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".
  • The NAS Panel and Polar Urals « Climate Audit
    Were they just confused by Briffa s unclearly labelled fig 1f Does Rob Wilson need to issue an erratum Phillip Bratby Posted Oct 16 2009 at 12 52 PM Permalink Isn t Briffa the most likely person to notice that the D Arrigo et al 2006 Table 1 and the NAS panel figure 4 2 were wrong Should he not have reported this error You certainly cannot be given any blame Steve Briffa cannot claim he never saw any of this Tolz Posted Oct 16 2009 at 1 34 PM Permalink Is there any possibility of getting Rob Wilson to lend a perspective on the matter Robinson Posted Oct 16 2009 at 4 00 PM Permalink For some inexplicable reason their article worsens the situation by in effect conflating the two they used the Yamal chronology but in the absence of Yamal core counts used Polar Urals core counts I m no Mathematics Major but even to me this sounds like an unbelivably retarded thing to do Peerreviewed indeed Micajah Posted Oct 16 2009 at 4 16 PM Permalink Had they used the real Yamal core counts or the real Polar Urals chronology this panel would have looked very different Yeah it would if they could get the real Yamal core counts But of course they couldn t so the figure should have had words like this in place of the utterly false no matter how innocently so representation of core counts Access denied thus we don t know Would that have prevented publication of their paper deadwood Posted Oct 16 2009 at 6 46 PM Permalink Re Micajah 36 Would that have prevented publication of their paper That s the question isn t it Sadly I don t believe it would have TerryBixler Posted Oct 16 2009 at 5 17 PM Permalink OT Charlie Posted Oct 16 2009 at 6 57 PM Permalink Just so there is no doubt Rob Wilson was one of the authors of D Arrigo et al 2006 While I disagree with him on statistical issues his integrity is unimpeachable Since his integrity is unimpeachable should we assume that Rob Wilson is working on an erratum or corrigendum or whatever the oops we goofed letter is called in peer reviewed literature AnonyMoose Posted Oct 16 2009 at 8 25 PM Permalink So they didn t take the rotten apple out of the barrel and left it to the customers to pick out all the resulting rotten apples Someone doesn t know how customers react to such a shop Coup d etat Posted Oct 16 2009 at 8 32 PM Permalink Just who peer reviewed Briffa Do they have some questions to answer for not discovering this themselves They obviously were on Briffa AGW side and since the reports didn t disagree with there pet theory they didn t pay much attention as the reverse where they look for minute flaws to fail a good report going against AGW Coup d etat Posted Oct 16 2009 at 8 34 PM Permalink All papers using Briffa Yamal data in part or in whole should be stricken from the record so to speak Lucy Skywalker Posted Oct 17 2009 at 1 24 AM Permalink Folks excluding bender again don t throw all scientists into the barrel of bad apples There are many scientists who distance themselves from climate science It s a natural first reaction to vent on discovering that the incoherence of the science is worse than we thought And it s a natural second reaction to dig for motives But Steve in persistently yanking us back to facts and material evidence and making us cut out piling on indignation is surely giving space to enable all scientists to stop and think come clean and choose to help with mending the science We can help or hinder that process IMHO crosspatch Posted Oct 17 2009 at 2 33 AM Permalink Re Lucy Skywalker 42 Very well put Yes it is difficult not to get emotional when we feel we are being robbed in a very real sense of our hard earned And when we see uhm mistakes such as these it is all the more infuriating It is one thing to watch a scientific debate but this particular debate has real economic consequences for the average person People are wanting to actually take a piece of our livelihood away from us because of these results and it is very frustrating when one sees how pitiful the foundation is on which that course of action stands In these times I can t blame people for getting emotional If results are going to be used to take people s money from them there is a certain implied responsibility to ensure that it is for good reason Muckups like this are simply infuriating to those who grasp what is being said Rob Wilson Posted Oct 17 2009 at 2 52 AM Permalink Dear Steve et al As a response to your recent posts and also to your private e mails here s my 10 cents towards the use of the Yamal and or Polar Urals data I will admit that the data description Figure 2 and Table 1 in D Arrigo et al 2006 is somewhat misleading For those who have not read the paper http www st andrews ac uk rjsw all 20pdfs DArrigoetal2006a pdf we derived two NH reconstructions One using TR chronologies developed using traditional individual series detrending methods STD and another that solely used TR chronologies that had been processed using the RCS method The latter method being theoretically better to capture more low frequency information I think our paper clearly shows this For all locations except the Polar Urals and the Alps we used the same