Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
jethro

New Research

Recommended Posts

Yes, I think! As the PDO is based on the spatial distribution of anomalies, and not on the size of the anomalies themselves, then you can still get PDO oscillations of the same magnitude as before, even though the whole basin is warmer (which it is).

Take these 3 numbers, a, b and c to represent respectively the western, central and eastern North Pacific in a PDO -ve phase:

a=10, b=15, c=7.

And take this series in a warmer North Pacific (exaggerated for effect):

a=14, b=19, c=11.

The relative differences as you traverse the basin from a to c are the same in both cases (5 and 8 ), but the ocean is much warmer in the second instance. The PDO for both cases would, I think, be the same. The absolute temperature of the water, and therefore it's ability to warm the atmosphere or transmit further warming into the deeper ocean is higher in the second instance, but with the same PDO.

I don't think it works as a 'milding out' G-W - I think we can still see strongly negative PDO episodes. But they are negative PDO episodes with warmer water on average across the basin because the ocean has in the meantime warmed in line with global temperatures...

Edited by sunny starry skies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scienceda...00810083053.htm

For those who delay deciding on our potential fate, holding 'clouds' (and their workings/impacts) as a reason, wait no more!!! The past 4 years of (ongoing) data from CloudSat will settle the score.

Are we destined to have Clouds negate CO2 warming or will they just Augment things?

This year will be a real treat with Arctic ice/Greenland ice Sheet/E and W AIS getting a good scientific grooming, clouds recieving the same treatment and the impacts ,so far, on Arctic ice loss on Northern hemisphere circulation patterns (like the 'anomalous circulation' plaguing Russia today).

When we have the results of such studies we should find the 'on the fencers' with plenty more 'facts' to base their decisions on! :wallbash:

Edited by Gray-Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scienceda...00810083053.htm

For those who delay deciding on our potential fate, holding 'clouds' (and their workings/impacts) as a reason, wait no more!!! The past 4 years of (ongoing) data from CloudSat will settle the score.

Are we destined to have Clouds negate CO2 warming or will they just Augment things?

This year will be a real treat with Arctic ice/Greenland ice Sheet/E and W AIS getting a good scientific grooming, clouds recieving the same treatment and the impacts ,so far, on Arctic ice loss on Northern hemisphere circulation patterns (like the 'anomalous circulation' plaguing Russia today).

When we have the results of such studies we should find the 'on the fencers' with plenty more 'facts' to base their decisions on! :whistling:

G.W

Please can you quit quoting the Russia heatwave as evidence of anything ...... you know that this pattern of weather is predicable, has happened before (2003) and is often associated with decaying Nino summers, its not particularly unusual at all (the pattern of weather that is).

Check it out for yourself:

http://www.accuweath...hannel=vbbastaj

It was also forecast back in the winter: Here's the latest thoughts on this from Joe laminate floori:

"What is going on in Russia is similar to what went on in France in 2003 and is being caused by the same overall pattern. The headlines scream.. worst in 1000 years... heck lets make it a million years.. cause if we know its a 1000 then we can assume what ever we want. This is the constant battle cry of people who wont explain before hand why a specific event is going to happen ( we are boiling here in the states, yet NOAA had a cool summer) but then run to the all encompassing climate change as the reason.. It is despicable, and deceitful. If you cant see your hand in front of your face, how can you tell me you know what lays beyond. Simply look at the analogs of the reversing el nino, a warm AMO and a warm mediterranean and you get your forecast. The extremes we are seeing in one place can be argued counterweight the cold that is being in the southern hemisphere, not as widespread, because there is not nearly as much land to feedback to expand the area of extremes. But its there. And the idea it would be a very warm summer lends itself to such extremes. But Los Angeles Cal, is having one of their coldest summers on record. No screams about that.

