Also the headpost puts the press release front and center, vice the paper front and center, as the object of interest. Why not give the citation for the paper?

And none of your commenters give the impression of having read the paper either (they’re not digging into the content). That was my simple point.

Looking forward to your insightful discussion of the paper (even if you don’t have the data) when you get time.

P.s. This is getting silly for both of us. No hard feelings. You may have the last word, bold-edited, Voice of God style into “my rectangle”, like Gavin at RC.

Steve: fair enough. Why would you assume that I hadn’t obtained a copy of the article? I’m working on other things right now, but will look at it in more detail in due course.

If you are not paying for a comprehensive literature package or using a university library, your ability to understand the field where you are doing work, will be highly negatively impacted.

Reading a paper instead of the press realease is like looking at the 10K. Yes, it is not as good as digging into the sales ledgers, but it’s far superior to relying on an earnings report. And takes a modicum of effort. Just go to SEC Edgar for the 10K. Go to the Toronto library for the paper. Basic stuff every grad student does.

P.s. My comment on geography was actually made without having read Rob’s. It’s just an example about how to think curiously about things. (And I’m not asserting that Kola is not dirrectly analagous to Yalta…just something to look at!)

Steve: articles are generally considered in exhaustive detail at this site, often with examination of original data if it is not withheld. I notice that you are replying here to your own post – so I presume that you are offering this sanctimonious advice to yourself.

For instance,

A. Divergence: If the rings were higher mid-century than recently, does that correspond to local temperature doing the same thing (or not)? I don’t know, but a curious objective person would want to check, vice just fitting it into the metanarrative as a “good study” unlike the “bad study” of Yamal.

B. How does this study correspond to the other two “good studies” or the “bad study” of Yamal? Are there reasonable explanations in terms of geography and/or biology to explain why the studies differ?

Note: I’m very OPEN to the possibility that Yamal was a “bad study”…and that if we keep doing more and more studies in Northern Europe, we’ll get more and more stakes through the heart (of Yamal). But we should just really check it out and make sure that this simple story is the best explanation. IOW, I “want” it to be true. but I know enough, to actually “pressure test” what I want and see if it holds up. If it survives “pressure testing” than it makes our case stronger. This approach of being self-critical is something that both sides need more of.

Steve: the measurement data doesn’t seem to be archived. This makes it hard to analyse.

eg.

WHERE ARE THE ERROR BARS ON THE GRAPH?

It certainly makes a fairly convincing reason NOT to use such atypical sites to create temperature proxies without a full and detailed understanding of the reasons for this anomalous growth pattern.

Since that is clearly lacking publishing anything claiming to be a temperature proxy seems very unscientific. (Although it may be a good means to attract grant money for next year!)

Trees on or near the tree line are by definition in stressed conditions. This will make them highly sensitive to certain changes in their environment.

That increased sensitivity will increase the experimental uncertainty on everything from the physical measurement of the ring widths, the assumed adjustment for age drying of the wood to the projection of width to temperature.

SO WHERE ARE THE ERROR BARS ON THE GRAPH?

Maybe someone grafted on the recent thermometer temperature record. ( I wish I was joking! )

Seriously, this is worth following up.

Either they don’t know the length of the data set (but your source seems clear and firm on that) or someone tampered with the graph to give the impression this is a 20 year trend and not just 10 years which would seem more likely.

You say the graph you posted on your blog came from the press release, could you link that?

If the source is directly attributable to UZF or Hohenhiem maybe you could ask Tilo Arnhold for a clarification.

Rob Wilson’s comment looks interesting, so I’m surprised there have been no responses. I’m bumping it before it gets hidden by the CA-Assistant setup