Comments on: Jean S on Rutherford et al 2005 http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/ by Steve McIntyre Thu, 23 May 2013 10:09:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Skiphil http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-381542 Sat, 08 Dec 2012 20:23:50 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-381542 I found this comment on a Jean S post by Paul Dennis (of UEA?) and the ensuing discussion to be of much interest. It does not seem like much attention is paid yet to rigorous understanding of the physical basis behind the statistical games of The Team??

]]> By: Smerdon et al 2008 on RegEM « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-254799 Sat, 12 Feb 2011 18:16:14 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-254799 [...] July 10, 2006, Jean S commented on Rutherford-Mann 2005 “adaptations”, noting three important “adaptations: 1. use [...]

]]> By: Re-Visiting RegEM: Rutherford et al 2005 « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-254484 Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:58:18 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-254484 [...] self-contained and so I re-visited some of our previous comments on Rutherford et al here here here here . I’m going to reprise two issues today: Collation Errors, a small but amusing defect; and [...]

]]> By: Mark T. http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-55661 Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:54:46 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-55661 Is it just me or does this thing (mbhstepwiselowrecon) take FOREVER to run?

Mark

]]> By: beng http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-55660 Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:50:57 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-55660 Pielke Sr’s site has posted some comments on possible arctic ocean ice-free conditions during the Holecene max (only ~10000 ya) & Canadian arctic tree-line movement (more examples of older, neglected studies that don’t fit the “consensus”):

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/07/12/open-arctic-ocean-commentary-by-harvey-nichols-professor-of-biology/

]]> By: Phil B. http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-55659 Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:15:36 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-55659 Thanks, JerryB for the info.

]]> By: fFreddy http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-55658 Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:03:50 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-55658 #38, Paul

Is anyone else bothered by this “Global Climate Field” concept?

Bears are not toilet-trained.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-55657 Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:59:23 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-55657 Also some practices are carry-overs from Fortran programming.

]]> By: Paul Penrose http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-55656 Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:57:07 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-55656 Is anyone else bothered by this “Global Climate Field” concept? It just seems that something as ill-defined as this is inviting abuse.

]]> By: JerryB http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/10/jean-s-on-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-55655 Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:21:21 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=743#comment-55655 Furher to my previous answer, by using units of 0.01 C, instead of 1 C with a fraction of two digits, the need for a decimal point is avoided.

]]>