Comments on: An Open Letter to Science

By: Climate Research News » The ‘Hockey Stick’ IS Dead

Climate Research News » The ‘Hockey Stick’ IS Dead — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:45:13 +0000

[...] 4. Meanwhile Briffa repeatedly refused to release the Yamal measurement data used inhis calculation despite multiple uses of this series at journals that claimed to require data archiving. E.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=542 [...]

By: Quote of the week #20 – ding dong the stick is dead « Watts Up With That?

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:31:37 +0000

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:27:54 +0000

No data, no argument.

By: kim

kim — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:49:03 +0000

My model will fly higher than yours; mine has Icarus wings.
==========================================================

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:28:43 +0000

RE: #17. I get it, so the partitioning, in actuality, should be (er, make that *is* – notwithstanding the meaning of the word “is,” caveat emptor, mileage may vary, other escape clauses, etc) how it was meted out in the models.

By: jae

jae — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:11:38 +0000

Just check the climate models, they will give you all this information.

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:55:55 +0000

Also …. there are absorption and radiation spectra….. and there is heat flow. To be perfectly honest, I remain to be convinced that we even understand how the net flow of energy is truly partitioned between the various mechanisms involving:
* Radiation straightaway into space
* Major convection events which play out wholly in the tropics
* Ocean circulation
* Phase changes in water
* Geochemical processes
* Diagenetic processes
* Poleward transfer
* Etc

The standing assumption among the warmers is that the “science is settled” regarding said partitioning. Oh really?

By: David Stockwell

David Stockwell — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:26:16 +0000

Or how about this one by Jim Hansen et.al.? In it he revises his estimates of forcing factors using new models such that CO2 is not responsible for the recent warming, but rather could be entirely due to non-CO2 GHGs., mainly methane. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/9875
He believes the products of fossil fule burning essentially cancel each other out so far as effecting temperature change.

By: ET SidViscous

ET SidViscous — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:19:53 +0000

“Rarely is there such scientific consensus as there is on whether the greenhouse effect is real”

Let’s see… rarely hmmmm. Maybe we could start a list.

Gravity
Newton’s laws of thermodynamics
Existence of matter
Atoms
Neutrons
Electrons
Protons
Light
Sound
Respiration

I don’t know if the scientific is as consensus as he would infer in that statement.

Of course what he is trying to do is infer that there is such a strong consensus on AGW, as most of the public have that tied to greenhouse theory.

Alls greenhouse theory states is that the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of GHGs.

By: Ross McKitrick

Ross McKitrick — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:15:27 +0000

#12–A decade or 2? How about Veizer’s 2000 paper
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=7713608222107017129
Or Kalnay and Cai 2003
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=16262440409722919157
K&C don’t deny the ‘greenhouse effect’ but they do challenge the greenhouse interpretation of US temperature data. Of course if Schelling is saying there aren’t papers denying infrared absorption by CO2, he’s just making a trivial straw man argument. Whether CO2 is responsible for observed climatic changes is the difficult problem, and S&N have taken strong editorial positions that it does. So it’s not surprising they prefer to publish papers that support their editorial stance.