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 difference in this study is that they just presented the data.
They did not “mine” the data for hockey sticks as almost all the other tree-ring/proxy reconstructions do.
As in throw data out if it does not have a hockey stick and even accentuate data if it does have a hockey stick (bristle-cone pines for example).
As in cut the data off and append a completely different series to it (adjusted temperatures).
This is a world of difference that has nothing to do with location but deals with methodology.
Even in the latest FOI releases related to the withdrawn Gergis paper, (see Climate Audit today) the authors note they did not want to use Mann’s method of using undetrended temperature to proxy correlations because this tends to construct “hockey sticks”.
joeldshore;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joel, your orginal assertion reads as follows:
“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?”
Your question as worded doesn’t refer to Yamal, it refers to “this sample”.
By The way Leif, have you seen Steinhilber’s latest paper?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/
Congratulations, you’re absolutely correct. It doesn’t prove much though. According to the historical record, the MWP and LIA happened at roughly the same time in Europe and China but the dramatic, history changing, decades long, epochs of warm and cold temperature happened at different times. In Europe the 1300s brought cold and famine. In China, Japan and Korea, the really bad stuff didn’t happen until the 1600s.
It blows my mind that so many people pay so much attention to Mann and Briffa. There is a huge number of studies that contradict Mann. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/description.php
I was a CAGW believer until they tried to erase the MWP. So, you can credit Mann with creating at least one skeptic.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm
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 you say, fiddle the right way and you can make anything fit.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm
By The way Leif, have you seen Steinhilber’s latest paper?
Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.
Better one sinner repenteth!
I am very curious as to the timing of the release of this paper (obviously Mann wasn’t informed and this wasn’t done overnight0. I wonder what has been going on behind the scenes. As alluded to above, is Biffra trying to absolve himself or perhaps distance himself from the propaganda that has passed for scientific comment or was the poor man just led a merry dance by Mann et al?
Although it is very personnally satisfying to see one of the “opposition” distance themselves from the “Hockey Team” I doubt we will see the politicians or the BBC suddenly say “OK thats it no more windmills, were gonna cut your taxes and green surcharges”, they have far too much invested in this scare.
Until, ideally, one of the “opposition” stands up and publicly recants in a very noticable way it will be keep calm, wear you sunblock and buy a set of big wellie boots coz the ice caps are still metling, and carry on.
Tree rings have been over hyped as a conveyor of anything more than a rough guide to age and precipitation. What does a single study from one region showing a summer only signal prove? There were many hot summers even during parts of the lia. It was the cold winters that really dragged the overall temperatures down and tree rings couldn’t show that even if they were any sort of guide to summer temperatures.
Having said that there were around forty years at the start of the 18th century that seem broadly comparable to the modern day according to observational and crop records with very warm summers although still colder than now winters on the whole
Tonyb
Vuk
Your tree growing season link doesn’t work. Or were you testing us? Do I get a prize?
Tonyb
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm
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 you say, fiddle the right way and you can make anything fit.
Wiggle matching is such fun. The calibrations are starting to look good too.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm
By The way Leif, have you seen Steinhilber’s latest paper?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/
Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.
Well naturally, there is a status quo to defend after all. Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
Philincalifornia
This appears to be what was going on in the 1760’s
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
Tonyb
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm
“True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.”
And, similarly for True Disbelievers.
The amplitude modulation of temperatures is still incredibly obvious. Physician, heal thyself.
climatereason says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Tree rings have been over hyped as a conveyor of anything more than a rough guide to age and precipitation. What does a single study from one region showing a summer only signal prove?
According to tallbloke the treemometer data ‘fit nicely’ with solar activity, so prove that the treemometer data are GOOD 🙂
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
Why don’t you ask them?
Bart says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:03 pm
The amplitude modulation of temperatures is still incredibly obvious
So you are saying that the treemometer data are incredibly good?
Leigh
We all have our own beliefs based on the knowledge we have accumulated. The other TB has his opinion and I have mine.
Sometime in the last twenty years tree rings were somehow elevated from a reasonable guide to dating and a less reliable guide to general precipitation and became supposedly highly accurate tree nometers. Perhaps the elevation to a precise science was done by mann and the ipcc perhaps it happended coincidentally. Whatever the background I don’t buy the supposed accuracy of the results
Tonyb
Leif
Sorry, my kindle transposed your name to ‘Leigh’. It’s a good name though, perhaps you’d consider changing?
Tonyb
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
“Well naturally, there is a status quo to defend after all. Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?”
