Briffa2013

[IanC]

I probably should have put up these graphs in the OP...

back in 2009, McIntyre complains that the Briffa2008 hockeystick is exaggerated-

in 2011, McIntyre retrieves more data (from the internet no less) and finds the Briffa2008 hockeystick is still exaggerated. Real Climate and the Hockey Team slag him and call his claims preposterous.

in 2013, Briffa wakes up and smells which way public (and scientific ) opinion is headed and discovers that Briffa 2008 was exaggerated.

so how does McIntyre's work stand up to Briffa's new and improved 2013 version?

 

[flacaltenn]

I probably should have put up these graphs in the OP...

back in 2009, McIntyre complains that the Briffa2008 hockeystick is exaggerated-

in 2011, McIntyre retrieves more data (from the internet no less) and finds the Briffa2008 hockeystick is still exaggerated. Real Climate and the Hockey Team slag him and call his claims preposterous.

in 2013, Briffa wakes up and smells which way public (and scientific ) opinion is headed and discovers that Briffa 2008 was exaggerated.

so how does McIntyre's work stand up to Briffa's new and improved 2013 version?

Great show.. Amazing what a little academic "glasnost" can accomplish eh?? Could overturn an evil empire...
I'm thinkin Briffa shoulda spent more time recruiting statisticians and less time in the wood shop creating art..

 

[Abraham3]

If I didn't know better, I'd say that some of you out there believe that without YAD061, there'd be no evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

 

[flacaltenn]

If I didn't know better, I'd say that some of you out there believe that without YAD061, there'd be no evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Aww don't be so dramatic.. All YAD061 ever did for me was force me to decide whether Briffa is just statistically naive or statistically naive and ethically bankrupt..

Seeing the Yamal data set released from captivity --- I'm leaning towards the latter. I've seen better readings of tea leaves.

You shouldn't worry.. How could we win?? What with all those models created to show CO2 warming that are showing CO2 warming? It's a losing cause man.. But we're true fans of the Detroit Lions.. Maybe next year.. I hear we have first round draft picks of some former IPCC lead authors with a conscience..

 

[westwall]

If I didn't know better, I'd say that some of you out there believe that without YAD061, there'd be no evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

If there is empirical data to support it, by all means show us.

 

[mamooth]

Just one of the reasons that fudgemaster McIntyre is considered a joke by everyone outside his cult.

Replication and due diligence, Wegman*style | Deep Climate

Lots of statistics, but the summary would be that McIntyre cherrypicked at a level never seen before, taking only the 1% of the runs that proved his case and discarding the rest, and failing to mention he did that.

Whenever one looks closely at McIntyre's statistics, there's almost always some cherrypicking or other fundamental error. Anyone from outside the cult of McIntyre can check the independent sources and learn quickly how poor McIntyre's work is.

Those inside the cult, however, are forbidden to look at outside sources, as everyone outside the cult is defined as evil and dishonest, someone to be demonized. Hence, they never have a chance to see information that runs contrary to cult dogma, no chance to get deprogrammed. It's how the right wing fringe cult in general survives, by convincing its members that all information from outside the cult is fraudulent.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just one of the reasons that fudgemaster McIntyre is considered a joke by everyone outside his cult.

Replication and due diligence, Wegman*style | Deep Climate

Lots of statistics, but the summary would be that McIntyre cherrypicked at a level never seen before, taking only the 1% of the runs that proved his case and discarding the rest, and failing to mention he did that.

Whenever one looks closely at McIntyre's statistics, there's almost always some cherrypicking or other fundamental error. Anyone from outside the cult of McIntyre can check the independent sources and learn quickly how poor McIntyre's work is.

Those inside the cult, however, are forbidden to look at outside sources, as everyone outside the cult is defined as evil and dishonest, someone to be demonized. Hence, they never have a chance to see information that runs contrary to cult dogma, no chance to get deprogrammed. It's how the right wing fringe cult in general survives, by convincing its members that all information from outside the cult is fraudulent.

Really hard to make the "cherry-picking" argument when McIntyre's 1% was the cohort that used representative data.. See - the other 99% would be runs with cherry-picked data.. But that's the way the warmers defend this crappy pseudoscience..

The bitchin and moaning in your link is NOT about the DIFFERENT results that McIntyre et al got --- but about how they replicated the tortured PCAnalysis that was used in the Mann original study..

 

[IanC]

If I didn't know better, I'd say that some of you out there believe that without YAD061, there'd be no evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Yad061 was an amazingly high outlier. I don't know many fields accept 6 std specimens, especially when it is one out of only a few handfuls that represent a time period.

Is it more likely that Yad061 was showing a true temperature signal or something else? Like an older tree falling and opening up access to light?

 

[IanC]

Just one of the reasons that fudgemaster McIntyre is considered a joke by everyone outside his cult.

