Category Archives: Moberg [2005]

Loehle and Moberg

Julien Emile-Geay has made many forceful criticisms of the Loehle reconstruction. For example, he says: Relationship of each proxy to *local* temperature is not even discussed. We are just shoved a list of references (hey Craig , have you heard of tables ? They are a great means that scientists use to convey information clearly). […]

The Arabian Splice

One of the reasons why scientists have been so quick to use tree ring information despite all the problems is that, for the most part, there is excellent dating control on tree ring chronologies, something which can be problematic in other proxies. Today I want to document some notes on dating the Arabian Sea G […]

IPCC AR4 and the Return of Chucky – He’s Baaack!

Here’s something I meant to post up when AR4 came out. I was reminded of this when Rob Wilson posted recently: Lastly, lets not forget that TR based reconstructions of NH temperatures exist that do not use Bristlecone pine or Foxtail data. Rob’s point here is very disingenuous (to use Mann-speak) since millennial reconstructions are […]

Juckes and "Restricted" Data

Many climateaudit readers will remember Mann’s “CENSORED” directory, in which Mann calculated principal components on a network that excluded bristlecone pines (which needless to say didn’t have a HS shape. Now Juckes et al introduces us to a new type of climate data: “restricted” data. The Team has introduced a novel data classification system – […]

Warm Pool and the Arabian Sea

It’s a dangerous practice to let your eye get teased into visual comparisons, but I was struck by a comparison between the G Bulloides series from the Arabian Sea (which is an upwelling proxy) and Stott’s Warm Pool SST proxies.

Juckes and the David Black Condemnation

I’ve written on several occasions about Juckes’ use of cold water G Bulloides as a supposed temperature proxy (following Moberg’s equally indefensible use of this proxy.) It has come to my attention that a leading specialist, David Black of the University of Akron, had already issued a scathing denunciation of Juckes’ use of G Bulloides […]

Moberg’s G. Bulloides

Last year, when Moberg was published, I pointed out witha slightly arched eyebrow that one of the two most important contributors to any 20th century HS-ness in Moberg was the increasing percentage of subpolar foraminifera (G. Bulloides) in the Arabian Sea – intuitively not a direct indicator of warming. Having visited the foraminifera literature in […]

Treydte, Moberg, Soon and Baliunas

Several people have written to me about today’s article in Nature by Treydte et al (including Esper) announcing that the 20th century is the wettest period in the millennium. Treydte et al state: Comparison with other long-term precipitation reconstructions indicates a large-scale intensification of the hydrological cycle coincident with the onset of industrialization and global […]

Moberg Corrigendum #2

I checked the Lauritzen series sent to me a few days ago by Moberg and found more discrepancies. I originally observed a discrepancy between the figure in the source article and the figure shown in the SI to Moberg et al [2005] as shown below. The graphic in Nature ended in the 1930s, while the […]

Moberg Corrigendum

If you look at the Category Moberg on the right frame, you’ll see discussion of frustration that I had in connection with replication of this article and, in particular, with the Lauritzen series. Yesterday, the following Corrigendum was issued: The authorship of this Letter is amended to include Stein-Erik Lauritzen. Details of the SàƒÆ’à‚ⷹlegrotta Cave […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,307 other followers