data to derive the STD and RCS flavours As we have discussed through CA before I was not happy with the resultant RCS chronology using the Polar Urals data I know you do not agree with my decision here Anyway the Yamal series represented a RCS chronology from a nearby location The figure below show the strong coherence between the Polar Urals STD and Yamal RCS series Unfortunately in the paper we failed to clarify that different data were used for the STD and RCS versions for the location we labelled the Polar Urals The replication data in Figure 2 are from the Polar Urals data Please note that the situation exists for the Alps The historical spruce data detailed in Wilson and Topham 2004 did not perform well using the RCS method so instead we used a different species chronology Nicolussi and Schiessling 2001 for the RCS version So to clarify in Figure 2 the replication histograms are relevant for both the STD and RCS flavours for each site EXCEPT POL and ALPS where the replication is only relevant for the STD versions I will not be troubling the journal with a corrigendum as it does not change the results of the paper at all Finally I want to clarify that I never asked Keith Briffa for the raw Yamal data The simple fact of the matter is I have great respect for Keith and I saw no point at the time in asking for raw data when there was a published RCS chronology for that location Rob Steve Rob previously commented in Feb 2006 as follows I would have preferred to have processed the Yamal data myself but like you was not able to acquire the raw data and by email Keith would not give me his Yamal raw data but said that the Yamal series was a robust RCS chronology I and in my opinion quite reasonably interpreted these statements as meaning that Rob had asked for the data steven mosher Posted Oct 17 2009 at 4 52 AM Permalink Re Rob Wilson 44 Knowing what you know now about the core counts would you just as a matter of course ask for raw data in all cases As a former engineer even when I was supplied results that had been vetted by my customer the Department of defense I would make routine requests for raw data This was just standard practice It mattered little that the people who provided me results were well known and meticulous fellows It mattered little that the results were in fact validated and verified I always requested the raw data That way I could avoid the mistakes that happen when you trust a human process Since peer review is only necessary but not sufficient wouldn t it be prudent to request raw data in all cases John A Posted Oct 17 2009 at 5 41 AM Permalink Re Rob Wilson 44 Anyway the Yamal series represented a RCS chronology from a nearby location The figure below show the strong coherence between the Polar Urals STD and Yamal RCS series Yamal differs from the Polar Urals by more than 2 STDs in the critical 20th Century part even as the number of cores drops to just a few good men which is in turn dominated by just one tree Is this what dendros call robust I ve no idea what you mean by strong coherence but to me you re seeing a classic coherence between autocorrelated series with the same mean and it means nothing at all Jason Posted Oct 17 2009 at 6 01 AM Permalink Re Rob Wilson 44 Thank you very much for stopping by Many on this site and elsewhere are very eager to find out the following In your expert opinion as a dendrochronologist are Steve s criticisms of Briffa s 2000 Yamal series and its use as a temperature proxy justified Also as someone experienced in the use of RCS if two groups of trees of the same species from nearby locations but collected via different methods have different empirical relationships between tree age and ring size is it dendrochronologically appropriate to combine them into one group and apply RCS to the entire group I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us Dave Dardinger Posted Oct 17 2009 at 8 51 AM Permalink Re Rob Wilson 44 Steve M says I and in my opinion quite reasonably interpreted that statement as meaning that Rob had asked for the data I quite agree snip Steve let s just leave it where it is No need to comment further bender Posted Oct 17 2009 at 10 02 AM Permalink Re Dave Dardinger 52 Re Keith would not give me his Yamal raw data Could mean any number of things I would not over interpret these statements rather take them at face value Maybe Wilson only hinted that he was interested in the data and maybe Briffa just chuckled No asking no refusal I see no reason to question Wilson s candour Steve made a reasonable assumption and maybe the reasonable asumption was wrong Rather than engage on such trivial matters why not ask about something important such as Wilson s view on the use of 10 samples during a known period of strong divergence using a method RCS that can be subject to endpoint problems Wilson is the world s foremost expert on divergence and I would like to hear as much as he has to say on the topic Causes consequences remedies field studies and experiments to quantify the issue I thank him very much for dropping in If we were to collate a list of questions purely techincal purely science I wonder if he would be willing to look them over and try answering I would be willing to let