Osborn Finally Identifies MXD Sites

A miracle has occurred. Osborn has provided identification of the sites used in the various Osborn and Briffa MXD studies. See his webpage here. He notified Craig Loehle and I today. These use various subsets of the large Schweingruber collection made in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They only cover the period after 1400, but are important for the divergence problem. This is the study that was truncated after 1960 in IPCC TAR.

This entry was written by Stephen McIntyre, posted on Dec 1, 2006 at 11:23 AM, filed under General. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. JerryB
    Posted Dec 1, 2006 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

    Steve, congratulations.

  2. Pat Frank
    Posted Dec 1, 2006 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    My congratulations as well, Steve. It’s been a hard slog for you.

    Now we’ll all know in detail why the IPCC truncated the study. I remember your post on that. It was very compelling demonstration of, not to say evidence of, frau… ummm, ends-justified data restructuring. What I’d like to know now is, who in the IPCC truncated that study, and what group of people made the decision to truncate it? Dr. Houghton, an explanation if you please?

    Also, out of interest, what is Craig Loehle’s interest? He’s the guy who did the curve fitting analyses of the Sargasso Sea and the South African spleogram, that produced the empirical prediction of a global cooling trend, soon to start. The recent flat temperature profile could look like the top of the warming curve in that context, heading toward a negative slope. Anyway, what’s he doing with the Osborn proxies — do you know?

  3. bender
    Posted Dec 1, 2006 at 1:29 PM | Permalink

    ends-justified data restructuring = LOL

  4. John A
    Posted Dec 1, 2006 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    Quick! Someone rush outside and see if the seas are boiling and the sun and moon have turned blood red!

  5. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Dec 1, 2006 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    RE: #4 – Well, according the RC, the sky is falling. That’s right, according to them, stratospheric cooling is supposedly causing the altitudes of the overlying ionospheric layers to lower. I wonder if they used radar to measure that? Or perhaps, some sort of proxy? 😉

    Well in any case, I expect Art Bell and Whitley Strieber to be proven to be the true seers they never got credit for being in the past. Downbursts directly from the stratosphere are a near certainty, then it will be the day after tomorrow. /sarc

  6. Luboš Motl
    Posted Dec 2, 2006 at 12:09 AM | Permalink

    If Proxy had a name, what would it be
    And would you call it to his face
    If you were faced with him in all his glory
    What would you ask if you had just one question

    And yeah yeah Warming is great yeah yeah Warming is good
    yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

    What if Proxy was one of us
    Just a slob like one of us
    Just a stranger on the bus
    Trying to make his way home

    … Oh, sorry, this is Osbourne, not Osborn, but I couldn’t resist.

  7. per
    Posted Dec 2, 2006 at 3:54 AM | Permalink

    I think this is good news, and congratulate Osborn on making these data available. maybe this will be the start of a trend 🙂

    cheers
    per

  8. Hans Erren
    Posted Dec 2, 2006 at 4:10 AM | Permalink

    an unprecedented trend. 😀

%d bloggers like this: