The chronologies for Taymir in Esper et al [2002] and Osborn and Briffa [2006] differ – not a whole lot but enough to be noticeable. Esper provided measurement data for Taymir, while Osborn and Briffa have refused. The letter from Science said: The other three series contain some non-identical tree-ring series derived from the same […]
Update: Continued here I just heard back from Science on the continuing and frustrating effort to obtain data from Esper et al. [2002] and Osborn and Briffa [2006], last discussed here . I got interesting but incomplete information in February and March. The latest installment is very disappointing in comparison even though, in my opinion, […]
Lee, a new poster, complained that my attempting to guess the series in the CH-blend was insulting to Hegerl et al. [SM note – This sentence is added on Friday evening. I had a sentence somewhat like this in this post. Lee said that the sentence misrepresented his viewpoints – see one of his posts […]
An odd question, you say. It’s not something that usually expect in a statistical study. But hey, this is the Hockey Team, with statistics by Frame of climateprediction.net.
The radio program is available on the Internet live at 20.00 hrs BST (just over 15 minutes from now). Click on this link to get to the right program and click "Listen Live" Update (SM): The following link gives the written version of the program. Their interview with me got left on the cutting room […]
There’s a new study by Hegerl et al. in this week’s Nature, which, among other things, describes the performance of something called the CH-blend, a secret blend of 12 proxies – a secret somewhere up there with the Caramilk secret. As I mentioned previously, I requested the identity of the sites in the blend as […]
Someone pointed out that Environmental Science & Technology, which published a scurrilous attack on us, was published by the American Chemical Society, whose Code of Conduct online here says that it “expects its members to adhere to the highest ethical standards.” One clause states: Public comments on scientific matters should be made with care and […]
From our friends at climateprediction.net, climate disaster has struck I regret to announce that we’ve recently discovered a major error in one of the files used by the climate model. The file in question specifies levels of man-made sulphate emissions but due to a problem with the file specification, models have been inputting greatly reduced […]
Someone has asked about the error bars in Levitus and whether the backtest of Hansen and Schmidt against those error bars would be as decisive. Here is the result taken straight from the Levitus analysis: You can use sophisticated statistical analysis to compare this, but my trusty Magic 8-Ball says: “Nowhere near”
Last week, the review of the second draft of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report began. Some readers here are IPCC reviewers and may not be aware of the following provision of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf, which states that: "All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to […]
Climate Audit 