[frankthetank]

I'm sure a lot of you have seen the reports coming out of the cherry picked tree ring data in Russia. If you haven't:

In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw data.

It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.

But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself!Had these been added to Briffa's small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.

Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/st ... 056988&p=2

To me tree ring data seems very flawed. I can't see how policy can be formed around it. Temp alone does not dictate how fast a tree grows, how large it grows. I've been growing fruit trees for a few years now and know that water (rainfall), nutrients, and soil can have big impacts on growth.

As others have stated, what if a bear decided one one tree to go to the bathroom next to over the course of a few years? Those nutrients would be absorbed by the tree. What about shading from other trees?

So i can see how this is big news because obviously they cherry picked data, but on the flip side, i don't know how much can be drawn from this data to begin with. If anything, it probably shows wet years/vs dry years more then warm years vs cold years???

[Lore]

This is just more hyped nonsense by McIntyre at CA and Watts at WUWT blogs. This hoopla was fictioned by Steve McIntyre and he has only inferred "cherry picking" it's people like yourself, Watts and other denialists that are deliberately claiming this falsehood without any support.

The facts are rather evident and described by Gavin at RC.

The tree cores were collected by the Russians of which these 12 were a small part, Briffa just reprocessed the cores the Russians gave him. The '34 trees' were collected later and come from a different location and were not part of the Russian collection. No-one has provided any reason why the '12' are special in any way other than they give a result some people don't like.

Will more cores help improve the chronology? Probably yes. Are there more data around? Yes. Will the chronology change once they are included? Maybe or maybe not. Does McIntyre's calculation have anything to add? No

For those interested there is a good analysis of this "tempest in a tea pot" over at DeepClimate.org

Link

If you don't like tree ring proxies there are plenty of other studies that don't use them and show similar results. The above claim is just another attempt to fool the weak minded.

[rockdoc123]

This is just more hyped nonsense by McIntyre at CA and Watts at WUWT blogs. This hoopla was fictioned by Steve McIntyre and he has only inferred "cherry picking" it's people like yourself, Watts and other denialists that are deliberately claiming this falsehood without any support.

The facts are rather evident and described by Gavin at RC.

spoken like a true "I worship at the temple of Mann and friends". You don't understand the facts....simply because Gavin doesn't seem to either. In fact Gavin made the comment on RC "I'm not a tree ring person, so my opinion on this is perhaps not worth much".

If you bothered to do a bit of reading as to what the argument is all about you would realize quite quickly that there is no reason as to why the 10 tree cores that show the strange hockey stick should be used at the exclusion of the other larger dataset. Though not a dendo expert McIntyre's background is statistics which is pretty much what the argument becomes if you can't explain why some trees should be included and others not. As Steve has demonstrated the young and old trees from the two datasets which are under discussion match very well up until the 1970's at which point the 10 tree core dataset proceeds on its hockeystick trajectory whereas the younger tree data remain at a relatively constant derived temperature. If all the data is included (which unless you can argue there is reason to not include certain data which no one has done correctly yet) then the hockeystick is diminished in appearance considerably. If the 10 tree cores in question are indeed statistical outliers then the hockey stick dissappears completely. McIntyre makes no claim as to whether or not the 10 cores should not be included but he asks the right question.....why were all the other cores excluded? Indeed Briffa (one of the authors that Mann publishes with on numerous occassions) who is a dendro person has noted that larger, diverse datasets are preferred.
Why is this important? Simply because this same dataset has been used in numerous publications that demonstrate the hockeystick (the so-called independant studies that Mann refers to). Indeed it is the temperature graph that is reproduced in the last two IPCC reports. The fact that each and every one of these papers chose to use the Yamal ring data and exclude all of the other data with no explained rationale is disturbing and one can't help but worry the reason that dataset was employed at the expense of other data was because it showed what the authors wanted to.....preconcieved science at it's worst.

Gavin and others at RC can try to brush this off as unimportant but it effectively brings into question many of the papers they have authored over the past 5 years or so. The fact data selectivity may have been employed in tree ring proxy studies makes one wonder where else such selectivity has occurred......(eg. inclusion of surface temperatrue stations that are clearly badly sited, exclusion of the ARGO data from ocean temperatures).

[dissident]

This is really funny. There is a AGW skeptic prof at the University of Ottawa who bases his work on tree ring data. I never heard the denialists try to shred his work. So, if the data works in favour of the denialist mantra then it is trumpeted as "proof", if the data goes against the denialist mantra then it is time to jump up and down and throw excrement like a bunch of chimps.

[Lore]

spoken like a true "I worship at the temple of Mann and friends". You don't understand the facts....simply because Gavin doesn't seem to either. In fact Gavin made the comment on RC "I'm not a tree ring person, so my opinion on this is perhaps not worth much".

