Comments on: Replication Problems: Mannian Verification Stats

By: UC

UC — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:26:01 +0000

u=calc_error(‘SH’,”,’iHAD’);

http://signals.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/early1.txt

http://signals.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/late1.txt

http://signals.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/inst1.txt

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:58:18 +0000

#42. Excellent.

UC, can you post up the full e_recon and l_recon series for this example?

By: UC

UC — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:21:36 +0000

# century early_RE early_CE early_r2 late_RE late_CE late_r2 average_RE average_CE average_r2 adjusted_RE adjusted_CE adjusted_r2
# 1000 0.0746 -1.663 0.3552 0.7194 0.1475 0.303 0.397 -0.758 0.3291 0.397 -0.758 0.3291

At least r2 problem can be solved now ( see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4833 )

Here’s

[e_recon(vals1:vale1) inst(vals1:vale1) l_recon(vals2:vale2) inst(vals2:vale2)]

from calc_error.m, and

load e_recon.txt
>> corrcoef(e_recon(:,1),e_recon(:,2)).^2

ans =

1.0000 0.3030
0.3030 1.0000

>> corrcoef(e_recon(:,3),e_recon(:,4)).^2

ans =

1.0000 0.3552
0.3552 1.0000

matches with the ones archived.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:04:35 +0000

#40. Yes, I can confirm that 0.05 smoothing was used in newtemp. As others have observed, it’s pretty hard to tell from the program, because it’s set to both 0.05 and 0.1 at different points in the doindexxx.m program. This split seems to get undone later in CPS operations, but perhaps not in the EIV operations. What a mess.

For reference: in the newtemp/ directory,
HAD_NH_reform is identical to the version at Mann’s website;
tempn95infxxx is identical once again, just under a new name
stdtempn95infxxx – is the same series, re-scaled
nhlinfxxx is obtained by .05 smoothing of stdtempn95infxxx

and, mutatis mutandi, for SH and GL.

Here’s a plot of their “target” smoothed temperature series. How many degrees of freedom in Nychka terms are in this sucker? I’d be surprised if it was out of the single digits.

By: Jean S

Jean S — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:37:21 +0000

Re: UC (#39), Ah, frequency 0.05 was used this time. Can anyone keep track which smoothing (frequencies 0.05/0.1) is used in whatever operation? Especially, how were the final series used to calculate the verification stats in veri1850_1895sm.m actually smoothed?

By: UC

UC — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:10:57 +0000

Re: UC (#25),

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/code/codeprepdata/Readme.txt :

***Correction (29 Nov 2008): clihybrid.m added to directory.

Thanks, Dr. Mann. I can now run the prepinputforrecon.m, but I had to add manually folders such as

C:\holocene\s1\zuz10\work1\temann\zzrecon1209\nhglfulihad\highf ,

do you want me to make a turn-key version ? Something I did with the hockeystick ? Or would you prefer GUI ?

By: Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work! « Fabius Maximus

Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work! « Fabius Maximus — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:58:42 +0000

[...] Even now work continues, attempting to make sense of Mann’s hodge-podge of code and data (see this and this). Hence the “peer review” failed. Their review might as well consisted [...]

By: RLGrin

RLGrin — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:11:03 +0000

I wouldn’t be surprised if Mann et al intentionally published bad data to send everyone on a wild goose chase. For what it’s worth, DON’T trust and verify everything.

By: theduke

theduke — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:55:41 +0000

“We are not sceptical enough about the data.”

I guess she’s not made it to Climate Audit.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/beware-the-church-of-climate-alarm/2008/11/26/1227491635989.html

By: Poha

Poha — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:59:44 +0000

Roger Bacon (1214-1294):
“Quatuor vero sunt maxima comprehendendæ veritatis offendicula, quæ omnem quemcumque sapientem impediunt, et vix aliquem permittunt ad verum titulum sapientiæ pervenire: videlicet fragilis et indignæ auctoritatis exemplum, consuetudinis diuturnitas, vulgi sensus imperiti, et propriæ ignorantiæ occultatio cum ostentatione sapientiæ apparentis.”
(There are four barriers blocking the road to truth: submission to unworthy authority, the influence of custom, popular prejudice, and concealment of one’s ignorance with a technical show of wisdom.)