Tom Nelson has another Climategate 2 email well worth reading
Dendrochronologists get spanked by guy with expertise in tree physiology and wood anatomy
“However, there are bounds to dendrochronology, as there are to every field of investigation, and the discipline has spilled over way outside of those bounds, to the point of absurdity.”
“What troubles me even more than the inexactness attending chronological estimates is how much absolute nonsense — really nothing but imaginative speculation — about the environment of the past is being deduced from tree rings and published in dendrochronology journals.”
“…but dendrochronology has persistently rejected walking the hard road, that of understanding the fundamental genetic and environmental factors controlling wood formation. As I see it, the peer review process in dendrochronology must be fundamentally flawed to allow such publications. Physiologist remain to build any real confidence in their ideas of how environmental factors influence tree ring formation, and dendrochronologists therefore are not at all justified in pretending that they do.
The bounds of dendrochronology will be extended, as will confidence in dendrochronological reports, when your group stops pretending that it knows the answers before it has done the needed research. Again, I am troubled by your group that it shows little humility, no genuine desire to discover the truth.”
The writer of this email:
UNB | Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management | Rod Savidge
Areas of expertise
Tree physiology
Wood anatomy
Plant
cell biology
==================================================
This, IMHO, is why Mann’s rendition of the hockey stick is unsupportable, its all speculation based. Anyone who knows Liebig’s Law understands this.
Mann’s tree reconstructions are known to be statistically crap, and even if they weren’t, the assumption that these trees primarily measure temperature is an absurd speculation.
Steve Garcia says:
January 3, 2012 at 8:40 am
[Anthony] …the assumption that these trees primarily measure temperature is an absurd speculation.
………………..
The speculation was not absurd, but it has not held up when put to the empirical test.
========================================================
Steve, I hate to seem to nit-pick, but I think you guys are talking about two different things. Temps only partially correlate with tree rings during the growth season. In the case of the laughable temp reconstructions, they were using trees with a typical growth season of 8-12 weeks. This is where the absurdity comes in.
Suppose we examine a(or many) tree ring. And suppose just for a minute, we somehow know the moisture, sunlight, nutrient….etc. makeup of the past tree environment. Given all of this knowledge, we then determine the average temp for the growth season was 55°F. What does this tells us about the rest of the year? Well, absolutely nothing. This is what is absurd. We can’t possibly know those things which are required to determine the temps. But even if we did, we couldn’t possibly know what it says about the rest of the year. It is laughably absurd.
So, if I have this right, data gleaned from one tree in Siberia is equal to that which can be obtained from one Argo buoy?
Exactly nothing of any consequence?
That can’t be right, can it? 😉
Dr. Rod Savidge, another Canadian (hurray for us), gets spanked in this exchange:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5582
From: John Ogden
To:REDACTEDREDACTED
Subject: Re: Fwd: History and trees
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:15:25 +1300
Reply-to: REDACTED
Dear Professor Savidge, Hal Fritts’s comments were, as always,
to the point and gracious. I
have much less patience with your ignorance and arrogance. The
sampling and statistical procedures involved in the production of a
cross-dated chronology are of course quite different to those used in a
randomised experiment, but they are none-the-less logical,
rigorous, science. We have been through all those arguments so many
times – you are wasting everyone’s time.
John Ogden.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:16:20 -0700 “Harold C. Fritts”
wrote:
> Dear Ron,
> I respectfully disagree with you. We have reached out to you many times
> and find little but judgmental response. I have worked with this group
> for many years now and they are just as exact scientists as you. They
> are interested in what the tree tells us about the earth and its history
> and not as interested and experienced as you in how the tree works. I
> agree with you to the extent that we must understand how the tree works
> but I fear you have “created the reality that dendrochronologists are
> stupid and beneath your greatness” and that it will not ever change.
>
> People like you in the past such as Waldo Glock and Sampson at Berkley,
> CA made similar statements. When I was a young man, I set out trying to
> examine their criticism objectively with both physiological
> investigations and statistical analysis. I found that these criticisms
> could be met with data from solid physiological tests and even though
> those practicing the science at that time were astronomers, not
> physiologists. There are talented and insightful people in other
> sciences outside of plant physiology.
>
> I am sorry for all of our sakes. as the future holds many possibilities
> with many experts contributing to the future of science. If you could
> only get outside the judgmental ideas that you hold about us, I think
> you might be very surprised and pleased.
>
> Yes, I think many in this group oversimplify the response of the tree,
> but in the same way you oversimplify the practice of dendrochronology.
> We all have much to learn from each other, but calling each other names
> doesn’t further anyone’s science.
