Quantcast
Newsletter | Log In/Register  
Find    in 
PriceNetwork.ca > General > Off Topic Lounge > New release; they're calling it Climategate "2.0"

Pages:1
Replies:No replies
Tags:None

No Ratings 
 0%

 0%

 0%

 0%

 0%




To rate, click on the rating bars

Write a New Preview Write a Preview/Summary




POLL
How many contests do you join in a week?
Results   Comments    




Bookmark and Share
New release; they're calling it Climategate "2.0"

raglanroad posted on Nov 22, 2011 @ 10:24am:Toronto ON
2,403 posts
19 feedbacks
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/20...limategate-2-0/

It's just the usual suspects shown as they make up the stories


quote:
:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?


quote:
...the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.



some good ones here

http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/22/...ategate-emails/

quote:


“I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.

[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.



quote:
Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.

Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer

Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.

Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

Last edited by raglanroad on Nov 22, 2011 @ 10:47am


Responses:

All times are GMT -5 hours. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Jump To:     Back to the top
 
PN Points     Media Room     Advertise     Merchant Directory     Merchant Login     Contact Us     Site Map    
(c) 2013 Pricenetwork Inc.
Terms of Usage & Privacy Policy | Content List