Category Archives: Juckes et al 2006

IPCC AR4 and the Return of Chucky – He’s Baaack!

Here’s something I meant to post up when AR4 came out. I was reminded of this when Rob Wilson posted recently: Lastly, lets not forget that TR based reconstructions of NH temperatures exist that do not use Bristlecone pine or Foxtail data. Rob’s point here is very disingenuous (to use Mann-speak) since millennial reconstructions are […]

Juckes and the West Greenland Stack

Last fall, I discussed information sources on West Greenland ice core series, noting that the West Greenland version attributed by Juckes to Jones et al 1998 was a version that I’d not seen before. While I was looking at the proxy decisions in Juckes et al, I noticed the following intriguing rationalization: The Greenland stack […]

Juckes and "Restricted" Data

Many climateaudit readers will remember Mann’s “CENSORED” directory, in which Mann calculated principal components on a network that excluded bristlecone pines (which needless to say didn’t have a HS shape. Now Juckes et al introduces us to a new type of climate data: “restricted” data. The Team has introduced a novel data classification system – […]

Hugues Goosse and the Unresponsiveness of Juckes

On Sep 21, 2007, Hugues Goosse, the Climate of the Past editor responsible for the Juckes article, published a statement saying that a revised version of the Juckes et al article had been submitted to “conventional” refereeing and accepted on Sept 21, 2007. He said: On the other hand, the authors disagree with one reviewer […]

Is Juckes et al 2006 Peer Reviewed?

As readers of this blog know, Juckes et al submitted a paper for online review at Climate of the Past Discussions. See here for discussion. There were many unsatisfactory and even distasteful aspects to this paper. I submitted a detailed online review, as did Willis Eschenbach and another CA reader. I spent time rebutting a […]

New Scientist, Juckes and Rob Wilson

Here’s something amusing in the New Scientist article, which includes a defence of the Stick. Their jpg is compiled by one Robert Wilson of the University of Edinburgh, who includes the reconstruction from Juckes 2006. Has Juckes been accepted or doesn’t this matter any more? Like IPCC, Rob has failed to show 1960-1994 values of […]

Juckes Reply #3

Juckes also replied to CA reader Mark Rostron and there were a couple of interesting aspects to the response. 1. In a Millenial reconstruction, it would be helpfull to know how many data points were available for each measured time period over the thousand years. Fig 2 indicates that the number in the early years […]

Juckes Reply #2

Yesterday, I posted up a collation of Juckes’ reply to Willis’ comments. Today I’ll post up a collation of his response to my comments. The exchange is here , but, for some reason, this url hangs up for me and you might prefer to start here and follow the links. My comments covered some of […]

Juckes' Reply # 1

Juckes has finally written response to the various comments – see url here. Today I’ve posted up Willis’ Comments and inter-collated Juckes’ Reply in block-quote to make it easier to compare the Comment and Reply – something that I often do for my own purposes to facilitate comparison. Willis submitted thoughtful comments, to which Juckes […]

Juckes Review

I’ve submitted two short review comments on Juckes et al – one on their representation of M&M issues and one on the Union reconstruction. The comment period expires on December 21. My comments overlap somewhat with Willis’ draft. I’ve paid attention to various comments by others here, but, in these short reviews, it’s hard to […]