If you bothered to do a bit of reading as to what the argument is all about you would realize quite quickly that there is no reason as to why the 10 tree cores that show the strange hockey stick should be used at the exclusion of the other larger dataset. Though not a dendo expert McIntyre's background is statistics which is pretty much what the argument becomes if you can't explain why some trees should be included and others not. As Steve has demonstrated the young and old trees from the two datasets which are under discussion match very well up until the 1970's at which point the 10 tree core dataset proceeds on its hockeystick trajectory whereas the younger tree data remain at a relatively constant derived temperature. If all the data is included (which unless you can argue there is reason to not include certain data which no one has done correctly yet) then the hockeystick is diminished in appearance considerably. If the 10 tree cores in question are indeed statistical outliers then the hockey stick dissappears completely. McIntyre makes no claim as to whether or not the 10 cores should not be included but he asks the right question.....why were all the other cores excluded? Indeed Briffa (one of the authors that Mann publishes with on numerous occassions) who is a dendro person has noted that larger, diverse datasets are preferred.
Why is this important? Simply because this same dataset has been used in numerous publications that demonstrate the hockeystick (the so-called independant studies that Mann refers to). Indeed it is the temperature graph that is reproduced in the last two IPCC reports. The fact that each and every one of these papers chose to use the Yamal ring data and exclude all of the other data with no explained rationale is disturbing and one can't help but worry the reason that dataset was employed at the expense of other data was because it showed what the authors wanted to.....preconcieved science at it's worst.

Gavin and others at RC can try to brush this off as unimportant but it effectively brings into question many of the papers they have authored over the past 5 years or so. The fact data selectivity may have been employed in tree ring proxy studies makes one wonder where else such selectivity has occurred......(eg. inclusion of surface temperatrue stations that are clearly badly sited, exclusion of the ARGO data from ocean temperatures).

It figures you‘d show up on this one... sorry I ruffled your amateur god’s feathers a bit, Steve McIntyre. You're simply regurgitating "blog science" here. If McIntyre has some facts to undermine the long history of tree ring data proxies, please go and have them published in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere! Guess what though, he wont, because it's easier to get recognition by fooling people like yourself that he's really onto something. Even McIntyre himself is quoted as saying; "It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked." He'd rather let people like you do the dirty work.

Gavin doesn’t have to be a "tree ring person" to understand what's happening here and what do you know, McIntyre isn't a tree ring person either.

Lastly it brings nothing into question about the other studies, although deniers and their blogs have been trying to apply this very notion. That is unless you're suggesting that every hard working climate scientist must be falsifying their data? A rather serious accusation. I suppose you have proof of that, other then just your paranoid suspicion?

Briffa has made a rather polite reply on this, although why he is being so considerate, I have no idea.

My attention has been drawn to a comment by Steve McIntyre on the Climate Audit website relating to the pattern of radial tree growth displayed in the ring-width chronology "Yamal" that I first published in Briffa (2000). The substantive implication of McIntyre's comment (made explicitly in subsequent postings by others) is that the recent data that make up this chronology (i.e. the ring-width measurements from living trees) were purposely selected by me from among a larger available data set, specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases. ...

The basis for McIntyre's selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov's) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

You're dead wrong on this one, I would recommend that you read Deep Climate's post again.

[rockdoc123]

You're dead wrong on this one, I would recommend that you read Deep Climate's post again.

you really are missing the whole point. Briffa and others used the Yamal 10 core dataset and it is the only dataset from the region that yields hockey stick temperatures. A much larger dataset that McIntyre plotted on top of the Yamal dataset (Schweingruber 34) is from the exact same area in Russia and shows no such hockeystick. Briffa does not explain why the other data is excluded nor why the Yamal data should be used in preference to it. Briffa was aware of the other dataset....in fact he had worked with it and referenced it in one of his earlier papers (circa '98).

If you can point me to where exactly someone has shown that the Yamal 10 cores are statistically significant whereas all the other data is insiginificant I would be grateful (knowing full well it doesn't exist). Briffa makes no such claim and instead tries to obfuscate the discussion by pointing out that the McIntyre can't demonstrate that the other dataset (Schweingruber) is more significant than the Yamal when in fact the only important point is the two sets disagree and Briffa et al have never demonstrated why they do or for that matter why Yamal should be used exclusively.

The fact that these cores are the only ones that demonstrate a hockey stick coupled with the fact that all of the papers that Mann suggests are independant replication of the hockey stick story based on proxy data use the Yamal data at the exclusion of other data does indeed bring them into question as well.

McIntyres website has extensive discussion on the issue and delves deep into RCS, the actual datasets used etc. He also replies to Briffa's web comments and also to Gavin's comments.

