Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 Next
Comments 56401 to 56450:
-
Bernard J. at 12:15 PM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR's point at #175 deserves repeating:Chip Knappenberger - Based on examining Michaels work, the words here: (figure adapted from Gillet et al., 2012: note the original figure included additional data not relevant to this discussion) should really be interpreted as: (figure modified to remove data that contradicts our talking points) Given the multiple examples listed in the OP, I really see no other valid interpretation. The message Michaels presents is completely contradictory to that presented by the researchers of the data that has been distorted. That's not a disagreement on the main message conveyed by the authors. It is a distortion.
There are many reasons for repeating it, but one that always rings a bell for me is that it goes a long way to explaining why deniers of the science are so preoccuppied with getting unfettered access to data... ...to wit, their interest isn't in the expensive and time-consuming career of doing original science, it's in finding ways to discredit the work of others, which makes all that inconvenient original work 'go away' in the public's perception. What the 're-analysts' want to do is to show that consensus scientists are 'wrong', by using the data of the scientists themselves. Doing so goes a long way to 'invalidating', in the mind of the public, the entire consensus of the real, professional scientists. It's poisoning the well, and it's cheaper, quicker, and has same desired end result as the more tedious alternative of going to the bother of generating new 'data'. Of course, it's not actually 'scientific', or even honest if it involves deliberately misrepresenting the data, but for any vested interests that are operating with the same paradigm previously used by Big Tobacco, that's beside the point. All they need is for FUD to stick to the consensus science. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:29 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Comments for what's in store for 2013 summer???
Pain... -
sauerj at 10:56 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Hansen's Jan-2012 forecasts sure paned out, definitely for the US (sks article here)! Compare this to flawed contarian predictions (Easterbrook, McLean, Others)! One more for the scorebooks! Question: This article implies El Nino will shift jet stream south and relief drought. I thought El Nino also brought on higher temps (which may only anchor the hot, high pressures even more, strengthening the drought). If the current budding El Nino intensifies (link), which seems likely, I would think this will only make next year's summer (2013) even worse (ugh!). I'm probably over simplifying El Nino impacts and year-ahead forecasts. Comments for what's in store for 2013 summer??? -
skywatcher at 10:15 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
It doesn't make a lot of sense to use 1950-1980 mean when that encompasses the former dates and not the latter.
Eric, I'm sure you understand more about anomalies and baselines than certain fake skeptics that could be mentioned. It makes no numerical difference whether you use the 1951-1980 or 1971-2000 baseline, the change is just the same. And if you keep shifting the baseline towards the present, you'll contribute to an illusion of temperatures not appearing as abnormal as they really are - for the uninitiated, temperatures won't be so far above the 'zero' point in the graph. Is that what you want? And mentioning the weather is a poor go as well. Changes in weather patterns over the summer are exactly what gives us the approximately Gaussian distribution of temperatures! Weather patterns are throwing the punches - sometimes below average, often near average, sometimes above, occasionally extreme. Move the distribution right, and the extremes become new records, and the weather patterns that led to above average conditions now lead to new extremes. This means there's both more extremes and greater extremes. There's really no getting around this. Figure 4 in Hansen et al is very telling in that regard - the distribution has shifted right and also flattened somewhat. Had the distribution narrowed, there would be an argument to say there might not be so many extremes. But with more energy in the atmosphere, the distribution has, as would be expected, broadened as it moved to the right. Should the world continue to warm, and there is no reason on Earth to believe that it won't given the physics of the radiative forcing, the distribution will continue to move to the right and flatten. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:42 AM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
tlitb1 ...but I think for the time it has existed the CSLDF really should have had their remit laid out in a more clear and definitive way by now. Three part-timers; how about we cut 'em some slack? Anyway, let's look at the Campaigns page of CSLDF's site, which nicely describes what the organization is doing and leaves little doubt as to their objectives: Litigation: The Climate Science Defense Fund is taking an active interest in litigation. Currently several climate scientists have litigation in the courts. The Climate Science Defense Fund will play an active role in helping raise funds for their defense, serving as a resource in finding pro-bono representation, and providing support during difficult litigation proceedings. Education: The Climate Science Defense Fund will work to educate the scientific community about their rights and their responsibilities with regard to legal issues surrounding their work. Knowledge Bank: The Climate Science Defense Fund will serve as a clearinghouse for information related to legal actions taken against scientists. Our goal is to provide lawyers representing scientists with information about past cases and strategies. I don't see a problem, other than the "Campaigns" description might do equally well in the About Us page. I probably should have included all of this in the original article. Sorry about that. -
Tom Curtis at 08:59 AM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger @174, as shown by the quotes in the OP, you clearly also disagree about the germaine messages the authors intended to convey with their figures. In any dispute such as this, their opinion is the final authority. If Hansen and Urban think their graphs have been distorted, as they clearly do, the only honourable thing to do is to take down the offending graphs and replace them with exact copies of the original, noting the replacement and apologizing for the distortion while doing so. That is not an optional standard, IMO. Compliance or non-compliance with that standard marks the difference between an honest commentator and a propagandist. -
KR at 08:18 AM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger - Based on examining Michaels work, the words here: (figure adapted from Gillet et al., 2012: note the original figure included additional data not relevant to this discussion) should really be interpreted as: (figure modified to remove data that contradicts our talking points) Given the multiple examples listed in the OP, I really see no other valid interpretation. The message Michaels presents is completely contradictory to that presented by the researchers of the data that has been distorted. That's not a disagreement on the main message conveyed by the authors. It is a distortion. -
Chip Knappenberger at 08:17 AM on 18 July 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Moderator, Thanks for taking care of once instance, but a second instance still remains: "they point to their Davis et al. (2003) 'pal review' paper which argues that heat-related deaths are less common in hotter cities." -Chip -
Chip Knappenberger at 08:13 AM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Tom Curtis (#173): Clearly, you and I disagree as to what the main message was that the authors conveyed in their papers. (details in the comment thread) -Chip -
Tom Curtis at 08:05 AM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger @171, your current argument seems to be that altering the figures is no greater an offence than simply cherry picking data (which you do not agree that Michaels has done). That position, however, is unsustainable. Allow me to illustrate. Creationists are well known for out of context quotations. One of the most famous examples come from Whitcomb and Morris, "The Genesis Flood" 1961, where they quote Ross and Rezak as saying:"Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million years ago."
They adduce this quote as evidence thatthe contact plane between the Lewis Overthrust and underlying strata are undisturbed, and that therefore no over-thrust occurred. What Ross and Rezak actually wrote, however was:"Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and in certain places, they are intensely so. From the points on and near the trails in the park, it is possible to observe places where the Belt series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the soft younger strata in the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the park to the east."
By simply deleting an immediately related and obviously germaine sentence, Whitcomb and Morris turned a clear description of massive disturbance into an apparent description of no-disturbance. This process, out of context quotation, is an additional offence on top of the act of cherry picking. It amounts to both a lie and a slander - a lie because it presents a clear untruth about what Ross and Rezak said. A slander because in doing so it would have denigrated their reputation among people who knew about the Lewis Overthrust but did not know the full quotation. The examples of graphic distortion by Michaels given above are exactly analogous. In each case, the authors had a much larger message which they considered integral to the situation; which Michaels deleted without acknowledgement because he found that integral information inconvenient. So, in each case there is an additional offence to the cherry picking. It is the implicit lie about what the original authors wished to convey. http://holysmoke.org/icr4cult.htm -
KR at 07:51 AM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger - I will simply point to an earlier post I made in this thread.Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger are principals in New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm" that apparently contracts with various fossil fuel interests (Patrick Michaels - 40% of income from the fossil fuel industry)[ ] ...presenting edited graphs (and misquoting papers) IMO crosses the line between advocacy and, to be frank, deception. A harsh statement, but I feel well supported by the data, as presented in the OP here and on the links in various comments. Michaels and Knappenburger are living examples of the Nick Naylor character from Thank You For Smoking.
