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.
Really Phil? The IPCC and their cheer leaders have been showing both the Briffa and Mann hockey sticks as the poster child for proof of GLOBAL warming for YEARS! If they thought it was evidence of LOCAL warming only, why would they make such a fuss about it? Good lord man, you’ve stepped so deep into your own poop that you should be too embarrased to even show up here with any follow up remarks.
But keep going. Your assertion that Briffa’s work was only an indication of local, not global events is just fine with me. I shall trot it out as a quote from now own every time someone defends Briffa’s work. You’ve got a few more gems that you posted that make you look totally foolish as well, but that one’s a gem.
I’ve not answered your questions to me because the standard you have set is to be asked several times in succession before answering. When you have asked the appropriate number of times, I shall respond.
In the meantime, HEY EVERYONE! Phil Clarke claims that Briffaès Yamal study was NEVER meant to represent global temperatgures! That being the case, we can now quote Phil Clarke as saying that Briffaès study had nothing to do with global warming because it was only local. THANKYOU PHIL CLARKE FOR THAT GEM!
davidmhoffer says: @ur momisugly May 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm
…..But keep going. Your assertion that Briffa’s work was only an indication of local, not global events is just fine with me. I shall trot it out as a quote from now own every time someone defends Briffa’s work. You’ve got a few more gems that you posted that make you look totally foolish as well, but that one’s a gem…..
_______________________________
Don’t you mean “Crown Jewel” and yes it certainly is one.
It has been fascinating to watch the acrobatics used to defend Briffa’s Yamal tree cores.
This is the winning post that shows Phil C is full of it. (go to the link comparing the trees to the local temperatures)
…………………………………………
Tallbloke says @ur momisugly Lucy Skywalker did an excellent study of the local thermometer records against the tree ring proxy data here at WUWT a couple of years ago, I reposted it in response to Steve McIntyre’s recent revelations:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/6355/
……………………………………….
They really do think we are mushrooms don’t they?
Phil Clarke,
I would just like to point out the over-riding fact that convinces me that Mann, Briffa and all the rest of the alarmist clique are lying through their teeth:
None of them will publicly debate their ideas with scientific skeptics.
If they are so sure they’re right, why are they all too chicken to debate the issue? The answer is, of course, that they’re trying to sell the world a pig in a poke. If they give an inch, their whole scare story comes crashing down, because one question will lead to another until everyone sees their scam.
So far, the only real evidence for AGW is that it amounts to very little, and all available data shows that the increase in CO2 has ben entirely beneficial: the planet is greening as a direct result of the rise in CO2 from a tiny 0.00028 of the atmosphere, to a still very minuscule 0.00039.
You are not making any headway in your arguments here, because you’re being an apologist and a finger puppet for the scientific charlatans who are feeding at the public trough. Try thinking for yourself for a change. Instead of nitpicking UN/IPCC reports, show us real, verifiable evidence of global harm due to the rise in CO2. If you can. Put up or shut up, Phil.
Phil Clarke – “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.”
Briffa’s work being associated with AGW and AGWers defense of Briffa and his work, provides the evidence you seek.
Phil Clarke – “my little enquiry has not had the courtesy of a reply”.
If this is which to you refer: “Would you agree that I have identified, with evidence, three material inaccuracies in Montford’s post?” “If not, why not?”
No, I would not agree.
Your so-called evidence is AGW SPIN, or excuse making. Briffa could and should have given McIntyre information as to which data he (Briffa) had used and why. Additionally, a separate write-up on the events runs counter to your so-called evidence.
But enough with the misdirections. Back to the topic.
Briffa’s work (cherry picking of trees) was not scientific, thus un-supportive of claimed AGW.
Briffa’s previous response as to how he picked the trees, “My application of the Regional Curve Standardisation method to these same data was intended to better represent the multi-decadal to centennial growth variations necessary to infer the longer-term variability in average summer temperatures in the Yamal region …” sounds like unscientific data manipulation (or forcing a square peg into a round hole).
Hey
Hey Phil Clarke;
IPCC AR4 WG1 6.6
“these data were later scaled using simple linear regression against a mean NH land series to provide estimates of summer temperature over the past 2 kyr ”
That’s in reference to Briffa’s Yamal series. In the table listing the various proxies used, Briffa’s is listed as representing temperatures from 20N to 90N.
