archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • glacier-bay « Climate Audit
    Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE Click

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/glacier-bay/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive


  • stump « Climate Audit
    working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/stump/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Belated SI for D’Arrigo et al 2006 « Climate Audit
    not possible as the variance changes between the two species RCS version Keith Briffa s Yamal chronology was used Briffa K R 2000 Annual climate variability in the Holocene interpreting the message of ancient trees Quaternary Science Reviews 19 87 105 Raw data and more explanation can be found at these links http www cru uea ac uk cru people briffa yamal2000 http www cru uea ac uk cru people briffa yamal2009 NB also that the ITRDB has much more data available now my bold for this region ITRDB RUSS220 ITRDB RUSS176 ITRDB RUSS001 ITRDB RUSS002 ITRDB RUSS006 This commentary is inaccurate on a number of points some surprisingly 1 The STD reconstruction was not derived only from RUSS021 which only had 91 cores The STD dataset used in D Arrigo et al 2006 which I obtained today was the same as that used in Esper et al 2002 which I obtained six years ago In addition to russ021w LASI both used the russ176w POLURULA LASI and russ022w PCOB datasets This can be proven by matching ID numbers and cores 2 Contra the new SI RUSS021w did not use both LASI and PCOB The living cores in RUSS021 were LASI the Polar Urals PCOB cores were in RUSS022 Schweingruber included both LASI and PCOB cores in the same identification sequence 86201 86202 86203 but there are no duplications between russ021w and russ022w The D Arrigo SI is simply wrong on this point 3 The assertion citing russ001 russ002 russ006 russ176 and russ220 that the ITRDB has much more data available now is flatly untrue None of the data in any of these five data sets was collected subsequent to 1990 indeed russ001 russ002 and russ006 date back much earlier even to the 1960s russ176 was not only available at the time of D Arrigo et al 2006 it was used in it 4 russ220 is a bizarre and stupid dataset that should be removed from WDCP ITRDB I ve heard through the grapevine that NSF has required Jacoby and D Arrigo to tidy up their unarchived data accounting for much recent long overdue archiving Needless to say they got more money to do what should have been done long ago None of the data in russ220 appears to have been collected by D Arrigo and Jacoby It includes the old Schweingruber Polar Urals ring width data discussed above russ021w russ022w and russ176w It also comingles density data e g old Schweingruber MXD data from russ021x In any event there is nothing new in russ220 The present SI contains a sly reference to a longstanding error in D Arrigo et al 2006 which its authors have been aware of but refused to correct D Arrigo et al 2006 showed a RCS reconstruction labelled Polar Urals but it looked nothing like my calculation it was very Hockey Stick shaped It turned out that their figure was not from Polar Urals after all they had used the Yamal chronology instead mistakenly labeling it as Polar Urals I pointed this out to them and suggested that the authors issue a corrigendum on this point but they refused Now in Mannian style they have issued the following very sly reference to the error in the seven years late SI giving them some ongoing cover I guess but notably not conceding that the legend in the article itself was wrong RCS version Keith Briffa s Yamal chronology was used The SI also contains a very coy reference to a longstanding skirmish between Rob Wilson and me The Yamal chronology with YAD061 the most influential tree in the world has a huge Stick and is very popular while the Polar Urals updated chronology has an elevated MWP and other than its one use in Esper et al 2002 has been ignored Wilson has argued that there was a good reason for preferring Yamal arising from variance changes I ve challenged his explanation at CA No concern about variance changes is reported in the article itself Further a variance change criterion if applicable should be applied consistently my surmise is that any criterion that rejected RCS for Polar Urals would also reject other chronologies D Arrigo et al have almost total algorithmic obscurity on this point The D Arrigo SI appears to allude to this longstanding dispute as follows Historic data are LASI while living data are PCOB for this reason RCS detrending was not possible as the variance changes between the two species As noted above this explanation is wrong in its premise that the living data in russ021w was PCOB The authors have no evidence that Schweingruber an eminent and experienced dendro had incorrectly allocated PCOB data to his LASI russ021w dataset rather than grouping it with other PCOB measurement data in russ022w The error on the part of the D Arrigo authors appears to have arisen many years ago when they incorrectly added a prefix P for PCOB to some russ021w cores as well as to russ022w cores I noticed this today within minutes of finally getting the measurement data as used in D Arrigo et al 2006 Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Oct 