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".
  • Thompson « Climate Audit
    speleothem Comments 98 IPCC and the Dunde Variations Feb 3 2008 12 33 PM There s not much in climate science that annoys me more than the sniveling acquiescence of government bureaucrats in Lonnie Thompson s flouting of data archiving policies To his credit Thompson has collected unique data To his shame Thompson has failed to archive data collected as long as 20 years ago This would be bad enough if By Steve McIntyre Posted in Thompson Also tagged dunde Comments 21 Gleanings on Bona Churchill Nov 12 2007 9 43 AM In 2002 Lonnie Thompson drilled a 460 meter ice core in a col between Mounts Bona and Churchill in Alaska As of October 2003 they had analyzed over 5600 samples and concluded that the core covered approximately 2500 years A presentation was made at AGU in December 2004 The data was not discussed in IPCC By Steve McIntyre Posted in Thompson Also tagged bona churchill Comments 74 Cicerone of NAS Acquiesces in Data Obstruction Jul 30 2007 7 12 AM Lonnie Thompson s work is prominently cited by Al Gore was cited by the NAS panel of Surface Temperature Reconstructions and is used both in temperature reconstructions and in articles arguing that there was no MWP One of the remarkable aspects of Thomspon s corpus is both that the original sample data is unarchived even for By Steve McIntyre Posted in Archiving Also tagged Cicerone pnas Comments 128 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

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

  • Jacoby Archiving « Climate Audit
    me guess The goal of the mission has not been archived either Paul Posted Jul 2 2005 at 10 18 AM Permalink From Jacoby s response to you in the mission oriented link A lesser amount of good data is better without a copious amount of poor data stirred in This is true but to paraphrase Bill Clinton it depends on your definition of good data I could understand it if his description of bad data included things like tree rot or whatever But reading his full response he is clearly filtering the data by the signal he sees not the physical quality of the sample Is there a common low frequency signal among the trees At a good temperature sensitive site with good trees there is This clearly biases his results Of course this still begs the whole question of how you can extract a temperature signal from tree ring widths The width of a ring depends on at least five variables temperature water sunlight CO2 and soil fertility but the width only provides a single equation Basic math requires four more equations to solve for all five unknowns What are the other independent measurements that will provide them Oh well Semper Fi Wonka Posted Jul 2 2005 at 11 46 AM Permalink Of Jacoby et al maybe we should say they are omission oriented Jim Carson Posted Jul 4 2005 at 12 15 PM Permalink The drug trial analogy is incomplete Jacoby clearly states that the 26 patients should not be heard from again Dr McIntyre will have fully arrived when he receives correspondence that begins Steve you ignorant slut Jeff Alberts Posted Mar 6 2013 at 10 09 AM Permalink Wizard of Oz science at it s best don t look behind the curtain just be in awe of the results One Trackback By Kaufman et al Obstructed by Thompson and Jacoby Climate Audit on Jun 27 2011 at 8 34 PM In 2005 I tried to get the NSF to intervene and require Jacoby to archive his data completely They refused 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2005/07/02/jacoby-archiving/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Barton Committee « Climate Audit
    A Also posted in MBH98 News and Commentary Comments 277 Survivor Season 8 the Hockey Team the Mann Overboard Episode Jul 22 2006 11 20 AM Well back from Washington I m not very good at describing reactions and impressions and touchy feely stuff like that I m more comfortable describing what s different with the 53rd and 84th series out of 112 but I ll try By Steve McIntyre Also posted in NAS Panel News and Commentary Tagged barton wegman Comments 277 Grapevine Mann to testify on 27th July Jul 21 2006 1 20 PM This just in Apparently Dr Michael Mann is to testify in front of the Whitfield Subcommittee I think on July 27th at 2pm EDT I assume that our readers want to tune in to see what happens By John A Also posted in MBH98 Comments 160 Whitfield SubCommittee Edward Wegman Testimony Jul 19 2006 9 25 AM Wegman goes through his conclusions in the report Highlights The decentering error preferentially produces Hockey Sticks Decentering has a big effect on reconstruction With proper centering the Hockey Stick shape disappears Dr Mann has unusually large reach with the other 43 authors Peer review is not as independent as would normally be the By John A Also posted in News and Commentary Comments 178 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/reports/barton-committee/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Lost Cedars #2 « Climate Audit
