For those who don’t know, Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph co-authored the first paper with Steve McIntyre debunking Michael Mann’s first Hockey Stick paper, MBH98. Ross wrote this essay in today’s Financial Post, excerpts are below. Please visit the story in that context here and patronize their advertisers. – Anthony
Flawed climate data
Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph of global warming
Ross McKitrick, Financial Post
Friday, October 2, 2009
Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a famous result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph. Developed by a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick’s publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless review reports.
Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.
The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed bristlecone pine data.
…
Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that do have a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring curve from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith Briffa.
…
But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself!Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?
Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science.
Read the complete story at the Financial Post
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ZOIKS! Look out Scooby Doo! Its the global warming monster!
Looks like the UN would have gotten away with the global warming monster hoax too……if it weren’t for those meddling kids.
I doubt you will see this story reported anywhere except on specialized blogs and a few lesser news outlets. I hope I’m wrong, but I expect this story to be ignored with the wider world.
Kind of reminds me of a story I heard years ago. Possibly apocryphal, but I hope not. RCA engineers were testing an early version of color television. At the transmitter side, some joker took the banana out of the fruit bowl they were using as a test item, and painted it purple. During the test the receiving side noted that the banana looked perfect but every thing else was awful.
As to the Cap and Tax stuff, keep in mind what Ayn Rand wrote, over 50 years ago in Atlas Shrugged:
“Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.”
Francisco d’Aconia
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/WahlAmmann2006.pdf
Jacob T…check out this website.
http://sharpgary.org/
The ocean non-acidification stuff is about halfway down.
Is everybody aware of all the nuances of the macro-economic implications for the entire planet based on this news?
Climate fears based on lies, Calgary told Think-tank adviser says CO2 not a threat; Warming science called flawed
http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Climate+fears+based+lies+Calgary+told/2058176/story.html
Jacob T, check out this website.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
Wayne Delbeke (08:28:08) :
“…is it possible that the Medieval Warming from 800 to 1500 is in part responsible for the increase in CO2 we see today …”
That’s good question Wayne. I made it once on Real Climate (back when I had just found that website and was an innocent babe…) and that was the first time a post of mine got lost in moderation there.
These two Canucks saved our day. Well done, Mr McKitrick!
Jacob T (08:56:16) :
…so therefore shellfish are not reproducing, plankton are smaller and the coral reefs are shrinking — my bs antenna went up right away — so my question is, is co2 creating these type of terrible sounding conditions in the oceans ??
___________
Short answer? No. The Idea of ocean “acidification” is wildly speculative, and there is no empirical evidence that I have found that that such problems are occurring, or can occur in the future.
Of course, who am I to disagree with Ms. Weaver…. She’s pretty hot.
I don’t have the time or inclination to go regather my results, but I researched this for a graduate level research project last spring, and found that while there has been a lot of coral bleaching in various parts of the world, there are other areas where it is thriving. Try Googling “bikini atoll” and “coral.”
You will also find that the “ocean acidification” advocates (try Wikipedia) think that they can tell us what the PH of the ocean was (to an accuracy of .01) back to 1750. If I remember correctly, the whole idea of PH and the ability to measure it with any accuracy only matured as recently as 1930.
For a number of years, we have been told recent warming had been fully explained, and the only conclusion was “CO2 dunnit”.
I wonder how much of that kind of statement comes from the apparent sensitivity prodiced by the hockey sticks. If it turns out that YAD06 provides the requisity explanation, any deductions about CO2 sensitivity from hockey sticks will have been an illusion.
And if the blade of the hockey stick is lost, anybody who had used the hockey stick for climate sensitivity to CO2 will be left with no significant sensitivity.
On the same thought, I wonder how many GCM;s will need to re-assess their assumptions of climate sensitivity for the same reason. If they turn down climate sensitivity to CO2, I suppose the revised hindcasting would be all over the place.
Hmm, this could be quite an interesting time.
For the past 26 years I have taught Business Statistics to mostly unwilling college students [it is a required course]. I have often faced the wrath of my students because “This course is too hard. You are too tough as a Teacher. Why do we have to do all this work. Statistics is just numbers-it doesn’t mean anything.” I have always soldiered on by explaining that the only basis for sound public policy is excellent research coupled with honest statistical analysis. I warn my students that without a solid grasp of the vocabulary, mechanics and conceptual insights of statistical reasoning-they will be unable to function in the modern world. I refer to this lack of talent as being innumerate or the state of being quantitatively crippled. I have used the AGW debate as an example for over 20 years now. I am not now nor have I ever been impressed or swayed by any of the data or analysis proffered as proof of AGW. After this set of revelations I am shocked and saddened. But most of all I am at a loss for what I should tell my students when they ask [as they will] “Why shouldn’t we cheat? Obviously these guys [Mann et al] cheated and they got away with for over a decade. So why shouldn’t I cheat?” Dr. Mann if you would be so kind as to answer that question for my students it would be greatly appreciated. I understand that Professor Briffa is ill please tell him that we have added him to our prayers and that we hope he recovers soon.
Scott A. Mandia, what’s your point here with the pdf of Wahl and Ammann paper? Your point at realclimate is well understood so is your pro AGW activist webpage.
Gordon Ford (08:20:51) :
PS – If the ruth were known Canadian Conservatives are probably to the left of American Democrats!
Gordon, as a “Canadian Conservative”, I take great exception to that remark. True there are some Canadian policies that are considered “left wing” by Americans, that does not place Canadian Conservatives to the left of American Democrats. America has its share of hard left wingers (i.e., ACORN).
Dr. Keiller, maybe you can help answer the following….
What would you say are variables in the size of a tree ring? Temperature? CO2? Rainfall? Nutrients in the soil? Amount of sunlight? Intensity of sunlight? Length of the growing season? all the above? none?
I need some convincing that a tree makes a good thermometer.
I was just over at the ICECAP site reading Joe’s take on this whole subject.
See :
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
He had a bunch of links, including a link to RC’s take on this. See :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
What struck me most profoundly is the difference in tone – both by the author & the commenters. At WUWT (& ICECAP), the tone is generally polite & non-judgemental & focused on science. At RC, the tone was condensending, arrogant & smug with a constant subtle & not so subtle undertone of ad hom attacks.
Imagine yourself listening to an arguement on any subject. One side is being rational & addressing ALL facts & the other side resorts to personal attacks & a basic response of ” So !!!!” If you nothing about the subject at all, you would probably guess who is correct in the arguement ….. and it’s not the guy making the personal attacks.
I find this facinating in that I think most people recognize this behavior for what it is – the last defense of a losing argument. Thus, by trying to avoid debating the facts & data (so that they don’t lose the argument ), they will lose in the court of public opinion anyway because of their attitude.
It is worth a visit to the link (although it make make you naseous ) to see how not to argue a point .
Joel Shore,
Please link us to all those INDEPENDENT large scale Paleo studies that support the statement that the current Temps are exceptional!!!! (even ASSuming the GISS/HADCrut is believeable) Most of them refer either to the original Mannian work and/or Briffa’s. They are hardly independent or based on new information.
You might want to spend some time reviewing the Paleo studies referenced at:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
jakers,
why should he repeat what McIntyre has posted when the rest of us need clear English explanations??
MIchael
Had to laugh as your link to Monckton talking about the hockey stick in the Calgary newspaper had a flash along the top page;
“Hockey Experts for sale”
What am I bid for Gavin?
tonyb
Pieter F (10:12:06) : said
“I believe Delbeke’s observation deserves a closer look and consideration.
Wayne Delbeke (08:28:08) : “. . . If you subtract 800 from 2000 you get 1200 – so if CO2 increases follow warming by 500 to 800 years, is it possible that the Medieval Warming from 800 to 1500 is in part responsible for the increase in CO2 we see today . . .”
If that’s what the Vostock cores tell us, the rise in CO2 now has a new explanation.”
Sorry, but we have been down this road before and the New Scientist ( I think) ran an article some years ago explaining why this wasn’t possible. The article seemed to me to be trying to make excuses, although certainly the basic fact seems to remain that temperature rises first, followed by co2.
However its my guess the lead in time is very much shorter than 800 years and we could see the recent downturn in temperatures reflected in co2 atmospheric concentrations falling in the near future.
(assuming the carbon cycle follows the computer models 🙂 )
tonyb
Robinson (08:28:01) :
Excellent and clearly written article by Ross. I don’t know how influential the financial post website is, but it seems the word is starting to spread out of the blogosphere as to how we’ve all been gamed by The Team.
But the mainstream is… warming to the cool – George Will yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093003569.html?sub=AR
He may even be the champion to follow this story to publication.
Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.
The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick
=====================
~snip~
~snip~
“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. ”
~snip~
Makes it easy to point to people who are not too up to speed on the controvosy and say here is what McKitrick says and here is what the NAS really said.
Who do you believe now?
Prof Mandia’s own views can be appreciated here (from a RC post):
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
Comment by Scott A. Mandia — 2 October 2009
I have a question. The following quote is Anthony’s from an earlier post:
As 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.
This is from page 2274 of Briffa’s paper in question:
Trends in recent temperature and radial tree growth spanning 2000 years across northwest Eurasia
The Swedish Torneträsk data (Grudd et al. 2002) and Finnish–Lapland data (Eronen et al. 2002; Helama et al. 2002), for pine (Pinus sylvestris), were combined to create a single Fennoscandia regional chronology. 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, and larch (Larix gmelinii) data from Bol’shoi Avan (Sidorova et al. 2007) and Taimyr (Naurzbaev et al. 2002) were combined to form the Avam–Taimyr regional chronology.
And also this: (sorry for the display effects, it’s from tabel 1 on the same page). The bolded areas are the number of samples in each set:
site name north east start end samples RBar species references
high low
Yamal 67° 30 70° 00 −200 1996 611 0.54 0.24 LASI Hantemirov & Shiyatov (2002)
Yamal −200 1996 611 0.54 0.24 LASI
As Anthony’s quote illustrates, our (WUWT) concern to this point has been that K. Briffa et al selected a subset of available samples. But am I mistaken, by the inclusion of the above phrasing and the accompanying table to assume that K. Briffa is claiming to use all 611 samples in this analysis?
Does this constitute F….?
Also, to date he has not denied that he used only 12 trees. Right?