So I must reluctantly admit that you were right. Briffa didn’t claim his ten trees represented the whole globe. Just somewhat less than half of it.
Phil Clarke – “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.”
For those who are thoroughly confused by Phil’s dodgy tactics, the relevance of those “10 trees from Siberia” is discussed here.
A good analogy is: that the Yamal series is one of a few cards that, when pulled, causes the entire AGW argument deck to collapse. (or at least the part of AGW argument that says 20th century wamring is unprecedented.)
I forgot to mention….PHIL….
The excerpt I quoted above from IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 features Briffa’s work repeatedly, both showing the graphs and also quoting from his papers, to explain the evidence for global warming. And the lead author of that chapter? Keith Briffa. So he quoted his own studies in explaining the evidence for GLOBAL warming. Not regional, not local, GLOBAL.
C’mon Phil, you’ve got an excuse for that one too, I just know it.
just some guy – “… the relevance of those “10 trees from Siberia” is discussed here.”
From the link you pointed to comes the following quote:
“In summary, the apparent problems with Briffa’s Yamal series impact multiple other studies (IPCC AR4 spaghetti graph bolded): Briffa 2000, Mann and Jones 2003 (used in the recent UNEP graphic), Mann et al (EOS 2003), Jones and Mann 2004, Moberg et al 2005, Osborn and Briffa 2006, D’Arrigo et al 2006, Hegerl et al 2007, Kaufman et al 2009 (and of course, Briffa et al 2008).”
Talk about your, Putting All Your Eggs In One Basket.
To think, all this pointless discussion, lost time, needless effort, bogus carbon regulations, and wasted Billion$ due to one ____ing Yamal Tree and BAD science from several AGW climatologists. The AGW debate is over, AGW never existed.
davidmhoffer says:
May 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Really Phil? The IPCC and their cheer leaders have been showing both the Briffa and Mann hockey sticks as the poster child for proof of GLOBAL warming for YEARS! If they thought it was evidence of LOCAL warming only, why would they make such a fuss about it? Good lord man, you’ve stepped so deep into your own poop that you should be too embarrased to even show up here with any follow up remarks.
It must be taking a while for the hot water tank to refill. He took a two-shower step into it…
IPCC AR4 WG1 6.6 “these data were later scaled using simple linear regression against a mean NH land series to provide estimates of summer temperature over the past 2 kyr ”
That’s in reference to Briffa’s Yamal series.
Wrong. The full IPCC quote Briffa (2000) produced an extended history of interannual tree ring growth incorporating records from sites across northern Fennoscandia and northern Siberia, using a statistical technique to construct the tree ring chronologies that is capable of preserving multi-centennial time scale variability. Although ostensibly representative of northern Eurasian summer conditions, these data were later scaled using simple linear regression …
Briffa 2000 is a multi-proxy study, of which the Yamal series is just one of many, the others being Tornetrask, Polar Urals, Taimyr, Yakutia, Jasper aka Alberta aka Athabaska, Mongolia and the Jacoby treeline composite. . rather more than ’10 trees’…. LOL. And the IPCC use this as just one paper out of many in conjunction with other multi-proxy studies in their figures.
So it goes. The assertion is made in the form of a Straw Man premise Do you honestly believe that ten trees from Siberia are representative of the average temperature of the entire earth?
To which the correct answer is and was: No I do not. Nor does anyone else.
Asked to provide evidence to support the assertion, the best we (finally) get is the IPCC citing a paper than uses Yamal alongside a raft of other series and composites to estimate NH temperatures.
There is no evidence to support the assertion, because the assertion is false. And other than a lame piece of handwaving (and the by- now- familiar insults), my question remains unanswered.
I’m with you Phil.
The Yamal series doesn’t represent global temperatures.
If you follow the two posted references above, you’ll find well documented and easily checked data showing they don’t represent local temperatures either.
If you want to cite the Polar Urals, I suggest you read through the thread on CA titled “What happened to the Polar Urals”
Yamal is not presented “alongside” a raft of other series. Read the citations. Many of those other series RELY upon Briffa’s Yamal paper. You can’t be “alongside” your own foundation. Talk about circular reasoning!
Many of those series have ALSO been discredited (see Polar Urals).
