This post will be a sticky top post for a day or two, new stories will appear below this one.
By Andrew Montford & Harold Ambler
May 24, 2012 4:00 A.M. in the National Review – reposted here with permission
Climategate, the 2009 exposure of misconduct at the University of East Anglia, was a terrible blow to the reputation of climatology, and indeed to that of British and American science. Although that story hasn’t been in the news in recent months, new evidence of similar scientific wrongdoing continues to emerge, with a new scandal hitting the climate blogosphere just a few days ago.
And central to the newest story is one of the Climategate scientists: Keith Briffa, an expert in reconstructing historical temperature records from tree rings. More particularly, the recent scandal involves a tree-ring record Briffa prepared for a remote area of northern Russia called Yamal.
For many years, scientists have used tree-ring data to try to measure temperatures from the distant past, but the idea is problematic in and of itself. Why? Because tree-ring data reflect many variables besides temperature. Russian tree growth, like that of trees around the world, also reflects changes in humidity, precipitation, soil nutrients, competition for resources from other trees and plants, animal behavior, erosion, cloudiness, and on and on. But let’s pretend, if only for the sake of argument, that we can reliably determine the mean temperature 1,000 years ago or more using tree cores from a remote part of Russia. The central issue that emerges is: How do you choose the trees?
It was the way Briffa picked the trees to include in his analysis that piqued the interest of Steve McIntyre, a maverick amateur climatologist from Canada. The Climategate e-mails make it clear that McIntyre earned the public scorn of the most powerful U.N. climatologists, including James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones, while simultaneously earning their fear and respect in private.
McIntyre noticed a few problems with the way Briffa chose the sampling of Russian trees, and he wrote to Briffa requesting the data Briffa used in a published tree-ring paper. Briffa declined. And so began a four-year saga involving multiple peer-reviewed journals, behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Briffa and his closest confidants, and a Freedom of Information Act request on the part of McIntyre that appears to be on the verge of being granted. Even without the final set of data, however, McIntyre has shown beyond the shadow of doubt that Briffa may have committed one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology — that of cherry-picking data — when he assembled his data sample, which his clique of like-minded and very powerful peers have also used in paper after paper.
It was already known that the Yamal series contained a preposterously small amount of data. This by itself raised many questions: Why did Briffa include only half the number of cores covering the balmy interval known as the Medieval Warm Period that another scientist, one with whom he was acquainted, had reported for Yamal? And why were there so few cores in Briffa’s 20th century? By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year, an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.
The intrigue deepened when one of the Climategate e-mails revealed that, as far back as 2006, Briffa had prepared a much more broadly based, and therefore more reliable, tree-ring record of the Yamal area. But strangely, he had decided to set this aside in favor of the much narrower record he eventually used.
The question of Yamal had rightly come up when Briffa was questioned by Climategate investigators. He told them that he had never considered including a wider sample than the one he went with in the end, and hadn’t had enough time to include a wider one. However, the specific issue of the suppressed record appears to have largely been passed over by the panel, and Briffa’s explanation, like so many others given to the Climategate inquiries, appears to have been accepted without question.
But the ruse has now been shot to pieces, by the recent decision from the U.K.’s information commissioner that Briffa can no longer withhold the list of sites he used in his suppressed regional record for the Yamal area. The disclosure of these sites has allowed McIntyre to calculate what the broad series would have looked like if Briffa had chosen to publish it. He has shown that it has no hint of the hockey-stick shape that Briffa’s cherry-picked data indicated.
Two and a half years after the initial revelation of the Climategate e-mails, new controversies, on the part of the scientists and the investigators involved, continue to emerge. Many of the players involved are desperate to sweep the scandal under the rug. However, their machinations have only succeeded in bringing renewed attention to their questionable science and ugly behind-the-scenes shenanigans, reigniting hope that more complete and more independent investigations — on both sides of the Atlantic — will yet be performed.
— Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion and the proprietor of the Bishop Hill blog. Harold Ambler is the author of Don’t Sell Your Coat and the operator of the blog talkingabouttheweather.com.
Phil Clarke says – “… it is clear that the temperature/tree-growth relationship is strong and stable through time.”
No doubt when one uses NOAA’s GHCN Lemon Picked Weather Station Temperature Data and couple it with Cherry Picked Yamal trees, and run both through AGW manufacturing computer Models.
Bill Tuttle;
Tag Team Trolls Popping Off — T3PO.
