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 29, 2012 12:17 am

Leif Svalgaard says: ”The Danish proverb “a thief thinks everybody steals” comes to mind”
Is that why tallbloke thinks that everybody lies?…

Roger
October 29, 2012 12:18 am

I recall Briffa saying at the height of the Yamal Hoo Ha that he was still working on a “robust’ methodology and that ” time would tell” whether he was right or not (something like that).
Strikes me as an honest bloke trying to get it right.

tallbloke
October 29, 2012 12:24 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm
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.
Hi Nicola, it’s an excellent paper and I’m really delighted you got it got published in such a prestigious Journal as JASTP.
Just for the record, outside the literature, the correlation between planetary harmonics and Steinhilber’s TSI was first noted at the talkshop in July last year by Tim Channon in this comment,
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/#comment-5019 when he published this plot of his model using planetary harmonic frequencies: http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sbf-tsi-a.png
He then confirmed it was linked to the Sun’s motion at the talkshop in July 2011
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/the-luxembourg-effect/
The key frequencies were found by Bart in his maximum entropy method study of the spectra of sunspot numbers, when he created a model of solar activity here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/bart-modeling-the-historical-sunspot-record-from-planetary-periods/
Which I then followed up with my analysis of these key planetary frequencies in August 2011 here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/
I appreciate you linking to my blog in two of your previous non-journal-submitted publications and I’m grateful that you have acknowledged our contribution to this field of study.
Cheers
TB

October 29, 2012 12:28 am

richardscourtney says: ” For example, growth or death (with falling) of a nearby tree may alter available sunlight.”
And if it doesn’t, can the tree in your backyard tell about the temp on Midway / Pacific? Two trees 10feet apart, have different tree rings, 2] Agronomist and lumberjack can tell you that: the thickness of the rings on an individual tree depend on 101 different effects. Agronomist and lumberjacks work for leaving / climatologist use tree-rings; because they con for leaving
The trees are lying Richo, same like you. The ”tree-rings theory” should be shoved up the Mann’s ring!!!

October 29, 2012 12:30 am

Once more
CET- tree growing season (May-August)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-MJJA.htm

tallbloke
October 29, 2012 12:35 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 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…

Leif, you made an assertion about the paper written by these scientists
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/
You said:
“Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.”
I think it’s in your own interests to substantiate your comment, because otherwise, it makes you look like you’re just slandering Abreu and Steinhilber et al on the basis of nothing at all except your own prejudice against the field of study they have written the paper around.
So, before I ask Abreu and Steinhilber if there is any truth in your comment, which journals rejected their paper that you know of? If you don’t know of any, and you were just making it up, now is the time to say so.

MattA
October 29, 2012 12:40 am

Maybe all this shows is that trees are horrible thermometers 🙂

Espen
October 29, 2012 12:41 am

I notice that the reconstruction takes a big dip in the last half of the 16th century. That fits very well with historic records for Europe, where 1540 was possibly the warmest summer of the millennium – warmer than CAGW poster child 2003 – but where the last decades of that century had severely cold weather.

October 29, 2012 12:49 am

tallbloke says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:35 am
If you don’t know of any, and you were just making it up, now is the time to say so.
Talking about slander….

P. Solar
October 29, 2012 12:52 am

“Look at graph 5c, and you’ll see 20th century warmth matches peaks either side of the year 1000”
You don’t need to go back 1000y, Just look at late 19th c. Just as warm as present.
This warm period was suppressed by Hadley “bias corrections” which removed two thirds of the inconvenient downward trend.
This plot shows Met Office Hadely adjustments remove about 0.3 C from the downward trend between 1860 and 1920.
http://i44.tinypic.com/149o081.png
Also note the 0.1 C offset in the AMO plot which aligns the two data sets thereafter. This again points out a glitch in the “bias corrections” . This was the point at which Hadley changes from one correction adjustment to another.
All these “corrections” are largely guesswork in terms of duration, timing and magnitude of the effects. Hadley’s John Kennedy agreed that they were based on hypothesis. He explains the adjustments of this period here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/#comment-186646

tallbloke
October 29, 2012 1:01 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 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’.

