UPDATE: After some late night insomnia, and re-reading Steve’s essay again, I have decided to make this introduction to his essay a “top post” for a couple of days. New stories will appear below this one.
Readers, I urge you to read and digest this story, because it forms the seminal basis for everything that is wrong with Team paleoclimate science: the hard earned field work of Russian field researchers whose inconvenient data was excluded, warnings from colleagues ignored, tribalism exposed, testimony self-contradicted, whitewashes performed, and in a hat-tip to Leibig’s Law, even a “reindeer crap theory”. As one CA commenter, Peter Ward, put it:
My 13-year-old daughter asked me what I was reading. I explained at a high level and showed her figure 4. She grasped it immediately. How can we get this figure publicised widely?
I urge every climate blog to pick this utterly damning story of forensic investigation up and make it as widely known as possible. – Anthony
By Steve McIntyre
In The Climate Files, Fred Pearce wrote:
When I phoned Jones on the day the emails were published online and asked him what he thought was behind it, he said” It’s about Yamal, I think”.
Pearce continued (p 53):
The word turns up in 100 separate emails, more than ‘hockey stick’ or any other totem of the climate wars. The emails began with it back in 1996 and they ended with it.
Despite Jones’ premonition and its importance both in the Climategate dossier and the controversies immediately preceding Climategate, Yamal and Polar Urals received negligible attention from the “inquiries”, neither site even being mentioned by Kerry Emanuel and his fellow Oxburgh panellists.
I recently submitted an FOI request for a regional chronology combining Yamal, Polar Urals and “other shorter” chronologies referred to in an April 2006 email – a chronology that Kerry Emanuel and the “inquiries” failed to examine. The University of East Anglia, which seems to have been emboldened by the Climategate experience, not only refused to provide the chronology, but refused even to provide a list of the sites that they used to construct the regional chronology.
This refusal prompted me to re-appraise Yamal and its role in the Climategate dossier.
Read the full story here: Yamal and Hide-the-Decline
============================================================
It appears the cardinals of deadwood at UEA and CRU have learned absolutely nothing.
Note to the person who’s running the BOT to keep posting one star like you did the last top post where over 1000 “1” star votes were logged (a new record). I have your IP address from the widget. If you keep it up, I’ll register a complaint with your ISP. In the meantime, “grow up”.
– Anthony
Just in case eadler can’t use the scroll bar to locate the inline comment above, I’m repeating this as a full comment so that he sees it.
Mr Adler. If your “everybody but me is wrong” mindset leads you to think Mr. McIntyre is “wrong” and “doesn’t know what he is talking about” then please have the courage to post it on on his blog and let him respond. I have admin privileges there, so I can assure you your comment will get posted. Post it just like you did here.
Until you do, I won’t have you making the arguments here. I’d point out that you have no background in “anything” climate , so by your criteria, you aren’t qualified to comment here on anything. James Hansen had no background in anything climate when he started, Mike Mann had no background in anything climate, their degrees lie in other fields…thus, your argument is absolutely ridiculous.
Go take your argument to Mr. McIntyre. Do it now. We’ll all be watching. Here’s the URL
http://www.climateaudit.org Comment system works the same way, but there is no moderation unless you use banned words, too many links, or excessive bloviation all of which will trigger the spam filter.
Even if that happens, I guarantee your comment will be approved there, because I will go fish it out for you.
If you don’t wish to, then don’t make any more comments here about Mr. McIntyre. – Anthony Watts
SBVOR says:
April 10, 2011 at 9:49 am
It doesn’t even survive there without an assumption of zero free-will (or equally, everyone has the same needs and wants and there is an even distribution of labor and resources capable of providing for both.) It IS an intellectual vacuum.
Mark
Verity Jones says:
April 10, 2011 at 2:57 am
“Many here (myself included) have gone though their own process of transformation from ‘warmist’ to ‘sceptic’ as a result of self study (of ‘both sides’).”
I’ve always been a warmist insofar as acknowledging the physical properties of greenhouse gases and anthropogenic emission of said gases. Most every engineer at least from time to time has to refer to physical properties of materials. These generally aren’t theoretic properties but rather properties determined via experimental observation and/or practical application. CO2 works as an insulator in the atmosphere. It is transparent to visible light allowing sunlight to pass through unimpeded to heat the earth’s surface. It is translucent to far infrared light and impedes its progress from the earth’s surface to space. This has been well known for over 150 years when John Tyndall, one of the most prolific experimental physicists of his day, constructed ingenious (for the day) experimental apparatus to measure the physical properties of gases (among other things) in regard to far infrared light. He performed literally thousands of experiments with many different gases under varying conditions. His work remains unrefuted to this day with only refinements of the measurements with more modern laboratory apparatus. Anyone who disputes these well established facts is an illiterate when it comes to basic physical properties of gases.
