One of the great things about WUWT is that people from all walks of life frequent here. We have PhD’s right down to Average Joe that read and post comments here. Everyone has something to contribute.
A general truism that I’ve noticed through life is that the people that actually work “hands on” with the things they study often know far more about them than the people that study them from afar. As in the case of the surface stations project, top scientists missed the fact that many of the climate monitoring stations are poorly sited because they never bothered to visit them to check the measurement environment. Yet the people in the field knew. Some scientists simply accepted the data the stations produced at face value and study its patterns, coaxing out details statistically. Such is the case with Briffa and Yamal tree rings apparently, since the tree ring data was gathered by others, field researchers Hantemirov and Shiyatov.
American Indians have been said to be far more in tune with the patterns of the earth than modern man. They had to be, survival depended on it. They weren’t insulated by technology as we are. Likewise somebody who works in the forest whose daily livelihood is connected to trees might know a bit more about their growth than somebody sitting behind a desk.
WUWT commenter “Caleb”, who has worked with trees for 50 years, wrote this extraordinary essay on Briffa’s lone tree core known as YAD061, which has a pronounced 8 sigma effect on the set of 10 tree cores Briffa used in his study. Caleb’s essay is in comments here, which I’m elevating to a full post. While we may never know the true growth driver for YAD06, this is one possible explanation.
Guest comment by Caleb Shaw:
I’ve worked outside since I was a small boy in the 1950’s, and have cut down hundreds of trees. I always check out the rings, for every tree has its own story.
I’ve seen some rather neat tricks pulled off by trees, especially concerning how far they can reach with their roots to find fertilizer or moisture. For example, sugar maple roots will reach, in some cases, well over a hundred feet, and grow a swift net of roots in the peat moss surrounding a lady’s azalea’s root ball, so that the azalea withers, for the maple steals all its water.
I’ve also seen tired old maples perk right up, when a pile of manure is heaped out in a pasture a hundred feet away, and later have seen the tree’s rings, when it was cut down, show its growth surged while that manure was available.
After fifty years you learn a thing or two, even if you don’t take any science classes or major in climatology, and I’ve had a hunch many of the tree-ring theories were bunkum, right from the start.
The bristlecone records seemed a lousy proxy, because at the altitude where they grow it is below freezing nearly every night, and daytime temperatures are only above freezing for something like 10% of the year. They live on the borderline of existence, for trees, because trees go dormant when water freezes. (As soon as it drops below freezing the sap stops dripping into the sugar maple buckets.) Therefore the bristlecone pines were dormant 90% of all days and 99% of all nights, in a sense failing to collect temperature data all that time, yet they were supposedly a very important proxy for the entire planet. To that I just muttered “bunkum.”
But there were other trees in other places. I was skeptical about the data, but until I saw so much was based on a single tree, YAD061, I couldn’t be sure I could just say “bunkum.”
YAD061 looks very much like a tree that grew up in the shade of its elders, and therefore grew slowly, until age or ice-storms or insects removed the elders and the shade. Then, with sunshine and the rotting remains of its elders to feed it, the tree could take off.
I have seen growth patterns much like YAD061 in the rings of many stumps in New Hampshire, and not once have I thought it showed a sign of global warming, or of increased levels of CO2 in the air. Rather the cause is far more simple: A childhood in the under-story, followed by a tree’s “day in the sun.”
Dr. Briffa should spend less time gazing at computer screens, and actually get out and associate with trees more. At the very least, it might be good for his health.
Henry chance (15:09:07) :
“Common sense. did Briffa even visit the area?
Many people admire charles darwin,. I don’t. He had a theology degree and was carefull note taker. No one discredits his education because they like him.”
Darwin put his evolutionary theorising aside for many years and spent 8 years analysing many thousands of barnacle species. This work alone was sufficient to establish his reputation as a formidable scientist, not just in his day. His dogged persistence in this enterprise has inspired many a budding scientist, not just crusty old historians of science.
BTW, many, if not most field biologists prior to the 20th C were clergymen. Do you reject Bayesian statistics because Rev Thomas Bayes had a theology degree, rather than one in mathematics? Sheesh…
[REPLY – This risks evolving into a discussion of evolution. THAT TOPIC IS VERBOTEN. I’ll leave this for now, but some other mod. may snip it. ~ Evan]
Snake Oil Baron (15:32:58) :
Unfortunately, this entire issue of climate science and the hockey stick debacle in particular will be a kick in the teeth to real scientists who are confronted with pseudoscience for generations to come. Creationists still harp about the Piltdown man, even though it didn’t fool nearly as many people as was portrayed.
From its “discovery” in 1912 until 1949 when Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum’s Paleontology Department received permission to use the fluoride test – the Piltdown man was given protected status at the Museum. Finally in 1953, Oxford professor of physical anthropology Joseph Weiner proved absolutely the fossils to be a fraud.
In the interim many unsuspecting scientists (Arthur Woodward) were taken in. Others were forced to silently accept Piltdown’s “proof” of this version of Darwinian evolution. To disagree with the status quo endangered the skeptic’s professional reputation. And there were many who staunchly defended the find as the unassailable missing link.
“That we should discover such a race as Piltdown, sooner or later, has been an article of faith in the anthropologist’s creed ever since Darwin’s time.”
Sir Arthur Keith, Professor of Physiology Royal Institution, London, authorAntiquity of Man, 1924.
***********************
REPLY: FYI, there are 10 graphs – Anthony
***************
Oops! I guess I misinterpreted this from S.M.
“by Steve McIntyre on September 30th, 2009
Obviously there’s been a lot of discussion in the last few days about the difference between the CRU 12 and the Schweingruber 34. “
I finally believe in man made Global Warming. Man made it up.
The whole flap has left me rather stunned. Not only are the other samples ignored, but even the Yamal series in question is skewed around one tree.
I simply cannot take it in. The evidence literally fades to near-nothing.
The hockey stick seems to be what Lincoln referred to as the homeopathic soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death.
Maybe as a very ordinary unscientific member of that great unwashed and increasingly puzzled public, I am wrongly reading the increasing strength of the subconscious signals from the science community.
In all the science blogs I am reading, there is a long and increasing line of scientists that are appearing, to me at least, to be acting as apologists for the actions of Briffa and other climate scientists who have thrown up some pretty dodgy papers and results and on occasions, plain outright lies.
Is there a deep seated fear in the science community that for the first time due to the all pervasive internet, a highly visible, [ and deliberate? ] distortion and corruption of science is happening in a very, very public fashion.
Past major scandals in all of the history of science have only been fully known amongst a very small, select group of researchers but now the dirty washing is out there for all to see.
Are the science apologists for the various questionable and to a layperson, [snip] actions of some climate researchers creating a fear amongst the science community that there will eventually be a massive public backlash from the public who through their taxes are the financiers of large sections of science?
Will science as whole lose that aura that has so carefully been cultivated ever since WW2 when it was seen that the immense contribution of the allied scientists helped win the war and that the german scientists also nearly did the same for the axis powers?
Is there a deep subconscious fear there amongst the scientific community that they are about to lose their standing and even a lot of financial support if this ongoing climate scandal is allowed to become a publicly accepted image that science is now becoming just a perverted cause used to prop up a power grabbing ideology.
Well meaning science apologists for the despicable actions of their doomsday climate comrades does not go down very well with a public that is rapidly tiring of continuous declarations by “Climate Scientists” of doom and a catastrophic disaster that is only a few years away unless We Do Something! but which disasters have a strange habit of not ever showing up.
We don’t like being taken continuously for mugs and we don’t like the mates continually excusing the nefarious actions of their comrades.
Just call it as it is and clean your act up!
I just have to say what an excellent post. It’s a real pity Caleb didn’t make it longer, because this sort of information is golddust AFAIAC. Well done to Anthony for giving us a practicing man’s perspective
Paul.
Besides Briffa’s Yamal tree-ring selections, the other tree ring data which contributed the most to Michael Mann’s hockey stick, is the Bristlecone Pine Tree’s dataset. The hockey stick was shaped through overweighting of these two datasets.
