RC had a recent post about some errors in von S's Science '04 article. Now Salon.com has an article on it too, being nice to us. Jolly good.
The main point made is a statistical one - read RC for that. A second one is the error in the initialisation procedure for von S's model run (not sufficiently spun up back to pre-ind). This causes a drift (down) during the sim, which over-estimates the variance. But von S has also said According to our computer models temperatures fluctuated more strongly and faster. 900 years ago they were almost as warm as today. But now we know why his model says that...
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Rowan Sutton: on the amplification of warming over land. That the land warms more than the oceans is well know; but as RS points out the *why* is somewhat less well known. I would have said, unthinkingly, its because of the ocean heat capacity. But... you get the same effect (or similar) in…
With hurricanes over Czech and Rain in New Mexico and the truely bizarre shuttle flying even though unsafe, is there any time or space for another round of hockey stick wars? No... don't go away, its interesting, really it is!
There is an exchange of letters in the most recent Science, between…
I recently noted that there are reasons to think that the effects of human caused climate change are coming on faster than previously expected. Since I wrote that (in late January) even more evidence has come along, so I thought it was time for an update.
First a bit of perspective. Scientists have…
There's nothing more grating for a science writer than see your work get cut and pasted to give people precisely the wrong impression. My latest irritation: "Ten Questions For Al Gore and the Global Warming Crowd", which appeared Friday on the conservative web site Townhall.com.
The author is John…