Trees rings can tell you how much the tree grew in the growing season of a given year. They cannot tell you what happened during the other 9 months of the year when they weren’t growing, they can’t tell you how much their growth was affected by temperatures that were too low or temperatures that were too high, they can’t tell you how much they were affected by changes in rainfall, late frost, insect infestation, foraging animals, disease, soil nutrients, competition from other plants, cloud cover variation, CO2 levels, humidity, and many other factors.
Briffa’s Yamal series has been one of the poster children for the hockey stick alarmism, and it is totaly bogus. The studies predicated upon it are equally bogus, they fall along with Yamal.
You can whine all you want about obscure references, couch your misleading and vague questions carefully designed to obfuscate the issue and misdirect attention from the core issues in as eloquent a language as you wish, it will change nothing if I answer your questions or not. The facts are above. Yamal is joke. Tree rings as a proxy for temperatures at a local, regional, or global scale is a joke. Trying to distract attention away from these core issues is clearly your goal, and even if you were right, it changes nothing about the facts of the matter.
Trees are not thermometers, and Briffa’s Yamal series is an egregious misrepresentation of his own data. It is falsified by the Sesame Street methodology:
One of these things just doesn’t belong here
One of these things just isn’t the same.
See ya on other threads buddy. I’ll have your quotes about Yamal not representing global temps handy. Thanks for pointing that out.
I’d like to add to David’s comments by providing a direct answer to Phil’s question:
The answer is, obviously, no. No one in their right mind would think that 10 trees can tell us the average temperature history of the entire earth. But thank you, Phil, for making our point for us.
It does appear, however, that one single tree from Siberia is responsible for the distinct hockey-stock shape of the graph represented in around half of the studies made by the hockey team, and used by the IPCC. (The remaining studies are based on a few other trees.)
This is discussed here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.
And many, many, other places around the blogosphere over the past 5 or 6 years.
I suspect you may now revert to your standard talking point and complain that blogs are not “peer-reviewed” and don’t appear in prestigious journals like “Science” or “Nature.”
Here’s your response to that, in advance. That actual data used in Briffa (2000), a article which was thoroughly pal-reviewed by the Hockey-Team, can be found here. . Take a look, load it up in a spreadsheet, and view the data for yourself. There is one data-set in the shape of a hockey stick, Yamal. And, as we now see from the late release of the data, one single tree from Yamal, is shaped like a Hockey stick, YAD061.
But don’t fret, Phil! I know how you can help the team out. Get yourself an axe, move in to a cabin out in the hills, and start choppin’. I’m sure you’ll eventually find a tree or two with outer rings that are wider than the rings in the middle. You can than write a computer program that rigs the output to focus on your one tree, write a paper explaining how this proves AGW is real and alarming, and get it pal-reviewed. You’ll be famous! (Oh wait, someone already did that.)
I’d like to add to David’s comments by providing a direct answer to Phil’s question:
The answer is, obviously, no. No one in their right mind would think that 10 trees can tell us the average temperature history of the entire earth. But thank you, Phil, for making our point for us.
It does appear, however, that one single tree from Siberia is responsible for the distinct hockey-stock shape of the graph represented in around half of the studies made by the hockey team, and used by the IPCC. (The remaining studies are based on a few other trees.)
This is discussed here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.
And many, many, other places around the blogosphere over the past 5 or 6 years.
I suspect you may now revert to your standard talking point and complain that blogs are not “peer-reviewed” and don’t appear in prestigious journals like “Science” or “Nature.”
Here’s your response to that, in advance. That actual data used in Briffa (2000), a article which was thoroughly pal-reviewed by the Hockey-Team, can be found here. . Take a look, load it up in a spreadsheet, and view the data for yourself. There is one data-set in the shape of a hockey stick, Yamal. And, as we now see from the late release of the data, one single tree from Yamal, is shaped like a Hockey stick, YAD061.
Bill Tuttle;
It must be taking a while for the hot water tank to refill. He took a two-shower step into it…
>>>>
I had dropped this thread, and then remembered that I didn’t respond to the above remark, so I’m back for one more comment.
Mr Tuttle, please be advised that you owe me a new keyboard. Your comment caused an unexpected splutter which was a complete waste of fresh coffee, much of which traveled to the keyboard driectly through my nose. Obviously, the person responsible for this disaster is you. The problem was made worse by the fact that I happened to have a shop vac at hand.
Who knew that a shop vac could suck the keys right off a keyboard?
