Comments on: Hegerl et al in this week's Nature

By: Jim Erlandson

Jim Erlandson — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:58:44 +0000

Science has comments on the Hegerl article.

In this week's issue of Nature, they report a 5% probability that climate sensitivity is less than 1.5°C and a 95% chance that it's less than 6.2°C. That's still pretty high, but a far cry from 9°C or 11°C.

Latest Forecast: Stand By for a Warmer, But Not Scorching, World

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:47:42 +0000

KFC?

By: Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 07:02:15 +0000

CH-blend using 12 records

For some reason this reminds me of another secret blend “of eleven different herbs and spices” that in the end leaves the impression of being heavily salted.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:16:34 +0000

These are examples. Can you prove that this is what happened? Also, how do you deal with the argument that it is relevant to pick the series which track temperature (during the instrumental period).

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:51:57 +0000

#44. If you have say 36 series of red noise and pick the 10 series with the most positive 20th century trends and average them, you get a HS. Both David Stockwell and I have commented on this.

If you have a Divergence Problem under which the population mean of 387 tree ring series declines in the 20th century, then you cannot “randomly” pick 9 series with upticks.

By: Paul Penrose

Paul Penrose — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:39:21 +0000

Lee,
It’s all in the public record. Climate scientists admiting that “In order to make cherry pie one has to pick some cherries”, and “dendroclimatology is the only science where cherry-picking is allowed”. John Hunter (and others) have come right out and said that they don’t feel compelled to release data from published studies unless the requester, in their opinion, is competent to understand it and wants to work with them. Mann has admitted that he is “not a statistician”, yet his widely hailed published works are (somewhat novel) statistical analyses of existing data. It’s all here on this site. My advice: do some reading and catch up with the rest of us first.

By: TCO

TCO — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:57:28 +0000

Dave,

I agree that we’ve seen this type of analysis at other times/places on the blog. Not claiming that it’s my idea or that Ross/Steve have not thought this way in past. Just making point that this may be the way to analyze this.

Was annoyed when Ross said (in effect) “I’ve looked at overall reconstructions in past” to defend his use of analysis of weighting within PC1 versus within the overall reconstruction. It’s not about whether we’ve done the right thing in the past, but whether we’re doing right thing at the moment.

——

Sorry for editorializing Steve…:(

By: John A

John A — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:44:54 +0000

Just for fun, I'm going to try to guess what the Hegerl et al sites are, from the limited information available and from the other guiding Hockey Team principle -maximum non-independence of data.

And Steve criticizes me for punchlines like that....

By: jae

jae — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:33:20 +0000

Lee: Also, note the title of this blog. All Steve is trying to do is reproduce some of the studies. He has been trying to get the necessary data and methodology from some of the authors for over a year and in doing so has uncovered many problems with the data, the methods, the peer-review system, the journals, etc. He is not on some crusade against global warming, which he has made clear many times.

By: jae

jae — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:06:29 +0000

Lee: Please read some of the threads on this blog. You will simply be amazed at what Steve has uncovered, regarding the deficiencies in paleoclimatology, especially the dendroclimatology portions. You will have a hard time believing all the stonewalling, misrepresentations, and general unscientific behavior that Steve has battled. It’s the best “novel” I’ve ever read, and it’s in real time.