Monthly Archives: March 2006

Two Editorials

Some people, including some who are not particularly sympathetic to the thoughts expressed here, suggest that the way that I do things is ineffective and have a variety of suggestions on how I could get my views across better. Mostly they involve less blogging and more journal submissions. Maybe they’re right . However, I noticed […]

Nature and Britannica: Round 2

Nature has responded to Encyclopedia Britannica’s accusation of "sloppiness, indifference to basic scholarly standards, and flagrant errors" with a response like this: In our issue of 15 December 2005 we published a news article that compared the Internet offerings of Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia on scientific topics (“Internet encyclopaedias go head to head”, Nature 438 […]

Alberta #2

There are 3 different versions of the Alberta site that have been applied in multiproxy reconstructions: 1) Luckman et al [1997] used in Jones et al [1998]; Crowley and Lowery [2000]; Briffa [2000]; 2) Esper et al. [2002] ; 3) the version used in Osborn and Briffa [2006], presumably from Luckman and Wilson [2005] and […]

The Alberta Site in Esper 2002

Here is some more analysis based on the Esper measurement data sent to me by Science on March 16, 2005 — this time on the “Athabasca” site, which refers to a location in the Rocky Mountains, Alberta near the Athabasca Glacier. This note is rather a status report, so that I keep track of what […]

NCAR Competition Announcement

Turning up on google today was an announcement on March 21, 2006 by the National Science Foundation giving Information on the Competition for the Management of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Interested parties have to submit Capability Statements by May 1, 2006. March 21, 2006 The Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM) of the Directorate […]

Inhofe, UCAR and NCAR

Senator Inhofe has sent some questions to UCAR, which have riled Climate Watch and others. Climate Watch headlined: Senator Inhofe Launches Inquisition Probing Climate Research Organization. Googling will turn up a few references. I’m not doing a detailed note on this, but am giving a few takes on it, since we’ve talked here about UCAR […]

Nature, Wikipedia and “The High Summer of Junk Science”

Nature recently carried out an experiment on its own initiative supposedly comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, reported here in the Register. The study concluded that the Encyclopedia Britannica had quite a few errors, nearly as many as Wikipedia. Here’s what’s reported: Nature magazine has some tough questions to answer after it let […]

More Correspondence with Science

Update: Next instalment here On March 16, Science sent me 10 (out of 14) measurement data sets used by Esper; one gridcell temperature series used by Osborn-Briffa and caused Briffa to archive annual data versions at WDCP in addition to the smoothed versions. The new information has been extremely helpful to me. However, the information […]

"But They are Very, Very Wrong"

A parody posted up by Spence_UK.

"Mackenzie Mountains"

Last Friday, Science sent me measurement data used at 10 Esper sites — thanks to Science for this. Measurement data for 4 important sites (the Boreal and Upperwright foxtail sites; Polar Urals and Mongolia) were not sent. Hanson of Science commented that the Polar Urals site and some of the sites that he checked were […]