I guess it was a journal whose editor thought that Leif Svalgaard is an expert in solar physics and sent the paper to him as a referee. The paper was rejected based on Leif’s biased arguments.
Then the authors sent the paper to another journal and the editor did not thought that Leif was an expert in the topic. And the paper was accepted without problems.
Numerous papers are coming out on this topic. I hope that Anthony realizes that Leif mislead him, and that planetary harmonics is key to understand both solar dynamics and climate change, as my papers strongly suggested.
By the way, a correlation between planetary harmonics and Steinhilber’s TSI was first noted in my paper:
Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
And a possible physical mechanism is here
Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.
Nicola Scafetta says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm
The paper was rejected based on Leif’s biased arguments.
A case of sour grapes?
Regardless of who rejected the paper, there are almost always several referees, especially with high-quality journals.
I’ve sent this to all BBC environmental correspondents. No replies as yet…
joeldshore says: October 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm
“…Isn’t this just a temperature reconstruction from one area,,,Northern Sweden? I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al….”
If you look at Mann’s worldwide MWP reconstruction publications, you will see that it is (necessarily) based on modelling based on scattered paleoclimate proxies. In fact, in the southern hemisphere he only has about 6 proxies, and most of those were strangely warmer than the modelled surrounds. (see Fig 2, below)
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
davidmhoffer says:
Well…I guess it is open to interpretation but I meant it to refer to Yamal.
Nonetheless, I don’t think it matters. The IPCC quote refers to Briffa work covering “sites across northern Fennoscandia and northern Siberia”. The current Briffa paper seems to refer only to “the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden”.
VERY well put Dan, because the d.e.f.i.n.i.t.i.o.n. of science is that it c.a.n. be r.e.p.l.i.c.a.t.e.d.
Till people are regularly replicating it, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. It never WAS, it NEVER WILL be.
“OK, so you’ve observed something. How do you know it is right? How do you know you observed it correctly? Or wrote it down correctly? Or there wasn’t something else happening that you didn’t notice (like someone bumped the table or something) that messed up your observation? Why, you just do it again. This is the second important part of science: replication. Do it again. If we observe something, and we describe what we did and other people can repeat our experiment and observe the same result, then we can conclude we’ve correctly observed what is true.
This is a big deal and it is the reason why scientists don’t care much about reports of ESP (Extra-Sensory Perception), mind reading and stuff like that. Not because they don’t like the people doing it, not because the people doing it aren’t smart, not because they don’t use big words, but because other people are unable to repeat the experiment and get the same result. It’s that simple. In science, if you can’t replicate it, then you don’t understand it. It isn’t science. Accidents and coincidences happen all the time. Nobel Prize-winner Richard Feynman said science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.
Once we can replicate an observation, we can propose a mechanism in nature that explains the observation (scientists call this kind of proposal a theory), or we can devise a mathematical relationship between parts of nature (a law). For our theory or law to be part of science, it must be able to predict a result of an experiment that has not yet been done. This is the third important part: prediction. If it can do this successfully, then it will be accepted. This is also important. If your explanation only explains what’s already been observed, then that’s OK, but not very convincing. Anyone can come up with an explanation for things they see. The really good ones explain what no one has seen yet.
So, these are three vital parts of science that we are discussing today: observation, replication and prediction.”
From a C.H.I.L.D.R.E.N’S. site on science.
These people who are running this ‘catastrophe! Catastrophe if you don’t invest HERE! and HERE!’ need to be in jail.
http://www.trimberger.org/programs/observe_replicate_predict.htm
This didn’t one day become crime recently, it’s been crime ever since Al Gore and others defied law enforcement to compare their political power
to his.
joelshore says:
“…the point-of-discussion is the synchronicity of warm events within the Northern Hemisphere on centennial time scales.”
Not really. The point of discussion is your false claim that the MWP was not a global phenomenon. I and others have shown you that it was. The 2nd Law does not allow a major region to remain so anomalously cold or hot for hundreds of years as you sem to believe. The same goes for the LIA, which Mann ±90% erased.
Anyway, thanks for your assertion. I back my comments by posating empirical evidence, and lots of it. You just assert your opinion, or link to other model-based opinions. And do I have to point out once again that the planet does not agree with your “carbon” scare?
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?
Empirical scum!
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:42 pm
“Regardless of who rejected the paper, there are almost always several referees, especially with high-quality journals.”
Leif, if an editor send this type of papers to you, that means that the editor himself is biased on the topic. So, also the other referees were poor scientists unfamiliar and possible hostile on this topic.
By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.