him cherry pick from that list Dave Dardinger Posted Oct 17 2009 at 10 33 AM Permalink Re bender 54 snip Steve let s just leave it where it is Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 19 2009 at 7 44 AM Permalink Re Rob Wilson 44 Rob Wilson said above that a similar situation existed for the Alps Please note that the situation exists for the Alps The historical spruce data detailed in Wilson and Topham 2004 did not perform well using the RCS method so instead we used a different species chronology Nicolussi and Schiessling 2001 for the RCS version But there s an important difference The situation in the Alps was reported in a footnote to Table 1 while the situation in the Polar Urals was not reported The Alps note read as follows Note that for the Alps different data sets were utilized for the STDPT and RCS chronology versions The STDPT is a highly replicated expanded data set of that detailed by Wilson and Topham 2004 RCS was not possible however with these data due to significant differences in mean RW between the historical and living data sets which resulted in a highly biased RCS chronology Instead for the Alps RCS chronology the Nicolussi and Schiessling 2001 long pine RCS chronology was used No STD version of this chronology exists The fact that this was important enough to report for the Alps means that it is even more important to report for Yamal Long before the present discussion the use of Yamal over Polar Urals was an issue in Review Comments for IPCC AR4 Rob says I will not be troubling the journal with a corrigendum as it does not change the results of the paper at all I do not believe that the journal would consider itself troubled if Rob and his coauthors corrected an erroneous description of a series And in fact the results of the paper would change if the RCS series from the site said to have been used were actually used Mike B Posted Oct 19 2009 at 7 57 AM Permalink Re Steve McIntyre 67 It seems to me that it is Rob s duty to report the error and the journal s decision whether or not to be troubled by issuing a corrigendum Not that the outcome would be any different but I expect better from one of the good guys bender Posted Oct 19 2009 at 8 23 AM Permalink Re Steve McIntyre 67 The way it works is he should report the error state his case why he thinks it s not significant and then it is up to posterity to determine whether or not he is correct But it all has to start with the corrigendum steven mosher Posted Nov 18 2009 at 2 24 PM Permalink Re Rob Wilson 44 bump AndyL Posted Oct 17 2009 at 3 01 AM Permalink Rob Thank you for your contribution to this discussion While you are here are you prepared to comment on Steve s claim that no Dendro has defended Briffa s use of 10 cores in his RCS reconstruction John A Posted Oct 17 2009 at 5 33 AM Permalink Here s the picture that results from Steve s code Watch for the line temp year 1686 year 1978 legend of Darrigo because there s supposed to be no space between and but WordPress puts one in automatically Take it out by cutting and pasting the code into Notepad first and then removing the space before cutting pasting into R ron from Texas Posted Oct 17 2009 at 6 12 AM Permalink Please note that the situation exists for the Alps The historical spruce data detailed in Wilson and Topham 2004 did not perform well using the RCS method so instead we used a different species chronology Nicolussi and Schiessling 2001 for the RCS version When you say that the data did not perform well what is that supposed to mean It didn t make the graph you were expecting So you use a method you would have used on another tree for this one because it what Produces the graph you were looking for In general is it not possible to actually just graph data as it actually appears Especially as this data is a loose sometimes ill fitting proxy for temperature I m just not understanding at all this practice of not liking the appearance of data so the data must be altered until it looks right Looks right to fit what Mangling data to fit a theory as opposed to developing a theory that explains the data Ron Cram Posted Oct 17 2009 at 8 14 AM Permalink Re ron from Texas 50 You are posing the same questions I have I just do not understand the special pleading for the Alps and Polar Urals If there was a good scientific reason why it should be done differently in these locations the paper should have spent extra time explaining the rationale Methodology is extremely important for readers to understand Instead of making the case D Arrigo et al fail to mention any change at all This is a very misleading oversight MikeN Posted Oct 17 2009 at 8 36 AM Permalink He may be referring to low EPS statistics for the RCS chronology The Alps came in below the 85 threshold http www dvgu ru meteo library 40770009 pdf Jeff Id Posted Oct 17 2009 at 9 15 AM Permalink Thanks Rob for stopping by and explaining It seems possible that Rob simply forgot his efforts from three years ago After all there are a lot more important issues in a persons day On a side note I m a newborn critic of RCS standardization as all can see from some of my posts when applied differently the endpoints are changed substantially This gives the impression that the whole series is decent because the middle as shown in Rob Wilson s plot above is quite similar and basically unaffected by changes to the method but the endpoints experience heavy unjustified corrections I say unjustified because I m an engineer and there is substantial possibility for small deviations from this exponential curve creating large non temperature response I could expand on this but perhaps this isn t the appropriate thread Hu McCulloch Posted Oct 17 2009 at 10 47 AM Permalink Re Rob Wilson 44 Thanks for participating here and for your clarifying remarks You note I will admit that the data description Figure 2 and Table 1 in D Arrigo et al 2006 is somewhat misleading It seems to me at least from the discussion here that certifying your POL series in fact Yamal as representing over 50 cores in the crucial modern calibration period in Figure 2 of your paper is not somewhat misleading but rather highly misleading however inadvertent that may have been at the time You do caution in your paper We should note that replication for TORN POL and TAY Figure 2 did decline to eight or nine series for some select periods but the EPS was never LT 70 However the accompanying figure 2 the NAS version of which is what John A is replicating in 47 above if I understand correctly clearly shows that these deficient periods occurred only in the 11th and 15 16th centuries and therefore do not diminish the statistical significance of the dramatic upturn of your POL Yamal series in the last century So had you known how few cores were represented in the 20th century in the Yamal series would you have used it Also if the coherence in your comment is essentially a moving average correlation between the two series there must be some mistake at the end since the correlation obviously deteriorates dramatically after 1900 bender Posted Oct 17 2009 at 11 09 AM Permalink Re Hu McCulloch 58 had you known how few cores were represented in the 20th century in the Yamal series would you have used it if the coherence in your comment is essentially a moving average correlation between the two series there must be some mistake at the end since the correlation obviously deteriorates dramatically after 1900 I echo these questions I would rephrase the first asking how would you have caveated the usage Regarding the second I would like to know how the calibration statistics change as the amount of data is gradually clipped back from 1990 to priori to the onset of divergence which is 1957 when you compare CRU Yamal to Schweingruber perhaps earlier IMO the issue here is cherry picking chronology substitutions such that the calibration statistics during the divergence period are much higher than prior to the divergence Because this is what generates false hockey sticks steven mosher Posted Oct 17 2009 at 10 16 PM Permalink Re Hu McCulloch 56 Thanks Hu I find it interesting that the EPS dropped to 70 In his other paper one I cited on the millieum project Rob and others esper I beleive used a cut off of 85 for a valid chronology I havent checked if steve has looked at EPS before briffa jones 1990 or vose I cant recall but it struck me as one of those novel statistics So the approach goes something like this they set 85 as a criteria except when a series falls below it So I ve now see 85 cited as a cut off 8 and now 7 Steve I wrote a script to calculate EPS a couple of year ago in connection with Jones et al 1998 It comes from Wigley 1984 not an actual statistics text I might have done a post on it but it might be from pre CA days Ron Cram Posted Oct 17 2009 at 10 20 PM Permalink Re steven mosher 59 I wonder how long it will take to get to 49 Reed Coray Posted Oct 17 2009 at 1 34 PM Permalink RE stan October 16th 2009 at 10 09 am 10 Yet we are constantly being told that peer review in publishing is the gold standard for science and is far superior to any scientific discussions which take place on mere blogs I d say climatology peer review can be better characterized as the pyrite standard chopbox Posted Oct 17 2009 at 10 22 PM Permalink Thank you Rob Wilson for taking the time to talk to us My take on the audience here is that most of us really do want to know and so appreciate your shedding some light on a topic of which you are an expert As always there are people here as elsewhere who are quick to rip please don t let them stop you from talking to the rest of us MikeN Posted Oct 17 2009 at 11 30 PM Permalink My last comment didn t get through Reading the violin paper Rob referred to about the Alps I think his invalid chronology comes form low EPS statistics Micajah Posted Oct 18 2009 at 12 02 AM Permalink In table 1 of D Arrigo et al 2006 there is a column showing the period of time for each chronology during which the number of radii exceeds 10 This seems to imply that having more than 10 ring width series covering a period of time is preferable Is there a generally accepted basis for the preference Hu McCulloch Posted Oct 18 2009 at 4 55 AM Permalink It is now apparent from the lower panel of John A s graph in 47 above or panel 3 of NAS Figure 1 in the head post that a large part of the reason for the high variance of the Polar Urals series before 1800 and particularly before 1100 is small sample size Steve posted Rob Wilson s graph of this series in his Feb 22 2006 post Wilson on Yamal Substitution But if small sample size and high variance in part of the reconstruction period is valid reason to reject the Polar Urals series wouldn t comparably small sample size and high variance in the even more crucial calibration period be an equally valid reason to reject the Yamal series Perhaps Dr Wilson can tell us why this was not done Or if the two sites are close enough to be similar perhaps an even better alternative would have been simply to merge the two into a single series resulting in something similar to the green line in Fig 3 of Steve s 9 27 09 post Why was this not considered Another potential cause of the high early volatility of this series may be that volatility increases with average ring width so that taking logs would give a more homoskedastic series Was this done already or do you think this would help This issue was raised already on Comment 528 of the Gavin s Guru thread but perhaps Dr Wilson hasn t had time to wade through all those comments EW Posted Oct 18 2009 at 5 04 AM Permalink What I would really want to see is a paper about the extended chronology and all archived data from Hantemirov s lab They are the ones who took the samples and processed them and therefore should know everything about them According to HS02 and Methods in the Hantemirov s PhD Thesis abstract there must be galore of living dead and sub fossil data And here 10 12 Briffa s trees are discussed BTW Hantemirov compares their polar Urals data with Salehard meteo station therefore giving it a great importance in the global reconstructions but in the GHCN the data end soon after 2000 Kenneth Fritsch Posted Oct 19 2009 at 9 50 AM Permalink Question Did we gain insights into the Rob Wilson approaches and defenses at the blogosphere or from the peer reviewed litrature Question 2 Do you admonishers really think your suggestions following some ideal peer review process are being heard Is not the process in reality more like find an error in the literature through diligent analyses call the error to public attention through the blogosphere be ignored by the authors or their spoke persons and use that lack of response in your consideration of your overall judgment of them or alternatively receive at least a partial reply without responses to more specific question that again can be used as a basis of judgment on the authors and their science The evidence provided by the responses to these analyses that I have witnessed would seem to support the proposition that the publicizing of the results will not lead directly to any significant and meaningful changes in the processes including peer review but in my view and more importantly lead to valuable information for the thinking person to make judgments about the authors works and approaches This real blog review process that I have described above might find general weaknesses in the peer review process and amongst publishing scientists or it might find problems more uniquely associated with the science and authors in question I would suggest that I distinctly get the feeling that some here are attempting to save restore some ideal system that probably never existed The blogosphere gives us simply another tool for analyzing and judging the peer review process but not directly changing it bender Posted Oct 19 2009 at 10 02 AM Permalink Re Kenneth Fritsch 70 It s a big ship Ken It s going to take some work to deflect its course a little bent out of shape Posted Oct 19 2009 at 10 03 AM Permalink Yes this is a drive by No need for anyone to respond But it would be in poor form to delete right This post makes me chuckle A blog is demanding that someone print a correction to a footnote in a table ironical hypocrisy bender Posted Oct 19 2009 at 10 12 AM Permalink Re bent out of shape 72 Of course your observation won t be deleted Are you interested in why the request is being made There s a back story If you choose to ignore it that s your choice bent out of shape Posted Oct 19 2009 at 11 27 AM Permalink Re bender 74 I understand the motivation for the request Just boiling the story down to the basics What if they posted their correction to the non existent footnote in a table in a blog Would that be adequate If not then you must see the irony hypocrisy no There s something here about goose and gander Or is it pots and kettles bender Posted Oct 19 2009 at 11 35 AM Permalink Re bent out of shape 75 Just boiling the story down to the basics I would say you re focusing an a side act myself There is no irony that I can see The request is symbolic Had we known 10 years ago what Briffa s sample size was we would not be debating this here today We would not be awaiting Briffa s defense Similarly had the Graybill bristlecones been outed 20 years ago when they were known to be flawed we might never have had the debate over MBH98 or Mann et al 2008 Those details matter when you have a Team on an unscrupulous hunt for the right signal Tell me what do you make of the Esper quote bent out of shape Posted Oct 19 2009 at 11 41 AM Permalink Re bender 76 The request is symbolic Huh I don t get this statement could you explain it to me I think it