Shock, awe. Untruncated and unspliced data used in a new paper from Briffa and Melvin at UEA restores the Medieval Warm Period while at the same time disappears Mann’s hockey stick. Here’s figure 5 that tells the story:

Look at graph 5c, and you’ll see 20th century warmth matches peaks either side of the year 1000, and that for the TRW chronology 20th century warmth is less than the spike around 1750. This puts 20th century (up to 2006 actually) warmth in the category of just another blip. There’s no obvious hockey stick, and the MWP returns, though approximately equal to 20th century warmth rather than being warmer.
Whoo boy, I suspect this paper will be called in the Mann -vs- Steyn trial (if it ever makes it that far; the judge may throw it out because the legal pleading makes a false claim by Mann). What is most curious here is that it was Briffa (in the Climategate emails) who was arguing that some claims about his post 1960 MXD series data as used in other papers might not be valid. It set the stage for “Mikes Nature trick” and “hide the decline“. Steve McIntyre wrote about it all the way back in 2005:
A Strange Truncation of the Briffa MXD Series
Post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series are deleted from the IPCC TAR multiproxy spaghetti graph. These values trend downward in the original citation (Briffa [2000], see Figure 5), where post-1960 values are shown. The effect of deleting the post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series is to make the reconstructions more “similar”. The truncation is not documented in IPCC TAR.
I have to wonder if this is some sort of attempt to “come clean” on the issue. Mann must be furious at the timing. There’s no hint of a hockey stick, and no need to splice on the instrumental surface temperature record or play “hide the decline” tricks with this data.
Bishop Hill writes:
Well, well, well.
In its previous incarnation, without a MWP, the series was used in:
- MBH98
- MBH99
- Rutherford et al 05
- Jones 98
- Crowley 00
- Briffa 00
- Esper 02
- Mann, Jones 03
- Moberg
- Osborn, Briffa 06
- D’Arrigo et al 06
It rather puts all that previous work in perspective, since this new paper has identified and corrected the biases. It should be noted though that tree ring paleoclimatology is an inexact science, and as we’ve seen, even a single tree can go a long way to distorting the output. On the plus side, it is good to see that this paper defines and corrects biases present in the MXD and TRW series of the Tornetraesk tree ring chronology dataset. This is a positive step forward. I suspect there will be a flurry of papers trying to counter this to save Mann’s Hockey Stick.
From the journal Holocene:
Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data
Thomas M Melvin University of East Anglia, UK
Håkan Grudd Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Keith R Briffa University of East Anglia, UK
Abstract
We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.
Here’s the money quote from the paper:
If the good fit between these tree-growth and temperature data is reflected at the longer timescales indicated by the smoothed chronologies (Figures 5c and S20d, available online), we can infer the existence of generally warm summers in the 10th and 11th centuries, similar to the level of those in the 20th century.
Conclusions
• The RCS method generates long-timescale variance from
the absolute values of measurements but it is important to
test that data from different sources are compatible in
order to avoid systematic bias in chronologies.
• It was found in the Torneträsk region of Sweden that there were systematic differences in the density measurements from different analytical procedures and laboratory conditions and that an RCS chronology created from a simple combination of these MXD data contained systematic bias.
• Both the known systematic variation of measurement values (both TRW and MXD) by ring age and the varying effect of common forcing on tree growth over time must
be taken into account when assessing the need to adjust subpopulations of tree-growth measurements for use with RCS.
• It was necessary to rescale the ‘update’ density measurements from Torneträsk to match the earlier measurements over their common period, after accounting for ring-age decay, in order to remove this systematic bias.
• The use of two RCS curves, separately processing fastand slow-growing trees, has reduced the effect of modern sample bias which appears to have produced some artificial inflation of chronology values in the late 20th century in previously published Torneträsk TRW chronologies.
• A ‘signal-free’ implementation of a multiple RCS approach to remove the tree age-related trends, while retaining trends associated with climate, has produced
new 1500-year long MXD and TRW chronologies which show similar evidence of long-timescale changes over
their full length.
• The new chronologies presented here provide mutually consistent evidence, contradicting a previously published conclusion (Grudd, 2008), that medieval summers (between 900 and 1100 ce) were much warmer than those
in the 20th century.
• The method described here to test for and remove systematic bias from RCS chronologies is recommended for further studies where it is necessary to identify and mitigate systematic bias in RCS chronologies composed of nonhomogeneous samples.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
joeldshore says:
October 31, 2012 at 6:47 pm
“It is?”
Yes.
joelshore says:
“… the trend from 1975 to present is LARGER than the trend from 1975 to the start of 1997.”
Not really.
D Böehm says:
October 31, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Don’t let yourself get backed into a corner on the basis of an arbitrary measure. These trends are meaningless, because the process isn’t a linear function. But, at least, compare apples to apples.
joeldshore says:
October 31, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Gunga Din says:
I asked if his father-in-law had been on the USS Oklahoma City. His eyes lit up and he said, “YES!” I told him that the Oklahoma City was a heavy cruiser and not a battleship. His reply was, “What’s the difference!”
Nice story and it indeed well illustrates the problem here. Richard Courtney could not distinguish the difference between what I talked about and the claim that kadaka made even though that difference was clear as day. You only had to look at the numbers kadaka wrote down!
==========================================================
It wasn’t a story. It happened.
Did the Medivial Warm Period happen or not?
Re D Böehm on October 31, 2012 at 7:11 pm:
Mr. Böehm, do not be ensnared by his sinister confusing words. In your rush to justice you have made a critical error.
Correct graph. Really.
He has stated the full rise from 1975 to present is steeper than the short piece from 1975 to 1997. We know there has been a gentle warming slope since the LIA. As the rise of a full stairway is steeper than the steps, so may the full rise from 1975 to present be steeper than the 1975 to 1997 step, as the diabolical Mr. Shore is well aware.
(Yes, Mr. Böehm, I am stroking a cat. A grey shorthaired tiger pattern. White fluffy cats are for limp-wristed effeminate drama queens.)
And, everyone… stop accepting these bogus estimates of significance. They are surely based on canned routines which assume a linear trend polluted by independent sample-to-sample noise. That’s not what’s going on. Tossing them out as if they had any scientific value is not, in fact, scientific.
This gives a better representation. From 1970 to 2000 is what is supposed to be CAGW. But, it’s the same slope as 1920-1940. And, the actual long term trend, about which the temperature varies in consistent fashion, shows no sign of changing or having changed.
In the near terms, we are facing a repeat of what happened after 1940.
Typo: But, it’s the same slope as 1910-1940.
joeldshore says:
October 31, 2012 at 5:22 pm
…starting in January of this year, global warming has accelerated to the point where the warming rate is now 0.4 C per year
But as you well know, if there is a lot of noise in 15 years, there is a huge amount in 8 or 9 months, particularly since we went from a La Nina to an El Nino during this time!
I understand what you are saying regarding the slopes, but let me give a different scenario. A man who lived to be 100 years had his height measured on his birthday every year. He grew until he was 20 and then stopped growing. If I were to ask you if he stopped growing when he was 20, you would take his height when he was 20 up to any age you like and if you find the slope is 0, then you know he stopped growing at age 20. But if you insist on taking the slope from year 1 in all cases, you could then conclude the man still grew between 90 and 100 since the slope is still positive. Is this not correct?
Bart asked in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1130922
The original scientific reference where the statistical model is being described, on which the trend calculator is based, is this one:
Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environmental Research Letters, 6, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022, dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
You are quite right with respect to me having the burden of proving my assertions. Everyone has to carry his/her own package. However, I’m not aware that I made any prognostication that contained a statement about “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. So, no I don’t have any burden to prove anything with respect to that. Neither does this term, “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, appear anywhere in the IPCC Report 2007, unless I missed it.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
October 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm
The original scientific reference where the statistical model is being described, on which the trend calculator is based, is this one:
Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environmental Research Letters, 6, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022, dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Foster knows nothing about historical records. When I put this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
on RealClimate, without the label, despite it being from the world best known temperature data, he said it was a fraud and proceeded with outburst of vulgar obscenities. He was duly told off by Gavin and his posts deleted.
Temperature models from an ‘expert’ who knows nothing about historical records are worth just that NOTHING.
Dr. Perlwitz if your opinion and knowledge are based on the above so called ‘expertise’, they are also worth nothing too. Learn about the past before you attempt to prophesize future.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
October 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm
The original scientific reference where the statistical model is being described, on which the trend calculator is based, is this one:
Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environmental Research Letters, 6, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022, dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Foster knows nothing about historical records. When I put this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
on RealClimate, without label, despite it being from the world best known temperature data, he said it was a fraud and proceeded with outburst of vulgar obscenities. He was duly told off by Gavin and his posts deleted.
