6 or more- I win, 5 – a draw, 4 or less you win; site identification is the criterion not the exact version;

To which, TCO replied: “1. 50% is a wash.”. I don’t see any final agreement on this, but I’m over 6 anyway.

I’ve probably got a bit information on these sites than before, but I’ve been unable to totally pin down what they did. Nonetheless, I think that I’m way over 6.

1. Yang composite -conceded
2. Taymir – conceded (1+1=2)
3. Polar Urals – on balance, I expect the Briffa MXD version, but it could be the Yamal version. Either qualifies.

They’ve cocked up their description of the series, which is confusing you a little. They credit the “Yamal” series to Briffa et al 1995, but this is the Briffa MXD series that I refer to above. They mention two sites records from “west of the Urals (Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002)”. Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 is a report on Yamal. Are there “two” sites and what are they? I suspect that there’s only one series. Mangazeja is in Esper (and was a site that was in my initial list and changed for Yakutia.) Given that I predicted either Briffa MXD or Yamal and the result (as best as I know right now) was the average of Briffa MXD, Yamal and Mangazeja, you’re being cheeky to say 0. The bet was on the sites, not the precise version. So I propose 2/3 of a point here, round down to .6. (2+ .6= 2.6)

4. Mongolia – conceded (2.6+1 = 3.6)
5. Tornetrask – conceded (3.6+1=4.6)
6. van Engeln – (4.6+0 = 4.6)

Your comment about “do I deserve a point, it doesn’t matter” seems legalistic rather than observational.

Jeez, you’re getting chippy. I said that it didn’t matter in the sense that I was well over 6 with or without it. I was right in getting a European documentary version, but I didn’t get the exact documentary version. I don’t think that I was totally off-base and it’s not that I was totally wrong about this prediction. But I didn’t ask for the point.

7. Greenland dO18 – conceded. (4.6+1= 5.6)

8. Jasper – on balance I expect the Luckman version, rather than the Luckman-Wilson version which is too recent, but either qualifies.

TCO, I totally disagree with you here. You say -0. I say a full point. “Athabasca” and “Jasper” are the same site. The Hegerl version seems to be an average of the Luckman version and Esper’s version using Schweingruber’s sample. The bet was for the site, not the exact version and I got this one bang on. Full point. (5.6+1=6.6)

9. MBH PC1

You say that this is “a very imprecise reference”. Puh-leeze. If you thought it was “ambiguous” , you should have asked for more particulars last spring. You also say that :”Also not clear at all if “Hughes provided western US series” is same as Mannian PC1.” You’re right that it isn’t clear. If I remember correctly, I think that I got some additional data on this – or that I matched a graphic. Anyway, I’m 100% sure that this is what they used. They say that they blended the Mannian PC1 with foxtails used in Osborn and Briffa, taken about 30 miles from the bristlecones. At a minimum, I get 0.5 points, but this is very conservative in that I pretty much nailed what they were going to do. (6.6+0.5=7.1)

10. Yakutia instead of Mangazeja. Mangazeja is a bit unusual; Yakutia is more consistent with maximal overlap and is used in DWJ06.

TCO, you’re arguing about a point a point that I didn’t claim. Jeez, you’re being ridiculous. But I was right to guess something from Siberia(7.1+0=7.1)

11. Quebec – I’m going to go with the Jacoby version rather than the Schweingruber version (which isn’t used outside of Esper/OB). either. One point for the Jacoby version; half point for Schweingruber version.

They say that they used a blend of 4 sites: 1) Ste Anne/Gaspe (these are the same site despite your protests to the contrary, trust me on this), which is what I meant by the “Jacoby version” in my prediction, although this isn’t very clear; 2) Boniface – this is the “Schweingruber version” used in O and B; 3) Chimo 4) No Name Lake. They used a composite, of which 50% were my prediction. So 0.5 points (7.1+0.5).

12. Tirol isn’t used outside of Esper/OB and isn’t maximum overlap. So something from the Jacoby treeline series, it could be the composite or it could be something like TTHH. One point for TTHH, half-point for the composite or half-point for another Jacoby treeline site. I’ll be mad if it’s Tirol.

I guessed something like TTHH in the Yukon; it turned out to be the Campbell Dolomite site in the Yukon. I didn’t claim points as I didn’t need them.

You can cavil all you want, but if you step back – if these sites are “randomly” selected, should I have been able to predict the selections as well as I did? Of course not.

Reviewing the bet, TCO, you’re completely offbase on the Jasper site. I nailed it for a full point – no two ways about it and, together with the 5 conceded points, gives me the 6 points.