s a communication breakdown no ref to the song bender Posted Oct 19 2009 at 12 01 PM Permalink Re bent out of shape 79 I explain it in the very next paragraph A corrigendum prevents the continual transmission of errors across articles and through time When you are talking about the sample size of the series that has the single biggest impact on global temperature reconstrucitons CRU Yamal larch we are not talking about something trivial The datum that needed to be reported needed to be reported 10 years ago compy Posted Oct 19 2009 at 11 39 AM Permalink Re bent out of shape 75 What if they posted their correction to the non existent footnote in a table in a blog Would that be adequate If not then you must see the irony hypocrisy no Right no I think you are inventing hypocrisy when none exists I personally have nothing against drive bys I just wish the drivers would be make sense bender Posted Oct 19 2009 at 11 41 AM Permalink Re bent out of shape 75 What if they posted their correction to the non existent footnote in a table in a blog That would be a start for sure Irony gone Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 19 2009 at 12 24 PM Permalink Re bent out of shape 75 Actually this Table and footnote has a considerable backstory In Sept 2005 the review of AR4 First Draft took place D Arrigo et al subsequently 2006 was submitted and could be downloaded from the IPCC TSU which I did on Sep 20 2005 date of saved version I immediately noticed that their Table 1 said that they had 155 cores for Polar Urals which was more than the 93 cores in russ021 used in Briffa et al 1995 the coldest year of the millennium I then asked them Sep 20 2005 the same day I ve looked at your interesting D Arrigo et al 2005 submitted I noticed that you used a Polar Urals data set of 155 cores The SChweingruber larch data set russ021 archived at WDCP has 93 cores What accounts for the difference Who did you get the data from Can you send me a copy of the measurement dataset that you used Thanks Steve PS In fact your Figure 2 indicates that a surmise of mine about the older dataset may have been correct I don t see any reply in my email records which are usually pretty complete A few days later Sep 26 I posted a note at CA here on the impact of combining russ176w and russ021w a chronology that is very similar to the corresponding calculations done by Esper and Wilson D Arrigo et al had horrendous data archiving the various chronologies weren t archived the sites used in regional composites weren t identified and many sites remain unarchived to do this day I asked the IPCC Technical Services Unit to obtain the data for me in order to review the article which was cited in the draft I ve recounted the subsequent events which led to Susan Solomon threatening to expel me for asking for data from authors data which in this case remains unavailable to this day So does this information matter You bet it does I noticed something immediately on seeing D Arrigo et al submitted Polar Urals vs Yamal is not a minor issue together with bristlecones it props up the spaghetti graph Readers are entitled to accurate disclosure a reader Posted Oct 19 2009 at 10 10 AM Permalink MangoChutney This is off topic so delete if necessary A E Douglass in 1929 was convinced that sunspot numbers had an effect on tree rings He noticed regularly recurring 11 year cycles in the rings except for 75 years between 1650 1725 That those years were also sunspot free was later confirmed by Dr E Walter Maunder This is from his December 1929 article in National Geographic I don t know if this theory has ever been accepted but apparently extra terrestrial influences have been studied for a long while bender Posted Oct 19 2009 at 12 09 PM Permalink bent The size of Briffa s Yamal sample is not officially on the record It needs to be on the record if IPCC is to make use of that fact People are imploring McIntyre to do his own reconstruction Sure that would be nice But let s start by making the inadequate size of the Briffa sample a matter of public record Let s debate the size of sample required to make the claims that Briffa does Micajah Posted Oct 19 2009 at 12 11 PM Permalink In D Arrigo et al 2006 the caption for figure 2 said Figure 2 Individual regional composite RCS chronologies and their replication Was the Alps sample distribution that purports to be the replication for the RCS chronology also the count for a data set which was not used for the RCS chronology Or is it only POL that purports to show the replication for the data used in the RCS chronology but actually shows the replication for the STD chronology If a significant difference between samples from living trees and others caused a bias in the RCS chronology for the Alps so that a different data set was used how was that bias manifested Is there a similar difference in the Yamal data set which introduces a similar bias into the Yamal RCS chronology bent out of shape Posted Oct 19 2009 at 1 36 PM Permalink Re 80 and 83 So is there enough data available for McIntyre to write a paper on this issue He has shown a lot of graphs on this website I m not talking about a full on reconstruction as bender refers to in 81 it would be interesting to see how his NH temp looks like tho since he knows all of the stats and proxies to do it Steve see Andy Revkin s recent post on this very question and the answer that I gave to him one that none of the commenters actually discussed Unfortunately the statistics that I know Brown and Sundberg etc indicate to me that the proxies are presently too inconsistent to produce a meaningful reconstruction I keep an eye on new papers and new proxies to see if there are any new ones that might help bent out of shape Posted Oct 19 2009 at 4 17 PM Permalink Re bent out of shape 84 so from what I can gather from the post the long and short of it is that yes there is enough to write a paper But you won t write it b