That said, the bone of contention for me is so-called water vapor amplification. The story (and it IS just a story not an experimental observation or even theoretic construct) goes that the modest amount of warming that must come via the extra insulating gases added to the atmosphere by human activities creates a little extra water vapor (itself a greenhouse gas) which causes twice as much warming as the CO2 (and methane, which isn’t mentioned often enough). Well sir, if CO2 warming can produce some extra water vapor then water vapor warming must also produce even more water vapor which produces more warming. This is called a positive feedback which is something most every engineer has to deal and especially electronic engineers. Positive feedback is what makes a PA system start blaring out intense tones – your voice at the microphone is amplified by the PA then the amplified voice coming out of the PA speakers reaches the microphone and it gets amplified again and so on and so forth until the amplifier is driven into saturation. What would happen to the earth if the climate boffin’s imaginary water vapor amplification is true would be a runaway greenhouse where the water vapor (and surface temperature) would keep on rising until the atmosphere was completely saturated.
The earth has NEVER experienced a runaway greenhouse. The indisputable testimony of the geologic column reveals that CO2 level in the atmosphere has been as much as 10 times or more greater than today and global average temperature has never been more than 6-8 degrees celsius warmer. Indeed, when in the past CO2 levels have been far higher the biosphere was much more productive with the earth green from pole to pole. It was during just such episodes in the past which laid down the vast coal beds we are harvesting today. In fact these warm episodes are the norm, not the exception, in the earth’s history with them lasting for tens to hundreds of millions of years at a stretch with an occasional briefer ice age interrupting it. We live in one of those ice ages right this moment. The modern ice age has persisted for the past 3 million years and the only reason Washington, D.C. isn’t buried under a mile of ice is because once every 100,000 years the glaciers retreat back to the poles and stay there for about 10,000 years.
What actually happens is water vapor is a negative feedback not a positive one. In the surface temperature regime where water is liquid; evaporation, convection, and condensation (the water cycle) quickly move energy from the surface to thousands of feet up in the atmosphere where it can more easily escape to space. Not only that but the water cycle, which is running the fastest in the afternoon when the sun is the brightest, produces clouds which shadow the ground and reduces daytime surface heating. The clouds then give up the water as rain (afternoon thunderstorms) and dissipate by late evening allowing surface heat to more easily escape through the atmosphere. This effectively caps how warm the earth can get at this distance from the sun.
Where there is a frightening positive feedback is when the surface temperature falls below freezing allowing ice and snow to accumulate. The ice and snow reflect far more sunlight than open water or open land so surface heating by the sun is vastly reduced which in turn makes it even colder and more favorable for ice and snow to accumulate. The result of runaway cooling is an ice age. The average temperature of the global ocean is a mere 4c with only a shallow 300 meter surface layer ever getting warmer than 3C. That average ocean temperature (4C) is the average temperature of the surface taken over a complete glacial/interglacial cycle of 110,000 years. There is no other explanation for it. The average temperature of the ocean’s surface today is 16C. It won’t be that way for much longer. The interglacial period is already overdue for an abrubt ending and then the average surface temperature will fall to near or below freezing.
Global warming is a good thing. Some of the other indisputable properties of CO2 is that increased levels of it accelerate plant growth and at the same reduce the amount of water a plant needs per unit of growth. Global warming is also a misnomer because the warming effect of CO2 is muted by high humidity. Thus most of the warming occurs in higher latitudes during the winter where the air is dried by sub-freezing temperatures. In effect anthropogenic CO2 gives us longer growing seasons where we most need longer growing seasons, accelerates plant growth everywhere some other factor does not become limiting (sunlight, nutrients, water), and gives them increased drought resistance.
There really is no practical downside to anthropogenic CO2 that comes anywhere near outweighing the benefits. If there was no such thing as anthropogenic CO2 we’d need to invent it just to reap the positive benefits from it.
