Tag Archives: santer

Watch the Pea – AR5 (ZOD) Chapter 10

As CA readers are aware, key findings of Santer et al 2008 do not hold using updated data. Ross and I submitted a comment to IJC showing this. The comment was rejected twice, with one of the reviewers (as in the case of the comment on Steig et al) being a Santer coauthor (who was […]

Using Santer’s Method

Using Santer’s own methodology with up-to-date observations, here are results comparing observations to the ensemble mean of Chad’s collation of 57 A1B to models to 2009. In each case, the d1* calculated Santer-style has moved into very extreme percentiles. The results from Ross’ more advanced methodology are not getting results that are in any sense […]

A Mixed Effects Perspective on MMH10

Today’s post is complementary to MMH10, which, as readers obviously realize, is in Ross’ excellent style. There has been a kneejerk reaction from climate scientists that the article is “wrong” – typically assuming that we have neglected some trivial Santerism (which we haven’t). This post is NOT – repeat NOT – an explication of MMH10. […]

Conflicted Reviewers Distort Literature

The comments by James Annan and his reviewers here on McKitrick et al (2010) demonstrate very nicely how the literature gets distorted by the rejection of a simple comment showing that the application of Santer’s own method to updated data resulted in failure on key statistics. Annan and his commenters are worrying about the novelty […]

McKitrick et al (2010) accepted by Atmos Sci Lett

CA readers are aware that Ross and I twice submitted a comment on Santer et al 2008 to International Journal of Climatology (both available on arxiv.org), showing that key Santer results (which were based on data only up to 1999) were overturned with the use of up-to-date data. These were both rejected (but have been […]

Santer et al 2008 – Worse Than We Thought

Last year, I reported the invalidity using up-to-date data of Santer’s claim that none of the satellite data sets showed a “statistically significant” difference in trend from the model ensemble, after allowing for the effect of AR1 autocorrelation on confidence intervals. Including up-to-date data, the claim was untrue for UAH data sets and was on […]

Re-Visiting CCSP 1.1 on Lapse Rate Trends

As noted in an earlier post, I’ve now managed to synchronize 48 of 49 Santer tropo series with KNMI surface temperature series and have looked at versions of some key figures in CCSP 1-1 and previously inaccessible figures in Santer. First here is an important figure from CCP 1-1 showing a histogram of relative trends […]

Mannian Collation by Santer

I reported a while ago on Santer’s refusal to provide the T2 and T2LT data as collated. Despite Santer’s rude refusal, PCMDI placed the data online anyway, notifying me that this had been their plan along. I reported on this at the time, but so far haven’t reported on the collated data. The T2 and […]

Santer's Boss Seeks to "Clarify Mis-Impressions"

David Bader, PhD, the Director, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, writes today seeking to “clarify several mis-impressions on your “climateaudit.org” web site” regarding the archiving of Santer’s data, the correspondence being shown below. Readers may recall an earlier post here in which I requested data from Santer et al 2008, in response to […]

Santer and the 4 NOAA Coauthors

Apparently none of Santer’s four NOAA coauthors either received or sent any correspondence to Santer regarding the monthly data series used in Santer et al 2008. What a strange way to run a railroad.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,874 other followers