archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Guliya Core #2 and Mountain Glacier Flow « Climate Audit
    was used to describe the difference between it and the Brittle Layer I do not believe it was used in a strict sense to be like plastic but rather had viscous properties I do know there are difficulties in finding a material that simulates the flow of ice The other problem is the ice tends to attach itself to a surface especially in the brittle layer A large crevasse called a bergschrund usually occurs at the top of the glacier near the head wall The crevasse is formed when the plastic layer underneath flows and the brittle layer is pulled away but cracks instead of breaking free It usually requires a certain depth of ice adequate for a Plastic Layer to form before the glacier begins to flow downhill Similar attachment occurs along the sides of the glaciers This is complicated by the debris collecting along the side called a lateral moraine Of course this discussion assumes the boundary between the Brittle and Plastic Layers is distinct but like most interfaces it is a zone of transition that varies in thickness with conditions lucia Posted Dec 21 2006 at 5 14 PM Permalink Tim In fluid mechanics the term plastic isn t limited to describing the rheology of things we call plastic in the normal world It s just means a material act like a solid when low levels of stress are applied and flows when higher levels of stress are applied In constrast newtonian fluids flow at any non zero level of applied stress This article describes some terms common in rheology You ll find both viscoplastic and visco elastic listed As long as the ice is ice and not water I would assume it acts like a solid at lower levels of applied stress Steve McIntyre Posted Dec 21 2006 at 5 23 PM Permalink I ve just edited this to include the Guliya information Brooks Hurd Posted Dec 21 2006 at 5 31 PM Permalink Lucia Thanks for your posts I would not expect ice flowing down a valley to behave as a Newtonion fluid I would expect it to be shear thinning possibly behaving like a Bingham plastic Even as a shear thining fluid I would not expect the flow to be outside the normal laminar range since I do not beleive that the the viscosity would become low enough I would expect that the boundary layer would be thick With a thick boundary layer and high viscosity even with shear thinning I would expect a form of laminar flow with a roughly parabolic flow profile in the center It would not be like the idealized graphics which I posted above since these are meant to represent pipe flow with a realtively thin bounhdary layer Mud slides behave as a Bingham plastic but they tend to have laminar flow characteristics Chris H You certainly could have turbulence develop at the snout With any form of turbulence there would be no way to create a time profile Brooks Hurd Posted Dec 21 2006 at 5 36 PM Permalink Lucia My rheology prof was Bob Brodkey Pat Frank Posted Dec 22 2006 at 2 51 AM Permalink One of the things one discovers about ice in chemistry is that it contains varying amounts of liquid water in the interstecies of the ice crystals within which ions can migrate and reactions can happen The liquid water disappears only at very low temperatures unlikely to be attained in Earth glaciers Also the melting point of ice is higher at greater pressures e g here meaning that at a given temperature liquid water increases with depth in a glacier This has got to affect the flow characteristics of the ice at least to the extent of likely making the center of flow at greater depth in a glacier than it would otherwise be in dry packed polycrystalline ice Steve McIntyre Posted Dec 22 2006 at 7 21 AM Permalink 16 I ve been browsing this A point undoubtedly very familiar to glaciologists but not publicized is that mountain glaciers don t get very thick they seem to max out between 100 and 175 m The reason seems to pertain to properties of ice on a slope The flow rate increases both with pressure and with slope If one browses through this lecture slide 60 has an interesting table showing that at a slope of 5 degrees and tgemperature of 0 deg C deformation increases from 4 7 m year to 75 m year as you go from 100 m depth to 200 m depth Rates are also highly nonlinear but presumably monotonic in temperature and slope Another source says Our results show that below a depth of 115 m the ice follows a non linear flow law with a power exponent of approximately 3 as expected from past work Above 115m however our analysis indicates linear viscous flow Fig 2 3 Brooks if one had the type of flow illustrated here which seems plausible then if you drilled at 6200 m in a glacier with a 6700 m summit and the ice is 250 m thick at 6200 m and 100 m thick at the summit then presumably the ice at 100 m at the 6200 m site is flowing faster than at surface and would mutatis mutandi orginated at higher elevations adding a cold bias to older measurements whatever they were measuring I ve got a question about dust layering in flow zones I ve noticed that fresh stockpiles of minerals sometimes seem to have layering that looks like laminations and thought that someone looking at something like this in nature might interpret these laminations as events Is it possible that something like this is going in flow zones of glaciers I m just wondering I m not asserting anything The laminar flow in glaciers seems to occur because ice is not isotropic would dust have an impact on this flow such that dust would tend to stick together under this sort of flow regime so that a type of quasi regularity emerged when it was drilled in a flow zone lucia Posted Dec 22 2006 at 7 34 AM Permalink Hi Brooks