Talk:Pseudoproxy

Garbled?
This:


 *  In May 2002 Michael E. Mann and Scott Rutherford published a paper using this method of adding artificial noise to actual temperature records or to climate model simulations to produce what they called "pseudoproxies".

seems a bit garbled or imprecise... from what I recall, pseudo proxies are either (a) using GCM output to get the (true, modelled) full record, and comparing using that to what you'd see from using something from the GCM that had noise added, and higher frequency variation removed. Or (b) I suppose you could add noise to a real proxy, or filter out higher-freq var from a well-resolved one. That (ie (b)) seems to be what the abstract talks about: instrumental stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Meant to say introducing. M12 says "In 2002 I introduced the notion of 'pseudoproxy' data as a means of testing reconstruction methods. The idea was fairly simple: Introduce contaminating noise to actual temperature records (or model temperature output) to create synthetic proxy datasets that approximate" real world proxy records, then test the method using this dataset and compare against actual temps which are known. The term probably has more meanings and or a lot more to be said about it, but I was too idle to add a stub template. . dave souza, talk 18:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yees... I think http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/Site/Research_Blog/Entries/2011/3/11_Pseudoproxy_Experiments.html for example provides a fuller explanation William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The blog looks useful and it's clearly by a published expert on the topic. Right at the start he cites MR02, somewhat confirming Mann's claim to priority. pdf also looks useful for experts. Me, it's a spin-off while struggling to get to grips with the MM05 claims and M12 explanations, so much to do so ill leave this to mature. Any assistance greatly appreciated. dave souza, talk 20:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)