![most-influential-tree-350[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/most-influential-tree-3501.jpg?quality=83)
It seems that in the latest publication from CRU’s Keith Briffa, they decided to leave out those elements (The most influential tree in the world) Steve identified that led to the Yamal Superstick.
Have a look at this remarkable graph below.
McIntyre writes:
Unreported by CRU is that they’ve resiled from the Yamal superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and now advocate a Yamal chronology, the modern portion of which is remarkably similar to the calculations in my posts of September 2009 here and May 2012 here, both of which were reviled by Real Climate at the time.
In today’s post, I’ll demonstrate the degree to which the new Briffa version has departed from the superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and the surprising degree to which it approaches versions shown at CA.
Figure 3. Comparison of Briffa et al 2008 superstick to yamal_trw chronology of Briffa et al 2013. Both in z-scores.
[…]
…the next graphic shows the two CA calculations that had been so reviled by CRU and Real Climate (the green chronology of Sept 2009 and the May 2012 calculation with updated information from Hantemirov). I think that I’m entitled to observe that the B13 chronology is more similar to the two reviled CA calculations than it is to the Briffa et al 2008 superstick. Needless to say, this was not reported in CRU’s recent Real Climate article. 
Figure 4. Comparison of B13 Yamal chronology to CA (Climate Audit) calculations.
omnologos points out this missive from Gavin Schmidt on RealClimate:
The irony is of course that the demonstration that a regional reconstruction is valid takes effort, and needs to be properly documented. That requires a paper in the technical literature and the only way for Briffa et al to now defend themselves against McIntyre’s accusations is to publish that paper (which one can guarantee will have different results to what McIntyre has thrown together).
Looks like that guarantee expired.
Commenter ianl888 quips:
@Steve McIntyre
From Fig. 4 above:
it’s quite obvious that in 2009 and again in 2011, you shamelessly plagiarised Briffa 2013
Easily the worst sin in the academic book, run a close second only by disrupting the space-time continuum in order to perform the plagiarism
Too Funny! To prevent this from happening again, we need to establish a Pre-plagiarism Crimes unit, complete with a minority report. /sarc
Read Steve’s full report here: http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This whole Dendrclimate is just cutting trees ten years after the temperature record. You can check for yourself. The trees cut in the eighties produced the Hokey Stick as they knew the nineties would be warmer. Now they now there is 15 years of lack of warming ahead (they are now analyzing trees cut in 1995) so the they levelled the temperature series. I would call it Dendro treepicking as for every new temprature reconstruction they switch what trees they use.
It has been many months since I last accessed Real Climate, basically because it is usually twisted, alarmist nonsense.
So I went to check to see what they said on the subject of Briffa 2013?
Are we discussing the same Briffa 2013?
Is Real Climate always so obviously disingenuous? My first thought was that their faithful seem to have bought the party line, hook, line and sinker, then I remembered their savage censorship on all comments not following their party line.
Arguing black is white is a standard alarmist technique, but this time the web of disingenuity is truly very special. Obviously, a very sensitive nerve has been touched.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
check the updates
Briffa is still putting out the same old crap, no thanks is due to him.
Yes I think I would have to agree now, I was wrong about Briffa he seems to be same or worse than the others suggest go for him all the way SM LOL
@thisisnotgoodtogo
I disagree. check the website for the current paper (linked inside the page you cited).
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/papers/briffa2013qsr/
Data and code, all there. Briffa deserves props for making that available.
Were it not, McIntyre would not have been able to make his current finding. That comment about McIntyre has been there since 2009.
Briffa’s recent paper is remarkably transparent compared to Phil Jones who famously said: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/an-open-letter-to-dr-phil-jones-of-the-uea-cru/
Where are the usual supporters og AGW? Amazing the silence.
Latimer Alder;
We don’t need them to recant The work of showing them up has been done already.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh? And the vast majority of people still think CAGW is a problem why then?
If a single member of the “the team” were to call a press conference and publicly recant, it would sway the public in a way that serially debunking poor quality science cannot.
Hi Anthony!
I did read what you link to. Yes, it is a great improvement – thanks to their own initiative or thanks to the scorn they received for doing what they were doing?
I also looked at this:
” McIntyre states “If the non-robustness observed here prove out .. this will have an important impact on many multiproxy studies …”. We have shown here that the “KHAD only” example constructed by McIntyre itself represents a biased chronology, contradicted by the evidence of other chronologies constructed using additional and more representative site data. The evidence does not support a conclusion that our previous work was in any way seriously flawed. ”
and this:
“The reworked chronology, based on all of the currently available data is similar to our previously published versions of the Yamal chronology demonstrating that our earlier work presents a defensible and reasonable indication of tree growth changes during the 20th century”
and:
“the results we show here do suggest that McIntyre’s sensitivity analysis has little implication for those other proxy studies that make use of the published Yamal chronology data.”
“
Anthony,
Yes, you are correct in that I was looking at the old statements.
Have they been revisited in the new commentary?
