Before we get started, I have to make a disclaimer. I'm not a climatologist. I haven't read the tree ring construction papers McIntyre criticizes, nor have I read his detailed critiques. I can't argue the merits of using one method of climate reconstruction from tree rings versus another. I can argue that Mr. McIntyre doesn't seem to be following normal scientific practice in "publishing" his critiques.
Whew! Now that that's over. Let's get down to business.
Earlier this week Andy Revkin at DotEarth reported about recent exchanges between McIntyre and several climate scientists including Thomas Crowley, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, and the folks at RealClimate.org. Here's a brief description of the controversy (see McIntyre's post and RealClimate's response for details).
McIntyre regularly challenges the broad scientific consensus reflected in the 4th IPCC report that recent warming of the earth's climate is unusual. In the post linked to above, he challenges a particular data set used for reconstructing climate history -- tree ring data from nortwhestern Siberia, the Yamal data set. McIntyre burrowed into the details of the data set and found what he claims are large inconsistencies. He further claims that climate reconstructions depending on the Yamal data set are not robust and could be misleading.
The folks at RealClimate.org have a detailed response. They argue, among other things, that McIntyre's claim of inconsistencies is flawed and that even if the Yamal data set were flawed, paleoclimate reconstructions depend on several different proxies and the likelihood that errors in any one of them would have a large impact is small.
Fine. Sounds like a normal scientific controversy doesn't? Well, it would be, except that it's all playing out in the blogosphere, not in scientific journals. Why does that matter?
Whew! Now that that's over. Let's get down to business.
Earlier this week Andy Revkin at DotEarth reported about recent exchanges between McIntyre and several climate scientists including Thomas Crowley, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, and the folks at RealClimate.org. Here's a brief description of the controversy (see McIntyre's post and RealClimate's response for details).
McIntyre regularly challenges the broad scientific consensus reflected in the 4th IPCC report that recent warming of the earth's climate is unusual. In the post linked to above, he challenges a particular data set used for reconstructing climate history -- tree ring data from nortwhestern Siberia, the Yamal data set. McIntyre burrowed into the details of the data set and found what he claims are large inconsistencies. He further claims that climate reconstructions depending on the Yamal data set are not robust and could be misleading.
The folks at RealClimate.org have a detailed response. They argue, among other things, that McIntyre's claim of inconsistencies is flawed and that even if the Yamal data set were flawed, paleoclimate reconstructions depend on several different proxies and the likelihood that errors in any one of them would have a large impact is small.
Fine. Sounds like a normal scientific controversy doesn't? Well, it would be, except that it's all playing out in the blogosphere, not in scientific journals. Why does that matter?
Continue reading Stephen McIntyre, tree rings, and peer review.
