Re: a modest proposal [was: Re: [asa] Phil Jones Stepping Down..]

From: William Hamilton <>
Date: Wed Dec 09 2009 - 23:14:13 EST

One reference that points out how a small variation in excitation can lead
to a large variation in output in a nonlinear system is
Resonant Interactions between Solar Activity and Climate S. M. Tobias and
N. O. Weiss *Journal of Climate*
Volume 13, Issue 21 (November 2000) pp. 37453759
DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<3745:RIBSAA>2.0.CO;2
Go to the American Meteorological Society web site and search Journal of
Climate and you'll find a downloadable pdf. I'm not claiming that Tobias and
Weiss have constructed an accurate model of sun/earth dynamics. That's not
what they're trying to do. Their model simply demonstrates that in a
nonlinear system small perturbations can lead to large changes in output

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Rich Blinne <> wrote:

> You don't have to take either Randy or my word for it since apparently
> Glenn has made a case to his satisfaction on his web site. Go to his web
> site and ask the following questions and decide for yourself.
> 1. Are graphs done in absolute temperatures or in anomalies? If you want to
> hide a trend you do it in absolute temperatures and make sure that the scale
> is sufficiently coarse. My second-grade daughter found this one out on the
> PBS show Cyber Chase.
> 2. Are the trends global or local?
> 3. Are things correctly labelled, such as labeling say the Northern
> Hemisphere as anything north of 60 degrees south latitude?
> 4. Is the peer-reviewed literature cited? Are known problems referenced
> such as problems with using tree ring proxies mentioned? Are known
> corrections to the data in the literature used and referenced? Was the NAS
> 2006 review of paleoclimate literature that affirmed the "hockey stick"
> referenced?
> 5. Is the length of time for trends greater than know cyclical forcings
> such as the 11 year sunspot cycle?
> 6. Is the data anecdotal rather than systemic?
> 7. If anecdotal problems exist was a systemic approach taken? Were global
> anomalies recalculated with the problematic stations removed or corrected?
> Was the literature referenced where a systemic approach was done? Were the
> correction mention in said papers applied? Were alternative corrections
> proposed?
> 8. Was proxy data preferred over measured data?
> 9. Do the graphs have error bars in them?
> 10. When alternatives to AGW are proposed was a physical mechanism
> included? Was the physical mechanism plugged into a model? Did the model
> explain the temperature record better than the current ones?
> 11. Were problems acknowledged such as in order for solar irradiance to
> explain the current warming there needs to be at least a 2% increase while
> the measured variation is a 0.1% cyclical 11-year one?
> This is what Randy means by interacting with the data. I leave the
> answering of these question as an excercise for the reader. Everyone can
> make up their own mind.
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA

William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
Member American Scientific Affiliation
Austin, TX
248 821 8156
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 9 23:14:41 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 09 2009 - 23:14:41 EST