Unreported by CRU is that they’ve resiled from the Yamal superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and now advocate a Yamal chronology, the modern portion of which is remarkably similar to the calculations in my posts of September 2009 here and May 2012 here, both of which were reviled by Real Climate at the time.
In today’s post, I’ll demonstrate the degree to which the new Briffa version has departed from the superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and the surprising degree to which it approaches versions shown at CA.
First here is a comparison from CA in Sep 2009 here of the Briffa 2008 superstick to a version that simply incorporated Schweingruber’s Khadyta River data, applying the method used by Briffa for Taimyr in Briffa et al 2008. Real Climate screeched in fury against this comparison.
Figure 1. Comparison of Briffa et al 2008 version to green (sensitivity) chronology in CA post https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/. Converted to z-scores.
In May 2012, I did a quick calculation incorporating more recent Hantemirov data, showing that the resulting modern portion was remarkably similar (TM-climate science) to the green chronology of my September 2009 and had an almost identical discrepancy to the Briffa et al superstick. For reasons that remain unclear, Hantemirov objected to the calculation (see comments within post) and, once again, Real Climate screeched in fury. [Note July 2- the screeching at RC in response to my Hantemirov post occurred in comments (see page 4 on) to their Yamal post of May 11, which chronologically was screeching in fury at my post of May 6 about regional reconstructions.) The figure below compares the Briffa superstick to the CA calculation of May 2012.
Figure 2. Comparison of Briffa et al 2008 superstick to CA sensitivity version of May 2012: https://climateaudit.org/2012/05/15/new-data-from-hantemirov/. Converted to z-scores.
Briffa et al 2013 report a new Yamal chronology (see SI here – look for yamal_trw). Below is a comparison of this new chronology to the Briffa et al 2008 superstick. Observant readers will note a remarkable similarity (TM-climate science) to the above comparisons to previous CA calculations.
Figure 3. Comparison of Briffa et al 2008 superstick to yamal_trw chronology of Briffa et al 2013. Both in z-scores.
For further reassurance to readers of the similarity of the three versions, the next graphic shows the two CA calculations that had been so reviled by CRU and Real Climate (the green chronology of Sept 2009 and the May 2012 calculation with updated information from Hantemirov). I think that I’m entitled to observe that the B13 chronology is more similar to the two reviled CA calculations than it is to the Briffa et al 2008 superstick. Needless to say, this was not reported in CRU’s recent Real Climate article.
Figure 4. Comparison of B13 Yamal chronology to CA calculations.
Update (June 29): For comparison, here is an excerpt from RC Figure 2a on which I’ve plotted the versions used in the above post. In my comparisons above, I compared the most recent Yamal reconstruction (Briffa et al 2008) to the new version. The 2008 version is shown in red: it is somewhat more supersticked than the 2000 version, which CRU and Realclimate showed in their comparison (overplotted in yellow) and which has less difference to the 2013 version.
Figure 5. Annotation of excerpt of RC Figure 2a, showing 2000 and 2008 versions.
Below is an annotation of their Figure 2b, where, as too often, one has to watch the pea. They describe this figure as follows:
Figure 2b compares the new Yamalia chronology with two alternative chronologies heavily promoted by McIntyre and others – the so-called Polar Urals “update” chronology and a Yamal chronology using modern samples from the Khadyta River site.
On their Figure 2b, I’ve also overlaid the Briffa 2008 chronology (red) and the green chronology of my original post in September 2009 (also shown in the first figure above.) In my original post, I also showed a variation using Schweingruber’s Khadyta River without the YAD-12. In their Figure 2b, CRU selected the latter variation and made the fabricated assertion that I had “heavily promoted” this latter variation – conspicuously providing no reference to any such “heavy promotion” on my part. I am unaware of any “heavy promotion” on my part of the variation illustrated in Real Climate Figure 2b. To my recollection, I showed this variation only in one Climate Audit post in September 2009. I did not cite it in submissions to the Muir Russell panel. Nor did I cite in my May 2012 revisiting of the topic, where I showed the green chronology of my Sept 2009 post.
