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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
483 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 28, 2012 7:43 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“How many referees and editors were there on all yours papers that were rejected?”
Technically speaking, my accepted papers were never rejected. Also if a previous version might have been rejected by a journal, the accepted version has always been a revision.
See, Leif, your way of reasoning, which is filled of logical fallacies, demonstrates only your personal deep rancor toward everybody with whom you disagree. Essentially, you do not have scientific arguments, and use defamation and insinuations. Do not worry, more and more people are realizing who you really are.

October 28, 2012 7:51 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 28, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Technically speaking, my accepted papers were never rejected. Also if a previous version might have been rejected by a journal, the accepted version has always been a revision.
So papers were rejected by one journal and after revision and submission to a lesser journal were finally accepted. How many referees and editors had rejected the papers the first time around?
Do not worry, more and more people are realizing who you really are.
And helped to that realization by a benevolent Scafetta telling them what to realize…

What Did I Tell You!?
October 28, 2012 7:55 pm

You carbon dioxide zombies all sound the same. Like tobacco executives.
“Please raise your right hand….proceed.”
“I buhleev thair is uh.. MAGICAL GAS that… CAINT HAVE IT’S SPECTRAL PROFILE in thuh.. AT-MUS’-FEAR checked, and that the MAGICAL GAS might only be LOOKABLE AT with uh… HOCKIE STICK statistic that MAKES HOCKEY STICKS but is REAL MATH.”

RoHa
October 28, 2012 8:05 pm

Time for a bit of discussion of these two. (Reported by Hockey Schtick.)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053265.shtml
How may low-cloud radiative properties simulated in the current climate influence low-cloud feedbacks under global warming?
” it is suggested that the strength of the tropical low-cloud feedback predicted by the IPSL-CM5A model in climate projections might be overestimated by about fifty percent. ” (Abstract)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.html
Atmospheric impacts on climatic variability of surface incident solar radiation
A new paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds from direct measurements that there was a significant increase in solar radiation at the surface of the Northern Hemisphere from 1982 to 2008.
“A new paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds from direct measurements that there was a significant increase in solar radiation at the surface of the Northern Hemisphere from 1982 to 2008. ” (Hockey schtick – http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au)

October 28, 2012 8:25 pm

joeldshore “than the more dramatic spike we get over the past several decades when most places have warmed with a large degree of synchronicity.”
Except for the 30% of the world that has cooled. And the large number of airports etc whose only warming is UHI.
Remember, the post 1980 warming may all be about clean air legislation removing a large amount of SO2 from the atmosphere.
However, since proxies are not thermometers and thermometers are not proxies, why not compare proxies to proxies?
Looking at the modern proxy record in the above graph, 1934, 1960 and 1980 are as warm as 2002 and all are a lot warmer than 1998.
1934ish in the graphs appears to be the warmest year in both proxies. By far.
Do you agree?

October 28, 2012 8:34 pm
October 28, 2012 8:44 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
October 28, 2012 at 8:34 pm
1934ish is really 1936 now that I’ve looked at it closer.
Perhaps you are overlooking 2003 or so…

MikeN
October 28, 2012 8:56 pm

The existence of a Medieval Warm Period makes warming more likely. Mann has said that the localized MWP meant that their was a negative modulating effect in the tropics, which was LaNina like, and suggested similar thing in response to global warming. When asked if this meant climate models vastly overstate warming, he said ‘I agree with that.’ Having a global Medieval Warm Period frees Mann from having to support the idea that climate models vastly overstate warming.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 28, 2012 9:08 pm

Please, could someone tell me which TSI values should be used? WoodForTrees uses “PMOD composite TSI monthly average”:
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1979/mean:13/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/mean:13/normalise
If the cycles of that are supposed to somehow match the cycles in temperature, I sure don’t see it.
NOAA provides three different updating sets:

1.) Composite Total Solar Irradiance database 1978-present, compiled by C. Frohlich and J. Lean
2.) ACRIM Composite TSI Time Series 1978-present, compiled by R. Willson
3.) SORCE (Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment) 2003-present, compiled by G. Rottman

The Frohlich and Lean version incorporates the ACRIM data. The World Radiation Center is referenced, the start years match, leading me to believe this might be the “PMOD composite” WFT uses. The “readme” at the address given by WFT also references Frohlich and Lean.
However, with further looking, I find the F&L database accessible from NOAA has nothing newer than 2003.
NOAA says to check the ACRIM site for up-to-date info, where I can’t find anything newer than November 2011.
And I can’t find the file WFT says it uses where it said it got it from. And March 2011 is the newest data WFT has.
On the WUWT Solar Reference page, SOURCE is referenced (with the erroneous extra “U”), but that dataset only goes from 2003. Although I could try my luck with their annual Historical TSI Reconstruction which starts at 1610. (Does the xxxx.5 indicate it’s the center of that year, or it goes from July that year to end of June next year, or what?)
Dr. Svalgaard provides a link to the PMOD data, but that file is no longer there. This file looks like the most current one, ends at July 3, 2012.
(Note to Leif: PMOD link on your Download data page has an extra slash on the end.)
So which TSI values should be used, and where do I get them?

