Comments on: Mann and Perfect Reconstructions

By: Jeff Id

Jeff Id — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:31:35 +0000

Now we know why the reconstruction was perfect. RegEM doesn’t replace the original series data. I’ll do the EIV recon tonight.

By: Jeff Id

Jeff Id — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:30:35 +0000

Now we know why the reconstruction was perfect.

By: Mark T.

Mark T. — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:41:05 +0000

Only when r2 is high, Robin, and it is “silly” to calculate it when it is near zero./snark

Mark

By: Robin Edwards

Robin Edwards — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:07:53 +0000

r-squared seems to be the statistic of choice for climatologists, and for those who would aspire to be one.

I would really like to see the probability values associated with the statistic, but it seldom or never seems to appear.

Is there a good reason for this?

Robin

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 03:00:20 +0000

[...] 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: John Norris

John Norris — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:20:40 +0000

Incidentally, looks like clihybrid.m has been added to the folder, and the addition is noted in the updated Readme.txt file

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

By: masmit

masmit — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:12:34 +0000

Re: Patrick M. (#41), It'd also interesting to see if you'd be taken to task for misapplication of Mann's methods, since it seems likely that few reviewers would know what those methods are...

By: Patrick M.

Patrick M. — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:12:25 +0000

Re: Craig Loehle (#32), Interesting! What if you DID try the exact same monkey business, (and used Mann's methods to prove that the MWP was higher than current temps)? What would the reviewers do? Would they take you to task knowing that you could then turn around and complain about Mann? Or would they look the other way as they appear to do with Mann? Of course you would have plenty of Mann citations listed in your paper.

By: John A

John A — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:30:34 +0000

Steve, why does Mann “only [claim] an “average” verification r2 of 0.28″ when he very specifically state in his article that he did not calculate the verification R2 statistics (referring to his own ~~tantrum~~ article on the manifest failures of the R2 metric)?

By: John S.

John S. — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:01:15 +0000

Re: Geoff Sherrington (#38), 14 is also the number to the dozen that the most-ambitious oyster bars would serve in the good old days. That's one better than a baker's dozen! On more serious note, all the questions about apparent cycles and the coherence between instrument and proxy series would be readily answered by cross-spectrum analysis. I'd be happy to run such an analysis on any pair of string-formatted (i.e., date and data value) series that Steve Mc would send me.