Remember back after winter. I (Joe laminate floori) made a forecast for a warm summer for europe overall, and while I wanted to score my points with the main subject of the blog, I said the further east and south you go, the more it would be hot. But I said that this is the summer, at least in the scoring point for my forecast, London, that would be the barbecue summer. Well London has had 33 PERCENT OF NORMAL PRECIP and is 4.2 above normal. Last year it was 3 above normal and 104% of normal precip, but wet and cooler northwest. Point is, its a hotter, drier summer. And the other point is that when you have a reversing Nino during a warm AMO with a warm mediterranean you are likely to have alot of heat in europe in the summer into Russia. In 03, it set up further west, the blend of all the year is west east and right into Russia. But not letting people know that such things are in the ballpark given the pattern, and then trying to play it up as something that cant happen and is, is simply feeding off the reliance of the ignorance of people not to look and understand"

Y.S

Edited by Yorkshiresnows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather patterns conspire to make a hot summer for Russia. Why is it hotter than all previous summers, if it's just El Nino or some other cycle? Could it be something to do with all that extra downward longwave radiation we are measuring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather patterns conspire to make a hot summer for Russia. Why is it hotter than all previous summers, if it's just El Nino or some other cycle? Could it be something to do with all that extra downward longwave radiation we are measuring?

Well, there is a (reasonably) easy quantitative way to measure the effect of the changing cryosphere.

Since the main coupling of the cryosphere is to to the air (and to some extent the sea) we should see declining albedo related to the cryosphere as an overall reduction in global air pressure - since lots of albedo at the cryo/air coupling tends to increase air pressure near the surface, and the inverse tends to reduce it.

Anyone with long term global pressure readings for 850hPa->1000hPa? I've looked, but, alas, cannot find ... a definitive reduction in global air pressure almost certainly means a reduction in cryosphere related albedo (by association, not by cause and effect)

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is a (reasonably) easy quantitative way to measure the effect of the changing cryosphere.

Since the main coupling of the cryosphere is to to the air (and to some extent the sea) we should see declining albedo related to the cryosphere as an overall reduction in global air pressure - since lots of albedo at the cryo/air coupling tends to increase air pressure near the surface, and the inverse tends to reduce it.

Anyone with long term global pressure readings for 850hPa->1000hPa? I've looked, but, alas, cannot find ... a definitive reduction in global air pressure almost certainly means a reduction in cryosphere related albedo (by association, not by cause and effect)

Hi V.P,

Just been looking at some information posted over on Roy Spencer's blog in regards to downward radiation flow ..... he's conducted some 'backyard Experiments' :

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

See what you think?

Y.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather patterns conspire to make a hot summer for Russia. Why is it hotter than all previous summers, if it's just El Nino or some other cycle? Could it be something to do with all that extra downward longwave radiation we are measuring?

SSS

We are at a higher base rate ... are we not !!!!!

Therefore of course there is always going to be the chance of extreme events ..... why is that so very odd, if we are at a warmer state than 20-30 years ago, why would there not be the chance of one extreme event or another breaking a record.

They were being broken throughout the 90's

Every waning El-Nino pumps heat into Europe during the summer months ...... thats a given....

http://www.accuweather.com/video/524147818001/1998-still-beating-2010-by-objective-standards.asp

Y.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore of course there is always going to be the chance of extreme events ..... why is that so very odd, if we are at a warmer state than 20-30 years ago, why would there not be the chance of one extreme event or another breaking a record.

Yes, unless the triple point of water has also changed - ie the increased frequency of extreme events is down to a warm climate.

How that climate got warm is a different debate. Incidentally, if 'extreme' is measured in people 'affected' are the thresholds for extreme adjusted for population boom. If they're not then it's very easy to see how areas of the world with burgeoning populations will therefore have more 'extreme' events without the weather changing one bit. And there's the small matter of that little assumption that presumes that all extreme events have always had 100% reportage ...

The problem here, of course, isn't the science - it's the use of the emotive word ... 'extreme'

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, unless the triple point of water has also changed - ie the increased frequency of extreme events is down to a warm climate.

How that climate got warm is a different debate. Incidentally, if 'extreme' is measured in people 'affected' are the thresholds for extreme adjusted for population boom. If they're not then it's very easy to see how areas of the world with burgeoning populations will therefore have more 'extreme' events without the weather changing one bit. And there's the small matter of that little assumption that presumes that all extreme events have always had 100% reportage ...

