Marcott et al claim of 'unprecedented' warming compared to GISP ice core data | Watts Up With That?
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.
Note that this is just a simple visual comparison, with a rough match of the data for time and temperature scales – it isn't intended to be anything else.
In my overlay above, the Marcott et al graph full time scale on the x axis is 2000 years, and its temperature full scale on the y axis is two degrees C. The scaled overlay to the Alley GISP2 plot is a reasonably close match to the GISP2 plot scale units. The centerlines don't match, but they can't with this sort of comparison.
The idea here is simply to compare magnitudes of the data on the same time scale.
Clearly, the GISP2 data has greater magnitudes in the past 1500 years, and at longer time scales, the GISP2 temperature reconstruction dwarfs the magnitude of the Marcott et al temperature reconstruction. Dr. Don Easterbrook has a good synopsis of GISP 2 temperature reconstruction magnitude on WUWT here.
This simple visual comparison suggests that their "unprecedented" claim for the 1500 years BP is unlikely to hold up when examined against other reconstructions. As they say in the big leagues, more study is needed.
Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios.
Perhaps this weekend when I have more time, either I can do a proper plot of the data in a similar fashion to see how well they match when plotted side-by-side in the 1500 year time frame. Unfortunately I have other work to do today, so I can't at the moment, and I'm traveling again tomorrow. Posting will be light.
Every time I see one of these "studies" I think we have finally reached the pinnacle of stupidity, but then there's another.
I think it might be a good idea to look at your "years before present" they look rather out of alignment to me.
Nevada County's local left is promoting the Marcott etal Study, and this is reblogged is to provided for some perspective for the more rational thinkers.
Now that the original hockey stick graph (and it author) cannot be ignored as anything other than a joke.
We now bring you… the new hockey stick, Hockey stick 2!
I'm assuming Marcott et al are still tacking on the thermometer record for 20th/21st century temperatures. If so, then there is still the apples/oranges comparison of thermometer and paleoclimatoligical records, where the statisical methods used to generate the paleo record wash out the short term variations that the thermometer records captures.
I also cannot see that the error bars 10K years ago will be the same as 500 years ago.
Ooh, look – they've got rid of the MWP. Again. Do they really think people will forget if they keep trying that trick?
I posted this on the earlier Marcott thread, but it may be more appropriate here. Apologies.
I've had a quick look at the data, and it seems to be a mixture of different behaviours.
One set of five series shows a peak around 9k years ago, a dip from 7k-3k and a rise to the present day.
Another set of around thirty five series shows pretty much of nothing. It looks like random noise.
And the third set of around twenty series shows the holocene optimum we know, with a peak around 2 C warmer than today.
Of course, that might be saying that the Holocene peak did not occur everywhere, and that in many places the temperature didn't change, which is how they're interpreting it. You would need to look at the individual data sources to tell.
Whether the Holocene Optimum was global or not, it's definitiely very naughty to splice on the instrumental record and talk about anything being 'unprecedented'. The proxy data smooths anything going on at less than 300-3000 years (figure S18 in the SI). Apples and oranges.
I also noted from their map that most of their sites seemed to be on or near the coast. A maritime climate might not necessarily reflect changes in either ocean or continental climates.
This may also be an apples/oranges comparison. IF it is generally true that north-polar temperatures fluctuate more than global averages (as currently appears to be case), then an additional vertical scaling adjustment might need to be applied, even to make a qualitative match, and this would tend to reduce the high temperature fluctuations of the ice core data w.r.t. the global pollen reconstruction. Is there not a comparable global reconstruction over a longer time span that the comparison can be made with?
What might be truly unprecedented is if the Holocene DOES NOT have from 1 to 3 strong thermal excursions right at it's typical 1/2 precession age end.
The way temperatures have been "homogenized" in the past 100 years (do I hear a "model" echo?), they can't honestly be compared to deterministic temperatures from ice cores. That's like comparing apples and oranges.
So Marcott is right–his bunch of CAGWs only look at models and their models are designed to show that the last 100 years have the largest spike. I'm glad he took the time to tell us.
Marcott should have added that caveate to his statement; had he looked at the Ice Core data (which some alledge is smeared by diffusion so it's undoubtedly less pronounced that reality), such a daring accuasation couldn't have been made.
When is 'present'? The acronym BP [before present] normally means before 1950 so that the time axis stays fixed.
One study compares local temperature response at an acknowledged labile location (Greenland).
The other study compares global temperature response.
It is a rough match of data measuring 2 different metrics which would be expected to be different.
Seth's article is everywhere, as opposed to the report, which is behind a paywall. So, this comment is informed by the former. They claim that the dramatic turnaround in temperature began about 100 years ago, which inspired two thoughts.
The last datapoint of the Alley data is 1855, there's been some warming since then.
GIPS2 is a history from one location with a couple of proxies for temp.
It might be a better representation than a Greenland ice core. In fact, it ought to be better. Whether it really is better is the open question. Mann sampled from more than one location, too, but the proxy is very noisy and the sample weighting preposterous.
Marcott may have done better, but getting a pay-walled paper in just under the wire for IPCC AR5 does not add to the paper's credibility.
You do know that a number of Greenland ice cores are among the proxies used by Marcott et al, right? Its not that surprising that localized variability (especially in high-latitude areas) would be much higher than in global reconstructions.
1. The Marcott analysis has a time resolution of around a century.
in both cases the person who cites higher frequency data to counter lower frequency claims is really OFF TOPIC. and the person points to high temps in new mexico to counter Anthony's claims about a US average is also OFF topic.
In short. you cannot refute a spatial average ( Anthony says the US is 76F) by citing a point measurement ( LA was 92! anthony must be wrong ) and you cannot refute a low frequency measure ( the annual SF temp is 55F) by citing a high frequncy measure ( Sat, sept 5th at 1PM was 81F).
Oh and here is another thing to ponder: Imagine the Holocene was warmer than they suggest.
That would imply a more sensitive climate since the change in forcing between Holocene and LIA isnt particularly big.
I see Michael Mann's "endorsements" peppered all over some of the breathless news accounts of the study. That alone should raise suspicions.
Scale and time are so important. Perhaps this needs labeling "Your so called hockey stick is here"? What is actually stunning is only a 3 degree fluctuation over 10k years. So I would say that as soon as man arrived in numbers, everything got fixed, so everyone, pat yourselves on the back. If Man and CO2 were involved, they were the fix, not the cause. It is also very obvious that civilization on earth is much more at risk of freezing to death.
Perhaps Marcott et al confused the temperature data from their rectal thermometer and mixed the signals during an illness and drug induced deluded analysis? It seems likely that their intellectual grasp of reality is rather lacking and this would be a plausible mistake.
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting NiV.
The modern anomaly is more likely due to the low resolution and dating uncertainty in the proxy data than unprecedented warming. There's a reason why we don't correlate well logs based on radiometric dating or even on paleontology. We correlate them based on log characteristics (kind of like wiggle matching).
That's a common criticism of Easterbrook graphics (which these appear to be; they're not from Alley's 2000 QSR article — although that's somewhat implied). The first datapoint appears to be 95 BP, which is 1845 — "hiding the rise" during the past 150 years.
Is this correct? If so, there should a large note in the article text.
Also, it would be nice to have a citation (or link) to the source of these graphics.
"The resolution of the reconstruction is averaged into 100-year segments, which means yearly or every-decade variability fails to show up in the new study. There could have been a period sometime in the past 11,000 years that was warmer than today, but if so it wasn't sustained for at least 100 years.
What do climate model projections have to do with it? Does their new and improved hockey stick include model projections?
Ah yes Anthony, I see what you have done there.
One need to be cautious by using the GISP2 data: that is one point on the map that reflects the temperature on the summit of the Greenland ice core, nothing else. It may reflect more or less the whole Greenland and beyond area, but in general temperature fluctuations of Greenland and NW Europe follow opposite swings, together with changes in the NAO.
A "reconstruction" that misses the Minoan Warming Period 3x longer than the claimed resolution is not in need of fine tuning, it is in need of scraping.
Part of how the Marcott graph fudges history is by flattening inconvenient variation in prior centuries to falsely suggest the difference between the peak of the MWP and bottom of the LIA was only around 0.4 degrees Celsius. In contrast, a more honest source, Loehle data at http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/ , shows such was around 1.2 degrees Celsius difference.
Every warm period in the Holocene (and before) has had more relative temperature change near the arctic than in the tropics (simply because the tropics never change much in temperature), as is so for the Modern Warm Period ("global warming") as well as all of the others. The general picture of current temperatures not being much compared to past millennia is seen both in the GISP2 data as well as illustrated in as wide reconstructions as Loehle.
There are loads of other examples, including higher global sea levels than now during the Medieval Warm Period and still more so during the Holocene Climate Optimum. As another illustration, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009254199000297 references how near-Arctic Eurasian vegetation was 20% more than now during the Holocene Climate Optimum and 55% more than now during the Eem interglacial optimum (due to those times being much warmer than now, with less frozen ground).
Both hemispheres appear to correlate well.
