Comments on: Briffa vs Esper #2

By: Wonka

Wonka — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:35:56 +0000

As a classical (bad) poet would say:

“From an eyeball perspective
it seems pretty plain
to see
proxies look always defective
if made
from the width
of the rings
of a tree,
even for a good [Steve] detective”.

By: ET SidViscous

ET SidViscous — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:20:29 +0000

Steve any chance you could invert one on of the Mangazeja plots and compare correlations?

Just for a laugh

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:55:03 +0000

#2 – it’s my implementation of the procedure. It’s impossible to do a clean benchmark of RCS algorithms as, to my knowledge and this is pretty amazing when you think about it, there are NO archives of both an RCS ring width chronology and a measurement data set which match. Isn’t that crazy? I’ve matched my method off smoothed curves and match the curves OK.

#3. I wonder how much of the difference between Esper and some of the other studies is simply accounted for by the Polar Urals data set. It seems hard to believe that none of these guys were aware of the difference. I’ll bet that they just wanted to bury the underlying Esper versions.

By: ET SidViscous

ET SidViscous — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:21:33 +0000

You know. You look at this stuff and you have to ask yourself “What the F…”

I mean it’s a smorgasbord of the different errors they could do. There a big heaping roast of Truncation, “Hey look 600 years ago this one shows it was way warmer than now.” “Cut it off then.”

Then you look at Mangazeja, they would get better correlation if one of them reversed the sign on everything.

And in every case the “errors” “Truncations” whatever is questionable always reduces past warming, and increases current warming.

You have to wonder if all this business about “I had the data but I moved and can’t find it now” isn’t really true. I mean you look at this, they all start with the same numbers and any similarity in two different calculations is less than pure coincidence.

By: jae

jae — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:10:34 +0000

Steve: By “emulated,” do you mean that you used their reported procedures on the same data? If so, the differences are striking.

By: John A

John A — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:00:24 +0000

Fundamental data that should be the same but isn’t. Data not matching to citations.

Do I guess that none of these differences have been noted and explained by the authors?