Yamal treering proxy temperature reconstructions don't match local thermometer records

Circling Yamal 3 – facing the thermometers

Guest post by Lucy Skywalker

Let’s look closely and compare local thermometer records (GISS) with the Twelve Trees, upon whose treerings depend all the IPCC claims of “unprecedented recent temperature rise”.

For my earlier Yamal work, see here and here. For the original Hockey Stick story, see here and here.

Half the Hockey Stick graphs depend on bristlecone pine temperature proxies, whose worthlessness has already been exposed. They were kept because the other HS graphs, which depend on Briffa’s Yamal larch treering series, could not be disproved. We now find that Briffa calibrated centuries of temperature records on the strength of 12 trees and one rogue outlier in particular. Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous. And not properly comparing treering evidence with local thermometers is the mother of all scandals.

I checked out the NASA GISS page for all thermometer records in the vicinity of Yamal and the Polar Urals, in “raw”, “combined”, and “homogenized” varieties. Here are their locations (white). The Siberian larch treering samples in question come from Yamal and Taimyr. Salehard and Dudinka have populations of around 20,000; Pecora around 50,000; Surgut around 100,000; all the rest are officially “rural” sites. Some are long records, some are short.

Russia has two problems. First, many records stopped or became interrupted around 1990 after the ending of Soviet Russia; worst affected are the very telling Arctic Ocean records. Second, during Soviet Russia (and possibly now for all I know), winter urban records were “adjusted” downwards so that the towns could claim more heating allowances. Nevertheless, it will become clear that these issues in no way impede the evidence regarding treerings.

Click to enlarge these graphs. The first shows the 20 GISS stations closest to Yamal and the Polar Urals. The second shows treering width changes over time (only 10 of the 12 trees here). This was supposedly compared with local thermometer records, and used to calibrate earlier treering widths as temperature measurements to create a 1000-year temperature record. It was a pig to turn these graphs into a stack of transparent lines at the same scale as the GISS records for comparison, but finally, interesting material started to emerge.

I scaled all the GISS thermometer records to the same temperature scale, and ran them all from 1880 to 2020 at the same time scale (GISS graphs do not do this). I overlaid them as transparent lines along their approximate mean temperatures for comparison. Mean temperatures (visually judged) vary from around -2ºC (Pecora) to -13ºC (Selagoncy, Olenek, Hatanga, and Ostrov Uedine) and even -15ºC (“Gmo Im E.K. F”). The calibrations are degrees Centigrade anomaly, and decades.

Ha! Straightway we see clear patterns emerging. Let’s agree them:

Thermometer records: (1) time-wise, thermometers show temperatures rising from 1880 to 1940 or so; (2) temperatures fall a little from 1940 to 1970; (3) temperatures then rise a little but do not quite regain the heights of the 1940’s; (4) despite mean temperatures ranging from -2ºC to -15ºC (total means range 13ºC), and a range of temperature anomalies from each mean of only 9ºC from warmest year to coldest year, when mean temperatures are aligned, clear correlations emerge; (5) there are high variations between adjacent years. We shall investigate all this more closely in a minute.

Treering records: I’ve shown here the full records given for the 10 trees that runs from 1800 to 2000; but below, I use the same timescale as the thermometer records (1880-2020) for comparison. It is useful to see a few things here already: (6) treering sizes are increasing from 1830; (7) before that they show a decrease; (8) they do show correlation from 1880 on (this is NOT proof that the correlation is due to temperature).

Yamal area: (9) The 7 stations around Salehard seem to go in lock step with each other pretty well. (10) The five Yamal treering records (YAD) also correlate with each other, showing spikes around 1910, 1925, 1940, 1955, 1965, and 1980-1990. (11) But the treerings fall out with each other 1990-2000; and (12) these treering spikes do NOT correspond to the thermometer temperature spikes; but (13) there is a slight correlation with the longterm temperature; however, (14) crucially, there is no hockeystick blade in the thermometer record (15) nor is there one in the treering record if we remove the red YAD061 which is clearly an outlier – only a plateau’d elevation of the peaks throughout the 20th century starting before the real CO2/temp rise (and this is actually matched by pre-1800 values at times).

