In a figure that took considerable work, IPCC AR5 (First Draft) compared 5 regional proxy reconstructions to model output. In Australia, they used the Gergis (Neukom) et al 2012 reconstruction, In South America, they used a Neukom et al 2011 (Clim Dyn) reconstruction. In 2011, Neukom refused to provide me with the data versions used […]
A few days ago, Joelle Gergis closed her letter refusing data stating: We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter. Gergis’ statement seems to have been premature. David Karoly, the senior author, who had been copied on Gergis’ surly email and who is also known as one of the originators of the […]
Jean S observed in comments to another thread that he was unable to replicate the claimed “significant” correlation for many, if not, most of the 27 Gergis “significant” proxies. See his comments here here Jean S had observed: Steve, Roman, or somebody 😉 , what am I doing wrong here? I tried to check the […]
As mentioned yesterday, the Law Dome series has been used from time to time in IPCC multiproxy studies, with the most remarkable use occurring, needless to say, in Mann et al 2008. As noted yesterday, despite Law Dome being very high resolution (indeed, as far as I know, the highest resolution available ice core) and […]
IPCC AR5 (First Draft) cited Gergis et al as follows: New paleo records from Australasia provide evidence of MCA warming around 1250–1330 CE, [my bold] somewhat later than maximum medieval warmth described from many Northern Hemisphere regions (Gergis et al., submitted). Following peak medieval warmth in the early 1300s, a cooling trend reaching a temperature […]
Myles Allen, a declared supporter of open data archives, has, in blog comments here, proposed “name and shame” as a first tactic against data obstructionists (as opposed to FOI). Journal editors can and should enforce a simple “disclose or retract” policy if a result is challenged, and almost all of them do: if any don’t, […]
Myles Allen has written here blaming Bishop Hill for “keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies” like the Hockey Stick: My fear is that by keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies, you are excluding them from the discussion of what we should do about climate change But it’s not Bishop Hill that Myles Allen should be […]
Schmidt’s recent post on Yamal advocated the following “conspiracy theory”: McIntyre got the erroneous idea that studies were being done, but were being suppressed if they showed something ‘inconvenient’. This is of course a classic conspiracy theory and one that can’t be easily disproved. Accusation: you did something and then hid it. Response: No I […]
Yesterday, I received updated Yamal data (to 2005) from Rashit Hantemirov, together with a cordial cover note. As CA and other readers know, Hantemirov had also promptly sent me data for Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002. There are 120 cores in the data set, which comes up to 2005. I’ve calculated a chronology from this information […]
In yesterday’s post (as noted), I only responded to one aspect of Schmidt’s Yamal article, as it contains numerous extraneous spitballs, each of which takes time to respond to. In yesterday’s post, I focused on points of agreement or points where agreement ought to be possible. In a subsequent RC comment, Schmidt complained that I […]
Climate Audit 