The problem here, of course, isn't the science - it's the use of the emotive word ... 'extreme'

VP, I absolutely agree with that point. It's why you don't go to the news reports for your scientific data, and why you need to ensure your data source contains a continuous record and that you have accounted for reasonable factors that may affect the result. For example I wouldn't measure number/impact of hurricanes by insurance claims for that very reason, but I might be happy to measure them by sediment layers in an accumulating basin that is otherwise undisturbed.

The records of increasing temperature maxima over minima in the USA is an example of a robust measure of extremes, or the various papers showing increased frequency of different sizes of flood events - these are better measures than the 1/1000 year events, because we can statistically analyse the smaller events. Though at the same time we do expect to see more truly 'extreme' events occur as the PDF envelopes trend upwards.

sss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VP, I absolutely agree with that point. It's why you don't go to the news reports for your scientific data, and why you need to ensure your data source contains a continuous record and that you have accounted for reasonable factors that may affect the result. For example I wouldn't measure number/impact of hurricanes by insurance claims for that very reason, but I might be happy to measure them by sediment layers in an accumulating basin that is otherwise undisturbed.

The records of increasing temperature maxima over minima in the USA is an example of a robust measure of extremes, or the various papers showing increased frequency of different sizes of flood events - these are better measures than the 1/1000 year events, because we can statistically analyse the smaller events.

Yes - hopefully, at some point in the next few days, I will do an analysis (ds/dt, where s = std/dev, against dn/dt where n= min temps, and dx/dt where x = max temp) for the CET. If only to see what jumps out.

Of course, with reference to floods, these are only well handled by GCM's over the very long term, and are only statistically valid over such a long time - possibly as much as 30 years or more. Given that the curve for (A)GW really only comes into it's own from about 1990, which is about 20 years, and that, perhaps, global meteorological reporting really is only reliable since the 1950's (which is about 60 years) there will always be some statistical question mark since not enough data has accrued - which leads into proxy areas of investigation as you mention in an effort to raise the certainty.

I must add that I am wary of posting such things, here: this is not a criticism of GCM's nor current science's handle on the hydrosphere - simply, that these are some of the problems an investigation into such things curtails.

Though at the same time we do expect to see more truly 'extreme' events occur as the PDF envelopes trend upwards.

(Very) slight problem with that. Since we know the trend, we can take out the trend and then figure out the PDF from there. We can then figure out whether, for instance, the distribution is skewed or symmetrical - we can also learn whether the temps have become more volatile (std dev increase?) . ie we can see what the absolute affect over time on the distribution of temperature is without recourse to the rather, *cough*, trend factors that are clearly there.

You can then put it back together, and make an assessment of what that trend actually means for breaking records of either cold or hot.

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference to floods, I wasn't considering GCM's - there are a number of issues regarding precipitation there, but the observations of increased occurrences of high river stages. The PDF was indeed a simplified idea, as the PDF itself may expand (expected), contract or skew under higher temperatures. But given a null hypothesis of no change in the PDF, we would expect to see a higher occurrence of remarkable events, in line with the observed increased frequency of other indicators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference to floods, I wasn't considering GCM's - there are a number of issues regarding precipitation there, but the observations of increased occurrences of high river stages. The PDF was indeed a simplified idea, as the PDF itself may expand (expected), contract or skew under higher temperatures. But given a null hypothesis of no change in the PDF, we would expect to see a higher occurrence of remarkable events, in line with the observed increased frequency of other indicators.

Another interesting result might be to see how far you have to go back until the median and mean meet? (ie no skew!)

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intresting article GW. Backs up and adds a bit to what svensmark has been saying about cosmic rays and cloud formation and its effect on temperature. I am a firm believer that a lot of our warming has been down to a very active sun and what we are now seeing is as the sun quitens down and the active sun effects work out of the system then temperatures will begin to fall. It is in my own mind clear that we don't remotely understand enough about our atmosphere and how outside factors influence our climate. Intresting times ahead because I do believe that if we are entering a significant cool down then the impacts on humans will be a lot more significant than so call global warming and the cooling may well occur a lot quicker than people think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you liked it jb!