    000 repetitions satisfy your always be a hockey stick criteria Peter Hearnden Posted Apr 28 2005 at 6 58 AM Permalink Michael I ll be honest I haven t seen where the owners of this site have invited JH to re post Where is it Steve McIntyre Posted Apr 28 2005 at 8 11 AM Permalink Children children let s not flame Peter it s not a matter of trust it s a matter of replication I m surprised that it s an issue Any corporation offering securities to the public has to be audited As I often mention I sometimes feel like an anthropologist in the land of academics since my experience is different For example a one hour peer review is a lot different than the audit of a bank People often point out that business audits don t always work e g Enron But that doesn t mean that you shouldn t audit financial statements My point is that peer review in climate science is a very limited form of due diligence and that prior to applying unaudited results in public policy some form of engineering equivalent due diligence is surely needed It s not a matter of trust Regards Steve Michael Mayson Posted Apr 28 2005 at 8 26 AM Permalink Re 26 John H thanks for the reference to http www pacificresearch org Their publication 2005 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators is a positively welcome relief from the outpourings of government funded doom and gloom agencies Spence UK Posted Apr 28 2005 at 10 33 AM Permalink Re 27 sorry about picking up the vCJD discussion I think it is an interesting case study in respect of both how science conducts itself and how media and politics respond to science but you are right in saying it is off topic for this discussion I recognise a lot of what you say regarding reviewing papers although I would stress the difference in rigour required for statistical studies over normal scientific studies The reasons for this are simple statistical studies if not properly conducted are always open to dangers such as subconcious data selection For this reason a different level of rigour is required and usually applied This is why study protocols are wise together with archiving all data both accepted and rejected data Of course even this is open to abuse but it prevents the subconcious introduction of errors or bias This is important as such things can quickly and easily invalidate basic statistical tests which carry an in built assumption about sampling enabling false results to be reported Spence UK Posted Apr 28 2005 at 10 52 AM Permalink I don t think any of us know anything about John A I certainly don t Yet you Steve know enough about John Hunter somehow to ALLEGE he might be a worry for John A How I think that is especially for a scientist about a fellow scientist a ungracious thing to imply or allege Peter I disagree with this Strictly speaking through the anonymity of the internet we don t really know anything about people who post to blogs So it is not a question that Steve knows enough about John H to assess him as a risk more that Steve knows insufficient about John H to assess him as being safe The two are very different comparisons as any good statistician will tell you I can fully understand the desire to remain anonymous on these topics I would say the environmentalist lobby are second only to the animal rights lobby in the UK for extreme and often illegal tactics to impose their viewpoint on others Being from the UK you may be aware of the recent scandal in which animal rights activists stole the remains of the dead mother of a farmer who bred animals for scientific research Now I m not saying anyone is here to do that but with these kinds of sick extreme activities becoming more common in the UK coupled with the extreme lengths environmental protesters could be willing to extend to I fully understand John A s desire for anonymity I stress although I shouldn t have to that I am not saying John Hunter or whoever is posting as John Hunter is likely to do this but just pointing out that through the anonymity of the internet we cannot really be sure of who we are communicating with and a request for anonymity is not so unreasonable If technical discussions are required Steve is available and easily contacted Otherwise I think it would be better if we focus on the science not on the personalities involved Michael Ballantine Posted Apr 28 2005 at 9 38 PM Permalink Re 30 31 32 Peter in 11 I asked JH to repost and I asked Steve and John to let it through so we could all see what JH was so upset about There has been no objection from Steve or John but JH appears to have declined the invitation in favour of more of the same old same old Oh well As for the colloquial definitions of BSc MSc and PhD they were taught to me many years ago by a PhD who had earned my respect It is most unfortunate that he has never needed to change his opinion of credentials He earned his so he could get his foot in the door of his chosen field It is the only time that I am aware of that he ever used them There is nothing inherently wrong with a PhD and I do know many fine PhDs It s just that too many people who earn them never live up to them and it tarnishes the reputation Maybe if they needed to be reearned every 10 years Paul Gosling Posted Apr 29 2005 at 2 18 AM Permalink Re 35 I have to admit that my research career has been almost exclusively based on nice replicated experimental work requiring fairly basic statistical analysis rather than complex multivariate analyses which is why I tend to stay out of discussions about statistics However though Mann et al 98 has been discredited the rest of the hockey team have produced similar results Are you saying that they are all making the same statistical errors or is the argument now about the validity of their data sets The big problems seem to be with the bristlecone pines and the Gaspe cedars do all the hockey stick reconstructions rely on one or both of these data sets Steve McIntyre Posted Apr 29 2005 at 6 44 AM Permalink Re 38 Paul this seems to be the next order of business In my opinion none of