Recent Comments

Prev  1120  1121  1122  1123  1124  1125  1126  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  Next

Comments 56351 to 56400:

56351. threadShredder at 03:19 AM on 20 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       You should update the myth on this topic with the results of this study.
56352. Bernard J. at 02:47 AM on 20 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       So I asked four colleagues to parse McIntyre's letter and tell me if they thought it was a threat of legal action. Based on:

       "It has come to my attention that you have made the following untrue and defamatory statement about me..." "...the failure of these panels to explicitly identify errors speaks strongly against your allegation of promulgating “misinformation”." "I request that you either provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation” that you allege that I’ve promulgated or withdraw the allegation with an apology."

       three of them said that they would take it as a threat, or at least forward it to Legal. The last one, who had familiarity with McIntyre, said he doubted that McIntyre would "have the balls" (because it would initiate 'official' scrutiny of McIntyre's errors), but if it had been someone else he would have asked for Legal's opinion. That aside, I find the subsequent paragraph:

       It is evident that the error had not been discovered by the authors or by peer reviewers at the time that Climate Audit raised the issue of screening procedure in Gergis et al on May 31, 2012 here, a discussion that quickly identified the error. I do not believe that you identified the error independently of the discussion at Climate Audit and accordingly it is my opinion that your failure to acknowledge Climate Audit in your public statement constitutes the use of ideas and/or work derived from Climate Audit without the appropriate acknowledgement.