Here is a cross-section from a BristleCone Pine Tree. You can not use these trees or any tree core for that matter, to determine a temperature signal.
http://www.rmtrr.org/images/Firescar.jpg
Here is Michael Mann (from his own website) holding a tree cross-section which has the Medieval Warm Period on one side and a Hockey Stick on the other side. Which tree core would have been the “best” one from this tree when it was still alive.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/home/mann_treering.jpg
What objective person would use tree-rings as temperature proxies after viewing these two pictures? No objective person would. They would look for other proxies which have been demonstrated/proven to be good temperature proxies.
Patrik (13:24:48) :
Stunning. I see an analogy in fishery scientists and fishermen.
The science there seems disconnected from reality also.
————————————————————
Yep. You are right on the button there….. The marine biologists working for fisheries management, use log book data gathered from fishermen to assess fish stocks so as to determine fishery policy…… It sounds good, but it ain’t science.
The trouble with the marine environment is that it is hard and hidden. Fisherman aren’t scientists…. and scientists can’t find fish.
Quoting Bill Tuttle (15:03:27) :
“A tree isn’t a CO2 sink — it will only take in the amount necessary to metabolize the nutrients it’s absorbing through its roots. If the amount of nutrients increases, the tree will grow additional foliage to increase its CO2 intake, but an increase in atmospheric CO2 will not affect its growth.”
Commenting:
Bill, you may be on to something big! Imagine if we could direct all the BS from the AGW crowd onto the forrest floors. That would suck up CO2 like never before!
Quoting:
Bill Illis (18:43:25) :
“Here is Michael Mann (from his own website) holding a tree cross-section which has the Medieval Warm Period on one side and a Hockey Stick on the other side. Which tree core would have been the “best” one from this tree when it was still alive.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/home/mann_treering.jpg ”
Commenting:
Bill, that is a stunning Mr. Monk-like observation. I stand agast at your keen intelligence (really!).
I just emailed the editors at Frontline with this story. It would seem to me to be right down their alley. If I get ignored, I’ll know which side of the fence they are on. If I get a “Yes, we will investigate, and thanks for the tip”, then I’ll know they are on my side of the fence.
As to peer review of Caleb’s paper; I can attest to his observation of tree growth facts.
As to my bonifidies, I have cut trees from Yosmite to the Gulf of Alaska,Prince William Sound. from salt water to the Great Basin Desert. Conifers and broad leafs.
Over 50 years experiance in the field. NDD
Excellent.
And may I say, Anthony, that I greatly appreciate this web site and forum. I’ve noticed that differing viewpoints have a voice, provided they don’t drag the discussion into the gutter. This afternoon I attempted to post a very respectful (albeit, opposing) opinion at RealClimate.com regarding the new evidence against the Mann graph. It was apparently snipped by the moderator. I suppose this is further evidence that “the debate is over.”
REPLY:Thanks. Don’t feel bad, I’m banned from posting there also. – Anthony
Bill Tuttle (15:03:27) :
“A tree isn’t a CO2 sink — it will only take in the amount necessary to metabolize the nutrients it’s absorbing through its roots. If the amount of nutrients increases, the tree will grow additional foliage to increase its CO2 intake, but an increase in atmospheric CO2 will not affect its growth.”
Wrong, sorry! Increased atmospheric CO2 enables the leaf stomata (breathing pores) to become smaller. This reduces the amount of H2O transpired during photosynthesis. The plant thus needs less water for a given unit of growth. Every agronomist knows that the major crop limiting factor is water.
A recent estimate was that Australia’s water needs for crops & trees would reduce by 25% by 2100 under BAU CO2 increase.
