I’m off to Sicily tonight for the 2010 conference of the World Federation of Scientists, hosted by the redoubtable Antonio Zichichi. I’ll be a bit spotty checking in. I never did finish reporting on the 2009 conference as we got overtaken by Yamal and then by Climategate and the inquiries. I’ve got a better computer […]
As usual, a good analysis from Matt Briggs here
A reader (h/t ACT) draws attention to an important study on proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) in the Annals of Applied Statistics (one of the top statistical journals) A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? It states in its abstract: We find that […]
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 […]
Climate Audit 