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 […]
A parody posted up by Spence_UK.
Last Friday, Science sent me measurement data used at 10 Esper sites — thanks to Science for this. Measurement data for 4 important sites (the Boreal and Upperwright foxtail sites; Polar Urals and Mongolia) were not sent. Hanson of Science commented that the Polar Urals site and some of the sites that he checked were […]
There’s an interesting irony in the GRL rejection of the Ammann & Wahl Comment and it will be interesting to see how this gets handled. It turns out that the A&W Climatic Change depends on their GRL submission for their test of statistical significance for the RE statistic. So even though the GRL referee thought […]
GRL has rejected the Ammann and Wahl Little Whopper (shortly after Climatic Change accepted the Big Whopper). We previously posted up our Reply to the Little Whopper here. You can see previous discussion of this by the category "Wahl and Ammann". Since the Comment is not being published, neither is the Reply. I wonder whether […]
Reader Bart S. has argued that Cook et al [QSR 2004] disposed of the "Divergence Problem", the name applied at the NAS panel on March 2-3, 2006 for the problem that, if the proxies do not record late 20th century warming, how can we be sure that they recorded potential earlier warming in the MWP. […]
One of the concerns that people are increasingly expressing to us in reaction to demonstrations of methodology problems in Hockey Team multiproxy studies is more or less this: even if the methods used in these various studies are flawed from the point of view of a statistical purist, no one’s presented an alternative interpretation of […]
Luboà…⟠Motl pointed out that IPCC "needs" Ammann and Wahl in a peer reviewed journal. Let’s re-visit some curious timing issues, which Ian Castles brought up before and which need to be re-examined with the re-submission. The IPCC WG1 timetable (thanks to Ian for this) says the following: Third Lead Author meeting, December 13 to 15, […]
I’m posting up our July 2005 review of Wahl and Ammann. The recently accepted version is here. I’m posting this up for a variety of reasons. Mann relied heavily on Wahl and Ammann in his NAS panel testimony (which wasn’t even online as accepted last week) and so it’s hard to finish off the discussion […]
I noticed the following quote from Esper et al 2003 (reference in earlier post It is important to know that at least in distinct periods subsets of trees deviate from common trends recorded in a particular site. Such biased series represent a characteristic feature in the process of chronology building. Leaving these trees in the […]
Climate Audit 