-
EliRabett at 07:41 AM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Peace, or protective orders are possible for the more unrestrained. -
Chip Knappenberger at 07:39 AM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR, As evidenced in this thread, I have laid out our justification and intent. You are free to disagree. But, this would have been the case whether or not we altered the original Figures or plotted our own. So that part of the argument--altering the original Figures (with acknowledgement)--is a distraction, rather than some sort of a gross offense as dana1981 seems to want to make it. -Chip -
EliRabett at 07:32 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
`cynicus, sadly no. While the Gaussian has flattened, as one would expect, the shift of the mode to higher temperatures means that the probability of cold spells is much less today than it was before 2000 AND there is the extra special hot tail on the distribution to warm you up. Also where you pick the climate mean has little to no effect on the result it just shifts the zero for everything. -
KR at 07:16 AM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger - And likewise, you (or me, or Pat) have the opportunity to distort a data set by erasing relevant portions, thus misleading the readers of that piece. Yes, the Eos op-ed suggestion would make it a bit easier to find the original data. But it by no means excuses distorting the data in the first place, thus misleading those to whom that might be the only presentation seen. It does not excuse mendacious behavior. And I use that word quite deliberately, given the documentation in the opening post of just what kind of distorted impressions can be made by modifying the data and the results of others, making a false argumentum ad verecundiam by presenting such distortions as the work of reputable scientists. -
tlitb1 at 07:12 AM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
@doug_bostrom at 02:34 AM on 18 July, 2012 OK I can understand that it isn't reasonable to rule any possible future scenarios of proactive litigation but I think for the time it has existed the CSLDF really should have had their remit laid out in a more clear and definitive way by now. In a spectrum from nebulous to chiselled on stone, right now the remit seems to be at the vaguer end. However now that I know about the existence of CSLDF I will be following its progress with interest. Thanks -
Chip Knappenberger at 07:01 AM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR, 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. Certainly, the authors of a paper are free to reach their own conclusions given the data, but so too are others. As the Eos op-ed was suggesting, having the data available to do so, would make doing so a lot easier (and, I might add, eliminate squabbling over alterations to a Figure). -Chip -
KR at 06:47 AM on 18 July 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Chip Knappenberger - I have replied in the more appropriate thread. -
KR at 06:45 AM on 18 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger - Publishing your results is a reasonable idea, although the cost issue simply will not go away - cost per GB may drop, but more and more data gets collected all the time, filling all of the space available. George Carlin pointed this out quite a while ago. Personally, I would argue that having the results and the methods published are sufficient (they have been so far, ever since the instigation of the scientific method in the 17th century) as other investigators can check those methods and their own data for consistency and replicable results. However, this really has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Michaels has repeatedly erased portions of illustrative graphs in a fashion that can only be characterized as deceptive (as in the opening post) - removing data that contradicts the arguments he is making. Even if all data, all results, all graphs are available somewhere, graphs with missing data, missing the point made by the original authors and hence distorting the message the authors drew from their work, is simply not a legitimate tactic. -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:33 AM on 18 July 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Moderator (#18), I offered the Eos op-ed as a further support to my opinion that dana1981's "serial data deleter" description is more bark than bite. And, as to the contents of this article, these sentences are unfactual : “…which coincidentally was one of the Climate Research 'pal review' papers we recently discussed.” and, “…they point to their Davis et al. (2003) 'pal review' paper…” The Davis et al. (2003) paper appeared in Environmental Health Perspectives and had nothing to do with Mashey’s analysis. Thanks in advance for setting the record straight. -Chip -
LarryM at 06:18 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Nice post on the statistical nature of climate as related to extreme weather events. Figure 4 could be useful for tv meteorologists to help explain what global warming means for weather extremes in our future. For example, if 3-sigma corresponds to a "hundred year event" of some type (heat, drought, flood, etc.), then with the climate shift that event occurs 10 times as often, so former hundred year events become ten year events, and if we don't act aggressively to reduce GHG emissions soon, the shift will increase further and they'll become annual events. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:11 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
michael and doug, Hansen is comparing 1955, 1965 and 1975 with 2006-2011. It doesn't make a lot of sense to use 1950-1980 mean when that encompasses the former dates and not the latter. He should use 1950 to present for that graphic, or the old climate normal of 1971-2000. -
Paul D at 04:42 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Is there a psychological reason why heat waves, drought etc attracts more interest when it comes to global warming than record rainfall and wind. What we see is a gradual increase in energy in the climate system, from green house gases. There is no reason why that energy should manifest itself differently. Think of a fridge, it gets cold because of an input of energy, whilst the surrounding air gets warmer. If we applied the same logic that many expect of climate change, then the fridge wouldn't get cold at all, but would get slightly warmer, as it takes energy from the electricity supply. Maybe I have created a new analogy here??! There are no rules saying that everything will get hotter, evenly. -
Karamanski at 04:34 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Will James Hansen soon release the final draft of "Public perceptions of climate change and the new climate dice", because I heard that the current version of the paper released in November 2011 is a rough draft? -
Esop at 03:45 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
# 19 (John): Thanks for the heads up on Corbyn. That guy has been dead wrong so many times now that I have lost count. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:33 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Further to Michael Sweet's remarks, the graphic here helps to illustrate the situation w/regard to the '50s and Hansen's base comparison figures. Regarding garethman's questions: Since 2007, a series of major reports has emphasised the fast growing risk of flooding to the UK as the climate warms. On Wednesday, the government's official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, warned that number of homes at risk of flooding is set to quadruple in the next 20 years and that flood defence spending must increase. The government's own report on climate change risk in January said flooding was the UK's greatest climate threat, with annual damages set to rise to billions of pounds a year. More The trouble is, the UK government is heading in the wrong direction: Caroline Spelman's deep cuts to flood defences begin to look foolish
-
John Russell at 03:19 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
@Gareth #1 Given that they're predicting that the jet stream over the UK will shortly move north after giving us such an extremely wet and miserable early summer, I'll be interested to see whether it coincides with an end to the US heatwaves. I tend to think of the jet stream like a rope with waves travelling along it, so that if one part rises another falls. That's not very scientific but there must be a logical connection between different parts of the jetstream. Oh, and I'm sure everyone will be pleased to know that in-denial weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn, is announcing in his usual alarmist style that the current weather is due to carry on -- thanks to the sun. Extraordinary. -
Chip Knappenberger at 03:16 AM on 18 July 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
dana1981, I stopped by to point you to a recent Eos op-ed about making the data available that are used to construct the figures in AGU publications. The point being that others could more easily “use the results” of the published papers. This would alleviate the issue of which data others wanted to use (or graph) and thus largely eliminate your concerns about “deleting data” from graphics as they were originally published. But, along the way, I came upon this article. And I thought I should point out a correction. The Davis et al. (2003) is not referencing a paper published in Climate Research, but from Environmental Health Perspectives (as you should very well know since you provided a link to it in your article you linked to in this piece). Hopefully you can clarify this for your readers. Thanks, -ChipModerator Response:[DB] For those unacquainted with Eos, Eos is the AGU member newspaper. It is not a journal and does not publish original research results. FYI.
Fixed link.
