![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.
Sadly, the debate departed the realm of science and data some time ago. The only “concensus” is political, and it is in that arena those who stand most to benefit (monetarily) continue to shriek the loudest. The science and data analysis done by Steve and others here is solid and withstanding multiple proxies and testing by others. The politicians, media, and voters are not, unfortunately, listening to Steve (and Roy, and Robert, and so many articulate others).
I’m an optimist, however current trends in the political climate of doomsayers and alarmists who get more money as a function of their ability to scare people, is challenging that optimism…
I will continue to try my best, using your good science, to convince my friends and family. They will shrug and tell me that I’m not “expert” enough to even talk about it. Soldiering on! PS – multiple degrees in geology and 30 years of experience doesn’t count apparently.
@TYoke – How hypocritical the greens are, when the crony capitalists going along on der Fuehrer’s $100 million vacation are planning on bribing the local kleptocrats and stealing more and from poor African subsistence farmers to plant trees and make money from carbon credits and the sale of the timber harvested from the trees? Plenty of big money
@JFD – Nice thought, but der Fuehrer’s entire agenda to abolish civil liberties is founded on AGW, and he won’t give it up until forced to. One must understand that AGW and der Fuehrer’s assault on the Constitution are totally intertwined. He will never back off – even if he is impeached he will still keep trying.
RE: Mikeyj says:
June 29, 2013 at 9:24 am
“Help please. I come here with a mind uncluttered by climate knowledge. What issue was in dispute? Reference site would also be kool. Thanks.”
I’ve been attempting to become an “educated voter” about “Global Warming” for a decade now, and my mind is extremely cluttered by both information and misinformation. That’s one reason I resented Obama stating people like me were “flat earthers” who had “their heads in the sand.” He was disparaging the most educated of educated votes. I felt like I had to revisit the past ten years, and sat down and wrote a long and somewhat self-centered review of my learning curve. If you are interested it is at,
http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/history-revisited-ending-with-keith-briffa-reviewing-data-snapping-blade-from-manns-hockey-stick-yet-again/
Looking back, one thing I realized is that getting older made me less touchy about being told I was wrong. When I was a sensitive (IE touchy) young poet I’d get all bent out of shape if even a spelling mistake was pointed out. Now I seem to find the thrill of discovery in both thinking a new thought, and also in seeing the thought needs improvement, adjustment, or even is flat-out wrong.
There are some climate scientists who resemble touchy, young poets more than mature, old men. Briffa seems to have matured, however. I can imagine him young and eager, searching for a “missing link,” and/or “smoking gun,” and having a sort of Eureka-experience when he found that tree, YAD06. Then everyone is slapping his back and shaking his hand and throwing money at him, and he feels high as a kite. However gradually he saw the thought required improvement, adjustment, and parts were flat-out wrong. So he did what mature people do. He corrected himself.
What I am now curious about is this: Is CRU going to follow his example?
Gary Pearse says: June 29, 2013 at 6:50 pm
I believe I recall from the climategate emails, that Briffa had his necktie cinched up at mention of the divergence problem and he caved in and went with the flow. Also in the emails, he snarked a bit at Mann’s work and I guess it was only a matter of time before he came in from the “warm” so to speak. I judge him to have a propensity to be honest but was not strong enough to stand up to the bullying
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who knows why Briffa has done this? Your assume that he has acted entirely on his own volition and with pure motives without any sort of prompting from ….whomever. Remember, Briffa fought data disclosure and FOI tooth and nail, this all with the support and approval of the U of East Anglia. The truth came out and now the UEA is covered with an unsavory stench, all emanating from the CRU and Briffa. Someone at the UEA could very well have pointed out to Briffa that he who makes s**t has to clean it up- or else; a truth or consequences dilemma for Briffa. Briffa has engaged in quite dubious science and even more dubious behavior and for me this is the key to knowing the man.