If you look at the Category Moberg on the right frame, you’ll see discussion of frustration that I had in connection with replication of this article and, in particular, with the Lauritzen series. Yesterday, the following Corrigendum was issued: The authorship of this Letter is amended to include Stein-Erik Lauritzen. Details of the SàÆàⷹlegrotta Cave […]
Here’s another look at Polar Urals using a “grass plot” showing cumulative ring width for individual trees against time. The trees plotted in black are from the original archive (russ021) and the ones plotted in red are form the 1998 update (russ176). This gives a little different viewpoint on variance stabilization issues. First, one of […]
Yesterday, Science sent me 13 Esper site chronologies, all standardized using RCS methods, one of which is the updated Polar Urals site. It’s hard to think of a better testing ground for Rob’s argument that the variance of the Polar Urals series disqualified it and mandated the substitution of the hugely hockey-stick shaped Yamal series. […]
An open letter has been sent to Science on archiving by Benny Peiser, Sir Colin Berry, Freeman Dyson, Chris de Freitas, Mick Fuller and Lord Taverne. Here it is: 22 February 2006 Science R. Brooks Hanson Managing Editor, Physical Sciences, Science American Association for the Advancement of Science Dear Dr Hanson In early March, the […]
Rob Wilson has written in sharply criticizing me (Yamal Substitution #3) for a lack of a balanced presentation on the Yamal substitution, and, in particular, for not acknowledging the "clear statistical reasons (related to variance changes through time)" that he had provided me offline for why D’Arrigo et al 2006 made the Yamal substitution. Also […]
There’s some very important new information related to the “Yamal Substitution” – which sounds like a Ludlum novel title – in the Esper site chronologies which Science provided today. Also see here here here. Here’s a plot of a 40-year smooth of the Esper site chronology for Polar Urals and Briffa’s archived version of the […]
A couple of days ago, I posted up a copy of a letter that I sent to Science on archiving or non-archiving in connection with Osborn and Briffa 2006, Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al 1989 (Dunde); 1997 (Guliya). I received a reply from Science today, which they stated was not for “public […]
I wrote recently about the Yamal substitution for the Polar Urals series in both Osborn and Briffa [2006] and D’Arrigo et al, 2006. This substitution is not incidental as the Yamal version had by far the strongest closing uptick in either data set, while the updated Polar Urals ring width series (1998 update) had elevated […]
As I’ve mentioned before, you have to really watch the pea under the thimble whenever Briffa is presenting a series. I showed before how the post-1960 decline in MXD reconstructions was simply excised from the record and carried forward into the IPCC spaghetti graph where the overlay of colors made the detection virtually impossible to […]
The continued negligence of the major journals in ensuring that paleoclimate authors archive data in accordance with journal policies is very frustrating and, as previously noted, has reared its ugly head once again with Osborn and Briffa. I have had little luck in the past with Science (except for the Kilimanjaro sample dO18 data) but […]
Climate Audit 