>>>>>
LOL
There used to be a lot more humour on this site in the past. I think we need to get some of that back.
Phil Clarke says – “Meanwhile I get my science from the literature,”
By literature, you mean Climatologists’ peer (fellow AGWers) reviewed articles on Global Warming that are propagandized by the MSM.?
By science, you mean taxpayer funded Climatologists (AGWers): who refuse to fully disclose their data (owned by Taxpayers), who refuse to show their work (paid for by Taxpayers), who refuse FOIAs (despite working for Taxpayers), who hide the declines (deceive Taxpayers), and who have difficulties with ethics and morals (Gleick It).?
Phil Clarke says – “Lucy’s website is notable for the fact that to accept her version of reality, one has to reject a huge corpus of published science.”
Like AGWers “huge corpus of published science” is settled science, fact or reality, NOT!
When are AGWers going to get ‘IT’ that Climatologists and AGWers lost their credibility***, and AGWers so called “peer reviewed papers” (published science) are meaningless** outside AGWers’ circle, other than perhaps good for pointing out AGWers goofs or frauds?
When are AGWers going to admit that “IT” was all about get taxpayer funding for job security, career building, new lab & computer equipment (aka new toys), cushy positions, and IPCC/AGW meetings & conventions (aka luxury party vacations)?
**AGWers started out with man-made CO2 being “THE” cause of claimed “Global Warming”. When CO2 was shown to lag behind changes in temperatures, AGWers morphed the tactic of their CO2 scam by trying non-sense like CO2 amplification. When “Global Warming” was found not to be occurring (thanks Mother Nature for – in your face decline), AGWers once again morphed the tactic of their CO2 scam to Climate Change. Despite CO2 continuing to rise and temperatures declining, AGWers have continued and are once again morphing the tactic of their ongoing CO2 scam to “Dirty Weather”. (What ever happened to Weather is not Climate decries by AGWers?) Not to be out done, the U.N. has decided to change the tactic of ongoing CO2 scam to SOS-FUD (saving our species from unsustainable development).
*** “… the latest polls show that empirical evidence the skeptics utilize wins the debate, and the alarmists, with their never-ending hysterical catastrophic claims, lose the public debate (and the public)” http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/05/the-global-warming-debate-is-over-polls-show-public-prefers-real-world-facts-not-hysterical-alarmism.html
“… public concern over global warming and support for various proposed policies aimed at addressing that problem has eroded over the past two years. The drop is especially large among respondents who expressed less trust in environmental scientists.” http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/10/new-stanford-poll-finds-waning-concern-a
davidmhoffer:
At May 26, 2012 at 8:01 pm you say of Phil Clarke:
Thankyou! I needed a good laugh before setting off this morning.
Richard
Wrenching the thread back onto topic, and ignoring the ad hom nonsense.
Montford said Briffa declined to provide the data – no, he passed the request on to the actual data owners, who provided it to McIntyre despite his assertions to the contrary.
Montford said Briffa and the CRU calculated a ‘more reliable’ Yamal chronology, but this is based only on a misreading of an internal email. There’s no evidence whatsoever for this and plenty to the contrary.
In ‘Caspar and the Jesus paper’ Montford asserts that r2 is a key measure of proxy skill, and bases his insinuations of malpractice around this, contrary to the NAS assessment.
And above Montford asserts:-McIntyre has shown beyond the shadow of doubt that Briffa may have committed one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology — that of cherry-picking data
But this is NOT what McIntyre showed. We know this because well, because McIntyre said so
It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked. My guess is that the Russians selected a limited number of 200-400 year trees – that’s what they say – a number that might well have been appropriate for their purpose and that Briffa inherited their selection
http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/#comment-195642
Clearly, one should read anything by Montford with knowledge of his capability for ‘inaccuracy’ firmly in mind. One would have expected an accountant to have a better grasp of detail, though.
The ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — is falsifying Michael Mann’s silly conjectures.
ORLY? April 2012 was the globe’s 5th warmest April on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NASA rated April 2012 as the 4th warmest April on record. April 2012 global land temperatures were the 2nd warmest on record, and the Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature was 1.74°C (3.13°F) above the 20th century average, marking the warmest April since records began in 1880.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2095
davidmhoffer says: @ur momisugly May 26, 2012 at 7:11 pm
….Anyone else notice that when confronted with an issue that he has an easy answer to, Phil Clarke responds within minutes? But when confronted with the difficult questions that I’ve asked of him (which he still hasn’t answered) if he responds at all it takes hours. I’m guessing that he isn’t actually familiar at all with the subject matter, and so has to run off and do research…..
