Comments James Mayeau has made

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, 5 months ago 7 Responses

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.

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, 5 months ago 7 Responses

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, 11 months ago 66 Responses

You live by the consensus

You all had the chance to actually show the evidence for global warming.
But when the evidence was less then persuasive you took the short cut.
You genuflected to lies such as Mann's hockey stick. You pretended confidence in world thermometers.
You squelched descenting opinion and experiments, promote only people who agree with you until there are none left to say no, then perversely claimed this a "consensus" of scientists, as if the crime itself was evidence.

Excuse me, but if your hypothetical cancer specialist was awarded his doctorate by mafioso, we would be fools to trust our children to his care, especially when they aren't sick to begin with, and his recommended treatment is euthanasia.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Mountains of evidence?

Haven't seen any. But lets stick to the actual evidence that you cite, Al Gore's movie.
The main evidence is in the form of three climate reconstructions. The first based on the historical climate network is a generalized temperature graph which portrays the world as one temperature over the course of time since the invention of the thermometer. Up until the 1950's we had three temperature stations for the whole continent of Africa, eight for South America, zero for Antarctica, intermittent readings from China, Russia, Canada; so pre 50's observations of temperature boil down to the European and American temp record. How can you (or Gore) claim that fifteen percent of the land surface is representative of the whole world?
Even the modern record is a derivative of speculation, with most of the surface stations in non compliance with NOAA siting standards and subject to a plethora of micro site violations.
The sorry fact is we haven't even learned how to take the worlds temperature accurately, much less plot any changes.

The second of Al Gore's evidences is a 2000 year climate reconstruction, which shows the smallest little anemic peak labeled "Medieval Warm Period", and an enormous rise in the 20th century all highlighted in angry red.
The problem is when this reconstruction is subject to a time reversion by the computer simulations, the sun is forced to be a negative forcing in order for the models to recreate the graph as Gore presents it.
Sorry but the sun doesn't suck energy  from the atmosphere in any real life senario.
Here's another thing about  the 2000 year graph, Gore portrays it as a Thompson Ice Core reconstruction. But how could this be, when all of Robbie Thompson's ice core drilling  were in the mountain glacers of Chile? These cores couldn't be extrapolated as surface temperature of the northern hemisphere - and yet there it is bold as a lie labeled "Northern Hemisphere".
Turned out after some investigation that Al Gore's 2000 year climate reconstruction wasn't a Thompson ice core at all. By carefully recalibrating Micheal Mann's "hockeystick" MBH99 from a 30 year smoothing to a ten year, Steve Mac of Climate Audit found out that Gore had disguised MBH99 and used it in his movie inspite of the hockeystick being discredited.
A lie within a coverup of a falsehood, used to popularise a dangerous dogma.

The third reconstruction is a hundred thousand of years comparison between co2 and temp, based on Greenland and Antactic ice cores.
Fortunately it isn't necessary to look too hard into it provence (which isn't provided by the book or movie) because the graph itself shows temperature determines co2 content - not the other way around as climate changers  would have it.

If Al Gore's movie is not clear on it's own evidence and doesn't remotely describe reality, then we will have to see some of that mountain of other evidence, because as of right now you folks haven't proven anything.On Scaling back our energy-hungry lifestyles means more of what matters, not less posted 1 year, 11 months ago 24 Responses

Mark

 Are you the same Mark Bahner I met on the SciAm blog?

How's it hanging Dude? Long time no see.

I guess the blogisphere is a small world.On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 1 year, 12 months ago 61 Responses

Excellent

 So let me know what Eric says.
I presume we are in agreement that Gore's movie is an acceptable debate topic, yes?

I sent off an e-mail to Dr. Ball - no I don't know him from Adam - but  if he isn't interested I'll still go for it. Sounds like fun.On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses

Dear MT

I suppose it's possible that climate scientists never take their work home, but at meetings with fellow scientists?
If you are all in agreement why even have a meeting?
Is it for the coffee?On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses

Gore's movie

Hello Andrew,

I was browsing through your earlier posts looking for a debate topic. The accuracy or not of Al Gore's movie sounds good to me.
You said in your post, "Here's my take on this: there is no question that there are a few statements in Gore's movie that make me flinch. Had he run the script by me, I would have suggested he rephrase a few of his points."

So could you list the points in Gore's movie that made you flinch, or you would have rephrased? That way we can ignore the parts we are in agreement about, and concentrate on the argument.On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses