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".
  • COP21 Emission Projections « Climate Audit
    of a consistent centralised dataset of estimates of the root cause of the greatest challenge humanity s ever faced is precisely because nobody wants this 90 non OECD contribution to be easily discoverable and referenceable Because given the Annex 1 and Annex 2 division of countries coming out of Rio and Kyoto it makes the clear the futility of global emission reduction and the irrelevance of the tiny though already highly expensive reductions by the western nations MikeN Posted Dec 24 2015 at 10 57 PM Permalink It took a LONG time for Wikipedia to have its list of countries by CO2 emissions show China as the top emitter Then some commenters complained about how biased the page was for showing this MikeN Posted Dec 24 2015 at 11 14 PM Permalink At the beginning of summer 2009 Wikipedia was showing 2004 emissions MikeN Posted Dec 24 2015 at 11 17 PM Permalink Reply The implications of that make me think that science will move towards the B R theory where temperature increase is based on growth in CO2 emissions and not actual level thomaswfuller2 Posted Dec 24 2015 at 8 54 PM Permalink Reply This is why I gave up trying to follow emissions 7 years ago and began focusing on energy consumption Emission counts are too easy to game and energy consumption is more accurately measured FWIW I show energy consumption rising from 523 quads in 2010 to close to a thousand by 2030 2035 OECD energy consumption rises very slightly while developing countries rise by 4 19 annually My estimates are an outlier the EIA estimates 819 quads by 2040 the IEA and BP quite close to theirs Although warming is a gobal regional actually issue the solution is not The top 5 emitters will account for 404 of the EIA s 819 quads by 2040 and 41 of all emissions by 2040 while the second 5 will account for 11 MikeN Posted Dec 24 2015 at 10 58 PM Permalink Reply Thomas considering the required amount of emissions cuts is about 90 that would make it a global issue thomaswfuller2 Posted Dec 24 2015 at 11 16 PM Permalink Hiya MikeN That may be required but it isn t feasible without societal collapse this century What can be done is Fast Mitigation this half century while developing nuclear and other alternatives In any event if China the U S India Russia and Japan don t go all in on the issue there is no point in Mali or Madagascar doing anything at all AntonyIndia Posted Dec 25 2015 at 1 42 AM Permalink Reply China alone accounted for 30 of global CO2 emissions while India tallied only 6 5 or about one fifth of the former in 2015 Hong Kong is always listed separate in these kind of statistics strangely Still PR China stays the darling of the CC crowd as it produces lots of solar panels and promised the Moon These same people want to deny India its Industrial Revolution although it has about the lowest CO2 emissions per capita on this planet http www pbl nl sites default files cms publicaties pbl 2015 trends in global co2 emisions 2015 report 01803 pdf manicbeancounter Posted Dec 23 2015 at 7 00 PM Permalink Reply I have also tried to look at the makeup of the total UNIPCC and UNFCCC figures by country There are a number of sources of estimates and with the PledgesPipelineToWeb xlsx you have provided another For the historical figures I assumed that the UNFCCC would use their own data For all the major countries they have provided a briefing which was published with the INDC submissions These can be found by searching UNFCCC Country Brief xxxxx These can differ from the other data sets and from the data within the INDC submissions The discrepancy with the country submissions is likely to reason for not providing a detailed breakdown by country The most extreme discrepancy I found was for Indonesia for 2005 The broadest measure of GHG emissions for 2005 in MtCO2e is UNFCCC 2826 Edgar 1171 WRI CAIT 2 0 1584 Indonesian Govt INDC 1800 Now UNEP comes up with a figure of 1791 4 So the Edgar data may be approximately the same in total but in some cases is widely different from the UNFCCC country briefs Table with links is here Steve interesting parsing of Indonesian data In one sense it illustrates the problem in trying to arrive at consistent data But surely the tens of thousands of people working on these issues would have some consistent data somewhere Neville Posted Dec 23 2015 at 7 26 PM Permalink Reply According to the media China had underestimated its emissions by 17 The latest total for China from the EIA for 2012 was about 8 1 billion tonnes pa So 17 added to that would be about an extra 1 3 billion tonnes pa http www eia gov cfapps ipdbproject iedindex3 cfm tid 90 pid 44 aid 8 cid CG6 CG5 syid 1980 eyid 2012 unit MMTCD Neville Posted Dec 23 2015 at 7 38 PM Permalink Reply Here is the NY Times report on China s undisclosed burning of an extra 17 of coal http www nytimes com 2015 11 04 world asia china burns much more coal than reported complicating climate talks html r 0 manicbeancounter Posted Dec 23 2015 at 7 43 PM Permalink Reply For a breakdown of individual countries the nearest I can find is climateactiontracker dot org A briefing published on 1st October 2015 states With the INDCs submitted to date the CAT projects that total global emissions would be 52 54 GtCO2e in 2025 and 53 55 GtCO2e in 2030 significantly above present emissions of about 48 GtCO2e The 2030 estimate is pretty much in line with UNFCCC s 53 1 to 58 6 GtCO2e when you allow for the different historical measurement basis probably from the WRI CAIT 2 0 data CAT does provide country analysis for 32 countries Of note is the analysis for India The current estimate of 2030 GHG emissions from CAT is far lower than that derived from India s INDC linked to from the CAT page particularly deriving estimates from GDP forecast on the table on page 5 and allowing for reductions in emissions per unit of GDP Reasons for not providing emissions estimates with policy pledges include the different measures of emissions the lack of clarity in the INDCs and the likely lower marginal impact of policy pledges on global emissions than that estimated Steve I didn t see anything in the link that showed a breakdown by country mpainter Posted Dec 24 2015 at 10 02 AM Permalink Reply Steve did you try the pdf CAT INDCs warming at the top It provides another link to their assessment of the INDC by country with further links Steve I don t see any consistent dataset here If you believe that this site contains a dataset with consistent historical and projected data please provide me a precise link manicbeancounter Posted Dec 24 2015 at 10 08 AM Permalink Reply Steve If there is some consistent data I have yet to find it To control global emissions needs a standard I would have thought that the UN would have set one but even the UNFCCC and UNEP seem to be working from different estimation methods paullinsay Posted Dec 23 2015 at 9 19 PM Permalink Reply As usual according to paragraph 191 these are all estimates not measurements and there are no error bars This is not science recognizable to anyone in the physical sciences and engineering Steve At this point I m simply looking for consistent estimates I m not sure how one would put error bars on them and this is of lesser concern to me In 1990 could you have put error bars on estimates of Chinese CO2 emissions in 2015 paullinsay Posted Dec 23 2015 at 10 23 PM Permalink Reply What do they stick into the models Are they real measurements MikeN Posted Dec 24 2015 at 11 02 PM Permalink Reply I was working with a top climate model in 2002 that had an economics component built in One thing that struck me in model runs was how China becomes the big emitter with about 40 of emissions It became a leading emitter around 2016 They missed by a decade for something that was just a few years away Barclay E MacDonald Posted Dec 23 2015 at 9 57 PM Permalink Reply Steve interesting parsing of Indonesian data In one sense it illustrates the problem in trying to arrive at consistent data But surely the tens of thousands of people working on these issues would have some consistent data somewhere That a consistent coherent supportive data set s can not be readily located would seem to support the argument that CO2 and global warming is almost entirely a political argument Indeed I would prefer that such a data set is readily located The contrary is just so cynical Neville Posted Dec 23 2015 at 10 29 PM Permalink Reply It looks like James Hansen was right this COP 21 agreement is BS and a fraud There is no chance of mitigating their so called CAGW when one side is nearly flat lining until 2040 and the other side is emitting as much as they please climateadj Posted Dec 24 2015 at 12 13 AM Permalink Reply https imgflip com i w9sl8 Antonio AKA Un físico Posted Dec 24 2015 at 1 32 PM Permalink Reply This trade market that UN has established about GHG emissions is a complete nonsense But of course no one in the UN is going to clarify anything to you Mr McIntyre If UN officials send you emails talking transparently about UN business they will be fired fernandoleanme Posted Dec 24 2015 at 4 08 PM Permalink Reply We ought to have a central data base with easily accessible history and forecast by individual gases or particulates By the way I have tried to estimate future emissions based on my own estimated fossil resources This requires a breakdown of the liquid hydrocarbon streams But I wonder if the IPCC RCP models can differentiate between say asphalt and ethane Follow the Money Posted Dec 24 2015 at 4 55 PM Permalink Reply I cannot find Figure 1 as IPCC AR5 WG3 Technical Summary Figure TS 1 Maybe I m looking at the wrong docs But the same graph appears as Figure SPM 1 in the Summary for Policy Makers The optics that jump out at me is first you are right EDGAR data is used Second on what basis do the graphical artistes base all the CO2 perturbations to the theoretical CO2 FOLU source FOLU Forestry and Other Land Uses Look at the peaks in the EDGAR readings at about 1998 1992 and backward Each corresponds with an increase in man sourced CO2 FOLU nothing else What account for this Does EDGAR project contain such information What s the game here MikeN Posted Dec 24 2015 at 11 10 PM Permalink Reply They list Edgar only occasionally as a source What are NC1 NC2 and UNFCCC Alberto Zaragoza Comendador Posted Dec 25 2015 at 6 14 AM Permalink Reply The UNEP pledge pipeline spreadsheet three last images in the post has another major incoherence the total CO2eq emissions are basically the same with and without land use In fact for 1990 and 2005 emissions are stated as higher EXCLUDING land use an obvious absurdity though it d be great news if farming and deforestation actually reduced emissions For 2010 they have the contribution of land use approximately at one additional Gigatonne CO2eq or 2 of emissions And for 2020 this jumps to 4Gt which is an additional 7 5 compared to the excluding land use figure put other way land use is slightly under 7 of the total emissions Weirdly enough after your email they changed the numbers for all the years but the pattern persists 1990 and 2005 have higher emissions excluding land use than including it In 2010 land use adds about 2 to emissions In 2020 it adds about 9 so land use is about 8 of the total I just checked and at least this part of the spreadsheet hasn t been updated since your post Notice that even the 2020 contribution from land use appears to be too low compared to the IPCC figure the former has land use as making up 11 of total emissions in 2010 presumably not down much by 2020 So while the UNFCCC spreadsheet uses similar total values to the IPCC and EU EDGAR the way they arrive at this total is much different Regarding the not accounted for figure I find their update hilarious quite simply they needed to get the same figures as other researchers and so they plugged in a bunch of numbers My guess is many or most countries submitted incomplete emission counts perhaps accounting only for emissions from fossil fuel use and failing to estimate the more tenuous methane land use and nitrogen dioxide categories But on the other hand if anything I d have guessed that countries would try to overstate their current emissions not understate them so that future emission decreases or decreases in the rate of growth would take less effort Alberto Zaragoza Comendador Posted Dec 25 2015 at 6 30 AM Permalink Reply Notice that even the 2020 contribution from land use appears to be too low compared to the IPCC figure the former has land use as making up 11 of total emissions in 2010 That should read THE LATTER meaning the IPCC meaning the first chart in the post AntonyIndia Posted Dec 25 2015 at 7 55 AM Permalink Reply a post in which I ll consider some of Naomi Oreskes attempt to divert attention away from Chinese coal consumption This scientist is making nifty side business out of the CC variety of Apocalypse scenarios http www collapseofwesternciv org In her new science fiction horror story amazingly China comes out best on Earth after 2093 thanks to Mao s old adagio that political power comes from the barrel of a gun By single mindedly focusing on CO2 she neglected the enormous Chinese NOx and PM 2 5 emissions which are actually killing thousands of Chinese since years http www motherjones com environment 2014 07 inquiring minds naomi oreskes collapse of western civilization Neville Posted Dec 31 2015 at 4 33 PM Permalink Reply Another good article from Dr Judith Curry looking at the temp record since 1850 and what influence could be attributed to human co2 emissions She asks what caused the warming from 1910 to 1945 40 of warming since 1910 and the cooling from 1945 to 1976 http business financialpost com fp comment unnatural consensus on climate change Also Dr Lomborg s peer reviewed study showed that the COP 21 agreement would show no measurable difference to temp by 2100 In fact just 0 05 C in 85 years time and at a cost of endless trillions dollars for no measurable difference to global temps Here s part of his analysis Dr Lomborg s research reveals The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030 the total temperature reduction will be 0 048 C 0 086 F by 2100 Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years there is still little impact if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030 and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century and there is no CO₂ leakage to non committed nations the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0 17 C 0 306 F by 2100 US climate policies in the most optimistic circumstances fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century will reduce global temperatures by 0 031 C 0 057 F by 2100 EU climate policies in the most optimistic circumstances fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century will reduce global temperatures by 0 053 C 0 096 F by 2100 China climate policies in the most optimistic circumstances fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century will reduce global temperatures by 0 048 C 0 086 F by 2100 The rest of the world s climate policies in the most optimistic circumstances fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century will reduce global temperatures by 0 036 C 0 064 F by 2100 Here is a link to his PR study http www lomborg com press release research reveals negligible impact of paris climate promises Neville Posted Dec 31 2015 at 6 16 PM Permalink Reply Interesting that Lomborg exposes a problem with the optimistic forecast of Christiana Figueres Ex Sec of the UNFCCC He makes the point that to limit the temp rise to 2 7 C would take co2 reductions of 3 000 GTs but her own UNFCCC claims reductions of 33 GTs Wishful thinking indeed Here s his quote Figueres own organization estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total To limit rises to 2 7 C about 3 000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced or about 100 times more than the Paris commitments see figure below That is not optimism it is wishful thinking thomaswfuller2 Posted Dec 31 2015 at 10 40 PM Permalink Reply Happy New Year Steve Steve McIntyre Posted Jan 1 2016 at 6 33 PM Permalink Reply Thanks Tom I ve been very sick for the past few days It started with a cold on Christmas Got some over the counter remedies Benadryl All in One Then I got what was later diagnosed as a bacterial ear infection I was up all night coughing I ve been sick from time to time but do not remember seeing each 10 minutes pass all night Went to the clinic and the doctor prescribed an antibiotic for the bacterial infection and a once per day nose spray Was up all night once again saw every 15 30 minute interval all night Was now really exhausted went back to the clinic The doctor said that I now had a tertiary bronchial infection prescribed a stronger antibiotic and a prescription hydrocodone for the cough It settled the cough down really well but had very unsettling mental side effects on me My mind wouldn t stop racing It was quite troubling Once again I was unable to sleep though the intervals were up to about 50 minutes It turns out that others have experienced this with hydrocodone and more generally as a component of sleep disorder The internet is great for locating such common experiences So I stopped the hydrocodone after one day The aching pain of the ear infection has subsided but I m fatigued beyond imagination Usually days seem to pass fairly quickly because I m working on things but today seemingly passed very slowly in 15 minutes I m hoping that I can finally get something resembling a sleep tonight I ve never experienced anything remotely like this before On other occasions the flu might not have been any fun but the night didn t pass in 15 minute increments MikeN Posted Jan 1 2016 at 6 46 PM Permalink Reply I think I used it once when it was prescribed after I went in with what I thought was pneumonia Experienced something similar For stuffy nose just use Sinex I usually go with the Robitussin chest and cough if it is serious otherwise just use hot soups rovingbroker Posted Jan 1 2016 at 8 15 PM Permalink Reply From my first day of Pharmacology a drug is a poison that may have beneficial side effects mpainter Posted Jan 1 2016 at 9 28 PM Permalink Reply Happy New Year Steve Please get proper rest Neville