{"id":255628,"date":"2023-05-02T18:07:38","date_gmt":"2023-05-02T16:07:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=255628"},"modified":"2023-05-02T18:09:02","modified_gmt":"2023-05-02T16:09:02","slug":"mcintyre-reverse-engineering-a-hockey-stick-shows-bogus-methodology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=255628","title":{"rendered":"McIntyre: Reverse engineering a \u2018hockey stick\u2019 shows \u2018bogus methodology\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Originally tweeted by Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit<\/a>) on April 30, 2023<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note from Anthony:<\/strong> For those of you that remember the yeoman\u2019s work that Steve McIntyre did at Climate Audit debunking Michael Mann\u2019s hockey stick and flawed methodology this should come as no surprise. Once again, hockey sticks get generated where the original data doesn\u2019t show it. The only conclusion you can make is that the data and the method have been adjusted to fit a preconceived and desired result. This series of Tweets has been compiled here for easier access and readability. \u2013 Anthony<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[M]ost readers are familiar with famous \u201chide the decline\u201d from Climategate. Below are 1850-2000 parts of 5 series calculated from Asian tree ring data, explained below. I recently received some fantastic PAGES2k reverse engineering from\u00a0@detgodehab<\/a>\u00a0and am re-visiting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The data illustrated below comes from
(1) original Briffa 2001 Asian series with late 20th century decline (chopped off in Mann\u2019s IPCC diagram);
(2) average of Asian series in gridded MXD series sent by Briffa\/Osborn to Rutherford and Mann, ostensible input in Mann 2008<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(3) average of (the 45) gridded MXD as used in Mann 2008. As discussed long ago at Climate Audit, Mann chopped off the offending declines and replaced them with temperature data. This was a different incident to the IPCC diagram or the 1999 WMO \u201chide the decline\u201d diagram.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(4) PAGES2K (2013) introduced a novel Asia reconstruction (Cook et al) from tree rings in which late 20th C decline observed in Schweingruber data did not exist. Closing values were similar to high values at mid-20th century. The difference was not reconciled by PAGES2K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(5) the current PAGES reconstruction \u2013 the \u201cWoke Reconstruction\u201d for short and used in IPCC AR6 \u2013 contained a subset of the PAGES2K Asia dset, the average of which yields a monster blade. The \u201cdecline\u201d is in the Woke rear-view mirror.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few years ago, I had noticed that some of the tree ring chronologies underlying the Woke Reconstruction had enormous closing blades that did not appear possible to replicate using standard methodologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I did a couple of Twitter threads as well:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

I've triple checked the calculations. While the versions differ dramatically, they also clearly come from the same data (due to high frequency similarity). Where did PAGES2K chronologies for paki033 and indo005 come from? How were they calculated?<\/p>— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) August 14, 2019<\/a><\/blockquote>