Post Washington, I was browsing through the turgid prose of Rutherford et al 2005 – which actually uses the original MBH98 data set (PC series and all) for nearly half their analysis, they also consider the mystery Briffa et al 2001 sites, which they also do not reveal. The SI says – contact Tim Osborn, which I’ve done with no success. I might as well be talking to a wall – a stone wall.
Mann has used this article to support the claim that he can "get" a HS without PC analyses. Of course, the reason for using PC methods in the first place was to achieve geographical balance – otherwise, people might have been worried that the reconstruction was being overwhelmed by southwest U.S. tree ring data and merely be a local effect. Abandoning PC methods without an alternative summarization allows the bristlecones to dominate the reconstruction through the back door.
Rutherford et al 2005 shows a reconstruction without PCs, which was presented to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I thought that it would be interesting to compare this to the other reconstructions and, in doing so, noticed something interesting. BTW Jean S has written me offline showing a number of very bizarre and unsupportable aspects of Rutherford et al 2005, which we will pursue, but he’s on holiday and offline for 4 weeks.
The following image plots 4 series from the archived data for Rutherford et al 2005 – combinedannfullnh.txt, multiproxyannfullnh.txt, multiproxypcannfullnh.txt, mxdannfullnh.txt. As you see, the series from 1856 on have a remarkably similar shape; their correlation is exact and, indeed, their values are identical, despite using 4 different data sets. I think that it is a reasonable assumption that all 4 series have grafted instrumental and reconstruction information. Similar results apply to all 15 archived series for Rutherford et al. 2005. The Team are such pranksters.
Figure 1 – plot of 4 reconstructions from Rutherford et al 2005 archived. Red – after 1856.
If one consults Figure 2 of the original article shown below, the red in the above diagram looks identical to the grey instrumental series.
Figure 2 – Figure 2 from Rutherford et al 2005.
Rutherford et al 2005 involved two key lines on the Hockey Team and so the following have archived a graft of instrumental and reconstruction data: Crowley, Rutherford, Mann,Bradley, Hughes, Jones, Briffa and Osboen.
Remember the following Mannian comment at realclimate:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
I pointed out such a "graft" for the Crowley reconstruction here. Re-stating Mann’s comment above, would it would be more accurate to say the following? Many of the most prominent researchers in this field have, on occasion, "grafted the thermometer record onto" a reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find the specious claim otherwise (which we usually find originating from the realclimate disinformation website).
Some More Observations
In the top figure, the archived MXD and combined versions, although identical to the MBH98 (pc and all) versions after 1856 don’t end at the same time. The MXD and combined versions end in 1960! (the others end in 1971.) The closing values of the combined reconstruction is around 0 – it does not end on an uptick. The reason for the 1960 termination is the Divergence Problem in Briffa’s MXD series. It trends down after 1960, so it is truncated in most spaghetti diagrams after 1960. Dendroclimatic explanations of the Divergence Factor do not rise above a cargo cult- type of explanation as I’ve posted previously in some detail. Curiously, Rutherford et al inadvertently illustrate the Divergence Problem in a later figure, but do not discuss it.
From Rutherford et al 2005.
When I plotted up the warm-season reconstructions that were archived, I noticed another interesting feature shown below.
Figure 4 – plotted from archived versions at Rutherford et al 2005.
As you see, the post-1856 values are identical in all three reconstructions, but a couple of the series are truncated early. I presume that this is because they didn’t like the results for some reason.