Posted Jan 1 2016 at 12 55 AM Permalink Reply The Concordia University study found that there has been a warming of 0 7 C linked to Co2 emissions since 1750 They found that the top 20 countries were responsible for about 82 of that warming Here is a list of those countries and the warming contribution since the start of the Industrial revolution EG Australia contributed 0 006 C and Canada 0 013 C http berc berkeley edu ranking global warming contributions by country Here is the Concordia study link http iopscience iop org article 10 1088 1748 9326 9 1 014010 pdf jsessionid 7452CF9C7135E5CE0070EEEF21762EF7 c2 iopscience cld iop org Here is the abstract from the study Abstract There is considerable interest in identifying national contributions to global warming as a way of allocating historical responsibility for observed climate change This task is made difficult by uncertainty associated with national estimates of historical emissions as well as by difficulty in estimating the climate response to emissions of gases with widely varying atmospheric lifetimes Here we present a new estimate of national contributions to observed climate warming including CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and landuse change as well as methane nitrous oxide and sulfate aerosol emissions While some countries warming contributions are reasonably well defined by fossil fuel CO2 emissions many countries have dominant contributions from landuse CO2 and nonCO2 greenhouse gas emissions emphasizing the importance of both deforestation and agriculture as components of a country s contribution to climate warming Furthermore because of their short atmospheric lifetime recent sulfate aerosol emissions have a large impact on a country s current climate contribution We show also that there are vast disparities in both total and percapita climate contributions among countries and that across most developed countries percapita contributions are not currently consistent with attempts to restrict global temperature change to less than 2 C above preindustrial temperatures angech Posted Jan 1 2016 at 10 58 PM Permalink Reply Retired 2 years Each 5 mL of Benadryl Chesty Cough Nasal Congestion contains 30 mg of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride as the active ingredients ALL IN ONE CONTAINS 60 mg of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride This amphetamine like drug may be what was stopping you sleeping and making you feel upset besides the illness I would try to get some prednisolone steroid tablets 5 mgms bd for a few days from your GP Could also make you to awake but in a much gentler way and takes away blocked nose cough and muscle ache Good to settle eustachian tube blockage re ear infection works over 24 H Not good in diabetics or if cataract problems Codeine type tablets muddle the thinking and make you tired sand constipated Stick to the paracetamol Ear infections in adults can take 2 weeks to settle CXR if coughing a lot and feeling worse Have a better new year Steve McIntyre Posted Jan 2 2016 at 12 18 PM Permalink Reply thanks for this I had also been prescribed mometasone as a nasal spray The first doctor said to take it once a day The second visit upped the dose to three times a day Does this do something similar to the steriod that you suggested In any event things are considerably better today after finally managing to get some sleep Interesting that the ear infection can take so long to clear up I have an antibiotic prescription for 2 weeks Didn t know about the higher aphetamine in ALL IN One The cough has hugely subsided though still there What would you suggest just for the cough Armand MacMurray Posted Jan 3 2016 at 6 28 AM Permalink Reply Sorry to read about your health tribulations As you noted many most of the cold cough over the counter remedies contain combinations of active ingredients Personally I like to have the active ingredients separated into individual medicines so I can tailor the active ingredients to my needs at the time Some useful info from the familydoctor org website What types of OTC cough medicines are available Over the counter OTC medicines are medicines you can buy without a prescription from your doctor There are 2 types of OTC cough medicines antitussives and expectorants A common antitussive is dextromethorphan The only expectorant available in OTC products is guaifenesin How do OTC cough medicines work Antitussives are cough suppressants They relieve your cough by blocking the cough reflex Expectorants thin mucus This may help your cough clear the mucus from your airway Drinking extra fluids also helps keep mucus thin The site goes on to note that pseudoephedrine and other decongestants may actually make coughing worse with their drying effect thickening the mucus I ve also had the racing effect from pseudoephedrine type decongestnts and now stay away from them When I ve had a cough that interfered with sleeping I ve had good results using either a 4 hour or 12 hour extended release dosing of OTC guaifenesin which thins the mucus and for me greatly lessens the coughing episodes on its own Of course your mileage may vary hope you find something that works for you As a side note lack of sleep is known to negatively affect the immune system s function as well as other aspects of health so if you feel persistently tired you might consider having a sleep evaluation done in a sleep lab Basically you get instrumented and sleep in a lab for a night so the doctors can spot whether there s some obvious and treatable physical or health issue that s causing problems with your sleep Steve McIntyre Posted Jan 3 2016 at 9 58 AM Permalink The explanation of the various components has been very helpful The worst of this has definitely passed though I m not better Yesterday I took an antihistamine Reactine and a Tylenol Night was hardly perfect I had to get up to cough 3 4 times but I seem to have slept in between and am moderately refreshed today The residual problem seems to be the one that you describe I m going to try the OTC guaifenesin as well I guess the end product will be to reconstruct the original thing minus the pseudoephedrine Yes I need to go to a sleep clinic I definitely have sleep apnea I got a prescription for a sleep clinic a couple of years ago but never followed up I will this time bernie1815 Posted Jan 4 2016 at 9 36 AM Permalink Reply Steve I am sorry to hear of your sleep and health tribulations As for sleep studies you can get the basic diagnostic equipment and assessment on line for a fraction of the cost of an in hospital study if such a study is not covered by your health program My own experience with a formal sleep study was underwhelming They made me go to bed too early and I was wired up to the nth degree I asked for the data they used for their assessment and they said they couldn t share it Very strange Neville Posted Jan 2 2016 at 5 14 AM Permalink Reply I m sorry you ve been unwell Steve and I hope you get better soon There is nothing worse than infections and not being able to get a good nights sleep I ve been there before and know what you are going through All the best and a speedy recovery Brian Posted Jan 2 2016 at 9 57 AM Permalink Reply Steve I ve never posted here before but I follow your blog avidly Get well soon and warmest regards to you and your family We need you fighting fit Steve McIntyre Posted Jan 2 2016 at 11 53 AM Permalink Reply Had a much better night last night After three nights of virtually no sleep I was very fearful During the day I googled mind racing unable to sleep One site had a post entitled How to get to sleep when your mind won t stop racing http bodymindconspiracy com how to get to sleep when your mind wont stop racing One of its sections read The Racing Mind I know this guy The mind that won t stop flitting from subject to subject often choosing the most fascinating or distressing things to ponder I remember back at the height of my battle with OCD more on that later I could rehash the same little worries for an hour before my brain tired and flaccid finally collapsed into sleep I tried getting angry at myself but that just made it harder to sleep I tried trying really hard not to think but that just made it harder to sleep I struggled and I shushed but no amount of effort would shut my brain off Exactly He had a meditation for sleep http bodymindconspiracy com guided meditation for sleep that he recommended for racing mind Went to bed about 10 15 working hard to stay up despite the fatigue I put the meditation on my phone and connected the ear buds and hoped for the best Tried the relaxation There was a cough tension that was irremovable but could feel relaxation in other muscles Went through about 4 cycles then had a coughing fit But it was 12 40 by then so I was encouraged One more session Next coughing fit was 2 a m but wasn t too bad I think that I had one more coughing fit that I didn t time Woke up again with another coughing session I checked fearing the result but it was 6 40 am I d not only slept but for the first time in days had probably had some proper sleep I don t sleep well normally I usually deal with mind racing