[Lore]

You're dead wrong on this one, I would recommend that you read Deep Climate's post again.

you really are missing the whole point. Briffa and others used the Yamal 10 core dataset and it is the only dataset from the region that yields hockey stick temperatures. A much larger dataset that McIntyre plotted on top of the Yamal dataset (Schweingruber 34) is from the exact same area in Russia and shows no such hockeystick. Briffa does not explain why the other data is excluded nor why the Yamal data should be used in preference to it. Briffa was aware of the other dataset....in fact he had worked with it and referenced it in one of his earlier papers (circa '98).

If you can point me to where exactly someone has shown that the Yamal 10 cores are statistically significant whereas all the other data is insiginificant I would be grateful (knowing full well it doesn't exist). Briffa makes no such claim and instead tries to obfuscate the discussion by pointing out that the McIntyre can't demonstrate that the other dataset (Schweingruber) is more significant than the Yamal when in fact the only important point is the two sets disagree and Briffa et al have never demonstrated why they do or for that matter why Yamal should be used exclusively.

The fact that these cores are the only ones that demonstrate a hockey stick coupled with the fact that all of the papers that Mann suggests are independant replication of the hockey stick story based on proxy data use the Yamal data at the exclusion of other data does indeed bring them into question as well.

McIntyres website has extensive discussion on the issue and delves deep into RCS, the actual datasets used etc. He also replies to Briffa's web comments and also to Gavin's comments.

I thought this was mentioned and this is not to say the other's are insignificant.

The tree cores were collected by the Russians of which these 12 were a small part, Briffa just reprocessed the cores the Russians gave him. The '34 trees' were collected later and come from a different location and were not part of the Russian collection. No-one has provided any reason why the '12' are special in any way other than they give a result some people don't like

The point being, you're trusting McIntyres interpretation of the data, without similar question. Also, It doesn't answer the fundamental question of how did Briffa and Mann manage to get every thermometer on the planet to lie during these last 50 years?

The data was being mishandled or is not trustworthy is "only" a vague accusation. Why not wait for the further study to the charges and response by Briffa? Not the denial, jump to conclusions group.

Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

[rockdoc123]

The point being, you're trusting McIntyres interpretation of the data, without similar question. Also, It doesn't answer the fundamental question of how did Briffa and Mann manage to get every thermometer on the planet to lie during these last 50 years?

The data was being mishandled or is not trustworthy is "only" a vague accusation. Why not wait for the further study to the charges and response by Briffa? Not the denial, jump to conclusions group.

The dataset McIntyre refers to was well known to Briffa and others throughout the publication of their various papers. Why they didn't bother to use it (even though it is clear that Briffa had spent time looking at it) remains a mystery. It is easy to "trust" McIntyre's interpretation of the dataset simply because he is quite explicit as to what he did. It is as simple as treating all the data the same and then plotting them up together. Voila, it is only the Yamal 10 that show the hockeystick. McIntyre has gone so far as to post all of the raw tree ring data as well as the code for the statistical analysis he ran. He walks through his analysis in excrutiating detail and actually asks for comment from the authors. The same cannot be said for Briffa, Mann and others. If you had been paying attention McIntyre has been talking about the Yamal issue for a couple of years now, noting the importance of the data and why it would be good to be able to varify it. It was only recently (a couple of weeks ago) that the data became available despite continual requests from McItrick and McIntyre over the past couple of years.

As to "every single thermometer" .....surely you jest or I'm afraid you really are ill informed as to what the land temperature database shows. First off the great majority of sites are questionable due to their placement. As well a significant number of stations have been recently removed from the total database used such that there is a very strong locational bias. And I point out once more that temperatures since 2000 have not been rising but have been static to falling off independant on which dataset you use. Craig Idso used to have a temperature of the week plot on his website that demonstrated numerous sites where temperatures were actually decreasing not increasing.

The problem here is that everyone is taking for granted the fact that climate related data and its treatment is properly handled when it is pretty clear that there are problems. If the underlying data or it's analysis is wanting then the resultant theory is similarily without merit.

As to conspiracy theory....no one is suggesting any such thing. What is being suggested is that some scientific bias is possibly being applied by a group of authors who are colleagues and regular collaborators (as shown in the social network analysis by Wegmann).

[Lore]

The dataset McIntyre refers to was well known to Briffa and others throughout the publication of their various papers. Why they didn't bother to use it (even though it is clear that Briffa had spent time looking at it) remains a mystery. It is easy to "trust" McIntyre's interpretation of the dataset simply because he is quite explicit as to what he did. It is as simple as treating all the data the same and then plotting them up together. Voila, it is only the Yamal 10 that show the hockeystick. McIntyre has gone so far as to post all of the raw tree ring data as well as the code for the statistical analysis he ran. He walks through his analysis in excrutiating detail and actually asks for comment from the authors. The same cannot be said for Briffa, Mann and others. If you had been paying attention McIntyre has been talking about the Yamal issue for a couple of years now, noting the importance of the data and why it would be good to be able to varify it. It was only recently (a couple of weeks ago) that the data became available despite continual requests from McItrick and McIntyre over the past couple of years.