Now let’s go back to Polar Urals. I predicted Polar Urals (either Briffa MXD or Yamal version.) These were used with Mangazeja blended in. The Mangazeja blend doesn’t affect things much. Is my prediction “wrong”? OF course it isn’t. However you cut it, I’m entitled to partial points to put me over 6 points and win the bet.

Alternatively, I predicted the MBH PC1. It was blended with foxtails, but again my prediction was not wrong. Any part points put me over.

Alternatively, I predicted two of the 4 Quebec sites: Ste Anne/Gaspe, Boniface.

You cannot seriously be saying that having predicted the Polar Urals, the MBH PC1, Gaspe and Boniface, I’m entitled to 0 points on these sites. And you accuse me of being legalistic.

When I made this bet with Steve, it was my hope/expectation that he would win. My desire to get him some cash, for the fun, I’ve had reading the blog. (This was pre tip jar.) His guesses got a bit legalistic, when we really set a bet up. Not exactly just 12 guesses, but some either-ors to give him more chances. This takes away from the message of cherrypicking and distinctiveness and max overlap (since more combinations still give a similar pattern). But, ok.

What really bugged me was after the paper came out, Steve’s reaction to it. I was disturbed that there was no direct statement by Steve that he had “won the bet” or of exactly how many series he had guessed correctly. Several of his comments, seemed to anticipate an argument (wanting “fractional credit” or his ‘I could argue that’, type statements.) It’s the legalistic style of holding a concession in advance rather than the scientific style of testing a hypothesis and reporting results either way.

In addition, a very big difference that I learned from the Hegerl paper was that these were not 12 series or even 12 composites as we normally identify them. But that several of the series were actually meta-composites covering several studies in a region. Like finding out that a reporters source was a “composite”. Steve had not predicted that. (There’s actually a hint of it in a parenthetical statement in Hegerl’s Science article, but Steve was so locked onto OB2006 and the guessing game, that he thought in terms of normal series.) And he did not note it when, we learned it in the paper. This is a major difference of the structure of the Hegerl reconstruction from what Steve predicted.

So, I don’t accept Steve’s comments on face value and look at the actual Hegerl paper and Steve’s bet guesses (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=642#comment-21075), myself to make a comparison.

In several cases, Steve refers to series by colloquial names This can be ambigious. For instance, “Mongolia” is a country, not a temperature reconstruction! I understand that Steve, knows what he means when he says this, but it’s still a poor practice, like referring to VS04, when Von Storch wrote more than one paper in 2004 (and you don’t have a specific citation either). To understand these, I went back to the Osborne and Briffa study (table S1) to check for the “principle of max overlap”, Steve was addressing.

_____________________________

Yang composite:
Good job, Steve. (1)

Taymir:
Same original series, different version (OK). Good job, Steve (1+1=2)

Polar Urals – on balance, I expect the Briffa MXD version, but it could be the Yamal version. Either qualifies.:
This is actually a “meta-composite”. It has 4 records mixed in. You predicted one of four (it was the Yamal). No granting yourself a “full point”. A meta-composite is not a specific series, no partial credit, this was a major thing you missed about what was being done and that you did not address squarely when we learned about it. Bad job, Steve. (2+0=2)

Mongolia:
Good job, Steve. (2+1=3).

Tornetrask:
Same series (not sure if Esper versus Briffa is a version difference, but those are kosher anyhow.) (3+1=4)

van Engeln: Your comment about “do I deserve a point, it doesn’t matter” seems legalistic rather than observational. Luterbacher is not Van Engeln (and doesn’t even cite him, I read the article). Also, they differ in the 1500s: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/errenvsluterbacher.htm (4+0=4).

Greenland dO18: Looks good. (4+1=5)

Jasper – on balance I expect the Luckman version, rather than the Luckman-Wilson version which is too recent, but either qualifies.:
I assume you mean the 1997 cited article. If so, good job. But you MISSED THE META-COMPOSITE and ESPER SERIES. It’s not the series you say it is, if it’s an average of two series. (5+0=5)

MBH PC1:
This is a very imprecise reference (I know you know what you mean by it, but others are not brainreaders and it’s ambiguous). Also not clear at all if “Hughes provided western US series” is same as Mannian PC1. Not sure why you give yourself credit without knowing this. In any case, THIS IS ACTUALLY A META-COMPOSITE. He mixes in others by straight up average combination with “Hughes”. BTW: “I think that I deserve a full point”. NO!!! First of all, there ain’t a bunch of damn fractional points running around here, anyhow, so what’s this “full” crap? And second, you missed something big with the meta-composites. That’s not principle of max overlap. NOt the uncanny accuracy that you seem to imply is so special. Bad job. (5+0=5)

