P. 1
Muir Russell Final

Muir Russell Final

|Views: 6,705|Likes:
Published by AdamVaughan
Sir Muir Russell's review into the University of East Anglia's climate emails
Sir Muir Russell's review into the University of East Anglia's climate emails

More info:

Published by: AdamVaughan on Jul 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/11/2014

pdf

text

original

30. We have not focussed upon disagreements over comparisons of results using
individual tree series for two reasons. First, because this is a science question and
should be addressed through the normal channels of peer reviewed publication.
Secondly, because as we have indicated above, it requires much more work to
show that one is unequivocally more representative than the other, and even then
requires the conjunction of several additional conditions to lead to an allegation of
wrongdoing. We have addressed these conditions above, and we have found no
evidence to substantiate them. Nevertheless we comment briefly upon Yamal as it
has received so much attention and the Tornetrask series as it is subject of much
misunderstanding.

31. Finding on Yamal: The Briffa 200010

paper presents a collection of many
chronologies (Yamal is simply one of them) assembled from many authors. It is
quite clear that Briffa simply reprocessed data from other authors (Hantemirov
and Shiyatov in this case) and no selection was performed. In their submission to
the Review CRU included a copy of work they had made available on the web11
.

This was posted in response to criticisms published at Climate Audit12

which
described examples of variability between specific tree series in the region. This
CRU response demonstrates the consistency of the original Yamal publication
with that obtained using an updated analysis incorporating a comprehensive set of
contemporary data. The Review is not aware of any equivalent comprehensive
analysis which demonstrates that the conclusions of Briffa 2000 are inconsistent
with the best analysis available today.

32. Finding on ―Bodging‖ in respect of Tornetrask. The term ―bodging‖ has been
used, including by Briffa himself, to refer to a procedure he adopted in 199213
.
The ‗bodge‘ refers to the upward adjustment of the low-frequency behaviour of
the density signal after 1750, to make it agree with the width signal. This ad hoc
process was based on the conjecture that the width signal was correct. There is
nothing whatsoever underhand or unusual with this type of procedure, and it was

9

Ibid. 5

10

Ibid. 1

11

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

12

http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/

13

Briffa, K. R., Jones, P. D., Bartholin, T. S., Eckstein, D., Schweingruber, F. H., Karlen, W.,
Zetterberg, P., and Eronen, M. 1992. Fennoscandian Summers from AD 500: temperature changes on
long and short timescales. Climate Dynamics 7:111-119.

CHAPTER 7: TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FROM TREE RING ANALYSIS

62

fully described in the paper. The interpretation of the results is simply subject to
this caveat. The conjecture was later validated14

when it was shown to be an effect
due to the standardisation technique adopted in 1992. Briffa referred to it as a
―bodge‖ in a private e-mail in the way that many researchers might have done
when corresponding with colleagues. We find it unreasonable that this issue,
pertaining to a publication in 1992, should continue to be misrepresented widely
to imply some sort of wrongdoing or sloppy science.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->