As to "every single thermometer" .....surely you jest or I'm afraid you really are ill informed as to what the land temperature database shows. First off the great majority of sites are questionable due to their placement. As well a significant number of stations have been recently removed from the total database used such that there is a very strong locational bias. And I point out once more that temperatures since 2000 have not been rising but have been static to falling off independant on which dataset you use. Craig Idso used to have a temperature of the week plot on his website that demonstrated numerous sites where temperatures were actually decreasing not increasing.

The problem here is that everyone is taking for granted the fact that climate related data and its treatment is properly handled when it is pretty clear that there are problems. If the underlying data or it's analysis is wanting then the resultant theory is similarily without merit.

As to conspiracy theory....no one is suggesting any such thing. What is being suggested is that some scientific bias is possibly being applied by a group of authors who are colleagues and regular collaborators (as shown in the social network analysis by Wegmann).

If he plotted them all up together then why did McIntyre exclude the original data in one representation and give it less weight in another?

Also scientists are not obliged to provide their raw data to everyone. In general, people are supposed to get their own data. I would blame this more on the peer-review process. You are essentially wrong however about raw data not being available. This perception is endemic to the whole Climate Fraudit movement. This is a constant wail from McIntyre, who doesn't know how to work with the data once he gets it, so he figures there always must be something more.

As I would point out by my former entry and link about denialists claims of deception, I make no jests. You're sources are ill informed or misleading as usual relative to recent temperature increases. All valid temperature data sets show an increasing trend over the last several decades, unless years are "cherry picked" and graphed to show otherwise. All of which coincides with the observable evidence of data proxies that all point in exactly the same direction - the planet is warming. Exemplified by changes in growing seasons, bird, animal and fish migration, blooming of flowers, dates of mountain snow melt, peak flow of glacier-fed streams and disappearing ice sheets and glaciers, as well as the acidification of the oceans to name a few.

This is not a matter of all sets of data being mishandled. As you're aware research is subject to change and improvement and it's a disservice to science that you would paint with a broad brush that suspect data in climate study is widespread due to implicit bias. Simply put, if you deny all the science accumulated by the world's leading research institutions pointing to increasing temperatures and portray them as being falsely represented, then and only then, can you deny that the planet is warming.

[dissident]

The reason for geologists being "skeptics" for a field they have no competence in must be related to their employment in and grants from industry. I haven't heard of condensed matter physicists chiming into the denialist chorus. Bloggers are not worthy of note, just because they have an opinion does not mean it has to be taken seriously. Unlike politics, science is about knowledge and objective information. Also, unlike in politics, once you have been shown to be clueless about the science you are spouting on then there is no longer any obligation to listen to your drivel. If you want to redeem yourself then write a paper showing everyone you are right and that all the published work is wrong.

[Lore]

The reason for geologists being "skeptics" for a field they have no competence in must be related to their employment in and grants from industry. I haven't heard of condensed matter physicists chiming into the denialist chorus. Bloggers are not worthy of note, just because they have an opinion does not mean it has to be taken seriously. Unlike politics, science is about knowledge and objective information. Also, unlike in politics, once you have been shown to be clueless about the science you are spouting on then there is no longer any obligation to listen to your drivel. If you want to redeem yourself then write a paper showing everyone you are right and that all the published work is wrong.

I've also come to notice that there is an abnormal number of meteorologists that are also in the denial camp. Could be they just get more attention for being vocal because of their media coverage?

[dorlomin]

The reason for geologists being "skeptics" for a field they have no competence in must be related to their employment in and grants from industry.

I would suggest that it is that they do have a great deal of experiance in a very narrow part of the wider climate science. They are the experts on the record in the earth, this gives them a great deal of confidence in a narrow area. I think this tends to flavour their outlook very much towards gradual changes in the climate rather than rapid ones. They also will know quite well that the earths atmosphere had remarkably higher levels of CO2 in the past. I have seen this time and time again used to 'falsify' the idea that increasing CO2 will cause problems.

The counter to that argyument if found in astrophysics, stars produce more energy as they age. This is counterintuative at first, but thats nuclear physics for you.

I've also come to notice that there is an abnormal number of meteorologists that are also in the denial camp. Could be they just get more attention for being vocal because of their media coverage?

Again a great deal of experiance in a field that contributes to climate science. Studying the weather gives people a huge respect for the unpredictability of the atmospheric system. That and they do interact with models on a daily basis. But it is not a majority of meteorologists that are skeptics of various kinds. But you might have a point in that a skeptic tv weather person is far more likely to have their views aired and to have them respected than a chemical engineer working for Du Pont.

[dissident]

I think in the case of meteorologists it does not take much to get the degree and the job is not academic. So it is easy to stack the deck with shills. One good thing about ivory towers is that you need actual merit to get a position and your job does not depend on the whim of your employer.

