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.
Alexander Feht says:
May 27, 2013 at 1:58 am
You did not even take a position on the issue? Really?
Yes, really! the data speak for themselves.
vukcevic says:
May 27, 2013 at 3:02 am
(note: the graph has now a very important update !)
Note: it is typical D-K to characterize one’s own missives as ‘very important’.
lsvalgaard says: May 27, 2013 at 4:38 am
………………..
Have you actually looked at the graph ?
Nothing controversial is claimed there, no cause, no consequence or hypothesis is proposed, just few well documented numbers are plotted.
As you’ve just said “the data speak for themselves.”, I left it to readers to draw their own conclusions.
…..own missives as ‘very important’.
Do you actually suggest that your comments are not ‘very important’ and should be ignored?
vukcevic says:
May 27, 2013 at 4:54 am
Do you actually suggest that your comments are not ‘very important’ and should be ignored?
I do not claim that what I say is ‘very important’. Readers can and will ignore what they please.
Alexander Feht says:
May 27, 2013 at 1:58 am
You did not even take a position on the issue?
The issue is whether tree growth is a good climate indicator. Some think so, some do not [each according to his own bias]. I have no position on this. All I did was to show that the Yamal record do not correlate well with solar activity [for whatever reason]. As to your painful attempts to stay civil, I take the position that you failed [as so many times before]. Now you have another chance, use it well and don’t fail again.
As I’ve said before .. if tree rings are so much thicker in warmer weather, ie they grow so much more, then what’s the problem?? Bring on the higher temps .. and let the trees grow their butts off.
“”lsvalgaard says:
May 26, 2013 at 10:57 am
Lars P. says:
May 26, 2013 at 10:39 am
Leif, help me on the above, what solar activity do you post there? TSI reconstruction?, sun spots? proxy?
since traditional wisdom has it that all solar indices correlate on the time scale of the Figure, it doesn’t really matter which is shown, But specifically, it is a TSI reconstruction derived from the cosmic ray intensity measured in ice cores.””
Getting that cosmic ray dyslexia again. Maybe trees like wetter years. We thinks lower solar activity and more cosmic rays. Just saying maybe correlates better with cosmic rays. late again ……..
What does the tree ring graph look like against the cosmic ray and sunspot (rev.) cycle graph? Trees like some water and light. Yeah yeah growing season too. But this state is already split for growing seasons.
Anyone checking the cosmic ray data and rainfall this year.
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm
Jan 1, 2013 to May 26, 2013
1day>corrected for pressure>plot
Looks like forbush ran thru but the level of cosmic ray the first 3 months, followed by the rest, equated to more snow, rain and colder temps for Wisconsinites.
Comic Re:Lief on WUWT
Lionel G: Once trust is broken, it is very difficult to rebuild.
Leif: A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.
DocatAut: 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!”
Leif: A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.
JTillman: Sir William Herschel must have been a raving loon to imagine that the sun had anything to do with it.
Leif: A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.
TonyB: This branch of science (pun intended) has been wildly over promoted as to its importance over the last 15 years or so.
Leif: A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.
TonyB: Sorry, I omitted the graph.
Leif: Now you have another chance, use it well and don’t fail again.
MarkT: I seem to recall some saying Briffa was FOIA… riiiight. Same kinda crook as the rest.
Leif: A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.
Caleb: Come on, Briffa! … take the hand of truth extended to you from the high and dry dock.
Leif: A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.
EdT: Is it me or is Leif a pompous ass?
Leif: It’s you… A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.
*********** LOL that was fun! #[:)] *************
Janice: Aw, come on, Leif, let’s just have a good laugh about it and be friends again, waddaya say?
Leif: A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.
Janice: If we tell you that you are brilliant and highly respected and valued could we all be friends again?
Leif: Now you have another chance, use it well and don’t fail again.
RVerney: Quite a significant concession!
Janice Moore says:
May 27, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Janice: Aw, come on, Leif, let’s just have a good laugh about it and be friends again, waddaya say?
You are not really making an effort in that department, so without floccinaucinihilipilification on my part, perhaps you could try again, e.g. by sticking to the science…
“… perhaps you could try again, e.g. by sticking to the science…”
I’m afraid, given the abysmally low level of my science knowledge, that is impossible.
May God bless you with many friends who are also scientists.
And, thanks, I think, for not doing any floccinaucinihilipilification (sounds a bit unpleasant).
(in your ear: I think the scientists above would make some pretty wonderful friends…. if you wanted friends, I mean)
Janice.
A nice collation of comments about humility [ or the lack of it ]. It’s a close parrallell to AGW crowd calling people with counter opinion as deniers.
Thanks, Venter, for taking the time to pay me a compliment. I think you “got” my joke, nice parallel, by the way, but, in case others might have misunderstood my meaning above…
I must clarify (for the sake of those whose remarks I quoted above), all of the quotes placed above: “Leif: A bit more humility on your part would be appropriate.” were NOT lacking in humility at all. I juxtaposed those fine, true, comments with Leif’s conceitedly condescending remarks for comic contrast. I wanted to provide some laughter and I was also hoping that Leif, when he saw how ridiculous his remarks looked, would smile and hop off his high horse and rejoin the rest of the gang in friendly camaraderie. He appeared to be steadily isolating himself on a pinnacle of pomposity that would be hard to climb down from. From his response, I don’t think Leif has the average person’s desire to be in friendly relationship with others, even his colleagues, the fine scientists above. Sadly, he appears to simply want to dominate a discussion. I hope I am wrong about that.
Thanks again, Venter, for your affirmation! A rare thing for all of us WUWT posters (given the necessarily task-focused nature of the “conversation” suited to a science discussion site).
Janice Moore says:
May 28, 2013 at 11:31 am
I don’t think Leif has the average person’s desire to be in friendly relationship with others
Janice, science is a blood sport. My negative comments are directed at postings that are scientifically incorrect, nonsense, or otherwise deficient. That the commenters often don’t take that gracefully is really their problem.
Janice Moore
Now you have me worried. To the best of my knowledge Leif has never been rude to me. Should I feel slighted?
Tonyb
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 26, 2013 at 10:00 am
Compare Yamal with solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/Yamal-and-Solar-Activity.png
Thanks for the comparison Dr. Svalgaard.
WT…was zat
Tony
I guess Janice’s point is the irony that the stern, rude, admonitions for polite postings came with a lecture about humility, which was hilarious.