I fervently wish that one benefit of the anthropogenic global warming is an indefinite extension of the modern interglacial period. I don’t believe AGW is sufficient for that but I wish it were.
Theo Goodwin says:
April 9, 2011 at 8:43 pm
“Mr. McIntyre’s work deserves a Nobel Prize in Science and another in Letters. The world is greatly indebted to Mr. McIntyre.”
I couldn’t agree more Theo! Thank You, Mr. McIntyre!!!!
And Thank You Anthony, for keeping us informed of these excellent analyses!
Over the last few years, I have engaged in an informal dialog with a number of scientists and engineers at the large company I work for. Many were passive believers in AGW… and a few were rabid believers. The data and analyses Steve, Anthony, and soooo many others provide here are forwarded to these folks for their own evaluations. The data and analyses speak for themselves, bringing many to no longer be passive AGW believers but questioning scientists and skeptical engineers again.
I truly appreciate these reports and critical evaluations. They provide the ‘ammunition’ for guys like me to constructively refute false claims and illustrate the shoddy, if not fraudulent, manipulation of data done to create a predetermined AGW conclusion. The excellent analysis of Mr. McIntyre illustrates this in ‘spades’. It will get wide distribution through my informal network. Distilled to just the key points and with a link attached to this post, I’ll do my best to explain it to my State and Federal representatives or their key technical staffers.
P.S. to my last.
Natural climate variation is far more controlling than any practical amount of AGW. Thus I’m forced to conclude that AGW will NOT prevent the return of the glaciers. The end of the Holocene interglacial period is both overdue and inevitable.
In the meantime would some kind CAGW boffin please wake me when apple orchards can be established again in Greenland. The vikings were growing apples 1000 years ago. For the past 800 years Greenland hasn’t had a long enough growing season for apples. Nor has it had a long enough growing season to produce silage for cattle. The vikings had that too. Until that becomes practical again the CAGW boffins should STFU and get off my ass.
Ecclesiastical Uncle says:
April 9, 20 11 at 10:12 pm
“So the UEA crew cherry picked data and used inappropriate methods to make a case. By so doing they were evidently doing what they were told to do, whether implicitly or explicitly, by the organizations in which they worked. Very possibly they made a substantial contribution towards the continuation of the organisation’s funding, thereby ensuring continuity of employment and ability to feed their families.”
I couldn’t disagree with you more, EA! I suspect your parents would be deeply ashamed of your defense of personal and professional deceits, justified because they sustained paychecks and bureaucracies! This form of ‘relativism’ is part of the moral and ethical sickness pervading our culture today. Where lies honesty, integrity, and self respect, in your defense of such personal, professional, and institutional deceits? Nowhere to be found……..
On several occasions, I have put my employment ‘on the line’ by refusing to be a part of just such deceits. The people that suggested these deceits sounded just like you! My self respect would not (and will not) allow me to be a knowing accomplice to what I knew to be fraud… and I told them so. On one occasion, I was asked “What if we didn’t give you a choice?”, to which I replied “I always have a choice!”
We always have a choice. We can be honest and ethical or we can be deceitful cheats. You choose – I’ve already made mine.
rbateman says:
April 9, 2011 at 8:10 pm
“If you had to think up a viral plan to take down Western Civilization by planting an idea, the AGW conundrum would be hard to beat. They took too long. Natural Climate cycles kicked the Earth into reverse, and the emperor’s clothes did the rest.”
I wish that were entirely true. From where I stand it seems to me that the laymen, and it is the laymen that must be convinced in any political argument, very predominantly continue to “see” the emperors clothes. They ignore the small boy crying “the emperor has no clothes”.
Dave Springer:
Thanks for taking the time to boil your understanding into something that us high school drop-outs could understand. With your permission, I’d like to copy and paste your post to my Facebook notes (with proper attribution of course) so that all of my friends can read it also. I found it authoritative and comprehensible and I’m sure others would too. It deserves to be spread & read widely.
R. Gates
“See, the problem is, if you accept that the Arctic is warming, and is the warmest in at least 2,000 years, as shown in these completely independent non-tree ring related studies: (and you link BBC news story and USA Today story)
Then you’d have to find a mechanism to explain this warming. Search as you might (and climate scientists have searched and continue to search everyday), it’s tough to find one that doesn’t include the forcing (and related feedbacks) brought about by the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.”
R. Gates, if you could be convinced that the MWP did exist, then you would have to drop your warmest Arctic in 2000 years, then you would have to rethink the magnitude of the additional CO2’s effects. Farmsteads emerging from melting ice in Greenland needs only a thinking mind with no studies to concluded that there was a MWP. A host of other studies and observations also support this. An important point of the Yamal and other dendro work was that it did discover the MWP and this dreaded finding had to be gotten rid of by eliminating most of the tree cores across the region. We also had grapes growing in Scotland, and other historic evidence. Even newspaper reports of the plight of seals in the Arctic during the 1930’s warming period which has also been the subject of much “correction and homogenization” to try to make it cooler than today – it was hotter until a series of recent alterations made by Hansen’s assistants.
Finally, everytime someone speaks about the giant 40% increase in CO2 (and you can be sure from the elasticity of data in the hands of CAGW folks that 40% is the maximum they figured they could get away with) since the 1700s, they don’t bother state that we are talking about 380ppm of CO2. Imagine if there was one molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere and it tripled what hysteria it would generate. Now Mr. Gates, I judge you to be an intelligent and honest (if a little too accepting) person. You can see that the MWP is the killer. One would have to explain how we had a comparably warm period 1000 years ago that dipped down to the depths of the LIA with apparently no significant change in CO2.
And when you say: yeah whatever, about the tree ring circus and jump to the other hockey sticks, you are avoiding wondering why these guys (the tree ring circus includes almost all the personalities that came up with other hockey sticks) felt the need to cook the tree data at all. Are you saying this cooking is okay because they already had another way to make the hockeystick? If you are going to throw out data that doesn’t give you a hockey stick and it takes re-re-correcting 1930s data in the 1990s-2000 to push this part of the curve down to give you the blade (it probably was more like a scythe than a hockey stick in reality and we are just now getting the blade) and this is all okay with you, I will have to re-evaluate my opinion of you. If you are scandalized by this trickery, then we should be welcoming you over to the other side – after Phil Jones himself has switched.
Dave Springer says:
April 10, 2011 at 10:07 am
===================================
Dave, I often wonder in a saner world, if we wouldn’t have figured out that it’s supposed to work this way.
That as temperatures increase, demand for CO2 increases, and CO2 follows temperature…
…if not, we wouldn’t be here
Obviously it’s been doing that forever, and obviously every thing on this planet has evolved to work that way………………….
Mark T
Quoting you:
He’s not saying that, nor did I claim that he said that.
Excuse me? Your exact words were “Not all paleoclimate reconstruction include Yamal tree rings.” Now you’re just plain lying.
I said (as you noticed): “Not all paleoclimate reconstruction[s] include Yamal tree rings”
I did not say: “Steve said all reconstructions include Yamal tree rings”, which is what you are complaining about.
About the importance of Yamal data in reconstructions:
Mann 2008 includes a reconstruction that excludes all tree ring data (page 13, “no dendro”), and it yields similar results.
BTW, the recent warming is vastly documented by instrumental data, so there is no need of the Yamal data to show this warming at all (need reference here?).
Other no-dendro reconstructions:
All-ice core reconstructions show the warming.
All-borehole reconstructions show the warming.
All-speleothem reconstructions show the warming.
But you’d better stick to the lying/hypocrite/general ad hominem reasoning. It’s more promising to your case.
Alexandre says:
April 10, 2011 at 11:35 am
BTW, the recent warming is vastly documented by instrumental data, so there is no need of the Yamal data to show this warming at all (need reference here?).
=====================================================
Alexandre, I agree
it’s not the trees, it’s not the ice, it’s not even the rocks…
“the recent warming is vastly documented by instrumental data”
…after the adjustments, when you admit to UHI and adjust up for it….
..can you please explain this
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/fully-fabricated-warming-trend-in-chandler-arizona/
Another great empirical observation that doesn’t get mentioned enough is how cold the earth would be sans water and atmosphere. If you dig down into dry ground a meter or so where you live you’ll find a point where the temperature is constant all year long. That is the average temperature for your latitude. The same thing can be done on the earth’s moon. In fact it has been done on the earth’s moon. Twice. The data is public. Two Apollo science packages were temperature probes into the regolith with sensors at various depths. They both transmitted data for a number of years. At an earth latitude where the constant ground temperature is 16C the corresponding latitudes on the moon were -23C.
The earth and moon are made of the same basic rocks (which is also experimental fact) in the upper crust (identical albedos) and are at the same distance from the sun. So without air or water our rock would be -23C. No real question of that.
