Tag Archives: huybers

Does a new paper really reconcile instrumental and model-based climate sensitivity estimates?

A guest post by Nic Lewis A new paper in Science Advances by Cristian Proistosescu and Peter Huybers “Slow climate mode reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity” (hereafter PH17) claims that accounting for the decline in feedback strength over time that occurs in most CMIP5 coupled global climate models (GCMs), brings observationally-based climate […]

Tingley and Huybers Exclude Mt Logan

Perhaps the greatest single difference between being a “real climate scientist” and policies recommended here is that “real climate scientists” do not hesitate in excluding data ex post because it goes the “wrong” way, a practice that is unequivocally condemned at Climate Audit and other critical blogs which take the position that criteria have to […]

Tingley and Huybers: Varve Compaction

Specialist literature on varves e.g. Besonen et al 2008 – coauthor Raymond Bradley -(which is cited by Tingley and Huybers) make the obvious observation that varves are compacted within a core. Besonen et al 2008 allow for compaction by estimating annual mass accumulation as a more appropriate measurement of varve “thickness”, rather than uncompacted varve […]

More from the Junior Birdmen

A new paper in Nature by Tingley and Huybers h/t WUWT. In keeping with the total and complete stubbornness of the paleoclimate community, they use the most famous series of Mann et al 2008: the contaminated Korttajarvi sediments, the problems with which are well known in skeptic blogs and which were reported in a comment […]

Tingley and Huybers (2010?)

Once again, the Team has “moved on” so quickly that it takes some care keeping track of their movements. The criticisms in my most recent post apply to the still unpublished Tingley and Huybers 1200-year reconstruction at their website (that it uses Mann’s PC1, a second strip bark foxtail series, Yamal plus a van Engelen […]

Tingley and Huybers 2009

David Appell has two trailers ( here and here) for his Sci American article [Oct 24 – url] on a “new” hockey stick article by Tingley and Huybers, not yet published, but said to have been submitted. Tingley’s website contains two submissions discussing Bayesian methods, but only one submission (Tingley and Huybers 2009 url (h/t […]

Reply to Huybers #3: Principal Components

I previously posted up two comments on our Reply to Huybers here and here, the first of which contained some new material. Here’s the third and final instalment, discussing Huybers’ comments on principal components. While principal components were really only one aspect of our critique, the reaction of the Hockey Team and the “community” to […]

Huybers #2: Re-Scaling

Huybers’ second and more interesting (to me) issue pertains to the benchmarking of the RE statistic.I’m going to start in the middle of this issue. If I start with the history e.g. defining the RE statistic and showing its history (and I just tried), it’s hard to get to the punch line. So what I’m […]

Reply to Huybers #1

An article by Peter Huybers has been accepted at GRL together with our Reply. I’m going to give a preview of this. This will take a few posts.