HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA!!!!!!! (gasp, breathing) HAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAA!!!!!!!
This is a repost of Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit post…..
CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick
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.
First here is a comparison from CA in Sep 2009 here of the Briffa 2008 superstick to a version that simply incorporated Schweingruber’s Khadyta River data, applying the method used by Briffa for Taimyr in Briffa et al 2008. Real Climate screeched in fury against this comparison.
Okay, I won’t show all the graphs Steve Mc does. But, for newbees in the climate wars, this has been an ongoing battle for years. And, I won’t bother with the details and specifics of this years long spat. But, the long and short of it all is that Steve Mac has been telling them that they’re doing it wrong!!!
He even showed them where and how they were wrong. And, showed them pictures. Each time he did it was met with howls of protest, indignations, gnashing of the teeth, with scorn and derision.
Our friend Omn, Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) managed to dig up this quote….
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).
by Gavin, the Skeptics’ BFF
You can read it from the source here.
So, how did Mac do? Now that the lunatics have quietly and tacitly admitted Mac was correct?
This is how Briffa and gang were represent the chronology…..
Looks like vindication to me for one fellow. Looks like there are several other fellows who need to do a little less talking and writing and start paying attention to people who know wtf they’re talking about. Maybe even go back and start taking notes.
Again, Steve Mac suffered a lot of mouthing for being right. For years.
Folks should pop over and congratulate him.
How many times do the nutters have to be shown that they’re wrong before people stop believing their dumb asses.
h/t Lat
suyts space 
but but but…..all the warming went away!
Yep, another broken hockey stick.
I read Mac’s analysis, but yours is a lot cleaner for the layman. Beware of the imbecile. You have just posted heresy.
Yeh, that smacks right at one of their high priests, Gavin.
It is about time, but he still believes we should do something to reduce our carbon emissions. He even thinks the climate models are reasonable facsimiles of reality.
True, but ya gotta give props where they’re due.
Mike, even when they argue their claim to fame….Arctic ice……they are saying the computer games got that wrong too!
100% FAIL
as Biden would say…
this is a big f’in deal!!!!!!!!
It certainly should be.
RC and the rest of the CLB will claim it did not happen! A minor issue that does not affect any other paleo research. 😉
I’m sure they will, but, who will believe them?
Holy cats! That’s 4 standard deviations difference between Briffa 2008 and Briffa 2013 (from the chart over on CA). Trying to put it into perspective, in most trend analysis scenarios, 1.5 to 2 standard deviations from baseline calculation is considered to be outside of a normal range of variability. In most cases it is seen as unacceptable – something has gone out of calibration. 4 standard deviations is considered to be so far out that whatever it is, it is surely broken.
Briffa 2013 is some serious career salvage back peddling.
Indeed it is. And, the post at RC is nothing but a series of denials that they’d ever done anything wrong, and that this stuff is a work in progress. It’s flabbergasting! .
The smarter rats are starting to abandon the sinking CAWG ship. Of course they won’t admit that’s what they’re doing. They don’t want to tip off the dumber rats who are of much greater number. They want to make it to safe ground first.
Well, I don’t think they’re changing stripes, but, they do realize they have to take a different tact to keep the gravy train running.
It’s hilarious! If I took that clown act serious, I’d go back and deliver a blow by blow post on it, but, it’s just Briffa and team, so I’ll leave for someone who cares about these lunatics.
I did wonder why the trunk situation arose. Now I know. It was cover.
Crap, keep forgetting to link to the hilarious, “we didn’t do anything wrong” garbage….. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/
I went over to take a read. Yep, as I expected. Marketing!
Yep, that’s the best word! I do like the spin. It was well played. But, spin it was.
Too late for AR5, isn’t it? …
ps thanks for the mention!!!
Yeppers!
It was a great find, Omn. Beautiful!
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
Thanks Mr McIntyre!!!
I haven’t followed this particular controversy that closely and am still getting up to speed, but in the meantime, you might want to parse your headline for what it actually says! Maybe a colon or dash after “Steve Mac”?
Yeh, the title is awkward….
I went over to Mac’s site to congratulate him. I’ve been stuck in moderation since yesterday.
Strange. But, in the past I’ve had strange things like that occur there.
Yeah, I think sometimes comments wind up in the empty bit bucket in the sky. It’s not a perfect world.
I reposted a congratulation. This time it went right through. With temps hitting 112 here yesterday maybe the electrons were getting baked leaving my home.
We’re looking at a high of 116 today and 117 tomorrow. Someone switched on the furnace (albeit a little later than usual).
James, if you want to get a bit more about the math underlying what Steve Mac, et. al. are fussing about, you might want to look at Jim Bouldin’s site.
That said, I have to wonder if any real life science types (physiologists, pathologists, patho-physiologists) have done anything with this. What I do know from past training is that biological specimens can surprise you if you narrow your focus too soon.
Macroscopic life forms ultimately have species specific stress responses on top of the more generalized ‘class’ responses such as the general mammalian dive response. In disease states, these result in final common pathway states. If you only look at the end result and don’t know or look for multiple causes of the initial pathological state, you will fool yourself when making a diagnosis. For physicians, this is called forming a differential diagnosis. You start with the most common things and go to the library to see if there are rare forms that you’ve never seen before. Most of the time, you can go by ‘common things occur commonly’ and base your initial treatment plan on that. If that fails, you scratch that one off and go down the list. Most of the time, you’ll get the right answer and find your treatment options. Sometimes you won’t. That the ‘slip and fall’ lawyers refuse to accept this is part of our medical care system’s ‘tort lawyer’ problem.
Bouldin’s article is off to an interesting start.
cd, I’m not really interested in the numbers. I don’t believe tree rings are that informative. I view this as a numbers exercise only. Steve M knew how to properly run the numbers, and he did a great job. But, the value of these studies…… well, I don’t see any. See my next post. It may interest you. It’s a repost from over a year ago.
Thanks. Tree rings are informative, but not for teasing out singular ‘climate’ effects. A tree ring tells you how good or bad the growing season was. That’s it. I do like Steve Mac’s non-linear mixed effects ideas. That really won’t help the climastrologists, for biological organisms live and respond to weather. They either survive it or they don’t. The climate is meaningless.
They’re very limited to a specific season because many of the past seasons constitute what makes up the tree ring. And, we don’t know how many of the past seasons, or what their weight is.
That though, varies from tree to tree, within a species and across species. It is also quite true, which is why the basic physiological and patho-physiological experiments must be done that show how the mixed effects are integrated into the biological resposes.
Well, right. I was referring to the knowledge we have now. But, yes, they could be.
cd, it can’t be done…it can never be done
until we have a way back machine and see exactly what happened
…then we wouldn’t need to do it at all LOL
Wow, just wow! So Bouldin, who has a PhD in plant biology with a background in molecular biology, genetics and paleoclimatology, gets disappeared over at RC.
Now I don’t feel so bad that I got disappeared so many times at RC.
LOL, zebras and stripes, leopards and spots. Some things never change.
Yeah, so they come out with their little marketing campaign at RC saying in essence, “We’ve got nothing to hide. Lookie here – we’re even addressing three [very minor] criticisms from those evil skeptics.”
Oh, they’ve got something to hide if they won’t let experts in the field ask questions. I need no further proof that their science is total rubbish (not that I didn’t already know that for years).
It’s a shame and it’s a sham.
Wait a moment – even a guitar playing government scientist ecologist hippie notices that something is rotten in the warmunist kingdom? Uh oh…
LOL, they’re no respecter of persons. They’ll insult anyone.