UC inquired about the variance adjustment in Osborn et al (Dendrochronologia 1998), which is used in many Team publications. The number of series in many reconstructions declines as you go back in time. If you take an average of standardized series (the CVM method), the variance over an early time interval will be larger than […]
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 […]
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 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 […]
It’s a dangerous practice to let your eye get teased into visual comparisons, but I was struck by a comparison between the G Bulloides series from the Arabian Sea (which is an upwelling proxy) and Stott’s Warm Pool SST proxies.
A comment by Judith Curry reminded of a suggestion that Ross McKitrick sent me for a CA contest. Judith said: There is no fear of H/W making it into IPCC4, the closing for papers to be accepted was over a year ago. What Judith said here is what IPCC rules said prior to IPCC AR4. […]
After several years of trying, Briffa and Osborn have finally listed the sites used in Briffa et al 2001 and related publications. Briffa had reported results on large networks of over 300 sites collected by Schweingruber. Schweingruber had archived over 400 sites at WDCP. However, it was impossible to tell exactly which sites had been […]
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 […]
Here’s a quick summary of the overlap of proxies in three widely publicized “independent” 2006 studies. The number of proxies are all small (Juckes -18; Osborn – 14; Hegerl – 12). All three use multiple bristlecone/foxtail chronologies: Juckes 4; OSborn 2; Hegerl 2. All three use Fisher’s Greenland dO18, Tornetrask (Juckes twice, Hegerl mis-identifying it); […]
I’ve written on several occasions about Juckes’ use of cold water G Bulloides as a supposed temperature proxy (following Moberg’s equally indefensible use of this proxy.) It has come to my attention that a leading specialist, David Black of the University of Akron, had already issued a scathing denunciation of Juckes’ use of G Bulloides […]
Climate Audit 