Category Archives: Jones et al 1998

Mike’s Nature trick

So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.

Jones et al 1998: Impact of New Versions

We keeping hearing the incantation from the Team that all the reconstructions on the Jesuit Index show a warmer modern than medieval period. I reported that I recently obtained a digital version of Grudd’s revised Tornetrask reconstruction and I’ve been anxious to test out its impact on the Jones et al 1998 reconstruction (together with […]

The Briffa-Osborn Variance Adjustment

UC inquired about the variance adjustment in Osborn et al (Dendrochronologia 1998), which is used in many Team publications. The number of series in many reconstructions declines as you go back in time. If you take an average of standardized series (the CVM method), the variance over an early time interval will be larger than […]

Juckes and the Divergence Problem

Juckes discusses the Divergence Problem as follows: Particular concerns have been raised about … the high latitude Eurasian trees (which have and anomalously low growth anomaly in the late 20th century — Tornetraesk, Fennoscandia, Yamal, Northern Urals in Table 1) No one has ever said that Yamal has an anomalously low growth anomaly in the […]

Polar Urals Update and Jones et al 1998

I showed a little while ago the impact of the Polar Urals update on the Briffa 2000 reconstruction – using it instead of the Yamal substitution resulted in an MWP index higher than the 20th century. Today I’ve done the same calculation for Jones et al 1998, this time substituting the Polar Urals update using […]

Making Hockey Sticks the Jones Way

I discussed Fisher’s Greenland dO!8 proxy yesterday and thought that it would be interesting to discuss its particular function in hockey stick manufacture in Jones et al 1998. Each hockey stick is, after all, made by a master craftsman. The Greenland dO18 is one of only 10 series in Jones et al 1998. Let’s see […]

More O.B. Confidential

Osborn and Briffa site chronologies differed from Esper site chronologies for 4 sites. Site chronologies can differ depending on the standardization method used; in order to analyze the effect, one needs to see the measurement data. Hundreds of measurement data sets have been archived at WDCP. The really weird thing is that the Hockey Team […]

Polar Urals Spaghetti Graph

I’ve got to get back to the NAS presentation and this will be my last post on Polar Urals and Yamal for a while, but it is all quite delicious. Anyway, here is a spaghetti graph of 3 Polar Urals results – including the results from Esper et al [2002] just disclosed by Science, all […]

Polar Urals: Briffa versus Esper

It’s interesting that the Hockey Team seems to be able to make spaghetti graphs of world temperature history when they can’t even arrive at a spaghetti graph for the Polar Urals. I posted up the difference between Briffa’s Yamal substitution and the updated Polar Urals ring widths. But before either one, there was Briffa’s Polar […]

Polar Urals “Grass Plot”

Here’s another look at Polar Urals using a “grass plot” showing cumulative ring width for individual trees against time. The trees plotted in black are from the original archive (russ021) and the ones plotted in red are form the 1998 update (russ176). This gives a little different viewpoint on variance stabilization issues. First, one of […]


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,882 other followers