Once again, the Team has “moved on” so quickly that it takes some care keeping track of their movements. The criticisms in my most recent post apply to the still unpublished Tingley and Huybers 1200-year reconstruction at their website (that it uses Mann’s PC1, a second strip bark foxtail series, Yamal plus a van Engelen […]
Tag Archives: iceberg lake
One excellent feature of the Alaskan varvochronologists is that (unlike, say, Bradley and his coterie) some of them show and archive their work. The Kaufman student MSc theses are good at this. So too is Michael Loso’s work on Iceberg Lake. Thus while one can raise an eyebrow at (and criticize) their statistical peregrinations, at […]
The majority of Kaufman’s varvochronology proxies are various functions of varve thickness – which, if anything, seem more problematic than sediment BSi. While Kaufman’s offering memorandum to NSF promised consistency, the handling of varve thicknesses in the various selections seems to be anything but. Kaufman et al 2009 gives no hint of the varied functional […]
A common meme in Team-world these days is that any issues or errors are minor and that none of them “matter”. As we peel back the layers of Kaufman et al, this is the first line of Team defence. The rhetorical impact of Team reconstructions largely derives from the modern-medieval differential: is it in the […]
In the first post on Kaufman et al, I observed that, like other Team multiproxy studies, its HS-ness is contributed by only a few series. As shown below, a composite of 19 out of 23 Kaufman proxies does not yield an “unprecedented” late 20th century (tho it yields an elevated late 20th century.) A composite […]
I said that I post the graphic from Loso et al if someone sent it to me today. In fact, Loso et al is online here and interested parties can consult it for themselves. I don’t have time to comment on this study other than very briefly, but here are some of the key graphics.