[dissident]

Geological timescales are not particularly relevant to humanity's well being in the coming centuries. High CO2 levels in the past is an ambiguous statement, is it during extinction events or is during the period right after the planet formed and cooled? In either case high CO2 levels were not a good thing for life to exist. Denialists dismiss the looming agricultural disruption based on what? Fluid dynamical variability? A scientist that resorts to gut feelings outside their field of expertise is not acting as a scientist.

[rockdoc123]

Also scientists are not obliged to provide their raw data to everyone. In general, people are supposed to get their own data. I would blame this more on the peer-review process. You are essentially wrong however about raw data not being available. This perception is endemic to the whole Climate Fraudit movement. This is a constant wail from McIntyre, who doesn't know how to work with the data once he gets it, so he figures there always must be something more.

you're joking of course.....McIntyre has demonstrated that he does indeed know how to work with the data. It is statistical manipulations and nothing more and he is...surprise ...a statistician. Please demonstrate to us where Steve has screwed up in his analysis. As to the data being available....again please show where any of the raw data and manipulated data used for the IPCC proxy studies was ever made available for peer review? Do you actually believe that if McIntyre and McItrick could have obtained this data elsewhere they wouldn't have done so? Do you actually believe they went to the trouble of putting in countless requests under the freedom of information act simply because it was fun? In many journals scientists are required to archive their data and make it available. Indeed Science has said they want that to happen but just have never enforced it. The reason that the Yamal data is now available is because the journal where Briffa published his latest paper required full archiving.

If he plotted them all up together then why did McIntyre exclude the original data in one representation and give it less weight in another?

it's called a sensitivity study...he was simply trying to see what the effects of the two datasets were separately and combined. This is part of the divergence story that McIntyre and others have been pointing to for the past several years as being an underlying problem in tree ring proxy studies. McIntyre points out exactly why he was doing that and even states that he makes no claims to the validity of either dataset or for that matter the combined dataset.

All valid temperature data sets show an increasing trend over the last several decades, unless years are "cherry picked" and graphed to show otherwise. All of which coincides with the observable evidence of data proxies that all point in exactly the same direction - the planet is warming

. As I've said countless times there was a warming trend from the eighties through to around 1999-2000, no disagreemenet there, but since then there has not been a concomitent rise of temperature with increasing CO2 but rather substantial divergence. Indeed all of the datasets (including Argos) show temperatures have been flat to slightly cooling. It is you who is cheery picking with the dataset not me. The trend is the thing. If suddenly we start to warm again then that's a different story but if the sunspot connection holds up you are probably not going to see that for another decade or so.

This is not a matter of all sets of data being mishandled. As you're aware research is subject to change and improvement and it's a disservice to science that you would paint with a broad brush that suspect data in climate study is widespread due to implicit bias. Simply put, if you deny all the science accumulated by the world's leading research institutions pointing to increasing temperatures and portray them as being falsely represented, then and only then, can you deny that the planet is warming.

that is an absolutely ridiculous statement. What is all the science you point to? It is simply satellite and surface and marine temperature data. It is well demonstrated that the surface temperature data needs to be looked at with a more critical eye (Anthony Watts has documented this quite well). The Argos data has been ignored by many because it disagrees with the traditional marine measurements. And no matter what, over the past eight years or so we have seen flat temperatures to slight cooling based on all of the information. IF you can show me all this data from 2000 onwards that is showing the earth still warming I will be very interested....it will make you quite famous in fact because even at RealClimate they are lamenting the fact the earth is no longer warming.

So please, you are convinced there is a plethora of data to show the earth has been continually warming since 2000. Please direct me there. And don't bother showing your plots of the last hundred years as it is totally irrelevant to what is happening now and possibly in the future.

With regards to scientific bias let me draw your attention to the timeline with respect to the use of Yamal data to replicate a hockey stick.

Briffa published two papers in 1998, one in Proc of Roy Soc and the other in Nature 391.
What he showed was that for tree rings from this area (Urals) there was a substantial divergence between grow season temperatures in the areas and tree ring growth and density. What is important is that this divergence was replicated in over 300 sites. In 2001 Briffa chose to explain this through their being some unknown anthropogenic effect that caused the divergence. From that point on Briffa never used any data except the Yamal dataset which of course demonstrates the hockey stick. So Briffa was not only aware that there was a plethora of other data available but that he had actually plotted it up and noted that there was divergence with the Yamal area data. He has never given a scientific explaination for why the other data is being ignored and the Yamal data is being used.

Now Hantemirov surfaces with a different dataset than he provided to Briffa claiming that when it is all run together it gives "almost the Briffa results". But that is precisely what McIntyre was showing through his senstivity analysis. Because the Yamal data has such an extreme difference it creates a hockey stick even when you include the Schweingruber dataset which is much larger and shows no hockey stick at all. Hopefullye when Hantermirov publishes his new study he will give access to the raw data so others can understand what the distribution of the various responses are.

