Friday, April 4, 2014

Active viewer for Neukom et al proxies

A current paper in Nature from a long list of authors, including Neukom, Gergis and Karoly, on Southern Hemisphere proxies, is attracting attention. It's emphasis is on inter-hemispheric comparisons. The paper is here, the extensive SI here, and the data here. A press release is here.

There are critical posts at WUWT (here and here) and at Climate Audit.

So far I don't have an opinion on the study itself. But as with previous studies by Marcott et al and Pages2K, I have posted an active viewer, which gives easy access to plots and metadata. It's below the jump.

Update: I've added a choice of range. You can click on 2000 years to see the full range, or 400 years to see post-1600 on an expanded scale.






The methods are as for the Marcott viewer. The spaghetti curves are colored as their labels; since the proxies are ordered longest first, this creates a rainbow pattern. The annual data (2000 years) is very noisy, so I smoothed with a 10-year boxcar filter.

One of the tedious tasks here was getting a formatted table from the pdf Table 5 in the SI. I have put up a csv file of that table here.

At some stage I'll do a composite viewer for Marcott, Pages2K and Neukom.

There was a slight discrepancy between the order of proxies in Table 5 and the order of columns in the data. I've reset the Table 5 order to mtch.

5 comments:

  1. i'm getting an access denied error from http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/misc/neukom14/png/p0.png

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess that's when you click on "Neukom". The black writing is meant for choosing different plot groups.There isn't a plot there. Since so far there is only one, I hadn't implemented the choice procedure. I'll soon have one - showing 400 years instead of 2000.

      Delete
  2. Nice work, Nick.

    I'll just say for the record that I'm happy to not be the one tasked to trying to pull a signal out of that spaghetti soup!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Carrick and Doc,
      Yes, it looks messy. Fig 20 of their SI is interesting, though. It seems to say that it isn't very sensitive to selection.

      Delete