How about the person who splice indirect proxies and the measured temperature record and claim unprecedence? How about the person who thinks a heterogeneous global temperature sampling on continents, weighted with statistical methods has a climatic relevance? Ignoring processes is what the AGW crowd loves the most. No need to understand meteorology and climatic evolution, just measure and compute and tada! It's there.
The money for promoting man-made global warming hoax and global governance is going bye bye.
What is actually stunning is only a 3 degree fluctuation over 10k years.
That should be an immediate red flag.
Thanks for not deleteing me per my hot headed request.
Working on another blog just now and it jumped into my strange brain.
Why not attempt to bait and switch aka trick the Democrats in the U.S. Senate to put up some CO2/Climate Change/Global Waming , big spending bill as in a tax on milage on auto/truck use and or some such tax and spend boondogle.
Once it comes to the floor have Ted Cruz and or Rand Paul or some other U.S. Senator well schooled on the facts known.
Have that person up and ready for a 13 to 20 hour filabuster of facts.
Seems to some a nice cheap way to bypass the msm blockade.
That graph is particularly illustrative of how transitions from the warm state of climate to the cold state have occurred with around 10 degrees temperature drop in GISP2 over as little as around 300 to 400 years sometimes (even if not counting at all the Younger Dryas event which included an even faster drop section, just in case it was different from the others by being influenced by a comet impact, though there seems no way that the bulk of the others could be comet impacts). That would be proportionally like every several decades or faster a magnitude of change equivalent to the difference between the Little Ice Age and now, again and again multiple times over, an extremely rapid change in climate terms, vastly beyond the comparatively tiny fraction-of-a-degree changes in modern history. That fits with what I have heard elsewhere from trustworthy sources, whereas in contrast CAGW propagandists saying any transition to an ice age could only be gradual over tens of thousands of years are just lying as usual.
So today is Labo(u)r day?
"Oh and here is another thing to ponder: Imagine the Holocene was warmer than they suggest.
That would imply a more sensitive climate since the change in forcing between Holocene and LIA isnt particularly big." or you just think that c02 is important when it might not be. In fact loocking at the long perspective several million years temp and c02 curves are all over the place so it cant be that co2 is as important as you think.
And remember that MOST of the spike at the end was CREATED by man.. ie Hansen et al.
Sorry. As soon as you flatten out the MWP to next to nothing I smell a rat.
But diffusion of elements in the ice core is also postulated to "smooth" the temperature variations, so your supposition that "ice core has much better resolution" isn't justified, Steven. The "high frequncy variation" you mention has likely been lost.
But back to the original posting, Marcott should show his temperature graph of the past 10,000 years so we can all see if it's valid or not. To what does he compare the last 100 years (of which at least half isn't due to much anthropogenic influence at all)? Inquiring minds want to know.
What may be unprecedented, that which has certainly spiked markedly in the late 20th/early 21st Century, is culpable stupidity overlapping considerably with outright scientific deception. There is no way that this smoothed foraminifera derived proxy data of low resolution should be juxtaposed with very high resolution modern instrument data. The press are having a field day – EPIC global warming screams one particularly nauseatingly uninformed rag. Furthermore, the whole story is conflated with virtual reality IPCC computer predictions of extreme warming which, without any scientific justification, is being touted as a natural consequence of the trend shown by this 'new' data. And why did the study stop at 11,300 years. had they gone back further, they would have encountered the Younger Dryas which might have really screwed up their nice smooth pre-industrial revolution temp data, even at low resolution. Could have ended up with a double-ended hockey stick!
So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberg et al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude?
We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios.
How do you get error bars of of +/- 0.2 deg C from data with a spread of between 2 and 6 deg C?
How can you justify splicing the high resolution air temp data onto an ocean reconstruction?Surely you would need to use ocean temp.
The ice core has much better resolution. That means it has a better chance of picking up high frequency variation. marcotts proxies are basically "smooths".
Good point, but the Marcott analysis seems to splice instrumental records which have the highest resolution of all to those "smooth" proxies.
The worse their proxies the more "unprecedented" it gets. We've seen this before.
This is a replay of the Mannian Hokey Stick.
First claim unprecedented warming for 2000 years.
Next nothing to see here, move along, but we were right anyway.
So which of these collaborators will republish, 20 years later, saying I found a accidental bias in my calculations, Oh look history is restored?
Al la Briffa, actually I am not sure how many years it took Briffa to "correct" his work.
Harrison is at Reading University in the UK.
Hang on Steve, the Gisp2 total temp variation is of the order of 3 degrees C, yes? Whereas, the Marcott reconstruction is showing a total variation of less than 1 deg C. Now, that is some helluva smoothing, wouldn't you say? Irrespective of the global vs local issues, which I accept – it does not really follow to have such high temps locally for many centuries (as per Gisp2) and not have them 'reflected' globally.
The suspicion is certainly that the Marcott graph 'stopped' at 1500 years ago intentionally too!
I think someone mentioned that this is a Greenland temp scale compared to a global scale… so to be fair, can we get a copy of the Marcott et al. Greenland data to compare the two to see how they look together?
Not apples and oranges but apples and turnips.
It is a bit off topic, for which apologies, but an aspect of the original release that jumped out at me was the "it should be getting cooler" comment based, as far as I could see, on a perturbation in Earth's orbit that means the Northern hemisphere is getting less sunlight.
I suspect that as AGW sceptics, some of you ladies and gentlemen are going to be among the world's leading experts on the sun's influence on climate so I was wondering whether or not you would concur with that specific element of the Marcott analysis?
So, contrary to his publicity package, it is not the case that Marcott has proven that current temps are unprecedented in the last 11k years. Rather, Marcott has shown only that IF present temps continue for another hundred years THAT event would be unprecedented in past 11k years.
If this study is using 100 year smoothing, how does that affect their near time data? Do they get their "Present" temperatures by smoothing with climate model projections or did they just stop smoothing an use thermometer readings directly? Or did they manipulate the neat term data some other way?
The same trick of blurring many different proxies together was used in a paper posted last year focusing on the start of the Holocene (sorry no link, posting from my cell phone) which tried to blur out the Younger Dryas with the aim being to obscure and conceal the lag in the CO2 rise after the temperature rise, which is clearly resolved in individual high resolution proxies such as ice cores.
How does your argument about CO2 sensitivity square with the observation over the last 7000 odd years since the Holocene optimum, that while temperature has declined, CO2 has steadily risen?
Also you are contradicting your own resolution "apples and oranges" argument by accepting in Marcott et al the brazen Mann-like splicing of the modern high resolution temperature instrumental record onto the low resolution proxy blur.
Looks like hiding the decline "Nature trick" to me. "What decline?" Exactly.
Is anyone in the CAGW movement actually aware that excursions of higher temperature occur typically at the end of interglacials?
If I understand correctly, this claim depends on understanding the the physics of all possible forcings, which would be very helpful if you actually do and could explain for us.
FerdiEgb has already provided a couple of citations. I am sure SM grasps the difference between a TOA radiative forcing abstraction and the physical response of the climate system to an actual physical stimulus.
Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.).
Sorry, I just can't help focusing on exactly what some people say. Maybe it's just a slip.
Now for some Arctic specific warm horrors. Disclaimer: in no way does this imply that the rest of the world was in any way involved.
How come the objections in this thread, and in the previous two On-Topic threads, didn't occur to the peer reviewers?
"Mainly a realignement of the weather, and the global scale response was slower". This comment shows the disconnect between computer climatology and the observation based science: how do you think climatic shifts are expressed Mr. Director of the Climate Institute?
Climatic shifts are reflected through the weather. So weather "realignment" that is variation of intensity in atmospheric circulation lower layers is at least hemispheric if not global.
Peter … perhaps … but the Milankovitch cycles unfortunately don't quite explain it all … perhaps a reason Arrhenius went looking for other forcings in the first place….
Milankovitch believed that decreased summer insolation in northern high latitudes was the dominant factor leading to glaciation, which led him to (incorrectly) deduce an approximate 41ka period for ice ages. Subsequent research has shown that the 100ka eccentricity cycle is more important, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last million years.
More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.
Tim asks to see Marcott's Greenland data.
As I said above, there's a bunch of high-temp records with peaks around 1-3 C mixed in with a whole bunch of basically flat 'random noise' records. The flat records dilute the size of the peak without changing its shape – the argument is presumably that the Holocene Optimum only occurred in some places, and therefore the global average is much lower than local averages.
Mann's treering data looked similar – there were a few lumpy records and a lot of series that looked like flat random noise. In that case, they emphasised the lumpy records because they had big spikes upwards at the end, but the suspicion was that none of them were measuring temperature and the lumpy ones were simply corrupted.
Whether you choose to believe that some parts of the world rose in temperature up to 3 C while others saw no change at all, or that some of the proxies are not very good thermometers is up to you. But there's no big surprise that if you average data with a bunch of flat series then the result will flatten out. And if you sample at long intervals then any blips happening on timescales of less than a thousand years will simply not show up.
The sin is splicing in the modern temperature record, and claiming that a 30-year spike is shown to be 'unprecedented' by comparing it with a reconstruction in which spikes shorter than 3000 years are attenuated, and those shorter than 300 years eliminated entirely.
