James Mayeau’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  cce

  Your being a bit hard on yourself. I checked out your website. There's some good passes in there.

  Did you really read through 31,000 names, checking their credentials? (kind of obsessive - but admirable for it's sheer determination)
  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3566
  There's a list of scientists identified on that page, to give you a start on your search for peer reviewed papers.

  And are you going to tell us which of the reconstructions in AR4 used oxygen isotopes in wood cellulose and thus back up your assertion that "most if not all" will need to be thrown out?

  You seem untroubled by the larger implications of the findings by Helliker and Richter.
  Trees regulate their own temperature during the growth phase used by dendroclimatology. Reconstructions using tree cores depend on the premise that tree growth is limited by ambiant temperature. Oops.
  The question isn't which of the reconstructions in AR4 use oxygen isotopes, the question is which ones use trees. As far as I can tell that would be all of them. I include the "most" in case of the odd ice core, ocean sediment, borehole, reconstruction which might be buried in the spagetti.On Previous warm periods don't mean we're not responsible for this one posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  cce

  to be sure finding thousands of sceptical scientists in America is no big deal.
  There must be millions of climate change advocates in the sciences. So where's your list?

  The real challenge will be to find scientists sceptical of MMGW among the actual IPCC reviewers. That would be a trick. Working on it.

  This is what Jan Esper had to say about trees with self regulated temperature.
  "Those paleoclimatology methods for using isotopes in tree rings to reconstruct climate have been validated by observations," says Jan Esper of the Swiss Federal Research Institute in Birmensdorf. "From this perspective, the findings by Helliker and Richter are indeed surprising, as I would have expected a closer association between leaf and surrounding air temperature," he says.
  Jan doesn't sound pleased.
  If it's any consolation Steve Mc will be out a hobby. You've got to look on the bright side gents.

  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021
  Doc Tim has his own collumn now. Probably has a phone too.On Previous warm periods don't mean we're not responsible for this one posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Morning Doc

  How have you been? Last I heard you had reprised the "there's only a dozen sceptics in the whole world" comment in a newspaper, a day or two before Marc Morano published a list of thousands.

  Ouch. I feel for you, believe me.

  Was that the Oregon list (so many of them floating around it's hard to keep track?)

  Alright lets get to it. The Lamb graph isn't used by the sceptics I traffic with, except for the purposes of showing the 180 switch on the MWP by the IPCC since their first report came out.
  Mostly the guru, Steve Mc, doesn't try to prove or disprove the MWP. Instead he points out that bristlecone and foxtail graphs are not accurate millenial thermometers.
  The IPCC is addicted to tree cores because "warmest of the last thousand years" makes for a good headline in the Washington Post.
  They use not just MBH98-99, but also Crowley and Lowery 2000 (two bristlecone series, including Almagre); Esper et al 2002 (two foxtail series); Mann and Jones 2003 (Mann's PC1); Rutherford et al 2005 (Mann's PC series flagrantly unamended); Moberg et al 2005 (3 bristlecone series); Hegerl et al (Mann's PC1 and the Esper foxtail average); Osborn and Briffa 2006 (Mann's PC1 and the Esper foxtail average); Juckes 2007 (the two Esper foxtail series in his Union reconstruction).

  Which brings me to the reason I am here today to bug you. The new paper by Helliker and Richter Subtropical to boreal convergence of tree-leaf temperatures shows that most if not all of the IPCC's Millenial reconstructions need to be thrown out like yesterday's bathwater. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/na ...
  The oxygen isotope ratio (18O) of cellulose is thought to provide a record of ambient temperature and relative humidity during periods of carbon assimilation1, 2. Here we introduce a method to resolve tree-canopy leaf temperature with the use of 18O of cellulose in 39 tree species. We show a remarkably constant leaf temperature of 21.4  2.2 °C across 50° of latitude, from subtropical to boreal biomes. This means that when carbon assimilation is maximal, the physiological and morphological properties of tree branches serve to raise leaf temperature above air temperature to a much greater extent in more northern latitudes. A main assumption underlying the use of 18O to reconstruct climate history is that the temperature and relative humidity of an actively photosynthesizing leaf are the same as those of the surrounding air3, 4. Our data are contrary to that assumption and show that plant physiological ecology must be considered when reconstructing climate through isotope analysis.

  The sceptic argument regarding the MWP is two fold.
  

  1. If it happened before without our assistance then the odds of the modern warming happening without our help are improved. Better then the 1 out of 3 chance you give us.
     
  2. The MWP was a pretty good time to live judging by the monuments and records. Sure humanity was plagued by petty tyrannts and arbitrary rulers, but it was also the time when England introduced the Magna Carta and Parlement. We have both of those still and plenty of guns to fight off the occasional Mugabe or Saddam.

  Have a good day Doc.

  PS Are you corresponding with Tim Ball, and do you plan to have another, well allright, the first debate sometime?On Previous warm periods don't mean we're not responsible for this one posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Surface temperature of the Moon

  253.4 °F - If we could set up a permanent habitat there, what fear would global warming hold for us?

  Something is strange about that temperature, in the direct sunshine the moon is about 200 °F hotter then the Earth. They both receive the same amount of TSI. Why is the difference so large?
  Where on Earth is that extra heat?On Moon base project sucks up potential climate research dollars posted 1 year, 10 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  As I understand it

  The co2 content of the atmosphere pre industrial era was roughly 300 ppm (give or take 20 ppm).
  So all the coal natural gas and oil use by man since has added 80 ppm (give or take 20).

  We all see the occasional warning about peak oil being reached already. Proven reserves will be used up in 30 or 40 years. So how likely is it that we will ever reach a doubling of co2? Not too bloody likely it seems to me.

  And yet this is the tack that the IPCC panel of experts use as boogie man of global warming.
  Since these people are holding up the impossible as a likely senario, this in itself negates any credibility they might be able to milk from their years of study. On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 10 months ago 66 Responses