Dan in Nevada
October 28, 2012 9:49 pm

Leif and Nicola,
How old are you guys anyway? Except for the big words, I’d guess maybe three. I’m totally aware that you both out-doctorate someone like me, but you’re not giving ‘credentialism’ a good name. I look to people of your caliber to shine some light on what is often a murky subject. Today you disappoint.

October 28, 2012 10:39 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 28, 2012 at 9:08 pm
So which TSI values should be used, and where do I get them?
Last year it was finally officially realized that PMOD has uncorrected degradation so that the values have an artificial downward trend and that there is no observational evidence that the minima are different: Slides 31 and 33 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf “Observed data do not support a measureable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008”
Something I have shown some time ago, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf which the observers have finally agreed to.
If you want my best guess [based on the reconstructed sunspot number] you can get it here:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Guess.xls
The values for the Maunder Minimum are, of course, pure speculation.

October 28, 2012 10:52 pm

fact alert.
this paper has little bearing on manns work.
its a seasonal recon.
its a local recon.
for folks who follow rcs and modern tree bias its an important piece.
a number of studies should recalc their results.
the mwp will still be unclear

October 28, 2012 10:55 pm

Leif: “Perhaps you are overlooking 2003 or so…”
If it was 2003, they wouldn’t have cut the top of the graph off. Therefore, logically it has to be 1936.

October 28, 2012 10:56 pm

Mosher: “its a seasonal recon”
Do trees grow much in the winter?

Sunspot
October 28, 2012 10:59 pm

Vukcevic is the only one that got anywhere near predicting SC24’s max before it started. The other so called experts failed miserably. To me, anyone that charts the history of a SC and then predicts what next month’s SSN will be, will get a job at the weather bureau. Just like any other Joe Blow.

October 28, 2012 10:59 pm

Dan in Nevada says:
October 28, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Today you disappoint
Sadly true. Even responding to Nicola drags one down. But try to ignore the silly accusations and characterizations, perhaps there is something of value left when you strip off the noise.

October 28, 2012 11:06 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
October 28, 2012 at 10:55 pm
If it was 2003, they wouldn’t have cut the top of the graph off. Therefore, logically it has to be 1936.
I fail to see the ‘logic’. The top is cut off, so you can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003.

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 11:37 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/
Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
Why don’t you ask them?

Because I’m asking you, to find out if you are being truthful. Further evasiveness won’t look good for you. You claimed their paper was rejected by other journals, as a way of attacking them. Which journals?
Astronomy and Astrophysics isn’t such a bad journal to be publishing in anyway. At least they haven’t locked the paper behind a paywall, so anyone can download it and decide for themselves how good it is by clicking the link on my blog.

October 28, 2012 11:40 pm

I see that the fake skeptics here didnt have the sense to check the ar5 deadlines. I see that nobody suggested fact chking tallbloke.
let me help you with retorts. you can always try manns tactic and attack the messenger
you can say it doesnt matter.
you can use any manner of tactics you picked up from mann and jones.

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 11:41 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm
According to tallbloke the treemometer data ‘fit nicely’ with solar activity, so prove that the treemometer data are GOOD 🙂

This is what I said about treemometers:
“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.”

tallbloke
October 28, 2012 11:44 pm

Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:40 pm
I see that the fake skeptics here didnt have the sense to check the ar5 deadlines. I see that nobody suggested fact chking tallbloke.

Submitting before the deadline didn’t work out for Gergis et al though. Doesn’t the paper have to be ‘accepted’ by the Journal before the deadline too?

October 28, 2012 11:50 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Because I’m asking you, to find out if you are being truthful.
That should be your default assumption. The Danish proverb “a thief thinks everybody steals” comes to mind…

October 28, 2012 11:52 pm

tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:41 pm
This is what I said about treemometers: […] So, pretty tenuous.
Yet you claim that they ‘fit nicely’ with your model. Nice confirmation bias there, or perhaps just ‘forked tongue’.

October 29, 2012 12:00 am

sunshinehours1 says: ”Admittedly the cold started around 1600, warmed a bit and then made a big dip back to 8C. But it was cold. Very cold”
At what month and date the cold started in 1600? .What brand of thermometers did you use at that time? Do you have data for every day and.month for Australia, New Zealand, Antarctic; it was 170years before James Cook discovered those lands – how did you get there before him – or maybe those lands are not on your planet…? How about the daily temp of Pacific; Pacific is as large as all the dry land on the planet, is it in your calculation? How about learning some reality about the past phony GLOBAL warmings – because they were NEVER global.!!!
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/

Mooloo
October 29, 2012 12:17 am

Mann has said that the localized MWP meant that their was a negative modulating effect in the tropics, which was LaNina like, and suggested similar thing in response to global warming.
That’s some powerful handwavium he’s got there. Rather like Trenberth’s heat locked up in the oceans; and the magic effect of aerosols; and the way polar amplification is not going to affect Antarctica as much after all, and …
It’s all post hoc ergo propter hoc of the worst sort. “Just so” reasoning that would be laughed at if an undergraduate produced it, but is apparently de rigueur in the world of climate science.
The simplest explanation, which Mann will never admit, is that the MWP wasn’t localised at all.

1 5 6 7 8 9 20