Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear: Tree Ring Data Stonewall to be Breached?

By

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit continues his quest for unarchived and therefore unverifiable data that has been used in numerous millenial temperature reconstructions that produce a ‘Hockey Stick’ shape:

In 2000, Keith Briffa, lead author of the millennial section of AR4, published his own versions of Yamal, Taymir and Tornetrask, all three of which have been staples of all subsequent supposedly “independent” reconstructions. The Briffa version of Yamal has a very pronounced HS and is critical in the modern-medieval differences in several studies. However, the Briffa version for Yamal differs substantially from the version in the publication by the originating authors (Hantemirov, Holocene 2002), but is the one that is used in the multiproxy studies (though it’s hard to tell since Hantemirov is usually cited.) Studies listed in AR4 that use the Briffa versions include not just Briffa 2000, but Mann and Jones 2003, Moberg et al 2005, D’Arrigo et al 2006, Hegerl et al 2007, as well as Osborn and Briffa 2006.

Of the 8 proxies shown in the proxy spaghetti graph (as opposed to the reconstruction spaghetti graph), 3 are from the Briffa 2000 study (called NW Russia, N Russia and N Sweden) but demonstrably the Briffa versions of these sites.

An important characteristic of tree ring chronologies is that they are sensitive to the method used. Chronologies can be quickly and easily calculated from measurement data. Rob Wilson, for example, will nearly always run his own chronologies from measurement data so that he knows for sure how they were done and so that they are done consistently across sites.

Osborn and Briffa 2006 was published in Science, which has a policy requiring the availability of data. It used Briffa’s versions of Yamal, Taymir and Tornetrask. At the time, I requested the measurement data, which had still not been archived 6 years after the original publication of Briffa 2000, despite the availability of excellent international archive facilities at WDCP-A (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo). Briffa refused. I asked Science to require Briffa to provide the data. After some deliberation, they stated that Osborn and Briffa 2006 had not used the measurement data directly but had only used the chronologies from an earlier study and that I should take up the matter with the author of the earlier study, pointedly not identifying the author, who was, of course, Briffa himself. I wrote Briffa again, this time in his capacity as author of the 2000 article in Quaternary Science Reviews and was blown off.

So years later, the measurement data for key studies used in both canonical multiproxy studies and illustrated in AR4 Box 6.4 Figure 1 (along, remarkably, with Mann’s PC1), remains unarchived, with Briffa resolutely stonewalling efforts to have him archive the data.

But has Briffa, after all these years, finally made a misstep?

Maybe.

Recently Briffa published Briffa et al 2008 in Phil Trans Roy Soc, a journal with a long history, and with a life outside IPCC. A reader drew my attention to the fact that Phil Trans Roy Soc has a clear and forthright policy. As I reported a little while ago, I wrote to them observing that Briffa had not observed their requirements on data availability and that their editors and reviewers had failed to require observance of a data archiving policy that would require provision of a url as a condition of publication. My letter was as follows:

Dear Sirs,

Your policy on data availability as stated at: publishing.royalsociety.org/index.cfm?page=1684#question10 states:

“As a condition of acceptance authors agree to honour any reasonable request by other researchers for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusion of the article.

Supplementary data up to 10Mb is placed on the Society’s website free of charge and is publicly accessible. Large datasets must be deposited in a recognised public domain database by the author prior to submission. The accession number should be provided for inclusion in the published article.”

Briffa et al failed to comply with your requirement that “large datasets must be deposited in a recognised public domain database by the author prior to submission” and your editorial staff and reviewers failed to ensure that the article included an accession number for such deposit.

In particular, Briffa et al. 2008 discussed the following tree ring measurement data sets which have not been archived at the International Tree Ring Data Bank or other public domain data base (other than a small subset of the Tornetrask data set.) Would you therefore please provide me with either a URL or the complete tree ring measurement data sets in digital form for all data sets discussed in Briffa et al 2008, including Yamal, Tornetrask, Taymyr, Bolshoi Avam and Finnish Lapland, together with digital versions of the individual reconstuctions referred to in Briffa et al 2008, including, without limitation, the reconstructions for each of the above sites and the composite regional reconstructions referred to in the article. This informaiton is necessary to “verify the conclusion of the article”.

Yours truly,

Stephen McIntyre

Last week, I received a cordial replying undertaking to look into the matter and stating:

“We take matters like this very seriously and I am sorry that this was not picked up in the publishing process.”

Imagine that. A journal that seems to have both a data policy and that takes it seriously. Unlike, say, Science or Nature, which have refused to make similar requirements of IPCC authors. On the face of it, a real science journal. That’s right: Real. Science.

However, Briffa is a wily data stonewalling veteran and may yet outwit the editors of Phil Trans Roy Soc. We shall see.

