Comments on: More Z-Score Opportunism http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/ by Steve McIntyre Mon, 20 May 2013 03:03:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Alkenone Divergence « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-411419 Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:08:55 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-411419 [...] a very high-resolution alkenone series offshore Morocco (about 30N) by Helen McGregor (see here and here). This dataset had a serious divergence problem, i.e. the water was getting colder. McGregor [...]

]]> By: Gordon Sirmond http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-181633 Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:11:30 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-181633 Presumably some kind of program was used to produce these graphs. I’ve never come across one that would allow data to be inverted, so how was it done?

Any ideas?

]]> By: More Global Warming Perfidy http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-181632 Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:31:27 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-181632 [...] This CANNOT be the behavior of honest men or good scientists. Steve McIntyre has discovered that in some temperature proxy data series, the “scientists” have gone ahead and inverted a series that points the wrong way. If you can parse advanced statistical analysis, go ahead and read the original article. [...]

]]> By: jorgekafkazar http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-181631 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:56:53 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-181631 Re: Steve McIntyre (#18), Yes, more teleconnection mumbo-jumbo: qualitative hand-waving without correlation. Even assuming a small, positive correlation between upwelling hither and temperature thither, the amount of heating need not be at all significant. The unstable temperature anomaly could be so minuscule as to make the proxy meaningless, as well as transient.

]]> By: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut. http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-181630 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:22:04 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-181630 [...] This article on Climate Audit really gets at an issue that bothers many skeptics about the state of climate science:  the profession seems to spend so much time manipulating numbers in models and computer systems that they start to forget that those numbers are supposed to have physical meaning. [...]

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-181629 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:08:26 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-181629 Re: jorgekafkazar (#17),

again, this is NOT the first Team use of upwelling as a temperature proxy. Moberg initiated this pernicious practice with his use of Arabian Sea G Bulloides.

David Black, author of the Cariaco data set which was a good data set and promptly archived, turned up here once. He had viciously excoriated Soon and Baliunas for using Cariaco G Bulloides as a temperature proxy. I asked him to comment on Moberg’s use of G Bulloides, an upwelling proxy in the Arabian Sea. Unfortunately, that was the last time that he showed up here, as, for some reason, he didn’t seem to want to explain the inconsistency.

]]> By: jorgekafkazar http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-181628 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:00:52 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-181628 Re: tty (#9),

“…A coastal upwelling like this is presumably wind-driven, so I would expect the SST to reflect the amount of easterly or north-easterly winds more than anything else.”

Quite possibly. Or possibly reduced surface seawater viscosity downwind of the upwelling. (That requires some solar heating, but no wind anomaly. Seawater viscosity is 100 times more sensitive to temperature than, for example, density.)
Even so, using upwelling as a proxy for temperature seems like Byzantine logic. There’s no extant quantified correlation between total upwelling at Point A and total temperature anomaly at Point B, is there? Maybe that explains the Z-score juju stick…

]]> By: Andrew http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-181627 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:24:32 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-181627 Re: bender (#15), This statement:

ITCZ – unlike NAO etc – is…readily evident in all GCMs

Is sort of true, but models actually do you one better. They simulate two ITCZ’s:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N15/EDIT.php

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-181626 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:12:31 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-181626 Steve M,
Interesting interpretation of ITCZ shift as opposed to cool-MWP precipitated by NAO shift. It is worthy of mention that ITCZ – unlike NAO etc – is NOT merely a post-hoc eigenthingy, but a robust feature of the global circulation readily evident in all GCMs. Any changes in climate that can be attributed to shifts in something physical (as opposed to algebraic, possibly imaginary) is very, very interesting. Beats me why it is not in fact the null hypothesis.

]]> By: Jeff Alberts http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/#comment-181625 Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:08:31 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5736#comment-181625 Heath, you don’t need to use Word. Notepad will do just fine.

]]>