I've always wondered myself about 'forced current flow' from impacts from CME's as, from the little I know, resistance to current flow leads to heat (think an electric fire) so a more active sun = more CME impacts and it's impacts through the magnetosphere and into the atmosphere.

Fascinating though such things are we cannot remove ourselves from GHG's and their properties though can we? If we get extra heating then some of that will become trapped by the extra GHG's .

I'd read something by the chap who coined the phrase 'Global Warming' about an 80yr Arctic cycle which also lines up with both the globally dimmed period and the renewed warming since the 80's. Rather than cool we see a 'flat line' over that period (1940-80) so our 'warming' effectively squished the cold cycle and had enough energy left over to take up to 50% of the volume of the Arctic (1950-80). We should now be entering (the chappie says) the next Arctic 'cold 40yrs' so what will the extra heat we have accrued through the 80's/90's be spent on this time? Not much ice left to melt so I guess we'll get a slow and steady warming of the Arctic ocean?

As ever ,time will tell all but with folks promising a PDO-ve period and this 80yr Arctic oscillation now shifting to 'cold' it'll be interesting to see just how the climate responds. Should we see no 'cooling' then this would be remarkable and will post a big warning about the next 'warm phase' (esp. if it also contains a PDO+ve cycle!!!) as it'll make the 80's warming look piddly. Seeing as we've also added so much more GHG's to the mix through the 80's,90's and noughties (with no end in the increases in their production probable?) we have all the ingredients for a very startling warming period.

Let's also remember the 10yr warning about a Greenland 'tipping point' as, once, crossed we have a one way ticket to the end of the Greenland ice sheet and the raising of sea level /loss of albedo it brings with it. Things are looking increasingly bad for the 1st half of this century and we will mostly all be here to witness it.

Edited by Gray-Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

Not sure if anybody has already posted this but ... there is a new publication due to be issued on temperature proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) submitted into the "Annals of Applied Statistics" listed to be published in the next issue.

This paper is a direct rebuttal to the proxy reconstructions of Mann. Instead of trying to attack the proxy data quality issues, they assumed the proxy data was accurate for their purpose, then created a bayesian backcast method. Then, using the proxy data, they demonstrate it fails to reproduce the sharp 20th century uptick:

Here's the famous chart before .......

Posted Image

And now after ...........

Posted Image

The 'after' chart backs up multiple non-tree ring proxy studies (as well as the multiple criticisms by McIntyre, McKitrick and others)

Here is the submitted paper:

http://www.e-publica...onfirm=63ebfddf

Here is the abstract:

"We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago".

Y.S

Edited by Yorkshiresnows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New research which shows there may be something in Svensmark's theory of galactic cosmic rays impacting upon cloud formation - wonder what the figures would have been like if the study used data from the last couple of very quiet Solar years?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012608.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good link Yorkshiresnows. Of course the pro warmers will say that people who did this don't understand climate and are wrong. The deniers will of course say since the climate scientists are qualified to handle the data properly the results are prone to errors.

What it does show is the need for more openness over the data and a less hostile approach too people that find mistakes within the presentation of the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if anybody has already posted this but ... there is a new publication due to be issued on temperature proxy reconstructions (McShane and Wyner 2010) submitted into the "Annals of Applied Statistics" listed to be published in the next issue.

Yes, it's worth reading it rather than cutting and pasting graphs, though.

In their conclusions they do highly criticise Mann et al: ... we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a â€long-handled†hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking ...'

But they also note 'Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample. As can be seen ... our estimate of the run up in temperature in the 1990s has a much smaller slope than the actual temperature series.' Emphasis, mine.

Interesting, read, though. I've never been a fan of principle component analysis, anyway, primarily because it tries to identify proxies that have the biggest impact on the temperature time series (some of this is handled well by this paper). It seems to me to be a method of reducing degrees of freedom to enhance statistical certainty. Personally, I would go for a weighted approach where each proxy is ranked and weighted according to it's correlation - but then that's just me.