Already some scientists are asking the right questions about the validity of tree ring data as a direct proxy for temperature especially given the means by which it is sampled and the temperature indpendant varialbes that affect tree growth such as water levels, water chemsitry, soil chemistry, cloud cover etc. And that is how science progresses. With access to the data interpretations can be questioned appropriately and evidence can be either kept or tossed out.

Also, unlike in politics, once you have been shown to be clueless about the science you are spouting on then there is no longer any obligation to listen to your drivel.

So I guess now we will not be subjected to your posts any further?

In either case high CO2 levels were not a good thing for life to exist.

my point above is substantiated by this truly ignorant comment. Life exploded in the Cambrian period with tens of new animal phylla emerging during a time when CO2 was around 6000 ppm (lets see that's close to twenty times what it is now). During the Devonian marine life expanded phenomenally and CO2 was around 4000 ppm. There is a tremendous amount of experimental literature showing the positive affect of high atmospheric CO2 on plant life (I can post the references here but doubt you are interested). When the main extinctions occurred (end Permian and end Cretaceous) CO2 levels were much less than half this level.

[Lore]

you're joking of course.....McIntyre has demonstrated that he does indeed know how to work with the data. It is statistical manipulations and nothing more and he is...surprise ...a statistician. Please demonstrate to us where Steve has screwed up in his analysis.

Sure, I refer to his recent screw-up with the Briffa data. Let the backpedalling begin

The latest battle over the “hockey stick” has taken quite a turn, one that may finally lay to rest all the absurd claims of its demise made by contrarians (not to mention apparently libelous accusations of scientific malfeasance). In previous posts, we discussed climate blogger Steve McIntyre’s scurrilous accusations of “cherrypicking” against UK dendrochronolgist Keith Briffa, and summarized a a quick technical critique of McIntyre’s work by a dendrchronologist known as Delayed Oscillator. oscillator
Now comes new evidence that McIntyre’s accusations were completely false. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa’s Yamal temperature reconstruction. Backpedalling

As to the data being available....again please show where any of the raw data and manipulated data used for the IPCC proxy studies was ever made available for peer review? Do you actually believe that if McIntyre and McItrick could have obtained this data elsewhere they wouldn't have done so? Do you actually believe they went to the trouble of putting in countless requests under the freedom of information act simply because it was fun? In many journals scientists are required to archive their data and make it available. Indeed Science has said they want that to happen but just have never enforced it. The reason that the Yamal data is now available is because the journal where Briffa published his latest paper required full archiving.

See above, it wasn't Briffa's data to hand out.

it's called a sensitivity study...he was simply trying to see what the effects of the two datasets were separately and combined. This is part of the divergence story that McIntyre and others have been pointing to for the past several years as being an underlying problem in tree ring proxy studies. McIntyre points out exactly why he was doing that and even states that he makes no claims to the validity of either dataset or for that matter the combined dataset.

See above, he calculated it wrong.

As I've said countless times there was a warming trend from the eighties through to around 1999-2000, no disagreemenet there, but since then there has not been a concomitent rise of temperature with increasing CO2 but rather substantial divergence. Indeed all of the datasets (including Argos) show temperatures have been flat to slightly cooling. It is you who is cheery picking with the dataset not me. The trend is the thing. If suddenly we start to warm again then that's a different story but if the sunspot connection holds up you are probably not going to see that for another decade or so.

Already talked about endlessly here, natural variability. All data sets? For example, how about GISS and HadCrut?

that is an absolutely ridiculous statement. What is all the science you point to? It is simply satellite and surface and marine temperature data. It is well demonstrated that the surface temperature data needs to be looked at with a more critical eye (Anthony Watts has documented this quite well). The Argos data has been ignored by many because it disagrees with the traditional marine measurements. And no matter what, over the past eight years or so we have seen flat temperatures to slight cooling based on all of the information. IF you can show me all this data from 2000 onwards that is showing the earth still warming I will be very interested....it will make you quite famous in fact because even at RealClimate they are lamenting the fact the earth is no longer warming.

You mean falsely demonstrated by Watts and his junior woodchucks. See GISS and HadCurt, NOAA for your data. This has been shown numerous times here. The graph I posted a few months ago hasn't changed that much. Your only answer has been, that you don't believe the data. In other words, ignore the science that doesn't fit your preconceived notion.

So please, you are convinced there is a plethora of data to show the earth has been continually warming since 2000. Please direct me there. And don't bother showing your plots of the last hundred years as it is totally irrelevant to what is happening now and possibly in the future.

Pauses or slow downs in warming have happend throughout the recorded history in the last several decades. Records, still however, show a substantial warming as I've previously posted.

With regards to scientific bias let me draw your attention to the timeline with respect to the use of Yamal data to replicate a hockey stick.

