Comments on: What was "First" About MBH98?

By: J. Sperry

J. Sperry — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 21:30:44 +0000

Pete,
RC = RealClimate (another blog included in the “links” section of this site)
OU = Hsien Wang Ou, a researcher discussed in Steve M’s June 17 blog entry (link not provided dut to technical reasons)

By: Peter D. Tillman

Peter D. Tillman — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 05:17:06 +0000

#12. Fascinating, and seemingly in direct contradiction to the RC line that recent solar changes (since the 1950′s?) have been insignificant.
.
.
.

Well, Steve, how about the OU thread? It’s discussing Solar, at least in the context of why we haven’t had run-away heating, etc.

C’mon guys, have pity on newcomers. WTH’s “RC”? “OU”?

TIA & Cheers — Pete Tillman
“It’s a sin to waste the reader’s time” — Larry Niven

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 19:12:42 +0000

re: #27,

Well, Steve, how about the OU thread? It’s discussing Solar, at least in the context of why we haven’t had run-away heating, etc. He discusses water feedbacks and so forth. Looks tailor-made.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:51:04 +0000

Please some other thread to discuss feedbacks.

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:35:16 +0000

OK, Dave, you go right ahead and make your arguments based on admittedly exaggerated misrepresentations of the other side’s arguments. Meanwhile, I’ll stand by my specific response to JohnA, based on JohnA’s specific statement.

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:52:27 +0000

re: #24

the only options are small and easily saturated feedbacks that don’t cause any significant effect, or unlimited feedbacks leading to a spiraling out of control?

Well, how does that differ from the warmer view that a moderate CO2 increase will produce a barren earth void of intelligent creatures? (Yes I’m exaggerating). What’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander too.

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:30:50 +0000

re 21.
So JohnA, the only options are small and easily saturated feedbacks that don’t cause any significant effect, or unlimited feedbacks leading to a spiraling out of control? Really?

By: Jean S

Jean S — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:28:28 +0000

An unusual and undiscussed MBH98 innovation is the use of instrumental precipitation series in a temperature reconstruction

Hmmm, I wouldn’t be suprised if they used the Dow Jones Industrial Average as a new “instrumental series” in the next HT reconstruction

By: jae

jae — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:00:48 +0000

Great post, Steve!

I swear, I have never seen such lousy "science." The universities where these guys came from should retract their PhDs.

How in the hell do you mix degrees and raw proxy data? The units are different. Some more magic statistics?

So much for "independent studies."

What is a "documentary" proxy?

Instrumental "proxies?" LOL.

Still no evidence that tree rings can serve as a proxy. Been waiting for over a year for someone to explain this nonsense.

Maybe it would be valuable to publish this.

Steve: To clarify, they don’t mix degrees and raw proxies in a trivial way. The things are scaled and re-scaled so the units are not an issue per se. My point is the use of data not demonstrated in peer-reviewed literature to be temperature proxies.

By: John A

John A — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:55:08 +0000

re #18 I think the positive feedbacks must be small and easily saturated otherwise the climate system would have spiralled to one or other attractor well before now. Most likely anything else other than the solar forcing would be dominated by noise/chaotic behavior.