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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

136 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rbateman
October 1, 2009 3:59 am

Have they not heard the facts or are they just not listening.
They aren’t listening and there isn’t enough economic growth outside of Wall St. to tax. At this point, they have a recession, healthcare & 2 wars to occupy themselves with, plus a midterm election coming in a year.
They’re the Left, they have to go to Copenhagen for Christmas: It’s a matter of servicing your base.

RR Kampen
October 1, 2009 4:17 am

Interesting. The LIA was lost, too.

Alan the Brit
October 1, 2009 4:23 am

Take a look at this wonderful piece of scientific observation from Jo “the abyss” Abbess!
Laughable, she really has a screw loose, I for one would never “rely” on a machine over a human being when telling me something factual! She is good for a laugh tho’, guys!
http://www.joabbess.com/2009/09/29/james-delingpole-is-most-definitely-misguided/

Richard
October 1, 2009 4:31 am

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 statement is not true. It depends on what you mean by the “Yamal tree ring data”. For Briffa’s cherry picked 12 trees the late Twentieth Century warming shows as a very steep warming. When you take all the data, the medieval warm period clearly shows up and so does the little ice-age. The medieval warm period also shows as warmer than the the current warm period.
How does that happen? The curves are dimensionless units on the y-axis, related to ring widths, against time. They are later related to temperature. The data before the 19th century is the same for all curves, because Briffa uses all the data before that. In the 19th century he gets picky and the 20th even more picky. The result the graph in the 20th century shoots up, hockey-stick fashion and the remaining 19 centuries look flat in comparison. which leads to a hockey-stick graph when correlated with temperature.
When all the data is used, without cherry picking, the current warm period shows up but so do the little ice age and the warmer medieval warm period.

John W.
October 1, 2009 4:50 am


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.

Steve,
Understood. However, H and S studied the same phenomena with different methodology. Presumably, they believe the methodology and results to be sound since they willingly archived the data. Shouldn’t that (different methodology, same result) be considered corroboration of the results?

Saaad
October 1, 2009 4:54 am

A bit O/T but I need some help to find the simplest, most easily readable explanation of the scientific case against AGW alarmism. My local (Australia) MP wants more info before he heads into a State parliamentary debate on the subject in a couple of weeks and has asked me to email him some appropriate links for him to learn more…..like so many people in Australia, he had little idea that there were genuine scientific concerns about the validity of AGW alarmism….until my lovely wife got hold of him today!
I’m a big fan of Lucy Skywalker’s stuff as a primer but I just don’t think he’ll have the time to read it all. I’m also concerned that Joanna Nova’s “Sceptics Handbook” – which is also really good for a novice – has a title that will put him off before he reads any of it.
I’m giving him the links to WUWT, Jennifer Marohasy, Jeff Id, Climate Debate Daily etc but what I really really need is to give him a link to a really great primer that he can read and absorb quickly, so that he can really latch on to the whole issue, especially the broken hockey stick!
Any ideas chaps?

Layne Blanchard
October 1, 2009 4:58 am

I should think a well run study that examined tree location (say, in a draw with no outlet suggesting water accumulation), a little hydrology work on the surrounding soils for varification, tree line variations, and existing temperature records, could possibly yield a better proxy from tree ring data.
Here in the northwest, I’ve enjoyed a hike into a local inactive caldera, this area being dotted with them. There one can find a frigid meltwater lake among the clouds. Where it gets interesting is seeing that lake filled with the rotting remains of mature trees. One wonders what climate circumstances allowed those trees to grow unhindered to maturity before meltwater overcame them. Then again, perhaps the caldera is simply deeper than I imagined.

Charlie
October 1, 2009 5:08 am

Steve McIntyre (21:49:20) 30Sep: “.. the standardization method used in H and S … would be unable to recover centennial scale variability and that it was not relevant to the issues at hand.”
This is another good example of why statistical knowledge and understanding is important.
Thank you for calling our attention to this rather than letting people assume that this was further confirmation of your other findings.

Ninderthana
October 1, 2009 5:23 am

Duncan (21:23:44) :
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
Duncan,
This is way off wack. Some tree ring proxies are excellent. If you compare tree ring widths with ambient temperatures at the sites (i.e. a direct compariosn of measurements) you find an very good correlation. This is an established scientific fact based on simple evidence.
The problem is that trees that are known to have tree ring widths that are
primarily [note that I said primarily] temperature senstive do not grow in wide diversity of geographical locations.
Your arguement would make sense if you said that the indiscriminant use of tree ring widths as a proxy to measure temperatures globally needs to be taken with a grain of salt, then I would agree with you.
Any one who want to use tree ring widths of many different varaities of trees as a proxy for world temperatures would have to rigorously show that each tree species had tree ring widths that were primarily temperature sensitive.
You, Anthony and Steve Mc. are right in pointing out that the Mann(son) Family and Biffa have certainly not done that.

