Comments on: M08 with realdata

By: QBeamus

QBeamus — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:29:44 +0000

At this point, I have to disagree. I think the posts along these lines were valid when Scientist was disclaiming his own posts with “I haven’t read this” and “I can’t say until I read that.” But at this point I’m finding the byplay is helping me to get a better grip on the details than I got from my own reading.

By: EdeF

EdeF — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:01:43 +0000

“I also observed that the with-dendro reconstructions added surprisingly few series in the AD1000 step to the no-dendro reconstruction as the majority (16 of 19 NH) of dendro series are screened out.”

Red warning flags should be waved when you see 16 out of 19 dendro series flunk.

By: JimD

JimD — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:39:06 +0000

@ ‘scientist’

8. I would avoid the use of terms like “realdata”. It’s confusing. It’s offputting (both a little insulting and too “cute”). It seems to be trying to win the argument by how you label things.

Personally, I would avoid the use of pseudonyms like “scientist”. It’s confusing. It’s offputting (both a little insulting and too “cute”). It seems to be trying to win the argument by how you label yourself.

Ahem.

JimD
(For the sake of clarity, also a scientist)

By: scientist

scientist — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:49:30 +0000

What Briff did in a review paper is a different issue from what Mann did in a primary report.

By: scientist

scientist — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:47:01 +0000

Your link gave MANY more papers than are available if I go to the side and pick the Mann et al 2008 category (only 3 papers come back).

By: scientist

scientist — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:42:13 +0000

1. If he’s going to be truncating proxies like that, it needs to be front and center and it seems like a really bad idea given his calibration/validation* rests on “match” to instrumental.

2. Please do me the courtesy of replies that are in separate boxes.

*I’m still not convinced that you can or should try to have a separate validation step.

Steve: “If he’s going to be truncating proxies like that, it needs to be front and center”. I guess you missed the events around the “trick to …hide the decline”. As an IPCC reviewer, I asked Briffa to show the decline in the AR4 spaghetti graph. He refused.

By: Area Man

Area Man — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:37:10 +0000

The publishing of posts by scientist and the patient, respectful, direct, and accurate responses by SM are great examples of how the Team could have and should have responded to Steve early on.

By: pete

pete — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:13:50 +0000

The paragraph I quoted gives the impression that the infilling used instrumental temperature data.

Is the hide-the-decline dig worth the resulting loss in clarity? WMO cover-art isn’t really relevant to discussions of M08.

Steve: i’ll rephrase slightly to avoid any confusion. However, the continuity is relevant since the same period of Briffa MXD data was deleted in the IPCC AR3 spaghetti graph and the AR4 spaghetti graph – which I’ve consistently emphasized as the most critical examples (as opposed to the WMO report.)

By: Jeff Id

Jeff Id — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:08:01 +0000

Now that is interesting. Perhaps Briffa could be fixed up for the IPCC using correlation screening methods rather than chopping the data off with a dull axe. It would have made a much less interesting email for climategate.

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:45:21 +0000

Steve said about the averaging of the RE stat “I take no position at present whether this unusual methodology means anything”. I just want to comment that this is an excellent example for anyone–to be clear about what one does or does not know at any moment. It is quite all right to be pondering or investigating whether something is correct or not or to admit that you don’t at the moment quite understand something. This omniscience cr*p is a major cause of climategate.