Hello there, just became alert to your blog through Google,
and found that it’s truly informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels.
I will appreciate if you continue this in future. Many people will be benefited from your writing.
Cheers!
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by youtube.com
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Matthew R Marler
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Remark Multiple independent scientific studies affirm (1) the reality of the climate-change “Hockey Stick”, and (2) the lengthening of the “Hockey Stick Blade” without pause or obvious limit.
Even the IPCC no longer supports Mann’s hockey stick, and most writers (e.g. Lovejoy, Trenberth) now accept the “pause” (in mean surface temperature increase), hence the many explanations for it.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by harkin
“Nobel Laureate” = fraud.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Matthew R Marler
Donald Rapp: <i> “I heard you. I listened to your arguments. You convinced me to change my mind.”?</i>
I said that at least once, fwiw. It was when a some people wrote sharp critiques of my defense of Mann as having been merely sloppy. Most of my actual opinions have come from reading peer-reviewed literature, and I had read some of the papers cited critiquing me, but the full load of all the critiques persuaded me that I had been too slow coming to realize how awful Mann has been.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Mike Flynn
Don Monfort,
Hand duly raised, although sometimes I give up partway through.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Generalissimo Skippy
“The disturbance we’re seeing in the Neoproterozoic carbon cycle is larger by several orders of magnitude than anything we could cause today, even if we were to burn all the fossil fuels on the planet at once,” said Maloof, an assistant professor of geosciences at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S27/26/54A51/index.xml?section=topstories
http://epsc.wustl.edu/~crose/1.Swanson-Hysell_etal_2010.pdf
It is difficult to imagine that this is an analogue for the last 40 years – presuming that we had good data on the last few decades.
As for Doug – the scenarios are getting scary.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by John Carpenter
Jim, 0.0 is not a value expressed to two significant figures. When expressing nothing, 0, there is no difference between 0 and 0.000000000. As such, significant figures do not apply as there is no significance or difference between 0 and 0.000000000. It is all nothing…. and nothing is indistinguishable from nothing.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by manacker
Pat Cassen
Thanks for tip.
I’ve read the Finnegan et al. paper (the entire Abstract) earlier.
Here’s another 2013 study by Elrick et al.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/41/7/775.abstract
These interpreted orbital-scale climate changes and resultant large glacial ice-volume changes support recent interpretations of a dynamic and prolonged Ordovician greenhouse to icehouse transition.
And here’s yet another, Saltzman 2004:
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/33/2/109.abstract
Or Holland and Patzkowsky 2012:
http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/content/82/8/599.abstract
Overall, the Bighorn Dolomite is interpreted to represent deposition during a shift from low-amplitude (a few meters), short-period (∼ 20 kyr) cyclicity to moderate-amplitude (∼ 10 m), long-period (100 kyr) cyclicity indicating a shift from greenhouse conditions towards icehouse conditions, a shift that agrees with recent isotopic evidence for changing Late Ordovician climate.
There are still a lot of hypotheses out there as to the extent or the cause of the “icehouse”.
The biggest riddle (as far as I can tell) is how this could have occurred when atmospheric CO2 was 10x the current concentration.
Max
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Steven Mosher
if you guys want to leave my thread to comment on another thread you need to ask permission.
↧
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by lolwot
Do you try hard to pretend the warming has stopped?
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by manacker
lolwot
You ask me what appears to be a rhetorical question:
so what does JC mean by “WG1 dropped the ball with its ‘extremely likely”?
I cannot answer that – possibly JC can.
I’d say it has more to do with moving the likelihood from 90% (“very likely”) to 95% (“extremely likely”) without really having any new corroborating evidence to strengthen its claim (in fact, a “pause” that goes a bit in the other direction), but you’d have to ask her if that was what she meant.
Max
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Don Monfort
Mann’s publication record illustrates the sad state of peer-review in the so-called climate science.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by manacker
Steven Mosher
Dear Mosh,
May I have the permission to respond to comments from lolwot or Newport_Mac, which happen to be located on your thread?
Thanks in advance for your kind consideration.
Yours faithfully,
Max
↧
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by David Appell
Because, for one thing, there is more aerosol cooling in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, because more are emitted there. (About 90% of the world’s population lives in the northern hemisphere.)
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by George Turner
What would explain the 0.3C of cooling from 1973 to 1975? Can disco really have that much effect on global temperatures? If you took your starting point as somewhere safely past the disco era, say 1980, you’d knock 0.35 off your 0.6 C.
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by Don Monfort
So, the memo from warmista HQ today was: Respond to any mention of the pause that we are trying desperately to hide with the following:
What pause?
You may also preface that with a:
Huh?
Keep you little plastic decoder rings handy. There will be another “ain’t no pause” directive at 0200 zulu.
Keep da faith! Praise be!
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by George Turner
It’s a magic warming that the most sophisticated thermometers can’t detect. My theory is that the air molecules are somehow vibrating purely perpendicular to the surface of any measurement device we use.
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by manacker
Newport_Mac
Good point on “assessments”
Not being a lawyer, I may not be all that good in legally parsing the words.
But it appears to me that the IPCC insistence to remain with essentially the same model-predicted estimate for 2xCO2 ECS (and TCR) from AR4 in its AR5 report, despite several, more recent and (at least partially) observation-based studies showing much lower estimates, does not comply with:
Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views
Max
PS BTW, this is not the first time that IPCC has ignored or rejected properly documented scientific studies that concluded alternate views to its own view. Paul M has compiled a whole list of such omissions, etc. for AR4, which is available on-line.
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by Alexander Biggs
Because the SH is mostly ocean, one would expect the temperature record to be smoother, because the oceans have such a large store of heat. On the other hand cyclones only persist over the water, so we would expect more cyclones in the SH. Nino (SOI) effects seem to be more apparent in the SH, but also seem to have a large effect on the western US. All of this indicates we are still a long way from predicting regional weather and climate.
I pulled out of the Hadly-Oxford experiment in ‘grid’ computing because the Nino effects were not predictable. 13 years later there seems to be no improvement.
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by Mike Flynn
AFOMD,
You are quite right. If the Earth sustained a (positive) CO2 driven energy imbalance, it would get hot.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing. This explains why the Earth has cooled in both hemispheres, globally, overall, and quite a bit, over the last 4.5 billion years.
Maybe you need to generate more heat. That definitely warms things. Maybe you could form a consensus and generate enough heat to arrest the Earths cooling, and get it back to a molten state. I doubt it, however.
But good luck anyway
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
