Comments on: Some Links to Pielke Jr http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/ by Steve McIntyre Mon, 20 May 2013 03:03:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Dane http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58234 Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:18:33 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58234 #62 Re
I understand the article just fine, and as you said it is simply a review, a very poorly done review at that. My specific critisism is with the fact they only have 4-5 volcanos sampled. There are many different types of volcanos, and only 1 sampled dealing with eruption. That in my view is really not enouhgh data to say anything. I am critical of the “estimates” as well. In my line of work it pays to collect at least some of the real world data yourself.

]]> By: Steve Bloom http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58233 Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:31:41 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58233 Re #61: You may have read it, but you sure didn’t understand it. For example, since a substantial majority of vulcanism ia associated with mid-ocean ridges, you would suggest undertaking direct measurements by…? But why engage is such a vast and expensive enterprise if isotopic measurements allow the sources of CO2 to be adequately constrained (by e.g. taking advantage of the fact that C14 is produced only in the atmosphere)? Do you have any specific criticisms of the science involved? BTW, since the article I linked to is a *review* you’ll have to read the cited papers for the details.

]]> By: Dane http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58232 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:31:52 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58232 Re 60

Read the article. Falls into what I originally said. Although they are trying to get good estimates, they admit a “paucity” of data makes actual estmaite accurracy difficult. They have only about 4-5 volcanoes actually measured, and only 1 during eruption. They continously voice the “threat” of manmade CO2 and GHG’s? It is again, bad science, although i give them credit for trying. The paper has a bias right from the start, stated in the opening sentance.

So the question is still open. I am not saying volcanoes are responsible for the measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I am wondering what the actual input to the earths system is from volcanics?

I really expected more from the British GS, very poorly done.

]]> By: Steve Bloom http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58231 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:10:54 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58231 Regarding volcanoes and CO2, see this recent RC post. There are lots of useful links in the comments, including one to this very recent comprehensive study.

]]> By: Dane http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58230 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:40:36 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58230 Re #58 “explain why the inter-glacial temperature cycles are asymmetric, when they are supposed to be the sum effect of independent symmetric-cyclical forcings. If that’s the case, then the sum should be symmetrically cyclical as well.”

Here goes. I am not an expert on this, but did spend about 3 years as an undergrad researching the subject so a know a bit. As I recall from a lengthy discussion with a Phd in Astrophysics, non of the forcing cycles are actually symetric, they are actually close, but not exactly, that alone may explain part of your question. Also, the Phd explained to me that there were other “wobbles” not taken directly into account in Malinkavitch theory. These other, very small wobbles may also play a part in why the system works the way it does and does not come out sysmetric as one might suppose.

I hope that helps.

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58229 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:27:39 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58229 Re #57 No. If I was arguing that, why would I ask #54? (I was just being an ass.)

I figured if Sadlov wants to make the argument that the Earth is about to cool off, he’d want to support that with some literature. And while he’s at it, maybe he can explain why the inter-glacial temperature cycles are asymmetric, when they are supposed to be the sum effect of independent symmetric-cyclical forcings. If that’s the case, then the sum should be symmetrically cyclical as well.

It’s an honest question about a subject I know nothing about.

jae will be interested in the answer because it bears directly on the relevance of the Loehle approach to modeling temperatures as the sum of sinusoidal forcings.

And it bears directly on the question of the expected suddenness of a shift to a glacial phase. If the summed cycles are symmetrical or assymetric it makes all the difference in the world.

]]> By: ET SidViscous http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58228 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:51 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58228 ?

Are you arguing that during Ice ages it is not ~13C cooler?

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58227 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:06:20 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58227 Shouldn’t you include a turnkey script so we can verify that your estimate of 13°C is robust? ;)

]]> By: ET SidViscous http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58226 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:02:23 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58226 AM I correct in thinking that the world spends the majority of the time in Ice ages, at approc 13C cooler than current?

Regardless of what we do in the short term that is our true future, long term?

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/31/some-links-to-pielke-jr/#comment-58225 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:46:54 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=764#comment-58225 Has the probability of that possibility been modeled in a formal way?

]]>