Readers of this blog are familiar with the Yamal subsitution. Briefly, Briffa et al 1995 reported in Nature that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium based on no more than 3 poorly dated and short cores in the 11th century.
Subsequently new cores were dated to the 11th century by Schweingruber, resulting in the opposite situation – a very warm 11th century. Instead of reporting the new information, Keith Briffa in Briffa 2000 seamlessly inserted another site – Yamal – over 100 km away – indeed this site is sometimes denoted “Polar Urals” – without reporting the “bad” results from the Polar Urals.
However, Esper didn’t get the memo and used the Polar Urals update in his 2002 reconstruction. This resulted in a rather elevated MWP in Esper, which he attempted to “solve” by using not one but two foxtail sites to lower the MWP.
By itself, using the Polar Urals Update, instead of the Yamla substitution, gives a high MWP to (say) the Briffa 2000 reconstruction. So how did the Euro Hockey Team grasp this particular nettle? Here’s what they say:
the Polar Urals data of ECS2002 [Esper], MBH1999 and the Tornetraesk data of MSH2005 [Moberg] have been omitted in favour of data from the same sites used by JBB1998 and ECS2002, respectively (i.e. taking the first used series in each case).
In what other field would people use the older data instead of the newer data? The audacity of the Team in moving the pea under the thimble is sometimes breathtaking.
But even this doesn’t do justice to the schmozzle in these two sites where the gang that can’t shoot straight has managed to pin down the geographical location of Tornetrask to between 58 and 68N and 15 and 23E, getting it in three different countries.
Team Table 1 lists 4 different versions of Tornetrask under different alter egos. The following 4 series all include the same locations:
#11 “Northern Norway” of Hegerl et al, ascribed lat-long of 65N, 15E is actually Tornetrask !?!.
#6 “Tornetraesk (Sweden)” of Moberg ascribed lat-long of 58N, 21E is Tornetrask
#17 “Tornetraesk Sweden” of Esper also ascribed lat-long of 58N, 21E is Tornetrask. This version is used in the All-Star reconstruction.
#19 “Fennoscandia” of Jones et al 1998 and MBH, ascribed lat-long of 68N, 23E is also Tornetrask. This near-duplicate version is also used in the All-Star reconstruction.
Thus, we have a range of estimates for the location of Tornetrask going from 58 to 68N and from 15E to 23E. The “oldest” version of these is the version in MBH/Jones et al 1998. But in this case they additionally use the Esper version, making two versions used from this site. The Moberg version appears to be the Briffa 2000 version. These are supposed to be “independent” series.
Team Table 1 lists also list 4 versions from the Polar Urals area.
#21 “Northern Urals” of Jones et al 1998, ascribed lat-long of 66N, 65E (correctly), is used in the All-Star reconstruction. This version is also used in MBH99. However the Team incorrectly says that MBH used the version of Esper et al.
#5. “Polar Urals” ascribed to both Esper et al and MBH, lat,long 65N, 67E. The two studies have different versions. The Esper version is the update with high MWP and is definitely not used in the All-Star reconstruction.
#20. “Yamal” is from Moberg et al, following Briffa 2000. This has a marked HS-shape and is used.
#10. “Western Siberia” from Hegerl et al, ascribed a lat-long of 60N, 60E (?!) can be approximated by averaging scaled versions the Esper Polar Urals version and the Yamal series. Mangazeja is also supposed to be used and some other still unspecified sites. The inclusion of the Polar Urals update gives a certain HS-ness to this series – which is not used.
1) why would they use two different versions of both Tornetrask and Urals? (Or for that matter 2 foxtail series plus 2 bristlecone series?) This is out of only 18 series.
2) If they used the Tornestrask version in Esper in addition to the Tornetrask version in MBH/Jones, why didn’t they do the same thing with Polar Urals? (You know the answer to that one.)
3) Did they ever do any runs using the Esper Polar Urals update before deciding not to use it? If so, what were the results of these runs?