       as an extraordinary example of hubris. Not only does McIntyre have no evidence to support his allegation, but he somehow turns the use of Karoly's own data into an act of plagiarism by Karoly. My colleague's opinion of McIntyre's legal bravado might be dim, but it takes some big ones to demand that he be credited when someone else has simply scrutinised their own work. Oh, and anyone who relies on the Wegman Report, so ably mascerated by John Mashey and Deep Climate, as a defense of competence needs to start doing some serious reading.
       Moderator Response: [Albatross] Bernard J we cross posted, so I have to give your reference to Gergis et al. a pass. Everyone, please move any responses to BernardJ's comments about Gergis et al. to the suggested thread. As for Wegman, that discussion can be carried out here.
56353. John Hartz at 02:43 AM on 20 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Phillipe: I completely agree with your assessment. Thank you for posting it.
56354. Philippe Chantreau at 02:31 AM on 20 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       This thread has effectively been hijacked and degenerated into a "look, squirrel" type of distraction. It is unfortunately typical, and indicative of the difficulty of conducting any kind of useful debate when faced with certain methods. Whether or not Karoly or McIntyre said this or that, the reality is that scientists in a given field are under such pressure that CSLDF became necessary. I find it regrettable that there are multiple threads active right now with vastly more interesting stuff than this, yet this ends up being the most active. McIntyre is quite good at using language. His website is full of half veiled allegations, innuendo and so forth. That's the recent stuff. A few years ago, the messages were much crude and clear. Commenters at his site have had no problem attributing the worst of motives to scientists whose work they hardly understand. Meanwhile, humans are being a geological force of unprecedented speed, unearthing -in a century and a half- billions of tons of carbon that took millions of years to sequester. And this is what we talk about. Truly concerning.
56355. dubious at 02:23 AM on 20 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       I should add that there is a marked difference between McIntyre's behaviour, when he finds something he posted is inaccurate, and many people here. As soon as McIntyre heard the suggestion that the book review had been moved behind a paywall, he posted that news (giving full credit to Dr Karoly for the new information). When people later doubted that it had in fact been moved behind a paywall, he confirmed it had, posting "the article is presently in the $6 current issue." How many people here have corrected their posts suggesting that Dr Karoly took the article down on the advice of his lawyers? Tom Curtis posted earlier "the more reasonable inference is that Karoly was instructed to take them down because his universities (sic) legal department did not want the expense of defending them." doug_bostrom posted the more cautious: "Karoly may have asked ATR (sic) to remove the piece, or ATR (sic) itself found the comments generated by the piece to be a distracting waste of time to moderate. I see from the archived copy that the article had already attracted some ire; perhaps ATR (sic) didn't like the noise it encountered. "Point is, we don't know what happened. It would be helpful if we did but in the meantime let's not make the mistake of substituting with our imaginations what actually happened." McIntyre corrected himself immediately. In contrast Dr Karoly has left it completely open and mysterious what role McIntyre's ClimateAudit blog played in uncovering the errors which led to the withdrawal of the Gergis article. Would Dr Karoly like to shed light on that?
       Moderator Response: [Albatross] I am now removing myself from this thread to moderate. As Philippe noted, this three dis being driven off topic. And the attempt by dubious to further debate Gergis when it is not even mentioned in the OP is part of that problem. So while McIntyre's original posts did contain factual errors that needed to be corrected, there is nothing concerning Karoly or Gergis et al. that news to be corrected in this OP. Everyone, please post comments on this thread. Any subsequent posts containing discussion of, or speculation about Gergis et al., or attempts to divert attention away from the main post will be deleted. Thank you.
56356. dubious at 02:05 AM on 20 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Daniel Bailey @184: I really don't think I was "distort(ing) his expression of his opinion" given that: 1) his words were just 4 comments up and 2) I quoted the strongest part of what he actually said - the part which came closest to supporting his "threat of legal action" claim. Let's look at what people have actually said here. Tom Curtis @185 asks: "Was it reasonable for Karoly, who did not know McIntyre's intentions, to conclude that the probability of his being sued by McIntyre was greater given that he had received the letter than the probability of his being sued if he had not received the letter?" and argues: "even though it did not threaten legal action (ie, contain the words, 'and if you do not comply I will sue' or the equivalent)." it was (reasonable to conclude the probability was greater) and "ergo" that "it was not a false claim" (that this was a "threat of legal action"). While I'm sure Dr Karoly appreciates Tom Curtis's support, I doubt that even he actually believes that line of argument. Effectively, there is nothing that McIntyre could have said to Dr Karoly which would not fall into that definition. "I think you're wrong" would be a "threat of legal action" on that definition. "Please tell me where I have promulgated misinformation" would pass the same test. "I would be grateful if you would support your allegation" would also pass the test. There would be almost no step McIntyre could have taken, if he believed Dr Karoly had been unprofessional in posting an inaccurate review, which would not have passed Tom Curtis' test for being a "threat of legal action". Similarly any contact with Dr Karoly asking that he meet basic norms of professional behaviour to withdraw an inaccurate allegation and apologise would have passed Dr Karoly's definition ("a request to the author of the material, requesting that they withdraw it and apologise"). Almost the only way of NOT meeting Dr Karoly's definition would have been to not contact him at all. Or to go back to an alternative to the example I suggested earlier. Suppose your landlord tells you that he is not renewing your lease. Suppose a "first part of a legal action" to evict you from the house you rent is to tell you that the landlord does not want to renew the lease. The landlord doesn't quote any aspect of tenancy law, or refer to lawyers, or the law at all, or consequences if you refuse to vacate the property. There is no threat. There is simply the statement of fact, that the landlord does not want to renew the lease. I don't consider that it would be reasonable to say "I've just received a threat of legal action" even though that is a likely consequence of failing to leave the house. I would consider it an exaggeration to say "I've had a threat of legal action" or even "I've had a threat of eviction" because - quite evidently - there has been no threat. As I said, even Dr Karoly cannot bring himself (and I think most/all the commenters here) cannot bring themselves to actually repeat the claim (and it is to their credit that they can't) that Dr Karoly had "just received a threat of legal action".
56357. Alexandre at 01:13 AM on 20 July 2012
       Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
