Comments on: Was Preisendorfer’s Rule N Used in MBH98 Tree Ring Networks? http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/07/was-preisendorfers-rule-n-used-in-mbh98-tree-ring-networks/ by Steve McIntyre Thu, 23 May 2013 10:09:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/07/was-preisendorfers-rule-n-used-in-mbh98-tree-ring-networks/#comment-31599 Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:54:18 +0000 /?p=34#comment-31599 The Preisendorfer thing seems to come accross as an after the fact justification. They didn’t really use it. And they didn’t describe it’s use in their discussion of methods in the paper.

It’s still unclear to me what PCA really is and if having a PC4 that is sticky shaped means anything. Surely it is the total summation that matters, no?

And I also don’t get the deal with needing to do linear interpolation and other data addition to make the method work. Surely there is some transform that does not depend on this type of activity. And additionally, does addition of data like this mean that some series are effectivly over-represented in significance?

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/07/was-preisendorfers-rule-n-used-in-mbh98-tree-ring-networks/#comment-31598 Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:29:58 +0000 /?p=34#comment-31598 Hi Steve,
Great to see you blogging at last. The comments about Bre-X is an extremely important consideration.

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/07/was-preisendorfers-rule-n-used-in-mbh98-tree-ring-networks/#comment-31597 Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:05:23 +0000 /?p=34#comment-31597 Hi Stephen,

Welcome to the blogging world! The Bre-X articles are spot on, in more ways one could imagine.

]]>