Briffa published two papers in 1998, one in Proc of Roy Soc and the other in Nature 391.
What he showed was that for tree rings from this area (Urals) there was a substantial divergence between grow season temperatures in the areas and tree ring growth and density. What is important is that this divergence was replicated in over 300 sites. In 2001 Briffa chose to explain this through their being some unknown anthropogenic effect that caused the divergence. From that point on Briffa never used any data except the Yamal dataset which of course demonstrates the hockey stick. So Briffa was not only aware that there was a plethora of other data available but that he had actually plotted it up and noted that there was divergence with the Yamal area data. He has never given a scientific explaination for why the other data is being ignored and the Yamal data is being used.

Now Hantemirov surfaces with a different dataset than he provided to Briffa claiming that when it is all run together it gives "almost the Briffa results". But that is precisely what McIntyre was showing through his senstivity analysis. Because the Yamal data has such an extreme difference it creates a hockey stick even when you include the Schweingruber dataset which is much larger and shows no hockey stick at all. Hopefullye when Hantermirov publishes his new study he will give access to the raw data so others can understand what the distribution of the various responses are.

Already some scientists are asking the right questions about the validity of tree ring data as a direct proxy for temperature especially given the means by which it is sampled and the temperature indpendant varialbes that affect tree growth such as water levels, water chemsitry, soil chemistry, cloud cover etc. And that is how science progresses. With access to the data interpretations can be questioned appropriately and evidence can be either kept or tossed out.

Once again, see links above for recent clarification.

[rockdoc123]

Sure, I refer to his recent screw-up with the Briffa data. Let the backpedalling begin

As noted in my own note there was no screw up whatsoever. The divergence between the data is there for all to see. The new Russian information has not been published but would suffer from the same issue as McIntyre pointed out when you mix Yamal data with the Urals data. Not sure what part of the divergence argument you don't get. Now if you can point out that McIntyre incorrectly used the various statistical algorithms for analyzing the data that's a valid arguement, otherwise you are out to lunch on this I'm afraid. the fact that there are a host of climatologists and mathmaticians replicating McIntyres work and posting to that issue on his website suggests he isn't wrong. If the new Russian info can show that the Yamal hockey stick is replicated in many different areas over a wide region then we have something. As I said you need to wait for that publication to appear.

See above, it wasn't Briffa's data to hand out.

you do not "own" data, it is almost certain that the work was paid for by the gov't or some university. That is a fallacy that some would like you to believe. The very fact that the data was provided to Briffa means that he has permission to publish it. The fact he needed to use it in a publication means he should have made the data available whether that required him going to the Russian author or not. I've published lot's of papers that use information gathered from various sources that aren't necessarily public domain. I have always requested permission for the right to publish that information and any underlying data an interpretation might be based on. This is typical practice everywhere it would seem except in the climate literature. If I tried to publish a paper on a given experiment in another field and did not provide access to the data it would almost certainly not be accepted anywhere.

See above, he calculated it wrong.

you truly are an idiot. He did not calculate anything wrong. He simply plotted first the Yamal data by itself using the exact same statistical screening program that Briffa did. He then applied the same logic to the other dataset, he then plotted them together and discussed the differences drawing attention to the divergence. You really don't understand this stuff do you?

Already talked about endlessly here, natural variability. All data sets? For example, how about GISS and HadCrut?

Yes and I've shown those plots. Natural variability comes into play on a year by year basis but not on the basis of several years in a row. This is a copout. I could easily argue that the period from 1980 through 1998 was natural variability as well. Again it is the trend that we have just gone through that determines the path forward not what happened 10 years ago.

The graph I posted a few months ago hasn't changed that much. Your only answer has been, that you don't believe the data. In other words, ignore the science that doesn't fit your preconceived notion.

as I keep trying to get through your seemingly thick skull all of the datasets you speak of do not demonstrate statistical warming over the last few years. I suggest it is you who do not believe the data. Here is a plot from 2001 onwards....add in 2000 and it shows the same, add in the El Nino peak in 1998 and it is emphasized further. Note that CO2 has continued to rise through this period. Whose ignoring what here?

Once again, see links above for recent clarification

good god man....my post speaks to that "recent clarification", why don't you read before you hit the keys? It is the comment made from Hantemirov that is the "new data". And in fact it has not been published and no one other than Hantemirov has seen the data. This new information is based on an email conversation between McIntrye and Hantemirov. As I said it includes the Yamal dataset so the problem that McIntyre pointed to will still be there. The divergence issue is still there no matter what. Unless someone can demonstrate that there is an equal distribution of Yamal type response versus Ural type response everywhere in the region the issue needs addressing and you cannot simply accept the hockey stick....there is a large amount of data that suggests it doesn't happen and there is currently no argument that can be made to exclude one dataset or the other.

