Comments on: An Esper Spaghetti Graph

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:41 +0000

Regarding the down spike, many indicators do in fact suggest a probable downturn in – pardon the use of this questionable attribute – global mean temperature, since the peak during the ’97 – ’98 strong El Nino.

For me, the question would be is it recovery from that El Nino or something worse? Again, putting on my inevitable EE hat, whenever you see a step function in a signal that is in a high state (which, generally speaking, we are in and have been for some 10K years) there is always the possibility of the step being the onset of a state transition. So, if it’s a glitch, all well and good. If not, then woe unto Northern Europe, Canada and the Northern tier of the US. This is not alarmism, it is a simple statement of fact. All evidence, and much current knowledge regarding glaciation behavior, points to the inevitable eventual end of this interglacial.

Instead of wasting money, time and human capital on “stopping global warming” the only rational focus of climatologists, physicists, politicians and others who care about things like national viability ought to be what will be the exact continency management plans not if but when the continential glaciers begin their inexorable return.

By: Greg F

Greg F — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:27:56 +0000

Re: 33

“An interesting detail is that the two fiercely arguing groups around Mann and McIntyre lead both to very early detections…”

What’s the point of the phrase “two fiercely arguing groups” if not to somehow imply that MM03 is supporting Mann’s reconstruction? Weird.

The casual reader might assume that the “fiercely arguing groups” are in a juvenile argument over some minor detail. It would be an “interesting detail” as the 2 are alleged to be basically in agreement. It seems everyday is April 1st in climate science.

By: James Lane

James Lane — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:32:30 +0000

OK, I’ve read the paper, it’s not a joke, and the treatment of MM03 is bizzare to say the least. Actually, it’s amazing given that Steve warned von Storch that MM03 was not proposed as a valid reconstruction (in the context of this very paper) last year. Even New Scientist managed to register that point.

And you have to wonder about this line at the end of the paper:

“An interesting detail is that the two fiercely arguing groups around Mann and McIntyre lead both to very early detections, while the most conservative detection result is obtained when the more “”bumpy” reconstruction by Jones and coworkers is used.”

What’s the point of the phrase “two fiercely arguing groups” if not to somehow imply that MM03 is supporting Mann’s reconstruction? Weird.

By: SC

SC — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:09:16 +0000

http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/rybski-etal.2006.pdf

Above is the refernced Von Storch paper.

By: Gerald Machnee

Gerald Machnee — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:04:57 +0000

It is difficult to tell if it is serious as there are April 1 papers published any time of year.

By: Jaime Arbona

Jaime Arbona — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:14:42 +0000

When I fist saw it, I thought it was some sort of joke, given the publishing date and that M&M ’03 was included in the same team as all the other hockey stickers (now that’s a joke!). I couldn’t judge on the content of the abstract, not my gig. So it’s up to you climate experts to decide if the joke is on us or on them.

By: Paul Penrose

Paul Penrose — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:58:33 +0000

It does seem unlikely that they would charge you for an article which is an April-fools joke. It must be real, but it’s telling that we can’t discern the difference by reading it!

By: Doug L

Doug L — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:36:53 +0000

I expect an april fool joke to say so when you click on the “purchase” or “add to cart” button. such as:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/wec.shtml

the link is about wireless extention cords.

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:21:00 +0000

Hey guys, these are academics, right? As such they must buy into modern critical analysis in literature. And a hallmark of such analysis is that an object of literature isn’t to be judged on what the person/people who produced it intended. So on the one hand, if we here think it was a cute Aprils fool joke, then for us it is. Likewise, if the Manniacs think Ross and Steve produced a climate reconstruction, then they must have. So now all we have to decide… errr; what is it we have to decide? I haven’t quite gotten that part of lit. anal. down yet.

By: Ed Snack

Ed Snack — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:06:58 +0000

Ask the expert, Steve, do you think it is a spoof ? If it is, it is a good one, it looks real enough to me.