these other studies is robust at all although the details tend to be different As an aside the other multiproxy studies are not independent as ordinary people understand the terms either in authorship or proxy selection If you look down the masthead you see that Jones Briffa Mann Bradley Hughes Cook are coauthors in pretty much every multiproxy study If you look at the proxies they overlap I ve got a long of work in hand in Jones et al 1998 You can probably see where I m going with this from my postings on Polar Urals and Tornetrask Jones et al 1998 has only 3 proxies in the 11th century 2 of which are Polar Urals and Tornetrask each of these subsidiary studies has lots of problems In fact if you take out the section of the Polar Urals record based on only 3 badly crossdated cores you get a quite different result Polar Urals is used in nearly every study Jacoby s northern treeline study is problematic if you simulate the choice of the 10 most temperature sensitive of 36 sites by simply picking the most hockey stick shaped series from 36 red noise series you get something that looks like Jacoby s reconstruction This reconstruction is used endemically Briffa et al 2001 shows declining 20th century values after 1950 and simply invents a hypothesis of an unknown anthropogenic impact I m going to post up on this They usually delete post 1960 values in spaghetti graphs with this one in The 387 sites used in this study are drawn presumably from Schweingruber collections but I have been unable to get a listing of these sites to analyze further Briffa also notes a 20th century decline in ring widths and densities over hundreds of chronologies Yet when you look at the tree ring sites selected into multiproxy studies you will see sites with big 20th century pulses Yamal has a late pulse and gets included There sure seems to be cherry picking but it s hard to quantify exactly This is something that I m working on Thompson s Dunde data has a hockey stick pattern and recurs There are different grey versions and 17 years after drilling the sample data has not been archived other than decadal averages archived last year in response to my complaining to Climatic Change There are problems with this series Crowley and Lowery 2000 uses 2 bristlecone pine series Polar Urals Tornetrask and Dunde These impart the hockey stick shape to CL2000 CL2000 actually has more of a Moberg shape with a MWP similar to mid 20th century Mann and Jones 2003 use the North American PC1 bristlecone pines I don t know how the weighting works in this but my surmise is that the hockey stick shape is an imprint from this The data from Esper et al 2002 is not archived Here I m interested in the impact of the Modern Sample Bias noted by Melvin and which I posted on I m also interested in altitude changes in tree ring sites It makes no sense to me to ignore altitude changes as Briffa does at Polar Urals This also seems to affect bristlecones How can one possibly reconcile the evidence of high medieval treelines well above modern levels at both Polar Urals and bristlecone sites with claims of coldness in these periods Especially without a systematic discussion In my opinion there s a lot of hair on every one of these other studies Regards Steve McIntyre Spence UK Posted Apr 29 2005 at 7 30 AM Permalink Re 38 Steve has already given a very thorough discussion on this topic but I would try to summarise my views on this 1 These discussions are often about the input data to these studies which is often common to several of the reconstructions so statistical flaws may affect more than one study 2 The historical reconstructions really don t agree well at all within the bounds that the proxies measure temperature over which may be limited see 3 the spread of the reconstructions is as large as the underlying signal 3 We make the assumption that the proxy response is linear and can be extrapolated this may not be the case Most of the reconstructions stop around 1980 and then only have the CRU temperature beyond this But the proxies may not register higher temperatures in the same way the instrumentation does This is why it is critical that the proxies are bought up to date if the current highest temperatures are not reflected in the proxies today why should it show up 1000 years ago 4 The von Storch paper indicates that multi proxy studies may underestimate past temperature fluctuations another reason to question whether the conclusions being drawn from these reconstructions are valid or useful Paul Gosling Posted Apr 29 2005 at 9 34 AM Permalink I would not expect the dendrochronology data to have a linear relationship to temperature at either end of the temperature extreme At the upper end drought is likely and at the lower end i would expect late frosts to have a disproportionate effect Though this is only supposition not from direct knowledge Michael Jankowski Posted Apr 29 2005 at 3 31 PM Permalink Re 41 At the upper end drought is likely Is it any more likely than rainy deluge I thought a warmer world was supposed to be a wetter one Ed Snack Posted Apr 29 2005 at 5 59 PM Permalink Paul I agree that significantly cold temperatures could lead to a pproblem with frosts and other inhibitors of growth however i would be more cautious on the immediate linking of heat with drought In most of the sites under question the overall high temperatures are not of the sahara desert level and increases in temeprature could well be associated with additional precipitation rather than a rediction However