Please keep in mind that us ignorant amateurs are trying to learn from WUWT and things on the charts that are obvious to you need a little explanation. For example. -31.00 C?? Dang! It was cold during the Roman Warming period.
Funny they didn't use the famous GISP2 temperature proxy. Famous that is.
You know what, only 1 of the proxies used (out of 73 of them) show anything like the 0.6C spike at the end of the chart (which is 1940).
Theonly proxy which has this is Agassiz-Renland ice cores (dO18 calibrated to borehole thermometry again).
So, this reminds me of the 1 tree in Briffa's reconstruction.
Here is Agassiz Renland against the main temperature stack from the paper (which appears to be the only proxy which made the 0.6C at the end ).
Agassiz-Renland temperature reconstruction which appears to be the same as in the data file.
But he has based it on a couple of dozen variously weighted proxies, most of which show warming.
It is really worth going back to assess Mann's original contention that the MWP was 'cooler than the present' (of course, he has to rename it the MCA, the Medieval Climate Anomoly, as otherwise the whole thing would fail the Orwellian test).
Note Figure 2 – the top figures showing the temperature anomaly map of the world for the MCA (compared to the 1961 to 1990 period) ..and the weighted proxies on the right…to me it is an incredible construct: Note all the blue (cooler than recent times) on the map.
However, most of the proxies used show warming in their immediate area!!
Starting in northern America we see a cluster of proxies – by the temperature anomaly map, all apparently warmer than now, except for one cooler site. Down to the Caribbean … neutral, but heavily weighted.
ALL of the Southern Ocean, the southern Indian Ocean, and southern Atlantic oceans were supposedly much cooler, (based on Tasmania, and three proxies in Africa?!!) All of the eastern Pacific is shown as cooler, … based on a string of proxies in the western Americas, which were mainly warmer, and perhaps eastern China ..which was warmer anyway?
See Fig. 2. It shows reconstructed surface temperature pattern for MCA (950 to 1250 C.E.) and LIA (1400 to 1700 C.E.). Shown are the mean surface temperature anomaly and associated relative weightings of various proxy records used (indicated by size of symbols) for the low-frequency component of the reconstruction. Anomalies are defined relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period mean.
Now I do appreciate the vast effort and detailed measurements and complicated science which have gone into this effort, but thinking it is related to reality to me it is rather like building an intricate model of a Boeing 747 with Lego blocks (a truly mighty effort indeed) and then selling flight tickets to London.
Here's something for Steven to ponder: If the polar jet switches from a fast polar flow to a weaker meridional flow, what is the effect at TOA? Typical modeler answer is that the polar jet is a feedback just like all other weather so can't affect the TOA flux. Typical modelers in the early 2000's said the Arctic polar jet would get stronger especially in winter due to the decrease in sea ice because of the increased longitudinal temperature contrasts. Sure enough the polar jet had generally strengthened through the 1990's to match the models.
A typical modeler nowadays would say that the Arctic polar jet will become more meridional due to lower latitudinal temperature contrasts and that would make the jet weaker. Sure enough the polar jet got weaker through the 2000's to match the models.
One thing to ponder is that the changes in the real world weather preceded the changes in the models. Another thing is that solar activity decreased through the 2000's. The forcing didn't change a lot like you say, but that's only considering TSI which is does not affect weather very much. What is much more important is that the solar spectrum changed which caused weather changes such as lower UV connected to more blocking (e.g. Lockwood 2010).
So what you consider sensitivity of the climate may actually be long term changes in weather due to long term changes in solar activity. The next decade of changes will likely clarify the issue and there is obviously no need to do anything while the global temperature rise is so small.
Is there a complimentary (not behind paywall) online version of the Marcott et al 2013 paper?
Annoying not having ready access.
They do it for the headline. They don't care if it is proven to be rubbish afterwards. They'll ignore that part and assume the general public have moved on – no doubt to look at their next "shocking" headline.
Funding has got to be pulled on the enviro-whackos, right across the board. It's the only way short of violence to stop these people. What they are doing is criminal. More than that, it's treason. I'm surprised more people don't see that their aim is the total destruction of everything that has gotten humankind out of caves and into civilization. And we're PAYING them for this destruction??? I say, pull the plug.
Post (see below) on BH with link to standardized plot of all 73 proxies without statistical alchemy. This graphic, plus the geographical distribution of the 73 proxies (nearly all are coastal/marine locations, with large regions of both land and sea not represented), makes one want an especially thorough audit of the study methods that yield claims of such a distinctive hockey stick pattern as globally significant.
Here is a graph of the last 1000 years of all the 73 proxies, (shifted to have zero mean). Can you see the spike?
Note, the present is on the left in my graph.
I doubt that comparing a global temperature reconstruction with part of a (flawed) drawing of temperatures high on an arctic ice sheet would have occurred to anyone else, not just the peer reviewers.
The "blade" of the hockey stick is made up of a single point centered at the year 1940 (1930-1950 bin). The next point is at 1920 (1910-1930 bin) and is actually an anomaly of less the zero. The slope between these last two points is 0.35°C/decade.
None of the proxies remotely resembles the final synthesized plot shown in the Marcott paper. Most have temperature ranges much larger than the final chart. 24 of the 73 proxies contain data after 1910. Only 9 proxies have more than one data point in this region, permitting a slope determination. Of these, 5 end with a negative slope (decreasing temperature), 3 have a positive slope (increasing temperature) and 1 has a zero slope. The 9 proxies contain only 33 measurements beyond 1910. The average 1910-1950 slope for the 9 proxies is 0.13°C/decade, about 1/3 the value shown in Marcott's overall plot – and barely enough to bring the final data point back to a zero anomaly – a much less dramatic plot. Hmmm….
None of this invalidates Marcott's conclusions. I'm not a statistician and my analysis was quite simple. I have not looked at the spatial distribution of the data. However, I think a thorough examination of the statistical methods used by Marcott might be warranted.
1. How long have thermometers, accurate to 0.5 degrees, been available? Less than 150 years?
EVERYTHING before that is proxy / assumed data.
2. Is there ANY data, proxy or otherwise, that takes into account continental drift / tectonics in general?
3. Has Greenland ALWAYS been where it currently sits?
4. Has the Gulf Stream ALWAYS flowed the way it is supposed to?
5. Has Antarctica ALWAYS been where it now is and permanently covered in ice and snow? NO is the correct answer to both of those. Ditto Australia.
6. What was the "climate" when Africa and South America were actually joined together?
7. Did sunstroke kill all the wooly mammoths in Siberia?
I couldn't resist. It has been a long week.
You write: "IF present temps continue" . . .
. . . but I think you mean something else. Maybe referring to the rate of increase, say from 1976 to 1998, or at the rate proposed in one of the scenarios produced by the UN IPCC. It is my understanding that at the present time (16 or so recent years) the global average temperature is not rising.
Other than that, I had the same thought you have expressed.
Sorry but the graphs overlaid as such in nonsense.
in order to generate 'hysteria' among the general public.
picked set of 73 locations, is nonsense.
longer about Geophysics at all).
1. The validity of the 'proxies' used in the new study.
2. The global coverage of those proxies.
3. Whether Greenland data matches world data, assuming the proxies used for that to be accurate?
What can, however, be seen, from the Greenland data is that a 1.5 – 2.0C rise in rapid time can occur, followed by an equally rapid descent some years later.
The caterwauling alarmists never seem to discuss that, do they?
Boring, Watts you compare apple with pears. If you take GIPS2 you have to compare not Globally, you have to look @ 30N-90N-Stack of this Studie. You looked there, you can see the actual temperature of 30N-90N is nearly 1K lower that Holocene-Max.
Its like I said, this is from Oregon State University. So the more you look, the more of this you will find.
So basically marcott has data points once every 150 years and them compares a temperature record of 100 years to this? Anyone else see the issue there? It is physically impossible to do that. The entire statement of unprecedented warming is just retarded.
Has anyone else noticed that in the plots where Mann 2008 is overlaid on the new reconstruction, the high-frequency noise in the line jumps up exactly at the start of the overlay? Could Mann 08 have been the actual 'secret ingredient' in the proxy roster that creates the end-spike?
That's pure speculation – I don't know. Perhaps someone with access to the paywalled part could see if it's mentioned?
Same playing with error bars? check.
Same manipulation of recent record? check.
If you divide the daily sunspot numbers by 90 and then subtract it from the CET daily maximum, the period from 1897 to 1997 has a flat trendline. Or you can divide the yearly total by 32000 and subtract it from the yearly maximum temperature for the same result.
It pains me to see how you overlay plots incorrectly. Ugh.
You are comparing regional (greenland temps) to a global average temperature reconstruction. This is inherently wrong. You should explicitly explain this to your devoted fans who may think what you've done is correct. If, say, we had a bunch of publications discussing temperatures in Chicago vs. Florida vs. global averages. Each was by a different author. Would it be accurate to compare all of the temperatures and then say the author's must be lying because see how they disagree.
@youarewrongagain, using many proxies means that there are a lot of data that will cancel out each other. That is why GISP2 data are moving so wild compared to the bundle of datasets of the underlying study. Adding a pike of measured temperatures at the end is the finishing touch for another hockeystick. Nullius in Verba, you are right.
@ Bruce, spreading at the mid Atlantic ridge is about 4cm/y, so you can calculate that for the period of let's say the last glaciation that ended 12,000 years ago, Greenland must have shifted longitudinally by 240m from the ridge center during this period. As for Australia, Antarctica, even if the East Pacific Ridge spreading is faster around 15cm/y, here again the change of respective positions during the period would be negligible.
