Category Archives: Esper et al 2002

Noise in Multiproxy Studies

Someone asked what the graphs in Noise in Jones 1998 would look like for the other multiproxy studies. I speculated that they would probably look similar. In fact, they vary quite a bit. I’ve done plots for Mann and Jones [2003], Esper et al [2002], Crowley and Lowery [2000], Moberg et al [2005] and MBH99. […]

More on Esper et al [2002]

I’m inching along with Esper. Here I plot up 10 of 14 sites – I’m pretty sure that most will correspond fairly closely to Esper versions (up to the undefined distinction between “linear” and “nonlinear” cores). For 20th century levels to exceed 11th century levels, the “active ingredients” in Esper seem to be the 2 […]

Esper et al [2002]

Esper et al [2002] divides trees into "linear" and "nonlinear" trees depending on their growth – a classificaiton that is idiosyncratic to this publication as far as I can tell. Esper at al. [2002] provides a citation to a publication "in press" that supposedly explains this, but I can’t locate any explanation in the publication. […]

Log-Normality in Gotland

I’ve recently shown some histograms for site ring widths and opined that they loooked somewhat gamma-ish. Louis Hissink said that they looked log-normal to him. Louis is right for Gotland anyway.

Gotland by Esper

One of the main Hockey Team studies is Esper et al 2002, which is published in Science and, naturally, no data is archived. Esper has not deigned to reply to any emails by me requesting data. Esper and coauthors have just published an article in QSR leading with a discussion of the Mann controversy. I’m […]

Letter to Science re Esper et al [2002]

Although Science has nice policies on paper requiring data archiving, in practice, its climate authors are singularly poor about doing so. Esper et al [2002] has enough missing data to make it very difficult to get traction on it. Here’s a letter that I sent today to Science requesting that they take steps to get […]

Esper's G (Spot)

Sometimes the Hockey Team baffles me. I was at Esper’s website and noticed Esper J, Neuwirth B, Treydte K (2001) A new parameter to evaluate temporal signal strength of tree ring chronologies. Dendrochronologia 19, 93-102. Something that looked pertinent. As a component of his estimate of signal strength, Esper applied a statistical procedure Gleichlàƒ⣵figkeit G […]