K_Main
October 1, 2009 5:36 am

Never, Ever Trust a Liar.
We all no the group that stacks the data to justify their pay checks.
Crisis = $

Mr Lynn
October 1, 2009 6:00 am

JimB (02:24:26) :
“TerryBixler (21:25:48) :
. . . 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 that’s why we have to “convince the populace” that the science is not settled. Unfortunately, the vehicle has to be the mass media, and they are almost all marching in lockstep with the Alarmists, because they like the agendas of the left-wing politicians. We need something so startling, so newsworthy that even the mainstream media cannot ignore it.
I was hoping that maybe the Tree-Ring Scandal would arose interest, but so far not even Drudge has picked up on it (but he has featured the “global warming will kill the Olympic games” nonsense). We need some prominent scientists (and politicians) to stand up and cry, “Scientific misconduct!”
/Mr Lynn

Fred from Canuckistan . . .
October 1, 2009 6:07 am

“the Briffa tree ring data that purports to show a “hockey stick” of warming in the late 20th century has now become highly suspect,”
Well if that isn’t the [snip] understatement of the year.

Gene Nemetz
October 1, 2009 6:33 am

Joe in Florida (02:49:26) : How can we fight such overwhelming propaganda?
Cooler weather is making a dent.

John
October 1, 2009 6:36 am
Gene Nemetz
October 1, 2009 6:48 am

Mr Lynn (06:00:38) : We need some prominent scientists (and politicians) to stand up and cry, “Scientific misconduct!”
IMO, the political avenue could be bypassed for now. But it would be nice if there were more Vaclav Klaus’.
I would like to see documentaries like The Cloud Mystery, The Great Global Warming Swindle, etc., aired on documentary channels. They wouldn’t have the big impact you are talking about. But, little by little they would put a wedge in the idea that there is no debate and that the science is settled.
“Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!”

Gene Nemetz
October 1, 2009 6:51 am

John (06:36:45) : Briffa has commented –
Thanks John!!
He says this at the end :
We will expand on this initial comment on the McIntyre posting when we have had a chance to review the details of his work.
K.R. Briffa
30 Sept 2009

October 1, 2009 6:52 am

This from Briffas work referenced here by John
Briffa has commented –
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cru.uea.ac.uk%2Fcru%2Fpeople%2Fbriffa%2Fyamal2000%2F
“”Chronologies are constructed independently and are subsequently compared with climate data to measure the association and quantify the reliability of using the tree-ring data as a proxy for temperature variations. ”
What climate data is it compared with? Is the material used a proxy for a proxy, or a proxy for a thermometer?
Anyone throw any light on it?
tonyb

October 1, 2009 6:57 am

Geoff Sharp (23:17:36) :
[snip too sly on self promotion there, sorry]
Dont be such a party pooper, I promote you on my blogrolls, we are both pushing in the same direction.
I thought my reference to future climate expectations was on topic. Certainly more reliable than treemometers?

October 1, 2009 7:00 am

OT but in the lead up to copenhagen this is whats becoming the norm.
Headline; Adelaide latest victim of global water shortages
Reality; http://www.eldersweather.com.au/damlevel.jsp?lt=state&lc=sa
Most of Adelaide’s dams are 90-99% full
Guess the guardian hopes most its readers dont check the facts

Jimbo
October 1, 2009 7:04 am

Saaad (04:54:14) :
“A bit O/T but I need some help to find the simplest, most easily readable explanation of the scientific case against AGW alarmism.”
I know you’ve mentioned Jennifer Marohasy but this recent article from Michael Hammer lays it out in layman’s terms over 14 points of contention.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-michael-hammer/

Editor
October 1, 2009 7:15 am

The part I liked was:
“My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data”
Confirmation bias anyone?

P Wilson
October 1, 2009 7:18 am

as a non related issue. Who is taking this message to UEA and the IPCC? They ought to be kept up to pace.

October 1, 2009 7:26 am

This statement from Briffa certainly seems to show some doubt in his mind:
“Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.”
After this amount of time he should be more confident in his and other members of the team’s work?

October 1, 2009 7:27 am

Real Climate have just posted something too…

October 1, 2009 7:36 am

Also RealClimate has made a post. Bot mostly about somthing completely different …