How scary is that? 🙂
Caleb rules. Last night I spent a couple of hours carefully composing an answer to Otto concerning how trees or regions might be shadowed from rain or sun and thus provide bad data to dendrologists. Due to my relative ignorance of my new browser I lost three compositions of more than 500 words each in which I cited personal observations of the microclimates of the drainages of the Bitterroot Range in Montana which clearly indicate that tree data, however carefully collected, cannot act as a proxy for continental, not to mention hemispherical, temperatures.The larger picture I contemplated was the missing meta data in Briffa. Caleb is the king of meta data. Want to see a reverse hockey stick? Come here and collect tree cores from south facing slopes in the Bitterroots then just one from Refrigerator Canyon northeast of Helena. Smash those into a model and it’s Ice Age in about five minutes. There’s some meta data for you
Alexej Buergin (17:58:57) :
“We need more contributions from people who really know something and have been there, even PhDs. How about asking Dr. Schweingruber for a comment ?”
I asked a PhD friend to weigh in here, hope he does. He is also a regular Joe, a really good guy. He’s a professor and his specialty is forests and trees. And he has many years of field experience (e.g. in the forests).
However, I believe that non-PhDs have made a substantial contribution on this thread. Caleb, many thanks for your excellent post.
Of the 10 chosen cores used here, only two actually show temps at their highest points at the end of the 20th Century (one is YAD061 and the other one being POR031). If these 10 are the best representatives of the ‘climate signal’ alluded to by Biffra, then that is still pretty crap.
What is going on with these guys?
YAD061 is hereby renamed the “GENESIS TREE,” since it is the tree-of-knowledge whose metaphorical fruit we were tempted to sample. But alas, this time we might escape the sin of belief for which all humanity would pay dearly.
This affair is truly breathtaking, even for an old cynic like me.
This whole series of threads has been astonishing. As a biologist, I find it unbelievable that anyone would use tree growth rings as a proxy for anything without normalizing for other variables such as moisture. Most first-year graduate students would know better. If the records are too old to allow adjustments for other variables like rainfall, then they can’t be used as a proxy for anything at all. They can only be used as an indicator of rates of tree growth in a certain vicinity at a certain time- nothing more.
Beyond that, the idea that you could perform a reliable analysis by applying only a subset of the available data (which, by default, are a small subset of the data from the total population if you could measure it) is laughable. It goes against all the principles of population biology. Granted, you can only measure what’s possible to measure, but the notion that you can arbitrarily exclude some of the sample and still reach a defensible conclusion is ridiculous. That’s the kind of thinking that causes one to fail a thesis defense. At least it did before the church of the Goracle became the arbiter of science.
Whether or not Caleb’s theory about this tree is true, his knowledge explains why it is very important to have as many trees as possible contribute data to these studies. A 12 tree sampling is IMHO completely irrelevant and incapable of providing sufficient diversity of sources to prevent outliers from distorting the results.
Whether it was wild animals droppings, a campfire pit regularly used close by, herd animals, clearing of competitor trees, deposition of ash or trash, etc etc. Briffa’s study should be kicked on the trash heap of scientific history along with Piltdown Man.
Gerald:
“That’s actually why they’re useful. In a ‘hot year’, those same numbers would be, say, 85% and 99%. Versus the cold year of 95% and 99%.
A three-fold change in the time spent growing is a dramatic effect”
Thanks Gerald. I learn something useful every time I come to this site.
If the trees being sampled go dormant at an ambient temperature below freezing, then growth only occurs when the temperature is above freezing.
Is there any data available on how linear the rate of growth is with respect to ambient temperature? Does this rate vary by species?
Moreover, how can tree ring growth that does not take place when it is below freezing tell us anything about the winter climate at all? All tree rings tell us is how much growth took place above freezing. Does an extra warm summer work to cancel out an extral cold winter? How can it?
It seems that tree ring data are perfectly suited to indicate how warm the warm weather was, but it tells us very little about the weather in the winter. Conversely, we cannot know if the climate is generally warming or cooling unless we can see the average of all temperatures over a time, not jutst when it was warm enough to have any ring growth.
My Father has always said “there is no University in the world that offers even a half credit in common sense. If they did, they would likely have to out-source it”. Great post Anthony and Caleb !!
Just like the eco-terrorists cut down a tree in the
Maldives because it wasn’t showing seas rising, this YAL061 needs to be seen so we can see it’s sighting and environment, and if necessary cut the sucka down and ask for a recount based on the other trees.