Category Archives: Moberg [2005]

Moberg Corrigendum

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 SàƒÆ’à‚ⷹlegrotta Cave […]

Trying to Replicate Moberg

I never quite got to presenting an attempt to replicate Moberg before. Here’s a try. I’m still a long way off from being able to replicate his results. It is so infuriating to have to try to do such an amount of detective work prior to even atempting any analysis. I presume that has been […]

Materials Complaint on Moberg: Update

A couple of months ago, after getting nowhere with Moberg on same peculiarities in some data sets (see right category Moberg et al ), I filed a Materials Complaint to Nature discussed here. There have been some developments on this. Readers may recall that, on a previous occasion, in connection with MBH98, Ross and I […]

Monsoon Moberg

Here is some interesting information from an Oman speleothem is a proxy for Indian Ocean monsoon levels. One of the most influential proxies in Moberg [2005] is Oman coldwater diatoms and there is a connection. It may also shed some light on Himalaya ice cores, which also measure dO18 in monsoone precitation.

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. […]

Materials Complaint re Moberg et al [2005]

As a result of refusals by Moberg, Sonchkin and Lauritzen, I’ve filed a Materials Complaint with Nature, which will hopefully result in the delivery of the data in less than geological time. In an email to me concerning a possible one year misdating of U.S. bristlecones, Moberg said that their "reconstruction does not contain any […]

In the Mail Today

Dmitry Sonechkin, the #2 author of Moberg, Sonechkin et al [2005], has replied that he cannot send the Indigirka series used in Moberg et al [2005] because the "series developers do not want to disseminate it. They say this series will be re-calculated soon to reject some errors in it (a general trend etc.)."

In the Mail

Anders Moberg sent a courteous response on the Lauritzen issue mentioned in More Moberg and Brandon Whitcher sent some comments on end effects in waveslim. Update Sep 7-8: I’ve been blown off totally so far by Moberg and Lauritzen in trying to obtain the digital data underlying the discrepant graphs.

Mo' Mo' Moberg

Many of you read Moberg. Some of you probably saw the following diagram showing the re-combination from wavelets to yield the final reconstruction. It looks like an even more complicated method than MBH98 – "science moves on". Moberg Figure 2. So if I offered to show you plots of the wavelet decompositions of all 11 […]

More on Moberg

When Moberg [2005] first came out, I posted up some first comments on it. I haven’t done anything on it since then, partly because of the amount of time responding to comment on our MBH articles, partly because I got stuck on some missing data sets. Hans Erren has a really neat method for digitizing […]