the idea that temperature is not the primary driver is indeed worth serious investigation as it seems quite evident that at some sites such as the Bristlecone Pines that is indeed the case What does seem and is still being followed up as Steve indicates is the feeling that most reconstructions seem to assume that any modern spikes in the dendro record are temperature related while any non spikes are due to other factors preventing the temperature spike showing through The records often seem selected on this basis Jacoby being a prime example So almost regardless of what the results are this research is worth doing Poor science should not be covered up because it provides the resulots some people want to hear If the reconstructions are solid then a properly carried out investigation will show this Replication is a valuable technique in contentious areas and getting down to the data is essential John Hunter Posted Apr 30 2005 at 1 03 AM Permalink Once again Steve ignores the difficult questions I asked in posting 26 I take this to mean that if I gave Mann a set of proxies constructed from random numbers then the resulting RECONSTRUCTION would ALWAYS be a hockeystick Do you agree with this If not are you going to address it audit it and have it corrected Please note that Michael Jankowski continues the confusion introduced originally by Steve in mixing up PCs with RECONSTRUCTIONS by saying posting 29 Does a pronounced hockey stick shaped PC1 over 99 of the time in 10 000 repetitions satisfy your always be a hockey stick criteria no of course it doesn t as I have argued a number of times a PC is NOT the same as a reconstruction It would appear that Steve s original spin on suggesting that PCs are equivalent to RECONSTRUCTIONS has now travelled far and wide I m sure that he is as pleased about this as he is reticent about answering my pertinent questions at the beginning of this posting As for Michael Ballantine s rant posting 30 about But when you are given an open invitation to publish exactly what you claim was censored you ignore it and go back to whining about not getting information that is none of your business when I originally posted the comment that Steve subsequently censored I was taking Steve at his word and assuming it WOULD NOT be censored I therefore did not keep a copy assuming it would appear on climateaudit However if Steve did keep a copy then he is welcome to publish it I can assure you that the only thing anyone might find offensive about it is the fact that some of you may not agree with it contents Steve McIntyre Posted Apr 30 2005 at 3 45 AM Permalink The weights in Mann s 15th century reconstruction are such that about 90 of the variance is explained by the North American PC1 and the Gaspe series So conclusions about the PC1 and Gaspe apply to the 15th century reconstruction Mann s reconstruction is not robust to the presence absence of the PC4 in a centered calculation and also to the presence absence of the flawed bristlecone pine proxies which are mined by the MBH98 procedure I ve not said that a PC is equivalent to a reconstruction I think that our observations have been expressed quite clearly In the case of Gaspe the form of cherrypicking is a little different than the PC1 Mann et al changed their protocols to insert a hockey stick shaped series so that 15th century results would be lowered and then misrepresented the start date in the publication In financial statements if you treat one account differently you would have to disclose it in a footnote and special treatment of one account would raise all kinds of red flags with auditors This form of behavior is over and above the PC1 modeling However I ve experimented with making selections from red noise mentioned in connection with Jacoby and I m satisfied that you can produce hockey sticks by cherrypicking as well I plan to write an article on this The regression module of MBH98 also accentuates hockey stick shaped series especially in the 15th century I have obviously made concerted efforts to obtain source code to reconcile these results If an examination of Mann s source code disproves any of my observations I will amend any observations that require amending and send appropriate notice to pacificresearch org I think that your priority should be to get Mann to archive his source code in a public location so that these matters can be determined once and for all The posting in question was Hunter continuing to seek personal information on John A I had already expressed my position on this I would classify the posting as tiresome rather than offensive given that my position on this was asked and answered Contrary to the implication above I did not give Hunter an open invitation to continue this line of posting I had provided notice that I was not going to continue to discuss John A with Hunter endlessly and will not do so in the future and do not plan to argue endlessly about Hunter s past post on this topic I have not and will not censor posts discussing principal components I do not promise to attend to every comment on this list as it would be impossible for me to do so as I m trying to do other things as well I do read every comment and try to respond to some comments It s a bit random what I respond to I ve already responded to a disproportionate number of Hunter s comments John Hunter Posted May 1 2005 at 5 16 AM Permalink Steve It is ironic that the very first paragraph of your article at the top of this thread contains the word stonewalling I think that