20 2012 at 2 31 PM filed under D Arrigo 2006 Multiproxy Studies Uncategorized and tagged d arrigo polar urals wilson Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed Forensic Bioinformatics AGU Webinar on Michael Mann 32 Comments Keith DeHavelle Posted Oct 20 2012 at 4 09 PM Permalink Obfuscation as shown here is sad Seems they must hide the science that s bad How much better to fix And avoid years of tricks This is science not some private fad Keith DeHavelle Jeff Alberts Posted Oct 20 2012 at 4 13 PM Permalink I remain gobsmacked hro001 Posted Oct 20 2012 at 4 14 PM Permalink Well better very late than never I suppose An interesting but no doubt coincidental aside from my perspective anyway You had noted and quoted The new SI reports that the following measurement data used by D Arrigo et al 2006 remains unarchived Icefields Jasper Alberta data from Luckman and Wilson 2005 The SI states The data used by Luckman and Wilson will soon be archived in the ITRDB For now a data request can be sent to Brian Luckman lxxx uwo ca I ve requested this data from Luckman a number of years ago and was blown off Hadn t realized previously that Luckman was at my alma mater UWO But more importantly the last time I saw Luckman was in the now famous Nov 2009 Miracles and Stip Bark Standardization post http climateaudit org 2009 11 16 luckman at the canadian society for petroleum geologists P S Noticed a few typos in the headpost My follow up requests were forwarded to Phil Jones and Tin Osborn at CRU crop up inn Climategate emails The incident is referred to 2005 CG2 emails Craig Loehle Posted Oct 20 2012 at 4 27 PM Permalink In science the details matter If you don t want to obsess over details there are lots of other professions that are appropriate The idea that it doesn t matter when data are labeled as the wrong species or the wrong site or key data left out because you don t like them is horrifying And stonewalling is not a clever way of solving a problem but it sure is a trick Craig Loehle Posted Oct 20 2012 at 5 47 PM Permalink Actually I was wrong There are NOT many professions where the details don t matter The painters who did my house did not get a speck on the carpets and I did not have to call them back for a do over Construction workers can make a mess while working but when done it better look nice The dentist better drill the right tooth In many professions big mistakes get you fired Except climate science TM Duster Posted Oct 22 2012 at 3 04 AM Permalink Craig in post normal science details don t really matter because you can make them up You ll note that a recent study found that 2 3s of withdrawn articles were due to outright falsified data And that was I believe mostly in biology and medicine That latter is chilling Skiphil Posted Oct 20 2012 at 6 18 PM Permalink Free the data free the data Every time I read one of these accounts I am sickened by the careless neglectful attitudes and behaviors of too many climate scientists In the 21st century there is no reasonable excuse for not promptly archiving such data If scientists want to keep data private indefinitely they should 1 not accept public funding 2 not submit for publication articles relying upon private data and 3 not allow the IPCC or other public policy reports to be based upon such private data Once they choose to operate in the public domain with OUR money of whichever country s taxpayers the rules are should be different than what they do in their private personal time or for one lab or university only Of course countless truly private activities exist just don t ask the public to pay for them or accept them as the basis for policy Publicly funded and or publicly promoted data used to further PUBLIC policy recommendations cannot be allowed to remain private Publicly accessible reliable archiving should be required in all fields which receive public funds and most definitely in areas of climate science used to promote major political economic and legal policies Geoff Sherrington Posted Oct 21 2012 at 4 22 AM Permalink Skiphil You are so correct that public data especially major data that influences puublic policy should be completely open There are no hafl way points The selective release of information or the demanding of a large fee for public information merely sets a stage for corruption As Craig notes before you in many employments a bad mistake can get one fired In the atypical climate scange arena mistakes are howled down or hushed up and indeed sometimes followed by a scheme to award an honour or a medal or more funding The key word is accountability Poor scientists can play fast and loose with wrong information if they know that they do not have a punishment awaiting them In this contect readers might like to visit a long post that I wrote at http joannenova com au 2012 10 gergis hockey stick withdrawn this is what 95 certainty looks like in climate science It is dated October 19 2012 at 7 25 pm and is long because it includes several emails In essence the particular government funding agency declines to answer if rebates should be made by authors if or when papers are withdrawn by the authors Richard Drake Posted Oct 20 2012 at 7 09 PM Permalink Utterly awesome Steve The error on the part of the D Arrigo