• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

  • Start here
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics
  • Surface temperature graphics
You are here: Home / Extras / Supplemental data / PCA details

PCA details

22 Nov 2004 by mike

PCA of the 70 North American ITRDB Tree-ring Proxy Series used by Mann et al (1998)

a. Eigenvalue spectrum for Mann et al (1998) PCA analysis (1902-1980 zero reference period, data normalized by detrended 1902-1980 standard deviation):

                Rank          Explained Variance       Cumulative Variance
                 1                 0.3818 	  	 0.3818
                 2                 0.0976 		 0.4795
                 _______________________________________________
                 3                 0.0491 		 0.5286
                 4                 0.0354  		 0.5640

First 2 PCs were retained based on application of the standard selection rules (see Figure 1) used by Mann et al (1998).

b. Eigenvalue spectrum for PCA analysis Based on Convention of MM (1400-1971 zero reference period, data un-normalized)

                Rank          Explained Variance       Cumulative Variance
                 1                 0.1946	  	 0.1946
                 2                 0.0905		 0.2851
                 3                 0.0783		 0.3634
                 4                 0.0663 		 0.4297
                 5                 0.0549  		 0.4846
                 _______________________________________________
                 6                 0.0373  		 0.5219

First 5 PCs should be retained in this case employing the standard selection rules (see Figure 1) used by Mann et al (1998).

FIGURE 1.
Comparison of eigenvalue spectrum resulting from a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the 70 North American ITRDB data used by Mann et al (1998) back to AD 1400 based on Mann et al (1998) centering/normalization convention (blue circles) and MM centering/normalization convention (red crosses). Shown also is the null distribution based on Monte Carlo simulations with 70 independent red noise series of the same length and same lag-one autocorrelation structure as the actual ITRDB data using the respective centering and normalization conventions (blue curve for MBH98 convention, red curve for MM convention). In the former case, 2 (or perhaps 3) eigenvalues are distinct from the noise eigenvalue continuum. In the latter case, 5 (or perhaps 6) eigenvalues are distinct from the noise eigenvalue continuum.

Filed Under: Supplemental data

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
  • Unforced Variations: Aug 2025
  • Are direct water vapor emissions endangering anyone?

Our Books

Book covers
This list of books since 2005 (in reverse chronological order) that we have been involved in, accompanied by the publisher’s official description, and some comments of independent reviewers of the work.
All Books >>

Recent Comments

  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Paul Pukite (@whut) on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Mr. Know It All on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Karsten V. Johansen on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Karsten V. Johansen on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Karsten V. Johansen on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • David on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • David on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • David on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • DOAK on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Bernhard on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • David on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Jonathan David on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Geoff Miell on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • nigelj on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Russell Seitz on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • bj.chippindale on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • bj.chippindale on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • nigelj on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Paul Pukite (@whut) on Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
  • nigelj on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Walt Meier on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Yebo Kandu on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • zebra on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • R.Oliver on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Karsten V. Johansen on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025

Footer

ABOUT

  • About
  • Translations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Page
  • Login

DATA AND GRAPHICS

  • Data Sources
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Surface temperature graphics
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics

INDEX

  • Acronym index
  • Index
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Realclimate Stats

1,378 posts

11 pages

246,360 comments

Copyright © 2025 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.