Figure 6. ANnotation of Real Climate Figure 2b, in which I’ve overlaid Briffa 2008 (red) – not shown by CRU in this figure, and the green sensitivity of my September 2009 blogpost – also not shown by CRU in this figure.
Climate Audit 
102 Comments
@Steve McIntyre
From Fig. 4 above:
it’s quite obvious that in 2009 and again in 2011, you shamelessly plagiarised Briffa 2013
Easily the worst sin in the academic book, run a close second only by disrupting the space-time continuum in order to perform the plagiarism
Excellent.
“Pre-plagiarism” or perhaps it should be “Anticipatory plagiarism” – which is when you publish something before the “approved author” has even thought about it.
(It reminds me of the concept of “anticipatory bail” in India. Under Indian criminal law, there is a provision for anticipatory bail which allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.).
It’s a sort of antidote to “Retrospective Prediction”!
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/climate-science-reduced-to-retrospective-predictions/
Agreed ianl8888. What I want to know is where Steve McIntyre got the Delorean to pull it off
Obviously Steve used the TARDIS.
Nah, Steve is Supervisory Agent 194.
The irony is of course that the demonstration that a regional reconstruction is valid takes effort, and needs to be properly documented. That requires a paper in the technical literature and the only way for Briffa et al to now defend themselves against McIntyre’s accusations is to publish that paper (which one can guarantee will have different results to what McIntyre has thrown together).
by Gavin, the Skeptics’ BFF
Steve: the screeching at RC in response to my Hantemirov post occurred in comments (see page 4 on) to their Yamal post of May 11, which chronologically was screeching in fury at my post of May 6 about regional reconstructions.
“…which one can guarantee will have different results to what McIntyre has thrown together.”
Awesome!
🙂
So, has anyone tweeted a reminder to the twit? Yeah, and such a qualified candidate for Hansen’s position. Climate science really is unique in its general lack of professionlism and, more importantly, competence.
Mark
The irony is of course that the demonstration that a regional reconstruction is valid takes effort, and needs to be properly documented. That requires a paper in the technical literature and the only way for Briffa et al to now defend themselves against McIntyre’s accusations is to publish that paper (which one can guarantee will have different results to what McIntyre has thrown together).
I’m sure Gav will be over to own up to this failed guarantee soon. Not so sure that I’m holding my breath, but…
Either McIntyre “throws together” with particular finesse, or what CRU does is simply “throwing together” also–take your pick.
@ianl888
To prevent this from happening again, we need to establish a Pre-plagiarism Crimes unit, complete with a minority report!
Good show Steve! Satisfying personally, but will not be acknowledged by screechers.
With the grasp of all things technical that climate science (TM) “gurus” have, I’m sure they have resolved that flux capacitor problem already.
Mark
That was solved by the capacitive diractance of the retro encabulator.
my head hurts after that video…
I had forgotten about this video.
A classic.
How did this guy keep a straight face through all of that? I think I’m going to be suffering from strained rib cage for a week now. Presumably this is the machine the AGW people are using in their modeling.
“Conn, Sonar; Crazy Ivan!”
It was done independently while watching the Stanley Cup.
It would appear some congratulations are in order.
Thanks for sticking it to them, Steve.
RTF
Big oil obviously paid off the CRU to sabotage their own work… 🙂
Due respect, your results (and code) were only posted on a blog. The team are Real Scientists and they couldn’t be expected to notice. As you know they’ve been working on this for years and it seems patently obvious that they arrived at their similar but superior results independent of and several minutes prior to your posts.
Making wild eyed assumptions for a moment, even if they didn’t beat you to these results their results are reproducible using code that you have in your possession. You’ve been demanding the code for years, indeed you’ve been suggesting that they migrate to R. Your demands have been realized and yet you continue to criticize.
Yes, its not proper climate science if you publish method and data;.
Um, but they did notice, and Gavin even noted that these results would be different. This is an own goal if ever there was one. Comment fail.
Mark
Oh, and though I do not know if Steve tried to publish his work, given the RC response back then, which consists of the pool from which reviewers would have been drawn, they would have rejected it. Same basic results, different author, but this one is accepted. Double fail.
Mark
It was rather apparent that Briffa and Melvin where backing down from uber hockey sticks in their recent publication. More critical to the entire TR temperature reconstruction enterprise was the accompanying comment to the effect that these TR chronologies were a work in progress which one might say was chronicling that there are more adjustments to come. Interesting that comments from those who have staked much on the TR temperature reconstructions as evidence of the recent warming being unprecedented have not been forthcoming or at least that I have been able to detect.
I also judge that when pointing to these problems, which were bound to arise given the underlying weaknesses in not using an a prior selection criteria and then subsequently using all the data in construction of a temperature reconstruction, it is very important to go back to the basics and point out the basic errors instead of spending a lot of time arguing about the results of that error.
Briffa did update his 2009 response:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
“Update: 14 June 2013. Our most recent work in this area has now been published in the peer-reviewed literature (Briffa et al., 2013; Quaternary Science Reviews) and interested readers should refer to that. The paper, together with supporting data and software, are freely available from our website.”
It would be nice to see more updating like that.
Well done, Steve! Being right isn’t always popular. Take several well deserved bows.
The role of Real Climate will be represented by Murray…
Is it valid to look at those lines and get a degrees C increase in temperature over the last 170 years?
How does that information (temperature increase) interact with the CO2 rise over the same time period?
Are these useful questions, or am I missing something fundamental?
IMO, you are correct. Linear, variance based extraction methods do not play well with correlated, non-linear sources. Nobody seems to care, so we get a repeated barrage of recontructions of who knows what.
Mark
BTW did anyone else think we should have gotten a graph from Steve (who again has done a tremendous job here, and we all thank him) with all four plots together? Seems like that would really be the money graph, because Briffa 2009 really stands out, while everything else looks pretty similar.
It’s good to see the data beginning to be real, in terms of what the tree rings are showing.
I notice that the 1930s are some of the lowest points on the graph shown. That is pretty opposed to what the USA history shows.
And yes, I know: Just like weather isn’t climate, the USA climate isn’t world climate.
But I am going to point out that neither is Yamal climate the same as world climate, either. If we can’t extrapolate from the USA to the rest of the world (which I agree with), then extrapolating from Yamal to the rest of the world isn’t correct, either. And yet, isn’t that fundamentally and precisely what has been being done with all of this?
Aren’t all these trees (whichever ones can be agreed upon) extrapolating world climate from tree rings in one corner of the world? I have a problem with that – especially when the period measured best in the 1930s (the USA) shows the opposite.
It sure as heck doesn’t help when the area isn’t even as big as the USA – yet every time anyone mentions the USA (that best-measured region) the forst thing out of everyone’s mouths is, “Yeah, but you can’t use that; it is only the USA, and not the whole world.”
I don’t see how they can have it both ways.
If thermometers in an area the size of the USA can’t be extrapolated to the whole world, then tree ring widths in Yamal and/or the Polar Urals and/or Taimyr can’t be, either.
@ Steve Garcia. The graphs are simply a numbers exercise. Perennials don’t have the capacity to tell us what the temps were in a specific time frame. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/why-are-dendro-shafts-so-straight/
The information provided and link (old study) should be enough to understand. I’m sorry I’d go into greater detail, but, I’ve had too many. But, what the rings are showing is likely a conflation of about 30 or 40 years.
There is no validity in a tree ring study, at least to a decadal resolution. It just can’t do it.
As suyts says – there is no validity in a tree ring study. They simply cannot be used to determine past temperatures because there are too many other factors, esp. rain, and the relationship between growth and temperature is not monotonic (too hot -> slower growth, too cold -> slower growth).
“We can nonetheless look forward to more of these episodes, mainly because they serve their purpose so well.” ~Gavin
Hmmm… those teeth x-rays clearly show the red ones in urgent need of extracting but that will necessarily be a slow and painful process by the looks.
“McIntyre’s sensitivity analysis has little implication, either for the interpretation of the Yamal chronology or for other proxy studies that make use of it. ”
Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
And then there’s this comment from Tim Osborne over at RealKlimate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/comment-page-2/#comment-385030
Where Dr. Tim shows how the original criticisms of the use of YAD061 were rather….significant.
jeez – somebody ought save a copy of this http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/img/keep/yamal2008_yad061.png and distribute it at every “climate change” debate to show what kind of abysmally bad pseudoscientific garbage used to come out of CRU.
ps One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!!
I’ve saved it.
ps One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!! One fracking tree!!
Well done Steve, it will be interesting to see how Gavin et al will bluster their way out of this.
Steve, do you not find it somewhat … well … alarming that neither in this thread nor that of your previous post, has the indefatigable defender of the indefensible (aka Nick Stokes) chosen to grace us with the presence of his perpetual peregrinations of the implausible kind?
It may be entirely coincidence; but, then again, surely it is within the realm of possibility that he could conjure up no “argument” to surpass those contained in Osborn’s (attempted) thimble-escaping peas ‘n pleas!
Yet, I don’t doubt for a moment that Stokes may well have been somewhat dismayed by Ian8888’s “scoop” in which he commented on your (teleconnected?!) back-to-the-future “2009 [and] 2011 … [shameless plagiarizing of] Briffa 2013”;-)
Please don’t say his name 3 times, he’ll appear and derailment will occur…
Any bets that any links to this dropped into SurrealClimate won’t ever appear?
I’m testing this hypothesis now.
Ok, Ok, gotta do one more. In his reply to Steve McIntyre over at Realtired, Osborn said:
” It is also unfortunate that you fail to acknowledge that Briffa et al. (2013) was based on a significantly increased set of tree-ring data for the adjacent Polar Urals and Yamal regions, with overall replication that is much improved over previous work.” –Tim Osborn
Seems that Tim is missing the point that Steve’s earlier reconstructions were doing exactly that–using a larger data set to see what happens.
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; in this instance greatly deserved.
“I think that I’m entitled to observe that the B13 chronology is more similar to the two reviled CA calculations than it is to the Briffa et al 2008 superstick.”
Very nicely put – I think you probably are.. 🙂
I’m not sure the Team ‘do’ understatement, though, so it will probably be lost on them – like a lot of things.
Reblogged this on Climate Daily.
Science is a harsh mistress! Your work and persistent efforts are great examples to all young scientists. Thank You.
Over to you Nick (Stokes) 🙂
Here is an email I sent to Briffa back in 2009- and Jones advice.
Quite ironic.
From: Keiller, Donald
Sent: 02 October 2009 10:34
To: ‘ k.briffa@uea.ac.uk’
Cc: ‘ p.jones@uea.ac.uk’
Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly since I hear that you are unwell. However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers.
As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009). As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of “teleconnection” by which certain trees respond to the “Global Temperature Field”, rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner.
Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.
As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science.
There is a saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller.
date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009
from: Phil Jonessubject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
to: k.briffa@ xxxxx
Keith,
There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this
person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.
You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now.
This is what happens – they just keep moving the goalposts.
Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.
Cheers
Phil
I suspect that this post, or one in the near future, may be the Swan Song of one S. MacIntyre. If there is no Hockey Stick — what possible interest could tree rings be to Canadians?
Or. perhaps we could move on to the study of Hickory Trees — they make decent Hockey Sticks — anyone acquainted with the Wood Engineering Handbook can confirm that.
Real Climate:
So blinded by their own egos, they can’t see the forest for the tree!
I hope Revkin is paying attention. This deserves more attention than it’s going to get. Plus, it’ll be interesting to see what kind of hand-waiving is going to be the official reason why this should be ignored.
Mike aka Sonicfrog.
A stunning post, Mr. McIntyre. I am sure the screeching will soon resume, however.
The lack of credit to following Steve M’s lead is not the surprising part. The fact that they put something out there that is so flat is shocking. Natural variability is certainly now a plausible explanation for the meager warming slope in Briffa 2013’s Yamal chronology.
No doubt someone will claim that this “doesn’t matter” (TM) as it only affects the recent instrumental period. /sarc
Well done Steve.
Despite the sarcasm…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/comment-page-1/#comment-344650
”
Ray Ladbury says:
…
Do you really want to bet the future of human civilization on a single study of a single proxy–especially when there is a whole helluva lot of science out there that suggests the situation is a whole lot more grave even than that portrayed in the IPCC summaries?”
Not quite “doesn’t matter”, but “remarkably similar” (TM Climb-at Seance)
For comparison, here is an excerpt from RC Figure 2a on which I’ve plotted the versions used in the above post. In my comparisons above, I compared the most recent Yamal reconstruction (Briffa et al 2008) to the new version. The 2008 version is shown in red: it is somewhat more supersticked than the 2000 version, which CRU and Realclimate showed in their comparison (overplotted in yellow) and which has less difference to the 2013 version.
Figure 5. Annotation of excerpt of RC Figure 2a, showing 2000 and 2008 versions.
I noticed over at RC they overlaid the instrumental temperatures on top of the new study to demonstrate good agreement. Had they done that with Briffa 2008 maybe they would have seen a problem. Or maybe they did and didn’t see the problem.
Anyway, very well done Steve!
Tenacity personified. Congratulations Steve.
Below is an annotation of their Figure 2b, where, as too often, one has to watch the pea. They describe this figure as follows:
On their Figure 2b, I’ve also overlaid the Briffa 2008 chronology (red) and the green chronology of my original post in September 2009 (also shown in the first figure above.) In my original post, I also showed a variation using Schweingruber’s Khadyta River without the YAD-12. In their Figure 2b, CRU selected the latter variation and made the fabricated assertion that I had “heavily promoted” this latter variation – conspicuously providing no reference to any such “heavy promotion” on my part. I am unaware of any “heavy promotion” on my part of the variation illustrated in Real Climate Figure 2b. To my recollection, I showed this variation only in one Climate Audit post in September 2009. I did not cite it in submissions to the Muir Russell panel. Nor did I cite in my May 2012 revisiting of the topic, where I showed the green chronology of my Sept 2009 post.
Figure 6. Annotation of RC Figure 2b. RC did not show Briffa 2008 version (red) or the green chronology shown in my Sept 2009 post (green).
I hadn’t realized until now (no one else noticed either it seems) that Tim Osborn showed up on the old “Yamal Deception” at Bishop Hill to slap down an impertinent comment of mine (see end of thread, June 4, 2013):
Tim Osborn commented on “The Yamal Deception”
He claims that the recent RC post plus Briffa et al. (2013) paper addressed all significant issues!
For avoidance of scrolling Osborn’s BH comment is here.
To me, the word promotion implies evangelizing outside the domain where your findings originated. Having been a follower of climate weblogs for some time I do not recall you trooping from one website to another, linking to that particular finding and insisting that people come here and view and react to it.
Given that they also characterize Climate Audit as an insignificant site that serious people don’t even visit, I’m wondering about their understanding or ability to impartially use that word in connection with your behaviour.
What should be wondered about is their integrity.
Your 2009 reconstruction is more accurate than the official 2008 reconstruction. Yet you are the villain of the piece.
Is their any other field of science besides climate science where you get torn down for doing… well… good science????
Steve: I didn’t present the 2009 chronology as my own alternative. I showed it to demonstrate the extreme sensitivity of the results and the impact of a few trees on the results. As Osborn observes, the impact of YAD06 on the new chronology is much less – but the new chronology has walked back from the earlier version which was impacted by YAD06 and a few similar trees.
Show me the phone, lend me a dime
I ain’t rollin’ over, I ain’t doing no time
I ain’t coppin’ no plea, I’m hip to your game
I ain’t talkin’ to no one, except Racehorse Haynes
Somebody better call Racehorse Haynes.
“Resile” is a cool word and all, and I honor your pretentiousness. But it would imply Briffa etc. have returned to a previous position. Have they?
No. Google is your friend: “Abandon a position or a course of action” shows first.
My BFF is Merriam-Webster: “recoil, retract; especially : to return to a prior position.” If you asked them, they’d probably say “We’re advancing briskly in a retrograde manner!” or “Who ever said anything about a hockey-stick?”
“My BFF is Merriam-Webster:” Should I be worried?
Wow!
I’m impressed that RC actually used your name Steve and referenced ClimateAudit. Of course they don’t agree with your claims/results but then that’s to be expected.
Steve: they did not include a single link to Climate Audit in the article. While they used my name, they consistently mischaracterized my actual criticisms. For example, they stated that I had “advocated” and “heavily promoted” particular proxy versions – an activity that is inconsistent with what I do and which I’ve disdained as “apple picking” versus “cherry picking”. Needless to say, they did not quote me or provide a citation or reference for the supposed promotion.
I would propose that Dr. Schmidt and his pals are behaving much more like Flat Earth Society members than any serious AGW skeptic
As Jeff says, Wow! Congratulations.
It’s a shame the Briffa et al. authors are trying to gloss things over and to avoid giving you the credit you are due, Steve.
I find the misrepresentation of your work to be abominable…
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/no-mr-mcintyre-you-cant-take-any-credit.html?spref=tw
You do not “harass scientists in a vexatious manner.” Mann, of course, is retweeting this to his minions.
HotWhopper is dedicated to exposing deceptions, disinformation and other chicanery from climate science deniers, among other things
wow – chicanery (trickery) – as well Steve 🙂
wonder who makes money from above site sort of bilge.
At some point it becomes defamatory and actionable. At the very least, their actions should be offered as evidence of their own hypocrisy in the silly lawsuits they like to file.
Mark
Congratulations, Steve McIntyre. This is a great day for science.
while i appreciate the many kind comments, I’m going to delete additional ones for editorial reasons as it leaves the thread too saccharine for third party readers.
That must be why Stokes et al haven’t shown up. Too saccharine. Yeah, that’s it.
Would it be too much praise to praise Steve’s deletion of excessive praise? (read it quick before the Zamboni comes…)
Seriously, where else would you see this?
Hah, hah, I told ya, my best stuff always gets deleted.
=====
I made a slightly tartaric comment on June 29th which still appears to be in moderation.
Dear Mr McIntire,
Your comment reminds me to a proverb collected by Idries Shah “Caravan of Dreams”:
“Because sugar is not arsenic, many graves are full.”
It seems to me that you are aware of it.
The difficulty is that unless Briffa has released all of the data and methodology used for his 2013 construction, and that this methodology is (near) identical to SM’s, they still have an out.
If I carefully research a subject and my result is a single number – let’s say 10 – and someone else releases an alternative value of 5, based upon what I regard as very poor methodology, I will be critical of the alternative value.
If I revisit my initial research in the light of new information, and revise my calculated value to 5, it doesn’t render my initial criticism invalid – “”Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science”.
I’m not levelling that criticism myself – I would struggle to evaluate the methodologies and recognise differences that are significant – I “merely observe it” as one previously loquacious but noticeably absent commenter previously stated.
Steve, have you ever been legally threatened in by the team?
Nick lives not far from here and we have shared private emails. I might presume he is away somewhere, so do allow mw a comment on his behalf. He might have written in this style –
“Steve, you have not confirmed that the measurements were made on actual tree material, adequately isolated from the wood bench supporting the apparatus when tree rings were measured. Can I suggest that there was cross-talk between the two woods and at an occasional resonance this gave the several high red peaks in your figure 5 on Jun 29, 2013 at 12:40 They were not matched by strong downwards peaks below the smoothed line because anti-resonance does not reproduce that effect so visually, especially when there is green interference (ref. Gilbert, Sullivan).”
I hope it’s not too saccharine to wish Steve and other northern cousins a
Happy Canada Day!
(My own Canadian roots go back to 1636, although I’ve lived my life in the USA)
Will B13 have implications for the upcoming IPCC report? Will it be a string of spaghetti? Will the superseded Briffa pasta be removed from the dish?
Steve, I hope you are preparing a response to the recent claims at Real Climate. Gavin claims that your reconstruction that you mention here was first posted after his dismissive comments. Not both of you can be right. Given my experience with Real Climate, I have a hunch about who is right, but it would be nice to see your usual carefully referenced response.
I just took a quick glance at what Gavin said, and he says Steve talked about Gavin’s criticism on the 11th Sept – but from my observation here, it loodks like Steve actually linked to Gavin’s criticism of the 30th of Sept.
{Gavin’s guarantee}
Gav’s dates got me wrongfooted as I switched from blog to blog.
Now I have no idea what he’s talking about.
This is going to take a better look.
Steve’s link from “screeched” goes to
Hey Ya! (mal)
Filed under:
Climate Science
Instrumental Record
Paleoclimate
— group @ 30 September 2009
I was planning to respond to recent claims at Real Climate over there. I had just prepared a response, but they’ve shut off the thread.