Excuse me for wondering if treerings beat to a different drum than temperature – it is certainly curious that there appears to be something causing correlations in the treerings. Wind? Sunspots? The moon? But let’s check by zooming in a little closer…

Salehard close-up: (16) all the nearby thermometer records mirror Salehard closely, although stations are up to 500 miles apart, the range of mean temperatures is -2ºC to -9ºC, and the range of annual temperatures at each station is up to about 9ºC – altogether a remarkable consistency. Click to see animated version of these records. (17) The close fit of Mys Kamennij (pale sea-blue) is particularly significant, since it is maritime and rural, and the same distance as Salehard from the treering site (some 120 miles), but in the opposite direction; (18) Ostrov Waigatz (Vaigach Island) shows the same pattern but with greater extremes; (19) in comparison with all this, the treering records show virtually no correlation at all – yet since treering differences between summer and winter exist at all, one would expect to see some correlation with warmer and colder years. (20) Perhaps if a far larger sample were used, a correlation might be detected, but clearly (21) we have trees here that are far too individual – especially YAD061.

Polar Urals: Here are seven station records around the Polar Urals site, compared with the five Taimyr (POR) treering records. (22) Mean temperatures are lower here – further North but also more continental, so perhaps the summers are as warm as Yamal, with similar near-treeline environment. (23) more noise in the temperature record, but the overall pattern is still the same; (24) 1943, 1967, 1983 are warm in common with the Salehard records, and 1940 is cold; other years are harder to compare. (25) The early fragmentary records for Dudinka and Turuhansk still fit together and overlay the Salehard records well, showing clear temperature rise between 1880 and 1940. (26) The treering records are fairly coherent, more so than the Yamal ones, and (27) they fit the Yamal records’ spikes in 1910, 1925, 1940, 1955, 1965, and 1980 on, but (28) again, this does not fit the temperature record.

The best of both record series: Really rural thermometer records from the maritime Arctic: (29) show the strongest pattern yet which (30) fits the other two sets of thermometer records but (31) does not fit the treering records even though (32) the treerings show coherent patterns within themselves, despite the two sites being some 800 miles apart.

Briffa’s full chronology: The Yamal chronology Briffa used (black) is compared with Polar Urals (green) and shows recent temperatures exceeding the Medieval Warm Period but (33) this is highly questionable, as is the recent final uptick. No MWP supports the alarmist “Unprecedented!” yet Polar Urals generally have been shown to fit local thermometer records better than Yamal for the period of overlap.

More GISS Arctic graphs: There are many serious problems with GISS but we can only take the evidence here. (34) GISS 64ºN+ shows a misleading trend line – temperatures rise to 1940, fall to 1970, rise to 2000 but not higher than 1940, then level off after 2000; (35) I don’t know what stations went into this composite – the final uptick alerts my suspicions to some UHI or other station problems; (36) Tamino takes the biscuit for cherrypicked trends in the GISS 80ºN+ North Polar winter record (sea green) – it clearly opposes the general worldwide fall in temperatures 1940-1970. However, it’s interesting to see such extremes.

GISS’ homogeneity adjustments: Thankfully, only a few of these Russian records are “adjusted”. But the alterations are telling. Surgut spikes upwards over Salehard from about 1960 on – but (36) the adjustment (probably UHI) is perversely done by truncating and moving earlier records upwards, instead of adjusting later records downwards. And (37) why were Salehard’s and Ostrov Uedine’s earlier “raw” records omitted in the adjusted records? I think every correction here will tend to amplify global warming trends.

GISS world temperatures, 2008: This map was shown in Tingley & Huybers’ latest Hockey Stick presentation at PAGES conference. GISS’ own station records around Yamal and Polar Urals appear to show (38) this map is misleading, since according to GISS’ own records, above, averages local to Yamal / Polar Urals after 2000 are at the most 1.5ºC anomaly (above local mean).

CRU Arctic temperatures, seasonal anomalies: (graph by romanm) Since this is from uncheckable individual station records, (39) the figures could be contaminated by various “correction” factors, (41) UHI is especially likely in the winter. But note that (42) the difference in character between months, and between summers and winters, is striking – summers have hardly changed – and (43) still no definitive Hockey Stick as per illustrations and per Briffa’s Yamal treering record, nothing beyond the range of natural patterns clearly evidenced here. Even the known slight overall increase during the twentieth century takes place mainly earlier in the century.