Yes, and that's exactly the sort of comparison that should be made in order to understand what is going on. People are aware of certain previous reports about the Holocene Optimum, when new information comes along that appears inconsistent with it, you investigate. First you isolate the point of apparent conflict. You check the data. You check the sources. You find out exactly what it means, how it was processed, what it assumes, what its error bars look like, you find out how they were calculated, you consider other data sets, other hypotheses, and you keep digging until you get a satisfactory explanation.
That might result in discovering a flaw in the new information, or you might discover a flaw in your old information, or you might find out that you had previously misunderstood one or both and the appearance of a conflict is expalinable. Any way it goes, you make progress.
As you say, a global average is not the same as a local average. But the fact that the two can be so different implies that the behaviour is not uniform globally, which is an interesting new fact you have learnt. It reminds you that global averages don't tell you anything about local climate changes, which is where people directly experience it. It opens up new questions, like where did the warming occur, and how can you get drastic warming in one place and none at all in another, and are the proxies really reporting temperature reliably, and what does the averaging process do to the fine details, and what does it mean for all the high-frequency details to be lost, and is it valid to mix data with different frequency behaviours in different parts of the record?
As a result of asking such questions, we now know that many of the assembled proxies don't show any temperature change over the Holocene, that if these are accurate that the global average was smaller than the local effects in many places, that the up-tick at the end appears to be some sort of illegitimate splice of modern Mannean data that doesn't appear in any of the 73 proxies. It isn't a confirmation of Mann's hockeystick if it includes Mann's hockeystick as an input. It isn't a confirmation that either the size or speed of the modern peak is unprecedented if any such spikes and peaks would be smoothed out. It isn't evidence that local climate changes – the sort people will actually experience – are or will be unprecedented when global is so different to local.
But it is quite true, as we've said several times now, that the disagreement of the average with the individual contributors like Greenland isn't an inconsistency or error – not that Anthony said anywhere that it was; in fact he cautioned against jumping to conclusions.
Now see if you can find any of those media sources who said this showed global warming is unprecedented in 11,300 years acknowledging any of their errors.
See the non-empirical hockey stick graph at Stockwell's article linked above….. it's a statistical artifact, like the fundamental uber-graphic for all hockey sticks of certain methodologies…. Stockwell says it's basically encoded into the statistical treatment of proxies (unless presumably better care is taken to avoid biasing the results).
And then, there's the large, unshielded, somewhat erratic, fusion reactor around which the planet appears to orbit.
No, Bruce, that fusion reactor is extremely stable.
On the one hand we have statements by the foremost Scientific Organizations in the World, including the AAAS, the NAS, American Meteorological Society and the American GeoPhysical Union that the evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change is compelling and that there is a scientific consensus; in this forum we have many strong statements claiming it's bunk. A Science article reports 13950 peer-reviewed articles support the Scientific consensus, 0.17% raise some question about it's validity. It doesn't seem the deniers have science on their side.
The IPCC is a political organization not a scientific organization and their job is to sell MMGW to The World. The problems started with Michael Mann's "Hockeystick" Graph which is sheer rubbish but because it threatened a disaster the newspapers rubbed theirs hands with glee and duly kicked of the Mannmade Global Warming scam. Don't underestimate the effect of a media campaign.
We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age and the temperature has been going up steadily for approx 200 years (and could continue for some years more).
However, that does not mean we should carry on as if nothing is happening.
The World will to run out of fossil fuels and all avenues should be explored to find alternatives.
I strongly object to is the way that the IPCC campaign is distorting research funds so that anyone wanting to research a subject that might go against MMGW will be denied grants, and causing millions of dollars to be wasted on Carbon Credit schemes.
Zctek, are the AAS, NAS, American Meteorological society, and American Geophysical Society all political as well? Is the peer review process that's yielded 99.8% of 13,950 papers affirming Anthropogenic Climate Change also political? By your standard, we can't count on relativity, evolution, or in fact, any of today's Science.
Warren, Do you believe that Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" is a true representation of the last 2,500 years of temperature/climate? That is the lynch-pin of the IPCC's policy.
There is a mixture of good and bad science. It is what the IPCC chooses and does with it that's wrong.
Thanks for your reply. I am an Engineer, not a PhD Climate Scientist or Physicist, and wouldn't attempt to answer your question authoritatively. I don't agree one can judge the validity of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) by looking at the political nature of the IPCC. It is of course political, as are most large bureaucracies. But that doesn't mean it's wrong on the Science. I am looking instead to statements issued by World premier Scientific Societies, calling the IPCC conclusions "compelling", and the 10s of thousands of Peer Reviewed papers supporting ACC vs the couple of dozen according to an article in Science, that question ACC. To moderate my earlier comment, all I suggest is skeptics publish to establish Scientific credibility for their case. Since there are so few "anti ACC" peer -reviewed papers around, it makes one wonder about the strength of their case.
@Bill Illis- I found a couple more.
After a good kick in the pants last nite to not assume just because everyone else was saying it, I dug in.
To the extent that I could within my limited expertise, I started picking things apart. First I tried to find a description of where the data for the "blade" came from.
I learned "BP" was 1950 as many correctly commented. I manually identified by reading each data set there are only a handful of the data sets that cover the period after approx. 1900. In skimming these data sets temp records for the 1900 and onward period, where the "blade" shows up, nothing jumped out at me.
I learned Marcott's graphs showed their "Temperature Stacks" data. While some of the details are over my head ( like how they calculated the numbers) I have a rough idea of what they were talking about.
As I looked at the "Global (°C)" data for the appx 1900 onward period the "blade" started to become clear. There are a handful of the data sets with large changes upward from appx 50 yrs BP (1900) to 10yrs BP (1940). I graphed in Excel each of the temperature stack data sets and there are a number of blades shown.
So the blade is clearly there the last 50-70 years or so before 1950 using the authors temperature stack data. How they computed that data is over my head. One of the stats guys will need to look at that.
I wasn't ready to give up so I went back thru the records that included data for the 1900 and later period. There were roughly 25 data sets that covered some time period after 1900 or so.
About 8 jumped right from 1950 back 200 or more years for their next measurement – it appeared to me these offered essentially no relevant "blade" data – as you can't calculate the increase for the 1900 onward period, even though they report a 1950 or so data point.
7 more had decreasing temps during the time period – although generally relatively small. 6 had smaller temp increases – from 0.08 to 0.31C during the time period. One – Vostok Ice – has no data for the first 6 periods going back to 150 years BP and thus no useful information re: the blade..
These are the only 3 data records out of 73 with a large "blade" during the 1900 and later period.
"Standard5x5Grid"; "Standard"; "Jack30"; "Jack50"	… only the Jack 30 and Jack 50 show the +0.6 blade.
A blade also appears with the "Standard30x30Grid" and "Standard10-lat" but it begins its rise about 300 years BP.
All of these sets track fairly uniformly until appx 370 yrs BP.
Someone with stats knowledge and an idea of how they created the temp stack data sets will have to decipher what that means – but the "blade" data is there if you plot the data.
The Agassiz-Renland data shown in the Marcott data tab is already the 20 year average temperature deviation.
Warren, Thanks for replying. Like you I have an engineering background in computer development, but I also have an interest in most of the sciences.
The reason theat I am became very sceptical about AGW is because the original "Hockey Stick" managed to get rid of the all the variations before the Little IceAge.
The "Hockey Stick" used an algorithm developed by Michael Mann and he claims that his method used proprietary information the he refuses to disclose. Not the way for a scientist to behave!
Zcetek: Thus you seem justified in asking if this is bad science. If it passed the peer review process, it might be useful to see if his Peers raised questions about his statistical methods, and if he answered. Maybe there's a way to search online for the authors response to this issue. Worth a try perhaps.
…information that he refuses to disclose.
statisticians slam random global warming hockey stick graph.
No need to justify study results trumpeted by the media so long as you say they are "not robust" — so remind me of why his article was published in SCIENCE to get all this media hype over results which are "not robust"??
YouAreWrongAgain. Greenland, Antarctica, and the Arctic all show strong correlation, proving that temperature changes were global in extent.
Thanks to A. Scott for some fascinating insights.
In phase, perhaps, but not in amplitude. A cautionary demonstration of the problems of comparing in one one location with another (or global temperature) to make implication about global behaviour. This is the problem with comparing GISP wityh global data – GISP, being localised, is going to show much more variance. Warm periods will be warmer, cool periods cooler (see MWP and LIA for that). Long-term temperature changes in the North Pole are larger than global, too, as we can see in any data set in recent times (eg, UAH – 3 times as much warming as global, same for the geological record).
Not to mention that the GISP graph up top only goes to 1889, and the Marcott graph to 1950. Apples and oranges in several ways.
From what I've read, Marcott says current temperatures are warmer than most of the last 2000 years, that what is unprecedented is the rate of change, and that yes, he says that if temps continue to rise they will be warmer than any in the last 11,300 years by 2100.
Do you have a cite to corroborate your interpretation (I'm genuinely curious)?
Global climate rebounds like a piece of elastic? There is some fixed neutral state around which it oscillates?