>
> I believe science is embarking on a course of greater cooperation among
> different disciplines. This implies respect and cooperation in both
> directions. We welcome your interest in dendrochronology but are
> saddened that you have so little respect for our integrity and honesty.
> It would be more appreciated if we could together work for a better
> future, not just quarrel, call each other names and delve on what is
> wrong with the past.
>
> Sincerely, Regretfully and Lovingly,
> Hal Fritts
>
> P.S.
> One other comment to my fellow scientists. I agree with Frank that I
> have made only a start at understanding the basis for tree ring
> formation. It will take much more work in physiology and modeling. In
> current discussions and debates on the importance of physiology and
> process modeling in dendrochronology, understanding plant processes
> often takes secondary impotence in the eyes of many
> dendrochronologists. I think this will change because I believe in the
> integrity of my colleagues, but I sometimes wonder how long this will
> take. I had at one time hoped that I might see it happen. We can
> answer such criticism, but not until we investigate further how the tree
> responds to its environment and how the tree lays down layers of cells
> we call the tree ring. Physiologists outside dendrochronology have
> little inclination to do it for us as this message reveals. We can and
> must do it ourselves by including, welcoming and funding physiological
> investigation in tree-ring research.
> HCF
>
>
> Rod Savidge wrote:
> >
> > To the Editor, New York Times
> >
> Indeed, its activities
> > include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not
> > constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill
> > subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when
> > they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such
> > massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered
> > science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called
> > dendrochronology “research”.
> >
> > I would add that it is the exceptionally rare dendrochronologist who has
> > ever shown any inclination to understand the fundamental biology of wood
> > formation, either as regulated intrinsically or influenced by extrinsic
> > factors. The science of tree physiology will readily admit that our
> > understanding of how trees make wood remains at quite a rudimentary state
> > (despite several centuries of research). On the other hand, there are many
> > hundreds, if not thousands, of publications by dendrochronologists
> > implicitly claiming that they do understand the biology of wood formation,
> > as they have used their data to imagine when past regimes of water,
> > temperature, pollutants, CO2, soil nutrients, and so forth existed. Note
> > that all of the counts and measurements on tree rings in the world cannot
> > substantiate anything unequivocally; they are merely observations. It
> > would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the
> > scientific method.
> >
> > sincerely,
> > RA Savidge, PhD
> > Professor, Tree Physiology/Biochemistry
> > Forestry & Environmental Management
> > University of New Brunswick
> > Fredericton, NB E3B 6C2
> >
> > >X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
> > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, BuildREDACTED
> > >Importance: Normal
> > >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:24:03 -0500
> > >Reply-To: REDACTED
> > >Sender: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
> > >From: “David M. Lawrence”
> > >Subject: History and trees
> > >Comments: To: REDACTED
> > >To: REDACTED
> > >
> > >I was rather horrified by the inaccurate statements about tree-ring
> > >dating that you allowed to slip into print in the interview with Thomas
> > >Pakenham today. Tree-ring science is an exact science — none of the
> > >data obtained from tree rings would be useful if the dates were
> > >inaccurate. Dendrochronologists don’t say much these days about how old
> > >trees are because they are interested in more important questions —
> > >such as “What can the tree rings tell us about our planet’s past?”
> > >
> > >You at The New York Times should know something about tree rings. A
> > >check on Lexis-Nexis shows that since 1980 you have run more than 100
> > >stories in which the words “tree rings” appear in full text. Some of
> > >the stories are irrelevant. But most are not, such as the July 13,
> > >2002, story in which you misspell the name of Neil Pederson at
> > >Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, or the March 26, 2002, story about a
> > >medieval climate warming detected in tree-ring data. I do not remember
> > >tree-ring dating being labeled an “inexact” science in stories like
> > >that.
> > >
> > >Did Walter Sullivan, who wrote a story about tree rings and drought on
> > >September 2, 1980, ever question the “exact” nature of tree-ring dating?
> > >He didn’t seem to question it on June 7, 1994, when he wrote a story
> > >about ash from Santorini and said that the ash cloud may have “persisted
> > >long enough to stunt the growth of oak trees in Irish bogs and of
> > >bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California, producing
> > >tightly packed tree rings.” You really do have to know when those rings
> > >were laid down before you can associate them with a specific volcanic
> > >eruption.
> > >
> > >I tell you what. I am a member of the National Association of Science
> > >Writers as well as a working dendrochronologist and occasionally paid-up
> > >member of the Tree-Ring Society. If you feel the need for a refresher
> > >course on tree-ring dating, I’ll be more than happy to try to introduce
> > >you to knowledgeable practioners in you neighborhood, such as Neil
> > >Pederson (not Peterson) at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. (It’s
> > >actually a local phone call for youse guys.)
