Two comments:
* Someone needs to peer review the Guardian piece! Michael Mann commenting on someone else’s expertise, methodology, research misconduct? C’mon, man!
* The paper itself seems pretty solid. Nothing particularly beyond the pale I.t.o. methodology. Absolutely no evidence of misconduct.
* Someone needs to peer review the Guardian piece! Michael Mann commenting on someone else’s expertise, methodology, research misconduct? C’mon, man!
* The paper itself seems pretty solid. Nothing particularly beyond the pale I.t.o. methodology. Absolutely no evidence of misconduct.
As a separate issue, the one place I haven’t seen anyone look for evidence of climate change is volatility. Given that the atmosphere is a poorly mixed fluid (e.g., the 1-2 yrs it takes CO2 to cross the earth), I would expect that increasing heat content would lead to greater volatility. Last night I did a quick calculation using the landfalling hurricane data and found that volatility increased comparing data prior to 1960 to data after 1960. Not sure whether the increase is stat. sig. tho (I am not that good a statistician even for a jackleg chemist.
Two comments:
* Someone needs to peer review the Guardian piece! Michael Mann commenting on someone else’s expertise, methodology, research misconduct? C’mon, man!
* The paper itself seems pretty solid. Nothing particularly beyond the pale I.t.o. methodology. Absolutely no evidence of misconduct.
As a separate issue, the one place I haven’t seen anyone look for evidence of climate change is volatility. Given that the atmosphere is a poorly mixed fluid (e.g., the 1-2 yrs it takes CO2 to cross the earth), I would expect that increasing heat content would lead to greater volatility. Last night I did a quick calculation using the landfalling hurricane data and found that volatility increased comparing data prior to 1960 to data after 1960. Not sure whether the increase is stat. sig. tho (I am not that good a statistician even for a jackleg chemist.