____________________________
Oh I am sure WUWT has paid trolls and Trojan Horses. They each seem to be assigned a particular field of interest that they will defend no matter what, just like the Black Knight => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
Phil Clarke;
After misdirecting the conversation, you use the excuse of getting back to the main topic as a subterfuge to distract the reader’s attention from the direct questions you were asked, and which you still haven’t answered. You have not added a single sentence to the discussion of the science itself, only whined about who said what and when. I repeat:
1. How would having Hentemirov’s data allow anyone to figure out which of it Briffa used and which he didn’t? Or how he statistically wieighted each sample?
2. The graphs from the data of each of the ten trees are above in the article. Can you juustify in any way shape or form the average of those ten trees producing a final result shaped like only one of them?
3. Do you honestly believe that ten trees from Siberia are representative of the average temperature of the entire earth? If that were true, why not just put ten weather stations in Siberia and forget about the other 5,000+ weather stations plus all the satellite equipment?
4. The notion that trees respond only, or even primarily to temperature, is disputed by biologists, botanists and arborists alike. How is it that only in climate science do trees response only to temperature?
5. Local temperature records do not match the Yamal data. How is it that trees in Siberia track the average global temperature, but don’t respond to the actual temperatures they are exposed to? Your previous answer was a misdirect. Lucy Skywalker’s article identifies the weather stations closest to the sampling sites, and shows quite clearly that the trees don’t track the local weather stations at all.
6. Is Phil Clarke your real name?
7. How are you compensated for your efforts on this an other blogs? My contention is that you must be compensated in some manner, because it is unlikely that someone would go as far out of their way to dig up obscure and misleading statements designed to misdirect the reader and derail the discussion, and wind up looking repeatedly foolish doing so, unless they had some personal motivation driving their behaviour.
Phil Clarke says – “April 2012 was the globe’s 5th warmest April on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data …”
Four things:
1) 5th warmest April on record means little given the very very very short time span of global record keeping. Nothing like ignoring all previous climate changes of the earth, especially those before man walked upright.
2) NOAA is group in control of GHCN database, which has been selectively leaving out temperature data from weather sites. In 1980 there were more than 5380 weather stations being recorded, by 2011 there was just over 210 weather stations being recorded. Thus use of such data is like comparing Lemons to Cherries. Only a small amount of those 210 have continuous records worth consideration.
3) Throw in unexplainable Bias adjustments to GHCN raw temperatures and the UHI effect and you got Zip, Nada, Nothing, NULL.
4) Being 5th warmest April only requires April 2012 to be 0.001 degree hotter than all but four Aprils. Summary: Ho Hum.
I generally don’t respond to questions based on a false premise or straw man. First you have to correct the premise, then you have to answer the question, and life really is too short. However…
. How would having Hentemirov’s data allow anyone to figure out which of it Briffa used and which he didn’t? Or how he statistically wieighted each sample?
Well, an auditor could re-run the analysis with the data, if the output matched the paper one could assume it was in the same ballpark, if not he could publish. Or he could just ask. McIntyre did neither, just complained, with no suggestion that he had the data in his back pocket.
2. The graphs from the data of each of the ten trees are above in the article. Can you justify in any way shape or form the average of those ten trees producing a final result shaped like only one of them?
Why ten trees? Statistics sometimes throws out counter-intuitive results, sesame street notwithstanding. A commenter at CA named Tom P claims to have done the CRU analysis without TAD061 and gets a similar outcome (Code posted at CA in the first Yamal thread).
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/515/oyad06.pdf/
3. Do you honestly believe that ten trees from Siberia are representative of the average temperature of the entire earth? If that were true, why not just put ten weather stations in Siberia and forget about the other 5,000+ weather stations plus all the satellite equipment?
No I do not. Nor does anyone else.
4. The notion that trees respond only, or even primarily to temperature, is disputed by biologists, botanists and arborists alike. How is it that only in climate science do trees response only to temperature?
That is not a tenet of dendrochronology.
5. Local temperature records do not match the Yamal data. How is it that trees in Siberia track the average global temperature, but don’t respond to the actual temperatures they are exposed to? Your previous answer was a misdirect. Lucy Skywalker’s article identifies the weather stations closest to the sampling sites, and shows quite clearly that the trees don’t track the local weather stations at all.
