To generate “random” noise series, MM05c apply the full autoregressive structure
of the real world proxy series. In this way, they in fact train their stochastic engine
with significant (if not dominant) low frequency climate signal rather than purely
non-climatic noise and its persistence. The resulting verification RE significance
thresholds for rejecting the likelihood of spurious, random “success” derived from
reconstructions using these pseudo-proxies are therefore too large by construction,
precisely because they contain at least some climate signal along with purely
stochastic processes. Such thresholds thus enhance the danger of committing Type
II errors (inappropriate failure to reject a null hypothesis of no climatic information
for a reconstruction).

Ammann and Wahl 2007 and Wahl and Ammann 2007

available for free yet? If so can you link (them again, if you already have), so that we can read them? I keep getting the North report when I google.

Perhaps they (it???) should be posted on “CATEGORIES” on your site so that we could reveiw them (it??)?

Steve: Check http://data.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/. There is a Wahl and Ammann category under MBH/

Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.

This Manning memo in my view invalidated the process.

Re #7,
The copy I have seen of Ammann and Wahl 2007 says accepted 13 June 2007 not 2006. Steve has reported that the ‘received 22 August 2000′ was a printers error – should have been 2006

Steve: There are two articles: Ammann and Wahl 2007 and Wahl and Ammann 2007. It is WA that is cited in AR4. However, it cites AW 2007.

New Scientist ran an article on 1 May 2008 saying that IPCC 4AR is already out-of-date since it was only based on research up to 2005. UK government scientists John Mitchell and Robert Watson wrote in (published 29 May 2008) contesting this and saying that 4AR had articles published up to early 2007. Wahl and Ammann 2007 was in fact published online late in August 2007 and printed in the November edition of Climatic Change, so “early” needs to be interpreted flexibly.

The odd thing about the Ammann and Wahl 2007 article The importance of the geophysical context in statistical evaluations of climate reconstruction procedures published simultaneously in Climatic Change was that it seems to have been submitted in August 2000 (or so the Springer site states) despite not being accepted until June 2006. This seems an extremely long time – had the world not moved on? It would be interesting to see how it changed over that time. Clearly it was added to, to meet the need to replace contents of the rejected GRL Ammann and Wahl ‘Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick’.

e.g. (http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html)

“Deadline for expert and Government comments on second draft: June 2” and “Comments distributed to CLAs by June 16”

manning’s memo is in effect reopening the review process since it was only issued a month after the scheduled end.

The official time table, which is also undated apart from its properties, filename and server file date, was updated with a new version dated 24 August 2006 , but there is no mention in it of the changes made by Martin Manning’s memo. Both time tables were authored by Roy Miller. If Manning’s memo was properly authorised I would have expected the time table to be updated to reflect it.

By Manning’s memo, Wahl and Ammann (2007) doesn’t cut it as he says papers published in 2006 may be included. In Chapter 11, comment 11-781 Rasmus E. Benestad (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 18-34) puts in a plug for Fan et al (2005,2006) and was told –

“Rejected. [discussion] But Fan et al. (2006) will not be published this year to meet the AR4 requirement of the deadline.

So the CLAs of Chapter 11 knew the deadlines.

For Wahl and Ammann to be in according to the rules Climatic Change would have had to have given a copper bottomed guarantee of 2006 publication – and if they did they would have some questions to answer.

Incidentally, the email address in the Manning memo is ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov and must be subject to US Freedom of Information Law. I will be asking some questions this side of the pond, hopefully someone in the US will also ask a few. One thing we really need is to have reviewers comments and authors responses dated. The dates must have been there to start with so why would anyone strip them off?