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >
> > >Dave Lawrence
> > >
> > >REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
> > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
> > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
> > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: REDACTED
> > > USAREDACTED | http: http://fuzzo.com
> > >REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
> > >
> > >”We have met the enemy and he is us.” — Pogo
> > >
> > >”No trespassing
> > > 4/17 of a haiku” — Richard Brautigan
>
> —
> Harold C. Fritts, Professor Emeritus, Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
> University of Arizona/ Owner of DendroPower
> 5703 N. Lady Lane, Tucson, AZREDACTED
> Ph Voice: (520) 887 7291
> http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~hal
REDACTED—–
John Ogden
Better yet is this compiled exchange, which includes the NY Times article: http://www.esf.edu/for/bevilacqua/for496/TreeRingControversy.pdf
@Theo Goodwin 8:47 am:
Theo, just to make sure it is understood, if you read the entire email, you will see that Hal, the dendro man is taking Rod Savidge to task for his high and mighty attitude. Hal defends the dendros staunchly, though much of his defense is an appeal to authority. Neither Rod nor Hal goes into technicalities in this email, though Rod seems to think the ARE playing WAY loose with the science. Both sides are arguing strenuously, and in such a case, I always look at it that the science is not settled – even though Hal seems to thank so. I give credit to both of them for fighting tooth and nail and yet keeping the lines of communications open.
Ciao.
Duster says:
January 3, 2012 at 9:15 am
Well said. I just want to emphasize that using tree ring data to estimate time is qualitatively different from using “growth in tree ring width” to measure temperature. “Tree ring numbers” are pretty good proxies for time measured in years. No one knows if tree ring width is a good proxy for anything because no one has done the necessary empirical research.
Professor Savidge is spot on. Climategaters did not practice science.
@Duster, not disagreeing, but just a reminder, A.E. Douglass’ work in NM was on giving dates to the trees, not on temperatures.
In the process Douglass founded dendrochronology, but let us not forget that “-chronology” is the study of time, not temperature. That is dendroclimatology, and that is horse of another color.
Duke C. says:
January 3, 2012 at 9:01 am
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:55:08 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
From: Ed Cook
Subject: Re: Fwd: History and trees
Comments: cc: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
“Rod’s comments are remarkably ignorant and insulting. I suggest that he stick to what he knows best and not claim that he understands dendrochronology and its methods. That way he would not sound so stupid. To suggest that dendrochronology does not embrace the scientific method and is as biased as he claims verges on libel.”
Great post. I would like to see Ed Cook explain exactly what the methods of dendrochronology are and how they qualify as an example of scientific method. Specifically, I would like him to explain why dendrochronology is not required to undertake the empirical research that is a necessary part of scientific method.
I wonder if Briffa’s next article will contain the needed empirical research? If so, how will he explain not having done it fifteen years ago and how will he explain using his original, non-empirical data to justify the Hockey Stick? Ooooh, that will be interesting.
@kcom 3:40 am
“Here’s my question: Did Rod Savidge ever say any of this out loud? Did he make his views known publicly?”
kcom, if you read the email, Hal in there stated that Savidge had made himself a total nuisance at at least one conference with his views, and that it was Savidge and his high and mighty attitude against all the dendrochronologists.
So, maybe he didn’t go public with it, but he sure made certain that the dendrochronologists got the message. According to Hal, though, no one listened to him.
@Rhys Jaggar 4:05 am
“Interesting that the recipient of the ire is the owner of a company, DendroPower, which develops software for modelling relationships between climate change and tree growth.”
Yeah, I caught that. But I also noticed that he was using his arizona.edu email with that “/ Owner of DendroPower” plastered right there on his signature. Why does that impress me as unethical, if not outright illegal?
Steve Garcia says:
January 3, 2012 at 8:40 am
You cannot assume that different environments are comparable. Also, you cannot assume that the other factors in wood growth that have been introduced by other commenters do not matter. Finally, scientists must do a better job of describing the environments in which the particular trees exist. As any forester will tell you, trees that are 30 feet apart can be in very different environments.
Serious scientists will create a canonical environment for a particular variety of tree. That canonical environment will be extremely well researched for all influences on tree ring growth. Comparing trees across Siberia, Poland, and Britain is nonsense without such a canonical environment.
Darn. Jumped the gun and clicked “submit” prematurely…
The listserv archive for Nov. 2002 can be found here:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0211&L=itrdbfor
For background and context, it contains the entire thread pertaining to “History and trees”.