[Lore]

good god man....my post speaks to that "recent clarification", why don't you read before you hit the keys? It is the comment made from Hantemirov that is the "new data". And in fact it has not been published and no one other than Hantemirov has seen the data. This new information is based on an email conversation between McIntrye and Hantemirov. As I said it includes the Yamal dataset so the problem that McIntyre pointed to will still be there. The divergence issue is still there no matter what. Unless someone can demonstrate that there is an equal distribution of Yamal type response versus Ural type response everywhere in the region the issue needs addressing and you cannot simply accept the hockey stick....there is a large amount of data that suggests it doesn't happen and there is currently no argument that can be made to exclude one dataset or the other.

Really, can you show me your temperature data using the previous 10 years 1999 - 2009? Gee... kids, all of sudden we jumped from the base year of 1998, of "its getting cooler", to start with 2002? Can you say "cherry picking"? Now, just seven years of moderating temperatures is suppose to represent a trend? Even a cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996).

Above the line here is your usual trash, and sounds like the back peddling the article refers to, but speaking of idiots. I'm still waiting for McIntyre to publish something with regards to this in a peer-reviewed journal. So far as I've said before this is just "blog science". At least Rashit Hantemirov will be looking to publish his data. Your arguement that there is a large amount of data that has not been used is shown to be false by those in control of it.

Rashit Hantemirov, that sheds new light on all of McIntyre’s contentions, to say the least. (The email was not written to McIntyre, but was forwarded to him by an anonymous correspondent).

Low number of used for reconstruction subfossil series is explained by standardisation method (“corridor method”). We had to select the longest series. The same concerns to living trees. There are not much old living trees in this area (in contrast to Polar Urals), therefore we used only 17 (not 12) samples from living trees. At that time we had close collaboration with CRU and I sent to Keith Briffa these raw data.

So, selection of samples has been made by me taking into account length of individual series as well as common requirements to increment cores (exclusion samples with compression wood, rotten wood etc.).

As to reliability of recent increase in tree growth – we have updated our data using many additional subfossil and living trees and using RCS-method. I.e. we used not only long series. Therefore many (120) living trees have been used. Finally, we have got almost the Briffa’s result. These results not published yet. I’m going to prepare paper at the end of this / beginning next year. Some preliminary data you can find in some kind of report in Russian

vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog/2009/13-07/KHantemirovRM.pdf

fig 2 – sample replication, fig 5 – temperature reconstruction (smoothed by three filters – 50-, 100- and 200-year) [Emphasis added]

[dissident]

The interesting finding from the work by Hantemirov is that there was a 7000 year trend (a weak one) of cooling in this part of Siberia and in the last 150 years the temperatures have shot up and broken the trend completely. In this region there was a temperature increase around 1000 AD (medieval warm period) and 1500 AD with similar magnitudes both much smaller than the current period of warming. It is good to have some balance to the endless chattering about the 1000 AD warming "proving" that the current warming is all natural variability.

[rockdoc123]

Really, can you show me your temperature data using the previous 10 years 1999 - 2009? Gee... kids, all of sudden we jumped from the base year of 1998, of "its getting cooler", to start with 2002? Can you say "cherry picking"? Now, just seven years of moderating temperatures is suppose to represent a trend? Even a cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996).

for the last time....past history is just that, recent history is more important. I could equally take a time frame from 1939 to 1980 which shows cooling....no relevance on what is going to happen in the next few years. What is relevant is what has been happening recently. Please explain why CO2 has continued to increase during this period if it is the cause. The sun has gone silent on the other hand which links pretty well with the decreasing temperatures.
So 7 or 8 years (we could include 1998 which would mean 11 years) isn't a trend but 1980 to 1998 is? Could you share with us all your statistical proof please?

So far as I've said before this is just "blog science". At least Rashit Hantemirov will be looking to publish his data. Your arguement that there is a large amount of data that has not been used is shown to be false by those in control of it.

OH is that right. You disagree with my contention that Briffa knew about the Schweingruber series and other data even though he mentioned it in older publications? You disagree that it wasn't included in any of the Biffa and friends papers used in the IPCC reports? Either you haven't a clue what I'm refering to here or you just want to ignore it. McIntyre has pointed to this problem for years.
So where is the Schwiegruber data in Briffas recent publication? He has it, why isn't he using it along with Yamal?

Your quote from the Russian email simply justifies my point.....he has new data (we haven't seen it) he says including it with the Yamal data gives almost a Briffa result. Steve showed the identical effect in his sensitivity study. If you remove the Yamal data there is no warming, it overides the grouped results. I stand by my arguments.

It is good to have some balance to the endless chattering about the 1000 AD warming "proving" that the current warming is all natural variability
I suspect you don't understand the importance of divegene here.

notwithstanding the actual recorded history from people who lived during those times that spoke to the what the climate was like?

perhaps this says something about the complete unreliability of tree ring data...which by the way is what the hockey stick is based on.