SOMETHING is making the earth’s surface 39C warmer and it must be either or both of the fact there is an atmosphere and global ocean.
The biggest warmer-upper is the mere fact that liquid water is 16% darker than rocks so with the earth 71% covered with liquid water it absorbs about 10% more energy than the moon which accounts for about half of the 39C we need to account for bring the earth’s average temperature up to a few degrees C below freezing. Because of the positive feedback from snow/ice high albedo we’d be a giant snowball absorbing far less energy than the moon if the ocean were frozen.
This is where the atmospheric greenhouse comes in. Primarily it’s water vapor which is around 4% absolute relative humidity on average across the globe. Depending on who you ask it might be as little as 70% of the greenhouse effect to as much as 95%. Average global humidity is not known with enough precision to narrow down the range above. In any case it’s sufficient to raise the global average temperature from below freezing to above freezing and give us a better shot of having a persistent liquid ocean instead of a persistant frozen ocean.
But clearly that isn’t always enough surface warming to keep the ocean liquid. Ice ages indisputably are real, last for millions of years, and sometimes (somewhat controversially) freeze the entire planet from pole to pole.
So a liquid water world at our distance from the sun would be a frozen world. Something else must contribute to the dominance of liquid ocean vs. frozen ocean over the past billion years or so. Again controversially CO2 is what eventually brings the earth out of being largely or completely covered in snow and ice. There would be little life left on the earth if most of it is frozen and ice doesn’t absorb atmospheric CO2. When the earth is frozen the carbon and water cycles just about completely shut down. A frozen ocean can’t absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and green plants won’t be growing on frozen ground and carbonates won’t be forming from chemical processes either.
Volcanism now comes to the rescue. Even on a frozen earth volcanoes won’t stop belching out CO2. With no functioning carbon sinks it will build up and up and up until the greenhouse effect from it starts melting more and more ice which lowers albedo in a positive feedback situation the earth is a water world again, life flourishes again, the carbon cycle spins back up in overdrive, and the high atmospheric CO2 content keeps it a water world for tens to hundreds of millions of years until some perfect storm comes along to start a new ice age.
We need at least all the extra CO2 we can produce with fossil fuel combustion. Clearly the present concentration is periously low which handily explains why the earth has been in an ice for the past 3 million years. We clearly DO NOT want advancing glaciers and increasing polar sea ice. That’s a dangerous downward spiral to a frozen world.
Alexandre,
Simply clicking on the ‘no-dendro’ reconstruction links that you provide shows that each of these begins in 1400 or 1500. The value of dendro to the required narrative (if not to truth) is that it supports the notion that the current warmth is anomalous on the thousand year time scale.
Similarly the pnas tortured no-dendro link, shows not a hockey stick but a v-shaped graph.
Anyway, I take it that you accept that all dendro derived temperature records should be stricken from the scientific record. On that, I think that you will find broad agreement.
Alexandre I would be interested on your take about the issues with instrumental records.
Alexandre says:
April 10, 2011 at 11:35 am
Er, uhm, no. Not only “No” but “H*ll No.”
See, the modern temperature record MUST be seamlessly linked into the tree-ring record, or Mann-made global warming cannot exist.
But it cannot be. When modern tree-ring = temperature records are extended past
1960 (when CO2 can be shown to be to begin increasing from an assumed constant level) then tree-ring temperature begin DECLINING. (Not increasing, as it is known temperatures have increased.)
Thus tree-ring climatology is proved false in all their glorious assumptions – IF (big IF there!) – tree rings are only proportional to temperature, water, soil, and local conditions like fires. But since tree-ring thickness IS proportional to more than that – to CO2 levels as well for example, which Mann does NOT correct for – then temperature cannot be extrapolated from tree ring thickness measurements.
But Mann is too busy getting 93 million dollar grants for Penn State, and Nobel Prizes for his Al Gore and the IPCC funding it involves – to worry about the accuracy of his “science.” Which has never been established.
Yet another inconvenient fact for the CAGW boffins is that a mere change in axial tilt of a few degrees aligning with a one percent change in orbital eccentricity is enough to tip the balance between interglacial and glacial periods. Axial tilt and eccentricity don’t change how much energy the earth receives during a year. It merely changes the distribution of it temporally between seasons and spatially across the surface.
