Comments on: Polar Urals #1 http://climateaudit.org/2005/04/04/polar-urals-1/ by Steve McIntyre Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2005/04/04/polar-urals-1/#comment-32960 Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:25:12 +0000 /?p=161#comment-32960 yeah…I read that one. But don’t be shifting the issues like a slippery Mann worm. number of samples is an independant issue from misdating.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2005/04/04/polar-urals-1/#comment-32959 Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:55:36 +0000 /?p=161#comment-32959 You might see my op ed – Bring the Proxies Up to Date! If I were writing it now, I’d emphasize that there are a lot more proxies around than are archived – so it would be bring them up to data and report them!

As to the Urals, it’s not just that there are only 3. This might be OK if there were long cores. The bigger problem is that they are almost certainly misdated – see Crossdating post.

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2005/04/04/polar-urals-1/#comment-32958 Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:21:26 +0000 /?p=161#comment-32958 While 3 cores may be a bit outre in the world of statistical surveying, do you really think the answer would change with a largery survey? Surely the odds are well over 50%, that they would not change. Why don’t you advocate a fuller sample. However, if it validates Briffa, you need to be up front about that. This should be about assembling peices of truth…whichever direction they support.

]]>