Comments on: Emile-Geay and Verification r2 Statistics

By: Jan W Merks

Jan W Merks — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:48:14 +0000

In his letter of October 15, 1992, to Professor Dr Robert Ehrlich, Editor, Journal for Mathematical Geology, Stanford's Professor Dr A J Journel proclaimed, "The very reason for geostatistics or spatial statistics in general is the acceptance (a decision rather) that spatially distributed data should be considered a priori as dependent one to another, unless proven otherwise." Professor Dr G Matheron taught Journal everything he knows. Matheron himself never applied Fisher's F-test before his passing in 2000. Visit Wikipedia and look under Spatial dependence and Sampling variogram to find out what Fisher's F-test is all about.

By: Kenneth Fritsch

Kenneth Fritsch — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:56:56 +0000

Re: #226

Abstract of JEGs 2007 dissertation while at Columbia:

http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/dissertations/AAI3249076

In this thesis, we explore a subset of mechanisms whereby low-frequency variability is produced within the tropical Pacific, and exported to other parts of the globe.

That part is what I think most of us here understand about teleconnections and I judge that JEG misjudges in his apparent indictment of the general understanding of it here at CA. Thats the easy part. The more difficult task is in showing how teleconnections are utilized by a statistically valid method to explain a temperature proxy and detailing how teleconnected signals are extracted from the local signals.

Draft of a JEG et al. March 2007 paper while at Columbia on solar forcing during the Holcene through ENSO as a mediator:

http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/~alexeyk/Papers/Emile-Geay_etal2007inpress.pdf

A comparison to key Holocene climate records, from the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and midlatitudes, shows support for this hypothesis.

I think that Steve Mosher misplaced these links that he posted on the thread “Somewthing New in the Loehle Network” so here they are. David Smith has also referenced this last link which given his interests certainly figures.

By: Pat Keating

Pat Keating — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:50:56 +0000

228

Thanks, John.

By: kim

kim — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:39:04 +0000

He’s grafted a radiant blade on a magnetic shaft; won’t stick.
=====================================

By: David Smith

David Smith — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:46:24 +0000

One of JEG's papers ( link ) addresses possible routes for solar influence on climate, with an emphasis on ENSO. It's well-written. This may be of interest to those interested in that topic.

By: John Baltutis

John Baltutis — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:18:01 +0000

Re #226

Start with http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Emile-Geay&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:37:14 +0000

Kenneth:
I agree: The tone and tenor of Julien’s site is very disappointing. Julien’s comments are somewhat odd: First cool and calm, then suddenly needlessly aggressive and antagonistic. I don’t get what he is really trying to do. Frankly, I am more interested in what he can add to Loehle’s paper.

By: Pat Keating

Pat Keating — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:08:51 +0000

225 Kenneth

I read his papers linked by Steve Mosher on teleconnections

I can’t find said links. I would appreciate it if you can point me in the right direction, or reproduce them here.

Thanks

By: Kenneth Fritsch

Kenneth Fritsch — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:20:18 +0000

I was reading at JEG’s web site in hopes of seeing something on how he or other climate scientists have rationalized, a prior, the use of teleconnections for explaining a specific temperature proxy. I read his papers linked by Steve Mosher on teleconnections and now his web site, but have yet to see the direct explanation for a temperature proxy and a rationale from him with regards to why it should be a valid use of teleconnections and not potentially confused with a spurious correlation.

http://thatstrangeweather.blogspot.com

On reading rather completely from JEGs site I would suggest any of you participating in this discussion who have not to do so. You can form your own opinions and judgments, but I view JEG as a scientist committed to climate policy and politics. Most of his observations appear to me to be reserved for what he views as the short comings of the reactions of skeptics and denialists to the climate science consensus. That well could explain the time he has taken to make those points here.

All that is neither here nor there to me if he can explain in detail some teleconnection validly applied to a specific temperature proxy. I have been sorely disappointed when previous climate scientists have visited here and appeared so edgy with what they have either assumed or observed was a general POV at CA that they never were able to answer any but the most rudimentary queries and then quickly leave.

By: lucia

lucia — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:09:55 +0000

@Susann–
I think blogs are like modern day coffee houses or gatherings over beer where issues are discussed. They do, however, have the additional the element of recording many tentative opinions (and unfortunately typos) forever, and sometimes (though not always) disseminating opinions and information rather widely; this can be both good and bad.

But no, no blog will drive policy on its own.

I reserve the right to not only claim I am undecided about consequences, I reserve the right to change my opinion on nearly everything.