Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.
Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.
The catch, discovered by Mc Intyre (visit Cimate Audit), is that scientists just choose the figures from a chronology of tree rings located in the Yamal Peninsula. However, there is a chronology for that area much more extensive , known as the chronology of Schweingruber.
Including the trees of previous datasets in Yamal, climate reconstruction showed a new hockey stick. However, using the chronology of Schweingruber, much more extensive and complete, it is shown that the sharp rise in Arctic temperatures during the twentieth century completely disappears. It all depends on the timing system used in Yamal (in red) or in Schweingruber (blank).
The differences are even clearer if we analyze the evolution of temperatures from 1850: the Yamal data in red, black Schweingruber data.
That is, the report published in Science is false, as the authors have carefully selected the trees of a certain subgroup of more comprehensive data, identifying only those that showed soaring temperatures and discarding the rest.
The controversy has been included in many publications such as American Thinker, Financial Post, Examiner and National Post, among others.
No comments:
Post a Comment