I do not accept your premise. Who reviewed Lucy’s results, given that they contradict the published literature?
6. Is Phil Clarke your real name?
Yes. Elsewhere in the blogosphere I am pjclarke. No connection to the other ‘Phil C’ who posts here (or any other poster). I think real names are preferable though I understand some have legitimate reasons to remain anonymous.
7. How are you compensated for your efforts on this an other blogs? My contention is that you must be compensated in some manner, because it is unlikely that someone would go as far out of their way to dig up obscure and misleading statements designed to misdirect the reader and derail the discussion, and wind up looking repeatedly foolish doing so, unless they had some personal motivation driving their behaviour.
Too silly for words. You really think anyone would pay me to post here?
Now – your turn. Would you agree that I have identified, with evidence, three material inaccuracies in Montford’s post? If not, why not? Would you agree this casts doubt on his ability to
write an accurate and balanced account? As WUWT apparently wants to be taken seriously as a ‘primary source’, would you agree that the post should be updated or removed? Do you think this will happen?
Phil Clarke;
Since you agree that 10 trees from Siberia, as stipulated by you above, do NOT represent global temperatures, then by your own admission, Briffa’s study is bogus. Arguing the many attempts at misdirection you continue to pursue is pointless given that you have stated that Briffa’s science is b*llsh*t. Since we agree that it is b*llsh*t, there is not reason to pursue the argument further. Thankyou for admitting that Briffa’s work is b*llsh*t.
Just for accuracy my question to Phil Clarke was:
3. Do you honestly believe that ten trees from Siberia are representative of the average temperature of the entire earth? If that were true, why not just put ten weather stations in Siberia and forget about the other 5,000+ weather stations plus all the satellite equipment?
To which Phil Clarke responded:
No I do not. Nor does anyone else.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
ROFLMAO
There you have it. Phil Clarke says that not only does HE not believe that ten trees in Siberia can represent the average temperature of the earth, he takes it a step further and says nobody else does either!
One can only wonder of Phil Clarke has actually read or understood the claims made by Briffa that he purporst to defend, and then in two brief sentences, discredits.it completely.
No wonder poor Phil fears to venture into a discussion of the science itself! His only competancy is to claim that science only occurrs in journals and as soon as he ventures beyond that…. poof! nothing there bu hot air descending upon us from the lofty position he occupies at the top of the petard he has hoisted himself upon.
Phil says: “A commenter at CA named Tom P claims to have done the CRU analysis without TAD061 and gets a similar outcome (Code posted at CA in the first Yamal thread).”
I’ve heard of Michael Mann using a flawed PC analysis which takes large amounts of data and mines it for hockey stick shapes, but this is a new one to me. Without YAD061, there’s no hockeysticks left to mines for, or cherries left to pick. Phil (and this Tom P person), appear to be attempting to take us from Mann’s psuedo-science into some new territory. (psycho-science?).
It reminds me of an old Star Trek episode….
Interrogator: “Look at the lights, how many do you see?”
Captian: “I see four lights.”
Interrogator: “Wrong! There are three lights!” **shock**
Phil Clarke:
I write to congratulate you on having made the first comment on WUWT from you that I found to be convincing.
At May 27, 2012 at 12:22 pm you replied to a question from davidmhoffer by saying
Good point. I now think you are not being paid to post on WUWT. If I am wrong then please tell me your employer because I know of a bridge he may want to buy.
Richard
For those still following along, here is a link to Lucy Skywalker’s guest post showing that the Yamal tree rings do NOT match local thermometer records.
Phil can whine all he wants about what the literature says and bloviate about Lucy’s credentials, but here’s the problem Phil has. OK, he already admitted that ten trees in Siberia could not possibly track global temperatures, so here is another problem that he has.
Anyone can read Lucy’s article and check to see if her assertions are correct by verifying the assertions themselves.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/
How’s the view from up top that petard Phil?
David,
I am not aware of anyone claiming that the Yamal chronology is a good proxy for global temperatures. Could you give me a name?
thanks.
davidmhoffer says – “Phil Clarke; Since you agree that 10 trees from Siberia, as stipulated by you above, do NOT represent global temperatures, then by your own admission, Briffa’s study is bogus.”
Egg-xactly. Any legitimate scientist would not even consider defending Briffa’s study, let alone use any part of Briffa’s study as a part of his/her work. Yet, the AGW climatologists persists in circling the wagons to protect their taxpayer feedbag scam. And the AGWers wonder why they have lost the public’s trust. Ironically funny, how they claim to be smarter.
