Wood Romances

WA07 Demonstrating Verification Failure of M&M This is part 3 of a 3 part series on M&M's accusations of "tricks" on the part of MBH and the hockey stick. Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here . Stephen McIntyre is reporting another "Nature Trick" on his ClimateAudit blog. The post is from Nov 24, 2023. As I've pointed out before, the MBH98/99 hockey stick have been replicated so many times that it's really old news. In 2007, Wahl and Amman were able to emulate the MBH98/99 hockey stick reconstruction and verify that it was robust to statistical method. But there were some slight differences between the two, and it seems some people won't be happy until they emulate it exactly.  An "Audit" of MBH98/99 In 2021, Hampus Söderqvist apparently succeeded in reproducing MBH98/99 exactly, but in the process of doing so, he discovered some minor errors from the infilling of grid box temperatures in Jones & Briffa 1992 that affected MBH98/99...

Hockey Sticks Featured in the North Report In two previous posts ( here and here ), I described the challenges by McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) to the initial two hockey stick papers published by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH98 and MBH99). In these posts I summarized M&M's multiple critiques of the MBH hockey stick papers, essentially that the "hockey stick" is an artifact of flaws in the MBH statistical method and an over reliance on one set of North American tree ring proxies. However, multiple peer-reviewed papers following M&M's criticism generally found that M&M's criticisms lacked merit and vindicated the MBH hockey stick reconstruction. To summarize: 1. Biases associated with MBH's statistical method were small and contributed very little to the shape of the MBH hockey stick reconstruction. Biases associated with M&M's statistical method went in the opposite direction, and M&M exaggerated the effect of statistical bias on the...