Ross comments: One of the benefits of panel regressions is that it forces you to spell your null hypothesis out clearly. In this case the null is: the models and the observations have the same trend over 1979-2009. People seem to be gasping at the audacity of assuming such a thing, but you have to […]
Using Santer’s own methodology with up-to-date observations, here are results comparing observations to the ensemble mean of Chad’s collation of 57 A1B to models to 2009. In each case, the d1* calculated Santer-style has moved into very extreme percentiles. The results from Ross’ more advanced methodology are not getting results that are in any sense […]
Today’s post is complementary to MMH10, which, as readers obviously realize, is in Ross’ excellent style. There has been a kneejerk reaction from climate scientists that the article is “wrong” – typically assuming that we have neglected some trivial Santerism (which we haven’t). This post is NOT – repeat NOT – an explication of MMH10. […]
At the close of Boulton’s April 9 interview with CRU, the only such interview relevant to the proxy reconstruction controversies that constitute 99% of the Climategate emails, Boulton asked CRU to comment on Ross McKitrick’s National Post op ed last October during Yamal. The response was given to Muir Russell on or after June 16 […]
The Muir Russell Inquiry was supposed to examine the email controversy. One of the issues that they purported to examine was the surreptitious Wahl-Briffa correspondence of 2006 that Fred Pearce described as a “direct subversion of the spirit of openness intended when the IPCC decided to put its internal reviews online”. In April 2010, I […]
The comments by James Annan and his reviewers here on McKitrick et al (2010) demonstrate very nicely how the literature gets distorted by the rejection of a simple comment showing that the application of Santer’s own method to updated data resulted in failure on key statistics. Annan and his commenters are worrying about the novelty […]
CA readers are aware that Ross and I twice submitted a comment on Santer et al 2008 to International Journal of Climatology (both available on arxiv.org), showing that key Santer results (which were based on data only up to 1999) were overturned with the use of up-to-date data. These were both rejected (but have been […]
Yesterday we noted that “validation” in M08 means that the average of the “late-miss” and “early-miss” RE statistic is above a benchmark of about 0.35. I take no position at present whether this unusual methodology means anything, though I’m a bit dubious. I also observed that the with-dendro reconstructions added surprisingly few series in the […]
Gavin Schmidt and others have claimed that the M08 usage of the Tiljander sediments didn’t ‘matter’, because they could “get’ a series that looked somewhat similar without the sediments. They’ve usually talked around the impact of the Tiljander series on the no-dendro reconstruction. But there are two pieces of information on this. A figure added […]
Climate Audit 