authors appears to have arisen many years ago when they incorrectly added a prefix P for PCOB to some russ021w cores as well as to russ022w cores I noticed this today within minutes of finally getting the measurement data as used in D Arrigo et al 2006 They call him a troublemaker but it s they and they alone that cause the trouble to themselves and everyone else the world s policy makers included by not doing what any scientist should have done in the first place theduke Posted Oct 20 2012 at 10 02 PM Permalink Steve writes Apparently Mann then told Nature Geoscience that he could not respond to the D Arrigo et al comment unless he had full access to all the data used in D Arrigo et al 2006 My correspondent observed somewhat laconically I am sure you will appreciate the irony of this Indeed That is priceless Seems Mann is doing some ClimateAuditing himself now Maybe he should apply for a job at climateaudit org as an associate Skiphil Posted Oct 20 2012 at 10 22 PM Permalink Re theduke Oct 20 22 02 Yes but considering how little Mann seems to have learned over the years he will not even qualify as an Intern Not Sure Posted Oct 21 2012 at 11 57 AM Permalink Who is Steve s correspondent I re read the post a couple of times but I couldn t figure it out Richard Drake Posted Oct 21 2012 at 12 10 PM Permalink The correspondent emerged without introduction then withdrew to the shadows Given the context I m not expecting Steve to announce the name Rob Wilson Posted Oct 21 2012 at 2 23 AM Permalink Just to defend Jan Esper a little much if not all the data of the data generated by the WSL over the last decade is archived here http www wsl ch dendro dendrodb html Rob Steve To my knowledge this entire data set is old Schweingruber data Can you point to a single data set at this site that provides fresh Esper data Nothing from Pakistan nothing from Morocco The site codes match Schweingruber site codes Rob it s one thing to defend Esper but factual defences work better I note for the record that Esper has recently archived Pakistan data at WDCP HOwever he has failed to archive his new Russian data data that bears on an important controversy He has refused to provide it on request as well And refuses to acknowledge emails BTW I haven t commented on the recent Esper et al 2012 paper except for passing comments observing that I found it very interesting In particular it made a couple of points that very much interested and surprised me I regard it in some ways as a post Hockey Stick paper as it looks at the data as it arrives rather than framing it as a HS confirmation Richard Drake Posted Oct 21 2012 at 11 41 AM Permalink Sounds like there could yet be hope for Esper Frank Posted Oct 21 2012 at 3 35 PM Permalink Rob Thanks for taking the time to communicate with the skeptic community I hope that Steve will a correction for non archiver above that accurately reflects for both your comment and his reply However the standards for disclosure of data should be the same no matter what Esper s work concludes about the MWP Even small efforts like yours provide some hope that the politicization of climate science won t tarnish the integrity of science indefinitely May I suggest that you look to the rules that have been adopted for archiving the results from clinical trials in response to the suppression of data showing that drugs don t work http grants nih gov ClinicalTrials fdaaa at a glance htm Steve Rob has not given any reason to change my statement Rob arm waved to a site at which Esper has to my knowledge not archived a single data set Tom Gray Posted Oct 22 2012 at 8 45 AM Permalink From the NIH site the applicable compliance requirement t this time FDAAA requires the responsible party to submit summary results information including adverse events no later than 1 year after the primary completion date see Definition for registered applicable clinical trials involving drugs that are approved under section 505 of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act FDCA or licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act biologics or of devices that are cleared under section 510k of FDCA However NIH encourages results reporting for all NIH supported clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials gov regardless of whether or not they are required to do so under FDAAA This would seem applicable with modifications for papers that are used in major reports such as the tPCC ARs If authors wish their paper to be considered for assessment within an AR this would seem to be a desirable prerequisite Tom Gray Posted Oct 22 2012 at 8 50 AM Permalink Perhaps it is also pertinent to note that for patents an inventor must submit all prior art to which he she is aware This includes prior art that comes to their attention after the patent has been submitted Failure to do this is very serious It is deemed inequitable conduct and will result in the patent being unenforceable or to all extents and purposes cancelled Keith DeHavelle Posted Oct 21 2012 at 3 52 AM Permalink Rob Wilson since no one s responded May I offer Welcome to CA And thanks While some data s absconded This will add one more source to the fray You may get some grief from other quarters For temerity showing up here But from this group these gentle