Moberg et al. [2005]

I’ve heard rumors that a new reconstruction from Moberg et al. is about to be published in Nature and it looks like it’s going to be more bad news for Mann et al. Here is a clip from a PDF posted up by Moberg in October 2004, but obviously not incorporated into the spaghetti diagrams of Mann, Briffa etc. It sure looks like a MWP and LIA to me.

Mober Reconstruction from 2004 PDf


  1. John A.
    Posted Feb 9, 2005 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    Actually the next picture on that paper is the really compelling one, showing nicely the MWP and Little Ice Age as well as the current warm period.

    Mann et al., have an explanation for all of this. Apparently “the MWP and LIA only appear in the North Atlantic region”.

  2. Tom Rees
    Posted Feb 11, 2005 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    The reason that this is not incorporated into the spaghetti diagrams is that these are data from the ECHO-G climate model. By spooky coincidence, they look rather like the dat from Crowley and of Moberg…

  3. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 11, 2005 at 12:09 PM | Permalink

    Tom, you’re right that this is from Echo-G. One of Mann’s spaghetti diagrams (EOS 2003) had model outputs and didn’t put this model in. (I don’t know whether it was available then.

    An Exho-G version is in the Moberg article as Figure 2c, but it’s different than the above version: the Moberg version has late 20th century going higher than the MWP maximum, while the October 2004 version has a higher MWP than late 20th century: I wonder what caused the difference.

    The relationship between MWP and late 20th century is interesting in other multiproxy studies: if you look at my Crowley note, you’ll see that his 15-series version has a higher MWP than 20th, but his 13-series version does not. So he nearly always uses his 13-series version: what would you bet that, if the relationships were reversed, he would have used the 15-series version. We know the answer. Steve

  4. TCO
    Posted Oct 7, 2006 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

    I really don’t understand what makes this Nature-worthy other then a general fascination with climate change and an overdramatization of a small and nascent field, by that organ. This reconstruction for all the blathering about wavelets and combining centenial proxies only has 11 proxies. It’s like another Crowley or Hegerly pick a basket of daisies and publish a paper in Nature. MBH for all its faults, at least had some promise with it’s large data set size to have been a superior study. But why, Moberg?

  5. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 7, 2006 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    #4. Bingo

%d bloggers like this: