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
Mike
October 28, 2012 1:13 pm

The prospect of going to jail for those deliberately corrupting science is going to do a lot of good for those that have adhered to the scientific method. Unsettled science is real again.

James Evans
October 28, 2012 1:16 pm

Mosher:
“Does anybody here check facts.”
Yes. You’re annoyingly full of yourself. Fact.

October 28, 2012 1:16 pm

Leif: “One should look at graph (c), not the individual years.”
Ok.
From 1550 to 1750 the vast majority of the temperatures are below 10C. From 1400 to 1550 temperature straddle 10.
Until I see the data I would suggest a .5C drop after 1550 that lasted for 200 years. I am not a believer in tree rings, but think .5C lower sustained over 200 years is not trivial.
That would be the modern equivalent of dropping from 1998 temperatures to 1970s temperatures (the coming ice age time).

Pamela Gray
October 28, 2012 1:16 pm

Steven, you just charged yourself by your own words. Yes, there are people here who check their facts.

Taphonomic
October 28, 2012 1:20 pm

Doe this mean that the National Research Council should/will revisit their conclusion: “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium”???

October 28, 2012 1:20 pm

Leif, is there a good solar UV proxy graph or data for the same period?
Mosher (the sun dunnit ) do you have any good proxies for cloudiness/surface sunshine/aerosols for that period? There a number of recent papers talking about 2W/sq-m more sunshine reaching the earth from 1980 on because of cleaner air with some drop as China strated to burn huge amounts of coal.

Darren Potter
October 28, 2012 1:20 pm

WUWT: “The truth is that Mann’s hockey stick is a fabrication, he’s ’embellished’ it, just like he did his Noble Prize claims,”
Careful Anthony, lest ye be subject to the wrath of Mann…
😉

u.k.(us)
October 28, 2012 1:22 pm

Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm
“Sheesh. Does anybody here check facts.”
—————————–
I know it was rhetorical, but all the same.

Joe
October 28, 2012 1:23 pm

I’m still open to convincing on the value of tree-ring proxies, but don’t forget that even instrumental measurements are really proxies in the strict sense. What they actually measure is the expansion or electrical effects of temperature.
The only difference really is in the control we have over other factors that might affect the readings as we build and calibrate the instruments and filter the output. With tree rings we have no control over other factors when they were “built”. Whether or not we can calibrate or filter for them is, to my mind, still a very open question – to simply say “we can’t” is no better than saying that “the science is settled”.
From the abstract it appears that this is the question that Melvin and Briffa are approaching, and doing so without applying preconceptions to the results (or they would have found another stick in the locker room). Whether or not it ultimately withstands the (no doubt harsh) scrutiny it will receive from certain quarters, it may well mark a turning point back towards real scientific enquiry within the field.
For that, at least, this work should be commended.

October 28, 2012 1:25 pm

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

October 28, 2012 1:37 pm

Svald says “…. Actual science usually is of minor interest compared to the ’cause’, whatever that might be.”
Right on, Svald! And I support the “cause” of identifying all the-junk-science for the junk that it is!

D Böehm
October 28, 2012 1:39 pm

joelshore says:
“unlike many around here, I let science, rather than my own preconceptions, drive the conclusions.”
BWA-A-A-A-A-HA-HA-HA-HA-A-A-A!!
‘Mr Contradiction’ infuses everything with leftist politics. His science is cherry-picked to conform to his far left world view.
Here is another chart showing the excellent temperature correlation between hemispheres. And another. And another. And another. And just for fun, here’s a chart showing a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature.
But going by past experience, Mr Contradiction will claim that all these charts are wrong. It’s his MO.

davidmhoffer
October 28, 2012 1:43 pm

joeldshore;
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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Although ostensibly representative of northern Eurasian summer conditions, these data were later scaled using simple linear regression against a mean NH land series to provide estimates of summer temperature over the past 2 kyr (Briffa et al., 2004).”
IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch6 P471

October 28, 2012 1:44 pm

Steven Mosher says: October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm
………..
Hi Steven
I wouldn’t discard the solar, not as yet (see vukcevic page 6) than take a look at
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22423/1/97-0910.pdf
page 9:The total CAM (core angular momentum) results from the summation of the individual cylinders with a maximum at a 15-year lead with respect to LOD …… (note the -65-year periodicity).
and the latitude-time data plot from the table (page 26) of the above
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/OJV.htm
then see vukcevic page 6 again.

October 28, 2012 1:48 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Until I see the data I would suggest a .5C drop after 1550 that lasted for 200 years. I am not a believer in tree rings, but think .5C lower sustained over 200 years is not trivial.
Perhaps not, but solar activity does not follow curve (c): http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png The green curve is solar activity deduced from cosmic ray proxies of the solar magnetic field as carried out to the Earth by the solar wind.

October 28, 2012 1:56 pm

“Of course you do. True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.”
What doesn’t fit? Which data disagrees?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
Considering there must be other, non-solar factors, the correlation between colder periods and periods of weak solar activity (minima) is significant and not controversial.

Laurie
October 28, 2012 1:58 pm

It’s obvious that Big Oil has gotten to Briffa!
/sarc

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 1:58 pm

D Boehm says:

Here is another chart showing the excellent temperature correlation between hemispheres. And another. And another. And another. And just for fun, here’s a chart showing a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Great. Why don’t you come back when you have something relevant to the discussion to actually contribute. (Hint: You may want to re-read what I originally wrote.)

October 28, 2012 2:00 pm

“Ball indicates there is a list of likely suspects, insiders, who may well have been the whistle blower and points a finger at Keith Briffa, one of the climate scientists who appeared to be a war with those running the show at the Climate Research Unit.”
For the rest of the article, see:
http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2009/12/23/climategate-hacker-probably-whistleblower/

Tom in Worcester
October 28, 2012 2:04 pm

James Evans says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Mosher:
“Does anybody here check facts.”
Yes. You’re annoyingly full of yourself. Fact.
===========================================
LOL I always thought that you need put it in CAPS to make it true. FACT.

Dan in Nevada
October 28, 2012 2:04 pm

Question for anybody that might know: Has the data necessary for replication been provided?
Aside from the question as to whether or not trees make good thermometers, the sticking point has, to me, always been the deliberate concealment of data and methodology that appears to undergird modern ‘climate science’. Any time Steve M. has been able to actually get his hands on raw data, he conclusively shows that the published results are utter crap. Any time Anthony is able to compare raw measured temperature data against the ‘adjusted’ published results, he conclusively shows the published results are utter crap. And so on, and so on, and scoobie doobie doo……
To rephrase my question, is this real science?

davidmhoffer
October 28, 2012 2:05 pm

My usual reservations about using trees as a proxy for temps aside, I just can’t help but get the feeling that Briffa is trying to come in from the cold. The CG2 emails revealed a VERY adversarial relationship between Jones/Briffa and Mann in the late 90’s, with one email from Jones saying to Mann that Briffa had with held “d*mning” criticism of Mann’s hockey stick. As late as 2006, there was even an email from Briffa to colleagues asking them not to let Mann “bully” them.
At some point in the timeline, that adversarial relationship stopped. Suddenly they closed ranks. Why? The CG2 emails even reveal Jones and Mann conspiring to get each other nominated for various awards. After warning Mann that he and Briffa think Mann’s work is bunk, suddenly they’re pals and Mann’s work is golden? Jones even admits that instead of disputing Mann’s work, he has instead adopted Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline”.
One can’t help but get the impression that Briffa’s plea to others not to let themselves be bullied by Mann was not only ineffective, but that he wound up succumbing to the bullying himself. After all, Phil Jones was Briffa’s boss at the time (still is?) and given the sudden uber cozy relationship between his boss and Mann… did Briffa give in? And why this paper now? Keep in mind that it flies in the face Jones work as well given that he’s now essentially correlated his work with Mann’s.
The ClimateGate releases were inside jobs.
Things that make you go….hmmm.

Eliza
October 28, 2012 2:05 pm

Me thinks this is partly a “way out” for Briffa, so at least in future he is considered “partly” honest at least….Mann’s case will be destroyed by Steyn and a pandoras box will open..

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 2:09 pm

davidmhoffer says:

“Although ostensibly representative of northern Eurasian summer conditions, these data were later scaled using simple linear regression against a mean NH land series to provide estimates of summer temperature over the past 2 kyr (Briffa et al., 2004).”
IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch6 P471

Look at the sentence before that:

Briffa (2000) produced an extended history of interannual tree ring growth incorporating records from sites across northern Fennoscandia and northern Siberia, using a statistical technique to construct the tree ring chronologies that is capable of preserving multi-centennial time scale variability.

So no, that was not just Yamal being used to provide estimates for the Northern hemisphere…That was data from sites spread over northern Europe and Asia. And, the wording in the IPCC report (and, I might imagine in the paper if one looked it up, which I haven’t) implies that some circumspection is required in believing that even data from that larger region is really representative of NH summer temperatures.

Jan P Perlwitz
October 28, 2012 2:10 pm

Anthony Watts wrote:

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 hockey stick, and the MWP returns, though approximately equal to 20th century warmth rather than being warmer.

Mr. Watts, while you are presenting this new study by Melvin et al. as something that provides results which allegedly refute Mann’s hockey stick you do not tell your audience here that the temperature reconstruction shown in the graph, explicitly mentioned by you here, in the Melvin et al paper is done only for a region of Northern Scandinavia, unlike the temperature reconstruction in Mann et al., (1999), doi: 10.1029/1999GL900070, which was a reconstruction of the Northern Hemispheric temperature. You are not presenting the results of the Melvin et al. paper correctly and you are jumping to conclusions, which are not supported by the new Melvin et al. paper.
The Hockey Stick in Mann et al., (1999) does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a Medieval Warm Period, anyway. The shape of the Hockey stick in this paper is characterized by a long-term cooling trend from warmer Medieval times up to the end of the 19th century, which is followed by a sharp upward movement in the temperature in the 20th century (see Figure 3 in Mann et al., 1999). The Hockey stick in this paper doesn’t even preclude the possibility of a Medieval Warm Period with about equal temperatures as in the 20th century, since the 20th century average temperature still lies within the upper half of the error band of Mann’s Hockey Stick in the part of the reconstruction that covers the Medieval times.