The East Anglia Rococo

I don’t pretend to understand all the issues, but I don’t think readers should infer that Briffa et al. (2013) DID overtly condemn Mannian and IPCC-embraced reconstructions.
As I read it Steve M. is arguing that IF the technical basis for Briffa exclusions can be properly understood in scientific and statistical standards (I.e., not as merely another ad hoc gesture of convenience from The Team), THEN it will be realized (not yet, but soon) by honest scientists that the implied standards will have dramatic effects upon many other dendro reconstructions. See this exchange between Ross M. and Steve M.:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/16/briffa-condemns-mann-reconstructions/#comment-423280

Placing the Ross and Steve comments directly into this thread if mods permit, because I think it makes the whole issue more intelligible for this thread, too (link in my comment above):

Ross McKitrick
Posted Jun 16, 2013 at 6:40 PM
So Briffa goes for the nuclear option to get out of a tough spot with the Yamal/Polar Urals problem. It’s interesting to speculate whether he and his coauthors were aware of what they were doing. By proscribing the use of tree rings with known radial deformation, albeit “root-collar” in this case versus “stripbark” in the case of bristlecones, but to the same effect, they have issued an after-the-fact condemnation of just about all the multiproxy reconstructions relied upon hitherto by the Team/IPCC. So: did they know this was what they were doing but went ahead out of a sense of genuine conviction, or does this implication take them by surprise? It’s a simple test. If the former, in other words if they believe the grounds on which they have dismissed the Polar Urals chronology, then we will see a series of retractions and critiques of all the studies that depend on radially-deformed bristlecone pine series. If the latter, i.e. if connection takes them by surprise, then they are pretty slow-witted. The other option is that they simply hoped nobody would notice. That would fit the larger pattern–a science whose public reputation depends on nobody looking too closely at what they do.

Steve: It is indeed a nuclear option. Once the issue of inhomogeneity is fully engaged, it’s hard to see what can be salvaged. I don’t think that Briffa or his coauthors have the remotest understanding of the statistical issues arising with random effects. I suspect that Briffa only had is eye on purported carbon dioxide fertilization in connection with bristlecones, since that’s been the main issue within the field. And that Briffa too readily accepted Mann’s bristlecone “defence” that he already “adjusted” for it. Of course, none of this helps him as against mechanical deformation of strip bark trees.

Skiphill’s observations are exactly right.
There’s no way that CRU would have “overtly” criticized the Mann reconstructions. Nor do I believe that they fully understood the implications of their standards on the Mann reconstructions. My point is that these standards are,as Ross put it, the “nuclear option” for bristlecone pine chronologies.
However, I also believe that hypocrisy within the field is so deeply rooted (so to speak) that Briffa and others will simply ignore the implication.

Briffa Condemns Mann Reconstruction
Pot to kettle

Alfred Alexander says:
June 17, 2013 at 3:14 am
I don’t know any science but,two trees born same day,same year,
one in the middle of a field,one in the middle of the woods.tree in field,
short and fat,Tree in woods ,tall and thin.both with the same number of
rings. Are the rings the same thickness?
Alfred

It isn’t ring thickness per se, but the pattern in which that thickness varies from year to year. Some years one tree or the other may actually drop a ring due to poor growing conditions. These patterns are highly reliable for determining the date a tree was felled, IF you have a piece with the outer layers intact. It can also date the age of a particular chunk of wood, if there are enough ring segments present to conduct pattern matching.
Tree rings do respond to local growing conditions and changes in them, which creates the patterns. That means that you need to have local tree ring sequences to employ for pattern matching. Trying to relate a polar larch from northern Russia to a strip-bark Bristle cone from the US could entail some real problems. If you are looking for “global” patterns in climate changes, then hypothesizing that global patterns will be superimposed on local trends in discernible fashion is logical. The problem then comes down to separating signal and “noise.” Signal would be global trends while noise becomes the local influences. Therein lies the devil.

Maybe Briffa is following the following sage advice of John Maynard Keynes:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

NK says (June 17, 2013 at 8:44 am): “If Mann’s not sharing the wealth, scientists like Briffa have no reluctance to dump on him, IMO. So this is very signifigant.”
I won’t believe Briffa has actually bitch-slapped Mann until Dana Nuccitelli calls Briffa the D-word.

Steve McIntyre says: June 17, 2013 at 9:59 am
“However, I also believe that hypocrisy within the field is so deeply rooted (so to speak) that Briffa and others will simply ignore the implication.”
//////////////////////////////
Cynical, but that is the point. Don’t expect withdrawals or revissions anytime soon.

Osculating Mann’s fundament is too much for even some Team members! Amazing.

The cynic in me wonders if the timing of this report has anything at all to do with this article from The Independent (via GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.org/britains-bad-science-scandal-uk-research-position-threatened-fact-fabricators/
“Britain’s leading science institutions will be told on Monday that they will be stripped of many millions of pounds in research grants if they employ rogue researchers who fake the results of experiments, The Independent has learnt.”