Category Archives: Yamal and Urals

Krummholz and the Yamal Chronology

Just before Climategate, we were reflecting on the apparent non-”robustness” of the Yamal chronology to inclusion of Khadyta data. Briffa’s response was that he could still “get” a HS by adding in Yadoyayakha and Porzayakha ring width data that hadn’t been used in Briffa (2000). As noted in other posts, Khadyta isn’t the only site […]

Yamal Aerial Photo

Here’s a Gazprom aerial photo which illustrates this better than 1000 words. (Yamal is the location of some huge Gazprom natural gas fields.) From the colors, I presume that the picture is taken in fall as the larch have changed color. Spruce do not appear to be in evidence here – they have a more […]

Yamal and the Decline

Contrary to a myth believed in by the climate science “community”, most recent multiproxy reconstructions are not “independent” – they merely recycle the same stereotypes with slightly different weighting methods. In an email (1140039406.txt) in which Briffa urges Overpeck not not to “over egg the pudding”, he stated: “Peck, you have to consider that since […]

What Happened to Polar Urals?

Addiction of paleoclimate reconstructions to particular proxies has been a longstanding concern at Climate Audit. One of the battleground issues has been the addiction to Briffa’s Yamal tree ring series, while the nearby update of Polar Urals (with a pronounced MWP) was disappeared. (See CA category.) Just before Climategate, we raised questions about the Yamal […]

Difference in Yamal Versions “Not Insignificant”

In July 2003, Tim Osborn advised Tom Crowley that there were multiple versions of Yamal (and Tornetrask) and that he needed to contact Briffa prior to using: The other files are “tornad.rcs” and “yamal.rcs” which are RCS-standardised tree-ring width series. I would really strongly suggest that you contact Keith Briffa about exactly what these series […]

Is Yamal Homogeneous? An Esper-Style Answer.

Starting with the first of my recent posts on Yamal, I raised the issue of whether the CRU 12 actually came from a homogeneous population to the subfossil population. Although Briffa’s online response to my Yamal posts stated that CRU has “stressed” potential problems arising from “inhomogeneous” sources” in their “published work”, I have been […]

RCS Homogeneity- Esper in Jaemtland

Starting with the first of my recent posts on Yamal, I raised the issue of whether the CRU 12 actually came from a homogeneous population to the subfossil population. This issue was related to the surprisingly small sample size of the supposedly “highly replicated” Yamal chronology, but is distinct. In his online response to Yamal […]

Devi et al 2009

See comments introducing this extremely interesting article. UPDATE: Since some readers are having routing issues downloading/reading this Devi et al paper, I have mirrored it here (PDF) for your convenience. – Anthony

Taimyr and Yamal Location Maps

The following two Google maps show Taimyr and Yamal on consistent scales, together with Schweingruber sites in the area. The Taimyr chronology in Briffa 2000, as you may recall, not only didn’t have HS, but had a notable divergence problem. I’ve tried to accurately transcribe onto this location map the Naurzbaev 2002 sites (subfossil – […]

Core Count in Phil Trans B

The Yamal reconstruction was introduced in Briffa 2000, a survey paper that did not include elementary information like core counts. As a result, users of the Briffa 2000 Yamal reconstruction (including Mann and Jones 2003, Moberg 2005, Hegerl 2007; D’Arrigo 2006, IPCC 2007, etc…) used it without any knowledge that the core counts did not […]


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,882 other followers