bristlecones

I noticed that the blue series was a bit more of a HS, but it is not as dramatic as I recall the bristlecones being.

Juckes, Yang, Thompson and PNAS: Guliya « Climate Audit 2006

If the bristlecones are a good proxy, it looks like they are the only tree ring series that are.

A New Spaghetti Graph « Climate Audit 2006

In one sense, the bristlecones are a “high grade” hole.

MBH98 Figure 7 Unveiled « Climate Audit 2006

For MBH, they used their MBH98 PC1 (bristlecones) as a temperature proxy without either – no biological growth curve and no statistical analysis to show that either the cedars or the bristlecones were a valid proxy (and in the face of explicit specialist literature to the contrary.)

Roll Over, Preisendorfer « Climate Audit 2005

I guess the bristlecones are a little to the south of you.

Post-1980 Proxies #2: Alaskan Tree Rings « Climate Audit 2005

The second key calibration is of course between the temperature PC1 and the MBH98 North American tree ring PC1 which is essentially the bristlecones, which is the PC4 in a centered calculation.

Spurious Significance #3: Some DW Statistics « Climate Audit 2005

MBH completely contradict their claim of robustness by saying that to test the model for its sensitivity to bristlecones is to “throw away data.”

Perverse PCs « Climate Audit 2005

Steve: First of all, the variance issue does not show that the bristlecones are a proxy for temperature.

A Red Noise Spaghetti Diagram « Climate Audit 2005

Yes, there are other problems, but including the bristlecones is the most obvious error and the easiest to correct.

UCAR, Ammann and Wahl and GRL « Climate Audit 2005

He found that the bristlecones were a distinct group.

In the Mail « Climate Audit 2005