Comments on: Irreproducible Results in PNAS

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:30:21 +0000

Indeed, Frank, Esper, Zorita, and Wilson (2010) describe AR4 as “stepping back” from any high level of confidence in millennial temp. Reconstructions. They attribute this to greater uncertainties about the data than was recognized in 1998-2001.

That sees to me to be a dramatic accomplishment of Steve McIntyre and his statistical colleagues here at Climate Audit.

How sad that people in climate science cannot acknowledge this with candor.

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:23:51 +0000

Has anyone here considered the discussion at the following in relation to this and related threads? It seems to me that Frank, Esper, Zorita, and Wilson (2010) describe quite a “step back” away from confidence in millennial multi-proxy reconstructions:

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/Frank_etal_WIRESCllmChange_2010.pdf

As usual in ClimateScience-TM no one wants to be explicit in taking on Mann and his attack dogs (lap dogs?).

Yet, one does not need to read behind the lines to see that Frank-Esper-Zorita-Wilson were not expressing anything like Mann’s confidence that the field of paleo climatology has moved steadily forward with all the Mann associates reconstructions.

By: Mann on Irreproducible Results in Thompson (PNAS 2006) « Climate Audit

Mann on Irreproducible Results in Thompson (PNAS 2006) « Climate Audit — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:11:26 +0000

[...] comment was accepted for publication, I posted a less technical summary on Climate Audit, entitled “Irreproducible Results in PNAS” [...]

By: Calibrating “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” « Climate Audit

Calibrating “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” « Climate Audit — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:21:29 +0000

[...] Shady please stand up?” (CA 4/12/07), “More Evasion by Thompson” (CA 5/10/07), “Irreproducible Results in PNAS” (CA [...]

By: bill hughes

bill hughes — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:59:52 +0000

There has been some discussion above about Energy & Environment not being listed in ISI. It meets ISI’s criteria, and is regularly submitted on time. When I’ve questioned ISI about this, the answer has been ‘not enough citations’ (for inclusion in its listings). Scopus and Google Scholar may well use somewhat different methodology from ISI but it seems strange that they both show quite reasonable cite scores, comparable to plenty of journals in ISI. Maybe ISI is deliberately keeping out a journal that occasionally pubishes papers that suggest that the AGW thesis is not watertight. Maybe they just have a hard time recognising the existence of anything that is not American or huge or a learned society. Who knows.
But the contention, in broader terms, that E&E has no impact, seems strange in the light of the amount of abuse it gets. Why bother about circulating all the false suggestions that it doesn’t do peer review etc etc, if it is so insignificant?

Publisher, Multi-Sciece Publishing

By: Hu McCulloch

Hu McCulloch — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:34:05 +0000

RE D.Prest, #146
Thompson prefers to combine d18O records from different sites into a single index by first converting each series to z-scores.

I don’t see the point of this either, since any physical meaning of the scale of the series is lost when you scale by standard deviation, which is extraneous to whatever response there is of d18O to mean annual temperature.

But still, it is what should be a well-defined linear formula. The coefficients will differ depending on how the standard deviations were computed — over the entire life of each core, over the common life of all cores considered, over the study period, using annual numbers or 5-year averages or 10-years averages, etc. But whatever method was used, the coefficients should be recoverable by regressing the index on the data series used.

My problem with the PNAS paper is that there is no such formula relating the decadal 2006 PNAS version of “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” to decadal averages of the underlying data he claims it was computed from.

By: D.Prest

D.Prest — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:38:39 +0000

Why are you comparing the graphs showing the z-scores of isotopic oxygen in Thompson’s article with isotopic oxygen in your reconstructed graphs? My stats are a little foggy, but that doesn’t seem a proper comparison.

By: Pages tagged "temperate"

Pages tagged "temperate" — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:20:26 +0000

[...] bookmarks tagged temperate Comment on Irreproducible Results in PNAS by tty saved by 5 others newjamesdean bookmarked on 05/07/09 | [...]

By: Irreproducible Results in PNAS : Political News

Irreproducible Results in PNAS : Political News — Mon, 04 May 2009 06:59:27 +0000

[...] more: Irreproducible Results in PNAS [...]

By: Gene Nemetz

Gene Nemetz — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:05:29 +0000

This is off the specific topic and may get snipped, but I think it's important to note : Steven Chu also uses what appears to be a Hockey Stick in "The Energy Problem". It's on page 7 of the pdf. ClimateAudit was probably aware of this already though. [Thanks -- Indeed Steve has already started a thread on this topic, "Spot the Hockey Stick, #n". Evidently the HS itself is alive and well. Please discuss over there.]