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
E.M.Smith
Editor
October 1, 2009 4:50 pm

Saaad (04:54:14) : Any ideas chaps?
Well, you could try this:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/agw-basics-of-whats-wrong/

Richard
October 1, 2009 6:03 pm

Regarding sea-ice the DMI site is at last up and running. Sea ice is increasing, air temperatures plummeting and the NOAA site shows the Artic Oscillation is headed downwards too. This will mean the winds will blow from the arctic southwards instead of the other way round.
Everything points to a cold October for the NH.
December is a long way away. But my betting is it will be cold in the NH, specially if the AO is negative, which will bring the cold arctic air to bear upon North America and Copenhagen.
As Richard Lindzen pointed out, incidents of cold and warmth are unimportant for the science, but are important for public perception. And it would help the public to perceive if the people at the conference froze their butts off.

Katlab
October 1, 2009 6:28 pm

I did it, Anthony. I handed this article and Biffa’s response personally to Glenn Beck tonight. He’s going to read them on the bus home. Hopefully you and Steve will be hearing from him. What are the odds, he would be 40 miles away from me, on a newsday like this?

Layne Blanchard
October 1, 2009 6:53 pm

RR Kampen (08:26:57) :
“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.”
Strange indeed. How incredibly fortunate that Earth’s C02 production is EXACTLY matched by its uptake as the balance of Earth’s chaotic climate system changes around it.
Were this true, the concentration of C02 could never vary. Hardly a dynamic, natural process.

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 1, 2009 7:07 pm

Carlo (07:56:42) : And Keith Briffa is ill.
Due to illness, Keith is currently away. He will not be able to respond to emails for some time. He is not currently accepting invitations to review papers or proposals.

So any indication of nature of the illness? Mental, emotional, physical ???
I vote for #2

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 1, 2009 7:11 pm

RR Kampen (08:26:57) : 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.
The isotope argument is broken. See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 1, 2009 7:36 pm

LarryOldtimer (11:52:14) : 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.
Every so often someone makes a profound statement that causes an “Ah Ha!” moment. They are not often, so when one happens, you really ought to take note of it.
ALL the CO2 and growth data is in ppm. Nothing talks to partial pressure or absolute pressure. What LarryOldTimer points out is that we do not know if it is absolute pressure or partial pressure. We have ppm as partial pressure, but is there an absolute pressure factor? Given what I know of chemistry and biochemistry certain GONGS! are going off. I smell a doctorial thesis here… (maybe only a Masters, it is politically incorrect, after all…)
The experimental set up is simple: Plants, variable pressure enclosure, measure growth. Vary partial pressure. Vary absolute pressure. Compare.
I suspect the result will show that absolute pressure is the limiting factor to growth. Hmmm… so many ways to go from here…
Mars?

Mr Lynn
October 1, 2009 8:23 pm

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. 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! . . .

Go to http://www.sepp.org/ (Fred Singer’s site), in the left pane click on Publications, then click on ‘NIPCC REPORT 2008’. That gives you a very readable 50-page PDF called, “Nature, Not Human Activity,
Rules the Climate.”

Print it out in color (or ‘colour’ for you in the Commonwealth) and you’ll have a terrific primer. You can probably order multiple bound copies from Dr. Singer, too, or from Heartland.
/Mr Lynn

RR Kampen
October 2, 2009 1:50 am

Re: P Wilson (09:45:06) :
“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. ”
So there is an eleven year cycle of C14-concentration in the atmosphere? It seems to be measurable: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1990AuJPh..43..357M&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES .
Of course it has nothing to do with the excess CO2 of +35% compared to 1900 (or any peak in concentration during past 350,000 years) in the atmosphere.

Re: E.M.Smith (19:11:54) :
“The isotope argument is broken. See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
Can you summarize this vague article for me?
I found no comparison between 1961 (when the excess CO2 in the atmosphere was first proven to be anthropogenic) and now. The comparison is essential as CO2-print has (or has not?) changed since then.
I found the author puts significance to volcanoe activity ref CO2/CO2-isotopes. A well-known fallacy: volcanoes play virtually no role in the CO2-evolution.
The author states “It looks to me like there are more holes here than bucket… I don’t see how C12:C13 ratio can be reasonably used to make any clear assertion about where the CO2 in the air comes from.”
He should take this ignorance as a reason to ask professionals in the area. Maybe he can refer back to that first research in 1961.

Dirk
October 21, 2009 8:34 am

The data you show here is flawed in that it presents an inaccurate portrayal of climate- because the studies are older, they don’t show the last 10 years cooling that has been going while CO2 has steadily increased. Thus, someone new to the topic could think that warming has happened at a previously unheard rate, and that we are destined for disaster.
I’d like to see a study that includes the last 10 years data to provide a more balanced view that global cooling is just as much a threat (and based on its affect on oceanic CO2 absorption and disease, perhaps more) than global warming.

Kent Ross
November 28, 2009 7:54 am

Given that I’m going to criticize, I should probably point out that I am very much on side with the majority viewpoint of this blog, to wit, that paleoclimatological proxies need more examination before they are used to justify huge government programs.
I got to this post via a “possibly related” link on the bottom of another post on this same blog (that is to say, it looks as if the subject matter of this post is still an ongoing argument).
I claim no expertise in any scientific field, but after carefully reading the post and comments, I think that the post’s current title, “More Yamal tree ring temperature data: this data is flat as roadkill” does not adequately reflect the fact that the one recognizably (to me) qualified commenter characterized its argument as “irrelevant”. Your reply to his comment promised to “change the title to reflect your [Steve Mcintyre’s] points”. I will be so bold as to suggest a second update, by someone (emphatically not me) familiar with the difference between RCS and the “corridor method” (of data smoothing, I gather) used by Hantemirov and Shiyatov, and changing the post title to “Obsolete argument: Yamal tree ring data are flat as roadkill, when processed by one standard statistical method”.
Investigating data smoothing and manipulation routines used by the “hockey team” may well remain fruitful for investigation of scientific malfeasance (case in point, the clearly labelled “fudge factor” in the “HARRY README” file found in the CRU hack/leak), but I think you need to distinguish between debunking arguments they’ve made and portrayals (however accurate) of data they’ve chosen to manipulate with a different method (RCS) than the original authors used.
I think Briffa adequately flagged his use of RCS, and Mcintyre (probably to his credit) accepted that RCS is a statistical method which potentially could show something, and entered the lions’ den to debate on their terms, meanwhile slipping you a hint that this post of yours was not helpful. If I’ve followed the reasoning correctly, I think that if this post were a paper submitted for publication and sent out for peer review, either of them would have recommended rejection or reworking, and that leaving it on your blog “as is” invites AGW alarmists to come by and chortle “of course the Hantemirov/Shiyatov 2002 reconstruction is flat, who ever said it wasn’t?” and confuses sensible people who will wonder whether WUWT has accepted that there was no MWP or LIA in northwest Siberia.
Sorry to criticize an otherwise good blog, but the scientific method that requires you to show your data so that they can be critiqued also requires that you accept criticism when you can’t refute it. Please find someone who understands why “the H and S method [is] unable to recover centennial scale variability” yet still finds this post relevant to arguments actually being made, or mark it accordingly.

1 4 5 6