My model is calibrated nicely against thermometer measured SST’s back to 1850, not tree rings.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sst-model1.png
Before then, there is little to go on apart from the proxy reconstructions. Of which Mann’s reconstruction is but one. As I pointed out, lgl’s use of the same method I developed for using TSI or SSN as a proxy for ocean heat content also fits Steinhilber’s TSI reconstruction quite well to the Mann08 temperature reconstruction.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/steinhilber-tsi-mann08-temp.png

P. Solar
October 29, 2012 1:15 am

P. Solar says: “You don’t need to go back 1000y, Just look at late 19th c. Just as warm as present. ”
oops, I misread the dates, peak that was as warm as current period was late 18th c. , not late 19th (which was close but less warm than today.)

tallbloke
October 29, 2012 1:21 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:49 am
tallbloke says:
October 29, 2012 at 12:35 am
If you don’t know of any, and you were just making it up, now is the time to say so.
Talking about slander….

Talk about BS. See the use of the conditional in my statement there Leif? So, you are unable or unwilling to back up your slanderous accusation with any checkable facts. No matter, I’ll ask Abreu and Steinhilber, and then we’ll find out the truth about your comment on their paper: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/ When you said:
“after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.”
Whatever the truth of the matter, Astronomy and Astrophysics is a pretty big and important journal, so if ‘Nature’ or ‘Science’s editors did reject it without review, with or without your knowledge, it doesn’t matter much. Science moves on, with or without reviewers such as yourself. Most of the people here have seen just how biased the journals you review for are anyway.
Nature didn’t publish any solar papers for five years between 2005-2010.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/sun-rediscovered-by-nature/

Jimbo
October 29, 2012 1:31 am

joeldshore,
browse through some of these references to papers showing the Medieval Warm Period in many parts of the southern hemisphere such as Antarctica, southern Africa, South America, Australia, New Zealand.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Here is a handy map
http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

Wellington
October 29, 2012 1:51 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Why don’t you ask them?

Since you chose to bring it up why not ask you?

Jack
October 29, 2012 2:12 am

More and more it’s looking like Briffa was the leak behind the Climategate emails. Probably he didn’t like being bullied by Mann and is now geting his revenge, aka playing the long game.

M Courtney
October 29, 2012 2:14 am

Trees as thermometers still seem to be worthless, in my opinion. If temperature limits growth then it may tell you something but it’s impossible to tell if that’s true.
Additional soil nutrients may alter the limiting factor.
Any study that doesn’t understand ursine foecal behaviours in arboreal environments lacks a certain common sense.
More interesting is that we have here another slpit between the UK and US wings of the climate Team.

Jan P Perlwitz
October 29, 2012 2:17 am

TimTheToolMan wrote in
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/#comment-1126841
in reply to my comment in
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/#comment-1126477

Jan P Perlwitz says: assorted stuff implying Melvin is not useful whereas Mann is useful.

I didn’t say or imply anything like what you assert here. You are reading something into my comment that isn’t in there.

Come on Jan, neither is representative of global temperatures. Or even Northern Hemisphere temperatures for that matter. Whats the point of saying one is better than the other, especially when the one you prefer was authored by a man who is known to be biased towards confirming AGW.

What is the point of a straw man argument? You aren’t replying here to anything I said. You are replying to something else.
Besides that, pointing to an alleged bias of Mann as an argument against the Mann et al., (1999) study, is a logical fallacy. It’s an ad hominem argument. You can’t logically or empirically refute the results of a scientific study, of any scientific study, by applying ad hominem arguments against the authors of the study.

The Melvin study is another piece in the puzzle. Nothing more. There was a time when AGW believers would argue there were no conflicting papers to AGW but you dont hear that as often anymore do you.

To the contrary. Sets of statements that are generally accepted among climate scientists today, with the exception of a small minority, as a valid explanation regarding the diagnostic and the attribution of the global warming that is happening, were much more controversial in the field, let’s say 20 years ago, since there has been an accumulation of more and more scientific evidence in support of those statements over the time period from back then to today.

Josualdo
October 29, 2012 2:47 am

AlanG says: October 28, 2012 at 11:26 am
But. But. If I want my trees to grow more I water them. Why this dendrothermometry?

Well, there you are.

richardscourtney
October 29, 2012 2:54 am

Jan P Perlw1tz:
At October 29, 2012 at 2:17 am you assert

To the contrary. Sets of statements that are generally accepted among climate scientists today, with the exception of a small minority, as a valid explanation regarding the diagnostic and the attribution of the global warming that is happening, were much more controversial in the field, let’s say 20 years ago, since there has been an accumulation of more and more scientific evidence in support of those statements over the time period from back then to today.

So what?
What a self-defined group of ‘climate scientists’ think is not the subject under debate.
The issue of this thread concerns what the recent Briffa paper indicates concerning the validity of treemometer studies and what they indicate. At very least the Briffa paper adds to the falsification of the MBH ‘hockey stick’.
And the MBH ‘hockey stick’ was debatable from the start. Indeed, within a week of the publication of MBH98 I was questioning the validity of splicing different data sets (and I then did not know of “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”. Since then the studies of M&M, Wegman and North have all trashed it because MBH used invalid statistical procedures. Briffa’s paper is merely another nail in the coffin of the MBH ‘hockey stick’.
However, the Briffa paper may also be ‘bad science’ because it relies upon treemometers, too. As I said of treemometry in my post at October 28, 2012 at 3:34 pm

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/

The total data of Briffa’s convenience sample (n.b. not a random sample) may provide an apparent calibration. However, using that appearance as an indication of a calibration period would only be another example of mistaking correlation for causation (which seems to be a favoured error of the self-defined group of ‘climate scientists’).
An important consideration in this thread (and for the Mann trial) is whether use of improper assumptions in statistical analyses of treemometer studies is deliberate ‘bad science’ or is merely incompetence. In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.
Richard

Simon
October 29, 2012 2:58 am

Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?

cedarhill
October 29, 2012 3:39 am

Inside the mind of the Climate Gang can be torturous at times. However, given what some might call a mountain of evidence, the CG needs to accomplish:
1. avoid being a skeptic ref. the mountain and acknowledge the mountain exists
2. avoid the charge of just simply lying
3. toss a bone to Mann so that he can claim it was the data and if the data is revised, hey! science. obtw, please pay me.
The Mann Method has been disproven for about a decade (ref. McIntrye’s work along with the furious defense by the CG. Evidently, as with all things science, facts do emerge which overwhelm computer models and “adjustments”. Sort of like a slow motion Piltdown Man discovery. Since you cant make facts conform to the model and the model seems to be incapable of conforming to the facts, the answer is obvious. Reestablish yourself as the purveyor of the facts and tweak the models and produce a host of new theories for the opposition to unravel – all the while continually pushing, full bore, your agenda.
In other words, muddy the water. The non-CG folks will go about sifting and filtiering and eventually “clean up” things but the CO2 will conintue to be slayed.
Regarding the libel suit(s) of Mann: The ploy will be to blame the data. He can now attempt to use the latest foray by Briffa, et al, to his benefit. It might be an excuse to withdraw gracefully from the suit(s) or at least change tactics. It might give cover to all including UVa and PennSt.
But it could be this is about self preservation. Hard to tell with the CG.
Still, always view what the CG produces in terms of political spin. The fact folks are still debating the hockey stick, the climate models and we’re still putting up those disasterous chop-o-bird windmills and plotting how to renew energy should have taught lessons to the faithful.

Ryan
October 29, 2012 4:00 am

I doubt this paper will be allowed as part of Steyn’s defence. He needs to show he was not “reckless” based on his knowledge at the time. He can’t rely on anything that he has come to know after his comments were published – the judge could consider that to be merely fortuitous that it happens to align with Steyn’s published comments. He can rely on the work of McIntyre et al. before his comments were published.
However, Briffa is very much part of Team AGW (or was….). So Mann must have known that Briffa was about to publish this paper. He may well have been a reviewer…. I wonder if Mann is now “a cornered animal” and his illogical, childish lashing out at Steyn merely reflects his general emotional state at the present time as his house of cards falls around his ears, exposing his enormous but battered ego to the derision of a wider public.

D Böehm
October 29, 2012 4:10 am

Simon says:
“Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”
Aside from Perlwitz and his fevered imagination, no.
Where is it?

October 29, 2012 4:12 am

Tallbloke’s site links to the Christansen and Ljungqvist paper: http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
The authors show dozens of little graphs showing the many proxy records over 2000 years. Right at the bottom is one showing a Hockey Stick. “Ah, this one stands out as different,” methinks. “Where is this from?” And then you see the title: Yamal.
If Briffa really wants to come in from the cold, maybe he should issue a statement that the IPCC’s stance on global warming is based upon cherry-picked data. Suggested title: “Top Climate Scientist: ‘Today’s Temperatures Nothing to get Excited About’ “.

1 6 7 8 9 10 20