Conclusions: There is no sign whasoever of a Hockey Stick shape with serious uptick in the twentieth century, in the thermometer records. Yet these records are clearly very consistent with each other, no matter how long the record or how cold, high, or maritime the locality, with a distance span of over a thousand miles. Neither does the Hockey Stick consistently show in the treerings except in the case of a single tree. Even with thermometer records that are incomplete and suffering other problems, the “robust” conclusion is –

“Warmist” treering proxy temperature evidence is falsified directly by local thermometer records.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Doug in Seattle

Ah Lucy, but you did not “correct” the Russian records. All becomes clear once you do so. The flatness your graphs imply is simply a product of bad Russian temperature collection procedures that are encoded within the patented GIS algorithm 😉

EricH

Brilliant! Another nail in the coffin for AGW.

charlie

I am sure when I was at primary school, we were told that the tree ring width denoted moisture content (or lack of) for a certain year, not temperature. To my mind (simple I admit), the amount of moisture available to the tree would be more likely to dictate the amount of growth in a given year than the temperature or is that too simplistic?

“I scaled all the GISS thermometer records to the same temperature scale, and ran them all from 1880 to 2020 at the same time scale (GISS graphs do not do this). ”
Anthony, how exactly did you extract the 2020 data? By force?

John Peter

“I scaled all the GISS thermometer records to the same temperature scale, and ran them all from 1880 to 2020 at the same time scale (GISS graphs do not do this).”
“Treering records: I’ve shown here the full records given for the 10 trees that runs from 1800 to 2000; but below, I use the same timescale as the thermometer records (1880-2020) for comparison.”
How do you obtain a thermometer record going out to year 2020 when we are still in year 2009?

hey, Anthony, thanks a million… I know I feel proud of this particular page as it turned out clean and I think it complements Steve’s work – the proxies all depend for their “robustness” on correlating to a temperature record whose worth is unquestioned.
I took Tamino’s graph from our last set-to and used it here, to demonstrate extreme cherry-picking. Useful, that was.
Now I’ll stand back and hear the critics. I do want good science in the end.

But…. But… what are you going to believe, all those temperature stations? Or YAD061?
I think YAD061, for ’tis an enchanted tree, steeped in magic and home to fairies, and pixies and there’s this little ladder at the top that goes up through a hole in the clouds to a magical new land. And every week, the magic land at the top of the magical faraway tree moves on and changes to a new land full of mystery and intrigue and adventure.
Apologies to Enid Blyton…

The subtitle “Circling Yamal 3” is a dead link.
I’d like to say thanks to Jeff Id for putting up my page first. Perhaps a link there… but I’ve now added a couple more pics that Jeff doesn’t have, this time taken from Briffa 2007’s temperature material using CRU gridded data.

soorry, should have given refs:
Jeff Id’s page for comments
My page for updates

Privet Ein

YAD061….Yes We Can….Change We Can Believe In 😛
(sorry)

Sorry, Lucy, I didn’t notice your byline.
Excellent stuff, but my query above (and John Peter’s – great minds…) remains!

sorry, should have given refs:
Jeff Id’s page for comments
My page for updates
Kaboom, my bad language. It’s just the scale, it was a matter of convenience, of course there isn’t a future record!

Jeff B.

Fitting. When AGW finally “hangs” for its crimes against reason, it will be swinging from a branch of YAD061.

Christian S

Just a quick question to Lucy and others familiar with the data.
Why is this tree group known as ‘Polar Urals’? Yamal is at the northern end of the mountain chain known as the Urals, while the area shown as being their location on the map above is more than 1,000 kilometres away to the ENE.
By the way, the town called ‘Hatanga’ is actually ‘Khatanga’ and is a stop-over/re-fueling airport for Russian Arctic flights – I spent an hour there once.

hey, Kaboom, you’ve drawn my attention to it, I’ve mis-labelled the y-axis (time) on my plot of all individual stations, I’m going to change it now. Should be 1900 where it says 1880.

SamG

kaboom, you wouldn’t be a socialist would you? :-p
ahhhh, I guess with that acronym, I couldn’t exactly call your agenda ‘hidden’.

Patrick Davis

WOW! Incredible, thankyou Lucy.

Christian S (01:58:15) : Perils of transliteration. Also Sale(k)hard and Waigatz/Vaigach.

Leone

One example of brilliant GISS homogenisation algorithms. From station data, St. Petersburg (Russia) 1940-2005 linear trend is 2.30 degrees C. But in Helsinki (Finland), 250 km away from St. Petersburg, the trend in same period is 0.59. Both cities are coastal located at same sea.
But GISS algorithms homogenise Helsinki trend to 1…2 degrees:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=09&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1940&year2=2005&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
Data from Russian cities seems to be mostly quite absurd, but GISS regards it as reliable as other data and its algorithms spread error to larger areas. Brilliant indeed, it would be intresting see global temps trend with Russian cities removed. Or even with global rural stations only.

rbateman

AGW never made it out of the lab it was concocted in. Such things only attain life in the pages of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.
The really scary part is that some are trying to peddle it as reality.
Good job, Lucy.

Boudu

Excellent post Lucy. I wish I could say I am surprised by your findings but all I can do is roll my eyes and hope that one day common sense and the scientific method will prevail.

Mac

Doesn’t this mirror the underlining problem with the proxy study on Baffin Island using lake sediments – namely the local temperature records do not support a Hocky Stick curve.
The bigger problem is that science by uncalibrated proxy data is either being done incompetently or delibrately.

That is an amazing amount of work, and simple enough for even me to understand. All the data laid out and the outliers labelled. It’s a shame there isn’t a process whereby analysis like this cannot get out into the peer reviewed literature, and be attached somehow to the original paper.
Looking at the Polar Urals, one could say that there may be some merit in using treemometers, but when one sees the patent misuse of these by Briffa, it calls the whole method into question. I wonder how many dendrologists are thanking Briffa for this? He has effectively wiped out their discipline.
Welll done Lucia. I lurk on your site quite often, but I’m not yet at a point where I can make a valid contribution. Keep up the good work.

bill

Lucy
You obviously have not read Briffa’s latest info on his UEA CRU site with respect to data release:
We would like to reiterate that these data were never “owned” by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and we have never had the right to distribute them. These data were acquired in the context of collaborative research with colleagues who developed them. Requests for these data have been redirected towards the appropriate institutions and individuals. When the Briffa (2000) paper was published, release of these data was specifically embargoed by our colleagues who were still working towards further publications using them. Following publication of the 2008 paper, at the request of the Royal Society, Briffa approached colleagues in Sweden, Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk and their permission was given to release the data. This was done in 2008 and 2009. Incidentally, we understand that Rashit Hantemirov sent McIntyre the Yamal data used in the papers cited above at his request as early as 2nd February, 2004.
Perhaps you should remove a few of the “scandalous” comments in yoiur text?
Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous.
Yamal was released in 2004. Data was not Briffa’s to release etc.

SamG:
“kaboom, you wouldn’t be a socialist would you? ”
Well, we ALWAYS extract our data by force……….

P Wilson

Congrats Lucy
thats worthy of sending to UEA

Juls

To evaluate temperature from rings, I suppose they use statistics gathered somewhere else… somewhere where temperature is all the time above 0 celcius.
I can bet if you apply these statistics to treerings from an area where temperature is below freezing almost all year long, it induces some distorsion. Like for example around zero, treering growth increase is not anymore proportional to temperature increase…almost no growth below zero, and far more above zero.
If you carefuly pick an area where temperatures are most of time close from zero, and apply treering growth measures from warmer areas in the world, I can bet it works exactly like a temperature magnifier. 0.2 degrees increase in temperature may for example give in Yamal 2 times more days above zero -> almost 2 times more growth.
You see what I mean? Sorry for my poor english.

bill

Also you are calling into question Briffas plot of temperature:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2269.full.pdf
figure 1 page 2272
i.e. you are accusing Briffa of untruths.
It is worth reading his document as to me it seems an honest interpretation of results.
The empirically demonstrated link between
this growth variability and local measured instrumental
temperature data is patently strong and apparently
stable, at least over the last 70–90 years for which
station records are available. This supports the
interpretation of the 2000-year chronologies in terms
of evidence of changing summer temperature variability,
and simple analyses of the timing and coincidence
of relative warm and cool periods over this time
support the conclusion that the twentieth century was
unusually warm in each individual region as well as
over northwest Eurasia as a whole. Medieval warmth
was real in these regions, particularly in Avam–Taimyr.
The warmth was widespread but restricted to a
relatively narrow period just prior to AD 1000.
Assuming that tree growth is driven predominantly by
summer temperature changes; these results indicate
that the magnitude of medieval warmth in northwest
Eurasia did not match that from recent times.

You will not that TRW is associated more with summer warmyh than average yearly temperature. I assume your plots are the latter? and therefore not very relevant.

bill

Lucy it would also appear that you are claiming that your simple analysis is correct and Briffas more complete analysis (e.g. Fig 7) is falsified despite having been done by a proffessional?
It should also be remembered that the hocky stick is shown in RCS corrected tree ring widths and not deg C. I do not think Briffa even gives an index value to temperature conversion.
So how tall is the blade in degC??????

Patrick Davis

“bill (03:11:41) : ”
My BS detector just went off the scale.

maz2

Goreacle Report: Shoo Business>
Hollow-weeny Edition by manbearswineAGW vs Suzy Coyote.
Boooooo shoooo boooo … “If a bear is spotted, said conservation officer Andrew Szklaruk, he and his colleagues are called in to shoo it away.”
…-
“*Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up”
“**Canada, Greenland to sign agreement to protect Arctic polar bears”
…-
“Polar bear patrol escorts Hudson Bay trick-or-treaters
CHURCHILL, Man. – Most trick-or-treaters are well-versed in Halloween safety: travel in groups, wear colourful clothing and only stop at brightly lit homes.
The drill is slightly different, however, for kids in a remote Manitoba town on Hudson Bay.
Youngsters in Churchill are warned not to dress in furry white costumes, to steer clear of baited traps stuffed with seal meat and to listen for the tell-tale sound of fireworks.
That’s because these candy-seekers have more to worry about than ghosts and goblins. They need to avoid a different kind of predator on Halloween – the polar bear.
In Churchill – known as the polar bear capital of the world – Halloween falls smack in the middle of the busiest time for the iconic mammals. The bears are restlessly wandering around as they wait for cooler temperatures so they can head out onto the frozen winter ice.
Add to that streets crawling with about 300 trick-or-treaters and their tasty bags of treats. The combination could be deadly.
But Conservation, Parks Canada and RCMP officers have ensured everyone’s safety for the last 40 Halloweens and this year is no different. Thirty of them will encircle the town and keep an eye on youngsters going door to door.
“It’s a precautionary measure because the polar bear is a predatory animal,” said Const. Mike Boychuk. “Our main goal is to have a safe community whether it be from humans or from bears.”
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2009/10/29/11568001-cp.html
*urlm.in/dill
**urlm.in/dilm

tallbloke

Nice work Lucy!
What happens if you smoothe the temperature records on a 43 month running mean and compare with tree rings and an inverted sunspot curve?

DaveF

Lucy Skywalker:
Well done, Lucy.
Jeff B 01:53:23:
“….it’ll be swinging from a branch of YAD061”
Don’t think so. They chopped it down to count its rings. Fancy chopping down an enchanted tree! Murderers!

Espen

Wonderful work, Lucy! I’ve looked into this several times myself, e.g. looked at the graphs for stations nearby Yamal, and came to the same conclusion, but I didn’t have time or guts to go through it in detail and publish it as you did. Very good!
It’s about time the idea of the uniqueness of the current arctic warming gets revised, almost all the long-running records seem to tell the same story: The previous warm period (peaking in about 1940) was warmer than the current one.

EW

Lucy,
the larch tree-rings correlate only with temperatures from July 16 to June 30, as Hantemirov’s pdf in Russian (also mentioned at Climate Audit) shows in the Fig. 4, page 18 (black bars are coefficients of correlation).
The poor things aren’t able to grow in any other month. Therefore they aren’t a whole-year temp proxies but only summer temp proxies.
http://vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog/2009/13-07/KHantemirovRM.pdf

compguy77

bill (03:11:41) :
How is it that Briffa, and others that use Briffa, can publish if they are not able to archive the data used? In many cases, this is in violation to the policies of the journal in which they publish. If a scientist cannot provide the evidence for claims made, how is that science?
On your other point, Steve had the data, but obviously did not know it was Briffa’s data. Do you have evidence that he knew he had Briffa’s data, as your post implies?

Henry Galt

bill:
“Perhaps you should remove a few of the “scandalous” comments in yoiur text?
Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous.”
Pick some others as the majority of those still stand.
I would not have been so restrained to call them merely scandalous.
Someone(s), somewhere(s) must face prosecution for what has been done if there is anything resembling justice left in this world.

EW

Perhaps you should remove a few of the “scandalous” comments in your text?
Such a small sample is scandalous;
In this case I don’t think so. If there were only few trees available at the time of writing of Briffa et al 2000 (I understand that the collections were started in 1997 or 98), the authors should have waited for more sampling.
There was no danger that somebody else would secretly snatch Yamal larches in big numbers to construct a counter-chronology and steal thusly the victory from them, was there?

Steve M.

charlie (01:12:12) :

I am sure when I was at primary school, we were told that the tree ring width denoted moisture content (or lack of) for a certain year, not temperature. To my mind (simple I admit), the amount of moisture available to the tree would be more likely to dictate the amount of growth in a given year than the temperature or is that too simplistic?

I’m sure I’ll get corrected if I’m wrong on this, but I believe that bristlecone pine treering data is assumed to be the length of the growing season. i.e. the trees freeze at a certain temperature, and do not grow. So, a longer growing season means a bigger ring, meaning warmer temperatures. I’m with you that I think this is too simple an explanation for tree ring growth.

BradH

Checkmate!

Alan the Brit

We have an expression in the structural engineering profession (very experienced engineers only) in the UK when checking other engineers work, especially for Building Regulations (Codes) approval. “Looks right, IS right!” This looks right to me:-) A good post.

Bill Illis

Great work Lucy.
You’d think the first thing that would be done is to actually show how the tree-rings reflect the temperature trends. They say they do this step and then one looks at the actual data and, once again, what do we find – nope.
And Briffa issued a “Caution” on his webpage a few days, essentially saying that the Yamal series should be used very cautiously by researchers given so few trees were used. [but he also says they have new numbers now that are essentially the same – maybe they can check the new numbers against your temperature records this time].
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm
I also think Briffa’s original Yamal chronology (the processed RCS method version) has much more of spike at the end than shown in the one chart above. In this file, the column “Yamal.RCS” is the one that most of the hockey stick studies have picked up. It is more like a goal tender hockey stick.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/Column.prn

MattN

Raise your hand if you are surprised at this.
Did they turn the chronology upside-down? Again?

supercritical

bill,
– For a field that is based on statistical analysis, using such a small sample IS scandalous.
– Publishing without title to the data IS scandalous.
– Knowing that the results from the hidden data are being cited by others as valid foundations for their work IS scandalous.
Perhaps, bill, you could tell us in what field such practices are classed as acceptable behaviour?

fred

It seems to me that releasing data in 2004 is useless if how the data was used is not disclosed.

bill (03:11:41) :
Quoting Briffa: “We would like to reiterate that these data were never “owned” by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and we have never had the right to distribute them. These data were acquired in the context of collaborative research with colleagues who developed them. Requests for these data have been redirected towards the appropriate institutions and individuals.”

So we wait almost ten years to come up with that tap dance? We hear this argument frequently from the CRU crew. I’ll be the dog ate Briffa’s confidentiality agreements along with Phil Jones’!
Scandalous!

Following publication of the 2008 paper, at the request of the Royal Society, Briffa approached colleagues in Sweden, Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk and their permission was given to release the data.

After being prodded by McIntyre to enforce their publication policy which Briffa had failed to follow in the first place.
Scandalous!

Incidentally, we understand that Rashit Hantemirov sent McIntyre the Yamal data used in the papers cited above at his request as early as 2nd February, 2004.

Which Steve McIntyre also commented on. Yes, he had the data, but he had no idea that the Hantemirov set he had was what Briffa had used. More tap dancing about Briffa’s scandalous behavior.
More to the point, if Briffa were being honest he could have facilitated connecting McIntyre with the “owners” in the interest of openness upfront. The fact that he chose stonewalling for almost ten years speaks volumes.
Scandalous!
Lucy,
Leave in “scandalous”…as many times as necessary. Briffa’s dissembling comments offered late in the game and the incomprehensible defense of such dissembling by certain parties is scandalous.
Great work by the way.

Ron de Haan

Anthony,
Conclusions: There is no sign whasoever = whatsoever

Absolutely incredible work, Lucy !
It’s truly a shame (and should be a professional embarrassment) that the “experts” that peer review AGW junk science don’t find this.

Phillip Bratby

Well done Lucy, an excellent piece of detective work. But what happened to item (40)?

Ron de Haan

Looks rock solid science to me Lucy,
Thanks a lot.