Temperature models from an ‘expert’ who knows nothing about historical records are worth just that NOTHING.
Dr. Perlwitz if your opinion and knowledge are based on the above so called ‘expertise’, they are also worth nothing too. Learn about the past before you attempt to prophesize future.
Bart:
Your post at October 31, 2012 at 8:08 pm says everything which needs to be said about this subject.
It concurs with my earlier post at October 30, 2012 at 7:02 am which said
[emphasis added: RSC]
Indeed, in a few brilliant words your post summarises points in my posts at
October 29, 2012 at 3:20 pm
October 29, 2012 at 6:12 pm
October 30, 2012 at 4:48 am
October 30, 2012 at 6:51 am
October 30, 2012 at 7:02 am
October 30, 2012 at 12:28 pm
October 30, 2012 at 3:14 pm
October 31, 2012 at 3:08 am
Thankyou!
I copy your post below to add attention to it.
Richard
_______________
And, everyone… stop accepting these bogus estimates of significance. They are surely based on canned routines which assume a linear trend polluted by independent sample-to-sample noise. That’s not what’s going on. Tossing them out as if they had any scientific value is not, in fact, scientific.
This gives a better representation. From 1970 to 2000 is what is supposed to be CAGW. But, it’s the same slope as 1920-1940. And, the actual long term trend, about which the temperature varies in consistent fashion, shows no sign of changing or having changed.
In the near terms, we are facing a repeat of what happened after 1940.
Just a brief note here: i believe that at least one of these slopes posted earlier by kadaka must be wrong.
The slopes by WFT:
1975 to start of 1997 is 0.0158627°C per year.
1975 to present is 0.0170183 per year.
Start of 1997 to present is 0.00474896 per year.
When I redo the slope calculation using the 75-97 and 97-present ones individually I end up with a trend of ~ 0.0112 °C per year which is obviously less than the 1975-97 slope.
Cheers, 🙂
I would also like to agree with Bart’s approach above when he looks at the longer term trends ie from 1900 and on. It seems to me that much more interesting than asking whether the post 1997 trend is statistically significant is asking (for instance) whether the trend for the last 60 years is statistically any different than the trend for the 60 years before that.
Just eyeballing a couple of WFT graphs suggests that the 1892-1952 warming is ~ 1/2 the warming trend of the 1953-2012 trend.
Cheers, 🙂
From Jan P Perlwitz on October 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm:
Said reference is found on the SkepSci trend calculator page.
You know, if you don’t understand their manipulations and can’t explain their model, you could have simply said so. You don’t have to pretend it makes sense to you by throwing out the common reference.
Sounds like Nancy Pelosi science, first you have to accept it and use it and incorporate into everything, then you’ll find out what’s in it.
Although given the multiple F-R 2011 flaws found just in this initial report, why you’d trust the results of an unverified program based on a flawed paper is quite a mystery. For all we know you fob that calculator off on the unwashed masses while using something better and accurate for your own work.
kadaka says:
First of all, this recovery since the LIA meme is just about as useful as saying “God did it.” You know that any such recovery won’t continue forever. And, in fact, from what we understand about the possible volcanic and solar forcings involved (and the latter is somewhat limited by ambiguities in the record before the satellite era), there is no reason to expect that the natural trend would have been for rising temperatures in the second half of the 20th century. In fact, if anything, there should have been a small negative trend.
Second of all, I don’t understand your logic here: So, you’ve divided things up into gently rising “steps” and then jumps…but you can’t just then ignore the jumps as if they don’t exist: They are part of the long term trend.
And, this division of the data into gentle steps and jumps is really most likely just seeing patterns in noise. One can again take simulated data where one knows for a fact that the data reflects an underlying constant linear trend plus noise and one will be able to draw similar steps and jumps in such data. That strongly suggests that the notion that this is what the data actually reflects has no real evidence to back it up. People have poor intuition with noisy data and it is easy to get them to find patterns of that sort where we know for a fact that none exist.
joeldshore:
At November 1, 2012 at 9:59 am you write
It seems you have as much understanding of what is “fact” as the other troll.