Replication and due diligence, Wegman*style | Deep Climate

Lots of statistics, but the summary would be that McIntyre cherrypicked at a level never seen before, taking only the 1% of the runs that proved his case and discarding the rest, and failing to mention he did that.

Whenever one looks closely at McIntyre's statistics, there's almost always some cherrypicking or other fundamental error. Anyone from outside the cult of McIntyre can check the independent sources and learn quickly how poor McIntyre's work is.

Those inside the cult, however, are forbidden to look at outside sources, as everyone outside the cult is defined as evil and dishonest, someone to be demonized. Hence, they never have a chance to see information that runs contrary to cult dogma, no chance to get deprogrammed. It's how the right wing fringe cult in general survives, by convincing its members that all information from outside the cult is fraudulent.

When Wegman's report was being investigated for his postdoc's use of general information from wikipedia, how long did it take to release all of his emails involved with his report? About a month.

When Mann and company were being investigated for underhanded dealings with AR4, an important to the world document, how long did it take? Oh yeah, never.

Funny how some scientists are more equal than others.

 

[IanC]

Just one of the reasons that fudgemaster McIntyre is considered a joke by everyone outside his cult.

Replication and due diligence, Wegman*style | Deep Climate

Lots of statistics, but the summary would be that McIntyre cherrypicked at a level never seen before, taking only the 1% of the runs that proved his case and discarding the rest, and failing to mention he did that.

Whenever one looks closely at McIntyre's statistics, there's almost always some cherrypicking or other fundamental error. Anyone from outside the cult of McIntyre can check the independent sources and learn quickly how poor McIntyre's work is.

Those inside the cult, however, are forbidden to look at outside sources, as everyone outside the cult is defined as evil and dishonest, someone to be demonized. Hence, they never have a chance to see information that runs contrary to cult dogma, no chance to get deprogrammed. It's how the right wing fringe cult in general survives, by convincing its members that all information from outside the cult is fraudulent.

I read your link. It agrees that M+M found serious flaws in MBH. It then floods the subject with examples of Monte Carlo runs that could look different. So what? McIntyre and Wegman showed how and where Mann went wrong by incorrect statistical methodology. DC is not arguing that Mann was right, just that M wasn't entirely rigorous in destroying Mann.

 

[mamooth]

If there is empirical data to support it, by all means show us.

Which of the many hockey sticks do you want to see?

Bristlecone series
Glacial retreat
Yamal without YAD06
Boreholes
Ice Cores
Instrumental record
Tree rings from across the planet

And so on. That's why it's so amusing that denialists fixate on the single tree YAD06. That all even after McIntyre got caught cherrypicking what Yamal data sets he'd use, since cherrypicking was the only way he could get the hockey stick to vanish. And after he'd already gotten the data from the Russians, but lied and said Briffa was withholding it, even though Briffa didn't own the data and couldn't give it away.

 

[flacaltenn]

If there is empirical data to support it, by all means show us.

Which of the many hockey sticks do you want to see?

Bristlecone series
Glacial retreat
Yamal without YAD06
Boreholes
Ice Cores
Instrumental record
Tree rings from across the planet

And so on. That's why it's so amusing that denialists fixate on the single tree YAD06. That all even after McIntyre got caught cherrypicking what Yamal data sets he'd use, since cherrypicking was the only way he could get the hockey stick to vanish. And after he'd already gotten the data from the Russians, but lied and said Briffa was withholding it, even though Briffa didn't own the data and couldn't give it away.

It's not YAD061 that I focus on.. I focus on the complete lack of a coherent temp set from the REST of the Yamal data set..

Contrary to your assertion above... You can make the Yamal Hockey Stick vanish by just USING THE BULK of the DATA SET !!!! Something that didn't ever happen in a Briffa study.

Yeah --- let's see a hockey stick from ice cores.. WHAT ?? It melted past 1990? Well that's just sucks dont it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Just one of the reasons that fudgemaster McIntyre is considered a joke by everyone outside his cult.

Replication and due diligence, Wegman*style | Deep Climate

Lots of statistics, but the summary would be that McIntyre cherrypicked at a level never seen before, taking only the 1% of the runs that proved his case and discarding the rest, and failing to mention he did that.

Whenever one looks closely at McIntyre's statistics, there's almost always some cherrypicking or other fundamental error. Anyone from outside the cult of McIntyre can check the independent sources and learn quickly how poor McIntyre's work is.

Those inside the cult, however, are forbidden to look at outside sources, as everyone outside the cult is defined as evil and dishonest, someone to be demonized. Hence, they never have a chance to see information that runs contrary to cult dogma, no chance to get deprogrammed. It's how the right wing fringe cult in general survives, by convincing its members that all information from outside the cult is fraudulent.

I read your link. It agrees that M+M found serious flaws in MBH. It then floods the subject with examples of Monte Carlo runs that could look different. So what? McIntyre and Wegman showed how and where Mann went wrong by incorrect statistical methodology. DC is not arguing that Mann was right, just that M wasn't entirely rigorous in destroying Mann.

Quite damn right !! Good review..

 

[westwall]

If there is empirical data to support it, by all means show us.

Which of the many hockey sticks do you want to see?

Bristlecone series
Glacial retreat
Yamal without YAD06
Boreholes
Ice Cores
Instrumental record
Tree rings from across the planet

And so on. That's why it's so amusing that denialists fixate on the single tree YAD06. That all even after McIntyre got caught cherrypicking what Yamal data sets he'd use, since cherrypicking was the only way he could get the hockey stick to vanish. And after he'd already gotten the data from the Russians, but lied and said Briffa was withholding it, even though Briffa didn't own the data and couldn't give it away.

Show us presentations from ALL of them.

 

[orogenicman]

If there is empirical data to support it, by all means show us.

Which of the many hockey sticks do you want to see?

Bristlecone series
Glacial retreat
Yamal without YAD06
Boreholes
Ice Cores
Instrumental record
Tree rings from across the planet

And so on. That's why it's so amusing that denialists fixate on the single tree YAD06. That all even after McIntyre got caught cherrypicking what Yamal data sets he'd use, since cherrypicking was the only way he could get the hockey stick to vanish. And after he'd already gotten the data from the Russians, but lied and said Briffa was withholding it, even though Briffa didn't own the data and couldn't give it away.

Show us presentations from ALL of them.

They are all readily available in peer reviewed journals. You do have the pertinent subscriptions, right?

 

[IanC]

while perusing Old Rocks latest link that defends MBH98,99, I found this rather concise comment on Briffa's pre-2013 work....

Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.

In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw data.

Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.

Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.

Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data-sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.

It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.

But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa's small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.

After reading those allegations, honestly, how is anyone expected to trust many of the studies coming out with data to "prove" global warming? While we should hope that scientists are in the business of pursuing truth and presenting facts, the reality now is that many scientists are pursuing purely politicized interests. As we all know, once trust is lost, it is terribly difficult to recover. Thankfully, there are scientists and others, like McIntyre, McKitrick, and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, who seem to be pursuing truth and holding other scientists accountable.

 

[Abraham3]

while perusing Old Rocks latest link that defends MBH98,99, I found this rather concise comment on Briffa's pre-2013 work....

Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.

In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw data.

Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.

Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.

Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data-sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.

It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.

But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa's small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.

After reading those allegations, honestly, how is anyone expected to trust many of the studies coming out with data to "prove" global warming? While we should hope that scientists are in the business of pursuing truth and presenting facts, the reality now is that many scientists are pursuing purely politicized interests. As we all know, once trust is lost, it is terribly difficult to recover. Thankfully, there are scientists and others, like McIntyre, McKitrick, and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, who seem to be pursuing truth and holding other scientists accountable.

And who was the author?

 

[Abraham3]

while perusing Old Rocks latest link that defends MBH98,99, I found this rather concise comment on Briffa's pre-2013 work....

Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.

In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw data.

Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.

Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.

Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data-sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.

It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.

But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa's small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.

After reading those allegations, honestly, how is anyone expected to trust many of the studies coming out with data to "prove" global warming? While we should hope that scientists are in the business of pursuing truth and presenting facts, the reality now is that many scientists are pursuing purely politicized interests. As we all know, once trust is lost, it is terribly difficult to recover. Thankfully, there are scientists and others, like McIntyre, McKitrick, and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, who seem to be pursuing truth and holding other scientists accountable.

Who was the author?


And any response to Orogenicman? Hockey sticks are everywhere because that's what the Earth's temperatures have actually done.

 

[Kosh]

Yes the AGW church is still promoting the Hockey stick even though their IPCC has not only cast it out once, but twice.

 

[flacaltenn]

while perusing Old Rocks latest link that defends MBH98,99, I found this rather concise comment on Briffa's pre-2013 work....

Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.

In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw data.

Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.

Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.

Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data-sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.

It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.

But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa's small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.

After reading those allegations, honestly, how is anyone expected to trust many of the studies coming out with data to "prove" global warming? While we should hope that scientists are in the business of pursuing truth and presenting facts, the reality now is that many scientists are pursuing purely politicized interests. As we all know, once trust is lost, it is terribly difficult to recover. Thankfully, there are scientists and others, like McIntyre, McKitrick, and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, who seem to be pursuing truth and holding other scientists accountable.

Who was the author?


And any response to Orogenicman? Hockey sticks are everywhere because that's what the Earth's temperatures have actually done.

No.. Hockey sticks are everywhere because authors append HIGH TEMPORAL RESOLUTION data to weak GLOBAL proxy studies that have no TEMPORAL resolution to show short term temperature events.. Using just 75 mud, ice, wood studies in a failed attempt to cover the entire globe --- will produce data so filtered --- IT HAS TO LOOK FLAT...