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

Total: 111

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

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • sachs « Climate Audit
    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 2004 January

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/sachs/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Ground-truthing Marcott « Climate Audit
    hundreds of secondary publications of the chart Do You understand the difference If you are saying either one of the jiang or Ran data sets have been truncated or cut off you have a point of contention I will listen to If neither one has been truncated we re back to square one As a layperson my only beef with the Mann fiasco was snapping off a piece of an individual data set when it inconveniently didn t support his main argument Again where has Mr Macintyre cut off eliminated or not shown even the smallest piece of either one of the 2 data set referenced in his analysis State the sources of the two data sets and show at least somewhere in the same analysis both data sets in their entirety Use obvious colors for differentiation you know red vs black as opposed to Mannian blue vs Mannian not so blue Splicing two data sets can be OK Arbitrarily dropping omitting hiding truncating or failing to show data for whatever reason not so much Splicing two data sets while truncating one of them at the exact point of divergence is not an error it is a fraud plain and simple Did Mr Mcintyre cut off or truncate any of the two data sets mentioned in his analysis M Happold Posted Jan 11 2015 at 4 10 PM Permalink No the case is not being made that it s fine to splice different data sets onto each other to form a single line That s far too general a principle What Steve appears to be doing is splicing two datasets that could act as ground truth for the Marcott reconstruction What the tree ring thermometer splicers are doing is concatenating reconstruction and ground truth two very different things The latter is pure deception since the reconstruction is to be judged against the ground truth Mixing in ground truth with the reconstruction deceives the audience about how good the reconstruction is and whether there are any interesting patterns in it Whether it is kosher to splice together two different proxies to act as an extended ground truth is another question but a wholly different practice It is not an attempt at deception Richard Drake Posted Jan 9 2015 at 8 21 AM Permalink As readers are aware D C judges have ruled that it is a tort in D C to question Mann s reasoning it is presently unknown whether it is also a tort in D C to question the reasoning of Marcott and other coauthors of Marcott et al 2013 or climate scientists in general Known unknown noted JST1 Posted Jan 9 2015 at 9 39 AM Permalink Maybe Marcott can file suit so that we can find out pottereaton Posted Jan 9 2015 at 10 47 AM Permalink Marcott the next generation of Mannian confabulators a Follow the Money Posted Jan 9 2015 at 4 51 PM Permalink It should be a presumption of American law that persons affiliated with Big 10 schools Penn State Wisc etc are mathematically maladjusted Joffre Posted Jan 10 2015 at 4 09 PM Permalink It stands to reason Since there are now 14 schools in the Big 10 one can assume either 1 They no longer understand or value the Truth or 2 All numbers they post should be adjusted by 40 and any projections should apply an additional inflation factor But this is what comes from valuing football over education Jeff Id Posted Jan 11 2015 at 4 58 AM Permalink But this is what comes from valuing football over education Even with the standard 40 central planning recalibration football has been conclusively proven to have a greater value than actual education Martin C Posted Jan 9 2015 at 10 55 PM Permalink Steve Dyou know if Dr Curry is aware of this Reason is that she has had guest posts by Marcott in the past so I might get the impression that she may generally respect his work just a guess on my part though I think maybe I ll ask her to review your post kim Posted Jan 10 2015 at 12 07 PM Permalink An express elevator swooooosh to the top the Executive suite er tweet Woulda coulda shoulda paused at a few floors Mary Ann Posted Jan 21 2015 at 12 04 AM Permalink Nice one Kim Love it gymnosperm Posted Jan 10 2015 at 12 53 AM Permalink At the risk of editorializing it has been clear since Shackleton that diatoms just luuuuv Milankovitch Just look at the OCO following the ITCZ In my opinion Milankovitch effects are just one layer of many and as you point out all except eccentricity cancel out over seasons and hemispheres Interesting that the hirez summer diatomic indices seem to show decreased fluctuation period as temperatures cool but not apparently an increased amplitude This is somewhat at odds with the lower res but vastly more comprehensive results of Lisiecki and Raymo Their results synthesized below show similar period but increased amplitude of fluctuations during the cooling since the Miocene Chris Posted Jan 10 2015 at 2 46 PM Permalink Why is it when I see graphs like this I start working about climate change Just not global warming paul baverstock Posted Jan 11 2015 at 5 41 PM Permalink There appears to be no connections to other blogs they have disappeared Is this just me or anyone else with this problem EdeF Posted Jan 11 2015 at 9 36 PM Permalink The third picture shows nearly 7000 years of good agreement between the proxies in the combined Jiang 2015 and Ran 2015 and Marcott Seven thousand years I will have to re read what is causing Marcott to fall apart in the last two centuries and the cause of the very early Jiang bump I would say between those two events at the beginning and near the end of the records the agreement is amazing EdeF Posted Jan 11 2015

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/01/08/ground-truthing-marcott/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Marcott 2013 « Climate Audit
    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 September 2006

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/marcott-2013/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • iceland « 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/iceland/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Rosenthal et al 2013 « Climate Audit
    read the paper under discussion here but excluding all the other problems with proxy use in these reconstructions that we frequently see in these methods the only fair comparison with the instrumental period would require using the latest sampled reconstructions and comparing that data with earlier time reconstruction data If the resolution of the proxy is sufficiently low not to allow that comparison then so be it do not make it Salamano Posted Nov 5 2013 at 6 26 AM Permalink I hear what your saying and your point is valid to say that no comparison should be made if proxy reconstruction and instrumental reconstructions are inequitable which they are My point goes both ways though reading the squiggles in previous eras to indicate that see this slope was steeper back here than what we have now is perhaps an equally fallacious move for as stated often in other blogs there needs to be a meteorologically climatologically sound argument for the spike itself that goes beyond the mere statistical representation So far there seems to be only acknowledgement of legitimate natural cold spikes post volcanic eruptions for example There are no such warm spike existent in the literature to my knowledge except for the recent anthroprogenic activity Thus any past spike slope trend that shoots noticeably warmer than the mean that can t be considered a potential recovery from a located significant volcanic eruption would be called into skepticism absent some sort of mechanism Taking the literature into hand then we are presented with a much more smoothed gradual set of temperature changes over time and then the spike during the instrumental era It may be erroneous to declare it with certainty as 15 times whatever it was in the past but coming up with a different number or even some other surpassing trend in the past is equally problematic Staying within the paper and just questioning where the actual 15 comes from is fine with me I m just looking at a larger context Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 5 2013 at 1 36 PM Permalink So far there seems to be only acknowledgement of legitimate natural cold spikes post volcanic eruptions for example There are no such warm spike existent in the literature to my knowledge except for the recent anthroprogenic activity Salamano perhaps you are unaware that the comparisons you want to make almost certainly involve comparing a proxy response in the historical period to the instrumental record in modern times For your purposes what is required is comparing a proxy response in historic times to proxy response in the modern times A proper way to do this and not bias the proxy selection in modern times by selection of proxies based on correlation to the instrumental record is to have an a priori selection criteria for proxies and then use all the proxy data You need to do this to get the averaging effect that is required to average out all the other variable noise different from temperature that can effect the proxy response In this process you might find that the temperature signal is not sufficiently larger than the noise to make a proper thermometer or you might find that the non temperature variables are not sufficiently random to make the proxy a thermometer You may find that the proxy approach is not valid but at least you took a proper approach in an attempt to compare historical and modern temperature changes Doing it the way that you evidently prescribe and one that is favored by climate scientists is simply wrong headed and is more about spinning the AGW issue than science Salamano Posted Nov 5 2013 at 2 18 PM Permalink Yes I think your apples apples comparison is probably a necessary ingredient and a missing link of sorts that has been quested for by many a grant offering and climate paper Something that shows an appropriate response in the past combined with a valid response in the present that s comparable to the instrument temperature record Marcott et al have the proxy response of the past but the present era is not valid unless you assume so simply because it mimics the temperature record Likewise many dendro reconstructions cover a lot of past several centuries but fail to en masse replicate the modern signature in the instrumental record unless it is heavily weighted toward a handful of trees It is certainly hard to get away from because we know the modern era temperatures with much more certainty than that of the past It makes certain proxy results intuitively acceptable maybe even to the point of confirmation bias There s even that jibber jabber about including various poor proxies contaminated strip bark etc simply because it validates statistics of what we know better than without it as if to say including the Yankees batting averages as a proxy should also be acceptable if it increases robustness However do you not think that instead a concentration on the trends in the temperatures rather than the values themselves constitutes a different new line of reasoning in this arena and one that may have more traction Steve one of the attractions of the Mg Ca proxies used by Rosenthal et al is that they are believed to have a monotonic and physical response to temperature a point noted up at CA many years ago The disadvantage is the low resolution of most ocean proxies The site of the Rosenthal study is unusual in that it is both tropical and high accumulation i e higher resolution Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 5 2013 at 6 31 PM Permalink However do you not think that instead a concentration on the trends in the temperatures rather than the values themselves constitutes a different new line of reasoning in this arena and one that may have more traction If by trends in temperature you mean the looking at the rates of increases instead of levels to which the temperatures might increase I would agree that climate science and advocates for immediate AGW mitigation would appear to have made this change in emphasis I have stated that a few times lately at these blogs The rate of change in CO2 atmospheric concentrations in place of eventual concentration level is also being emphasized Here the argument is that the resulting acidification of the oceans creates detrimental effects due to organism failing to adapt evolve sufficiently fast to those conditions Of course that is something that should be considered but also gets my wary eye because it appears forced to get the any detrimental effects of AGW moved closer to present time and used as evidence for immediate action on AGW Rates of temperature increases of the modern day versus historic times still depends on finding good temperature proxies and using that response to determine whether the modern warming rate is unprecedented and not making apples to oranges comparisons with the instrumental record Steve one of the attractions of the Mg Ca proxies used by Rosenthal et al is that they are believed to have a monotonic and physical response to temperature a point noted up at CA many years ago The disadvantage is the low resolution of most ocean proxies The site of the Rosenthal study is unusual in that it is both tropical and high accumulation i e higher resolution I agree that the physics and straightforwardness of some of these proxies for temperature make them much better potential proxies for temperature than for instance TRW or MXD Isotope ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in water appear in that class that has a better physical understanding but there we need to know where that water evaporated and whether the source of that water changed over time Ice cores that go back in time to glacier periods seem to faithfully record those epochs where changes in temperature are large I have read that smaller changes such as the recent warming are more difficult for those proxies to detect accurately Mg CA appears straight forward but I believe by inference from reading at this thread that changing thermoclines can make the proxy response very noisy in the case of Rosenthal et al and thus uncertain as to an average level I have no problem with any of these temperature proxies if the authors of the reconstructions are very careful about noting the physical spatial and temporal limitations and attempt to put reasonable confidence limits on the results Unfortunately I see way too much selection after the fact and no considerations for the problems associated with the proxies by the reconstruction authors who appear in too big a hurry to make advocacy points Salamano Posted Nov 6 2013 at 6 30 AM Permalink It is an interesting topic of discussion though should it be that temperature can only rise quickly through anthroprogenic means We ve got ample evidence of the cool down recovery cycle of massive volcanic eruptions but what possible mechanism is theoretical out there to force a naturally derived warm spike As it stands all such spikes are deduced to must be smoother in the past while those cold ones associated with the eruptions are allowed to be retained Salamano Posted Nov 6 2013 at 7 50 AM Permalink Okay El Nino is certainly one of these warm spike triggers if 1998 is any indication Perhaps it can be more stark if there s a strong El Nino near a volcanic eruption Unfortunately I don t know how you can evidence the appearance of one in the paleo past though I suppose you can simply suggest it However if a spike is going to have to last 50 years or more to show up in the proxy Hmmm Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 6 2013 at 9 04 AM Permalink However if a spike is going to have to last 50 years or more to show up in the proxy Hmmm Salamano I find it difficult to reply to your less than precise descriptors here First of all the recent warming with AGW origins has to be unprecedented since it puts an artificial warming onto a natural background of temperature variations That does not mean that a past natural cycle could have shown an approximate warming rate of the same magnitude We have an upward trend for approximately 30 years from 1975 to 2005 and then a plateau to present time You have upward natural trends in the instrumental record of at least half that rate of warming for the same period of time The spike is unfortunately what you see when those doing reconstructions incorrectly splice the instrumental record to proxy responses in reconstructions If you look at sufficient proxy responses and into the instrumental period you will soon lose that spiking sensitivity and particularly when you realize that some of the proxies were selected after the fact Rate of warming cooling are important features of climate to study but the studies have to be carried out properly Salamano Posted Nov 6 2013 at 11 48 AM Permalink The spike is unfortunately what you see when those doing reconstructions incorrectly splice the instrumental record to proxy responses in reconstructions Well it can also occur when your selection screening method of proxies decisively weight all those that mimic the temperature record as well It doesn t have to be a direct splice If you look at sufficient proxy responses and into the instrumental period you will soon lose that spiking sensitivity and particularly when you realize that some of the proxies were selected after the fact However their non conformity to the present spike narrative is set aside beceause of the hard data that is the instrumental record that as the argument goes vouches for any spike seen in the proxies that are perhaps screened by the same spike In a reasonable sense it is done also because there is a mechanism put forth for such a spike anthroprogeneity one that by definition cannot exist in the pre industrial era So then if there s a mechanism that can be pointed to that could account for a possible temperature trend spike the likes of which is currently visible in the present era record yet having existed a millenium or earlier ago it gets a whole lot more interesting when identifying instances where whatever paleo proxy data may show such a spike Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 6 2013 at 1 37 PM Permalink However their non conformity to the present spike narrative is set aside beceause of the hard data that is the instrumental record that as the argument goes vouches for any spike seen in the proxies that are perhaps screened by the same spike In a reasonable sense it is done also because there is a mechanism put forth for such a spike anthroprogeneity one that by definition cannot exist in the pre industrial era Salamano the first sentence above in your excerpted reply overlooks the fact that a proxy missing the upward trend in the recent warming could well miss it in the past Your second sentence in the reply has no meaning with regards to the question of how the recent warming rate of increase given agreed upon but not well quantified effects from AGW compares to the past It appears that there is agreement that proxies used in reconstructions could well be insensitive to quantitatively measuring these warming rates which leaves us with the temporally limited instrumental record and climate models Of course the argument about rate of warming is merely in the abstract one unless one is able and willing to attach with good evidence some causative detrimental and or beneficial effects on mankind Salamano Posted Nov 7 2013 at 7 54 AM Permalink Okay we can continue this I don t think we re as far apart as implied a proxy missing the upward trend in the recent warming could well miss it in the past My second statement is was a response to this Maybe another try would help Here goes Yes a proxy missing the upward trend in the recent warming would presumably have questioned accuracy for the past where the grounding instrumental record doesn t exist However it s precisely because of the instrumental data that any spike in the recent era on just about any proxy is accepted as valid and any proxy group that does not show this is discounted for any number of new old reasons designed to be a one off that only holds water for the present era Ergo by definition a proxy cannot miss spiked warming in the past when it comes to trends the new fashion because there s no grounding mechanism established to foster such warming because only anthroprogenic causes are established Proxies may however demonstrate things about relative maxima minima provided they are validated by towing the line when it comes to the instrumental data and or whatever else has been canonized in the 1500s and more recent By definition a proxy CAN miss present warming and it doesn t even matter because of whatever legitimate reason or hand waving employed to say it would have matched the instrumental record were it not for diminished CO2 response etc In either case if the stated goal is getting the temperature reconstruction right then they can freely ignore any proxy post 1850 and just stick with the instrument record which is why sometimes they can t help themselves if splicing it onto the truncated end of a paleo proxy It appears that there is agreement that proxies used in reconstructions could well be insensitive to quantitatively measuring these warming rates which leaves us with the temporally limited instrumental record and climate models Yes but as I ve taken the liberty to re state it doesn t matter if it s assertable that warm spike could have still occurred without being visible on the proxy data because there has yet to be a presented mechanism to foster that kind of an equitable spike remember the only permitted explanation on the table is anthroprogenic Of course the argument about rate of warming is merely in the abstract one unless one is able and willing to attach with good evidence some causative detrimental and or beneficial effects on mankind That certainly can be true but I think that general philosophy psyche of mankind vis a vis its biosphere holds that any sort of man forced change is automatically bad Is it bad that insert endangered species goes extinct Is it bad to divert manage river flow or whatever I think this resonates more with liberals than other folks where if any of these proverbial trees were to fall in the woods we would just adapt and get on with it but because we think a man did it it s now a serious and dire concern Geoff Sherrington Posted Nov 2 2013 at 7 41 PM Permalink Steve Your analysis leaves aside the possibility that errors in the measurement of OHC are currently so large that maybe nothing of any detailed value can be derived from the data The coloured confidence intervals derived from standard deviations are not the total error There is another error component this being bias Many of us are perhaps familiar with the widespread rejection of instrumental data before the advent of the Argo floats a rejection that was caused by bias shown by the older instruments compared with the new It cannot be assumed that Argo has eliminated its own bias nor that a newer generation of instruments will not reject Argo because of bias That remains to be tested In any event the volume sampling density of Argo the small of their deployment time actually spent on recording temperatures as opposed to getting ready to measure temperatures the few years of actual measurement since the start about year 2000 and the inability to cover shallow sections of oceans all combine to prevent a correct use of present data for many purposes because of true errors Or so I propose hoping to be shown wrong by those more closely involved The error problems of floats applies as well to proxy data because proxies are often calibrated against instrumental float data I appreciate that your essay was concentrating on data interpretation and dissemination and not on the fundamentals and my contribution here is to augment the disquiet that you express dallas Posted Nov 2 2013 at 8 51 PM Permalink Geoff it does look like the instrumental has more uncertain than the Paleo There seems to be a missing note c that might have explained things Willis Eschenbach Posted Nov 2 2013 at 7 52 PM Permalink I read the paper intending to comment on it but like you I couldn t find the fifteen times figure anywhere At that point I threw up my hands so thanks for doing the necessary digging w Steve nor did I succeed in locating its basis TomRude Posted Nov 3 2013 at 12 55 AM Permalink Since press releases are for the worldwide mass media use the figure is probably only intended for PhD in television watching audiences HR Posted Nov 3 2013 at 10 37 AM Permalink It would be nice if the authors could come out and say actually the strength of this work is in shedding light on ocean processes and their relation to global climate and this fastest rate stuff in the press release is distracting from these more interesting points The authors must think about this stuff all day every day They must have pride in what their science is adding to our knowledge and they must know that this faster rate stuff is the weakest of their conclusions and probably in the wider context the least interesting in terms of what this adds to our understanding Steve it s worth listening to Andy Revkin s interview with Rosenthal and Linsley see link at dotearth When asked to summarize the article Rosenthal made no mention of the fastest in 10000 year meme Revkin had to prompt him on this The fastest meme feels forced to me as though it was inserted late in the day to mollify referees tetris Posted Nov 4 2013 at 5 00 PM Permalink See Kneel s comment above Par for the course jim2 Posted Nov 4 2013 at 10 14 PM Permalink It will be interesting to see if Rosenthal et al morph into crispy critters on the alter of Global Warming Looks like Steve M has lit some tender caryboyce Posted Nov 2 2013 at 8 13 PM Permalink Have to agree with Michael Just by eyeing the graph it shows 3 short periods of warming from the bottom of the LIA Each period has a greater incline than the present ATheoK Posted Nov 2 2013 at 8 27 PM Permalink I m baffled by their claims Looking over their Rosenthal et al 2013 Figure 2C graph their are at least six perhaps seven upticks whose upward slopes match or exceed their claims for the recent heating trend Sitting back and considering their overall findings I am very baffled by their supposed concerns over the recent upward heat trend When looking at eight or so thousand years of cooling oceans one should be glad for any cooling reversal If cooling has bottomed as part of a natural cycle then eight thousand years of warming may be the next part of the cycle What these researchers should be worrying about is just how long before cooling ocean deeps becomes ice ball earth Steve Reynolds Posted Nov 2 2013 at 8 47 PM Permalink New Scientist is repeating the press release and even suggesting it supports the hockey stick Similar temperature trends are known to have happened over land encapsulated in the famous hockey stick graph http www newscientist com article dn24503 unprecedented warming uncovered in pacific depths html UnWpOeLAZVU Lance Wallace Posted Nov 2 2013 at 8 51 PM Permalink Steve and Willis The 15 comes from Table S3A dividing 8 4 Joules by 55 years 0 55 centuries But that s not 15 times It is 10 times the rate in the period 1600 1950 Steve of course it s not 15 times 15 times remains unexplained misreading this table would merely be an amusing explanation Michael Jankowski Posted Nov 2 2013 at 9 38 PM Permalink Yes 15 divided by 1 5 is 10 That certainly doesn t explain why 15 is getting touted And even if they were touting 10 it sure seems somewhere between apples to oranges and basically nonsense because the time period lengths are vastly different Also as Steve noted the deltaHo of 8 4 for 1955 2010 doesn t seem to make sense compared to a deltaHo of 5 6 for 1600 1950 when looking at the deltaT Each of the 1st 3 periods has a ratio of 22 and change to 1 between deltaHo and deltaT But the 1955 2010 period has a ratio of 76 to 1 How why does the conversion of deltaT to deltaHo change from 1955 2010 by a factor of 3 5 over the other time periods Seems like if those first 3 periods are calculated correctly and the deltaT is correct for all periods then the deltaHo for the 1955 2010 period should be more like 2 4 2 5 x 10 22 J So instead of 10 or 15 the actual factor would be 3 The last column doesn t look right to me either I get 0 02 and 0 15 for the first two time series but then I get 0 07 and 0 02 instead of 0 09 and 0 032 respectively Craig Loehle Posted Nov 2 2013 at 9 00 PM Permalink I am myself fond of just making stuff up when I am telling a joke or pulling someone s leg 15 times faster would be about straight up no Keith DeHavelle Posted Nov 2 2013 at 9 35 PM Permalink Their assertion about 15 times Doesn t jive with the way the graph climbs They ve a problem to solve They can only resolve Temps of century scale or more climes Thus admitted in their interview When now cautious Revkin did pursue Just how do you support it Well they can t they retorted Faster change might have happened No clue So where do they get their faster claims Well there are other papers One claims And cites Markott et al But they know who will call Cause the global busts some key Team claims Keith DeHavelle Roger Andrews Posted Nov 2 2013 at 9 44 PM Permalink How do we reconcile the Rosenthal results with the data from the DSDP 980 981 and 984 sediment cores in the North Atlantic which show net cooling over the last 10K years Steve huh Rosenthal shows net cooling over the last 10K years EdeF Posted Nov 2 2013 at 9 46 PM Permalink After looking carefully at the above graphs and doing some calculations I have decided to put on a very heavy sweater Ed Barbar Posted Nov 2 2013 at 10 44 PM Permalink Perhaps what they are saying is that they can t prove that temperatures rose faster in the last 10K years as fast as they are today That is there are no two years in the sample that when minimized within the margin of error show it was warming faster than today A stronger statement would be that there is a connected function wandering through the margin of error that does not have a higher rate of warming than recently Of course the margin of error is greatly reduced of course due to accurate measurements For instance 310 320AD looks like it has a very steep line of increasing temperatures But there are two points within the margin of error in 310 and to 320 that that minimize the heat change to zero Ed Barbar Posted Nov 2 2013 at 10 45 PM Permalink Of course the margin of error is greatly reduced TODAY of course due to accurate measurements It seems like they are comparing apples and oranges with regards rate of change Roger Andrews Posted Nov 2 2013 at 10 49 PM Permalink Steve Apologies for the confusion my mistake Let me rephrase the statement How do we reconcile the Rosenthal results which show about 3 degrees of net cooling over the last 10k years with the results from the DSDP cores which show maybe a degree of net warming Hilary Ostrov aka hro001 Posted Nov 2 2013 at 11 00 PM Permalink They showed the Marcott et al 2013 reconstruction in their Figure 2 apparently unaware that its 20th century uptick is at best an artifact It is regrettable that Marcott and coauthors have not issued a corrigendum conceding that the uptick cannot be relied on Perhaps Marcott et al are waiting until after the final final publication of AR5 s WGI where one finds 5 5 1 1 Northern Hemisphere Mid to High Latitudes According to a recent compilation of proxy data the global mean annual temperatures around 8 6 ka were about 0 7 C higher and extratropical NH temperatures were about 1 C higher than for pre industrial conditions Marcott et al 2013 as well as 3 additional citations in this Chapter and Chapter 10 10 7 1 2 Role of Individual Forcings Some studies suggest that particularly for millennial and multi millenial timescales orbital forcing may be important globally Marcott et al 2013 It would be a crying shame would it not if the IPCC were obliged to disappear these citations and references as a consequence of a corrigendum Much better to spare the IPCC the trouble then after publication someone can go through channels and protocol and the IPCC can eventually declare that the corrigendum makes no difference so no changes are necessary laterite Posted Nov 2 2013 at 11 46 PM Permalink Reblogged this on Niche Modeling and commented these modern fluctuations appear to me to preclude any strong conclusions that the relatively modest increase in ocean heat content is unprecedented Chad Jessup Posted Nov 3 2013 at 12 07 AM Permalink As ocean levels fall dramatically 120m during an ice age I wonder if that factor influences any investigations of prehistoric OHC Vaughan Pratt is ripping Steve over at Climate Etc 11 3 0010 hrs on the Pacific Ocean Heat Content Steve I am unable to see anything in his comments that refutes or contradicts anything in my post His first comment begins The denizens of CA starting with McIntyre are no more aware of the Meridional Overturning Current than Rosenthal et al Plate 10 here pretty much blows their analysis away The Meridional Overturning Current has nothing to do with my analysis though it may affect Rosenthal s analysis I was primarily trying to determine whether unprecedentedness was established by Rosenthal s data and concluded otherwise This limited point appears valid to me regardless of the Meridional Overturning Current Richard Drake Posted Nov 3 2013 at 9 54 AM Permalink Steve I was primarily trying to determine whether unprecedentedness was established by Rosenthal s data and concluded otherwise A reasonable goal given the statements in the Huffington Post and New Scientist liable to be read by a wide audience The difference between what is said in one sentence by Rosenthal in the paper and the 15 times faster nonsense in the press releases exhibits for me a common propaganda technique used throughout the climate con two positions are set up as if the only valid debate was where the truth lies between them But as Steve has shown here there s no basis for either We live and hopefully learn Duster Posted Nov 4 2013 at 1 03 AM Permalink Pratt s last name tells the entire story Move along nothing worth mothering with Duster Posted Nov 4 2013 at 1 04 AM Permalink That should be bothering with kim Posted Nov 4 2013 at 6 38 AM Permalink Vaughn Pratt has removed the ambiguity in pretty much blows their analysis away by confiming that the their refers to Rosenthal et al He has a nice point about the Meridional Overturning Current but is chary of showing it here TomRude Posted Nov 3 2013 at 12 50 AM Permalink Steve during the Holocene Climatic Optimum sea levels in the Pacific Ocean were at least 1 5m higher Remnants of corals dated 5 000BP can be found on atolls across the Pacific above present day sea level So anyone suggesting the HCO was not a global event will have to explain how the largest ocean of the planet was affected but not the rest of the globe Brian H Posted Nov 3 2013 at 1 09 AM Permalink Is this not another case of comparing recent hi res squiggles with smoothed paleo records and claiming a recent squiggle is the squiggliest evah Despite admitting past records are blind to any such short term squigs ianl8888 Posted Nov 3 2013 at 2 08 AM Permalink ie splicing higher resolution recent instrumental data onto low resolution palaeo data something no respected researcher does Bill Posted Nov 4 2013 at 1 17 PM Permalink And ignoring error bars in both past and recent data in the analysis knr Posted Nov 3 2013 at 4 01 AM Permalink The authors show they know which side the bread is buttered on that research in the area seems to need such statements loyalty to the cause Shows how its not just the team that as be compromised but the area in general Sad but not unusual given how in acedmic you get jobs and promotion is 9 out of 10 times by keeping the consensus and dam the data chris y Posted Nov 3 2013 at 7 46 AM Permalink To their credit Marcott et al provided an estimate of the frequency response amplitude and phase of their reconstructions based on sampling interval dating uncertainties and proxy magnitude uncertainty It is summarized in their Figure S18 of the supplementary information document that accompanied their paper Their Figure S18 revealed in a single graph the reason why the PR claim of unprecedented rates of change of temperature in recent decades was utter nonsense I think an estimation of the frequency response of a proxy reconstruction should be required if the paper attempts to make claims about rates of change of anything Kneel Posted Nov 3 2013 at 4 33 PM Permalink I think an estimation of the frequency response of a proxy reconstruction should be required if the paper attempts to make claims about rates of change of anything While I certainly agree I believe certain weasel words are also normally added things like appears to suggest seems to be absent further research to the contrary etc Not totally unreasonable where the interest is solely academic I might add ImranCan Posted Nov 3 2013 at 8 09 AM Permalink It appears to me that the chief claim arising from the release of this study that warming is occuring at an unprecedented rate if based on the flawed methodology of comparing a time series one set of proxy data eg foraminifera with another type of data that being actual instrumental temperature recordings This seems to be very dubious grounds for making such a claim It also seems that the much more robust conclusion of this work is that we have had 7 000 years of cooling basically negating the storyline of the last 20 years that something unusual is happening Talk about an own goal Kneel Posted Nov 3 2013 at 4 39 PM Permalink This seems to be very dubious grounds for making such a claim Agreed Alas this type of action does not appear to be unprecedented in published climate science as is evident if one considers for example the entirety of CA posts Oh Perhaps we have all misunderstood the climate of climate science publication certainly appears to be remarkably similar to a hockey stick in several areas and regrettably such carelessness with the details appears to one such similarity Craig Loehle Posted Nov 3 2013 at 8 27 AM Permalink There are rapid upticks in their reconstruction but they discount them then compare smoothed data to instrumental detailed data apples oranges If it has been cooling for 7000 years then clearly the temperature today is not unprecedented Oh and polar bears and people did just fine 7000 yrs ago Jeff Id Posted Nov 3 2013 at 8 59 AM Permalink The frequency response of the proxy data just doesn t allow the comparison Looking at the magnitude of the variation in ocean temps it is an amazingly variable climate even without us monkey s farting into the wind I can t believe climate scientists won t consider slowing down the flow of stupidity in their field Of course the governments don t seem concerned with funding propaganda so I suppose there is no real reason to be reasonable Jeff Id Posted Nov 3 2013 at 9 04 AM Permalink I mean it is an amazing amount of natural energy variance if I actually believed the squiggle was related to temperature Tom H Posted Nov 3 2013 at 8 43 AM Permalink But interestingly the first uptick from the trend line post year 1600 may be 15 times faster RickA Posted Nov 3 2013 at 8 46 AM Permalink What confuses me is that the ocean heat content the part they studied warmed during the MWP and cooled during the LIA I would have thought that the ocean would have done the reverse and warmed during the medieval warm period and cooled during the little ice age Could someone comment on this issue Thanks in advance RickA Posted Nov 3 2013 at 8 46 AM Permalink Sorry I had that backwards the graph shows

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/02/rosenthal-et-al-2013/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • MD97-2141 « 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/md97-2141/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ocean heat content « 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/ocean-heat-content/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • rosenthal « 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/rosenthal/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  •