       Ok, in that discussion I mentioned on my comment #119 I replaced this assertion: "Troposphere is warming while stratosphere is cooling. This too is consistent only with an enhanced greenhouse efect" by this: "The vertical profile of the atmospheric warming is consistent with the human-enhanced greenhouse effect." It seems to be more accurate in light of Tom's explanation. I still have the nagging feeling that that would deserve a correction in the Guide (maybe in a future updated version?). As one of the translators, I'm very proud of it and I'd like it to be spotless.
56358. KR at 23:25 PM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       More of Michaels and Knappenberger's work, in this case textual rather than with graphs: Deep Climate has a review of their "appropriate and on the mark" (???) coverage of Easterling and Wehner, 2009 and Solomon et al 2010, with Michaels and Knappenberger claiming they were mainstream climate science indicating "no warming whatsoever over the past decade". The Michaels and Knappenberger articles were shown to be seriously cherry-picked and quote-mined, taking text out of context to remove critical conclusions from those works. This included not quoting statements that decadal trends were just not statistically significant (see The Escalator). This is not "...disagree(ment) as to what the main message was that the authors conveyed in their papers", it is distortion and misrepresentation. In my opinion, this is an ongoing pattern - paper after paper, time and again, cherry-picked, quote mined, and graphically edited to remove conclusions that contradict Michaels and Knappenbergers talking points. Actions that (again, IMO) goes well beyond the usual realm of a "advocacy science consulting firm", as Michaels and Knappenbergers group describes itself, to behaviors that I would find difficult to properly describe within the SkS comments policy...
56359. garethman at 19:46 PM on 19 July 2012
       The Mid-Wales floods of June 2012: a taste of things to come?
       Great post. It does not make life much better living on Ynys Mon where we are starting to feel like a worn out sponge, but at least we know the dynamics behinds this awful weather, and it underlines the issue that climate change is not all about heat waves and drought.
56360. Dikran Marsupial at 19:44 PM on 19 July 2012
       New research special - methane papers 2010-2011
       @pauls sorry, hope Mike finds the caveat worthwhile then!
56361. pauls at 19:12 PM on 19 July 2012
       New research special - methane papers 2010-2011
       Dikran Marsupial - I was responding to Mike and his question about US methane emissions.
56362. Doug Bostrom at 16:49 PM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       tlitb1: I would offer to modify [thread evolution metaphor] to a quantum wave function collapse. The wave functions’ existence could appear more important than any disappointing single reality it may collapse to once observed ;) Hah! That's great, much more fun and usefully descriptive than a sagging balloon!
56363. tlitb1 at 15:27 PM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       doug_bostrom at 18:09 PM on 18 July, 2012 I have taken your advice and posted a query at the CSDLF contacts page along the lines suggesting that they should update their page with more up to date information about their current work and inform us about supported scientists other than Michael Mann. My curiosity about the status of a fund for supporting victims is based on my feeling that the funds other unintended effect could outweigh its primary overt purposes i.e. could the fund’s actual existence reach a stage where it outweighs it actual current usefulness? Once you realise this as a possibility (and I think it is possible for all such bodies) then I think it is fair to ask about its continuing status, and suggesting that making it clear that it is working for more than one single person on one issue is a start towards that. The appearance of a dynamic functioning entity involved in continuing work means, like a shark, it is moving and keeping itself alive. The hyper fine debate over whether David Karoly really thought he was about to be legally victimised being run in parallel on this page makes me think that the appearance of being threatened can sometimes be more important than the actuality. Doug Bostrom has used the metaphor of a balloon inflating, deflating and reflating to track this saga; I would offer to modify it to a quantum wave function collapse. The wave functions’ existence could appear more important than any disappointing single reality it may collapse to once observed ;)
56364. Doug Bostrom at 12:19 PM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Unfortunately we're still missing a little bit of information, causing us to begin vigorously attempting to reinflate the squashed balloon of conjecture left us after David's visit. Did David take advice from a lawyer? I'll add a couple of strokes to the speculation pump and say that his description leaves me thinking he didn't just guess or use wiki.answers to assess the situation. Maybe we'll actually learn what happened, again? I must say ABR's migration of the review behind a paywall because of high traffic left me both surprised and amused. I'd never have guessed that was the answer; hats off to value-add by the McIntyre groupies! Equally humorous was the long delay on this thread of comments before that matter was cleared up, long enough for some folks to go way out on a limb, too far in some cases.
56365. Tom Curtis at 10:50 AM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       dubious @183, there are two questions you need to ask. 1) Did McIntyre intend to commence legal action against Karoly if Karoly did not comply with his requests? 2) Was it reasonable for Karoly, who did not know McIntyre's intentions, to conclude that the probability of his being sued by McIntyre was greater given that he had received the letter than the probability of his being sued if he had not received the letter? On McIntyre's say so, the answer to (1) is no. But given that the letter had the form of a legal document used as a prelude to suing, the answer to (2) is clearly yes. Therefore the letter constituted a threat of legal action (ie, the answer to two was yes) even though it did not threaten legal action (ie, contain the words, " and if you do not comply I will sue" or the equivalent). The key point is that the claim in Karoly's first comment would have been true if the answer to either (1) or (2) was true. Ergo it was not a false claim. This is a very simple point that everybody gets when it is not inconvenient for them to do so. If I say that, " Were I on the beach, a tidal wave would be a threat to my safety" neither you nor McIntyre would argue that my sentence was false because tidal waves don't have intentions, and besides which the tidal wave has never communicated any intention to drown me. You would understand immediately what was said, because it is plain English. It follows further that you understand perfectly if I say that undersea earthquakes just off shore constitute a threat to the safety of people on the shore. In other words, they are a threat to safety, even if (as is normally the case) a tidal wave does not eventuate. In the exact same sense, the claim that Karoly "... received a threat of legal action" was true. If he had said, instead that McIntyre had threatened him with legal action, his claim would have been false. As it stands, however, it is not. Finally, as to not repeating the statement - repeating the true but minimally informative information in the original statement when Karoly had far more explicit information that McIntyre had no intention to sue would have been deceptive.
56366. Daniel Bailey at 10:38 AM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Dubious, in only quoting a portion of Karoly's expansive reply you do him further injustice. The full quote:

