next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
--Apple-Mail-121--802880623
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
Hi everyone:
I had the same thoughts but Steve beat me! I was also unaware that the =20=
multiproxy approach had been discredited, especially given that it was =20=
my understanding that all of the various methods used were relatively =20=
independent, yet all gave similar results. That does beg the question, =20=
is there now a better (possibly different) set of data, or is there now =20=
no data at all going back that far?
It would be useful to know if there are any readily-available papers =20
that would show why that approach does not work.
The astronomical cycles that David refers to are called Milankovitch =20
Cycles.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
These cycles will have effects on climate, but they occur over time =20
periods of thousands of years, and past climate records do not match up =20=
with them as well as expected. (The wikipedia entry shows lots of data =20=
going back hundreds of thousands of years based on those pesky =20
Antarctic ice core samples!)
Pat
On Nov 23, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Steve Shaw wrote:
> Thanks Blake, very informative and scary. I've just read these =20
> quickly and second your recommendation: anyone interested in vast =20
> disinformation campaigns funded by threatened commercial interests =20
> should read at least the first of these excerpts, then the last.
>
> As far as I've been able to make out, none of the folks on this list =20=
> so far including me actually works close to this area either in =20
> academia, industry or government, so Bruce Stevens' authorative =20
> commentary was an eye-opener (someone in a closely related field -- =20=
> presumably without any conflicting interest re. the Monbiot =20
> commentaries just mentioned). I'd largely agree with points 1-4 (with =
=20
> some reservations about reviewers), but 5-7 are more interesting in =20=
> what's not being said as a corollary. Point 5 indicates that the =20
> multiproxy approach to this problem by now has been almost completely =20=
> discredited. In the language of any scientific field this means that =20=
> one now has to completely discount the so-called hockey stick claimed =20=
> result -- back to square one.
>
> Bruce, in your opinion, does this mean that there is now NO useful =20
> current model that predicts recent climate change with any significant =
=20
> reliability? Or did you mean that this is an inferior model compared =20=
> with others that do it better? As a corollary, is it then the case =20=
> that the claimed excess in the upturn in average global temperature =20=
> (near the end of the hockey stick) simply cannot yet be associated =20
> with any certainty at all with anthrogenic activity (as opposed to the =
=20
> complicated past history of the system, plus global/astronomical =20
> cycles that Dave Webster was referring to originally)? I hope I'm =20=
> not misinterpreting, but this last conclusion ("significant excess =20
> warming from anthropogenic sources is so far unsupported") seems to =20=
> follow from your #5, but was left unsaid by you.
> Steve
>
> On 23-Nov-06, at 3:12 PM, Blake Maybank wrote:
>> Re: Global Warming
>>
>> The following are extracts from the book "Heat", written by the =20
>> Guardian reporter George Monbiot.=A0=A0 They are quite informative.=A0 =
The =20
>> URLs for the extracts from the book are:
>>
>> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329579929-121568,00.html
>>
>> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329581710-121568,00.html
>>
>> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329581867-121568,00.html
>>
>> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329585554-121568,00.html
>>
>> Mr. Monbiot also has an interesting web page exposing the false =20
>> environmental claims of companies and politicians:
>>
>> http://www.turnuptheheat.org/
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> =
----------------------------------------------------------------------=20=
>> -------
>> Blake Maybank
>> Editor, "Nova Scotia Birds"
>>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D
Patrick Kelly
Director of Computer Facilities
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D
Faculty of Architecture and Planning
Dalhousie University
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D
PO Box 1000 Stn Central 5410 Spring Garden Road
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4
Canada Canada
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D
Phone:(902) 494-3294 FAX:(902) 423-6672 E-mail:patrick.kelly@dal.ca
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D
--Apple-Mail-121--802880623
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi everyone:
I had the same thoughts but Steve beat me! I was also unaware that the
multiproxy approach had been discredited, especially given that it was
my understanding that all of the various methods used were relatively
independent, yet all gave similar results. That does beg the question,
is there now a better (possibly different) set of data, or is there
now no data at all going back that far?
It would be useful to know if there are any readily-available papers
that would show why that approach does not work.
The astronomical cycles that David refers to are called Milankovitch
Cycles.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
These cycles will have effec