text:
'Reviving the Role of CRS in Congressional Oversight' by Steven Aftergood
In a blog post for the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Steven Aftergood provides commentary on a paper by former Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyst Kevin R. Kosar ("The Atrophying of the Congressional Research Service's Role in Supporting Committee Oversight"). Kosar notes that CRS used to help Congress with its oversight efforts, including the Watergate investigation, but its role declined over time "due to various factors, most of which were out of its control. Congress changed. Congressional committees, particularly in the House of Representatives, lost capacity, and hyper-partisanism turned much oversight into political point-scoring rather than an exercise in governing that required expert assistance." However, "CRS does not have to passively accept this fate," Kosar told Aftergood via email.
For more information, read the blog post.
GPO Releases This Year's Congressional Directory
The U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) rolled out its official digital directory of the 115th Congress. According to the press release, "More than just a guide to Members, committees, and officials of the 115th Congress, the Congressional Directory is the only document issued by Congress that shows the overall organization of the two chambers and their committees, offices, and support organizations." It also features historical statistics and information on the following:
The Capitol buildings and grounds
Legislative branch agencies
Executive branch departments and agencies
U.S. courts
International organizations and foreign diplomatic offices in the U.S.
Members of the congressional press, radio, and television galleries
'Evolution in the Library Ebook Market' by Alan S. Inouye
Alan S. Inouye, public policy director for ALA's Washington Office, writes in American Libraries that the ebook lending "news from Penguin Random House (PRH) represents a new and major development in the library ebook market. Unlike the terrible shift in lending policy announced in July by Tor and Macmillan Publishers, PRH's change is neutral or even a bit positive for US libraries, although the impact on any specific library will depend on its circumstances."
Inouye notes that an "important conclusion from this change is that PRH has renewed its commitment to libraries. The company has been talking to librarians and evaluating the market. In changing its business model, PRH plans to remain fully engaged with the library market in a respectful and productive way—something that the American Library Association (ALA) urges library advocates to emphasize in communications to other publishers."
For more information, read the article.
EfficientIP Studies Cyberthreats in Higher Education
EfficientIP released its "2018 Global DNS Threat Report," which finds "that the higher education sector ranks as one of the worst business sectors to handle potential cyber threats. The report details that almost three quarters of institutions (73%) took three days or more to apply a patch after notification. The report also highlights the cost per DNS [domain name system]-based attack soared 68% to $690,000 in the Education sector last year."
The company notes, "The consequences of unsecured [Internet of Things] devices on a campus network can vary, from a hacker hijacking them in order to launch DDoS attacks, to a proactive shutdown of services in order to protect the overall network from intruders. It's paramount that universities review how they identify, analyze and block DNS-based threats—otherwise, they will remain vulnerable and a potential target."
For more information and a list of best practices for protecting sensitive data, read the press release.
PLA Sets 2018-2022 Strategic Plan
The Public Library Association (PLA) introduced its strategic plan for 2018 through 2022, which "describes the association's core purpose, core values, and vision for future success while also identifying goal areas where PLA will direct its energy and resources over the next several years."
The goal areas are as follows:
Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Social Justice (EDISJ)
Organizational Excellence
The plan's key deliverables include the following:
Increasing awareness of, and access to, the fundamental types of literacy skills people need to achieve success in the 21st century;
Augmenting the number of libraries using meaningful and actionable measurements to understand and expand their impact on the community;
Supporting public library staff in shifting from a library-centered approach to a community-centered approach toward service delivery; and
Equipping its members with the resources to advocate and apply EDISJ principles in their libraries and communities.
Renew Publishing Consultants Studies Scholarly Publishing
Renew Publishing Consultants unveiled two research reports: "How Readers Discover Content in Scholarly Publications" and "A Landscape Review of Streaming Media in Scholarly Publishing: Where Are We Now and Where to Next?"
"How Readers Discover Content in Scholarly Publications" presents the results of a study of more than 10,000 people who work and study across all sectors, subject disciplines, and regions. It shows that about 60% of the time, people read articles from "free" resources, and about 5% of downloads from wealthy nations come from Sci-Hub. They find articles often via abstracting-and-indexing databases and academic search engines such as Google Scholar, but 55% of the time, article finds come from social media, emails, alerts, and other resources.
"A Landscape Review of Streaming Media in Scholarly Publishing" comes from interviews with 25 organizations that are involved in scholarly communication on their uses of video and audio, including their challenges, successes, and measurement of ROI. Video is most useful for demonstrations, showing behavioral studies, promotion through social media, and summaries of complex information. Audio is most useful for building rapport and community.
'To Restore Civil Society, Start With the Library' by Eric Klinenberg
Eric Klinenberg writes in The New York Times, "In recent years, declines in the circulation of bound books in some parts of the country have led prominent critics to argue that libraries are no longer serving their historical function. … But the problem that libraries face today isn't irrelevance. Indeed, in New York and many other cities, library circulation, program attendance and average hours spent visiting are up. The real problem that libraries face is that so many people are using them, and for such a wide variety of purposes, that library systems and their employees are overwhelmed."
He continues, "Libraries are being disparaged and neglected at precisely the moment when they are most valued and necessary. Why the disconnect? In part it's because the founding principle of the public library—that all people deserve free, open access to our shared culture and heritage—is out of sync with the market logic that dominates our world. But it's also because so few influential people understand the expansive role that libraries play in modern communities."
'Open Access--The Movie' by Richard Poynder
In Nature, OA movement chronicler Richard Poynder reviews the movie Paywall: The Business of Scholarship, which he calls "an advocacy film." He continues, "Its intention seems to be to persuade viewers that the paywalls that restrict access to journal content online are an unnecessary hangover from the print era, and now serve only to perpetuate the excessive profits that legacy publishers such as Elsevier, Wiley and Springer Nature make from the public purse.
"The film makes a convincing case that the paywall system creates problems — and that universal open access (OA) to scholarly articles would be better for society. But it fails to adequately explore the thorny challenges that arise with OA publishing."
Library of Congress Creates Educational Apps for Students
The Library of Congress worked with educational organizations to develop a new set of web and mobile apps about Congress and civics for use in K–12 classrooms. They feature primary sources from U.S. history that help students address complex questions.
The apps are:
DBQuest, developed by iCivics. DBQuest teaches history and civics through the use of primary source documents and evidence-based learning. It offers a platform, accessible on mobile devices, that reinforces evidence-based reasoning and document-based questioning by teaching students to identify and evaluate evidence, contextualize information and write sound supporting arguments.
Case Maker, developed by Bean Creative. Case Maker is a customizable system for inquiry-based learning for K-12 students using primary sources from the Library of Congress. Modeled after the "observe, reflect, question" framework, developed under the Teaching with Primary Sources program, Case Maker guides students to challenge a question, collect evidence and make a case.
MyScienceWork Adds New Content
Three new publishers—VGTU Press, Singapore Bilingual Publishing Co., and Synergy Publishers—have agreed to index their publications in the MyScienceWork database. They will be free for all researchers to access.
VGTU Press covers subjects such as aviation, business and management, and engineering structures and technologies. Singapore Bilingual Publishing Co. has content in fields such as medicine, architecture, engineering, and educational theory. Synergy Publishers features subjects such as educational theory and management, finance research, and modern electronic technology.
"We are very pleased to increase the number of publications for our research community. Our content is becoming more and more multidisciplinary," says Virginie Simon, MyScienceWork's CEO and co-founder.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Loren Israel is a Los Angeles-based music producer and record executive who specializes in developing independent artists. A manager and former A&R executive at Capitol Records, Israel is best known for working with bands such as Jimmy Eat World, Plain White T's, Neon Trees, Sugarcult, Less Than Jake and more.

