Osborn and Briffa site chronologies differed from Esper site chronologies for 4 sites. Site chronologies can differ depending on the standardization method used; in order to analyze the effect, one needs to see the measurement data. Hundreds of measurement data sets have been archived at WDCP. The really weird thing is that the Hockey Team […]
I’m up to 38 emails back and forth with Science now in trying to get data. A little more drifted in April, about which I’ll report on in a couple of posts. My most recent progress report was here One of the questions pertained to a discrepancy between the correlation between gridcell temperatures and foxtail […]
As one of our commenters has helpfully pointed out, Michael Mann will be giving a presentation at the University of California, Santa Cruz, this Wednesday. Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, will give a lecture on global climate change on Wednesday, May 10, at UC Santa Cruz. His […]
I posted up information on IPCC publication deadlines, which are presumably there to ensure that authors do not play favorites. Here are dates of submission, acceptance and publication of some studies that have been discussed recently on this blog. These should be compared against WG1 deadlines of August 12, 2005 for being supplied to TSU, […]
I’ve previously discussed IPCC WG1 publication deadlines in the context of Wahl and Ammann [2006], where the authors seemed to make last-ditch efforts to comply with IPCC WG1 publication deadlines, but ironically failed to comply with the letter of the deadlines. There have been some other high-profile "late-breaking" articles (Osborn and Briffa [2006], Wahl et […]
After Jean S’s comments written in LaTeX, I decided it was time to add TeX support once and for all. Since the webhost doesn’t have LaTeX installed, I had to use mimeTeX, which supports just basic TeX without all the flourishes, but should be good enough to produce some good quality equations and symbols sufficient […]
Wahl et al [2006 ] fulminated as follows : The VS04 results have been interpreted to cast serious doubt on the MBH reconstruction. … However, these results are in large part dependent on a detrending step not used by MBH, which is physically inappropriate and statistically not required. The take-away message for the climate community […]
Eduardo Zorita and I are in the process of reconciling some results. We have taken one issue off the table – VZ implemented Mannian PCs accurately enough that this does not account for any differences between our results and theirs. So I take back some observations and I’ll place updates in appropriate places. In fairness […]
From the NY Times, a wide-ranging article on the problems of journal peer-review: Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system. The system is based on journals inviting independent experts to critique submitted manuscripts. The stated aim is […]
[Steve: Editorial comment] – This is John A’s post. I do not agree with his editorial flourishes linking this to models. I view the following as illustrating the defects of sole reliance by multiproxy reconstructions on the RE statistic – a statistic for which there are no distribution tables and which is little known or […]
Climate Audit 
NY Times: For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap
From the NY Times, a wide-ranging article on the problems of journal peer-review: Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system. The system is based on journals inviting independent experts to critique submitted manuscripts. The stated aim is […]