Aahh, yes, the famous tree-ring graph that actually shows historic rainfall and insect infestation, rather than historic temperature. And we are going to derive government policy for the next 50 years based upon that??
And regards Steve McKintire – if the UK government had any sense or any balls, they would hire him on £250 k pa to be the head of the reformed CRU in East Anglia. But they have no sense, and they have no balls, so I’m afraid Steve will have to subsist on our grateful contributions for the foreseeable future. A tip coming your way, for this one Steve……
.
i have a tree ring question: if all other factors stay the same, would an increase in C02 alone cause tree rings to show added growth?
Ian H says:
June 28, 2013 at 4:41 pm
IMO Mann will follow the money. It may be too late for him to start getting grant funding by practicing science instead of advocacy, but he’s still too young to retire like Hansen & make another million giving pep talks to Warmunistas around the world. He may also not be capable of doing real science.
====================================================================
A layman’s answer: In a laboratory greenhouse where CO2 was the only variable, yes. Probably.
(But remember that the Yamal tree rings weren’t presented as indicating past CO2 concentrations but past temperatures. “Treemometers”.)
Some commenters are suggesting that this means there was no 20th century warming at all.
This is wrong. The regional variations outweigh any such global statements. And the real question is what caused the changes in the climate; natural or something new.
They also miss the real news here. Someone from the UEA (Briffa, no less, the top-dog) is doing real science again. Hallelujah. A new era has dawned.
This is a good day.
Here I compare Yamal to CET
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CY.htm
with no comment.
“though I doubt the folks at RealClimate will have the integrity to acknowledge that he was right, and they were wrong.”
Correct. What the folks at Real Climate are doing is NOT acknowledging that Briffa (and I believe it is what Briffa is doing as well) dropped the Yamal series and they are ignoring/attempting to minimize the resulting loss of the hockey stick by saying, “it’s just improved data, see, and we dropped the temps in the 1000AD range so it’s still BAD, and … Steve McIntyre is just mean.” They post the graph but essentially ignore the fact of the huge drop in temps. “Move along, nothing to see here.”
Nah, I think they’d kick him off if he tried to abandon ship. I get the impression that amongst these guys Mann is – at best – tolerated. It certainly don’t get the impression they hold him in very high regard.
Marcos says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:53 am
i have a tree ring question: if all other factors stay the same, would an increase in C02 alone cause tree rings to show added growth?
===============
Marcos, the short answer is yes…
but only to a certain point…and that is the problem with tree rings, coral rings, etc
They can only give you an idea of their growing season….if you’re looking for high temps etc….they can’t tell you if it was 1 degree too hot to grow, or if temps kept rising and it was 15 degrees too hot to grow…..they can only tell you when it was just right……the three bears
James did an excellent post on this recently….with visual aids
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/a-repost-why-are-dendro-shafts-so-straight/
M Courtney says:
June 30, 2013 at 11:37 am
Some commenters are suggesting that this means there was no 20th century warming at all.
This is wrong. The regional variations outweigh any such global statements.
—————————————-
That may be so or not. It would be interesting to compare with the closest instrumental record.
I think chances would be rather good to bet on a higher instrumental trend here in the Arctic hotspot
In the end there may be a regional variation AND an inflated instrumental record.
Never fight a land war in Asia, and never argue numerical analysis with a professional statistician! Both actions will lead to grief.
I still don’t understand why many of these teams don’t engage the folks either in the mathematics or business statistics departments of their own universities to run the numbers blind and see if the analytical methodologies stand up before they put the papers out the door. Seems if one makes a basic statistical blunder because one didn’t run the obligatory population checks for normalcy before applying a technique that requires perfect normalcy for the numbers to mean anything, one has only oneself to blame for not engaging ones specialist colleagues.
M Courtney says:
June 30, 2013 at 11:37 am
“They also miss the real news here. Someone from the UEA (Briffa, no less, the top-dog) is doing real science again. Hallelujah. A new era has dawned.”
Too late. The warmunist scientists were the enablers; bought and paid for. The taxpayer financed subsidy juggernaut cannot be stopped. The MSM propaganda mill will repeat the mantra of YAD 61 into eternity; the “journalists” will not even notice Briffa’s new paper.
Berkeley Earth Yamal-Yenets
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/yamal-nenets
Not very similar. As the treeline has not moved northwards, I would go with the treering reconstruction.
Remarkable story, Jo Nova’s image tells a 1000 words.
Poking away at Team Yamal’s anthill, SM has become a national treasure. But the question remains: Where have climate research’s more credentialed and specialized confreres been all this time? Are Green Gang academics and Big Government shills so universally corrupt that over decades not a single one has ever applied SM’s sophisticated yet industry-standard techniques to objective, rational interpretation of empirical/observational data-sets distinct from Klimat Kooks’ radically dishonest, self-serving GCMs?
Not only does AGW Catastrophism reek of “peccatogenic” special pleading, but long-established bodies such as the U.S. AMS and Britain’s Royal Society have forfeited all credibility for a generation.
Now that is funny! Well done.