Monthly Archives: April 2006

Von Storch et al [2006]

I’m working on a long note, but probably a short interim note will make some sense. From the point of view of simply advancing our particular take on the MBH98 mess, as between Wahl et al and von Storch et al, there are pros and cons to us for either side being right. So I’d […]

HAnsen and Schmidt: Predicting the Past – Continued

continuation of the thread here.

Wahl, Ritson and Ammann on VZGT

Wahl, Ritson and Ammann, the authors of two rejected comments on MM05 to GRL – see here and here for our Replies to the rejected comments – have joined forces and pulished a critical comment on Von Storch et al [2004] in Science, to which von Storch et al have issued a Reply. realclimate has […]

Treydte, Moberg, Soon and Baliunas

Several people have written to me about today’s article in Nature by Treydte et al (including Esper) announcing that the 20th century is the wettest period in the millennium. Treydte et al state: Comparison with other long-term precipitation reconstructions indicates a large-scale intensification of the hydrological cycle coincident with the onset of industrialization and global […]

The Caramilk Secret … Finally

Reader DEA wrote in to say that he figured out the Caramilk secret a long time ago.

Not A Solution to the Caramilk Secret

Update: the following does not explain the Caramilk secret of MBH99 confidence intervals, which remains unexplained and mysterious. End Update. OK, Mann starts with a sigma obtained from the standard errors in the calibration period from his hugely overfitted model. He uses this in MBH98. In MBH99, recognizing the autocorrelation in the residuals, he adjusts […]

More on MBH Confidence Intervals

I’ve posted in the past on the mystery of MBH confidence interval calculations, especially the mysterious MBH99 confidence intervals (another Caramilk secret). In our NAS panel presentation and perhaps before, I’d speculated that MBH98 confidence intervals, rotundly described in MBH98 as “self-consistently estimated” were nothing other than twice the standard error of the (overfitted) calibration […]

An Esper Spaghetti Graph

It’s obviously been pulling teeth to get data from Esper. After only two years of trying, I’ve recently obtained all but one site chronology and 10 of 14 measurement sets; and gobbledy-gook about methodology. It’s a very Mannian process. While I continue to try to get the rest of the information, I thought that it […]

Taimyr – Linear or Nonlinear?

While I’ve got Esper open, here’s some thoughts on the division of cores and sites between "linear" and "nonlinear" – where I’ve been seeking an operational definition for some time. Herr Esper told Science: The split into linear and non-linear ring width series is shown in a supplementary figure accompanying the Science paper. The methods […]

Taimyr in Esper and Osborn-Briffa

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 […]