by working on problems in my head but have been tired for years Until this incident I d never thought about mind racing as a problem but I understand now that it is something that can probably be dealt with Richard Drake Posted Jan 2 2016 at 12 42 PM Permalink Reply well you do tend to run rings round your critics Tim Jenvey Posted Jan 2 2016 at 8 52 PM Permalink Reply The side of my face is paralyzed from removal of my facial nerve Ear and eye infections were a regular occurrence as my body was unable to naturally deal with them Over the years the best solution for the ear has been crushed garlic in olive oil This is administered by drops into the ear at the first signs of infection and to date about 4yrs infections have all failed to materialize Prior to this antibiotics were gradually becoming less effective and infections started to develop regardless The only downside is the aroma you will carry around with you Pat Frank Posted Jan 2 2016 at 2 40 PM Permalink Reply Sorry to find you were unwell Steve Your condition sounded literally nightmarish and it s a good to know you re doing better I ve had a few ear infections and have found that they can be cleared up in a few days using triple antibiotic on a small piece of cotton put right into the ear In the US triple antibiotic is available over the counter in a petroleum gel and includes bacitracin neomycin and polymyxin It s been very effective The cotton bit can be small enough so that you don t really feel it That makes it physically non irritating so that it can be kept in place during the day and night The cotton insert can be refreshed every 12 hours or so The antibiotic charge typically gets absorbed during that time I usually keep up the treatment until 2 3 days after the symptoms completely disappear One wants a 100 cure so as to not cultivate antibiotic resistant bacteria If one wants to make the antibiotic stronger a capsule of prescription antibiotic can be mixed into a 1 4 cubic inch 4 cc glob of triple antibiotic Mixing can be done using the stick side of an ear swab or a martini swizzle stick if you re inclined to celebrations The augmented glob can be conveniently stored in a small pill box and kept in the refrigerator This method has the advantage of putting the antibiotic right near the locus of infection One then needn t put up with systemic effects including killing off most of one s intestinal flora To help sleep one might try 5 mg of melatonin at bed time Melatonin is native to the brain and produced by the pineal gland It signals the brain for time of sleep onset and typically induces drowsiness It s likewise available over the counter in the US Melatonin is also a first rate antioxidant and likely protects the brain against certain degenerative consequences of oxygen metabolism I have been in touch with Prof Russ Reiter about melatonin supplements He researches the field I asked him whether taking melatonin might cause degeneration of the pineal gland He replied there were no known negative consequences His complete reply was I know of no reliable data showing that the pineal gland declines in function or degenerates when melatonin is used as a supplement I subscribe exactly to the ideas of Bruce Ames In that regard melatonin has very specific actions in the mitochondria to protect them from oxidative damage Bruce Ames by the way has spent much of his career studying the effects of antioxidants on cell function Ames also wrote the classic paper Dietary Pesticides 99 99 all natural showing that naturally occurring pesticides made by plants in their eternal war against insect predators hugely dominate the human diet and are every bit as toxic as human produced synthetics The green irony of that bit of intelligence seems right up your alley Our edvolutionary sophisticated liver typically detoxifies them efficiently Anyway best wishes for a successful and healthy 2016 Paul Maeder Posted Jan 2 2016 at 5 08 PM Permalink Reply I too have had sleeping problems largely associated with age The best help I ve found is a Tylenol PM and a 3mg time release melatonin My experience has been that this combination at bedtime added about an hour s sleep a precious amount for me I find the time released melatonin was more effective in keeping me asleep I have been using this combination for nine years with no apparent side effects Oh BTW I think you ll find the melatonin may cause technicolor dreams Not nightmares but perhaps a bit more vivid Steve let me add my best wishes as well to the list of those who value you and all your work jddohio Posted Jan 4 2016 at 8 45 PM Permalink Reply Hi Steve I have had extreme sleeping issues episodes that appear to be substantially different than yours but just in case my experiences might help I will give them 1 I had a minor cough during a visit to Beijing that wouldn t stop I literally went three days without sleeping at all because the cough just wouldn t stop Believe it or not I couldn t find any Benadryl in Beijing and my fiance who was a Chinese doctor gave me valium which was not a good experience When I got back to the US I found out that I had acid reflux Omneprazole sp took care of the problem 2 This is different from your non sleeping issue but it is something you may want to consider in looking at the big picture 15 years ago I had something close to migraines every day and I had to rest for 2 or 3 hours every day to get rid of them I started exercising regularly exercise bike and weights and they went away for about 12 years About 4 months ago I would tend to get nasty headaches every

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/12/23/cop21-emission-projections/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • synth_mandate « Climate Audit
    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 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/12/23/cop21-emission-projections/synth_mandate/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • unep « Climate Audit
    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 NOTICE Click

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

  • unfccc « Climate Audit
    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 NOTICE Click on the Reply

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

  • Balascio et al and the Baffin Island Inconsistency « Climate Audit
    at the one per cent level of confidence Do you know whether anything like this is reported for other Arctic glaciers ianl8888 Posted Dec 10 2015 at 3 51 AM Permalink Reply that they now used the very similar Hvitarvatn and Big Round Lake series in opposite orientations Oh dear words are inadequate opluso Posted Dec 10 2015 at 10 05 AM Permalink Reply From the Balascio et al abstract in many Northern Hemisphere regions glacier advances of the past few hundred years were the most extensive and destroyed the geomorphic evidence of ice growth and retreat during the past several thousand years It would appear that they confirm the existence of the Little Ice Age Craig Loehle Posted Dec 10 2015 at 10 57 AM Permalink Reply It is ok for inconsistencies to exist but if so don t use that data in a reconstruction Any reconstruction that does use it should show with and without as a sensitivity test Since glaciers can be affected by both temperature and precipitation like some other proxy we might have heard of there is an essential indeterminacy in the signal In particular some of the lake sediment indices seem to me to have essential ambiguities that have yet to be resolved I personally prefer not to build my house on quicksand kaganovitch Posted Dec 10 2015 at 11 03 AM Permalink Reply a history that is directly contracted should be a history that is directly contradicted Follow the Money Posted Dec 10 2015 at 3 38 PM Permalink Reply Figure 5a not shown above is the Kulusuk Glacier Size record There is a noticeable gap between the endpoint of the data depicted and the end of the time line unlike for Figures 5b c and d At sec 3 2 it is stated Ages are presented in calendar years before AD 1950 BP unless otherwise presented The 5a data does look like it ends around 1950 Why 1950 And why should this glacier study have any relevance for findings about climate after 1950 opluso Posted Dec 10 2015 at 5 52 PM Permalink Reply Using 1950 is just a research convention used to establish the starting date since years ago before present would literally change its start date daily Follow the Money Posted Dec 10 2015 at 9 53 PM Permalink Reply Why is 1950 the research convention Why not 2000 or 2010 Why omit the data at all The paper s abstract makes a couple of claims for 20th century warming Did the paper s authors write the abstract Should not the authors issue a demand for the abstract to be corrected or withdrawn Check out Fig 5a it looks like the warming flattened out in the early twentieth and may have been decreasing even until don t know the data ends Follow the Money Posted Dec 12 2015 at 4 49 PM Permalink Following up the main body of the article very briefly mentions 20th century warming at p 1594 The overall trend reveals a small and very gradual glacier expansion after 0 7 ka followed by 20th century retreat