sporters Simply seek to make this science clear Keith DeHavelle Richard Drake Posted Oct 21 2012 at 6 47 AM Permalink Seconded If one can without the scan Don Keiller Posted Oct 21 2012 at 6 48 AM Permalink Obfuscation cherry picking and plausible deniability Key Team training parameters Solomon Green Posted Oct 21 2012 at 7 55 AM Permalink Being a relatively newcomer to your site I was unaware of your correspondence with Dr Solomon In particular to your very reasonable explanation for your request to which you received no reply In my opinion examining the underlying data is an important part of reviewing materials This opinion is obviously widely shared as the provision of supplementary information is standard for most paleoclimate articles though not as widely shared as I would like and many journals have policies requiring the archiving of data used in articles although the policy is not always upheld Unavailability of underlying data would be a point that I would raise in my planned review The fact that seven years after that correspondence some of the data which you requested has come to light provides no excuse for Dr Solomon s appalling manners and

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/20/a-belated-si-for-darrigo-et-al-2006/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • D'Arrigo 2006 « Climate Audit
    2000 Yamal Comments 4 The Yamal Substitution Feb 12 2006 5 20 PM The Polar Urals temperature reconstruction Briffa et al 1995 has been a mainstay of multiproxy studies More data was collected at this site in 1998 russ176 but in the two new studies Osborn and Briffa 2006 D Arrigo et al 2006 they relate their site selection to the Polar Urals but substitute the Yamal RCS series By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Briffa Multiproxy Studies Tagged briffa 1995 darrigo 2006 osborn briffa 2006 Comments 4 D Arrigo et al on Bristlecone Calibration Feb 11 2006 8 23 AM D Arrigo Wilson and Jacoby 2006 represents state of the art in dendrochronology and is hot off the press It is unique among such studies in using a considerable amount of up to date data and is relatively candid about its results I ll try to discuss it in more detail Here I want to pick up on one issue that featured By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Briffa bristlecones Multiproxy Studies Tagged darrigo 2006 Comments 9 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/darrigo-2006/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Multiproxy Studies « Climate Audit
    Also posted in pages2k Uncategorized Tagged pages2k Comments 65 The Third Warmest Arctic Century Oct 27 2014 9 43 PM PAGES2K 2013 unequivocally stated that the Arctic was warmest during the 20th century The Arctic was also warmest during the twentieth century although warmer during 1941 1970 than 1971 2000 according to our reconstruction McKay and Kaufman 2014 did not withdraw or amend the above statement instead reporting that the revision amplified the cooling trend prior to By Steve McIntyre Also posted in pages2k Uncategorized Tagged corrigendum kaufman mckay pages2k Comments 48 Decomposing Paico Oct 11 2014 2 51 PM In today s post Jean S and I are going to show that the paico reconstruction as implemented in the present algorithm is very closely approximated by a weighted average of the proxies in which the weights are proportional to the number of measurements Paico is a methodology introduced in Hanhijarvi et al 2013 pdf here By Steve McIntyre Also posted in pages2k Uncategorized Tagged pages2k paico Comments 68 New Article on Igaliku Oct 11 2014 8 28 AM Shortly after the publication of PAGES2K I pointed out that the Igaliku lake sediment proxy had been contaminated by modern agricultural runoff The post attracted many comments Nick Stokes vigorously opposed the surmise that the Igaliku series had been contaminated by modern agriculture and or that such contamination should have been taken into account by Kaufman By Steve McIntyre Also posted in pages2k Uncategorized Tagged igaliku kaufman pages2k stokes Comments 113 Older posts Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • polar urals « Climate Audit
    asked CRU to comment on Ross McKitrick s National Post op ed last October during Yamal The response was given to Muir Russell on or after June 16 By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged muir russell taimyr urals Yamal Comments 21 Polar Urals Shiyatov s Finnish Academy Article Aug 4 2005 8 11 AM I ve written on a number of occasions on Briffa s Polar Urals reconstruction which is used in nearly every multiproxy reconstruction no doubt because of its uniquely cold MWP It s one of the key series in Crowley and Lowery 2000 and Jones et al 1998 it s not as important in MBH98 99 which is more or less By Steve McIntyre Posted in Crowley Jones et al 1998 Medieval Multiproxy Studies Also tagged shiyatov treeline urals Comments 7 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/polar-urals/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Kinnard and the D’Arrigo-Wilson Chronologies « Climate Audit
    science in this area really that low Steve its easy enough to make this sort of error And it might just be in their SI and not in their calculations If the error is in fact embedded in the calcs and it makes a difference it s unfortunate BTW as I go through the data Kinnard et al have assembled a lot of data that hasn t been otherwise available KnR Posted Dec 4 2011 at 12 30 PM Permalink It remains the case that academics continue to make mistakes in their published work which they would not accept from their own students Remember this is supposed to be a Gold standard a level which people are supposed to aspire too Is it really to much to ask them to meet a standard which would be expected of an undergraduate in their studies the answer to often in climate science seems to be yes They were told this is the best of the scientific knowledgeable in the area and you can some see the area as a bit of a joke Blog Lurker Posted Dec 4 2011 at 7 41 AM Permalink Haven t had a detailed look at either yet But is Christiansen and Ljungqvist based on Ljungqvist et al 2011 that s also under discussion at Clim Past http www clim past discuss net 7 3349 2011 cpd 7 3349 2011 html Steve McIntyre Posted Dec 4 2011 at 11 07 AM Permalink they seem to be related No original data in the SI to Ljung et al either as far as I can tell Blog Lurker Posted Dec 4 2011 at 11 22 AM Permalink Yeah I haven t found any either but I ve only spent 15 20min so far I think they re going along the lines that they ve listed what proxies they used they re already in the public domain But I think I saw on my first reading that they had to digitise some of the proxies On the plus side your campaigning over bristlecones Yamal seems to be finally making SOME headway Anonymous Reviewer 1 seems to recognise they re problematic although still seems to have contempt for so called sceptics Blog Lurker Posted Dec 4 2011 at 12 13 PM Permalink In their reply to C Lemmen they say that they re planning on archiving their data on the WDC for Paleo if they re published Maybe they re planning the same for Christiansen and Ljungqvist I don t know whether that would include the proxies code or not It looks like they ve tried submitting this before so maybe they re reluctant to give away their archive then have their paper rejected I agree it does make it harder to review the paper though Maurizio Morabito omnologos Posted Dec 4 2011 at 7 57 AM Permalink KnR it seems obvious paleo is the science paleo are the techniques AJStrata Posted Dec 4 2011 at 12 24 PM Permalink I would appreciate anyone s comments on this email I discovered from Briffa and some unorthodox uncertainty integration http strata sphere com blog index php archives 17701 I am no statistician but what Briffa proposed and admitted to seems to be a bomb shell Blog Lurker Posted Dec 4 2011 at 1 08 PM Permalink I had a look at e mail 3436 It has nothing to do with Briffa Are you sure that s the right number Buy anyway from your blog post it sounds like he s talking about Osborn Briffa 2006 http scholar google com scholar cluster 6739401972907860694 hl en as sdt 0 5 There are problems with it but actually the ones you mention aren t my major problem with it Here s a discussion Steve gave on it at the time http climateaudit org 2006 02 09 review of osborn and briffa 2006 AJStrata Posted Dec 4 2011 at 4 28 PM Permalink LOL Blog Lurker you are correct My dyslexia strikes again 3468 Steve McIntyre Posted Dec 4 2011 at 2 31 PM Permalink That email was in Climategate 1 1138995069 txt It discusses a complicated figure being drafted for AR4 I dont see it as especially worrying P Solar Posted Dec 4 2011 at 1 47 PM Permalink Good catch AJ You really need to find out if that is related to be published work but the attitude and intent is shows is damning enough Maybe look at what publications Briffa was invovled with at that time and see it you can see evidence of what he describes He gives quite an accurate description so it may be possible to recognise it AJStrata Posted Dec 4 2011 at 4 33 PM Permalink Steve M We deal in different industries In the space business this kind of clouding of the results would be a shock Then again when we look at errors and probabilities we tend to be concerned with things like how much time do we have to self destruct a launch before it can kill people living nearby The physics dictates the cone of safety as a rocket ascends The farther it goes the more time to respond But we have to get that probability cone right In those cases screwing up the precision is truly criminal I have concluded my standards are probably to high for such mundane things as comparing tree rings between the last 50 years and 1500 years ago Blog Lurker Posted Dec 5 2011 at 9 32 AM Permalink AJ The lack of statistical or scientific rigour in paleoclimate science or climate science for that matter shocks many of us when we start to peek under the bonnet But if you re shocked by that particular discussion maybe it would be better for your sanity if you don t look any further I don t recall offhand which figure he s referring to But it most likely was for Chapter 6 of the IPCC 2007 Working Group 1

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/kinnard-and-the-darrigo-wilson-chronologies/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • kinnard « Climate Audit
    Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/kinnard/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •