Keith Briffa has just published a new paper using the Yamal-Urals regional chronology data, something long sought after via FOIA requests. That data was withheld, citing it wasn’t cooked done with yet, and that releasing it would damage the reputation of CRU scientists.
After Climategate in 2009, I’m not sure how CRU’s reputation could be damaged any further, but that was the reason given for not sharing the data. Maybe it has to do with the lack of definitive hockey stick and the dwarfing of the present by the Medieval Warm period being counter to some of the unsupportable claims that have been made about tree ring data and unprecedented warming.
Steve McIntyre writes:
In resisting the FOI, CRU said that production of the 2006 regional chronology would damage the reputation of CRU scientists. The 2006 version appears to be the “Urals raw” chronology illustrated in SM9 as Greater Urals (shown below), though it is not identified as such in my first reading. Readers can judge for themselves whether their foreboding was justified.
Read his entire essay here: Briffa 2013
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
vukcevic says:
May 26, 2013 at 2:19 pm
and open a new page in geo-solar science.
D-K hits again…
I seem to recall some saying Briffa was FOIA… riiiight. Same kinda crook as the rest.
Mark
lsvalgaard says:
May 26, 2013 at 2:33 pm
vukcevic says:
May 26, 2013 at 2:19 pm
and open a new page in geo-solar science.
D-K hits again…
Hi Doc
You should know better …
Insults and ad hominem got no-one very far in any science debate; it is sure a self-diagnosis of inability to deal with the facts that contradict someone’s belief.
If you were pope and this was 17th century you would be already ordering cartload of a fire wood.
I’m with Vulk here and by the way LS
Hot dry drought like summer = NO GROWTH
Lukewarm wet summer = GROWTH
Coldish wet summer + SOME GROWTH
Make sense? Thats why Dendrology climate science is largely based on BS
BTW C02 does affect tree ring growth
Jeff Alberts says: “If I were to look at that graph with the expectation that it represents “global temperature”…, I would say there is nothing unusual happening … So… what’s the point of the paper?”
The point of the paper is to keep Briffa’s paper count up (ie, keep his career going), and to keep the warming myth going. For this, tree-rings are perfect, because there are lots of them and they have lots of noise but little correlation with temperature. If, for example, you want to show that tree-rings match the known recent global temperature increase, you can select the trees that grew faster recently and leave out those that don’t, so you end up with a lot of noise over a long period, that averages out to zero trend, and a recent up-tick. You can select and manipulate the data to end up with any other pattern that suits you – as in this latest paper from Keith Briffa: “the root-collar samples were omitted from the Polar Urals TRW chronology because attempts to “correct” for their bias were not considered feasible“. The whole process can be kept going indefinitely, using and re-using data series over different periods and in different combinations.
lsvalgaard says:
May 26, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Alexander Feht makes the inexcusable error of proclaiming that the graph shows that tree growth cannot be used as a proxy for temperature because it does not show the expected correlation.
I didn’t expect any correlation. Therefore, I didn’t make any error. You did.
Tonyb,
It was excellent. A keeper.
vukcevic says:
May 26, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Insults and ad hominem got no-one very far in any science debate
What you do is not science in any meaning of that word. That you think you will “open a new page in geo-solar science” is a typical symptom of D-K ‘overestimating one’s capability’. Called things what they are is not insulting. A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.
Alexander Feht says:
May 26, 2013 at 3:43 pm
I didn’t expect any correlation. Therefore, I didn’t make any error. You did.
Neither did I, so your inexcusable error is to assume that I did.
That is assuming the dating is perfect with both datasets.
What if anything, could Keith Briffa do to damage his reputation as a scientist, more than he already has done?
The decision to not release the data, because it would damage the reputation of the CRU scientists, did all the damage necessary to the reputation of these people. Who needs Climate Gate emails when the university openly damns their employees?
Brings back memories.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
Is it me or is Lief a pompous ass?