       "McIntyre’s email to me did not mention legal action. However, a first part of legal action on defamation in Australia is often to send a request to the author of the material, requesting that they withdraw it and apologise. Hence, I felt that it was a reasonable assumption that McIntyre was starting a course of legal action."

       Emphasis to the pertinent omitted text added. Thus, you distort his expression of his opinion. That you yourself have a different opinion has no bearing on this sad chapter, as you are not the individual in question. The fake-skeptics, as is their wont, have again much much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot, if you will. Be appropriately dubious about their agenda, for they lead many astray.
56367. Daniel Bailey at 10:28 AM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       

       "I think our coverage of Gillett et al. was quite appropriate and on the mark."

       So, the Serial Deletion of Data (construed to be) Inconvenient to one's agenda is "appropriate and on the mark"? Methinks thou hoisteth by thy own petard, sirrah.
56368. dubious at 10:17 AM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       It is good to get some clarity from Dr Karoly. Personally I don't consider that a "threat of legal action". Even Dr Karoly cannot bring himself to repeat that expression, saying "I felt that it was a reasonable assumption that McIntyre was starting a course of legal action." For example, if a policeman tells me to "move along" it might be true that a consequence of me not moving along is that he would arrest me and perhaps the penalty could be a fine or even prison. Asking someone to "move along" is the first step to arresting someone for failing to move along. That doesn't mean that the policeman has threatened me with arrest, or with a fine, or with prison. He has simply asked (or even told) me to "move along". Personally I wouldn't then tell people I had been threatened with all these things - to me that would be an exaggeration - but I can imagine that some people might do.
56369. maximo at 10:06 AM on 19 July 2012
       It's the sun
       (-Snip-) ... (-Snip-)
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

       Inflammatory snipped.

       Sloganeering snipped.

56370. skywatcher at 09:52 AM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       #182, I wonder if Gillett et al think the same about your coverage? I seriously doubt that. In the light of the observed instances of the work of others being changed in order to generate talking points, maybe I can offer some help. It is painfully evident that you and Pat Michaels seem to get the science wrong each time you talk about it! For some reason, it keeps happening even when this is pointed out to you. But that can be repaired with some learning :) Below are some resources, from which you could begin your climate education: John Mason's Two Centuries of Climate Science 10 indicators of a human fingerprint on climate A must-watch video from Richard Alley on why CO2 is the biggest control knob, really well worth an hour of your time. And that's all apart from all the evidence for those pesky signs of warming, such as observed worldwide glacier retreat, Arctic sea ice loss (on near-record levels again this year), shifting plant and animal habitats and increasing sea level rise. There are signs that weather extremes are increasing in a manner consistent with the observed enhanced hydrological cycle and a warming climate. And of course that big nasty, ocean acidification. You could pretend that all this isn't happening, but that wouldn't be very scientific. Or you could start with what the science actually says. Surely that's appealing to you, Chip?
56371. Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 19 July 2012
       It's the sun
       maximo @995: First, the NASA video indicated that the extra energy in the thermosphere accumulated because of the solar storm dissipated in a few days. To dissipate that energy, the thermosphere had to radiate around 0.000002 W/m^2 (or less) over those few days. This has absolutely no bearing on how long it would take to dissipate the approximately 900 thousand times larger energy imbalance in the lower atmosphere due to anthropogenic effects, particularly as that energy imbalance is not a temporary (three day) storm, but an ongoing flux. Second, the graph you show only shows the density of three atmospheric gases, Molecular Oxygen (O2), Nitrogen (N2) and atomic Oxygen (O), along with the density of electrons. The atomic oxygen and electrons are formed by molecular oxygen being split by UV radiation, thereby absorbing the UV radiation. As can be seen, the relative densities of O2 and N2,ie, d(O2)/d(O2+N2) and likewise for N2, where d(x) is the density of x, are near constant in the mesosphere and below. Above the mesophere, the relative density of O2 + O, ie, d(O2 + 0)/d(O2 + O + N2), is also near constant and approximately equal to d(O2)/d(O2 + N2) in the mesosphere and below. In other words, what the graph shows is only that the relative density of O2 is reduced by the splitting of O2 into two oxygen ions by UV radiation. That has no bearing on the densities of CO2 and NO2 which are typically not split by UV radiation. Finally, I grow tired of having a discussion where I have to deduce your implied point, made with irrelevant data, and largely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. There is a name for posting claims containing no clear argument and serving only to identify that you disagree (or agree) with the OP, or subsequent discussion. It is called sloganeering, and is contrary to forum rules. Unless you begin to clearly state not only what evidence you think you are bringing, but how it relates to the thread topic and ongoing discussion, I suggest your posts simply be deleted as being in violation of the comments policy.
56372. Eric (skeptic) at 08:21 AM on 19 July 2012
       An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
       Atomant, can you explain what cumulative heat is? In my case the average high has started to drop although average lows and records highs stay flat for a while:
       
