Comments on: Wahl and Ammann: Some Verification Statistics

By: Rob Matthews

Rob Matthews — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:05:30 +0000

Can you direct me to on-line resources on statistical analyses and verification? It has been a long time since I took any course work in statistics and I would like to have a quick refresher in these topics. Thanks.

By: Peter Hearnden

Peter Hearnden — Wed, 25 May 2005 08:22:38 +0000

Re #25,

OK, I understand and welcome your clarification.

By: SPQR

SPQR — Mon, 23 May 2005 03:33:08 +0000

Steve & Ross,
My apologies. Thanks for the correction.

By: Ross McKitrick

Ross McKitrick — Sun, 22 May 2005 19:42:40 +0000

Peter: “Have not”, as of the present. I say this on the basis of knowing that they have only just entered the review process at each journal, both of which we are involved in. I did not say they “will not”, but to say they have not “yet” suggests a foregone conclusion that they will be publshed. Perhaps they will, but the referee process is not a rubber stamp, which is why we usually expect authors to wait until publication to put out a press release announcing their findings.

By: Peter Hearnden

Peter Hearnden — Sun, 22 May 2005 08:13:56 +0000

Re #20

Ross,

Is that a definite ‘have not’ or is it ‘have not yet’? On what authority do you say ‘have not’ (just doing an audit of your claims ).

By: Michael Mayson

Michael Mayson — Sat, 21 May 2005 21:16:43 +0000

Re #5 and #19. Thanks – that would be much appreciated.

By: John A

John A — Sat, 21 May 2005 14:57:03 +0000

Re: #20

Yes, yet another “announce the result before the due diligence is done”. In stockmarket terms, we’d call it “ramping”.

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Sat, 21 May 2005 14:15:18 +0000

Re #17

I think it’s fairly simple. Heat spreads in all directions. As heat moves downward through the earth the ‘temperature signal’ has to be diluted and thus the ability decypher how the temperature changed with time will grow less the farther you go.

By: Ross McKitrick

Ross McKitrick — Sat, 21 May 2005 14:02:28 +0000

Re #16: W&A didn’t get published. They put out a press release. Or rather, the National Center for Atmospheric Research put out a press release. The papers themselves have not passed peer review and aren’t published.

By: Spence_UK

Spence_UK — Sat, 21 May 2005 11:46:22 +0000

Re #5

I would be happy to have a pop at trying to describe some of the statistics, especially if it would help free up some of Steve’s time – although I’m not going to be able to have a crack at this just yet, I’m running a fairly big event (voluntary work) this weekend which is taking up all of my spare time at the moment.