The plot looks like a score written by a protegee of John Cage on drugs.
DocattheAutopsy says: ‘I find it amazing that “reputable” scientists these days can come forward with results based on data, then when asked for the data for independent analysis, refuse to produce it and say, “We can’t give it to you because it might be used to harm our reputation!” And yet, journals are still publishing this garbage as science.’
Science is about replication. No replication, no science. The journals are destroying Science.
edwardt says:
May 26, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Is it me or is Leif a pompous ass?
It’s you…
edwardt says:
May 26, 2013 at 7:05 pm
You are not a pompous ass.
lsvalgaard says:
May 26, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Alexander Feht says:
May 26, 2013 at 3:43 pm
I didn’t expect any correlation. Therefore, I didn’t make any error. You did.
Neither did I, so your inexcusable error is to assume that I did.
Most of your messages in this thread, Dr. Svalgaard, expressed, in various off-putting forms, a criticism toward those who observe an obvious correlation between the activity of the Sun and the Earth temperature.
Since there is no (and cannot be) any correlation between the activity of the Sun and the tree growth graph in question, your criticism is intentionally misleading and factually unfounded. You are mixing apples and oranges to promote your bias.
Alexander Feht says:
May 26, 2013 at 10:42 pm
a criticism toward those who observe an obvious correlation between the activity of the Sun and the Earth temperature.Since there is no (and cannot be) any correlation between the activity of the Sun and the tree growth graph in question
Some people saw an obvious correlation between the tree rings and solar activity. Go and convince them of the errors of their ways. I did not even take a position on the issue…
Your ad-homs misfire, as so often before.
Briffa has little choice , for like others his professional career and personal standing is entirely built on ‘the cause ‘ , even if their not ‘true believers ‘ its high steaks poker their playing and they have to go all in or lose the lot .
When they fall no one such morn them , for they more than enjoyed their ‘days in the sun’ and where more than happy to do whatever it took to keep themselves in it .
Dr. Svalgaard,
What “ad-homs”?
Are you talking about my painful efforts to remain civil in the face of the condescending rudeness?
You did not even take a position on the issue? Really?
While taking a position on this issue is practically all you are doing?
Alexander Feht says:
May 26, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Most of your messages in this thread, Dr. Svalgaard, expressed, in various off-putting forms, a criticism toward those who observe an obvious correlation between the activity of the Sun and the Earth temperature.
Dr. Svalgaard is showing all the signs of being a man who could (and would) start a fight in an empty room. It’s a pity because I’m sure that I, as a humble retired former railway engineer (who doesn’t write soft-core porn in his spare time), could learn a lot from him but sadly am put off by his approach. I am, however, prepared to accept that I’m missing some signals because he doesn’t have English as his native tongue.
All this tree growth stuff: isn’t that a correlate with summer temperature, rather than annual temperature? No growth on trees when it’s -20C after all.
I’m not an expert in this field, but the key question is whether summer temperature automatically correlates with annual temperature or whether periods can exist where summer temperature is warmer when winter temperature is colder, or summer temperature is cooler whereas winter temperature is milder?
Mr Green Genes,
I am Russian. Not having English as one’s native tongue is not an excuse for a grown-up man with a PhD to behave like… Leif Svalgaard.
The Bishop Hil blog is carrying a story that in the UK Parliamentnt, the UK Government has now confirmed that the Met Office essentially acknowledges that the warming since 1850 using Met Office data is not statistically significant.
See: .http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html
Quite a significant concession!
Incidentally, the Max Planck institute has also recently pulled back on the certainties surrounding projected warming, and of course, the Germans are pulling back from their green energy production and are building coal powered generators and are pushing Europe to embrace shale gas exploration.
Times may be changing. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking.
Why would Dr. Svalgaard loose his cool over a little graph like this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/YAMAL-GMF-AMO.htm
is beyond comprehension.
(note: the graph has now a very important update !)