       (click for full size)
56373. dana1981 at 08:14 AM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       scaddenp @183 - leaving out the caveats and some very important data from the figures. 'Appropriate and on the mark' is not at all how I would describe that behavior.
56374. scaddenp at 08:06 AM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Um, leaving out the caveats so the work could be misconstrued is "appropriate and on the mark"?
56375. scaddenp at 08:00 AM on 19 July 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       You still beg the question of why would they waste time doing this rather than work on ModelE. It's excellent that you have code working yourself. Learn all you can, but will that advance science? Will anything you learn change your mind? Or given your posting history, will you simply start looking elsewhere for some other reason for inaction?
56376. Daniel Bailey at 07:44 AM on 19 July 2012
       It's the sun
       maximo, rather than continuing to be cryptic, please concisely make whatever-it-is point you are trying (and failing) to make. Unless your goal is to waste the time of others.
56377. maximo at 07:03 AM on 19 July 2012
       It's the sun
       Those observed facts from NASA show the atmosphere cools in a short period of time. What exactly is confusing or goes against what you believe?. Atmospheric gases are found high up into the atmosphere 600km and the greatest concentration of them is at 25km. The average density of gases in the atmosphere is log 10 cm -3. http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2010/07/15/thermosphere.jpg
56378. Chip Knappenberger at 06:46 AM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       KR, Thanks for the reminder of the Gillett thread. As pointed out on that thread, I think our coverage of Gillett et al. was quite appropriate and on the mark. -Chip
56379. KR at 05:32 AM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Chip Knappenberger - Additional discussion on Gillett can be found on this thread, on a discussion you took part in. The excerpt Michaels included was incomplete, and did not mention any of the authors caveats. Including only part of the work, while leaving out vital caveats from the authors, gives a deceptively misleading impression of the work. Much as removing data from the graphs does - a misrepresentation that cherry-picks support for your talking points while ignoring (or hiding) data that contradicts them. It's simply indefensible behavior.
56380. Bob Lacatena at 05:21 AM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       I see no way whatsoever to interpret the misrepresentation of data outlined in the original post as anything other than an attempt to mislead and misdirect the reader. There is simply no other way to look at it. When a man is cheating on his wife, and tells her he's "working late," well, he is working, in a purely physical sense, and he is out late, so it's not really a lie, is it? He's just leaving out certain data to emphasize, simplify and clarify, or whatever, a particular point (i.e. one that lets him cheat on his wife while saving him the pain of an expensive divorce). Any arguments to the contrary by Michaels or allies must be viewed in the same light ("Trust me, I'm not lying this time.").
56381. Chip Knappenberger at 04:31 AM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       KR, I think you have lost sight of the original articles and our coverage of them. Our coverage of both the Gillett et al. article and the Schmittner et al. article included large excerpts from the papers’ abstracts (where the authors summarize their main results and conclusions). The figures we used illustrated those results. -Chip
56382. dana1981 at 03:50 AM on 19 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       Good point about the "if and when" wording in Q3. I added a bit of text to the post noting that answers may have referred to TCR or ECS, depending on how they interpreted the question. I can't recall my answer, but I suspect I said 1-2°C based on the "if and when" wording.
56383. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 02:22 AM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Thank you for the follow up post, Dr Karoly. It is absurd that you had to write it, given your high standing in the science community and your reputation for utmost integrity. Another one in the eye for the pseudo-science blogs that make a habit of denigrating scientists - proving your original point.
56384. Andy Skuce at 02:05 AM on 19 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       In many ways, the last question was a policy and economics question and was therefore beyond the expertise of most of the scientists involved It does show, though, that the scientists, without exception, do not believe in any existing technological silver bullet that will solve the climate crisis without government policy changes. That should at least give pause to the "rational optimists" out there who believe that we can muddle through this problem without involving government in a major way.
56385. Doug Bostrom at 01:49 AM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Thanks for piling some weighty information on the squishy balloon of speculation we'd built here, David. The balloon has gone quite flat, with a raspberry noise.
56386. Albatross at 00:57 AM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       Dr. Karoly, Thank you for posting and for clarifying. Why am I not at all surprised that in trying to attack you again, Mr. McIntyre only succeeded in proving your point about him being amongst those who promulgate misinformation about climate scientists and their work. Additionally, for someone who claims to be an "auditor" is it laughable that Mr. McIntyre was unable to determine the true fate of your article. As I have noted before, you do not owe Mr. McIntyre an apology, in fact, he owes you an apology. I expect much squirming and hand waving and obfuscating and perhaps more misrepresentations to ensue at Mr. McIntyre's blog and by his apologists. Or maybe, just maybe, he will do the honourable thing and issue you a sincere and caveat free apology? I am not holding my breath though. To quote from a recent post here at SkS: "Nil Illegitimi Carborundum" [Don't let the bastards grind you down]