most people would regard your response posting 45 to my simple questions in posting 26 repeated in posting 44 as an excellent example of sonewalling Let me try again The document 2005 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators at http www pacificresearch org contains the clear and unambiguous statement Scientists have shown that the process used to generate Mann s graph would generate the same result from any series of random numbers I presume that this statement is an interpretation of your own findings as you have described them to the public I understand this statement to mean that if I gave Mann a set of proxies constructed from random numbers then the resulting RECONSTRUCTION would ALWAYS be a hockeystick Now I would like to know whether you agree with either of these two statements This requites simply a yes or a no or possibly a I don t know If it is either no or I don t know then I would also like to know whether you intend to address this issue audit the statement by the Pacific Research Institute and have it corrected Is this a lot to ask Your credibility depends on your response Steve I think that most people would regard my response 45 as answering your question If anyone else besides you feels otherwise I ll look at this some more but as of now I think that the question is asked and answered see 45 John Hunter Posted May 1 2005 at 5 13 PM Permalink Steve you are still apparently incapable of answering a simple yes or no However I would interpret your response posting 45 however I ve experimented with making selections from red noise mentioned in connection with Jacoby and I m satisfied that you can produce hockey sticks by cherrypicking as well to indicate a very definite NO i e if I gave Mann a set of proxies constructed from random numbers then the resulting reconstruction would NOT always be a hockeystick Of course as is well known and practised in contrarian circles you can produce almost any result you like by cherrypicking but such proofs don t prove anything To summarise for those who are baffled by your continuing evasiveness the statement by the Pacific Research Institute that scientists have shown that the process used to generate Mann s graph would generate the same result from any series of random numbers is WRONG and you apparently agree that it is WRONG So now Steve are you going to do the honest thing and get the Pacific Research Institute to correct their statement which is essentially just a promotion of their anti warming case Steve As you phrase it if I gave Mann a set of proxies constructed from random numbers then the resulting reconstruction would NOT always be a hockeystick I would be inclined to say that if you had given Mann a double blind test with a set of red noise proxies that he would have produced a hockey stick using his methods which include the PC method cherrypicking e g Gaspe deletion of series if that is better for our purposes and overweighting in his regression module You said you can produce almost any result you like by cherrypicking but this proves nothing My point exactly Mann has proven nothing Please convey that to your associates Dave Dardinger Posted May 1 2005 at 11 42 PM Permalink re 47 In addition to what Steve responded you need to modify your always produce a hockeystick to almost always produce a hockeystick Then he could answer yes The method which tends to give hockeysticks is quite simple Any largish grouping of randomly produced proxies will have some with hockey stickish sections at the sensitive point This will automatically give them a high weighing when the calculations are done by the method of Mann98 But occasionally especially if we re not talking an unlimited number of proxy series there won t be a hockeystick in the appropriate spot in any of them and thus the need for almost John Hunter Posted May 2 2005 at 1 09 AM Permalink Steve so the truth of the Pacific Research Institute s statement scientists have shown that the process used to generate Mann s graph would generate the same result from any series of random numbers now relies entirely on an assumption of persistent cherrypicking by Mann et al of ANY random input data that you give them Steve I have edited this comment to delete sentences containing inappropriate terms like dishonest or conspiracy whether John Hunter is applying the term to someone else or to me and to delete a sentence containing more endless haranguing about John A In the future I will not take the time to edit out such terms from John Hunter s posts but will delete such posts As to the question the answer is no John Hunter Posted May 2 2005 at 2 35 AM Permalink Steve and Dave Ah now Dave has come up with a different story posting 48 which presumably does not resort to Mann et al having to cherrypick the data Dave s mechanism seems to depend on an adaptive weighting process inherent in the Mann et al technique Presumably either Steve or Dave have done a Monte Carlo experiment with the Mann et al processing method but WITHOUT any cherrypicking and can statistically quantify what Dave means by almost This of course begs two questions 1 If the Mann et al processing technique almost always satisfies the statement of the Pacific Research Institute then why did Steve need to raise the issue of malicious cherrypicking at all 2 If cherrypicking IS part of the story then what on earth is the relevance of Dave s almost always theory If Mann et al are going to cherrypick then surely they would do a thorough job and ensure that