Comments on: Nature Again http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/ by Steve McIntyre Sat, 18 May 2013 19:12:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Steve Bloom http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63152 Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:09:22 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63152 There was a paper maybe two years ago that had a look at the current Milankovitch configuration and trend relative to where it was during prior glaciations. As I recall the answer was that we’re entering into a pretty unwobbly phase and that the last time this happened there was a very long interglacial on the order of 40ky. I didn’t keep a link, but it should be easy to find via GS.

TCO, you may not recall that Huybers is a Milankovitch specialist. There’s a lot on his site on the subject. His ideas are different from Ruddiman’s, although the conflict between them isn’t entirely direct.

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63151 Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:23:29 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63151 Re #62:
The Ruddiman (2006) paper in that 3rd link appears to be a good entry point into that literature.
Thanks, rocks.

]]> By: welikerocks http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63150 Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:20:48 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63150 #59 and 60,
they’ve been “touting” the Milankovitch’s orbital theory for almost 100 yrs now TCO.

here’s some links (just google Milankovitch Cycles):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

this is a new article the addresses some of the things that the theory doesn’t fully explain yet:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060725074044.htm

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63149 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:51:33 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63149 Re #60
Not me. I tried RC once and found it a time sink.

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63148 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:45:16 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63148 Maybe ask on RC.

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63147 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:41:32 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63147 I donno. According to the Mannians, Milankovitch theory (having to do with orbits, NOT with system inherent variation) is the driver for ice ages. It’s not clear to me how solid that theory is and there is a pretty obvious reason for the “stickers” to want to tout that theory (and not examine it too harshly). But in any case, would think that you could apply that theory and find out what the next ice age (absent of AGW) would be.

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63146 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:33:09 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63146 Re #54
I know it’s easy to joke about the coming ice age … but, seriously, can anyone think of a publication that makes a specific prediction as to when that temperature drop will occur? Is it 10y, 100y, 1000y, 10000y out? Interested especially in uncertainty on that forecast, errrr, projection.

]]> By: KevinUK http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63145 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:13:27 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63145 #43, Lee

So far no wreply so can i ask do you accept the point I am making in #43 namely that it is not a good idea to just rely on the ‘expert concensus’ when making decisions that are important to mankind?

Do you agree that it is very important to carry out the kind of activities which Steve M has documented on this blog namely to apply the scientific method i.e. to repeat and attempt to either falsify or confirm the analyses of temperature re-constructions that under the IPCC TAR? If you agree with this questions, then do you also agree that those who choose to apply the scientific method should be allowed free and unfettered access to all data and methodologies (uncluding source code) that are used in any such analyses particularly when such analyses underpins public policy/safety?

KevinUK

]]> By: David Archibald http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63144 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:54:13 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63144 Re 54, I know what you mean. Last December here in Perth, Western Australia, we had the coldest December for 100 years. It badly affected the grape crop and there was a major reduction in yield and quality. Imagine if that went on for 10 or 20 years! Food we will always be able to get, but what about decent reds! I am laying down a lot of good shiraz and some grand cru. It is not worth taking the risk.

]]> By: KevinUK http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/06/nature-again/#comment-63143 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:43:21 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810#comment-63143 #49, Martin

Here are some ‘Dano linkies’ which may help

The current status of performance demonstration and evaluation developments

Validation of Inspections for the Sizewell ‘B’ Reactor Pressure Vessel

and

Tecnatom Leadership in Vessel Penetration Inspection.

For any one interested in the history of AEA Technology (formerly part of the UKAEA) there is a very good book written by some if its former directors called ‘Innovation Business – The History of AEA Technology’ by Nelson, Curry, Dawson and Aris.

To link back at least to Canada (as this is a Canadian blog), amongst the companies acquired by AEA Technology following its privatisation from UKAEA in September 1996 were two canadian companies, Advanced Scientific Computing and Calgary based Hyprotech. Sadly following poor financial performance many parts of the company (including these Canadian companies) have now been sold off. very recently the part of the company I work for AEA Technology Rail has also been sold off and so I am now instead employed by the newly named DeltaRail Group Ltd.

KevinUK

]]>