I suspect that Briffa won’t be able to pull off the same stunt that he pulled at Science, where he was able to use the prior publication of the data elsewhere as a pretext for not archiving the data in accordance with Science’s policies. Look at what Phil Trans Roy Soc says about publishing data in more than one place:

“It is important to ensure that research work is only published once. If it is published more than once, the scientific literature can be unjustifiably weighted by the appearance that one study has been replicated. It might also mean that the study is inadvertently entered twice into a meta-analysis, for example, or cause problems in systems which use the number of publications to assess an individual’s or an institute’s research output.”

There may be situations (e.g. review articles) where previously published work can be included in summary form, but it must be made clear to the Editor on submission that this is the case.

Imagine if that policy were applied in paleoclimate. How many times have we seen the same proxies re-cycled as a supposedly “independent” result. Look at the above sentence:

“If it is published more than once, the scientific literature can be unjustifiably weighted by the appearance that one study has been replicated.”

Precisely. If that were applied to the Team (Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Team), they’d be out of business.

Climate Audit: Is Briffa Finally Cornered?

Reader Interactions

Comments

  4. Louis Hissink says

    It’s probably related but Nature, Science etc journals are businesses – not disinterested scientific journals.

    I can understand why researchers hide behind the “commercial in confidence” excuse to avoid archiving data.

    The politicisation of science is the principal issue here and it’s certainly not new – Lyell, Babbage, Shrope, Darwin and the English Whigs engaged in a similar action during the early 19th century.

    It is only now that some geologists are extricating the science from the Whig strictures imposed by Lyell but opposition remain fierce, as expected from a science that is dominated by the Socratic method.

  5. Ian Mott says

    I wish Steve well but thank him for establishing that he/we are dealing with the worst form of shonkademic scum. Once again, it undermines every piece of so-called peer reviewed literature ever published in Science or Nature.

  7. James Mayeau says

    A little thermometer work will confirm whether or not the lines correspond to ambient temperature.
    The growth ring is barely under the bark, right?
    MY suspicion is that leaves transmit to the growth ring at the same temperature as required by photosenthysis.
    A tap hole and a digital thermometer would do the trick.
    Of course you run the risk of writing a published scientific paper; ala Marohasy, Hewett,& Biggs et al.

  8. Chris Crawford says

    I’m glad that Steve McIntyre is pursuing this effort but I’ll ding him for his emotionalism. Calling people names is not the way to solve problems, and his snide comments taint his efforts. On something as important is this, it’s crucial that Steve maintain a professional tone and concentrate on what’s really important: getting the data. If he permitted some of those snide comments to leak into his communications with Briffa and Science, how do we know that their refusals weren’t predicated on an emotional reaction on their part? We all need to stop this childish name-calling and concentrate on the science, not the personalities.

    That said, I very much hope that Steve continues his dogged quest.

  10. Chris Crawford says

    Paul, here are Steve McIntyre’s comments that I consider to be unprofessional:

    “Imagine that. A journal that seems to have both a data policy and that takes it seriously. Unlike, say, Science or Nature, which have refused to make similar requirements of IPCC authors. On the face of it, a real science journal. That’s right: Real. Science.”

    “Briffa is a wily data stonewalling veteran”

  11. James Mayeau says

    Ian said, “I wish Steve well but thank him for establishing that he/we are dealing with the worst form of shonkademic scum. Once again, it undermines every piece of so-called peer reviewed literature ever published in Science or Nature.”

    True. I agree. Steve Mc has tracked, hounded, and finally (maybe?) cornered the beast. Who cares if he is the one that delivered the coup de gras? He still has done the world a great service, and deserves our heart felt applause.

  13. Chris Crawford says

    “Let’s not forget that Nature Journal is a business.”

    Indeed so. And like any business, its value to its owners depends on a number of factors, but one of the most important factors to this journal is its reputation. Thus, the owners of Nature have powerful incentives to insure that the intellectual integrity of the journal is preserved. This alone provides strong assurances to the readership that the journal is behaving honestly. If the journal engages in dishonest behavior, then it risks being caught and having its dishonest behavior publicized — with concomitant destruction of its reputation and its financial value.

  14. Louis Hissink says

    Chris

    You seem unaware of the problems Steve McIntyre had with this journal in terms of data archiving etc.

    It’s an area of interest for me (I am on the Australian Inst. Geoscientists Complaints Committee) for corporate “mis-announcements” (to use a new lexical innovation invented by the chattering classes, “misspoke” being the more egregious example).

    I have a slight problem in accepting that the journal is behaving honestly – it can’t, its an inanimate object, so your comment has to be rejected for what it is – rhetorical baloney.

    (I am editor of the Aust. Inst. of Geoscientists Newsletter, so I have some experience in publishing scientific material).

  15. Chris Crawford says

    Louis Hissink writes:

    “You seem unaware of the problems Steve McIntyre had with this journal in terms of data archiving etc.”

    I’ve been following the story for some years now. Yes, he’s had real problems getting that data, not just from Briffa, but on other matters as well.

    “I have a slight problem in accepting that the journal is behaving honestly – it can’t, its an inanimate object, so your comment has to be rejected for what it is – rhetorical baloney.”

    C’mon, let’s be reasonable. If this really bothers you, I suggest that you simply go back through my comments and mentally substitute “the people who run Nature” for “Nature”. I am using a terminological shortcut that has been used and understood in the English language for hundreds of years.

  17. Marcus says

    Wonder no more Louis

    Chris maybe Chris, but Luke is alive and well on the previous thread as, “Trebble”!

    No mistake, unless he has a zoo full of monkeys trained specially by him!

  18. Louis Hissink says

    Marcus

    Oh thanks for that – this sudden increase in attention by the climate changers is interesting – but I haven’t spotted trebble’s comments yet – methinks there is trouble at the AGW palace.

  19. Louis Hissink says

    Knew I read it somewhere

    “Wikipedia had my birthdate in 1944. I corrected it to 1950. That stood for one day and then it was turned back. John Christy has told me he simply stopped putting in corrections because they were overwritten or disregarded.
    –Pat Michaels, CCNet, 23 July 2008”.

    And it was on this blog in the Benny Peiser quotes post.

    As of now the date is correct in Wikipedia?

  20. Chris Crawford says

    Yes, Louis, the date shown in Wikipedia is now February 15, 1950. Again, this demonstrates one of the great strengths of wikis — they can readily correct errors if people will only tell them.

  21. Chris Crawford says

    I just checked Wikipedia and Mr. Michaels has made false statements regarding the sequence of events at Wikipedia, as anybody can readily determine by reading the material at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels&dir=prev&offset=20061202123908&action=history

    You see, Wikipedia maintains a complete record of every single edit made to a change, so that controversies can be sorted out. If you examine the page to which I link, you will see that on 2 February, 2007, an edit was made changing the birthdate fro “(born c1942?)” to “(born 2/15/1950)” along with the comment “(It would be nice if you could get my birthdate even close! This says much about Wikipedia.)”. Nine hours later, an editor changed it to “(born February 15, 1950)” with the comment “(ok, change format and category)”. Mr. Michaels’ version of events is false.

  22. Eyrie says

    Oh right Chris Crawford, you can tell Wikipedia is right because a page maintained by them says so.

    Yet you dismiss the Oregon Petition, denigrate the signers, Steve McIntyre and Pat Michaels and show a touching faith in the IPCC and the science journals.

    Just another AGW troll.

    BTW the RF from clouds and water vapour you referred to on another thread shows that the IPCC doesn’t even know the sign let alone the magitude of it.

  23. Chris Crawford says

    Eyrie, I respect Steve McIntyre because I believe that he does good work. I ask that you substantiate your accusation with respect to him with a quote from my comments.

    My purpose with respect to the Oregon Petition is not to denigrate the signers but to denigrate the Petition. We really have no idea who those signers are, or if they have any credentials. I really don’t care about the individuals who may (or may not!) have signed it.

    I have not denigrated Mr. Michaels, I have demonstrated that his version of events is false.

    You accuse me of showing “a touching faith in the IPCC and the science journals.” I have confidence in these efforts because I know that the process under which they operate is pretty good at detecting errors and punishing deception.

    “Just another AGW troll.”

    Look, if you would prefer to talk about Chris Crawford rather than AGW, I could set up a FaceBook page where you could say all sorts of nasty things. But I’m not interested in that, and I very much doubt that any of the other readers really care a whit about me. Why don’t we talk science, not personalities?

    “BTW the RF from clouds and water vapour you referred to on another thread shows that the IPCC doesn’t even know the sign let alone the magitude of it”

    If you’d like to elaborate on the point about RF from clouds and water vapor, I’d be happy to discuss it with you. As currently phrased it doesn’t present a case.

  24. Ian Mott says

    Chris, your comments about the use of language are just a touch hackneyed given the millieu we are in. There comes a point in a discussion where the deliberate toning down of a message amounts to a substantial diminution of meaning. And the AGW discussion passed that point long ago.

    The fact is, there are few other words that accurately encapsulate the contempt that ordinary folk have for the likes of the staff at Nature or Science than “unprofessional lowlife scum”. To call them anything else is to seriously misrepresent their standing in our eyes.

    The fact that other less informed people may find such terminology a bit more emotive than they might use themselves does not constitute a case for discouraging others from using those terms.

    “By their deeds shall ye know them”.

    And for you to imply that because Steve Mc used a bit of sarcasm in his description of them (after the fact) to a wider audience then he must also have used it in direct correspondence with the culprits is drawing a very long bow indeed.

    Your comments have the unmistakable stench of an apologist, and they convince none but the gullible.