56387. Tristan at 00:47 AM on 19 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       I think Q3 was a curveball. On top of the 'how much of the 550ppm warming was already realised by 2000 dilemma', TCR assumes the doubling is a result of a steady rate of CO2 increase (1%p.a.) over ~70 years. 275 - 550 will have taken longer than 70 years wont it? That'd imply that 275-550 would be slightly higher than TCR. Furthermore, TCR is not simply the surface temp anomaly relative to 70 years prior. This is only true if all other variables are held equal. The size of the anomaly vs -70yrs is heavily influenced by what level of sulfates we're still emitting by that point. If we've cleaned up our act, the 550ppm anomaly will be likely higher than the TCR. If we're still dirty, likely lower. I don't think many people would be able to give a numerical estimate to Q3 with much confidence, but 1-2C seems by far the most likely answer according to the current state of climate science.
56388. dkaroly at 00:41 AM on 19 July 2012
       What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
       I have decided to make an additional post, although I am not sure this is wise. I will try to respond to some but not all of the many issues raised since my original post @3 nearly a week ago. 1. I received an email from Steve McIntyre claiming that I had made an “untrue and defamatory statement” about him in a book review I had written that was published in the Australian Book Review July edition. He requested that I “withdraw the allegation with an apology”. I have not replied to him. 2. As far as I can tell, the McIntyre post at CA includes an accurate copy of the email he sent me. It contains misinformation, some of which I describe below. 3. McIntyre’s email to me did not mention legal action. However, a first part of legal action on defamation in Australia is often to send a request to the author of the material, requesting that they withdraw it and apologise. Hence, I felt that it was a reasonable assumption that McIntyre was starting a course of legal action. 4. As has been noted in several responses, McIntyre’s statement in his post is wrong that a successful defamation action in Australia needs to show that “the plaintiff should have suffered actual financial damages” from the publication of the defamatory material. It is much more common that a successful defamation action shows that the published material “lowers the person's reputation in the eyes of members of the community, … or injures the person's professional reputation”. Of course, running a legal action on defamation is expensive, as is defending one. 1st example of misinformation. 5. It is much harder to prove defamation if the person making the claim publishes the material themselves. If they actually believed that the published material damaged their reputation, then they would not be distributing it. I guessed that McIntyre could not resist the temptation of published the so-called defamatory material on CA, and I guessed right. If he is to proceed with legal action against me for defamation, it will be much harder now. 6. 2nd example of misinformation. On his post, McIntyre states that I removed the article. I did no such thing. The Editor of Australian Book Review moved the online copy of my review behind the paywall at their web site, where it remains available online. Apparently, this is their common practice for a review that attracts interest. The review is also available in the print version. It has not been withdrawn. 7. Two examples of misinformation from McIntyre in one post. This appears to support what I wrote in my review. I am confident that an SkS reader will alert McIntyre to this post and that he will respond on CA.
56389. Bernard J. at 00:20 AM on 19 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       By "refinement" I mean that future surveys might explicitly ask questions about participants' understanding of climate response, and not merely provide more categories with which third parties might attempt to infer the understanding of the respondents!
56390. KR at 00:16 AM on 19 July 2012
       Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
       Chip Knappenberger - "If you (or me, or Pat) had the data available, you (or me, or Pat) could plot it up however desired along with any appropriate commentary. You (or me, or Pat) wouldn't have to alter the original figure in order to emphasize, simplify, clarify, or whatever, a particular point...having the data available to do so, would make doing so a lot easier..." (emphasis added) This is a very interesting statement, given that the data presented in papers is intended to be sufficient to show the conclusions the authors have made based on their work. If you "emphasize, simplify, clarify, or whatever" in such a fashion as to draw diametrically opposed conclusions from those authors, essentially quoting them out of context, the appropriate term would be cherry-picking. And given the reference to the originals, an implication that those authors agree with the (mis?)conclusions drawn from cherry-picked portions of their data. If you disagree with someones results, papers, conclusions, etc, then do the work. Start from your own data, do a complete paper - don't cherry-pick subsets of other folks data or white-out sections of their graphs to support conclusions that those authors do not agree with. Quoting out of context is a fallacious argument - so is presenting an edited graph that removes the conclusions of the original authors.
56391. Bernard J. at 00:13 AM on 19 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       

