Tag Archives: osborn_briffa_2006

A Reply from Science

A couple of days ago, I posted up a copy of a letter that I sent to Science on archiving or non-archiving in connection with Osborn and Briffa 2006, Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al 1989 (Dunde); 1997 (Guliya). I received a reply from Science today, which they stated was not for “public […]

Letter to Science re Osborn and Briffa Data

The continued negligence of the major journals in ensuring that paleoclimate authors archive data in accordance with journal policies is very frustrating and, as previously noted, has reared its ugly head once again with Osborn and Briffa. I have had little luck in the past with Science (except for the Kilimanjaro sample dO18 data) but […]

The Yamal Substitution

The Polar Urals temperature reconstruction (Briffa et al, 1995) has been a mainstay of multiproxy studies. More data was collected at this site in 1998 (russ176), but in the two new studies (Osborn and Briffa, 2006; D’Arrigo et al., 2006), they relate their site selection to the Polar Urals, but substitute the Yamal RCS series […]

The Proxies of Osborn and Briffa [2006]

David Stockwell was intrigued by the seeming “robustness” of O&B results. There’s a reason for it: pretty much every one of the stereotyped Hockey Team proxies that are common to multiple studies are included in the O&B collation: bristlecones, Briffa’s re-processed series, Thompson’s Dunde and Guliya, Jacoby’s Mongolia. Pretty much every rascal has been gathered […]

Review of Osborn and Briffa [2006]

Osborn and Briffa [2006] , published today in Science, cannot be considered as an “independent” validation of Hockey Stick climate theories, because it simply re-cycles 14 proxies, some of them very questionable, which have been repeatedly used in other “Hockey Team” studies, including, remarkably, 2 separate uses of the controversial bristlecone/foxtail tree ring data. Also […]