Yamal is not presented “alongside” a raft of other series. Read the citations. Many of those other series RELY upon Briffa’s Yamal paper.
You do your credibility no favours by making stuff up. There were 12 series presented the in IPCC Figure. Moberg used only high-frequency information from Briffa (2000), Mann and Jones (2003) used it as part of a composite, it was included in two other papers which certainly would not be much changed by removing it and not used at all in eight. Hardly ‘many’.
Thus, with the exception of Briffa (2000), the reconstructions shown by the IPCC (Figure 6) either do not use the Yamal record or they combine the Yamal record with many others and this reduces their sensitivity to the inclusion of any individual records. The IPCC then takes this aggregation one step further, by considering multiple reconstructions (Figure 6). The overall conclusions of the Palaeoclimate chapter in the IPCC report (Jansen et al., 2007) are not, therefore, strongly dependent on the Yamal record of Briffa (2000)
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as Christopher Hitchins observed. Personally I find it amusing to watch the assertions slither away once supporting evidence is requested, and entertaining to observe how the self-proclaimed ‘sceptical’ cleave uncritically to the blog postings of a man not above a bit of selective quotation, as I demonstrated above, and whose work on this data was described as ‘slipshod’ and ‘careless’ by the professional scientist who collected and published (that word again) the data.
But there’s only so much amusement and entertainment a boy can take. Bye for now.
Reference:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm#part2
REPLY: Your constant defense of CRU on multiple blogs makes me wonder, who’s paying for your consulting business time? Surely you can’t be making any money in other consulting given the time you put forth on this topic. – Anthony
who’s paying for your consulting business time?
Already asked, already answered. My business (nothing to do with climate, CRU or the environment) is jus’ fine, thanks for asking.
You mean someone like this?…
“Kevin and I will keep them out somehow “” even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
(there’s that email again…..)
Given that this was an internal email, and that both correspondents were fully aware that nobody actually gets to ‘redefine what peer-review’ is, this is clearly hyperbole; the kind of jokey exchange that happens between colleagues in private in every organisation on the planet.
And, given that both papers were were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC report (and have since pretty much sunk without trace, they weren’t very good), it wasn’t a particularly effective ‘conspiracy’ was it?
LOL!
Nope, it’s the kind of exchange you’d expect between the low-rung flunkies working out of cubicles in the basement while crowing over the latest gossip. It’s a clear indication of lack of integrity and ethics, and a sign that the author of that email can not be trusted with the responsibility of peer reviewing journal articles, nor be trusted to carry out research without allowing his personal biases to infect the results.
Phil Clarke – “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, ”
Such an appropriate remark for the AGW Scam and the Climatologist Cabal behind it.
Still Mother Nature is providing us with evidence to dismiss AGW.
Global CO2 levels are up and Global Temperatures are down.
Thus very basis of AGW is wrong on both cause and effect.
Phil Clarke – “Given that this was an internal email, and that both correspondents were fully aware that nobody actually gets to ‘redefine what peer-review’ is, this is clearly hyperbole; the kind of jokey exchange …”
What a load of AGW and another example of AGWers misdirection to cover-up their Scam.
There is no joke or LoL in the statement “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow”.
HOCKEY STICK RECIPE
By: just some guy
Ingredients:
– Hundreds of random data from tree ring samples
– 1 tree ring sample shaped like a hockey stick*
– Computer program using “short-centered PCA” (or other method that mines for hockeysticks)
– Pre-cooked GISS temperatures data
– Five or Six AGW sympathetic peers
Step 1: Mix tree ring data together, along with the 1 hockey stick tree ring data.
Step 2: Place mixture in oven
Step 3: Run “Hockey-Stick” computer program
Step 4: Cook data for approximately 1 month, stirring frequently, make adjustments as necessary.
Step 5: Check mixture to see if it resembles a hockey stick, if not, continue cooking.
Step 5: Remove from oven, attach pre-cooked GISS data to the “blade” of the stick
Step 6: Add AGW “scientist” peers, let sit for one week.
Step 7: Serve
*These can be difficult to find, one has been reported in the Yamal region of Siberia.
Note: For even better results, make a copy of the one hockey-stick data sample, than repeat steps 1 through 6 several times, using variations of the remaining data. Place multiple hockey-sticks together on the same graph, to give the impression of “repeatability” and “robustness”.