Biography
Loren Israel grew up in Hollywood, California and later moved to the San Fernando Valley. His career in the music industry began at age 15, when he played in several bands. He toured the country with these bands, opening for bands like Bad Religion, the Sugarcubes, Soul Asylum, Social Distortion, the Damned, and the Smithereens. One successful band that he was in was called One Day, where he played guitar and wrote songs. Later, he switched gears and went to college. However, he could not stay away from music and put on several benefit concerts because he enjoyed it. As a result, he was scouted by an A&R executive who saw him at these shows, and ended up offering Loren an internship at Capitol Records. A few years later, Loren was offered a permanent job at Capitol as an A&R executive.

Career
As an A&R executive for Capitol, Loren signed Less Than Jake and Jimmy Eat World. He independently produced and signed The Hippos to Interscope Records, and Automatic 7 to A&M / Vagrant Records. He served as an A&R consultant to Jimmy Eat World's self-titled CD for DreamWorks.

Outside of Capitol Records, Loren began developing independent artists in 2001. He worked extensively with Rock Kills Kid from 2001–2004 and produced and managed the band's first EP release on Fearless Records in 2003. This led to the band being signed to Reprise Records and in 2006 released their first major record label record, Are You Nervous?.

Loren also scouted and developed the Plain White T's. He produced and managed the band's first two albums Stop (2001) and All That We Needed (2005). He was directly responsible for the band establishing a marketing presence on MySpace with 200,000+ friends. The popularity of the band garnered them a deal with Hollywood Records in 2006 and released Every Second Counts September, 2006.