Yakutia instead of Mangazeja. Mangazeja is a bit unusual; Yakutia is more consistent with maximal overlap and is used in DWJ06.:
You didn’t get it right. That there are multiple series in various river basins, giving similar results speaks to non-cherrypicking and usefulness of proxies in general and speaks to independance of the exercises. Your comments about “If I was scractching for points, I’d argue for a partial point” is odious. You got the WRONG SERIESes. You missed the meta-composite. And the basic idea of changing your analysis based on how it helps you is ethically wrong. Do you call the in/out bounds in tennis (a sport where one calls one’s opponents shots), based on how much you need the point? (5+0=5)

Quebec – I’m going to go with the Jacoby version rather than
Schweingruber version (which isn’t used outside of Esper/OB). either. One point for the Jacoby version; half point for SChweingruber version.:
This is another one, where you gave yourself credit for more than one guess within a guess. But you still didn’t get it! And your comment “The Ste Anne series is an alter ego for Gaspé. I think that I deserve a full point.” is weasely. What is with all this partial credit crap? And besides, it’s a different series, different trees. No soup. The point of the exercise is max overlap. (5+0=5)

Tirol isn’t used outside of Esper/OB and isn’t maximum overlap. So something from the Jacoby treeline series, it could be the composite or it could be something like TTHH. One point for TTHH, half-point for the composite or half-point for another Jacoby treeline site. I’ll be mad if it’s Tirol.:
You gave yourself a multitude of choices here. One of them seems like it isn’t even a third series “another Jaboy treeline site”, but just a RESEARCHER!! But, in any case, you got it wrong. (5+0=5)

————-

I also think that the point of “maximum overlap” became much less maximum, when we dug into it. Also that you were able to create a similar looking trend series for matching with some significant differences in series, may show that there’s more sense in “somewhat independant” combinations giving “somewhat similar” reconstructions. Of course, I think 5 out of 12 is still a lot of overlap. Definitely, not two independant exercises. And it just has to be that way, I guess based on how many good records are out there.

————-

If there’s something I’ve missed in series identification, let me know. I still want to get you a couple more points, so you can get your money. I won’t listen to lawyerly arguing about, “what you choose to argue” or about partial credit or even full credit for “series” that were meta-composites.

Dr. Juckes appeared to set out to defend/support MBH by making more Hockey Sticks with new twists of previous used proxies. I find it rather ironic that the net result is he is providing more opportunity for you to make your point, and in turn further substantiating MM critique of MBH methods.

I also half expect that you would like Hockey Sticks to keep coming from Dr. Juckes, or whomever. With respect to credibility, I certainly don’t see MBH stock going up with Dr. Juckes latest effort. And with him finding new ways for you to make your point I suspect you are getting a fair degree of entertainment value out of this as well.

1. Yang composite
2. Taymir
3. Polar Urals – on balance, I expect the Briffa MXD version, but it could be the Yamal version. Either qualifies.
4. Mongolia
5. Tornetrask
6. van Engeln
7. Greenland dO18
8. Jasper – on balance I expect the Luckman version, rather than the Luckman-Wilson version which is too recent, but either qualifies.
9. MBH PC1 (I’d add in the Graumlich Foxtails used in Osborn and Briffa).

1. Yang Composite: Bingo.
2. Taymir – bingo
3. Yamal – double bingo. Both the Briffa 1995 and Yamal versions are used.
4. Mongolia – surprisingly not in the Juckes set. There’s something quite weird going on here. It is HS and it fits the criteria; I think the problem relates to the unavailability of the version used by Esper, which seems to have gone AWOL. Maybe it’s on Crowley’s disk drive.
5. Tornetrask – double bingo. It was used twice.
6. van Engeln – all of the Juckes versions go to AD1000, so this would not have been on my list.
7. Greenland dO18. Bingo
8. Jasper – not in the Juckes set – presumably because the version in play in 2005 ends in 1072.
9. Bristlecones/foxtails – both Graumlich series, plus 2 bristlecone series used in Moberg (they are Methuselah Walk and Indian Garden – odd choices since they are not strongly HS).

This makes 11 of the 18 Juckes series. Of course, since Juckes’ criteria included prior use of the proxy by the Team, it’s not very surprising to have made these predictions.

Juckes HS-ness comes from the 2 foxtail series, Yamal, Yang (Guliya and Dunde) and the Arabian Sea G Bulloides series. The results from the other 13 series have a higher MWP than modern.

The Team doesn’t really need to keep publishing permutations and combinations of these 5 series over and over again. I am prepared to stipulate that manipulations of foxtails, Mann’s PC1, Yamal, G Bulloides and Dunde-Guliya yield a HS result under a variety of methods. OF course, permutations of Polar Urals update, Yakutia/Indigirka, Sargasso Sea SST, GRIP borehole, Khim’s Bransfield Strait don’t. I wonder if that’s why they aren’t in the Juckes Union.