Climate Audit

[TCO]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
TCO. I think it finally happened. You done lost your mind.
We're talking totally. The days of walking the edge are over. You have plunged into the abyss.

Just trying to make you look good, Tex.

[Berzerker]

yup, thx

but the article doesn't explain why rain out distorts climate records. The O18/16 ratio in limestone under the sea reflects water temps during that period, true? Ice age conditions sees a higher O18 ratio because O18 is heavier and requires more energy to vaporize and less to condense, so the oceans (and the calcite/limestone) are richer in O18 during colder periods.

[TCO]

I was talking rain out in terms of ice cores, where you are fractionating H2O in atmosphere. Ocean itself is a whole nother kettel of fish (yuck yuck) because there is just so much water already there.

[TCO]

see this post on stalactites wrt rain out: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4487

[James Lane]

FWIW, I have corresponded with Steve McIntyre since before Climate Audit was born. I think he's a really nice guy. He's also a fine statistician. As a student he won Canada's top math prize.

Steve is a retired businessman. As such, the way he conducts himself is his affair. Like TCO, I wish he'd publish more, but as I say, It's his business. Nevertheless, he's already made an important contribution to climate science in the areas of archiving and disclosure.

At times he might come across as adversarial, but that's hardly surprising considering some of the things that have been said about him by Michael Mann and others.

I well remember TCO's time commenting at CA. Little seemed to satisfy TCO's lofty standards. In a discussion of retention of components in PCA, patient explanations by any number of informed posters wouldn't satisfy him.

I quite like TCO, although I'm glad that he doesn't comment on CA these days. However I think he should lay off Steve, who is doing a good job on his own terms.

[TCO]

I just want the standard in a normal published paper. If he can do the same in unpublished white papers, that's fine. But based on the quality of his meandering posts and of his first drafts for conferences, I think McI actually NEEDs an editor and the peer review process to force quality work.

But hey, if you want to read thousands of juvenile posts and think it is high quality logical analysis, the blog is yours.

Just..."I told you so" in terms of quality.

[TCO]

Here's another fvcked up post: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4494

Note how McI can't just give an analysis, but has to say crap like "stupid pet tricks". Given McI does not publish real science comments in journals...and that he plays this crap on blogs, I think the warmers should just completely blow him off.

[James Lane]

Well, TCO, you seem to read CA. And who cares what you think?

[TCO]

Originally posted by James Lane
Well, TCO, you seem to read CA. And who cares what you think?

Leave the circle jerk, James. Think on your own. No papers in 4 years is a bad, bad sign...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by James Lane
Well, TCO, you seem to read CA. And who cares what you think?

Many more people than give a **** about you, ****wit.

He's a good scientist...and a good critic.

[TCO]

Here are actually some kinda interesting posts:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4465

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4508

There are some good posts from a real scientist who corrects Steve on several things. Note Steve is sloppy in not referring to correct papers (both not in using real refernce style and in confusing two papers). Also, note that Stev omits to clearly present Gavin's overall remarks. Steve critiques a skewed version of what Gavin really said.

[TCO]

the cavesicle discussion is progressing. Nice to see real scientists weighing in (Jud and Paul Dennis). Also, to see Hu properly noting the main criticism by Gavin and that it was correct (too few points for a good correlation calibration). All this is helpful because otherwise the hoi polloi like James would just slurp up Steve's random posts as way more of a gotcha than they really are.

[TCO]

There's a decent discussion going on of cavesicles at CA right now. Some interesting (basic) backround on isotope dating is relevant (dating uncertainties).

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4465

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4640

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4652