Oh, and David, I just noticed, you failed to answer my question. You don’t have to, of course, but that does seem to open you to a charge of double standards …
Phil Clarke says – “Well, an auditor could re-run the analysis with the data, if the output matched the paper one could assume it was in the same ballpark, if not he could publish.”
Oh please, that is total hogwash. First off, no one should be expected to play guess the subset of the data a supposed scientist might have used. In fact that is just an absurb suggestion. Second, the burden of proof is on the supposed scientist asserting his/her claim of science. No data, no work, no science, no proof. Third, you know that anybody outside the AGW clan is not going to get a paper countering AGW published/peer-reviewed because of the unprofessional, unethical, and un-scientific road blocks AGWers setup.
Phil Clarke says:
May 27, 2012 at 3:42 pm
David,
I am not aware of anyone claiming that the Yamal chronology is a good proxy for global temperatures. Could you give me a name?
thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Briffa. Cited by Jones, Mann and others, not to mention the IPCC Really, you’ve got both feet stuck in your mouth right up to the knee caps and yet you continue on.
Phil Clarke says – “I am not aware of anyone claiming that the Yamal chronology is a good proxy for global temperatures. Could you give me a name?”
From my read on what you said below and quoting of Briffa; I would say the answer to your question is “Phil Clarke” and “Keith Biffa”.
Phil Clarke blogged – “The issue was your unsupported assertion that the Yamal proxies do not match regional temperatures. Briffa deals with this in section 5; Summing the appropriate
local pentad totals (pentads 38–42 for Fennoscandia, 27–37 for Yamal and 34–38 for Avam–Taimyr;figure 6), it is clear that the temperature/tree-growth relationship is strong and stable through time”
If the Mods and Anthony Watts will permit here a little side caring (slightly off topic).
This entire discussion on Briffa’s Yamal tree is a good example of AGWers misdirections to derail, discourage, and possibly seed some doubt with readers. The AGWers saturate discussions with baffling irrelevancy, claims of their expertise / authority, vague references (read all of this GW paper, then …), repetition of same old AGW claims (beating dead horse), attempts at personal attacks (flaming), unnecessary references to egghead nuances (aka nitpicking), and highbrow minutiae to where most readers give up trying to follow and understand the story and the direct discussion of said story. The AGWers goal is not to actually convince readers of AGW, but to keep readers from being enlightened to where they dismiss the claim of AGW (ignorance serves AGW).
davidmhoffer says – “How would having Hentemirov’s data allow anyone to figure out which of it Briffa used and which he didn’t? Or how he statistically wieighted each sample?”
Phil Clarke’s answer – “Well, an auditor could re-run the analysis …”
Easier said than done when you factor in Briffa didn’t include the metadata to go with the tree data as told: “Briffa had also thrown a rather larger spanner in the works though: while he had archived the tree ring measurements, he had not supplied any metadata to go with it — in other words there was no information about where the measurements had come from.” http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
The other spanner was the data being stored in obsolete data format (used in era of punch-cards), without details or explanations of how to read the format.
One has to ask: Why are AGW proclaimed scientists being so cryptic, so secretive, so foot-dragging?
As a scientist, If the facts and your work back up your theory/claim: What is there to gain by refusing to show the facts and your work as a Scientist?
Which leads to a follow up question: Do the proponents of AGW really expect others to take such AGW proclaimed scientists (being cryptic, secretive, & foot-dragging) as professionals?
Darren : “I am not aware of anyone claiming that the Yamal chronology is a good proxy for global temperatures. Could you give me a name?”
From my read on what you said below and quoting of Briffa; I would say the answer to your question is “Phil Clarke” and “Keith Biffa”.
Phil Clarke blogged – “The issue was your unsupported assertion that the Yamal proxies do not match regional temperatures. Briffa deals with this in section 5; Summing the appropriate
local pentad totals (pentads 38–42 for Fennoscandia, 27–37 for Yamal and 34–38 for Avam–Taimyr;figure 6), it is clear that the temperature/tree-growth relationship is strong and stable through time”
Which part of ‘local’ is giving you a problem?
So apparently it is Briffa who believes that that ten trees from Siberia are representative of the average temperature of the entire earth
But nobody has provided a shred of evidence to support this remarkable assertion. Also, while I took the time to answer questions, my little enquiry has not had the courtesy of a reply.
Ho hum.