Bob s a great guy I first met him at the Muff mech Midwestern Fluid Mechanics Retreat As to the Glacier velocity profile Now with the big caveat that I know nothing about glaciers if 1 ice acts like a Bingham Plastic with a yield stress TauO which it may 2 the glacier looks like an infinitely large sheet laying on a flat surface which it may not and it may or may not be possible to model it this way 3 the properties don t vary in the sheet which based on what Frank said in 16 is not true but this is still a good approximation for start in blog comments 4 The glacier is moving steadily under some applied pressure gradient dP dx G Which is likely due to gravity 5 Flow is laminar Then the velocity profile won t look precisely parabolic T he effect of the yield stress is to create a large constant velocity plug of solid ice sitting at the top of the glacier This might be what Tim describes as a brittle layer The thickness of this layer is the absolute value of Yc Tau0 G My guess is Yc tends to be fairly deep Tim said glaciers don t move until they are deep Below this plug the viscous type behavior takes over In this region the velocity would be parabolic So under this dramatically oversimplified glacier model the profile would be constant over a fairly large depth near the top of the glacier It would vary parabolically below this top layer The no slip condition may or may not apply at the base I know that ice can melt under pressure and when that happens you get a stokes layer under the plastic layer If that forms you need to solve the stokes layer and match velocities between the ice and the water I could sketch this for you but I need to go drink coffee and then shop for presents The upshot is though There would likely be a very large constant velocity region meaning those coring wouldn t have to deal with the complications due to a parabolic profile when evaluating data Steve McIntyre Posted Dec 22 2006 at 8 24 AM Permalink 18 Lucia in most cases it looks like they try to core at a summit which would obviously mitigate flow problems a lot Guliya Core 2 is a bit of an oddball by this criterion as it looks like it s in a flow zone lucia Posted Dec 22 2006 at 4 14 PM Permalink Steve I don t find anything in your comment 19 that that relates to my observation in 18 I understood your post to suggest that interpreting core data might be complicated if cores were taken in a flow region Brooks and I were discussing likely velocity profiles that might apply in some ideal circumstances that could hypothetically occur away from the summit and specifically in the core region where flow might be fully developed The caveat being it would only be fully developed if the geometry weren t anywhere as complicated as it is The shape of these profiles and the profiles leading up to the core would presumably be the complications that concern you So since I can t see the relationship between your comment and 18 could you elaborate This is for the record a straightforward question not any sort of attempt to counter argue anything Brooks Hurd Posted Dec 22 2006 at 6 42 PM Permalink Lucia Re 18 I agree with your comments Pat Frank memntioned that pressure reduces the melting point of ice It would therefore follow that deeper ice would likely have lower viscosity than the ice closer to the surface Steve s comment about acceleration deeper in glaciers supports this I do not think that the vertical flow profile will look like a typical parabola I would expect that under the brittle layer the profile would be a squashed parabola with the peak velocity nearer to the bottom than to the brittle layer interface In my opinion this would be caused by the non Newtonian character of ice shear thinning and the decrease in viscosity with depth I agree with you that the brittle layer since it does not have much of a velocity gradient with respect to depth would have a straight forward age to depth relationship I agree with you about the time profile of the brittle layer I would expect that The brittle layer would move more slowly than the ice below it since it would be slowed by contact at the sides of the glacial valley It is the underlying ice below the brittle layer which would have a very complex time profile For example the highest velocity portion of the flow would be much more recent than the ice above or below it Because of this cores drilled in any sort of flowing ice would be expected to have most unusual time profiles Guliya summit sites 1 and 2 are at the upper end of the glacier and presumably out of the flowing region These may well have a time profile similar to the ice domes in Antartica Summit site 4 however may be in a flowing section of the glacier The cartoon does not give much of an indication of the flow profile under the brittle layer but it does show that horizontal ice layers in the accumulation zone turn roughly 90 as they head into the flowing portion of the glacier This makes sense to me but it would certainly add to the complexity of the time profile in the flowing ice Steve re 17 dust layers in the ice should effect the flow cahracteristics if the dust layers are parrallel to the flow I say this in light of a conversation that I had with a mountain guide in eatern BC Our discussion concerned how snow layers effect avalanche dynamics He said that when you dig a snow pit you can see the interfaces between the snow layers from each storm He said that some layers adhered to the layers below and others did not Poor adherence increased the potential for avalanches Assuming that ice behaves in similar ways there could be an influence of dust layers on glacier flow Brooks Hurd Posted Dec 22 2006 at 6 49 PM Permalink Lucia re 20 I think that Steve is concerned that because the flow profiles can be complex in any flowing portion of a glacier it would make the age to depth relationship much different than in the case of an ice dome These have very little ice flow and thus the age is a function of the core depth lucia Posted Dec 22 2006 at 11 58 PM Permalink On the first bit If Steve is saying the relationship between core depth and time will be non linear I agree But I would agree even if the velocity field were simple or didn t matter For one thing snow falls at a non constant rate Is he worried it might not be monotonic I have yet to see anything to suggest the velocity field would cause that Turbulence could But is anyone suggesting turbulent mixing inside the bulk ice If so the core won t show any bands and will look very odd indeed I m confused You actually gave two theoris for why the velocity profile below the brittle layer is complicated and weird First you suggested it would happen due to the shear thinning I would expect that under the brittle layer the profile would be a squashed parabola with the peak velocity nearer to the bottom than to the brittle layer interface In my opinion this would be caused by the non Newtonian character of ice shear thinning and the decrease in viscosity with depth How would the shear thinning behavior shift the peak velocity to a point well below the brittle layer viscous layer interface If we look at a 1d steady fully developed laminar flow problem the analysis can be solved analytically for a wide variety of viscosities as a function of depth Are we envisioning more or less the same problem and boundary conditions In the idealized problem I m imagining the peak velocity has to increase monotonically from the dirt where the no slip condition applies the the air ice interface where zero shear stress is applied In a fully developed flow the pressure gradient in x would be a constant and it s magnitude depends on slope as it would in an open channel type flow Here s the cartoon of the velocity profile if the flow is Bigham plastic with a coordinate system showing y pointing up Are you envisioning different boundary conditions Because for this idealization the first step is to determine that d tau dy dp dx applies in the ice The next step is tau dp dx y because tau 0 at y 0 For any solution long as the constitutive relation for stress tau says stress increases monotonically with du dy we ll get a monotonically varying velocity between the dirt ice interface and the air ice interface For a Bingham plastic you get a parabola below a constant velocity region So anyway I don t see how shear thinning would result in a maximum velocity below the brittle layer Now on the other hand if your reasoning is the sides of brittle layer clings to the sides of the mountain then I might believe it has a slower velocity But in that case I guess I d need to hear whether or not the brittle layers have been observed to cling to the sides of the mountain Why wouldn t the ice crack or break so the block would start sliding I know nothing about actual glaciers What do the glacier people say happens Cliff Huston Posted Dec 23 2006 at 1 36 AM Permalink RE 20 23 You may find the following page useful to this discussion http www homepage montana edu geol445 hyperglac systems2 Brooks Hurd Posted Dec 27 2006 at 10 48 AM Permalink Lucia Ice is viscoelastic based on the Montana link John A Posted Dec 27 2006 at 11 18 AM Permalink Have any studies been done to measure the velocity profile at different depths in glaciers lucia Posted Dec 27 2006 at 11 25 AM Permalink Brooks Did you look at the equations for the constititive models for stress Or the figures Did you see any time dependence Would you call those viscoelastic or viscoplastic Given that there as a no time dependence and b all suggested constitutive relations show increasing stress with increasing strain rate how does anything the Montana page say contradict my observations above lucia Posted Dec 27 2006 at 11 27 AM Permalink John A Re 26 I don t know I d like to see some too Until I see something to suggest the velocity profile has a maximum below the brittle layer I will continue to suspect it does not because so far I have seen no reason to believe such a unusual profile could occur Steve McIntyre Posted Dec 27 2006 at 11 30 AM Permalink Here s a simple calculation that seems to more or less balance Consider a pie slice of the Guliya glacier over an angle Consider a profile r km from the summit Then the annual accumulation of snow in the slice within a distance r meters from the summit is approximately where a is the accumulation in meters Here let s say that r is 5000 meters and a 0 5 meters This has to exit through a vertical area of height H i e area At Guliya Site

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/21/972/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive


  • guliya « Climate Audit
    Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/guliya/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Thoughts on Alpine Glacier Stratigraphy « Climate Audit
    bulldozed older tills say from a first millennium advance which typically no longer exist As a type of image think of the advances as being types of wave breaks on a beach with the most recent LIA advance being a big wave that wiped out sand ripples from earlier wave breaks It s not a precise analogy but it puts one in an appropriate frame of mind I think One can picture a lot of different possibilities in how tree stems even in situ stems could be exposed For example in Alberta the stratigraphical evidence is that the recently exposed 2900 year old in situ stumps were a bed of about 5 m thickness presumably some sort of paleosol but we don t have any cross sections or level plans The warmth in the Holocene Optimum was clearly more than in the MWP Could one have had a situation where the 2900 year old trees were destroyed but not uprooted by the 2900 year advance they were covered up by paleosol in a subsequent retreat but without trees re advancing to that elevation in the Roman WP or MWP Then the big LIA glacier advance re arranged everything leaving it possible for the trees to be re exposed following retreat of the LIA glacier I don t think that the present evidence in Alberta enables one to say that the glacier did not retreat to its present position during the RWP or MWP I would say that that question is open all one can say right now is that it s likely that the treeline did not advance to the 3000 year old treeline during either the RWP or MWP Also neither the treeline nor the glacier are in equilibrium with the present climate and there is both more glacier retreat and more treeline advance in inventory even with no further temperature increase It would be interesting to see what the present estimates are for what the treelines and glacier lines would be under present conditions If we go from these two cases to Quelccaya what do we know about finds there All we know is that they found a 5000 year old fossil plant What has been reported about the stratigraphy of the find Nothing Is this the only organic discovered at Quelccaya Is it the only one that s dated Both of these possibilities seem pretty unlikely When one sees the complications of the stratigraphy at other alpine glacier sites that have been reported in greater detail although still hardly adequately what can we conclude from the isolated Quelccaya find Can we conclude that the glacier has retreated further than at any point for 5000 years In the other two cases this is not necessarily the case So how can anyone draw any conclusions from a find which has been so poorly reported References Hormes A Mà Æ à ler B U and Ch Schlà Æ à hter 2001 The Alps with little ice evidence for eight Holocene phases of reduced glacier extent in the Central Swiss Alps The Holocene 11 3 255 65 url Anne Hormes website Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Aug 10 2006 at 11 12 AM filed under General NAS Panel Proxies Thompson and tagged alps glacier hormes Joerin schluechter stratigraphy stump treeline Unteraargletchser Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed IPCC and Glaciers It s Hard to Imagine 8 Comments Dave Dardinger Posted Aug 10 2006 at 1 35 PM Permalink As part of fig 4 indicates while there may be a general extrusion over time I expect it varies a lot dependent on just what the local topology is If there s a dished out area then it may be hard for ice from the earliest years to be extruded out of the bowl and some higher levels may be reduced in thickness more because they have a straighter shot downhill But eventually if the ice becomes thick enough the hydrostatic pressure may crack the rock and let the whole thing start moving downhill more easily stephan harrison Posted Aug 10 2006 at 2 45 PM Permalink Hi Steve Stratigraphy is generally well mapped when we want to discuss the chronology of glacier advances and recessions However in many proglacial environments sections are rather rare and section logging is not always possible Trimlines are the places where we typically try to understand and reconstruct past events not just moraines which in the case of the LIA only record historic climate change Dane Posted Aug 10 2006 at 2 48 PM Permalink I agree with 1 I am not sure about this but don t glaciers Push a lot of material in front of them as they advance This might help to account for the preferential preservation of those stumps of the previous post since material could be pushed into a dished out area and bury the base of the trees before the rest of the glacier moves forward and shears off the trees I also think that one sample from anywhere especially a glaciated area does not really say anything about anything Obviously doing a careful stratigraphic analysis is very important in untangling the confusion brough on by multiple glacial advances Steve McIntyre Posted Aug 10 2006 at 3 19 PM Permalink 2 Hi Stephan if Thompson has done a section at Quelccaya he hasn t published it so it doesn t do much good to someone trying to understand the significance of the plant finding Fredrik Posted Aug 12 2006 at 1 16 AM Permalink Hi all Maybe not the right post for this question but I don t know where to put it What is the source for pre Mauna Loa CO2 data Is it ice cores with the problems described earlier on this site dating diffusion chemical modificatiion rates depending on temperature Or is it number

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2006/08/10/stratigraphy-in-small-alpine-glaciers/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • alps « Climate Audit
    working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/alps/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • hormes « Climate Audit
    al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/hormes/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • schluechter « Climate Audit
    R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/schluechter/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Unteraargletchser « Climate Audit
    2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/unteraargletchser/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Unthreaded « Climate Audit
    Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/category/unthreaded/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •