I wanted to post some Arctic temperature data that I had obtained from the KNMI web site that in my mind puts a different spin on the K09 reconstruction then do the authors of that paper.

Just thoughts.

My most recent post at CA is awaiting review for posting. K09 authors have presented discussions that are limited to temperature anomalies for the whole of the Arctic area and fail to talk about the local and regional temperature trend differences. I think the authors do this since the CPS method assumes that all proxies are responding to the same change climate conditions. They also assume a good correlation of summer temperature anamolies to the annual ones so that they can connect with an importance to AGW policy.

My break point analysis of the proxy, composite and instrumental temperature series also fail to confirm the long downward sloping handle of the hockey stick and than an abrupt 50 year upward slope for the blade as proposed by the K09 authors.

Steve snipped my ref. there to this post, understandably as OT for his post – yet Geoff’s point is important IMO. And I hope this work helps to flush out that “unavailable” CRU temperature data into the public domain.

It looks like the Divergences precede the discovery and harvesting of Russian gas.

It’s possible that the picking was not done visually but for age – but the motives hardly matter. The results speak for themselves.

That sounds interesting. I’ll be watching for your result.

I understand your point and went again to find the quote on it I thought you had posted before. In fact it was from the Jacoby tree rings rather than Briffa Yamal.

We strive to develop and use the best data possible. The criteria are good common low and high-frequency variation, absence of evidence of disturbance (either observed at the site or in the data), and correspondence or correlation with local or regional temperature.

It’s difficult to keep them all apart. The Yamal series has too much similarity with an aggressive large scale mathematical sorting operation for me to guess that it was eyeballed but either could produce the same effect and you’re right we don’t ‘know’ it.

Lucy,

They didn’t have to cherry pick temps, they simply used the overly secretive HadCRUT data.

We used the spatially averaged summer temperature for all land area north of 60° latitude from the CRUTEM3 data series (14).

That’s what makes this paper so difficult for a skeptic to accept, it has layers of climatology approved data all containing known problems many of which are warming biased. Steve’s point that Yamal may not have been sorted mathematically but rather visually is actually worse.