Richard
richard: In the synthetic data, we do know for a fact that the patterns found do not actually exist because we know how the data was created.
We don’t know that for a fact in the real data, but to believe that they do on the basis of thinking you see such patterns (and with no reasonable mechanistic explanation) is sort of like continuing to believe Yuri Geller can bend spoons with his mind after James Randi has clearly demonstrated how he can just as convincingly bend spoons using slight-of-hand.
Here is a discussion (with links to an earlier discussion) on seeing…and even “detecting”…step changes in synthetic data sets that we know for a fact have simply an underlying linear trend plus noise: (snip. As a mod who is fed up with tamino’s ugly comments regarding Anthony Watts and this site, you will understand if I delete your free advertising. Readers can find tamino on their own if they are interested. ~mod)
joeldshore:
At November 1, 2012 at 9:59 am you wrote
And at November 1, 2012 at 10:20 am I quoted your statement and commented
To my surprise. at November 1, 2012 at 10:49 am you have confirmed my comment by writing in total
It is a fact that we can observe similar patterns in some synthetic data.
Therefore, it is a fact such patterns in the real data MAY be a result of random chance.
It is NOT true that when we see such patterns in the real data “we know for a fact that none exist”.
What we know as fact is
(a) we can observe the pattern in the data
and
(b) the pattern exists because we observe it
and
(c) possible reasons for the pattern exist
and
(d) one of the possible reasons is random chance.
Your assertion of knowledge is a claim that because you have seen a possible cause of the pattern in synthetic data then that is known to be the cause in the real data when other possible explanations also exist.
This is exactly the same behaviour as the other troll who repeatedly asserts possibilities as being reality.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
November 1, 2012 at 11:34 am
joeldshore:
“People have poor intuition with noisy data and it is easy to get them to find patterns of that sort where we know for a fact that none exist.”
People using inappropriate tools (like linear trends on data with long term correlations) and assuming statistical models which do not apply in the particular case are even worse at finding patterns where none exist. Because, not only do they find them, but they have unwarranted confidence in their spurious conclusions.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
October 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm
“The original scientific reference where the statistical model is being described, on which the trend calculator is based, is this one:”
Great. A first order autoregressive model when the PSD indicates nothing of the kind. This is pitiful.
joeldshore says:
November 1, 2012 at 9:59 am
“First of all, this recovery since the LIA meme is just about as useful as saying “God did it.” You know that any such recovery won’t continue forever. And, in fact, from what we understand about the possible volcanic and solar forcings involved (and the latter is somewhat limited by ambiguities in the record before the satellite era), there is no reason to expect that the natural trend would have been for rising temperatures in the second half of the 20th century. In fact, if anything, there should have been a small negative trend.”
Truly, that is a tour-de-force of circular reasoning. If you do not know what caused it, then you have no idea how long it should continue. You make a conclusion “from what we understand” when, in fact, you do not understand it, but you use that “understanding” to assert that you know it should not continue this long. Brilliant. F-.
richardscourtney says:
…Which is surprisingly similar to my statement that “In the synthetic data, we do know for a fact that the patterns found do not actually exist because we know how the data was created. We don’t know that for a fact in the real data…”
However, I find it ironic that you admit that a perfectly natural explanation exists but that you still want to put so much credence into an alternate explanation. After all, you guys are always claiming that if the current warmth is not unusual in the recent historical context, then there is no reason to invoke the AGW because the “null hypothesis” of natural variability can explain it.
Now, you turn around and say essentially, “Well, yes, it may be demonstrably true that a (synthetic) series that we know has an underlying linear trend plus random noise behaves in the same way as the actual data, but I want to believe that in this case it is really due to something different.” You guys seem extremely flexible in when you choose to invoke the null hypothesis!
[And, just to anticipate the argument that I simply do the same thing in the other direction: In the case of AGW, (1) We have evidence that the current warmth is in fact unusual in the recent historical context, although that evidence is based admittedly on imperfect temperature proxies. But, more importantly, (2) We have mechanistic understanding of how the climate system behaves involving basic physics concepts like conservation of energy, so we are not just concluding greenhouse gases are causing warming because we see temperatures rising.]
He has lots of posts, so how are they supposed to track down the particular two to which I am referring? Can I at least suggest searching on the word “steps” and that they date from January 2012? Geez!