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.
The famous Mann-ufactured AGW-promoting “Hockey Stick” is dead! Long live the King of global hoaxes!
Hey, Mikey! Your bus is here!
(Now all we need is a certain password.)
PS to Briffa, Thanks for being honest about what you see. The repercussions will pass. What you see in the mirror won’t.
son of mulder says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am
Logical.
sunshinehours1 says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:51 am
Leif, Maunder started at 1645. Graph (b) has 1645 4C colder than now.
One should look at graph (c), not the individual years. And some people would say that now is the warmest on record in spite of solar activity being the lowest in a hundred years. But, for true believers, cheery picking always works their way. One way out is to claim that tree-ring data is nonsense, but that also makes nonsense that there was a ‘decline’ to hide.
joelshore says:
“I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al., which showed that although many individual regions experienced similar warmth to modern warmth sometime in some broadly-defined “Medieval Warm Period”, the warmest times were asynchronous in different regions and, hence, when you looked globally the warmth was not as great as the late 20th century warmth which was not asynchronous.”
Wrong. As we can see in this overlay of Antarctic, Greenland, and Arctic ice cores, global temperatures were synchronous — which includes the MWP.
There is always regional variability, which makes for easy [and wrong] cherry-picking. But globally temperatures are synchronous in both hemispheres, as the ice core records make clear.
joeldshore says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm
You wouldn’t contradict Mann’s work if a hundred… nay, a thousand pieces of work contradicts it, joel. Some people are just stuck.
But then, Mann has every reason to be honest, doesn’t he? Or are you missing the gist of Mann’s suit against Steyn?
Stay stuck if you want while the rest of the world moves on.
Leif Svalgaard said on October 28, 2012 at 11:21 am “Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…”
A step in the right direction nonetheless. Just watch the solar min’s and max’s reappear when it starts to get very cold. Ten years ? Will Briffa have retired by then ? In which case someone else will do it.
Wanted. A new H Lamb, for a post not yet on the job market, but surely will be once global warming turns out to be sustained serious cooling.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:21 am
Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…
Not at all Leif, everything fits nicely. My Solar derived proxy for ocean heat content is right on target:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/phil-jones-we-dont-know-what-natural-variability-is-doing/
Naturally , the paper is too late for inclusion in AR5e ,
Where we will be treated to several hockeysticks I have no doubt.
The hockey stick is dead! Long live the king of global hoaxes!
Leif, your logic is such ear candy. If tree-ring data is good, it shouldn’t deviate, if it is bad, it doesn’t matter. Priceless.
“Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…”
I see correlations.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
And the warmists and the so called “skeptics” discuss one more time an unreliable, localized temperature proxy…
Et tu, Briffa.
But that would compare the IPCC to Caesar, who was a great man.
son of mulder
At October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am you ask:
A compatriot with me.
Richard
“I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al., which showed that although many individual regions experienced similar warmth to modern warmth sometime in some broadly-defined “Medieval Warm Period”, the warmest times were asynchronous in different regions and, hence, when you looked globally the warmth was not as great as the late 20th century warmth which was not asynchronous.”
Is this true, that 20th C warming is not asynchronous? I have seen the plots of global anomalies, but not the actual local records for the various continents etc. I DO know there is much controversy over local records, eg the Australian and NZ temp records for the past 100 years. I have done wolfram alpha plots o actual temp records for many countries and find very few cases of upwards trends but I have no idea how accurate those plots are.
richardscourtney says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm
son of mulder
At October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am you ask:
“I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?”
A compatriot with me.
Richard
I think there may be a link of sorts between temperature and tree ring width, mostly mediated by changes in rainfall and the temperature dependency of co2.
So, pretty tenuous. I trust Loehle’s non-tree-ring temperature proxy more.
Edim says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:37 pm
I see correlations.
Of course you do. True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm (Edit)
Naturally , the paper is too late for inclusion in AR5e ,
Where we will be treated to several hockeysticks I have no doubt.
######################
tallbloke why do you spread this nonsense without even checking. The Melvin paper is cited in the Second Order Draft. The only deadline that really matters is the “accepted” deadline which doesnt happen until 2013. The most recent deadline merely stated that the papers had to be submitted.
Sheesh. Does anybody here check facts.
Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm
tallbloke why do you spread this nonsense without even checking.
TB always spreads nonsense, to wit his comments upthread. Best thing is to just ignore it.
I seem to remember way back that Steve Mc detected a certain reticense in Briffa at some point. Sort of, like Briffa was embarrassed by Mann and was looking for a way out.
Leif,
Not sure if you are a reviewer or not but the SOD has some nice work on MWP/LIA and solar forcing studies. of course for those who think their science is settled ( the sun dunnit ) the actual science may not be of interest. hehe.
I thought it was decided that all warming was global and all cooling was regional.
Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Not sure if you are a reviewer or not but the SOD
I’m not. I only try to make sure that the solar data is correct [hard enough with people wanting to cherry pick old, obsolete, invalid ‘data’]. Actual science usually is of minor interest compared to the ’cause’, whatever that might be.
D Boehm says:
Ah…As near as I can tell (because you have presented a graph with no context and even no labels on the axes), what you are showing is a graph over the last 100,000 years. If you can pick out something that happened 1000 years ago on such a graph, you have better eyes than I.
Anthony says:
I didn’t say this sample can be ignored. I just said it alone does not a global or hemispheric reconstruction make. Neither does Yamal. Can you show me where anyone has claimed it does?
Look, I don’t claim to know for sure whether the modern Northern hemispheric temperatures are definitely warmer than they were during the MWP or not. Most full hemispheric reconstructions have found they are; a few, such as those other two you mentioned, have apparently found the MWP temperature comparable. And, unlike many around here, I let science, rather than my own preconceptions, drive the conclusions.
However, citing a paper regarding a temperature record at one location as if it contradicts work regarding the entire hemispheric temperature record is just wrong, pure and simple. And, defending it while claiming that some respected scientist’s work is a “fabrication” is just the pot calling the kettle…