<blockquote>Wegman thought he was looking at a random selection, instead he was only seeing a selection from the top 100 results.</blockquote>So Nick <b>seems</b> to have said here. I want to see what <b>he</b> says at Climate Audit. And what answers he gets.
My <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/#comment-628089" rel="nofollow">question</a> is, <i>"the top 100 results"</i> from what <i>"selection"</i> process?
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by RickA
Jim D:
Broecker’s paper is very interesting. It is Broecker’s knowledge of the annual global temperatures over the last 1000 years that I question. I am not sure we can be as sure (even today) of what the global annual temperature was each and every year based on a Greenland ice core (regional).
If the MWP is merely regional (as many AGW proponents say) – how can we take an ice core record from one region and generalize it to the entire globe?
I do note that Brocker states that the cooling over the last 30 years (1945 to 1975) was greater than the human caused warming – so he is saying natural variability is enough to swamp the human warming over 1/2 of his cycle. Once again – that seems to indicate that CS is way smaller than 3C – and more like 1.5C.
If you go back a few cycles to 1880 – isn’t the total warming over that period to present about .8C? His 1C estimate seems to be running a little high – correct?
But certainly – I do agree that there is a warming trend – I just question how much of it is natural and how much human caused. It could be about 50/50 – who knows?
If I am still alive in 2100 I will let you know how this argument turns out. With modern medicine – who knows how long I might live?
↧
Comment on Week in review by omanuel
The UN’s IPCC would settle this issue in open debate, if they believed the AGW story they told us was “settled science!”
http://junkscience.com/2014/09/13/who-says-the-warmists-refuse-to-debate/
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
Jim D: in the last year it rose 3 ppm,
The source I saw quoted a figure of 1.86 (not likely as accurate as claimed); but I read 2ppm off a graph. Working with your figure, the CSALT model forecasts 1.89C increase due to CO2; figuring in the confound with land use changes, that comes to about 1C. However, due to the limitations of fossil fuels and the advancing technology of renewables, I think it is unlikely that the rate will be maintained, even with “business as usual”, so (according this that guess and the csalt model) an increase of 1C through the rest of the century is not likely.
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by AK
<blockquote>AK – Does the caption for figure 4.4 misrepresent what was actually done?</blockquote>Don't know yet. This <i>"David Ritson, Emeritus Prof of Physics"</i> looks like another dwarf to me. Playing the same game as Joshua and willard. So do you.
I've seen Nick Stokes make the claim about selection, no answer to my question yet. I haven't seen him say anything about this <i>"David Ritson, Emeritus Prof of Physics"</i> nonsense. And, of course, nobody has any use for Mashey or his junk. Nobody with any integrity, anyway.
So probably not.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by PA
Well, it didn’t make 3.0 last year.
But it might be coupled to El Nino (1998 is bad).
Hasn’t changed much during the pause.
Too early to say if the last two years are a trend or an aberration.
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Underwater fracking could almost double the amount of recoverable oil and gas in the North Sea, according to oil experts.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/experts-propose-north-sea-fracking.1409834524
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo
“Fraud” issue raised by Kevin O’Neil
“6) Are you claiming that McIntyre’s code only produced upward-sloping ‘hockey sticks’?
:)
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Jim, why does my plot look different?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wijnand
Spot on!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wijnand
But stil spot on ;-)
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
↧
Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse
A natural question Why do denialists vehemently smear quaker, catholic, and even muslim concerns regarding stewardship?
Simple answer The fundamental denialist postulates of (1) robust biomes, and (2) efficient markets are alike irrational, amoral, and unsupported by history *OR* science.
That’s why … smears are all that denialism has left!
It’s obvious … that the denialist community too-readily resorts to [what Climate Etc commeters call] ‘character assassination, bad manners, and incivility’, and then irrationally succumbs to “Michael Mann Derangement Syndrome”, simply because the logical, scientific, and moral foundations of denialism are self-evidently flimsy, eh Matthew R Marler?
Nowadays the *WEAK* foundations of climate-change denialism are evident to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffdd&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by jim2
Right, Bigprig. The fact that “merkans” are selfish is why thousands died defending the rest of Europe from Germany. DumbA$$.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
JIm D:
“…the ocean surface continuously absorbs CO2 where the temperature is falling, mostly at high latitudes, and emits CO2 where the water is warming, mostly at lower latitudes.” – Steve Fitzpatrick
Given that Fitzpatrick is correct, it resembles the hydrological cycle. If it’s too warm, speed things up, like meridional CO2 transport. Melt sea ice to increase ocean uptake. Grow trees in Greenland and far North Canada. Would the base of the Northern oceans food chain increase increase with more CO2? I am suggesting the CO2 cycle speeds up and stretches North.
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Padbrit (@Padbrit)
You turned up in 1941 after Britain had faced Germany on it’s own for 2 years (Also turned up late in WW1 in 1917) when you saw a profit was to be made from the war. 29 Million Russians died in WW2 and let us remember they faced 200 divisions of Wehrmacht troops while in the west we only faced 20 Divisions. Russia won the war in Europe. Oh and Prescott Bush was still doing business with Hitler’s regime at the time. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
↧
Comment on Week in review by Fernando Leanme
Peter, I don’t recall seeing TRR since 1950. However since there is no set definition engineers can use, the figure must jump all over. iHS has a data base one could use to prepare an estimate using a set of defined rules, but I seriously doubt its quality.
I’m not a big believer in trendology when it comes to this topic because it can miss discontinuities. If you want to use a TRR figure in an IAM that’s fine because those models have a lot of messy areas anyway.
A more sophisticated approach would be to take the field data base and prepare recovery factor increases one can achieve if prices say double and taxes are reset to allow twice the net cash flow while keeping costs constant and assuming there are no input constraints. That’s very optimistic, it can be used to see what can be achieved. I suspect the increase won’t be nearly as much as many think because in most cases the reservoir depletion process is too far advanced.
Some field or areas really benefit from this approach (currently producing North Sea fields are a good example). However, I’ll wait to see it before I believe they’ll cut taxes that way.
↧
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Padbrit (@Padbrit)
The thing I despise most about you anthropogenic global warming deniers is the fact that you are prepared to destroy your children’s, your children’s children futures for a profit today. What’s that joke? Oh yeah “what if global warming isn’t happening and we create a better future for nothing”
↧
Comment on Week in review by Fernando Leanme
Next week I’ll try to do a P+P estimate. However I keep cautioning the audience I’m seeing something odd with the refinery runs. The growth pace in the oil being refined is diverging from the liquids production being reported. This tells me the liquids tend to have an increasing fraction of light hydrocarbons rather than oil. Those light hydrocarbons aren’t really oil.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
Judith –
You forgot to link to the evidence in support of our friend GaryM’s symbol for moral and intellectual superiority of “conservatives” and their “Judeo-Christian values.”
http://www.themudflats.net/archives/44433
Too funny.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
