Getting methodological information from Esper is a bit like dealing with Mann, a lot like dealing with Mann. It really makes me wonder whether there might be some clunker like Mann’s PC methodology lurking in Esper’s closet. Like Mann, instead of providing a comprehensive methodological desscription ideally with code as in econometrics journals, Esper would […]
There is something weird going with Esper’s delivery of data, where he delivered quite a lot of material – but left out some key data. Here ‘s the status on data – there are some puzzling methodological issues which I’l’l return to. Chronologies: Esper sent 13 of 14 chronologies in February. This was very interesting […]
Osborn and Briffa site chronologies differed from Esper site chronologies for 4 sites. Site chronologies can differ depending on the standardization method used; in order to analyze the effect, one needs to see the measurement data. Hundreds of measurement data sets have been archived at WDCP. The really weird thing is that the Hockey Team […]
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, […]
Nature’s Guide to Authors includes an excellent statistical checklist which authors are asked to comply with to "ensure statistical adequacy". I’ve reproduced the checklist below, bolding a couple of interesting criteria. Readers of this blog can readily imagine how this checklist would apply to MBH98 or, for that matter to Moberg et al [2005]. One […]
Update: Next instalment here On March 16, Science sent me 10 (out of 14) measurement data sets used by Esper; one gridcell temperature series used by Osborn-Briffa and caused Briffa to archive annual data versions at WDCP in addition to the smoothed versions. The new information has been extremely helpful to me. However, the information […]
I checked the Lauritzen series sent to me a few days ago by Moberg and found more discrepancies. I originally observed a discrepancy between the figure in the source article and the figure shown in the SI to Moberg et al [2005] as shown below. The graphic in Nature ended in the 1930s, while the […]
As noted a couple of days ago, I received a response from Science in respect to my request for data from Osborn and Briffa [2006]. They asked that the response be confidential, but pointed me to a file archived at WDCP on Feb. 9, 2006, which proved to contain, not original data, but smoothed versions […]
If you look at the Category Moberg on the right frame, you’ll see discussion of frustration that I had in connection with replication of this article and, in particular, with the Lauritzen series. Yesterday, the following Corrigendum was issued: The authorship of this Letter is amended to include Stein-Erik Lauritzen. Details of the SàÆàⷹlegrotta Cave […]
A couple of days ago, I posted up a copy of a letter that I sent to Science on archiving or non-archiving in connection with Osborn and Briffa 2006, Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al 1989 (Dunde); 1997 (Guliya). I received a reply from Science today, which they stated was not for “public […]
Climate Audit 