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/16/the-nas-panel-and-polar-urals/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Briffa « Climate Audit
    McIntyre Also posted in Multiproxy Studies Uncategorized Tagged briffa bristlecone deformation Mann mechanical deformation polar urals radial deformation urals Comments 114 Briffa 2013 May 24 2013 2 01 PM Briffa s new paper on Yamal is online today here together with Supplementary Information here Yamal has been a longstanding issue at Climate Audit The new article appears to be their long awaited response to criticism from Climate Audit though this criticism is not referred to anywhere in the aticle In resisting FOI requests for their By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Multiproxy Studies Uncategorized Tagged briffa melvin urals Yamal Comments 114 New Data from the Decline Nov 26 2009 5 12 PM For the very first time the Climategate Letters archived the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of Hide the Decline fame see here Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been hidden in plain sight see here This isn t true The post 1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction By Steve McIntyre Also posted in climategate Uncategorized Tagged decline hide the decline trick Comments 106 Mike s Nature trick Nov 20 2009 9 59 AM 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 By Jean S Also posted in climategate Jones et al 1998 MBH98 Spot the Hockey Stick Tagged jean s trick Comments 430 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 David Stockwell Icecap

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

  • NAS Panel « Climate Audit
    50 Reply from Cicerone of NAS Sep 18 2006 8 11 AM On Aug 12 I wrote to Ralph Cicerone President of NAS asking him to request unarchived data from various authors relied upon by the NAS Panel as follows I enjoyed the opportunity to chat with you during the most recent hearings of the House Energy and Commerce Committee As I have previously written to you By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Archiving Tagged Cicerone North Comments 70 North and NAS on Bristlecones Sep 7 2006 6 22 AM BTW I thought that the Chronicle colloquy was pretty interesting I don t usually get to ask people questions directly so I appreciated that the Chronicle allowed questions through without Gavin Schmidt realclimate censoring Now that I think of it the only other question that I ve been able to ask a climate scientist directly was to Caspar By Steve McIntyre Also posted in bristlecones Tagged bristlecones nas North Comments 43 Pat Frank on North s Seminar Sep 7 2006 4 58 AM Here is Pat Frank s post on North s seminar You should also look at North s answers in the Chronicle Q A session yesterday North has a slide in his presentation entitled Enter the Amateurs If one associates professionalism with care and due diligence one wonders whether he has placed this particular cue at the right location in By Steve McIntyre Tagged North Comments 60 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 David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith

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

  • Yamal and Urals « Climate Audit
    et al 2009 Nov 7 2009 12 56 PM See comments introducing this extremely interesting article UPDATE Since some readers are having routing issues downloading reading this Devi et al paper I have mirrored it here PDF for your convenience Anthony By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Briffa Divergence Tagged devi divergence Comments 119 Taimyr and Yamal Location Maps Nov 6 2009 12 21 PM The following two Google maps show Taimyr and Yamal on consistent scales together with Schweingruber sites in the area The Taimyr chronology in Briffa 2000 as you may recall not only didn t have HS but had a notable divergence problem I ve tried to accurately transcribe onto this location map the Naurzbaev 2002 sites subfossil By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Briffa Tagged taimyr Yamal Comments 32 Core Count in Phil Trans B Nov 5 2009 9 34 AM The Yamal reconstruction was introduced in Briffa 2000 a survey paper that did not include elementary information like core counts As a result users of the Briffa 2000 Yamal reconstruction including Mann and Jones 2003 Moberg 2005 Hegerl 2007 D Arrigo 2006 IPCC 2007 etc used it without any knowledge that the core counts did not By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Briffa Tagged briffa 2008 core count urals Yamal Comments 52 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 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/category/proxies/yamal-and-urals/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • nas « Climate Audit
