Search Results for: urals

Plots of Gaspe and Polar Urals Data

Just as an experiment, I plotted up all the ring widths for the Gaspé and Polar Urals sites, with each core displaced a little. What I was thinking of the type of graph that you see in seismic surveys. The look is interesting, given how much weight is placed downstream on these data sets in […]

Polar Urals: Shiyatov’s Finnish Academy Article

I’ve written on a number of occasions on Briffa’s Polar Urals reconstruction, which is used in nearly every multiproxy reconstruction, no doubt because of its uniquely cold MWP. It’s one of the key series in Crowley and Lowery [2000] and Jones et al [1998]; it’s not as important in MBH98-99 (which is more or less […]

Polar Urals #4: “Heartrot Bias”?

There appear to be some important sampling differences between subfossil and modern (living) cores. Briffa et al [CD 1992, 114] provide the following caveat with respect to using the RCS method (global curve fitting) for Tornetrask: “In applying this [RCS] method, each individual tree ring series should ideally start with the innermost ring (preferably near […]

Polar Urals #3: Crossdating

The three cores which account for 1032 being the "coldest" year of the millennium are 862450, 862470 and 862030. One other core (862460) is dated to the late 10th and early 11th century and contributes to early 11th century "coldness". The placement of these 4 cores has to be interpreted from the ring width information […]

Polar Urals #2: Broken Core

The tree ring dataset for the critical Polar Urals site has gaps of up to 59 years, has cores with as many 7 breaks in them. The problems are so pervasive that COFECHA testing simply fails – an almost unprecented occurrence in a tree ring data set.

Polar Urals #1

The Polar Urals site is a staple of multi-proxy studies. The Briffa et al. [1995] version is used in Jones et al [1998], MBH98, MBH99, Briffa et al. [2001] and most recently Jones and Mann (2004). An earlier version by Graybill and Shiyatov was used in Bradley and Jones [1993], Hughes and Diaz [1994] and […]

Altitude at Briffa’s Polar Urals

The Polar Urals tree ring site is another staple of multiproxy studies, being used in Bradley and Jones [1993], Hughes and Diaz[1994], Overpeck et al. [1997], Jones et al. [1998], MBH98, MBH99, Crowley and Lowery [2000], Esper et al. [2002], Bradley, Hughes and Diaz [2003] and Rutherford et al. [2005] (which recycles MBH98). In fact, […]

Disappearing the MWP at Icefields, Alberta

In today’s post, I’m going to critically examine another widely used tree ring chronology: the Icefields (Alberta) MXD RCS chronology of Luckman and Wilson (2005 pdf), used most recently in Wilson et al 2016. I’ll show that the RCS technique used in the LW2005 MXD chronology eliminated high medieval values as a tautology of their method, not […]

New Light on Gulf of Alaska

Last week, I posted on the effect of ex post site selection on the Gulf of Alaska tree ring chronology used in Wilson et al 2016 (from Wiles et al 2014).  An earlier incarnation of this chronology (in D’Arrigo et al 2016) had had a severe divergence problem, a problem that Wiles et al had purported to […]

Picking Cherries in the Gulf of Alaska

The bias arising from ex post selection of sites for regional tree ring chronologies has been a long standing issue at Climate Audit, especially in connection with Briffa’s chronologies for Yamal and Polar Urals (see tag.)  I discussed it most recently in connection with the Central Northwest Territories (CNWT) regional chronology of D’Arrigo et al […]