Category Archives: Juckes et al 2006

Willis on “Getting authors to respond to questions”

[JohnA: For reasons that I don't understand, posting comments became nearly impossible for some people for a short while. This comment from Willis I thought should be captured for future reference so I made it into a post.] Willis Eschenbach writes: Well, on the 4th of this month I posted a couple of questions on […]

Juckes and 99.98% Significance

A few days ago, I showed that a trivial variation to the Moberg CVM reconstruction led to a very different medieval-modern relationship. Juckes has reported that the Moberg CVM reconstruction is "99.98% significant" – not quite the most significant in a milllll-yun years, but VERY, VERY significant. I thought it would be interesting to see […]

Juckes and the Indigirka River Alter Ego

You have to get up pretty early in the morning to surprise me with one of these millennial proxy series. But even I got a big surprise when I decided to investigate Juckes statement "Concerning the Indigirka data, the key phrase is “they are unpublished data”; and his challenge in 894#13: But seriously, if you […]

Juckes and the Sargasso Sea

Keigwin’s Sargasso Sea temperature reconstruction, used in Moberg et al 2005, was de-selected by Juckes in what he represented to be the Moberg CVM composite and in making the Union composite (although he managed to use Tornetrask twice ?!? under different names). Although he de-selected the Sargasso Sea temperature reconstruction, he used Moberg’s Arabian Sea […]

Decoding Juckes SI Figure 1

OK, folks. We finally extracted enough information from Martin Juckes to be able to replicate SI Figure 1. I’ll show here how one gets from point A to point B, which will help understand us understand exactly why Juckes did this the way he did. One more time, here is Juckes’ Figure 1 with its […]

Your Comments on Juckes Omnibus

In order to reduce noise levels, I am going to act as a type of chairman of the Juckes Omnibus thread. If you wish to comment on that thread, please do so here. If there’s something that I feel should be transferred to the Juckes Omnibus Thread for Juckes to reply to, I’ll do so. […]

Juckes Omnibus

Writing a blog is different than writing a referees’ report. I diarize certain points for the blog as I notice them. The function of these notes is to be topical and somewhat interesting. Martin Juckes has been trying to answer some questions and, to avoid strewing comments over multiple threads, I’d like to use this […]

Juckes and the NOAMER PC1

Subsequent to MM05 (GRL), the issue of covariance and correlation PCs as applied to the North American tree ring network was considered in Huybers [2005], our Reply to Huybers [2005] and the NAS Panel. It was also discussed in the rejected Ammann and Wahl submission to GRL. Juckes did not even cite the discussion on […]

Martin's Big Day

As I reported here, Juckes et al 2006 stated that the source code for MM05 (GRL) was not "available". On Oct 29, I objected to Juckes and coauthors about this false claim. It turned out that Juckes had been unable to locate the relevant code and had been remarkably ineffective in his efforts to locate […]

Juckes and the Mitrie Project

Peter Kuikman, the secretary of the WAB program (which finances the Mitrie project), is reported as saying that the Mitrie project was funded 89,000 euro (US$113,000). Let’s step back for a moment and look at the terms of reference for the project and see if the Dutch government is getting what they contracted for.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,245 other followers