which resembles the overall trend in Arctic temperatures over the past 2ka Kaufman et al 2009 Compare two paragraphs later Both the Kulusuk and Langjokull glaciers appear to have advanced in at last two phases at ca AD 1450 1630 and ca AD 1700 1930 So the glacier was advancing up to 1930 that s in the twentieth century More the data at fig 5a shows a big drop around 1930 indicating the end of the glacier broke off or some other explanation rather than the drop was caused by increasing temps a few hundreds of a degree per annum After this quick drop the post 1930 20th century trend shows no possible correlative evidence of steady warming The data ends about say 1975 I previously said the depicted data line in the graph stops about 1950 There still is substantial missing data the paper s coring was done in AD 2010 and I don t see how the data or the paper itself can correctly claim a 20th century retreat in this glacier consistent with a posited actual or fake upward trend in 20th c temps tty Posted Dec 15 2015 at 10 23 AM Permalink Why is 1950 the research convention Why not 2000 or 2010 Historical reasons Radiocarbon dating was invented c 1950 AD so to avoid inconsistencies between older and newer determinations the present has stayed put at 1950 AD And it is likely to remain so Going back and changing hundreds of thousands of dates would be a daunting task tty Posted Dec 15 2015 at 4 08 PM Permalink Thanks For the carbon isotopes I know there is a 1950 concern about above ground nuclear weapons testing contamination I suppose annular periodicity effects can be eyeballed in the subject relatively easily for recent decades Still the paper makes claims about 20th century warming and depicts data after 1950 I don t think the post 1950 data is an instrumental record attached dynam01 Posted Dec 14 2015 at 12 15 PM Permalink Reply Reblogged this on I Didn t Ask To Be a Blog Caligula Jones Posted Dec 14 2015 at 4 20 PM Permalink Reply Well this has reached the Toronto Star http www thestar com news insight 2015 12 14 climate change didnt force vikings to abandon greenland study suggests html feel free to go an debate the warmunists there I m tired of it Keith Sketcley Posted Dec 20 2015 at 12 11 PM Permalink Reply I think the total picture of Vikings in Greenland includes some theories that if correct would add up to an unviable society but researchers and news media like hype not perspective Climate deterioration is a well supported factor But changes in trading opportunities were likely a challenge alternative source of ivory fewer fish in the north Atlantic nearby reducing visits by fishing boats for supplies and

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/12/09/balascio-et-al-and-the-big-round-lake-nettle/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Raymond Bradley and the Grand Old Duke of York « Climate Audit
    it s used above by our good host I d like to hear Steve s definition w Steve one large problem in this field is the re use of data with known properties e g Graybill bristlecone chronologies But re using the same datasets cannot yield fresh insight Leo Morgan Posted Jul 15 2015 at 5 39 AM Permalink Thanks jeez Willis and Steve I have a rule of thumb that when meeting an unfamiliar term or claim I should Google it first and not trouble the author If I can t verify it clarify it or find reference to it on the first page of Google then it s reasonable to ask I mention that to share the rule not because this post is all about me except to say Arrgh I ve embarrassed myself I did not abide by that rule in this instance for reasons that turn out to be well stupidity The first page of results I get is ALL about data snooping as Steve is using it The link jeeze gave is probably the best What Wikipedia says is The process of data snooping involves testing huge numbers of hypotheses about a single data set Conventional tests of statistical significance are based on the probability that an observation arose by chance and necessarily accept some risk of mistaken test results called the significance When large numbers of tests are performed some produce false results by chance alone When enough hypotheses are tested it is virtually certain that some falsely appear statistically significant If you haven t already seen Randall Munroe s comment on the problem you ll probably enjoy it https xkcd com 882 thomaswfuller2 Posted Jul 7 2015 at 11 25 PM Permalink We sang that song a bit differently back in the Boy Scouts in California many years ago I am submitting both versions to Mark Steyn for adjudication However the lyrics are not so far apart as to be labeled inverted Geoff Sherrington Posted Jul 8 2015 at 12 23 AM Permalink Probably it is my fault but repeatedly I ask myself after reading papers like these Where is the original data preferably graphed for busy people to take in easily that relates the two main parameters in these cases say varve thicknesses and ambient historic temperatures There are more often cases where third party proxies are inserted like ice area as a proxy for temperature or similar but all too often one is left with a sense that the relations are so weak that some third party camouflage is needed to make the story spin In these cases above one or more mixed magnetic property is a parameter drawn from thin air to proxy for sediment accumulation rates As one who has rubbed shoulders with eminent and successful magnetometry geophysicists for decades I could invent various hearsay stories that would make or break this type of assumption In simple words I ve learned enough to get myself into trouble by synthesis of plausible cases that give results that could be heads or tails depending on what was wanted Apart from the insecurity and loss of resolution from the use of stacked sequential proxies instead of primary data there is scientific insult by the lack of correct or even plausible carry through of error terms There seldom seems to be enough stringent error analysis let alone rough error analysis to support assumptions commonly made in these fields of proxy work Often one closes the journal with the final thought Quite so But is it no more than noise On many types of earth science data I can make the noise go up when it is needed to go up down when down following the Duke of York verse that I memorised and enjoyed long before I encountered science Which in turn was well before last year Steve we have a sorry state when Balascio et al here is commended for having some less bad properties than some comparison papers Credits are best given for absolutely outstanding research not for marginally better mediocre work Pat Frank Posted Jul 8 2015 at 11 55 AM Permalink there is scientific insult by the lack of correct or even plausible carry through of error terms Dead on Geoff The entire consensus field lives on that neglect Cordilleran Posted Jul 8 2015 at 12 39 AM Permalink Iceberg Lake AK and it s missing MWP and conflicting varve cores needs a rethink too based on a possible inverted temperature to varve thickness in the early part of the record AhAH Posted Jul 8 2015 at 9 26 AM Permalink The data provide a longer term perspective on the rate of 20th century glacier retreat and indicate that recent anthropogenic driven warming has already impacted the regional cryosphere in a manner outside the natural range of Holocene variability Is it true or not Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 8 2015 at 10 45 AM Permalink The data provide a longer term perspective on the rate of 20th century glacier retreat and indicate that recent anthropogenic driven warming has already impacted the regional cryosphere in a manner outside the natural range of Holocene variability Is it true or not This is an excellent question Nearly all of my examination of proxies over the past two years work that is mostly in inventory has been from a Holocene perspective trying to answer this question My own single sentence takeaway though it takes a huge amount of work to support is that NH glacier expansion in the Little Ice Age was at its greatest extent since the Last Glacial Maximum Even after 20th century recession NH glaciers remain very expanded relative to retraction in the Holocene Optimum The phrase that you have to watch here is natural range NH summer insolation has decreased dramatically since the Holocene Optimum We are arguably getting to the point in a precession cycle when NH glaciers ought to be expanding irreversibly I think that there s a case that the increase in 20th century NH summer temperatures is counter to that trend and to that extent outside the natural range of variability but I also think that there s an interesting question one that has seldom been discussed about whether an effect that somewhat combats the Milankowitch influence is something to be discouraged Framing the question in this way is not the same thing as Hockey Stick theory Let me illustrate the point with a diagram of small glacier equilibrium lines in Svalbard from Rothe et al 2015 edited here so that up corresponds to warmer temperatures that I find convincing and which I ve been planning to discuss in more length The temperature