Another hit to the "Hockey Team"

[jmotivator]

Years ago Steve McIntyre, among his many critiques of the abysmal statistical work by the "Hockey Team" that have held up to scrutiny, did a series of critiques on the Briffa2008 proxy climate model that used tree rings as it's primary measure of temperature.

In that critique McIntyre showed that a single tree in the entire Yamal dataset was responsible for the model's pronounce 20th century warming trend. He called it "The most important tree in the world".

Here is the analysis by McIntyre of the data set with and without that one tree:



Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, who worked on the Briffa reconstructions took to the pages of RealClimate to assure everyone that McIntyre was full of crap and assured the faithful that they were hard at work on another reconstruction that would show McIntyre was wrong:

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).


Well, to Schmidt's credit, Briffa2013 has been released and... it looks a lot like McIntyre's "thrown together" recontruction:





(From Here and Here)


Chalk another one up to Skepticism!

 

[Threegoofs]

Of course, you didnt bother to link to the most recent Real Climate post

RealClimate: Yamal and Polar Urals: a research update

In which its shown how McIntyre is basically tilting at windmills.

Money quote:

In conclusion, criticisms of our work have been based on misconceptions and misinformation..... What can be condemned, however, is the long campaign of allegations of dishonesty and scientific fraud made against us on the basis of these false claims. That is the most disquieting legacy of Steve McIntyre and ClimateAudit. The real Yamal deception is their attempt to damage public confidence in science by making speculative and scandalous claims about the actions and motivations of scientists while cloaking them in a pretense of advancing scientific knowledge.


Good to know you like to hang out in the weeds, Jmotivator. Because your single criticism of a small piece of the AGW puzzle is really fairly incosequential to the whole picture. Its like seeing an open heart operation and criticizing the third stitch from the left on the wound closure.

 

[KLATTU]

In a way , he's right . McInttyre IS tilting at windmills if he thinks factual refutation of the shoddy work of the hockey tem will ever convince the closed mined true beliveers of anything.