The thread and peer-reviewed literature together supports Mr. Savidge’s position that dendrochronology exhibits a lack of objectivity, lack of improvement, is based on supposition, and is replete with confirmation bias.
Hal Fritts says: (to Rod Savidge)
“You perceive them to be present today because you refuse to recognize the checks and balances used by dendrochronologist to assure that false rings and missing rings are located and identified. They are not located by their anatomical nature as you might think they should be but by a procedure of replication and further replication until there is sufficiently small uncertainty to call it true.”
From the abstract of “Dendrochronology and Dendroclimatology” by Edward Cook:
[bolds mine]
“As is apparent from this discussion on crossdating, the discovery of locally absent rings requires comparing the ring-width patterns of several trees from a stand, the assumption being that not all sampled trees will be missing the same annual ring. So, Douglass was responsible for establishing the principle of replication in dendrochronology as well [15]. Only through sufficient replication is it possible to confidently declare that all locally absent rings, or other potential sources of dating errors, have been accounted for and the calendar year dates assigned to the tree rings are subsequently correct. This statement begs the question: What is ‘sufficient replication’? This question has no definitive answer. It can only be answered by the experience of dendrochronologists around the world who have dated hundreds of thousands of tree-ring series, including independent analyses of the same trees or wood specimens. Douglass and his protégé Edmund Schulman at the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research (University of Arizona, Tucson) often worked with fewer than 10 trees in their crossdating and climate analyses during the pre-computer days of dendrochronology. Today, 20 or more trees is a typical level of replication. Regardless, subsequent reanalysis of their crossdated wood has never found a single dating error.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470057339.vad013/full
1: New and improved analysis can’t find even one error in old and outdated analysis. So what’s improved?
2: We define what is “sufficient replication” therefore whatever replication we use will be sufficient. Why not?
3: It is assumed that a “stand” of trees won’t all be missing the same rings. So, there’s never a drought that affects an entire “stand” (20 or more trees)?
4: Mr. Fritts makes the statement: “We think these kinds of questions are equally important, if not more important as we are likely to destroy our planet unless we learn quickly what the trees have to say about our past.” The trees might say “more CO2 please”, but I think Hal has already decided what “they’re” going to tell “us” or as Mr. Savidge puts it: there’s ”no genuine desire to discover the truth”.
Also, note Mr. Fritts’ attitude doesn’t seem to be anomalous in the field:
”However, dendrochronology adds a new “twist” to this principle: “the past is the key to the future.” In other words, by knowing environmental conditions that operated in the past (by analyzing such conditions in tree rings), we can better predict and/or manage such environmental conditions in the future.”
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm
So, like the oracles of our ancient past the dendrochronologists will divine from the
tea leavestree rings the future of the planet. Yea, right.@Ken Hall 4:33 am:
“That is the central reason why the Hockey Stick Theory is utterly unsupportable. Trees != thermometers from the past. Additionally trees from one small location != representation of global conditions of climate.”
Ken – They aren’t all from one location, but the bulk of them were chosen from the far north, nearly on the Arctic Ocean, because those were trees that gave the most pronounced “signal”, mostly, I presume, because the large summer-winter delta. Trees in tropical regions do not show a summer-winter variance, because there is no winter, to speak of – the trees grow all year long, and the only signal is generally rainy season or dry season. But that is precipitation, not temperature. And there is the rub. No one has separated out the temp signal from the precipitation signal. And they probably never will be able to. Even if they can identify it for the instrument period, that separation of signals cannot be reliably projected back to the pre-instrument period.
But you are right. How can they project northern Siberian temperatures across the entire globe? I’d like to know what they are smoking…
Oh that is much worse that spanked. That is either a grade A B*atch Slapping or just your good old arse punting.
Imagine that, a scientist not suffering from hubris trying to get Mann et al to actually do real science! Wow. Hats off to the fellow for speaking his mind to them. Pity for them that they didn’t listen to his well reasoned arguments.
@Theo Goodwin 10:29 am
I absolutely agree with you on everything you said. Poland, Siberia and UK are very different. Poland is more like Siberia than it is like the UK, but that doesn’t mean squat. But the UK vs Siberia is almost like on different planets. My main point was that there already exists plenty of reason for thinking that the tree-ring-temperature proxy linearity is an invalid assumption. That science is not settled, and there is evidence in the peer-reviewed literature saying so. As long as tree-rings respond to precipitation (and other factors) in any significant way, and until a reliable way is derived to separate out the precip influence, the whole thing is imprecise, to say the least, and unusable, at worst. The uncertainty bars should be probably 20-100 times the signal they think they are extracting from the data. When there is even a negative correlation in some studies, temp=width or temp=density is useless.
Oh, dendrochronology! I thought it said “dendrophrenology.”
I look forward to the day when “Dr.” Mann is brought to justice…
Glad to see there are still some excellent profs at my alma mater!
From the initial Climategate ‘leak’ we can see the ‘high regard’ that Rod Savage is held by the ‘Dendrochronologists’ and treemometer groups…..
From: John Ogden
To: ITRDBFOR@ur momisugly####.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fwd: History and trees
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:15:25 +1300
Reply-to: grissino@ur momisugly####.EDU
Dear Professor Savidge, Hal Fritts’s comments were, as always, to the point and gracious. I have much less patience with your ignorance and arrogance. The sampling and statistical procedures involved in the production of a cross-dated chronology are of course quite different to those used in a
randomised experiment, but they are none-the-less logical, rigorous, science. We have been through all those arguments so many times – you are wasting everyone’s time.
John Ogden.
Has anyone considered that the support for Mannian hockey sticks is largely the reverse of rules of evidence that the prosecution must present in a court of law?
Consider DNA evidence v the Hockey Stick
It is crucial to show the method in presenting DNA evidence. If the prosecution cannot show unambiguously where they got the DNA sample from, that it was not contaminated, and that they used laid down procedures to extract and evaluate the DNA, along with gaining a measurable sample size, then the evidence can be struck down. On every measure, Mannian hockey sticks not only fail to reach the fail grade of DNA evidence, but actively suppress the evidence of massaging the numbers, and are constantly finding new ways to misrepresent the flawed numbers.
Even worse, if the prosecution tried to cover-up their flawed evidence by presenting the qualifications and experience of the forensics expert, along with a petition from every member of the local police department (including the cleaners and subordinates of the forensic expert) as the main validation of the evidence, rather than the validation procedures, would the judge not just dismiss the evidence, but the whole case as well?
Ian W quotes:
January 3, 2012 at 10:57 am
“The sampling and statistical procedures involved in the production of a cross-dated chronology are of course quite different to those used in a randomised experiment, but they are none-the-less logical, rigorous, science.”
The experimental work is necessary to validate your proxies. It is prior to any sampling and statistical work.
“We have been through all those arguments so many times – you are wasting everyone’s time.
John Ogden.”
One should not be proud of imperviousness to critical input. One must respond to critical input.
@saltspringson 9:50 am:
“Dr. Rod Savidge, another Canadian (hurray for us), gets spanked in this exchange:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5582 ”
Not so at all. (…but thanks for bringing email #5582 into this.)
Both Hal Fritts and Dave Lawrence did nothing but throw a red herring/straw man into the fray. Both of them argue about dating using tree-rings. But that is not what Rod Savidge was addressing at all. He was accusing the dendrochronologists of going beyond dating and telling the world that they could definitively say the (width or density of) tree-rings meant certain things, without ever having any understanding of what causes tree-rings to grow at the biological, cellular level.
Go back and read the email again, and you will see what I mean.
@ur momisuglyIan W 10:57 am:
As I just pointed out to saltspringson, John Ogden is also throwing up a straw man. Ogden is arguing about dating, not what Savidge is pointing out as their error. And that error hsa nothing to do with dating. It has to do with tree ring formation at a cellular level. Savidge is telling them they can’t go beyond the dating issue (which it appears he is not questioning) unless they know what causes tree-rings to be formed in the first place. Savidge is telling them they cannot say, “This tree ring, having this width, means _____,” since they don’t know what the biology is.
Savidge is talking about biology, the underlying science. Ogden is talking about dating. It appears that Savidge’s points are over Ogden’s head, since Ogden has no audience to convince (in which case it would be a red herring/straw man situation).
Steve Garcia says:
January 3, 2012 at 10:02 am
“Neither Rod nor Hal goes into technicalities in this email, though Rod seems to think the ARE playing WAY loose with the science.”
Consider what the professor says here:
“Physiologist remain to build any real confidence in their ideas of how environmental factors influence tree ring formation, and dendrochronologists therefore are not at all justified in pretending that they do.”
That is a claim about scientific method. As such, it is as accurate and damning a claim as can be made. It is the claim that Climategaters have gone beyond all available evidence in their claims about tree ring widths. The professor is working at the metalevel, the level at which scientific method is the topic. Scientific method does not present evidence for scientific claims; rather, it sets the standards that evidence must meet if it is to be acceptable.