sensitive glacier equilibrium line has retreated in the 20th century but is still far below lines earlier in the Holocene This diagram doesn t even fully state the Holocene Optimum retreat as it does not go back that far as the glacier had retreated outside the range of the proglacial lake David L Hagen Posted Jul 8 2015 at 11 18 AM Permalink Steve Re We are arguably getting to the point in a precession cycle when NH glaciers ought to be expanding irreversibly Your figure shows strong COOLING for the last 4000 years interspersed with Minoan Roman and Medieval warm periods How much global warming aka politically incorrect climate change do we need to generate to prevent irreversible glacier expansion through Chicago and Indianapolis kim Posted Jul 8 2015 at 10 59 PM Permalink The higher the sensitivity the colder we would now be without man s input Ron Graf Posted Jul 9 2015 at 9 01 AM Permalink Exxon is thinking a little gratitude would be nice Jeff Id Posted Jul 9 2015 at 6 14 PM Permalink I think it is pretty clear that any conclusion about where we ought to be in the ice age is easily discounted by the variance of the warm periods in the historic record I only wish we had such influence Jeff Id Posted Jul 9 2015 at 6 17 PM Permalink The proxy record doesn t have the temporal resolution to show our observed increase in summer temperatures You can do a statistically similar trend and add our observed warming to it and you will see nothing We have no info which can allow us to make even basic assumptions about observed warming vs history Jeff Id Posted Jul 9 2015 at 6 27 PM Permalink I think that there s a case that the increase in 20th century NH summer temperatures is counter to that trend This is what I am referencing There has been no evidence presented on this blog or any other which makes or even moderately supports that statement which assumes by its nature a near monotonic decrease to an ice age An expectation of CO2 warming does not justify anticipation of an ice age The oceanic circulation can absorb every ounce of what we do with the worst case CO2 warming without our instruments even noticing the effect It is statistically below their capacity It is an easy logic trap to fall into please consider it carefully Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 9 2015 at 10 20 PM Permalink Hi Jeff I was thinking that the nursery rhyme also summarized Mannian principal components and ex post screening The Grand Old Duke of York He made twelve hundred picks And when they were up they were up And when they were down they were up And when it was all said and done He had his hockey sticks Jeff Id Posted Jul 9 2015 at 6 39 PM Permalink There are a lot of reasons why this is the best climate blog on the internet Well one really and that is the author What I was trying to write so poorly is that the trap we fall into is that the influence we have on warming isn t statistically separable from the huge variance observed in nature It is fun to think about which influence what we might have or what portion is natural and the trap of assumption that we caused it is almost seductive I wish we could cause warming because we are truly going to need to be able to in the next few thousand years Robert Way Posted Jul 10 2015 at 9 00 AM Permalink The phrase that you have to watch here is natural range NH summer insolation has decreased dramatically since the Holocene Optimum We are arguably getting to the point in a precession cycle when NH glaciers ought to be expanding irreversibly RW The orbital only comparison between MCA and LIA shows that even over the shorter time period insolation variations can affect regional patterns http www cgd ucar edu ccr ottobli pubs CESM LME BAMS submit 15Feb2015 pdf RW The general argument is that since the Neoglacial there have been period warm and cold periods in the high latitudes but generally summer temperatures have been declining with glacier expansion being a general phenomenon At high latitudes Canadian Arctic Svalbard etc glacier expansion was at its greatest since the hypsithermal in the late 1800s to early 1900s I think that there s a case that the increase in 20th century NH summer temperatures is counter to that trend and to that extent outside the natural range of variability RW Given what we are seeing from ice cores and dating of exposed plants in the Canadian Arctic and elsewhere it would be safe to say that the recent melt rates are incredibly anomalous over the Neoglacial and compare to during the hypsithermal when insolation was far greater Expect to hear more on this in the coming months To go from the greatest glacier expansion over the Neoglacial to the greatest Neoglacial glacier decline in a relatively short period does require quite the explanation without external influences but I also think that there s an interesting question one that has seldom been discussed about whether an effect that somewhat combats the Milankowitch influence is something to be discouraged RW Certainly a worthwhile question but the question is one of magnitude There are entire ice caps covering hundreds of km2 in the Canadian Arctic which are below their regional ELA over the past decade indicating they will disappear even if current melt rates are maintained I could certainly see an argument that combating Milankovich forcing has some upside but there is a difference between maintaining a stable climate and pushing it towards deglacierization Howard Posted Jul 10 2015 at 10 12 AM Permalink These are all great points Ice melting is a great concern as it has the potential for leveraged positive feedbacks both known and unknown The key question is what are the primary causes of glacial melting beginning in 1850 Is it a natural cycle followed by a CO2 enhancement Is it coal derived Black carbon and other particulates including the cooling SO4 rains down as is well documented in Alpine studies followed by a natural cycle There are other possible combinations of causes My own prejudice thinks particulates plays the greatest role in glacial melting as implied by the dust spikes prior to DO events and the mega dust spike prior to catastrophic Continental ice sheet collapse This matters because we may end up spending a fortune on an ineffective solution that does not have any other documented ill effects CO2 rather than reducing toxic air pollution that kills millions right now that may in fact be the primary or at least a co first order mechanism for ice melting If it s all natural and we cleanup air pollution the effort was not for naught Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 10 2015 at 12 41 PM Permalink Just so readers understand my point about NH summer insolation and the Last Glacial Maximum here is a graph showing JJA insolation at 50 and 60 N from 60000BP to 20000 years into the future insolation which according to widely accepted Milankowitch theory controls the waxing and waning of continental ice sheets Present NH high latitude insolation is at the lowest since the deep LGM This used to be of concern to climate scientists about 50 years ago but it appears to be a consensus that the reduced JJA insolation of the present cycle is not reduced enough to be troublesome Trying to understand why the present low high latitude NH JJA insolation reduction is not a basis of worry is something that interests many people when they first take an interest in climate including me Early on I unsuccessfully tried to understand why the impact of low JJA insolation in the LGM was seemingly so different Science of Doom has written a really excellent series of posts on orbital phenomena seemingly coming to the conclusion that there is very unequal support for various propositions in the field with some aspects seemingly relying on armwaving If high latitude NH JJA insolation is as prominent a driver of ice ages as apparently believed by the consensus I ve always been a little baffled as to why the climate community is seemingly so sanguine about the expected 3000 years of low JJA 50 60N insolation The lack of interest and concern is very marked in AR5 which instead of showing 50 60N JJA insolation the parameter of interest in Milankowitch theory shows 20S and 20N insolation which offset and which give a rhetorical impression that orbital changes are of little import Willis Eschenbach Posted Jul 10 2015 at 1 10 PM Permalink Thanks for the comments on Milankovich Steve One of your earlier comments on the subject led to a post of mine on regarding Milankovich called Into And Out Of The Icebox It s still all quite puzzling to me so I look forward to your further discussion of the question w Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 10 2015 at 1 29 PM Permalink Willis I m not going to venture into the forests of Milankowitch theory If you haven t read Science of Doom s series I strongly urge you to do so Rather than getting lost in such matters my inventory of work on the Holocene is nearly all on proxy information on what we actually know In a sense it will be an extended commentary on Marcott et al 2013 the recent portion of which was as discussed here wildly deceptive and in any responsible discipline would have been corrected or retracted The other point of interest to me at present which Robert Way picked up on is that 60N JJA insolation is very low and according to Milankowitch theory further declines such as will be coming over the next 1500 years would increase glaciation though the quantum remains uncertain and anthropogenic forcing that counterbalances or even somewhat reverses this is not obviously a bad thing a position that Guy Callendar would undoubtedly hold Robert s position is that it s a matter of quantity and complete deglaciation is not something to be wished for My own take on the proxy evidence in Holocene context is that the present increase as measured by proxy information on glacier equilibrium lines is not loud in Holocene terms but Robert thinks otherwise One of the problems in reaching common ground is the contamination of the proxy literature by studies relying on things like upside down Tiljander upside down varve thickness series bristlecones all of which have the effect of making 20th century change seem very anomalous Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 10 2015 at 1 40 PM Permalink Robert says Given what we are seeing from ice cores and dating of exposed plants in the Canadian Arctic and elsewhere it would be safe to say that the recent melt rates are incredibly anomalous over the Neoglacial and compare to during the hypsithermal when insolation was far greater Expect to hear more on this in the coming months To go from the greatest glacier expansion over the Neoglacial to the greatest Neoglacial glacier decline in a relatively short period does require quite the explanation without external influences Robert I ve been looking at Holocene data for a couple of years now mostly work in inventory trying to see whether recent proxy data is escaping the bounds of the Holocene Relative to the Holocene Optimum it seems to me that any recent increases still leave us in the Neoglacial though as noted before there s a plausible case that it is less cold than it might otherwise have been But the signal doesn t look nearly as loud to me as you are advertising Also if the change was as loud as you seem to be expecting to announce over the next few months one wonders why it hasn t already been reported in the literature BTW I couldn t help checking hide the decline in the spaghetti graph in your citation This climate science tradition is preserved yet another climate science spaghetti graph withheld the late 20th century decline of the Briffa et al 2001 reconstruction Stubborn bunch Pat Frank Posted Jul 10 2015 at 6 06 PM Permalink I confirm Steve M s observation Briffa 2001 is improperly truncated at about 1960 in Figure 3 of the manuscript submitted by Bette L Otto Bliesner Esther C Brady John Fasullo Alexandra Jahn Laura Landrum Samantha Stevenson Nan Rosenbloom Andrew Mai and Gary Strand cited in Robert Way s post The same Figure 3 incredibly offers MBH1999 as a valid proxy as well bristlecones and all Stubborn bunch indeed No et al for the author list by the way because I wanted introduce everyone to some folks who think truncations and tendentious contaminations of data are valid scientific practice mpainter Posted Jul 10 2015 at 7 01 PM Permalink Pat Frank Thank you for the complete list of authors mpainter Posted Jul 10 2015 at 7 43 PM Permalink Regarding high latitude NH JJA isolation this does not explain the simultaneous and global cooling of the ice age Even in the tropics and subtropics snowlines were thousands of feet lower compared to today Note that total worldwide insolation does not fluctuate with the Mvitch cycles I am not so sure that there is a consensus among glaciologists on the Mvitch hypothesis Robert Way Posted Jul 10 2015 at 8 43 PM Permalink Currently unavailable for the next day or so but for Steve s interest there is an interesting Holocene paper from Gajewski 2015 in Global and Planetary Change http www lpc uottawa ca publications pdfs Arctic recon pdf Don Monfort Posted Jul 12 2015 at 10 23 AM Permalink Robert shall we assume that the story about these incredibly anomalous melt rates will be revealed in a PR blitz just before the big Paris climate junket Jeff Norman Posted Jul 12 2015 at 7 28 PM Permalink Robert Way Thank you for the links Always always appreciated kim Posted Jul 14 2015 at 3 27 AM Permalink Re Deglaciation 1 Is it us or not 2 Is it bad or good More answers better questions Jeff Id Posted Jul 8 2015 at 9 30 AM Permalink And now a view of the things which are not temperature My reinterpretation At least they are of a sign which passes the obvious test of common sense Craig Loehle Posted Jul 8 2015 at 10 30 AM Permalink Data integrity is the foundation of science Even though much of my work is modeling I always keep that in mind I have sometimes concluded that the data do not allow one to distinguish between various hypotheses or that a model though interesting can t be used in applied cases due to uncertainty or noise This contrasts with the unfortunate tendency of many to conclude that a model conceived as really an analogy IS the real world In the case Steve has dissected the data is the entire issue and upside down or not is a critical not trivial issue It changes everything about the outcome and requires a revisit of past work Pat Frank Posted Jul 8 2015 at 11 54 AM Permalink Steve It is gratifying that Bradley agrees with the interpretation of these two series that had been previously advanced at Climate Audit though like Kaufman there is no acknowledgement They can get away with ignoring you mostly because you haven t published your work Steve I believe you have already established sufficient credibility that these people could not prevent you being published by the usual recourse of spuriously negative manuscript reviews pdtillman Posted Jul 8 2015 at 3 53 PM Permalink Here s a second for formal publication of more of your work Steve Yeah it s a major PITA But I think you could outsource a lot of the pain Prof Curry and or other sympathetic acamedics likely could supply grad students who d be happy to do the grunt work in exchange for junior author credit Please give it some thought I d offer to help but my last academic publication was when I was an undergraduate just about 50 years ago Juan Slayton Posted Jul 9 2015 at 10 34 AM Permalink Wegman s experience suggests the danger of outsourcing even routine drafts climateadj Posted Jul 10 2015 at 3 11 PM Permalink My guess is that Steve s experience with O Donnell et al 2010 probably left a bad taste in his mouth for publishing Hostile reviewers can tie you up in knots and take you places you don t want to go Although in this case Steve might not expect that his in inventory work would necessarily be reviewed by a hostile team agfosterjr Posted Jul 14 2015 at 9 29 AM Permalink Now why would SM want to sully his sterling reputation by publishing in such journals of ill repute as Science or Nature Their peer review consists of pea shooters compared to this one man wrecking ball No website is more aptly named than this one AGF Pat Frank Posted Jul 8 2015 at 12 18 PM Permalink I was puzzled on reading that they used PC1 of the XRF data I know something about XRF and don t see any intrinsic need to use PCA to extract variational shapes from a very straight forward physical method After reading that part of the paper I m still puzzled To determine total mineral content as they stated they wanted to do Rather than relying on a single element e g Ti we used principal component analysis PCA to define the leading mode of variability PC1 among the elemental data why not just integrate the total intensity of each scan Total integrated intensity is proportional to total mineral content XRF noise is mostly iid random so even just summing across a scan to give crude intensity should remove much of the noise jitter So I don t really get it Geoff might know though Steve the major contrast in the Holocene Optimum relative to LGM and Neoglacial is the proportion of organics to minerals You therefore want opposite signs for elements associated with organics and elements associated with mineral matter The PC1 is just a weighted average of the readings in which negative values are allowed The XRF data is available at considerably higher resolution than the pct organic or pct mineral and in my opinion the XRF PC1 looks sensible to me There are many circumstances in which a PC1 makes sense as an index and I think that this is one of them Another proglacial lake for which a PC1 was calculated is at Nerfloen Norway for which a suite of data is online ftp ftp ncdc noaa gov pub data paleo paleolimnology europe norway nerfloen2012 xls I think that the data from proglacial lakes provides convincing insight into changes through the Holocene Pat Frank Posted Jul 8 2015 at 2 13 PM Permalink They measured K Ca Ti Mn Fe Zn Rb and Sr which are all metals associated with minerals not organics Organics would be sulfur that s sulphur to you phosphorous and perhaps carbon if they could measure in a vacuum They also used a 30 kV probe which means they measured the K alpha lines of the elements This is the easiest to work with because intrinsic intensity changes least across the series That means to first order intensities are directly proportional to concentrations If they d wanted to make a better visual correspondence with other data by inverting the XRF intensity why not just do it I agree that the PC1 looks reasonable but don t see any reason to use it Why take real data that has real physical meaning and use PCA to get an EOF of more obscure meaning I m not saying there s something suspicious here I just don t see a rationale for their choice Pat Frank Posted Jul 8 2015 at 2 40 PM Permalink Here s what Vasskog 2012 et al the Nerfloen Norway data at your ftp link say about their PCA Principal Component Analysis PCA is employed to detect patterns of variability that are shared between the investigated lake sediment variables The PCA includes primary count rates of Fe Rb Mn Sr Zr and the K Ti ratio six grain size classes as compositional percentages and physical sediment variables LOI DBD and XBulk resulting in a final data set containing 15 different variables with a stratigraphical resolution of one centimeter The first PCA explains 77 of the total variability of the data set They combined XRF with at least five other kinds of mineralogical data and ran PCA on the gemisch I can see running PCA on that because they ve muddied the clear physical meaning of each set of data by mixing them together PC1 says something about minerals but exactly what I couldn t guess Maybe Geoff knows On the other hand Balascio 2015 co don t mention mixing other mineralogical data into their XRF intensities before running PCA So there s no need to extract a PC1 of obscure meaning from data of muddied meaning So I still don t see the rationale Ed Snack Posted Jul 8 2015 at 3 22 PM Permalink A little off topic to be sure but if it is Sulfur not Sulphur shouldn t it be fosforous Pat Pat Frank Posted Jul 8 2015 at 4 55 PM Permalink That s pretty funny Ed but logical or not it s beyond my competence I m afraid you ll have to take it up with Samuel Johnson s ghost David L Hagen Posted Jul 9 2015 at 6 54 PM Permalink Better yet IUPAC See So Long Sulphur Matt Skaggs Posted Jul 8 2015 at 3 33 PM Permalink Given that the ice rafting shown in Figure 4 seems to be at a maximum during the HTM the later correlation between ice rafting and glacial advance which only seems to involve two adjacent peaks at 3 2 and 2 8 ka bp anyway is somewhat underwhelming The oscillatory and stepwise increase in minerogenic input decrease in organic matter content after 4 1 ka suggests that rather than advancing steadily toward their historical extent the Kulusuk glaciers episodically advanced and retreated at centennial timescales until ca 1 3 ka Without strong correlation to other locations which I frankly do not see when looking at the graphs despite claims to the contrary invocation of a jokulhlaup cycle seems just as reasonable to me Did the Lake Kulusuk glacier really not experience a jokulhlaup in the last 8 thousand years alan bates Posted Jul 9 2015 at 2 32 PM Permalink Pat Frank at 4 55 It s already been taken up by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry IUPAC which is responsible for chemical nomenclature They have already decided that it should be sul F ur and NOT sul PH ur in technical documentation This has been accepted by those most attached to the spelling i e the British It also applies to derived terms such as what used to be sulphide sulphite and sulphate At the same time the IUPAC decided that the shiny light metal with an atomic number of 13 should be called alum IN ium not alum inum This has NOT been accepted by those most attached to the spelling i e the USA Ed Snack Fosforous has not replaced Phosphorous Pat Frank Posted Jul 9 2015 at 9 26 PM Permalink That all settles Ed s attempt at phun Thanks all David Jay Posted Jul 10 2015 at 6 28 AM Permalink As one who works in the industry I can tell you that Aluminum is much more widely in almost all countries outside of the UK around the world Case in point This week I am participating in a trade show Aluminum Shanghai 2015 There is no I in team and there is only one I in aluminum Jeff Norman Posted Jul 10 2015 at 11 44 AM Permalink Alan Do you mean alu MIN ium In one of Bill Bryson s books either A Really Short History of Nearly Everything or At Home he explains that the British pronouciation of Aluminum was an attempt to make the naming of the elements more homogenized Hel ium Lith ium Beryll ium Sod ium Magnes ium Copper etc Wait a minute not Copper mpainter Posted Jul 10 2015 at 2 58 PM Permalink Are you copper bottoming em my man No ma am I m aluminiuming em ma am Say that while simultaneously patting your head with one hand and rubbing your tummy with the other twr57 Posted Jul 11 2015 at 3 03 PM Permalink Alumin i um Tom Lehrer s Elements Song goes to the tune of A modern major general Pirates of Penzance G S and starts There s antimony arsenic a lu minum selenium And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium It is quoted in full in the Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations OUP 2005 p375 However the first line was changed in accordance with the house style of the Oxford University Press to read There s antimony arsenic alu min ium selenium completely destroying the elegantly crafted rhythm j ferguson Posted Jul 11 2015 at 10 00 PM Permalink Lehrer continued These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard Apparently news of the discovery of aluminium hadn t reached our shores by 1959 MikeN Posted Jul 9 2015 at 3 19 PM Permalink I ll return to more typical Climate Audit programming Not so fast Walt Anderson likes to sign his footballs THE DUKE EdeF Posted Jul 10 2015 at 1 09 AM Permalink Paradoxically you can have two cases that are widely different that both show thin varve thicknesses case 1 is the full glacier up close to the lake with minimal melting in summer due to cool summers and case two a prolonged period of hot temperatures that have melted the glacier and it has significantly retreated from the lake Temperature too high and climate too dry for much organic growth little to no run off of water from the glacier or possibly the glacier is so far away that run off doesn t make it to the lake Thus thin varves with low organic matter can be either really cold or really hot Thick varves to me means a large glacier nearby which is evidence of prolonged recent cold temps followed by present warming lots of gushing rivelets pushing sediment into the lake Warm temps and water lead to lots of organics Jeff Norman Posted Jul 10 2015 at 8 43 AM Permalink Off topic apropos of nothing and in the weather is not climate category Environment Canada has not recorded a totally arbitrary temperature of 30 C or higher at the Toronto International Airport urban heat island so far this year This has happened only once since 1938 in 1996 Delete as necessary Steve Toronto has sure had a cold winter cool spring and cool summer A friend s wife from northern Ontario says that none of her vegetables are growing this year Neville Posted Jul 10 2015 at 7 08 PM Permalink Steve I was wondering whether you have seen this Calvo et al 2007 study It is an alkenone based study of SST temps from southern Australia over the last 30 000 years It finds that there has been a drop in SST over the last 7 000 years and seems to agree with other studies from inland Australia like Miller et al 1997 Many graphs etc http people rses anu edu au dedeckker p pubs 12 pdf Spartacus Posted Jul 11 2015 at 2 50 AM Permalink The paper is in discussion which means it is in limbo If it does not get past this stage and actually published it will never be cited by any respected scientist Given my experience with EGU journals having highlighted the paper here may guarantee it will never get past the discussion stage Let s see if that prediction holds Ron Graf Posted Jul 11 2015 at 4 19 PM Permalink In a science prone to junk drawer heaps of assumptions it would be great to see a focus on validating proxies and exploring each s Achilles heel and disclaimers Even better would be the calibration of two proxies where both can be found together Are there any tree mometers near these lake mometers The XRF twist is a nice first step but it needs to be of many locations to give indication of flow distance from glacier Until the uncertainty of what varve thickness indicates is fully cleared up perhaps the eager scientists should slow down on the conclusions After all hundreds of thousands of activist and leaders are waiting faithfully for whatever they declare and we would not want to mislead Jeff Norman Posted Jul 12 2015 at 10

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/07/07/raymond-bradley-and-the-grand-old-duke-of-york/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • baffin « Climate Audit
    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 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

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

  • balascio « Climate Audit
    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 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

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



  •