    his nominal boss but who was always outwitted by Sir Humphrey Each episode would start off with the By Steve McIntyre Posted in Barton Committee NAS Panel News and Commentary Also tagged boehlert Cicerone Comments 31 One observer s report on the NAS panel Mar 4 2006 4 51 AM I thought this was too good a report to be buried in a comment thread but deserves a wider audience By John A Posted in NAS Panel News and Commentary Comments 92 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 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

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

  • urals « Climate Audit
    foi yamal khadyta Yamal Comments 239 Yamal and Hide the Decline Apr 9 2011 3 28 PM In The Climate Files Fred Pearce wrote When I phoned Jones on the day the emails were published online and asked him what he thought was behind it he said It s about Yamal I think Pearce continued p 53 The word turns up in 100 separate emails more than hockey stick or any other totem By Steve McIntyre Posted in climategate Uncategorized Also tagged khadyta oxburgh vaganov Yamal Comments 94 CRU We had never undertaken any reanalysis Aug 10 2010 9 56 PM At the close of Boulton s April 9 interview with CRU the only such interview relevant to the proxy reconstruction controversies that constitute 99 of the Climategate emails Boulton 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 polar urals taimyr Yamal Comments 21 McIntyre Submission with Figures Feb 26 2010 3 58 PM My submission to the UK Parliamentary Committee is here this version excludes figures Here is a pdf version with illustrations In my situation which is a little shall we say unique it s hard to figure out exactly where to start So I tried to cover topics that I didn t think anyone else would By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged muir russell parliament Yamal Comments 120 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

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

  • Archiving « Climate Audit
    in Data Disclosure and Diligence NAS Panel Comments 93 Nature Reports on CRU Stonewalling Aug 12 2009 12 16 PM Nature reported today on the CRU data requests I was interviewed at length last Thurs followup Friday by Olive Heffernan of Nature They even asked for a photograph I haven t seen the article yet More after I see the story Update There is an additional discussion at the Nature Blog Behave nicely Update my picture By Steve McIntyre Also posted in CRU Nature Comments 72 Glenn McGregor Data Archiving not required by the International Journal of Climatology Dec 28 2008 7 03 PM After nearly 2 months and several inquiries the editor of the International Journal of Climatology has finally said that they do not require authors to provide supporting data Given that funding agencies rely on academic journals to ensure that authors archive data improperly abdicating their own responsibilities the moral of this should be that the By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Peer Review Santer Tagged International Journal of Climatology National Science Foundation Peer Review Comments 139 Another Brick in the Wall Dec 7 2008 6 56 AM After years of effort the chronologies of Briffa et al 2001 were recently made public although the date on which these became public is itself clouded in mystery Update this minor mystery is clarified it looks like the data was unlocked on Sep 9 2008 the day after my FOI request but before my By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Briffa Comments 23 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

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

  • Hegerl 2006 « Climate Audit
    experience By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Archiving IPCC Tagged d arrigo hegerl manning o dowd solomon wilson Comments 116 The Independent 2006 Multiproxy Studies Dec 18 2006 2 03 PM 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 By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Briffa Juckes et al 2006 Comments 36 Willis on Hegerl Oct 25 2006 10 02 PM Willis writes A couple of things First I ve digitized all of the Hegerl proxy data and placed it here I sampled it at three year intervals and interpolated the actual years Second I took a look at their reconstruction method They say The first step of the reconstruction technique is to scale the individual proxy By Steve McIntyre Comments 16 My Hegerl Predictions Results Oct 25 2006 12 16 PM The reconstruction in Hegerl et al J Clim was previously used in Hegerl et al Nature which provided some information on the number of series and some other particulars but did not identify the series In order to show how farcical the Hockey Team claims of independence were I made guesses last spring about the By Steve McIntyre Tagged gaspe hegerl Comments 40 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 David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan

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