Also, validation by (front and end) block seems to me to be of dubious merit. For those who don't know what this means, it means that you fit data to the instrumental record (create a model) but you leave the first and last thirty years out of that record so that you can try to predict what's in those blocks hence assess model skill. The reason that this is dubious is that even a quick glance at the temperature record shows longish records that have a character of their own. The recent 1980-2000 block is characterised by rapidly rising temperatures etc etc. Since we have multi-decade characteristics, validation of a model against just three decades only proves its skill for the character of the record in that block. Not good.

This does seem to fit into my view that climate departments should have a least one professional (or academic) statistician along with a professional computer programmer.

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good link Yorkshiresnows. Of course the pro warmers will say that people who did this don't understand climate and are wrong. The deniers will of course say since the climate scientists are qualified to handle the data properly the results are prone to errors.

What it does show is the need for more openness over the data and a less hostile approach too people that find mistakes within the presentation of the data.

This paper is basically the same old obsessing (by a few) about the work of Dr Michael Mann that we've seen for nearly a decade now.

Everyone (well everyone bar those who take their cue from the likes of Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts) knows there is more than one recon, that the further back you go with a recon the greater the doubt and that this paper sits pretty happily within the spectrum of recons.

For me the take home message is, the globe (or the NH) has probably been cooling gently for 1000 year but it (the globe) has warmed, probably rapidly (and increasingly so) over the last century plus.

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This paper is basically the same old obsessing (by a few) about the work of Dr Michael Mann that we've seen for nearly a decade now.

Well, my take on it, is that proxy reconstructions are inherently dangerous - even when carried out by professional statisticians - since there are more proxies than data points (massively dimensional), and the proxies only weakly correlate with the instrumental temperature series. And, finally, that the uncertainties are almost always underestimated.

Of course, the counter argument is 'what else do we have?'

Edited by VillagePlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my take on it, is that proxy reconstructions are inherently dangerous - even when carried out by professional statisticians - since there are more proxies than data points (massively dimensional), and the proxies only weakly correlate with the instrumental temperature series. And, finally, that the uncertainties are almost always underestimated.

Of course, the counter argument is 'what else do we have?'

I think the problem is that we know very little about anything in the past with abosolute certaintly. So, people who really disliked what, say, we 'know' about the Romans, or (more obviously) about animal evolution or geological time, could/can pick a particular paper (any paper) and niggly away at it for a decade and find flaws in it.

But, as you say, wrt climate what else do we have. I'd also say there was a climate in the past and I think proxies are useful (beetles need a certain climate, pollen indicate other climates, ice others, CO2 conc others, shells other, tree growth (yes, tree growth) - the list goes on, a big list, a lot of information) and that we can know, with good certaintly* what the past was like. But, of course, we can't go back in time and check so we end up with the problem I started this post talking about...

*the quibble bit

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that we know very little about anything in the past with abosolute certaintly. So, people who really disliked what, say, we 'know' about the Romans, or (more obviously) about animal evolution or geological time, could/can pick a particular paper (any paper) and niggly away at it for a decade and find flaws in it.

But, as you say, wrt climate what else do we have. I'd also say there was a climate in the past and I think proxies are useful (beetles need a certain climate, pollen indicate other climates, ice others, CO2 conc others, shells other, tree growth (yes, tree growth) - the list goes on, a big list, a lot of information) and that we can know, with good certaintly* what the past was like. But, of course, we can't go back in time and check so we end up with the problem I started this post talking about...

*the quibble bit

Hi Dev and all,

Good points made by V.P .

The whole thrust of the paper (which I have read) is to state that the temperature proxies can be really little more use than complete guess work for reconstructing past temperature. Don't forget than Mann used a predominance of tree-ring proxy data for the 98/99 and indeed the 2008 papers. These have been heavily critisised by the likes of McIntyre and others as not being suitable markers for temperature change. All prxy data has its flaws, but tree-ring data more than most.

What we know (and lets be honest has been pretty obvious) is that the Northern hemisphere has gone through recent warm and cool cycles ..... The Mann papers were an attempt to get rid of the medieval warm period and little ice age ... thereby allowing a greater weight of argument to be given for the role of AGW to the 20th century warming. Handle of hockey stick and sharp upturn of the blade.

That's why the IPCC stuck that silly graph all over the IPCC third assessment report in 2001 (without the data being given proper review).

What we have seen from more recent work (most importantly using non-tree ring proxy data), is that these studies by Mann were flawed and that the medieval and little ice age periods were likely global events (prior to the 'hockey-stick' papers that was assumed as correct in any case from a whole number of historical records).

Non of this is proof that AGW is not happening (so please don't all shoot me down), but it does allow the possibility that natural cycles can / could have had at least a part to play in the recent warming that we have witnessed. This is relevant to current discussions on the role of the PDO / AMO / Solar cycles etc.

In any event, having read a massive amount on the hockey stick issue, I am really pleased that there is now further data available to show it was a complete mess. More importantly (and I wholeheartedly agree with V.P), where conclusions are made in scientific papers that use complicated mathematical techniques to obtain the relevant endpoints, how this was done and with what data should be made readily available for relevant reviewers to assess. That this was not done for the initial 98/99 Mann papers was a disgrace (in my opinion).

Y.S

Edited by Yorkshiresnows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dev and all,

Good points made by V.P .

The whole thrust of the paper (which I have read) is to state that the temperature proxies can be really little more use than complete guess work for reconstructing past temperature. Don't forget than Mann used a predominance of tree-ring proxy data for the 98/99 and indeed the 2008 papers. These have been heavily critisised by the likes of McIntyre and others as not being suitable markers for temperature change. All prxy data has its flaws, but tree-ring data more than most.

What we know (and lets be honest has been pretty obvious) is that the Northern hemisphere has gone through recent warm and cool cycles ..... The Mann papers were an attempt to get rid of the medieval warm period and little ice age

Once I see this sort of 'it a conspiracy' stuff (and it's all based on a none existant email where someone (because the email doesn't exist) was supposed (but didn't - because the email doesn't exist - or can you show me a copy, a full copy?) to have said something like 'we have to get rid of the MWP') I'm afraid it just puts me off reading the rest.

If the HS and Man's work is lacking then it's critics (you) need to show it to be so. If they (you) have to resort to this 'it's a conspiracy' stuff then to me it shows they (you) don't have anything better to challenge it than attacking character/making allegations.

No one thinks the HS is the last word on past climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once I see this sort of 'it a conspiracy' stuff (and it's all based on a none existant email where someone (because the email doesn't exist) was supposed (but didn't - because the email doesn't exist - or can you show me a copy, a full copy?) to have said something like 'we have to get rid of the MWP') I'm afraid it just puts me off reading the rest.

If the HS and Man's work is lacking then it's critics (you) need to show it to be so. If they (you) have to resort to this 'it's a conspiracy' stuff then to me it shows they (you) don't have anything better to challenge it than attacking character/making allegations.

No one thinks the HS is the last word on past climate.

Hi Dev,

The whole point and relevance ... that was taken up by the IPCC of the Mann Hockey stick papers was that they 'smoothed out' past temperature variations .... what else could you possibly take from it ?

That there were serious flaws not picked up at review, that Mann refused to allow release of the computer code and mathematical techniques actually used on the proxy data, and the whole McIntyre saga of uncovering the truth, is there in the public domain for all to see.

Nobody is saying anything about a conspiracy, only that the paleoclimatic processes of data submittance and review have in the past been too lapse. That the IPCC jumped all over the 'Hockey-stick' paper and graph (appearing on multiple pages of the third assessment report), when there was other data available at the time suggesting that this was at least controversial.... is for others to make up their own minds.

But we've been through all this before and I have illustrated my points throughout the various threads in this regards and provided references and other papers. Others have quite fairly added their own views and beliefs to the opposite.

This latest paper is to my mind further vindication of McIntyre and McIndricks critique (as well as the Wegman and NAS reports).

Y.S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...