We’re at a tipping point! But it isn’t a tipping point to a modestly warmer non-ice age era but rather it’s a tipping point out of the interglacial period and back to glaciers ruling the planet for 100,000 years. That’s the science speaking and it speaks quite clearly. When it says something else science has left the building and political agenda has taken its place.
R. Gates,
You should brush up on your history. Start here.
HMS Investigator got trapped in ice on the last leg of the North West Passage in 1853
Alexandre: I am a high school drop-out so your pedantic, reference-spew is quite literally wasted on me. As one of the great un-washed however, it gives me great pleasure to tell you, someone who’s parents obviously wasted a lot of money on a post-secondary education, that no one here disputes “the warming”. Warming is what things do when they begin to thaw. My 6 year-old grand-son gets that. What is at issue is “what is causing” the warming. According to you it is caused by my 6.6 liter Duramax idling 12 hours a day (just trying to do my part) which is nonsense. Instead of providing links to data which proves the self-evident, how about showing us the proof that CO2 is causing “the warming”?
Latitude says
“it’s not the trees, it’s not the ice, it’s not even the rocks…”
Ok, if this is thecase, this topic is closed, right? What’s all the fuss about the Yamal data?
And bear in mind that those exclude all the dendro data, not just Yamal.
Now about the instrumental record: I have no idea what’s the problem with the data in Chandler, Arizona. But the world temperature anomalies are much more comprehensive than that. And if you don’t trust the data treatment, try doing it yourself. Unless you’re a scientist (not my case), your results certainly would need some rework before they went published in Nature, but for the purposes of a blog discussion or check-it-yourself verification, you’d find very similar results to the ones NASA, NOAA, CRU or JMA have found.
Here’s one available dataset, at the NOAA website. Feel free to look for others of your preference.
No one has shown any problem with these independently calculated series. Not even the highly publicized project of Watts (data venia) has yielded any different series than the known ones.
And of course, there are retreating glaciers, shifting biological occurrences, raising tropopause… all pointing to the existing warming. One has to overblow a very very farfetched conspiracy theory to put together all these “fake” results.
eadler says:
April 10, 2011 at 7:53 am
Perhaps you would do a post on separating temp components in tree rings from CO², Water, nutrients etc.
Principles of Dendrochronology
“The Principle of Replication
states that the environmental signal being investigated can be maximized, and the amount of “noise” minimized, by sampling more than one stem radius per tree, and more than one tree per site. Obtaining more than one increment core per tree reduces the amount of “intra-tree variability”, in other words, the amount of non-desirable environmental signal peculiar to only tree. Obtaining numerous trees from one site, and perhaps several sites in a region, ensures that the amount of “noise” (environmental factors not being studied, such as air pollution) is minimized. ”
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/principles.html
So, essentially, just more evidence of the smoochy schtick team either was lying or just being incompetent.
I thought it was fairly obvious when they used a handful of trees from a, rather very much the, local area to represent global climate at the same time trying to make belief MWP into a non global phenomenon because it was “only” a northern hemisphere “statistical curse”. :p
with regard to US tree rings and the reason for the decline, as in ‘hide the decline’, may I direct you to this:-
“Abstract Invasions of European earthworms into the forests of northern North America are causing dramatic changes in forest floor structure, vegetation communities, biogeochemical cycling, and site hydrology. However, long-term studies on the effects of invasive earthworms are limited because little data exist on the timing and rate of earthworm invasion at specific sites. We successfully used tree rings to identify the timing of earthworm invasions and the effects of earthworm activity on the Acer saccharum”
“The tree-ring signature of earthworm invasion, as identified in this study, includes three components:
(1) a period of 20–30 years of reduced radial growth rates in trees growing in newly invaded areas relative to trees growing in the same stand but in earthworm free conditions;
(2) a subsequent period of increased growth by the trees in the earthworm-invaded areas relative to trees in the same stand growing in earthworm-free conditions;”
http://www.forestry.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@forestry/documents/asset/cfans_asset_249366.pdf
Trees are thermometers until European Earthworms arrive.
Alexandre, the fuss about yamal data is because it’s a lie……..
If you believe your data is correct, you do not lie about it and hide it.
My question is why was the 1900 temperature raw, adjusted down 4 degrees?…
when no adjustment shows cooling, not warming
….and how few records would you have to adjust that way to show 1/2 degree?
After all, this fuss is only about 1/2 degree.