ggg() instead of g()
xxx instead of x
yyy instead of y

etcetera.

This one small change can make a tremendous difference in readability for others. Hang in there! Thanks. best regards, -chris

Steve: Good point. If I use function with an uninformative name like this, I’ll typically define it on one line and use it in an adjacent line. Because R is so concise, I’m increasingly being a little redundant in my programming and re-defining smoothing functions and things like that as I use them.

I changed
g=function(X) ts(X[,2],start=X[1.1])

to

g=function(X) ts(X[,2],start=X[1,1]) — a comma in 1,1 which made sense to me now.

and the only problem left is smartlegend is an unrecognized function. I comment it out and get your graph.

Steve: Sorry bout that. smartlegend is in the gplots package. So you have to install gplots. Then insert library(gplots) in the script. I’ve got too many things in my console right now and need to close it down and see what I’ve got loaded for these little scripts.

for ( i in 1:K) chron=ts.union(chron,g(mann[[index [i] ]]) )

The g in the line above is an unrecognized function. I tried removing it and have spent quite a bit of time studying time series but no luck yet.

#41 I will. I want to learn R first but have been studying some of the characterization techniques for matching red noise to measured data. I am hoping for a more general answer to offset and magnification than just trying to match a single paper though. I found some references stating that this was the method used to criticize our hosts past work on this subject.

Steve: If I throw up an illustrative script, PLEASE don’t waste time trying to figure out a hangup. Just ask me. It will 99% of the time be something that I’ve got on my console. Here is simply a little function to make the data into a time series.

g=function(X) ts(X[,2],start=X[1,1])

The effect is a bit subtle apparently because it is such an accepted technique in paleoclimatology but the result is quite large. From my reconstruction of 08, the temperature data in the historic period prior to 1850 is de-magnified to 62% of the calibration range data. I haven’t figured out how to calculate the offset yet.

JeffId, I have seen rather vague references to this effect of reconstructions and I believe they were pointed to as a mild warning by a review of the AGW consensus literature. It could have been in an IPCC review. I would like to see you push this point because as stated it has to be an important aspect of interpreting reconstruction results.

Thanks for responding, Steve, but I don’t mean to take you away from the work you’re doing. I was hoping that someone else might come back with a fix. Keep up the good work !

Maybe it’s too early to tell, but I’m interested in whether M08 is being accepted and publicised, or whether your analysis is already causing people to avoid citing and promoting it (or at least to be careful about doing so)

That’s a good question. The blog-world, however, is much different than the television/media world, and it is plausible to assume that being roundly discredited here will have zero impact there.

Mark