tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7805174.post4335407933675920757..comments2023-10-19T03:06:44.613-07:00Comments on AMac: Ari Jokimäki Looks at the Tiljander ProxiesAMachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7805174.post-64767253314012361372010-06-30T05:13:01.917-07:002010-06-30T05:13:01.917-07:00Ari does not seem to understand the issue at all.
...Ari does not seem to understand the issue at all.<br /><br />He misrepresents McIntyre. Ari says<br />"The graphs he presents just show how the data is in the TEA and in the input of the MEA reconstruction so basically those graphs just show that MEA have not flipped the data upside-down before feeding it to their analysis, which is exactly the opposite that McIntyre claims to be the case. "<br />But McIntyre does not say that MEA flipped the data before feeding it in. He says that the Mannomatic algorithm flips it internally.<br /><br />Mcintyre says:<br /><br />"For critics visiting this site, there isn’t a shred of doubt that Mann et al 2008 used these proxies upside down from the Tiljander interpretation. See the original post here for details. My interpretation was triple checked by two Finnish statistics professionals (Jean S and UC) who are intimately familiar with Mannian methods and who confirmed using Mann’s Matlab code that the Tiljander series are used upside down in both the CPS and EIV versions of Mann et al 2008."<br /><br />and later<br /><br />"Multivariate methods are indeed insensitive to the sign of the predictors. However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed."<br /><br />see<br /><br />http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/<br /><br />Arthur Smith is correct in his comment #6.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com