Bringing the proxies up to date

An interesting post from Steve McIntyre is here.

An excerpt from his "Bring the Proxies Up to Date!!" piece:

I will make here a very simple suggestion: if IPCC or others want to use “multiproxy” reconstructions of world temperature for policy purposes, stop using data ending in 1980 and bring the proxies up-to-date. I would appreciate comments on this note as I think that I will pursue the matter with policymakers.

Let’s see how they perform in the warm 1990s -which should be an ideal period to show the merit of the proxies. I do not believe that any responsible policy-maker can base policy, even in part, on the continued use of obsolete data ending in 1980, when the costs of bringing the data up-to-date is inconsequential compared to Kyoto costs.

For example, in Mann’s famous hockey stick graph, as presented to policymakers and to the public, the graph used Mann’s reconstruction from proxies up to 1980 and instrumental temperatures (here, as in other similar studies, using Jones’ more lurid CRU surface history rather than the more moderate increases shown by satellite measurements). Usually (but not always), a different color is used for the instrumental portion, but, from a promotional point of view, the juxtaposition of the two series achieves the desired promotional effect. (In mining promotions, where there is considerable community experience with promotional graphics and statistics, securities commission prohibit the adding together of proven ore reserves and inferred ore reserves - a policy which deserves a little reflection in the context of IPCC studies).

Update: Now check out McIntyre's update here. Also note his comment #95:

#92. Erik, all the measurements and dendrochronological work is being in an accredited lab. The site selection was, in effect, done by Donald Graybill.

As to testing a “hypothesis” : I didn’t have a “hypothesis” about what the tree rings would look like. The people with the hypothesis were the Team: bristlecone ring widths should have been off the charts according to Team theory. Me, I had no personal views or expectations. They could have been anything as far as I was concerned. It seemed outrageous to me that the Team should rely on bristlecone ring widths and seemingly be so incurious about them that they haven’t updated the results for nearly 25 years. (Of course, Hughes updated Sheep Mountain results in 2002, but not a whisper of the results. You might ask him where the results are.) For good order’s sake, we’ll submit a “data paper” somewhere. I don’t anticipate that I’ll do principal components on the data or try to see if there is a teleconnection to Czech temperature history.

Actually I did have one “hypothesis” - the Starbucks Hypothesis. That you could have a latte in the morning, collect bristlecones and be back in time for dinner. Now the trip was by no means a walk in the park; it required skilful 4-wheel driving by Pete but I’d say that we confirmed the Starbucks Hypothesis and disproved Mann’s excuse as to why this data has not been updated.