The Rahmstorf et al reconstruction commences in AD900 even though the Mann et al 2009 reconstruction goes back to AD500. Once again, this raises the obvious question: why didn’t Rahmstorf show values before AD900? Are these results adverse to his claims? Once the question is posed, you can guess the answer.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
In any article by Mann and coauthors, it is always prudent to assume that even seemingly innocent choices use up a researcher degree of freedom – to put it nicely. For example, Rahmstorf et al focus on their “AMOC index” in the period ending 1995 and show their AMOC index up to as shown below.
Jonathan Jones and Ruth Dixon have published (see Ruth’s blog here) a comment in Psychological Science on conspiracy theorist Stephan Lewandowsky’s Hoax article, much discussed at CA at the time. Although their statistical points are incontrovertible and clearly expressed, it took considerable persistence – see timeline here. Their first and longer original article was submitted to a different […]
The new article by Rahmstorf and Mann (see RC here) has been criticized at WUWT (here here) for making claims about Atlantic Ocean currents based on proxies, rather than measurements. (Also at Judy’s here) But it’s worse, much worse than we thought. Rahmstorf and Mann’s results are not based on proxies for Atlantic current velocity, but […]
Four of the incidents in J Burke’s background chronology in Weaver v National Post (the January 27, 2005, February 15, 2005, August 2006 and February 27, 2008 incidents) relate, either in whole or in part, to a dispute between Weaver and National Post on whether Weaver had dismissed our research as “rubbish” or “balderdash” or a like […]
A guest post by Nicholas Lewis In a paper published last year (Lewis & Curry 2014), discussed here, Judith Curry and I derived best estimates for equilibrium/effective climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR). At 1.64°C, our estimate for ECS was below all those exhibited by CMIP5 global climate models, and at 1.33°C for […]
J Burke’s decision contains a chronology of prior interactions between Weaver and National Post, much of which, when closely examined, is highly misleading. In today’s post, I’m going to discuss one small but interesting issue: Weaver’s claim that he “did not lobby for climate funding”. J Burke referred to this when she said that Weaver […]
Kaufman and McKay recently and quietly issued an Arctic2K correction file at NOAA xls here that concedes yet another upside-down series previously pointed out to them at Climate Audit. Once again, they used information from Climate Audit without acknowledgement or credit (see NSF definition of plagiarism here).
According to the University of Victoria, Andrew Weaver says: the next generation of his climate model will address the influence of climate on human evolution—much like it’s now being used to examine the influence of humans on climate evolution”. In breaking news, Climate Audit has obtained exclusive information on output from the first runs […]
Coauthors of Rutherford et al (J Climate 2005) (pdf) were Rutherford, Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Jones, Osborn and Briffa. Its editor was Andrew Weaver. It was formally submitted on Sept 16, 2003, received two reviews in January 2004, revised and resubmitted on June 29, 2004, accepted without revision on September 27, 2004 and published in July […]