Steve: Can you go ahead and post it here?
I would also like to read your response. Steve, since you say it was already written up, why not just post it here?
Steve: I will write up a post based on my planned comment at RC. There are a couple of things that I want to write up first, while they are on my mind.
It’s of course up to Steve to respond but I think ´the essence of his response can be found in the update to his article – “[Note July 2- the screeching at RC in response to my Hantemirov post occurred in comments (see page 4 on) to their Yamal post of May 11, which chronologically was screeching in fury at my post of May 6 about regional reconstructions.)”
Shutting off the thread (nice timing too, right after you make valid points) is as good an example of being “anti-science” as RC can provide. Too bad as the longer they take to admit their egregious behavior, the longer it will be before they start practicing true science.
Steve: unlike here, all their old threads are closed. They closed the Yamal thread after 30 days. This seems to be an pre-existing policy, though not one that I’d been aware of.
“When I was a boy in 2000, McIntyre
of 14, my fatherwas so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to 2013be 21,I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in thirteensevenyears.” with apologies to Mark TwainWSJ July, 5, 2013
Matt Ridley’s last Mind & Matter column.
Science is About Evidence, Not Consensus
Excerpt:
…. As for the “hockey stick” graph, it was effectively critiqued by Steven McIntyre, a Canadian businessman with a mathematical interest in climatology. He showed that the graph depended heavily on unreliable data, especially samples of tree rings from bristlecone pine trees, the growth patterns of which were often not responding to temperature at all. It also depended on a type of statistical filter that overweighted any samples showing sharp rises in the 20th century.
I followed the story after that and was not persuaded by those defending the various hockey-stick graphs. They brought in a lake-sediment sample from Finland, which had to be turned upside down to show a temperature spike in the 20th century; they added a sample of larch trees from Siberia that turned out to be affected by one tree that had grown faster in recent decades, perhaps because its neighbor had died. Just last week, the Siberian larch data were finally corrected by the University of East Anglia to remove all signs of hockey-stick upticks, quietly conceding that Mr. McIntyre was right about that, too. ….
This a very late comment, but I let it slide as I figured that others would have pointed to it eventuially. In looking to find this quote again, I did not see (or missed) that it had been put into any of the threads regarding B13. I am just adding it for reference.
Tim Osborn responding to a question
“Roger Tattersall @54
(1) In the original chronology, removal of YAD061 makes a bigger difference than the removal of any other individual tree core (note these are chronology values, not calibrated reconstruction, so it isn’t 1degC). This is a combination of the high values in YAD061 occurring in the final few years when the sample size is small. In our new chronology, many cores make a bigger difference than YAD061 if removed.
(2) Plot of trees with peak index values that exceed the peak YAD061 value is now here. Black lines show all tree index series, red lines show those that peak higher than YAD061 peak, purple line is the YAD061 index series.
Hope you find that useful.
Regarding CO2 fertilisation… I see further discussion of this in comments below, so I’ll read them before responding in one go.”
“http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/comment-page-2/#comment-385083”
11 Trackbacks
[…] Posted Jun 28, 2013 at 5:18 PM | Permalink […]
[…] CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick […]
[…] away from the influence of the hockeystick and the One Tree in Yamal. It must be more than a small moment of satisfaction for Steve McIntyre and is certainly time for a serving of humble pie in a few quarters (not that they’ll […]
[…] story at Climate Audit and at […]
[…] dataset via moeizame FOIA-verzoeken in handen kreeg. Deze grafieken lijken zo sterk op elkaar dat reageerder ianl8888 op climateaudit.org tegen @Steve McIntyre grapt dat (vertaald voor […]
[…] radical administrations are backing away… albeit slowly. CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick If you aren't aware, Yamal was a single tree ring sample that was being used in the […]
[…] […]
[…] https://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/#more-18040 […]
[…] https://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/#more-18040 […]
[…] Whinge In recent comments about Yamal, Gavin Schmidt claimed that he had been misrepresented in my recent post, but, all too characteristically, did not quote the supposed misrepresentation. Or even say […]
[…] CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick […]