Comments on: IPCC 1990 – An Extended Excerpt

By: More on the Iconography of IPCC 1990 Figure 7 « Climate Audit

More on the Iconography of IPCC 1990 Figure 7 « Climate Audit — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:32:56 +0000

[...] graphic from IPCC 1990 to IPCC 1995. The misunderstanding on my part was very brief. By June 2005 (here for example), I had tracked down the correct reference and used this correct reference in all [...]

By: Where did IPCC 1990 Figure 7c Come From? « Climate Audit

Where did IPCC 1990 Figure 7c Come From? « Climate Audit — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:09:37 +0000

[...] solve every climate science puzzle instantaneously and on demand. On an earlier occasion, I posted up an extended excerpt from IPCC 1990, which is not available to many readers. However, I didn’t [...]

By: ¿Fue el Younger Dryas causado por el flujo de rayos cósmicos? « Futuroglacial

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:18:41 +0000

[...] que los liberales, la ciencia del clima tienen en la explicación del Younger Dryas se han planteado en ClimateAudit. En gran medida los plazos largos para la acumulación y la absorción de CO2 en la atmósfera no [...]

By: John G. Bell

John G. Bell — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:20:20 +0000

If Wagner argued that the trees that he looked at were intolerent of changes in their environment that influenced water loss through evaporaton from their leaves, his work would be more interesting.

By: John G. Bell

John G. Bell — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:31:00 +0000

Re #2: Andre, I am reading Application of Conifer Needles in the Reconstruction of Holocene CO2 Levels.

“Adjustment of stomatal frequency to changes in atmospheric CO2 allows plants to retain the most profitable balance between carbon uptake for photosynthesis and loss of water through evaporation. Quantification of CO2 responsiveness of individual tree speclevels by measuring stomatal frequencyies over the last century enables estimation of Holocene CO2 of fossil leaves.”

Evaporation is dependent on among other things, humidity and wind speed. So a stomatal frequency chronology must be the result of a function of many variables, only one of which is CO2. Not to be unkind, but isn’t Wagner naive to treat these other variables as contant during the Holocene!? He doesn’t defend this choice other than to say he is following the standard practice.

I would not put much weight on his results.

By: TCO

TCO — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:40:13 +0000

Ok.

By: JerryB

JerryB — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:05:05 +0000

“Description? Maybe worth a post.”

Is TCO volunteering to study Lamb’s work and provide that description?

By: TCO

TCO — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:37:08 +0000

Description? Maybe worth a post.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:09:10 +0000

It comes from Lamb’s climate history.

By: TCO

TCO — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:53:38 +0000

What is the source of reconstruction in 7.1.c? Might be instructive to look at it and compare to MBH.