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
October 1, 2009 9:13 am

Mark Young kindly gave a reference to me earlier which ties in with my 9 03 25 re tree lines and proxies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606780/
This is regarding tree lines where it is expected that tree lines will move north according to studies by…Briffa and Hansen! This is a very small enclosed little world isn’t it? Its a good read though and hopefully will enable others to throw some more light onto my own referenced post above
tonyb

Tim S.
October 1, 2009 9:19 am

“It’s just a bit strange that the C-isotope distribution in the atmosphere has changed exactly as if all the extra CO2 would have come from fossil carbon. Eh, but isotopes? That is esoteric stuff, not at all visible to the naked laymen’s eyes, so the myth of isotopes can easily be explained away. Using nukes if need be.” – RR Kampen (08:26:57)
So what if all of the extra CO2 (maybe) comes from fossil carbon? I for one welcome it. CO2 was much higher in the past and the human race prospered. It’s the cold that’s the problem. Fewer crops. Less food. Starvation. Worry about those things instead of fussing over a trace gas that is less heat-trapping than methane or the much more abundant water vapor.

Tom in Florida
October 1, 2009 9:25 am

Robert E. Phelan (07:44:41) : “Well, RC has has found its voice:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/#more-1184
I read no counter arguments of Steve’s methond only rantings that he is wrong, unscientific and the rest of us are blind followers. I also noted a distinct defense of Al Gore as an authority because “he speaks to real scientists” before trying to brainwash children. Of course he does so how did he get so much wrong?

Tilo
October 1, 2009 9:32 am

I also forgot to mention that Briffa said nothing about why he refused to archive his data for all those years. The resistance to archiving as well as his ongoing lack of transparency belie his claim of fairness.
He also seems to be distancing himself from his samples. When he says:
“McIntyre replaces a number (12) of these original measurement series ”
He doesn’t say “my measurement series”. As though he had nothing to do with the series that Steve is replacing.

P Wilson
October 1, 2009 9:45 am

RR Kampen (08:26:57)
Oh that is naughty not to mention that there is an atmospheric excess of C14 during low solar phases, as that isotope occurs naturally. during low solar phases, the earth can get warm due to lack of cloud cover. Its documented in ice cores and tree rings from the past and what not. That C14 isotope is the same as the Anthropogenic

Stephen Parrish
October 1, 2009 9:53 am

Wow. I guess trees are related to climate in that, along with weather, soil, human/beast ineraction, fire, infestation, it is one of the input to its growth.
But if the measure of the proxy is how well it matches another time series, and you can pick from thousands of proxy time series to isolate the really good matches– have I got some stock picks I’d like to sell you!

Stephen Parrish
October 1, 2009 10:05 am

I’d also have to say that it is the “enchanted larch” post which has finally opened RC’s lid.
I await their explanation for the 10y delay in releasing the data.

AnonyMoose
October 1, 2009 10:28 am

RC merely says that Briffa’s post explains it all, but RC does not explain just how the trees were selected. Oddly, at first Google Sidewiki didn’t want to work on RC but now it does.

LarryOldtimer
October 1, 2009 11:52 am

Not only do tree lines reflect temperature, there is an availability of CO2 to consider. With altitude, the air gets less dense, and the availability of CO2 becomes less. Since carbon from CO2 is a prime component of what the tree “makes itself of” as it grows, and it has been demonstrated that less availability of CO2 retards growth, this availability of CO2 is a huge factor as altitudes increase.

October 1, 2009 12:05 pm

Saaad (04:54:14) : … I need some help to find the simplest, most easily readable explanation of the scientific case against AGW alarmism.
…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!

A question I often wonder about. For me, it was the graph of relentless CO2 levels climbing alongside the up-down and since 2000 dipping temperatures, that set me on the quest to rebut the hydra-headed “science” of the “rebuttals” one by one.
Bishop Hill’s story “Caspar and the Jesus Papers” is an excellent standalone good story, not impossibly long or difficult to grasp. I did a one-pager on our website to try and answer your point, but I prefer the Bishop, frankly.
Any other ideas out there?

LarryOldtimer
October 1, 2009 12:08 pm

This “one-trick pony show” of temperature alone is akin to a civil engineer such as myself designing a bridge, and considering only the loads of vehicles which will be on the bridge, and neglecting the load imposed by the weight of the bridge itself. Or for that matter, neglecting wind loads. Not considering all of the forces acting on the bridge, and they are numerous, is how bridges have indeed failed.
The way this “temperature alone” is going is a certain way to complete failure.

R. Craigen
October 1, 2009 1:25 pm

There’s a few things I don’t get her.
First, what’s all the focus on the Yamal data sets, given that they all come from a tiny region in Siberia — hardly a region one would naturally take as a proxy for worldwide climate, and in any case highly nonrepresentative. I don’t care if a million samples were painstakingly recorded; this remains a one-point sample, like a 1000-year-old thermometer at the Los Angeles airport. Do IPCC and such folks really take this sort of analysis seriously enough to overturn broadly accepted notions like the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age? If I’m right and the severely localized nature of these data is already enough to kill them (for the political purposes to which they’ve been arrogated) why aren’t you and McIntyre and friends hammering on this point? Is it the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about?
Also, why is there so much data from this one region? convenience sample because of well-preserved wood? Surely this approach can be repeated in thousands of locations around the world. Why the focus on only one? Or are these simply the only politicized data? What does one get if similar tree core data from around the world is invoked for global context — assuming of course that such is already archived somewhere?
Also, it seems to me that the basic task of collecting data is simple enough — find some well-preserved old wood, date it by some standard technique, and carefully measure the ring width. Data collected in this way, once documented and archived, can be incorporated into world-wide data sets (documentation of one’s control of error might be the biggest challenge). So what’s to stop thousands of amateurs around the world from adding to these archives?
Finally, I don’t get McIntyre’s objection to your analysis. It seems that tree ring data is tree ring data. The locale may be different, but it’s geographically close enough to represent essentially the same climate system. The methodology of the two different studies are evidently different, but — who cares? If the original data is available anyone can work from it to arrive at parallel analyses of the two data sets; the result should compare appropriately, apples-to-apples. I read his explanation over twice, and I just don’t see why McIntyre says the H and S reconstruction is irrelevant to his analysis. Is he tossing out the data or the analysis? It seems the data is perfectly relevant, though the analysis may not be.

R. Craigen
October 1, 2009 1:27 pm

Also, it seems this data has very little, if any, MWP signal. This suggests to me that it is unreliable as an indicator of climate history (though one might argue that I’m working backwards from conclusion to data). Perhaps tree ring data has been overrated in any case (even after one filters out CO2 effects and local environmental changes, etc.)?

October 1, 2009 1:36 pm

The Yamal mean June–July temperature anomalies graph above is much the same as 350yrs of CET. The linear trend over the whole record is very flat in the summer months, particularly June, nearly all the warming occurs through the months of October to March.
Individual month trends in the last 100yrs show a slightly different picture, with May, June and February showing the least rise, and March and October showing a larger rise than December/January. What springs to mind with the recent extra warming in March and October, is the increased connection to the solar wind at the equinoxes, and the potential for more warming in these months when the solar signal is strong.
What the tree ring records are useful for is identifying past cold seasons from the frost rings, as this study by Rashit shows, has the same very cold years as the rest of Europe; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6R-4C7VXM2-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=794e6aa065c8ff48df3f6c7cd6fae5de

October 1, 2009 2:20 pm

Interesting that it gives greater cooling for the Dalton minimum, than the Maunder.
.

Dan Evans
October 1, 2009 2:25 pm

TonyB (09:03:25) :
“These climate scientists do NOT correlate their proxies with local temperatures, but with the whole Northern Hemisphere temperature AVERAGE.
The climate scientists have a term for this. They call it “teleconnection”,”
I was wondering about that. They actually beleve that they have found 12 psychic trees that can sense temperature globally.
It’s time to run random data through their method and show that a hockey stick is always created no matter what. Better yet, use it to find trees sensitive to the Dow Jones average and prove that there was no market crash in 1929.

David Segesta
October 1, 2009 2:27 pm

Please help me understand this. As I read it the hockey stick is the result of tree ring data from 10 trees from a remote region of Russia. Those trees seem to be not representative of other trees from the region. Also only one of the 10 actually bears the hockey stick shape. The data from those 10 trees is used to calculate temperature, although other factors such as rainfall, CO2 level and nutrient levels could also influence tree ring growth. Is this correct?
Some logical questions are:
How meaningful is the calculated temperature when other factors are known to influence tree ring growth? How are the thermometer trees calibrated?
How meaningful is the calculated temperature from those trees when other trees from the region seem to show different results?
How accurate are those 10 trees (or 1 tree) in determining the temperature of the world?
Am I missing something here?

October 1, 2009 2:29 pm

And remember that the Dalton minimum is absolutely and certainly linked to a Sunspot minimum.
So what is the causal link?
Leif does not approve of any changes in TSI, solar wind, magnetic flux or Cosmic rays.
So what is the causal link?
.

October 1, 2009 2:32 pm

>>It would be best for him to hunker down, as the he
>>is unlikely to receive any approbation from the zealots….
[snip]
Let’s hope not.
.

Richard
October 1, 2009 2:56 pm

Real Climate has finally come out with comments about the Yamal affair. The response has been predictable.
From “the group” at Real Climate – “Who should we believe? Al Gore with his “facts” and “peer reviewed science” or the practioners (sic) of “Blog Science“? Surely, the choice is clear….”
“Blog Science“ of course meaning Steve McIntyre and his deconstruction / destruction of the Briffa Yamal analysis.
Before this the opening lines of Hey Ya! (mal) from “the group” :
Interesting news this weekend. Apparently everything we’ve done in our entire careers is a “MASSIVE lie” (sic) because all of radiative physics, climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia. Who knew?
No groupies –what IS a MASSIVE LIE is the Yamal temperature reconstruction of Briffa.
This lie was used to bolster the claim that the original hockey stick of Mann was verified by subsequent “independent” studies and data.
This data reconstruction was used directly in the temperature reconstruction of no less than 10 of the 12 graphs of the IPCC AR4 spaghetti graph.
It was based on this spaghetti graph, and not on any radiative physics, climate history, instrumental records, modeling or satellite observations, that the IPCC anounced that the warming of the past 50 years has been unprecedented in the past at least 1300 years.
That statement has been shown to be clearly false by Steve McIntyre’s “Blog Science“.
The difference between Steve McIntyre’s “Blog Science“ and the “peer reviewed science” claimed by “the group”, is that this “blog science” is published on a website along with the data, analysis, programs. It is open to all to review, criticise, analyze and debunk. It has been attacked and defended in open forum. Surely these are the attributes of “peer review”?
The “peer reviewed science” alluded to by “the group” on the other hand, has been “peer reviewed” by a small group of authors, referred to as “The Hockey Team” or “The Team” for short, who all “peer review” each others papers.
The data, the programs and the methodology used to arrive at their conclusions, in flagrant violation to the rules of science, is not given to any other independent reviewer, who might want to try and replicate their results or critically examine the data and methodology.
All requests for this data and methodology has been denied for years and on the two rare occassions that it has been revealed, (reluctantly and only under duress, and after years of protracted battle), it is been found that the “peer reviewed” science was indeed defective and wrong, if not clearly manipulated.
And this by “Blog Science”.
It is not surprising therefore that sceptics, like myself, do not look upon this “peer reviewed” science as peer reviewed science at all, but instead like highly suspect edicts from a secretive cabal.
So coming back to the question put by “the group” “Who should we believe? Al Gore with his “facts” and “peer reviewed science” or the practioners of “Blog Science“? Surely, the choice is clear….”
It is to me – I would trust the “Blog Science” of Steve McIntyre to the “facts” of Al Gore, or the “peer reviewed science” of “The Team”. Wouldn’t you?

richard clenney
October 1, 2009 3:33 pm

Good work, McIntire! Now, I wonder if tree rings might be a better
indication of “Growing season length” and annual rainfall than
temperature. ( I saw a program on “NOVA” recently that attributed
tree ring width to annual rainfall—-just asking. As far as tree lines
go, they have to lag the change, (can’t anticipate warmer weather).
Richard C.

Richard
October 1, 2009 3:40 pm

In this counter attack by Real climate they have admitted:
Does that mean that the existing Yamal chronology is sacrosanct? Not at all – all of the these proxy records are subject to revision with the addition of new (relevant) data and whether the records change significantly as a function of that isn’t going to be clear until it’s done.
Translation – we know that the Yamal chronology of Briffa is just plain wrong and manipulated ( I mean come on folks why would we stonewall and excuse our way for 3 years and finally only posted the data unannounced in response to the rules and pressure of the Royal Society, hoping no one would see it, if we didn’t have something to hide), but we will subsequently publish some “peer reviewed” work (“peer reviewed” by the old boys network of “The Team”) that will confirm Briffa’s Yamal hockey-stick.
They are laying the foundation for a retreat and a cover-up.

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 1, 2009 3:56 pm

That the 30 year moving average reliably jumps up and down with great wiggles is clear evidence that using 30 years as “climate” is a bad joke.
If you are using anything less than about 100 years you are just being mislead by the cycles longer than your base.
Other than the LIA dip, the most stunning thing about the last 200 years is just how incredibly stable the last 100 years have been. Look back down that graph of 30 year wiggle. We ain’t doin’ nuttin’.

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 1, 2009 4:11 pm

TonyB (00:02:32) : 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?
It will likely be asymmetrical with heat / cold and variable by species. For most species there is a hard “freeze limit”. Drop below that limit for a few days (enough to take all the core heat out and have the sap wood hit limit) and the tree is dead. On the warming side, you need seeds to be sent up slope and take root. Saplings are more sensitive to cold than mature trees, too. So I’d expect to see a fairly rapid “decent” and a much slower “ascent” of the mountain…
You will also see one species enter an area first, then others follow, in a succession that depends on temperature tolerance. Probably useful.
My rampant speculation is that you would need about 10 years for cold to do in most of a species “at the limit” with the biggest trees going last and about 100 years to move “up slope” as the population establishes new adults that can provide seeds to ‘further up’. The exact distance that is “further up” will be species dependent with some wind born for 100 miles and other creeping at 100 feet / year or less as animals move the seeds or as root suckers creep up the dirt.
(The largest known living thing on the planet at one point was an Aspen grove that covered several hundred or thousand acres – it was one clone from root suckering…)
So: Down slope cold, damn fast. Up slope warm, not so much…

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 1, 2009 4:40 pm

Joe in Florida (02:49:26) : 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.
“And The Truth Shall Set You Free”
I was stressing over this some time ago. Then I listened to Pamela whispering in my ear: “It’s the Ocean Currents”. Then I heard Geoff saying “It’s the cycles”. Then I looked out the window and saw no tomatoes, but my Scarlet Runner beans were setting pods way early… and the wind was blustery when it ought not be, and the snows in Peru killed hundreds….
And it was at that moment that I felt a sad prayer for the lost in the southern mountains, that I lusted for a tomato and had none, that I realized the A/C was not turned on at all this summer… It was at that moment that I looked at the sun (chart) and saw not spots…
And realized a simple truth. A truth that sets you free:
The world is getting colder.
The PDO has flipped. No Joy in AGWville.
The Sun is sleeping. No Joy in AgwVille.
The snows have returned. Happy skiing, but no joy in agwVille.
The children of Peru have died in large numbers from cold. No joy.
And it is this sad, terrible truth that will set you free…
We are headed into cold, and thousands will die.
And that will end the AGW fantasy.
It will take about a decade ( 1/2 decade if we are very lucky). There will be laws past and there will be taxes raised and there will be great self satisfied self congratulatory celebrations held. And there will be great pronouncements of World Saviors Anointed and Noble Prizes will be awarded…
And children will die in the cold…
And mothers will mourn.
And it will be on TV.
And fires will light.
And revenge.
10 years.
No more.
Match?
Pyre!