       "I suspect, however, that most respondents would not have known the distinction between TCR and ECR; and that consequently the answer does represent the expected ECR. A significant number of respondents are, however, likely to have known the difference. The probability is that a significant portion of respondents did understand the question. If a significant number of respondents took the question to be about the TCR, that would introduce a significant low bias to the results."

       I'm pleased to see this point raised immediately after the original post. My first thought on reading it was whether the figure to which Tom refers demonstrates a vaguely positive skew, which would suggest a bias toward a low estimate for ECR, and although there is a slight possibility of such the coarseness of the histogram makes fraught any reasonable non-null conclusion. Another option would be if there'd been a bimodal distribution, but again the coarseness of the categorisation makes it impossible to detect. It suggests refinement for any future survey.
56392. Atomant at 22:53 PM on 18 July 2012
       An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
       "Not only are we past summer's half way point, " Actually, in terms of cumulative heat we're not half way through the summer yet.
56393. Tom Curtis at 21:55 PM on 18 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       

       "Remember that in 2000 we had already experienced ~0.8°C surface warming, so these answers are equivalent to 70+% of participants answering that equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~2-4°C for doubled CO2, and only about 8% answering that it's lower than ~2°C, with a further ~20% answering that sensitivity is higher than ~4°C."

       Actually, the question posed was regarding the expected temperature if and when the CO2 concentration reached 550 ppmv. Technically, the temperature achieved when the atmosphere reaches a certain concentration would be the Transient Climate Response rather than the Equilibrium Climate Response. As such, the natural interpretation of a TCR of 1.8 to 3.8 C per doubling of CO2 is truly remarkable. I suspect, however, that most respondents would not have known the distinction between TCR and ECR; and that consequently the answer does represent the expected ECR. A significant number of respondents are, however, likely to have known the difference. The probability is that a significant portion of respondents did understand the question. If a significant number of respondents took the question to be about the TCR, that would introduce a significant low bias to the results.
56394. Tom Curtis at 21:29 PM on 18 July 2012
       It's the sun
       maximo @993, are you still trying to beat your confusion up into an argument against global warming? Consider first your 992: The thermosphere is not "where the greenhouse gases are located". With some exceptions (Ozone, water vapour), greenhouse gases are distributed approximately equally throughout the atmosphere. That happens to mean there are some greenhouse gases (CO2 and NO2) in the thermosphere where they are too thin to have any appreciable effect on the greenhouse effect. However, because the can radiate in the InfraRed spectrum, they are the primary means of radiating away the heat absorbed in the thermosphere by collisions with solar particles. On to 993: Actually about 70% of solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth, lower atmosphere (troposphere) and stratosphere. Virtually none is absorbed by the thermosphere. However, the energy from the solar storms is largely absorbed by the thermosphere, from which 95% is radiated to space, and only 5% radiated towards the surface according to the NASA video you linked to.
56395. maximo at 21:15 PM on 18 July 2012
       It's the sun
       Solar radiation is not limited to the thermosphere, about half the solar radiation is absorbed by the Earths surface and warms it.
56396. cynicus at 20:35 PM on 18 July 2012
       An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
       The choice for the baseline of 1951-1980 is simple. James Hansen and GISS are in-business a long time and 1951-1980 is the first climatological period before their first product. They always use the same baseline because it's useful as you can directly compare results from different studies when they all use the same baseline. Finally, the choice of baseline period has no impact on the conclusions. If they would have used the last 30 years as baseline the result would be that the 50's were much colder then today, which is the same result as saying that now is much warmer then the 50's. Or, in Hansen's own words: "The GISS analysis uses 1951–1980 as the base period. The United States National Weather Service uses a 3 decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. When we began our global temperature analyses and comparisons with climate models, that climatology period was 1951–1980. There is considerable merit in keeping the base period fixed, including the fact that many graphs have been published with that choice for climatology. Besides, a different base period only alters the zero point for anomalies, without changing the magnitude of the temperature change over any given period. Note also that many of today’s adults grew up during that period, so they can remember what climate was like then. Finally, the data for a base period must have good global coverage, which eliminates periods prior to the 1950s."