the statement of the Pacific Research Institute is ALWAYS true Perhaps Steve and Dave should get together privately and produce a consistent and believable story Steve McIntyre Posted May 2 2005 at 6 39 AM Permalink John re 49 and 50 first of all the term nearly always is exactly what we said in our GRL article We showed that the Mann method produced hockey stick shaped PC1s over 99 of the time from red noise We did so by carrying out a Monte Carlo experiment If you read our GRL paper you can see this You can also examine the source code for this which has been archived at the GRL FTP site The issue of cherrypicking was raised in our EE article in connection with the Gaspe tree ring series which was prominently discussed in our EE article In that article we reported that Mann et al had carried out a unique extrapolation of the Gaspe series that had the effect of lowering 15th century results under their method We also pointed out that they had misrepresented the start date of the Gaspe series in the original publication As a result no reviewer or reader without specifically crosschecking the WDCP data against the as used data would not know of this unique cherrypicking extrapolation Steve Michael Jankowski Posted May 2 2005 at 11 23 AM Permalink Re 44 Sorry to confuse you If PC1 comes out to be hockey shaped 99 of the time using Mann s methodology and fed random noise and PC1 is the dominant pattern according to MBH98 PC1 was 38 of the North American variation in MBH98 then it seems very likely to me that the resulting reconstruction will be hockey shaped in nature Steve McIntyre Posted May 2 2005 at 11 53 AM Permalink Michael actually Mann does not seem to be currently contesting this issue At first he denied that the PC method produced hockey sticks from red noise but after the point was acknowledged by von Storch Zweiers Hubert he more or less conceded that this issue in comments to the Wall Street Journal moving his defence to the claim that this erroneous method did not matter He did not withdraw his previous denial at realclimate however Steve John Hunter Posted May 2 2005 at 4 54 PM Permalink Re 51 52 and 53 Steve and Michael seem to have come full circle and are again confusing PC1 with a reconstruction I think realclimate accepts that the Mann et al technique does generate a hockeystick shaped PC1 from random data But what they also say is that such patterns only explain a tiny fraction of the variance of the random input data so OTHER PCs have to be included in the final reconstruction Michael s posting 52 is of course rubbish just because with one particular data set PC1 is the dominant pattern DOES NOT mean that PC1 is the dominant pattern with ANY e g random input data So Steve I have been asking for this for a while Please do a full Monte Carlo simulation using random input data and The Mann et al procedures WITHOUT any cherrypicking and show us the statistics of the RECONSTRUCTIONS i e how many look like hockeysticks Only once you have done this can we move on to the issue of cherrypicking Steve Show me where realclimate has acknowledged that the Mann technique yields hockey stick shaped PC1s Mann denied it in a response to a question from Steve Hemphill so they need to come clean about it Please read some of my postings on PC significance if you put tech stocks in the data matrix they are significant under a Presisendorfer test that doesn t make them temperature proxies All of their arguments are just attempts to get bristlecone pines into the mix where one series dominates the reconstruction We have shown that Mann s reconstruction lacks statistical skill R2 of 0 0 that he withheld the R2 statistic that the reconstruction is not robust to the presence absence of bristlecone pines that MBH s claims of robustness to all dendroclimatic indicators were a misrepresentation that proxies essential to the hockey stick shape are flawed Right now Mann has not responded to any of these points except with completely invalid arguments about Preisendorfer significance I would like a little broader understanding of these points before introducing a new line of argument Right now my priority is to work on some of the other Hockey Team articles I m in the middle of several interesting projects If Mann makes his code public I ll probably change my schedules and do another round on MBH I think that he s eventually going to be forced to disclose his code sooner rather than later and I d rather wait and do simulations using actual code Steve John Hunter Posted May 2 2005 at 6 49 PM Permalink Steve Another Hunter post contained the term dishonest and has been deleted Peter Hearnden Posted May 3 2005 at 4 58 AM Permalink Re 55 well McIntyre being referred to by your surname not nice is it we don t know the context who it was allegedly directed at or the why of it But if the use of dishonest is to be censored why did you allow John A the Mod here to post this thread header http www climateaudit org index php p 171 And why was he allowed to describe the sentence with the word dishonesty in it as a zinger of a first sentence Because of the letter y or because of double standards Copy taken Steve Peter I was hoping not to have to try to develop and administer policies on flames The standard that I used for Hunter was this was this a form of expression that I would allow myself to use in making a posting about someone else In this case it wasn t I can see some points of distinction between John A s post and Hunter s First the comment was from a public conference Second the quote was not personal I can see arguments the other way as well I very much try to avoid making personal comments and to simply comment on the text You can perhaps find some inconsistencies but it s still something that I try to do and am pretty consistent about doing In some cases text comments can be pretty strong For example I have stated quite clearly that Mann et al have made various misrepresentations about their methods that s a comment on various texts and typically the record speaks for itself No one has ever contradicted any such claim that I have made I do not comment about whether those misrepresentations were intentional accidental or malicious Other people may choose to pursue such matters but I do not have access to original drafts and documents and simply am not in a position to comment formally although I have personal views For now I have other things to do besides developing flame policies and will respond somewhat situationally Now try posting something critical at realclimate and come back and tell me if you still have a complaint Steve Michael Jankowski Posted May 3 2005 at 12 02 PM Permalink Re 54 I gave you an example from Steve s research If you were familiar with M M s works you would know that the NOAMER PC1 is the most influential series on the hockey stick s final shape you apparently read the take from the realclimate folks so why not read M M s works to see the take from the other side If NOAMER PC1 is hockey stick shaped 99 of the time when fed random noise and if it is the most infludential series how often do you think the reconstruction would also be hockey stick shaped John Hunter Posted May 4 2005 at 12 36 AM Permalink Michael re posting 57 Sorry but we must be talking at cross purposes The experiment that I want Steve to perform is to feed the Mann et al procedures with time series composed of random numbers These will generate there own PCs of which PC1 will have something like a hockeystick shape I think we agree on this although it will clearly only explain a very small part of the variance of the original random data Now NOAMER refers to the North American tree ring network from which McIntyre and McKitrick in their GRL paper derived the autocorrelation function used to generate the random data in their Monte Carlo experiment In this experiment they found that the Mann et al procedures mostly produced a hockeystick shaped PC1 I think you are confusing two meanings of PC1 In MBH 1999 the PC1 of the NOAMER network called ITRDB by MBH was used as a proxy record In McIntyre and McKitrick s GRL paper they used the NOAMER proxy records but NOT the NOAMER PC1 to derive autocorrelation functions from which to generate random data in their Monte Carlo experiment in which they found that the Mann et al procedures yielded a hockeystick shaped PC1 I therefore do not understand what you mean by if NOAMER PC1 is hockey stick shaped 99 of the time when fed random noise and if it is the most influential series how often do you think the reconstruction would also be hockey stick shaped What do you mean by NOAMER PC1 the proxy series used by MBH 1999 or the PC1 derived from the Mann et al procedures using random data with the same autocorrelation function as the NOAMER proxies How do you feed random noise into the NOAMER PC1 Perhaps Steve can help here Perhaps you should note that the NOAMER proxies hardly have any bearing on the experiment I want Steve to perform they could be used to provide the autocorrelation function from which the random input data is derived as in McIntyre and McKitrick s GRL paper or alternatively they would not be used at all and the autocorrelation function would be derived from some other reasonable source As to your final question how often do you think the reconstruction would also be hockey stick shaped My tentative answer would be hardly ever but we won t know for certain until Steve actually does the experiment Michael Jankowski Posted May 4 2005 at 9 48 AM Permalink How do you feed random noise into the NOAMER PC1 Ɀ You don t a typo omission on my part My statement if NOAMER PC1 is hockey stick shaped 99 of the time when fed random noise should have inserted the words Mann s algorithm before the word fed Perhaps you should note that the NOAMER proxies hardly have any bearing on the experiment I want Steve to perform But they have very much to do with Mann s reconstructions as did the question I asked you hard to tell if your response is related to Mann s reconstructions or the experiment you want to see Michael Ballantine Posted May 4 2005 at 11 39 AM Permalink John Hunter Will you please stop wasting everybody s time asking for a Monte Carlo experiment of Mann s procedure until such time as he makes his code public In case you missed it Steve has already indicated that he will probably do it when the code is available and

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2005/04/26/lost-cedars-2/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • climatic change « Climate Audit
    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 on the Reply link to respond

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

  • gaspe « Climate Audit
    Urals Data Sep 11 2005 5 53 AM Just as an experiment I plotted up all the ring widths for the Gaspé and Polar Urals sites with each core displaced a little What I was thinking of the type of graph that you see in seismic surveys The look is interesting given how much weight is placed downstream on these data sets in By Steve McIntyre Posted in Jacoby Jones et al 1998 Proxies Also tagged urals Comments 8 Lost Cedars 2 Apr 26 2005 6 52 AM I might as well illustrate real time frustrations in dealing with the Hockey Team I ve written back on Jacoby s stonewalling to Climatic Change who have been trying and who at least got a refusal from Jacoby as follows By Steve McIntyre Posted in General Jacoby Proxies Also tagged climatic change jacoby Comments 79 Jacoby s Lost Gaspé Cedars Apr 25 2005 9 54 PM I ve been trying for over a year to get a location for the Gaspé cedars Jacoby as a Hockey Team member refuses to provide such mundane information At one point Ed Cook another Hockey Team member promised to provide the information but failed to deliver Now Jacoby has told Climatic Change that the cedar location By Steve McIntyre Posted in Jacoby Proxies Comments 28 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

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

  • The Updated Gaspé Series « Climate Audit
    cedar specialists at the University of Guelph Larson Kelly who were very dubious to say the least about whether cedars could be used as a temperature proxy They ve studied hundreds of cedars for over a decade and said that they like cool moist conditions an upside down U As to checking site conditions I asked JAcoby for the location of the Gaspe site He said that they did not know whether the original trees were sampled as it was done pre GPS unconvincing to someone who s worked with geologists and wouldn t say where the second sample was taken place I was going to get someone to check the site Pretty frustrating Cheers Steve Martin Wilmking Posted Sep 25 2005 at 1 17 PM Permalink Thanks for getting back to this but what data is actually behind that graph any information on how many trees contributed to it as i can see from the very limited information on the graph those two curves are not necessarily contradictory they might be from the same site same species but different individuals reacting differently to similar climatic conditions you mentioned cedars seems to like cool moist conditions the blue curve might just show that its not so cool and moist of course that leaves the pink line and i agree it would need some more investigation possible that those individuals can take advantage of microsite conditions moist sites to answer a question like that it would be necessary to how many trees contributed to each curve by the way is this data detrended or is the y axis mm Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 25 2005 at 1 51 PM Permalink You ll have to ask Gordon Jacoby Their answers to me were very unsatisfactory There are 29 cores from by memory about 15 20 trees in the original 1982 series archived as cana036 You ll probably have more luck than me They completely stonewall me At the time I was interested in the series primarily because of its extraordinary impact on MBH98 results It was the ONLY series out of over 400 which Mann extrapolated at the beginning He did this to get it into his 15th century reconstruction where it brought down the 15th century result significantly I was criticla of the extrapolation the quality of the 15h century portion 1 tree for many years the invalidity of the cedars as temperature proxy the failure to disclose the extrapolation the misrepresentation of the start date of the series in the article so that no one without crosschecking as I did against original data would have known about the unique extrapolation This series and the bristlecones are what drive MBH98 in the 15th century reconstruction The y axis is dimensionless units in a usual chronology 1 instead of 1000 I m 99 99 sure that the pink series was created using ARSTAN with negative exponential options I ve replicated this calculation as a check on some of the software that I

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/09/the-updated-gaspe-series/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • MBH98 « Climate Audit
    PM The SI for MBH98 listed 34 tree ring series that were not actually used This was acknowledged in their 2004 Corrigendum which provided the following implausible excuse These series all of which come from the International Tree Ring Data Bank ITRDB met all the tests used for screening of the ITRDB data used in ref By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Mann et al 2008 Comments 28 Mann s PC1 in Esper and Frank 2008 Sep 26 2008 3 16 PM On previous occasions we ve noticed some strange appearances of the Mann hockey stick under different disguises In Inconvenient Truth a splice of Mann s hockey stick and CRU instrumental data is described as Dr Thompson s thermometer Today I noticed another peculiar incident where Esper and Frank Clim Chg 2008 who one would think would know better By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Esper et al 2002 Tagged ar4 Esper frank PC1 Comments 13 Ian Jolliffe Comments at Tamino Sep 8 2008 10 37 AM Ian Jolliffe a noted principal components authority has posted a comment at Tamino s which repudiates Tamino s and Mann s citation of Jolliffe as a supposed authority for Mannian PCA He wrote to me separately notifying me of the posting and authorizing me to cross post his comment and stating that we had correctly understood and described his By Steve McIntyre Also posted in Multivariate Tagged jolliffe Tamino Comments 234 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/mbh98/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive