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
October 28, 2012 2:10 pm

Steven Mosher says: October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm
……
re: my comment above, see also vukcevic page 7, Fig. 12 : direct Arctic atmospheric pressure response no delay and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/OJV.htm

John Trigge (in Oz)
October 28, 2012 2:11 pm

Does anyone other than me also see the large number of rapid temperature rises that are similar to the late 20th century rises attributed to CO2?

ColdOldMan
October 28, 2012 2:11 pm

joeldshore says: October 28, 2012 at 1:10 pm

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.

Here are a few more from around the world. These should keep you happy for a while.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html

October 28, 2012 2:24 pm

I actually have always thought that Briffa, and to a substantial extent Jones as well, have felt quite uncomfortable being considered members of “the hockey team” and having a lot of pressure not to speak their doubts and to toe the party line. There are a few comments in the climategate papers (and elsewhere) that have suggested annoyance at having their “scientific opinion” co-opted by some sort of group effort to defend Mann at all costs because the hockey stick was “the” official empirical basis of CAGW. They’ve also had a lot of pressure on them not to express their own doubts in public.
Yes, David, precisely the letters you refer to more exactly. Also wasn’t there a story about being on a talk show and having their “scientific opinion” defined by the talk show host, where any contrary evidence or guarded observations were edited out? This has been simmering for a LONG time.
Note well that Jones and Briffa’s early climate reconstructions clearly showed the MWP and were far less “hockey stick”-like than Mann’s. Then there was the climategate 1 communication from (was it Bradley?) stating quite clearly that the goal was to “erase the MWP” and the LIA, as with them in place no rational person could be brought to the requisite state of panic — it’s getting as warm as it was 1000 years ago WITHOUT anthropogenic CO_2 — so what’s the beef?
Good heavens. We could actually regress to where climate science is actually science again.
rgb

October 28, 2012 2:24 pm

Edim says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm
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.
The sunspot number you show is very controversial, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.pdf and http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
And the correlation is contradicted by the Figure in the article of this thread:
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.

aquix
October 28, 2012 2:33 pm

My friends, I say it again. I believe briffa is FOIA.
Been a fun week reading all the comments 😀

Sundance
October 28, 2012 2:35 pm

Now I’m in real catch 22 trouble because no matter which dendro reconstruction I accept I will accused of being a denier by the the authors of the other dendro reconstruction.

October 28, 2012 2:38 pm

My personal opinion not worth much and based upon nothing other than I have grown a few things, is that tree-ring proxies are indicative of little other than hoe felicitous the local conditions were to the welfare of that particular stand of trees.
As for this study being local to Scandinavia all I know is that climatic, seasonal conditions, year on year are pretty similar from Siberia to the West coast of Ireland with Scandinavia & Siberia bearing the brunt of the low temperatures in winter but having pretty similar summers all over the area. It’s mild & temperate. And I’d say if that’s true of today there is no reason why it won’t be true of the past.
Certainly you can’t accept this as being a reconstruction for the whole of the Northern hemisphere but the more studies like this that can be done honestly perhaps the alarmists will stop trying to dismiss the MWP as fiction.
I welcome that Briffa has done this work though never thought I’d see the day.

philincalifornia
October 28, 2012 2:38 pm

Taking this at face value, what’s going on around 1760-ish ??

GlynnMhor
October 28, 2012 2:39 pm

Trees grow according to whichever environmental parameter is the limiting one. If there’s enough water, sunlight, and nutrients, then temperature may be the limiting factor, but if (for example) water is scarcer than normal and thus limits growth, the validity of the tree growth as a temperature proxy is going to fail.

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 2:46 pm

ColdOldMan say:

Here are a few more from around the world. These should keep you happy for a while.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html

And, this addresses the issue of the synchronicity of the warm events in different locations during the broadly-defined several hundred year period called the Medieval Warm Period how exactly? Let’s take two of the data points from that map: Look at this one http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Rolland-2009.html showing it warm between about 1200 and the late 1300s but cold in the 1100s and about average before that. And, then there’s this one http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Grudd-2008.html showing it warm from ~900-1100 and then on the cold side side of average from about 1100 to 1400. That rather nicely illustrates exactly the point that Mann et al. were making: that the warm events tended to be asyncronis at different locations.
It also rather nicely illustrates how that site doesn’t bother to address the real scientific questions and hopes that people who want to believe what they are peddling won’t notice!

October 28, 2012 2:56 pm

I believe it is unfair to cast a stone to Briffa, Jones was his boss and it would have been very difficult for him to go against him and his colleagues, it would have been a social suicide, everybody cannot be Svensmark who passed through very tough time and resisted. The most important point is that he eventually wrote this paper and that the tide seems to change.

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 3:05 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.
But going by past experience, Mr Contradiction will claim that all these charts are wrong. It’s his MO.

No…I will just point out that they are irrelevant given that the point-of-discussion is the synchronicity of warm events within the Northern Hemisphere on centennial time scales.

joeldshore
October 28, 2012 3:09 pm

zootcadillac says:

Certainly you can’t accept this as being a reconstruction for the whole of the Northern hemisphere but the more studies like this that can be done honestly perhaps the alarmists will stop trying to dismiss the MWP as fiction.

When you talk about “alarmists […] trying to dismiss the MWP as fiction” are you talking about, for example, when Mann et al. said in their original 1000-year reconstruction paper (1999) that

Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the
millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age sensu lato.

Or are you talking about something else? I agree that there seems to be an issue with fiction here.

Dan in Nevada
October 28, 2012 3:26 pm

John Trigge (in Oz) October 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm says:
“Does anyone other than me also see the large number of rapid temperature rises that are similar to the late 20th century rises attributed to CO2?”
To me, MXD from ~1000 to ~1100 looks a lot like ~1900 to ~2000 if you’re looking at both trends and actual temperatures. If the past can predict the future, what happens after ~1100 doesn’t bode well for humanity, other than putting CAGW to rest once and for all.

October 28, 2012 3:29 pm

Timing of 4 paleo papers suspicious to even the non-cynical.
In the month of October 2102 three papers published showing adverse results versus the AR3 and AR4 endorsed Hockey Stick papers by Mann.

Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/
Esper et al in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/
‘Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data’ by Thomas M Melvin, Håkan Grudd and Keith R Briffa in the the journal ‘Holocene’ http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract and 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/

The deadline for submission of papers for potential inclusion to AR5 was July 31 2012.
I assume they were not in the FOD or the SOD? If so is it because they were too late? Is there anecdotal evidence by those involved in authoring the papers of any unusual delays or unusual processes imposed by the journals wrt the reviews and acceptance of those papers that caused them to miss the AR5 deadline for paper submittal?
I contrast the above questions with the CA post on the problematic and unusual circumstances involved in the IPCC keeping the research of Gergis et al (that has results favorable to the results of Mann’s hockey stick papers which AR3 and AR4 endorsed) alive even though there is prima fascia evidence that it missed the July 31 deadline. http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/22/ipcc-check-kites-gergis/#more-17121
John

TBear
October 28, 2012 3:31 pm

Mann is suing for defamation.
Not sure the judge will care very much that Briffa, etc (or anyone else, for that matter) arrive at a different interpretation of the ancient temperature record.
Two scientists, two different results. So what?
The issue in the Mann case is the allegation of scientific fraud. NRO and Mark Steyn look more like the ones who have made a mistake here, especially by challenging Mann to sue. That little add-on was an unnecessary and potentially expensive indulgence.

richardscourtney
October 28, 2012 3:34 pm

GlynnMhor:
At October 28, 2012 at 2:39 pm you say

Trees grow according to whichever environmental parameter is the limiting one. If there’s enough water, sunlight, and nutrients, then temperature may be the limiting factor, but if (for example) water is scarcer than normal and thus limits growth, the validity of the tree growth as a temperature proxy is going to fail.

Yes. But that assumes the limiting factor is a constant throughout the life of the tree. For example, growth or death (with falling) of a nearby tree may alter available sunlight.
And, importantly, in the cases where temperature is the limiting factor then the tree only indicates temperature in the growing season. Altered autumn and winter temperatures will not be indicated.
Most important of all is the inability of selection to provide a valid calibration sample: Lucia gives an excellent explanation of this for non-statisticians at
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/
Richard

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 3:46 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm
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.

Is that what the proxy data says after Mann has fiddled with it, or what the solar data says after you’ve fiddled with it Leif?
As I’ve told you before, so long as you don’t manage to iron the solar data completely flat, my model can cope with whatever watered down TSI changes you manage to convince the solar community with.

KnR
October 28, 2012 3:54 pm

How long before Briffa has to deny his heretical ways , Mann nether forgives for forgets any member if ‘the Team ‘ crosses him they better watch out.

October 28, 2012 3:58 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Is that what the solar data says after you’ve fiddled with it Leif?
It is Steinhilber’s reconstruction http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png
And the treemometer data must be correct as they ‘fit nicely’ with your model, right?
my model can cope with whatever watered down TSI changes you manage to convince the solar community with.
Reminds me of Dikpati’s remark after Hathaway told her that the data she used [supplied by Hathaway] was faulty: “it doesn’t matter, my result is robust and is correct even if based on faulty, out-of-date data”. You two would get along nicely.

KnR
October 28, 2012 3:59 pm

TBear says:
‘Two scientists, two different results.’
That is actual part of defence , that Manns claims are up for ligament challenged and therefore it is reasonable to suggest he was wrong given there are conflicting views from the ‘experts ‘
Mann’s ego has never allowed that to be the case in the past, he regards himself to be a god like figure incapable of being wrong and and therefore from being fairly challenged.

October 28, 2012 4:10 pm

Tree growing season in a large part of England (the CET area) wasn’t much ‘fun’ for the last 350 years
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET(MJJA).htm

October 28, 2012 4:13 pm

CET tree growing season link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET(MJJA).htm

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 4:18 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:58 pm
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Is that what the solar data says after you’ve fiddled with it Leif?
It is Steinhilber’s reconstruction http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png
And the treemometer data must be correct as they ‘fit nicely’ with your model, right?

Steinhilber’s TSI fit’s quite well with Mann08 if you treat it in the same way as I do with my solar proxy for ocean heat content, as lgl demonstrated recently.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/steinhilber-tsi-mann08-temp.png