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 […]
Reader DEA wrote in to say that he figured out the Caramilk secret a long time ago.
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
Update: Continued here I just heard back from Science on the continuing and frustrating effort to obtain data from Esper et al. [2002] and Osborn and Briffa [2006], last discussed here . I got interesting but incomplete information in February and March. The latest installment is very disappointing in comparison even though, in my opinion, […]
Lee, a new poster, complained that my attempting to guess the series in the CH-blend was insulting to Hegerl et al. [SM note – This sentence is added on Friday evening. I had a sentence somewhat like this in this post. Lee said that the sentence misrepresented his viewpoints – see one of his posts […]
An odd question, you say. It’s not something that usually expect in a statistical study. But hey, this is the Hockey Team, with statistics by Frame of climateprediction.net.
Climate Audit 