Mann's hockey stick disappears – and CRU's Briffa helps make the MWP live again by pointing out bias in the data

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:

Figure 5. Temperature reconstructions created using the 650-tree (‘alltrw’ data) TRW chronology (a) and the 130 tree (‘S88G1112’ data) MXD chronology (b). Chronologies were created using two RCS curves and were regressed against the Bottenviken mean May–August monthly temperature over the period 1860 to 2006. The shaded areas show two standard errors (see SI15, available online, for details) plotted either side of the mean where standard errors were scaled to fit the temperature reconstruction. The TRW and MXD temperature reconstructions of (a) and (b) are compared in (c) after they were normalised over the common period 600 to 2008 and smoothed with a 10 year spline. The lower two panels compare the reconstructions using the TRW chronology (d) and MXD chronology (e) with the mean of May to August monthly temperature from Bottenviken over the period 1860 to 2006.

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:

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

483 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
joeldshore
November 2, 2012 12:16 pm

D Boehm says:

And as usual, joelshore finds fault with every chart I have ever posted. They are all wrong, every one of them… according to joelshore. What are the odds, eh?

When you never go to scientific sources but to sources with zero scientific credibility who have passed your ideological screening test…and furthermore, when you never give anything more than the chart itself without any of the accompanying explanation…then the odds are very good that what you have posted is completely useless to the discussion. A real skeptic would understand this; a fake skeptic like yourself can’t even conceive of questioning a source that shows you what you want to believe.

joeldshore
November 2, 2012 12:29 pm

I should add something to my last post to kadaka, which is just to mention that I myself have some personal experience with simulating random systems where people see patterns in the noise: At Kodak, as part of modeling an experimental system, I did some simulations of random arrays of red, green, and blue discs in the plane. Even when the discs were in completely random configurations, it looked to most observers (including myself) that there was some clumping of the colors going on (i.e., preference for discs of the same color to clump together). If you put on a repulsive force so that two discs of the same color did not want to be close together, then you’d see results that were more like what you intuitively expected random to be, even though these were now definitely not completely random. It was an interesting illusion.

D Böehm
November 2, 2012 12:59 pm

joelshore says:
“When you never go to scientific sources but to sources with zero scientific credibility who have passed your ideological screening test…and furthermore, when you never give anything more than the chart itself without any of the accompanying explanation…then the odds are very good that what you have posted is completely useless to the discussion.”
Wrong again. This is getting to be a habit with you. I’ve already thoroughly debunked your synchronicity nonsense, so no need to repeat. But you are flat wrong that the charts I post have “zero scientific credibility”. You only say that because they refute your alarmist sales pitch. Explain how that is “never” going to credible sources. Take your time.
The fact is that most of the charts I post are either from peer reviewed publications, or plotted from data taken from peer reviewed publications or verifiable empirical observations, or they are from government sources. So you can admit you way overstepped on your provably false statement, or you can be a whiny chump.
And quit being a jerk and putting quotation marks around the word skeptic. A skeptic questions, and we are questioning your evidence-free beliefs. Thus, we are true scientific skeptics. You should try it some time.

Bart
November 2, 2012 5:08 pm

joeldshore says:
November 2, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Must I repeat myself?
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.
The claims for statistical significance of the slope from 1975 to 1997 are bunkum. The data are long term, cyclically correlated, and the tests for significance by the claimants have not been scientifically rigorous.

joeldshore
November 4, 2012 5:09 pm

D Boehm says:

The fact is that most of the charts I post are either from peer reviewed publications, or plotted from data taken from peer reviewed publications or verifiable empirical observations, or they are from government sources.

Your graphs are from extremely biased individuals who cherry-pick data. Yes, the data itself might be from a reasonable source but it is carefully selected and it is almost never explained. In fact, I often have to explain the data since I almost always seem to know more about the details of it than you do.
And, of course the two graphs you posted here are both examples of that. One is from ICECAP and the other is from some unknown source but the caption below it says in part: “This is entirely inconsistent with the AGW CO2 hypothesis.” Do you think this is the sort of caption typical of peer-reviewed paper? (You may not know any better since I doubt you’ve read many of those.)

And quit being a jerk and putting quotation marks around the word skeptic. A skeptic questions, and we are questioning your evidence-free beliefs. Thus, we are true scientific skeptics. You should try it some time.

No…It is not being skeptical to not accept any evidence that disagrees with your ideological worldview and to accept anything that does no matter how ridiculous. You aren’t anything close to a skeptic. That you consider yourself one is no less ridiculous than Joseph Stalin considering himself a humanitarian.

D Böehm
November 4, 2012 5:24 pm

Joel Shore says:
“”When you never go to scientific sources but to sources with zero scientific credibility who have passed your ideological screening test…”
“Never”?? Once again the coprophagic joel shore falsely asserts that none of the 1,000+ charts I have posted are valid. Could Joel Shore have any less credibility? Shore is not a real scientist. He is Michael Mann’s lickspittle.

November 4, 2012 6:05 pm

joeldshore says:
November 1, 2012 at 3:12 pm
To me, Gunga Din:
Before you can criticize something intelligently, you have to understand it. However, if, for ideological reasons, you want to tear it down by using false arguments against it, the first thing that you have to do is mischaracterize. This helps explain why you have apparently been told a lot of falsehoods about exactly what it is that Mann et al. say.
===========================================================
I know that there are a lot of things I don’t understand. Ignorance of one thing or another is universal and universally shared, whether some will admit to being a part of that “universe” or not.
I had noticed the talk of “Global Warming” sometime ago. When Al Gore entered the scene, it got my attention.(BTW, I assume that Australia and New Zealand no longer have a problem with wild rabbits since the Ozone Hole has made them all blind. Tough to find a mate when you can’t see them.) What I did back in 2007 was copy the record highs and lows for my little spot on the globe into Excel. I found out that over 60+% of the record highs were set before 1950 and over 60+% of the record lows were set after 1950. Inconvient.
I did it again in 2009 and April of 2012. Similar results even though some of the old records had been “adjusted”. I know that my little spot on the globe isn’t the whole globe. But why didn’t “Global Warming” didn’t show up here if it really is “global”? Or are more “adjustments” needed?
You don’t have to be an intellectual to recognize sh*t from shinola.

gerjaison
December 26, 2016 10:37 am

Dear!

I’ve got no words to describe what an amazing thing I’ve just found! Please take a look

My best to you, gerjaison

1 18 19 20