Given the tumultuous events of the past few days, the receipt of yet another refusal to provide station data pursuant to an FOI request may seem a little uneventful. But the chronology of this most recent refusal is, to say the least, interesting. Continue reading →
Server performance at http://www.climateaudit.org has become impossible. I’ve set up a mirror on wordpress. And will try to figure out how to coordinate things.
So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. Continue reading →
Salzer, Hughes et al (PNAS 2009) is in the news. It reports that “unprecedented” high-altitude bristlecone growth, citing increased growth at Sheep Mountain, Mount Washington and Pearl Peak, but especially Sheep Mountain. pdf PNAS SI Salzer SI
CA readers are obviously familiar not just with bristlecones, but with Sheep Mountain. As pointed out in the MM articles, Sheep Mountain was the most important single series in the Mann PC1. Bristlecone chronologies had been introduced by Donald Graybill and arch-skeptic Sherwood Idso as supposed evidence of CO2 fertilization at high latitudes and IPCC 2AR in 1995 included a caveat. Continue reading →
A CA reader has provided a link to an extremely interesting presentation by dendro Brian Luckman of U of Western Ontario (Rob Wilson’s thesis supervisor) at the 2008 Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. Reader Erasmus de Frigid draws attention to the inhomogeneity in the tree ring record created when the tree was scarred by a glacier, evidenced by a terrifically interesting cross-section picture of the results of glacier scarring on ring widths. It sure looks to me like the net result of glacier scarring resulted in strip bark – something that’s obviously an important issue. Continue reading →
Starting with the first of my recent posts on Yamal, I raised the issue of whether the CRU 12 actually came from a homogeneous population to the subfossil population.
Although Briffa’s online response to my Yamal posts stated that CRU has “stressed” potential problems arising from “inhomogeneous” sources” in their “published work”, I have been unable to identify any CRU article that describes a procedure for testing two populations for homogeneity or any article that reports the results of such a test. (Yes, Melvin and Briffa 2008, 2009 catalogue various biases and problems associated with RCS methodology, but, as already noted, this discussion is not connected to actual statistical literature or to directly to homogeneity).
In the absence of such discussion in CRU literature, in my last post on Jaemtland, I observed that Esper et al 2003 directly considers the problem of population inhomogeneity. While Esper doesn’t describe a quantitative statistical procedure for assessing homogeneity, it describes a shall-we-say artisanal procedure which Esper used to assess inhomogeneity in a proposed combination of data.
Today I’ll apply the Esper methodology to both the Briffa 2000 Yamal data set and the extended Briffa Yamal 2009. The results are provocative. Continue reading →
New (Nov 11) – online version with English subtitles.
Transcript available here. https://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2 CA readers will recognize some of the graphics.
[Jean S adds: The official online version is here (for the next seven days):
http://areena.yle.fi/video/541468 (Nov 17, removed)
BTW, this is the post number 2000! Congratulations, Steve!]
See https://web.archive.org/web/20091113155332/http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/taman_viikon_mot/transcript_english
Climate Audit 
WSJ Europe
here