The Yang Chinese composite, after the Mann PC1 and Yamal, had the third - largest hockey stick shape of the proxies illustrated in the IPCC
AR4 spaghetti graph.
The AR4 spaghetti graph shows the average of runs within a model for 21 models (A1B) and observations fall outside the range shown in Figure 10.5 A1B, giving a much different impression than that of the re-stated Figure 1.4.
I'm not saying MBH had the highest MWP, but it (and Mann et al 2008 EIV) have it relatively high compared to most others, if one goes by
the AR4 spaghetti graph.
Not exact matches
Richard suggested that a
spaghetti graph of individual
AR4 runs be supplied as a figure additional to Figure 1.4.
The definitive timeline and sources of the draft versions of the TAR «
spaghetti graph», along with a comparison with the
AR4 equivalent.
Their reconstruction was prominent in the NAS panel
spaghetti graph in 2006 and in the 2007 IPCC
AR4 and again in IPCC AR5.
Nor is the
AR4 Figure 10.5
spaghetti graph constructed the same way as the re-stated AR5 Figure 1.4.
As you observe, there is a
spaghetti graph in
AR4, the range of which (
AR4 Figure 10.5) is wider than the projections shown in
AR4 FIgure 10.26.
Nor can a comparison between observations and
AR4 projections be made «scientifically better» — let alone valid in accounting terms — by replacing actual
AR4 documents and graphics with a
spaghetti graph that did not appear in
AR4.
If IPCC intended this range of projections to represent their uncertainty range, then that is what they should have shown in
AR4 Figure 10.26 (which is more consistent with the Technical Summary than the range in the
spaghetti graph.)