In addition, Loren worked on Sugarcult's 2006 album Lights Out. He worked as management for Neon Trees during the release of their album Habits.

Loren currently does A&R consulting for Virgin Records, Epic Records, and Warner Bros. Records, and also runs two companies. The first, Band Boot Camp, is a program in which Loren personally assists artists in the areas of songwriting, stage presence, and self marketing in a one-day workshop in a studio in Hollywood. The other, his Music Mentor Program, allows him to work with emerging artists on a more long-term basis.

Discography

References

Record producers from California
Living people
People from Hollywood, Los Angeles
People from the San Fernando Valley
Year of birth missing (living people)
Place of birth missing (living people)
A&R people

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Mergers and acquisitions are highly misunderstood legal terms, and are often considered to be synonymous among small business owners and the general population. However, there are some distinct differences between the two; understanding them and how they change the dynamics of a business transaction can be critical for ensuring a company's future success.
A merger is a business transaction in which two companies join together to form one company. Many times, one of the two companies ceases to exist. One example is the2007 merger between Digital Computers and Compaq in which Digital Computers was absorbed by Compaq.
Horizontal merger. This involves two companies in direct competition with one another, both in market and product line.
Vertical merger. This is an agreement between two companies in a similar industry, but different type of business. An example would be a merger between a framing company and a drywall company.
Market-extension merger. An agreement between companies in different markets but with similar products.
Product-extension merger. An agreement between companies in similar markets that sell distinct products.
Conglomerate merger. Two companies with seemingly nothing in common merge. An example would be an electronics company merging with a company that sells car parts.
Strategic Remix acquisition. This is an agreement in which the acquired asset, including operations and product line, are combined with an existing business to increase profit.
Private Equity acquisition. This is when a company buys another business at a cheap price, pumps it full of resources, and then sells it at a higher cost.
Alphabet acquisition. An agreement between two companies that is a hybrid of the other two types of acquisitions. When this happens, the buyers take on the operations and product line of the acquired company with the intention of waiting to see how the acquired company does. If they improve, the buyers have the choice to sell or pump in more resources and potentially keep running the company for their own profit.
If you are looking to enter the world of mergers and acquisitions, contact Stock, Carlson, Oldfield & McGrath, LLC. Backed by more than 40 years of legal and business experience, our Wheaton small business attorneys can help you make informed decisions about your organization's future. As a small business ourselves, our legal team knows how important a transaction like this can be for your business' future. Call 630-665-2500 to schedule a consultation with our office today.
Closing a business is a complex, multi-step process that must be done with the utmost efficiency. Failure in any aspect can result in serious consequences with both legal and financial implications. If you are facing the closure of your business, the following information can help. It also explains where and how to find experienced assistance.
No two companies are exactly the same, and it is unlikely that any two will go through closure in exactly the same way. This is why exit strategies are so critical. An outline of whom you will need to talk to, tasks that will need to be completed, an overview of what you hope will come of the closure, and an examination and possible solutions to any issues that may arise, this critical step can help to ensure you have covered all the aspects of your company's closure. It can also help you stay focused on the next task at hand as you navigate through the arduous process.
Unless you are a sole proprietor, the closure of your business is likely to affect many others, including any investors, partners, or employees. Partners must be a part of your final decision, and the conclusion should be documented in writing. Investors who have not received their agreed upon share should be consulted with to ensure you are not left indebted to them. Employees should be given notice of the closure so they have time to secure new employment. You must also comply with all labor laws and supply them with their final paychecks upon their last day of employment. If you have any questions or concerns about how to work with your partners, investors, or employees during a closure, speak to an experienced business law attorney for advice and assistance.
Closing a business does not release you of any financial obligations you may have. You must still notify the Internal Revenue Service and pay any owed taxes. You must also contact creditors and those that currently owe you funds for services or products rendered to either settle or comp up with a payment arrangement you can each live with. If you cannot do this successfully, an experienced business law attorney may be able to negotiate the matter on your company's behalf.
At Stock, Carlson, Oldfied & McGrath, LLC, we take a personalized approach to ensure your company's best interests are preserved. This applies, regardless of whether you are starting a new business, negotiating contracts, or closing down. Learn more about how our seasoned DuPage County business law attorneys can serve your company. Call 630-665-2500 and schedule your consultation with us today.
If you are considering dissolving your business, there are many things to be aware of before you begin the proceeding. The first is that you should speak with a business attorney to determine the bests steps to take and whether or not your business is applicable for tax breaks and what financial legal burdens you have to handle before you walk away. Also be aware that you have to file an annual tax return for the year that you go out of business, even if your business closes in the first quarter. Other financial burdens that must be resolved include the closing of all accounts and the resolution of all business debt.
These tax returns are in addition to the reports that you must file to officially dispose of your business, which must be filed no matter what type of business you operate. This is true for a corporation, S corporation, LLC, or trust. If you fail to file these dissolution papers, you could still be liable to pay taxes and filings. If you are operating as a partnership or sole proprietorship, you may not be required to fill out these dissolution papers. If you have any question as to whether or not you should file these, it should be discussed with a legal professional.
Another major step is to make sure that you have canceled all registrations, permits, licenses, and business names. This ensures that you will no longer be responsible for any additional payments and responsibilities. Most of these filings will be done at the state or local level, which is why it is important to work with a legal professional who is in your area and familiar with local laws.
The next step to closing a business it to make sure that you have complied with all employment and labor laws. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), for example, requires that all employers who have 100 or more employees provide at least 60 days (two month) written warning that the business will be closing.
If you or someone you know is considering closing a business, the most important step is to seek legal counsel. Contact an experienced DuPage County business attorney today. Call the Law Office of Stock, Carlson, Oldfield & McGrath LLC 630-665-2500 to schedule a consultation.


This course provides both historical and current insight into deregulated markets and how they affect customers and distribution companies. The course examines the significance of the landmark FERC Order No. 888 and Order No. 889, which require all transmission owners to establish an Open Access Same-time Information System and to post for all potential users their transmission capacity and their tariff. The course also discusses the forming of power pools to aggregate, control, and dispatch generation; how generators bid their energy into markets; how clearing prices are established; hedging strategies; and the use of bilateral contracts.


text:
Q: ESP8266 CIPSEND GET HTTP Host Request Time-out AT+CIPSEND=65

OK
>
Recv 65 bytes

SEND OK

+IPD,394:HTTP/1.1 408 Request Time-out
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 05:24:40 GMT
Server: Apache
Content-Length: 223
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">

<title>408 Request Time-out</title>

Request Time-out

Server timeout waiting for the HTTP request from the client.

CLOSED

I always get 408 request timeout
the link is working
the length is okay
tx is to rx
rx is to tx
i have search the google many times.
still haven't have the solution
i also tried different link.
I am using Arduino Mega 2560 and esp8266 or esp-01

A: I Have The Solution
https://arduino.stackexchange.com/questions/23319/esp8266-sending-get-request-and-getting-408-timeout-error/23342#23342
I assume you're doing all this from the serial monitor. You can't use escape sequences like \r in the serial monitor entry box. Everything you enter is evaluated as a string of separate ASCII characters; \r is just a backslash character followed by lowercase r. To send a HTTP request, you make the serial monitor send the \r\n for you.

*

*First set the serial monitor to BOTH NL & CR permanently; it will serve you well for commands and HTTP requests as it appends \r\n to everything you send.

*Count the number of bytes in the your HTTP request, including the carriage return and newline characters. I count 61 characters in your request.

*Use this count in AT+CIPSEND

*the first line of your request, and stop right before the first \r\n, and click Send. Because of your setting, the monitor will now send what you typed with \r\n suffixed to it.

*Type and send each line of the request, just like you sent the first line, until you've sent the last line.

*Since there is an additional \r\n after the last line, you click Send again, without typing anything. And since the module requires \r to indicate the end of the data packet, you click Send one last time.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The HomePatrol-2 is our most versitile scanner.
Swiss Army knives want to be the HP-2.
Buy the HP-2 and soon, much sooner than you think, everything you own will have touchscreen capabilties.
It's sleek enough to fit in your back pocket like a handheld and easy to use in your car like a mobile.
Includes a desk stand for at-home scanning.
How is the HomePatrol-2 different than the HomePatrol-1?
The big difference is the HomePatrol-2 (HP2) can pick up digital phase 2 digital signals & the HomePatrol-2 (HP1) cannot. So the HP1, like all digital phase 1 scanners, is being phased out and we highly recommend buying the HP2.
I need a phase 2 digital scanner, why should I buy the HP2?
It can be used in your home or vehicle - or both. It's the only phase 2 digital scanner with a color touchscreen which smart phone and iPad users are use to.
Will the HomePatrol-2 go on sale anytime soon?
What's the catch - this police scanner seems too good to be true?
No catch—this is just a solid scanner.
What's the difference between refurbished and new HomePatrol-2's?
Besides the cost, they are the exact same with one notable difference; some refurbished HP2 power light does not turn green when fully charged. They charge and operate exactly the same, but the light does not turn green. We will not replace any refurbished HP2s for this light issue. This is not an issue on new HP2s and only on some refurbished units. Some users are frustrated by this light issue, others could care less.
› 4 GB memory card (436 & 536 have 4 GB) but the 4GB is more than enough.
› Mark's Scanners is an excellent website which has a very detailed digital owner's guides for all police scanner radios including the HomePatrol-2. We highly recommend this page to all HomePatrol-2 owners (and potential owners) as it loaded with how-to's, screenshots and more.
› Download Home Patrol-2 Sentinel Software. Download the software that drives this scanner for free. Set up favorite lists, configure for your area & see if you're comfortable operating before you buy. If you buy, you'll have everything set up & ready to go.
› Home Patrol-2 Owner's Manual. This is the official Home Patrol-2 owner's manual but we highly recommend Mark's Scanners Home Patrol-2 guide over this.
› Radio Reference is the largest police scanner radio forum with over 850k users. There are several threads about the HomePatrol-2 where just about every question imaginable has been asked and answered by HomePatrol-2 owners.
› Uniden has a forum which, while not as active as Radio Reference, is a great place to ask and answer HomePatrol-2 questions.
› There are Yahoo Groups for every police scanner radio including the HomePatrol-2.
› Uniden created a one page 'sell sheet' for the HomePatrol-2.
› eHam is a great source for unfiltered user reviews of the HomePatrol-2. While not as in-depth as professional reviews, you can get a good general idea of what users think about the HomePatrol-2.
› Monitoring Reviews has a 15 minute video review of the HomePatrol-2.
Very personal service and would not hesitate to order again. Thank You.
Sold 3 other scanners I had to get this and it was a good decision, I knew how to program them but it was a hassle, this is a joy to use and I got the GPS option and it works flawlessly on the road (be aware though that some states restrict use) I'm a ham radio operator and in comes in handy on the road.
Very compact. Probably needs an external speaker. Surely they could have made this unit into a larger box. Some people like small and compact. Give me a choice I choose slightly larger. Too many channels scanning at one time. I like to lock in one just one or two channels. With all the negatives I still like it, until something better comes along.
This is a really great scanner. Favorites lists are easy to create. I still haven't figured out how to program Custom Service types. I hope this is not a part of the Upgrade feature. If any knows let me know. The receiver is extremely sensitive. I find using the Attenuate feature helps a lot in the Los Angeles Area. The record feature works great. Even though the scanner has a complete database in it. I still refer back to Radio Reference to help choose the correct group of frequencies for any service desired when creating favorite lists. I have not purchased the Upgrade feature. For now I do not need it. It was definitely a huge upgrade from my last scanner.
I've had scanners for at least the last 25 years going back to my first Radio Shack programmable scanner, the PRO-2003. They've come a long way since then. But this scanner is a major leap forward.
As available channels have increased (over 1000 available in just my corner of Los Angeles), scanners needed to change. It was getting too cumbersome with the 10 and 20-year old designs to manage frequencies. But this scanner fixes that problem. It's amazingly easy to use, and the included software is light years better than other stuff out there.
Not to mention, the build quality is amazing, the audio and receive quality is fantastic, and the digital features like recording bring this hardware into the present era.
Time from "Box on the porch" to listening to the statewide trunk system was about 2 minutes.
Beware, the charging circuit appears to be time based, not voltage based. If true, you can easily overcharge and destroy the batteries.
The HomePatrol-2 scanner is well worth the investment. The build quality is solid, and the audio crisp and clear. There are several options for customizing your listening experience by specific county, specific service, such as police,fire, or public works, by zip code, or even an option to set a specific radius (in miles) from your current location. There are numerious menus and screens to navigate through, and it takes a while to familiarize yourself with all of the many options this scanner has to offer. Curiously, there is an "auto-detect" feature which can be used to detect your current location. This would seem to indicate that the unit has built in GPS, but I don't believe it does. I tried using the "auto-detect" feature, and it indicated that I was in a location nearly 200 miles away. There is the ability to save specific channels to a custom bank, as well as the ability to manually enter specific frequencies. You can also "hold" on a specific channel if so desired. When you first activate the scanner, it gives you the option to download the software onto a P.C. but my unit would not complete the process. I will be contacting Uniden for guidance on this. You will also need to update the software version to 2.0, even though the scanner is brand new.
I have been listening to scanners since the days they needed plug-in crystals for every frequency, and I still have many older high end analog scanners. This thing is excellent, it demonstrates how far the technology has come and I highly recommend it. It is the easiest scanner to use and be sure you are hearing all the local action, and it performs really well.
This scanner is great. Very easy user interface with colored touch screen. It literally took me less than 5min to set it up and start listening. I'm new to scanners and this is the 4th one I've tried. The previous ones were all too complicated to setup & get working and even once I did get them set up, I couldn't pick-up the channels I wanted because the scanner didn't support it. The HomePatrol 2 picks up EVERYTHING. The antenna could be better but depending on where you are at you can get a wide variety of channels. I think this is 1 of the best scanners out there right now unless you're a pro and like to have full control over your scanner and do a manual setup. I prefer to let the technology do the work for me. Ha!
I have had many scanners over the years, but this by far is the best. I have it a few weeks now. You get what you pay for. It took a little while (very little) to get used to how it works, but it is really good. Just using the antenna that comes with it I do get a good deal of contacts further then I expected.
If you want a good scanner mainly for local info, you can't go wrong. As a bonus, you will get info out of your general area.