Comments on: Juckes and the Sargasso Sea

By: Willis on “Getting authors to respond to questions” « Climate Audit

Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:13:15 +0000

[...] (Juckes and the Sargasso Sea) [...]

By: The Trouet Ocean Proxies « Climate Audit

The Trouet Ocean Proxies « Climate Audit — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:33:52 +0000

[...] data often used as evidence of an MWP. It is digitally available online. A detailed discussion at CA here here [...]

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:05:51 +0000

Once again, discussion of Sargasso sinks into the detritus, and is soon forgotten …. just like it always has been.

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:41:53 +0000

RE: #12 – One thing I forgot, is that Sargasso has likely been in something similar to its current form since not long after, in terms of geologic time, the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:39:35 +0000

Just a general comment. Sargasso is the bane of the AGW fanatics. It has many things to recommend itself. A gyre of oceanic currents, overlain by one of the two most persistent Marine Subtropical High Pressure Centers in existence, it has all the things you want to see in terms of ongoing high sedimentation rates, lots of inclusion of organics in the sediment (hello energy industry?), as well as excellent filtration of noise and short term climate excursions – Sargasso integrates the climate signal in a way that is exceedingly rare on this wonderful Earth.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:32:07 +0000

#10. I agree with you that Keigwin is a very nice guy. He is strongly with the consensus on AGW and has strongly emphasized that his results from the Sargasso Sea should not be extrapolated worldwide.

By: Follow the Money

Follow the Money — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:26:51 +0000

Keigwin – I’m puzzled by the fact that the core top foram data do not approach the warming of 1000 yrs ago.

Dr. Keigwin reads like a nice guy, an eminent scientist puzzled his hard work does not match the “consensus” he hears about AGW.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:06:30 +0000

Here is a link to research that may be part of the "beautiful" series - a core from the anoxic Orca Basin in the central Gulf of Mexico. Preservation of microfossils is superb and sedimentation rates are very high at this location. http://www.marine.usf.edu/PPBlaboratory/research/holocene_climate_history_gom/holocene_gom.html This particular paper deals with the so-called meltwater spike presumeable released about 8-10,000 years b.p. from the melting Laurentide ice sheet. There is a nice image of a section of the core showing laminations and data from G. ruber analysis.

By: Onar àƒ…m

Onar àƒ…m — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:08:10 +0000

Frankly I find this disection of the making of a temperature reconstruction deeply disturbing. In my wordbook objective means "undistorted by emotion or personal bias" and "based on observable phenomena." Objective does not mean picking an arbitrary premise and then sticking with it regardless of the results. In philosophy that's called rationalism, hence the term "to rationalize," i.e. cherry picking arbitrary premises to justify one's beliefs. Objective selection criteria literally means "selection criteria based on observable phenomena and undistorted by emotion or personal bias." In other words, if the selection criteria leads one to knowingly include bad data and exclude good data then it cannot be called objective. On the contrary, it would at the very best be called subjective, at worst dishonest.

By: Paul Penrose

Paul Penrose — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:21:43 +0000

Dr. Juckes,
Re #2, I don’t think that’s an insult. It may not be a true statement, I don’t know as I have not read your entire paper, but if it is not then please refute it clearly. But claiming that a criticism of your work is a personal insult is not going work.