56397. Dikran Marsupial at 20:16 PM on 18 July 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       @angusmac, I am always amazed at some peoples ability to misconstrue scientific data. Yes, we could indeed have used a density based plot, however it only requires common sense and a basic understanding of what a GCM actually does to realise that the grey area doesn't imply uniform denisty. The funny thing is that the figure from AR4 that you prefer is far less easily understood. For a start the error bars are not error bars on where we should reasonably expect to see the observations, just an indication of the plausible range for the linear trend. have pointed this out to you, but you have not responded to that at any point. However, on the other thread, you have repeatedly ignored a key issue relating to the uncertainty of the predictions, so it seems to me that your continued quibbling about this diagram is merely a distraction.
56398. Dikran Marsupial at 20:01 PM on 18 July 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       @angusmac If you write "Your response that, "Hansen's projections do a pretty good job," probably illustrates the difference between a scientist and an engineer." can only be sensibly parsed as implying that you think I am a scientist. However, as it happens, my point stands, a good engineer and a good scientist would both make sure they fully understood the key issues before making pronouncements and neither would rely on a rule of thumb when a proper statistical analysis were possible. In your posts you continue to fail to apply the science. You are still failing to engage with the point that we only have one realisation of a chaotic process, from which it is not possible to adequately characterise the reasonable level of uncertainty of the model projections. There is little point in discussing this with you further as you obviously are not listening. BTW your 1.64 standard deviation test suggests a rather biased view. You talk about wastage of scarse resources, but fail to mention the costs should the model under-predict the observations. A good engineer would choose a test that balanced both. You are aware that in 1998 the observations were closer to the upper 2 sigma boundary than they are now to the lower one? Why weren't the skeptics complaining about the inaccuracy of the models then, I wonder?...
56399. garethman at 19:58 PM on 18 July 2012
       An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
       @John #19 Thanks John, I took your advice last year and built a polytunnel, but the outside crops except for Brassicas and potatoes have been pretty grim. Farmers in the UK are pointing out that huge amounts of crops are being written off due to the cold wet weather which will have an inevitable effect on price and supply. Good to hear the jet stream is shifting back to it’s normal situation, however climate change has not stopped and expect it to return to it southerly route and drop us once more into wet and below normal temps. I have read that as the Arctic melts this is one of the effects we can expect, this is climate change in action for us in the North East Atlantic, but not the effect many had expected.
56400. Tom Curtis at 19:41 PM on 18 July 2012
       Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
       angusmac @29, before making such absurd statements about Hansen 88, you should read the paper. In particular you should read section 5.1 of the paper (reproduced below, for a larger copy, click on the image): You will note that Hansen explicitly states that "Interpretation of [the graph of the projections for scenarios A, B, and C] requires quantification of the magnitude of natural variability in both the model and observations and the uncertainty in the measurements." This represents a categorical rejection of any interpretation of the model projections as "statements of certainty". The only reasonable way in which you could be this wrong is if you have simply failed to read the paper you are misinterpreting. As it happens, Hansen finds that the standard deviation of natural variability is 0.13 C, while that of the measurements is 0.05 C. For our purposes, that means the 2 sigma error bars for the model projections is +/- 0.27 C. This does not mean the projections are those graphed, plus or minus 0.27 C. Because each projection represents a single model run, there is no reason to think the projection follows the model mean. At any point, it may be 0.22 C [edited: two standard deviations] of model variability) above or below the model mean, and indeed, one twentieth of the time will be even further from the mean. That means the model is not falsified if any band of temperatures 0.54 C wide and including 19/20 values in a projection also includes the actual temperatures. This, I would agree, is an unsatisfactory test, but that is the limitation imposed by limited computational power and single model runs. As it happens, it is borderline as to whether scenario A fails that test, and certainly neither Scenario B or C fail it at present. Given the known flaws in the model, that is remarkable. Hansen knew the limitations of his experiment, and so developed a test which was not restricted by the fact that he could not do sufficient model runs. He calculated that a temperature increase of 0.4 C would exceed the 1951-1980 mean by three standard deviations, thereby representing a statistically significant test or warming. He predicted that test would be satisfied in the 1990s, which indeed it was. Finally, skywatcher @30 has exposed the extent of your out of context quotation from Hansen (2005). I have a very low opinion of those who deliberately quote out of context - so low that I cannot describe it withing the confines of the comments policy. Suffice to say that if the out of context quotation is deliberate, I will no longer trust you, even should you say the sky is blue. If, however, it was inadvertent, I will expect your apology for accidentally deceiving us immediately.

Prev  1120  1121  1122  1123  1124  1125  1126  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  1134  1135  Next