Comments on: The Steig Corrigendum http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/ by Steve McIntyre Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:29:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Mann on Irreproducible Results in Thompson (PNAS 2006) « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-327917 Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:11:45 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-327917 [...] in Nature making essentially the same point I had made several months before in my CA post. See The Steig Corrigendum for discussion. A graph there by Roman Mureika shows that the portion of the continent that shows [...]

]]> By: Steig Professes Ignorance « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-243018 Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:16:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-243018 [...] his or her own.” My letter to Nature, together with my e-mail to Steig and co-authors, is in Comment 60 of the CA thread on the Steig [...]

]]> By: Steig and the International Man of Mystery « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-243015 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:58:01 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-243015 [...] Real Climate has defended Steig against a plagiarism complaint from Hu McCulloch, covered by Pielke Jr here and Jeff Id here. Hu’s original post is here and the most recent CA discussion here. Hu’s complaint is here. [...]

]]> By: curious http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-189755 Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:25:10 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-189755 Looking at Steig et al again, is Fig2 of the main paper also in need of revision? I’m not sure what this is representing with its “grey” 95% CLs – they seem to be simply constant error bands to the annual anomaly?:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/fig_tab/nature07669_F2.html#figure-title

By eye the trends (Tir) seem to agree with the top line trends of the Corrigendum Table1:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/fig_tab/nature08286_T1.html

Figure2 is mentioned in the SI but I don’t follow what they claim. Sorry if this is a basic question and thanks in advance for any clarification.

]]> By: AnonyMoose http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-189754 Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:48:09 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-189754 Did review and editing of the Corrigendum not include Google searches for related material? Obvious searches find some of the online discussions. I guess there’s one journal that doesn’t check for plagiarism or original work.
* http://www.google.com/search?q=steig+Monte-Carlo+simulations+of+the+reconstructed+temperatures
* http://www.google.com/search?q=steig+reconstructed+temperature+histories+for+different+areas+of+the+Antarctic+continent

]]> By: romanm http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-189753 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:39:54 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-189753 Re: Craig Loehle (#121),

One would surmise that having done similar maps in Figure S4, they would have have repeated it with the updated AR-corrected results. Their picture would not have been particularly supportive of the statement: “The corrected confidence levels do not change the assessed significance of trends, nor any of the primary conclusions of the paper“.

I strongly believe that they overstated their case in the initial publication. As Steve rightly points out in #123, there are definitely a lot more issues involved here.

]]> By: TAG http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-189752 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:51:51 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-189752 Re: Steve McIntyre (#123),

Steig did state that he would respond to peer reviewed papers.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-189751 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:37:39 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-189751 Re: David L. Hagen (#122),

There are a lot of other issues pertaining to this study.

]]> By: David L. Hagen http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-189750 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:24:36 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-189750 Re: Hu McCulloch (#60) and RomanM (#117).
Your Steig v. AR1 graphs communicate far more than “clearly not’ “two-tailed t-test with number of degrees of freedom adjusted for temporal autocorrelation” etc.

Strongly recommend you prepare a joint letter to Nature with these graphs, especially to counter Nature’s placing Steig on its cover.

]]> By: Craig Loehle http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-189749 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:11:07 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-189749 Re: RomanM (#117), With that map, it escapes me how they can say that none of their conclusions is altered.

]]>