stoic (01:09:50) :
I am struggling with the logic but……. The Yamal tree ring data apparently show no MWP. They also appear to show neither the Little Ice Age nor the late Twentieth Century warming. Are they, therefore, any use at all as accurate proxies of past global temperature?”
That would seem to be the case, unless of course that particular area had a strangely flat temperature record!
You could also hypothesize that over the long term that trees, or at least these trees are particularly adaptable to changes in conditions over these timescales.
I won’t hypothesize about that though, as I would be guilty of using the data for both my hypothesis and my conclusion, thereby falling foul of the same Texas Sharpshooter fallacy that got us in this whole mess!

jorgekafkazar (22:17:30) :
“I still think it’s dendrophrenology. Or diddlerclimatology.”
[snip ~ nope ~ ctm]

JimB

“Pamela Gray (21:25:37) :
Tongue in cheek warning!!!!!!
Sarcasm alarm!!!!!!
Snip alert!!!!!!
This reminds me of perspective. The predators hunting for ants in the world probably don’t see much difference in ant size. But zoom in to the ant’s view and you get huge differences between humans, monkeys, ant eaters, birds, and bugs that eat ants.
Skeptics look at ants and go “eh”. AGW’ers are ants looking at things that eat ants and die from alarm! Could explain why Skeptics see “flat”, and AGW’ers see “unprecedented warming”.”
So short version: We’re bigger than they are?
“TerryBixler (21:25:48) :
We talk of reality here while those in power talk of regulating CO2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093002854.html The message is that our government wants to control and tax everyone based on CO2 stories, while the science does not even remotely support Boxer, Lisa Jackson, Pelosi, Waxman or Obama. Have they not heard the facts or are they just not listening.”
Terry, it has absolutely nothing to do with science. The people you list have no idea what science is, nor do they care. This is a means to support an a budget and an agenda, nothing more, nothing less. They could care less if the sea level rises 100yrs from now. They care only about funding their initiatives, period. That’s what makes trying to foil their efforts so difficult. That’s why there’s never any “scientific debate”, that’s why they attempt to convince the populace that the science is “settled”.
And for yet another fear-mongering headline, those of you who enjoy the Olympics best tape the next two sessions, Tokyo guv says no more after 2016 due to…you guessed it, global warming.
“COPENHAGEN, Sept 30 (Reuters) – Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016 Olympics could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to mankind.”
You can’t even begin to make this stuff up.
Hell…you can’t even begin to keep track of it.
JimB

Otter

“Stoic (01:09:50) :
I am struggling with the logic but……. The Yamal tree ring data apparently show no MWP. They also appear to show neither the Little Ice Age nor the late Twentieth Century warming. Are they, therefore, any use at all as accurate proxies of past global temperature?”

I am wondering: what is the possibility that this region was geographically protected? In the same fashion as a rain shadow, if that makes sense?

John M

All that work on graphs, yet not a single standard error given nor a probability envelope for the derived trend lines. Don’t these people know how statistics works? Disraeli won’t be turning in his grave, obviously 🙁
Also curious. All those quotes from the paper, yet somehow this one got overlooked:
“Recent warming is also clear, especially if it is judged to have commenced at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The low inter-annual variability and the minimum occurrence of cold extremes during the twentieth century argue that the most recent decades of this long summer record represent one of the most favourable climate conditions for tree growth within the last four millennia.”

Joe in Florida

I see stories like this one:
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/09/30/how_to_lie_about_climate_change/index.html
which calls all of us skeptics liars, deniers, fools, and so forth. This is what the public sees, and they are told that the earth is warming no matter what you say. Even when acknowledging, in the comments, this one scientist having a “statistical dispute” with some nobody, they say that the warming data is overwhelming.
How can we fight such overwhelming propaganda? They fudge the data to show warming, and when the data is shown to be fudged say that is irrelevant since we all know that the planet is warming.
It makes my head hurt!

rbateman

Justin Sane (21:23:53) :
What the heck happened between 1800-1840?

Arctic uh-oh.

Peter S

So my dad was wrong all along… money DOES grow on trees!