-
pmiddents at 03:14 AM on 18 July 2012Extreme heat becoming more likely under climate change
Cliff Mass, University of Washington Meteorologist and Pacific Northwest weather blogger, disputes the Texas heatwave 20 times more likely estimate. http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/07/texas-tall-tales-and-global-warming.html His blog entry has now been reposted at WUWT and is providing lots of fodder for the skeptic crowd. -
michael sweet at 03:11 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Eric, Please provide a reference for your wild claim that 1950-1980 was unusually cool. That time period was much hotter than 1900-1930 see this graph. You need to pick claims that are not easily shown to be false. The deniers now claim that warm periods in the past were cold. That means it will never be warm since 1,000,000,000 years ago it was warmer than it is today. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:34 AM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I should add, a cease and desist letter is not litigation but it points in that direction as a possible consequence; not much point in communicating "please stop harassing my client or nothing bad will happen to you." -
cynicus at 01:44 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
@16 Eli, it's also less worse because the same paper shows that the distribution at the cold end hasn't changed as much as the warm end. So luckily there will still be some cold spells to be used as "look squirrel!". Many blogs, including yours, wouldn't be even half as much fun without. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:21 AM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Actually I understand titlib1's concerns. If an organization were to recklessly launch a litigation effort then large amounts of money could be expended pointlessly. That's not the case here, however; there's no sign of aggression on CSLDF's part. They've said they have no plans to launch any litigation. So why would CSLDF not rule out litigation on their own part? That's not hard to figure out. Cease and desist letters are one possibility, obviously. Leaving aside what exactly constitutes a death threat, if somebody sends to a scientist a letter connecting the scientist's family, uninvited visits to the scientist's home and some implication of violence then ensuing and makes the mistake of including identifying information in that communication, they should expect to hear from either the authorities or somebody representing that scientist and telling the offending party to stop. Other milder forms of harassment might also benefit from a cease and desist letter. It's not hard to imagine some other scenarios where a little bit of legal help beyond pure defense against litigation might be appreciated. There are other less drastic forms of proactive legal work short of cases making it to court. -
threadShredder at 01:04 AM on 18 July 2012Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
Would anyone know where to find a simple walkthrough/text book-like example illustrating the Hansen and Lebedeff technique for calculating their anomaly of averages? Would appreciate it very much. Thanks much for any help. -
Albatross at 00:38 AM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
This has become a very long thread, so I hope that the moderator's will permit me to repost two questions I asked earlier of people posting here to defend Mr. McIntyre and others like him who harass scientists. 1) Can they "…bring themselves to acknowledge that it is a travesty that a legal defence fund is required (out of necessity) to protect the rights, integrity and academic freedoms of certain climate scientists following repeated harassment, threats, bullying and intimidation from certain "skeptics" and certain individuals and groups who deny the theory of AGW." 2) "Do you support the scientists or those who bully, intimidate, threaten and harass them?" tlitb1 has very clearly demonstrated that he/she does not share our concerns and stated that his/her allegiance lies with the likes of Mr. McIntyre. So what about Carrick, Lucia, dubious and dougz? -
EliRabett at 00:20 AM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
It's worse than you say. The statistics from Hansen Sato and Ruedy 2011 show that the Gaussian is no longer Gaussian, but now has a significant tail at the high end -
chriskoz at 23:32 PM on 17 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
We are trying to model the warming world weather events by normal distribution mean shift. How about sigma itself? It does not necessarily stay the same. If the extra energy was distributed equally troughout the atmosphere and "weather bumps" modeled in the article as waves bumping the boat stayed the same in magnitude, then the shift alone represents the temperature change accurately. However that does not appear to be the case: more energy in the system means larger bumps, more H2O in the air means stronger rains and more capacity for cyclones; to me it means that sigma of any local climate is likely becoming wider. You can clearly see on Fig 4 (global summer anomally distributions) in Hansen 2011: the 2011 bell shapes are always "lower & fatter" thane those for 1951. I cannot find if Hansen quantifies the bell shape change anywhere. Anyone does? -
Esop at 22:13 PM on 17 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
A few years back, I often commented that US based disinformers were on good terms with the weather gods, as while extreme weather affected the rest of the globe, the weather in the US was usually on the cool side. No longer, though, it is amazing how extreme weather events have hammered the US over the past two years. This can not be a good time to be a professional disinformer in the US. Over here in Europe, and especially the northern parts, deniers are on a roll, though, due to a couple of cold winters and not so hot summers. -
ranyl at 21:44 PM on 17 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Excellent blog post, really easy to understand and a good analogy. In figure 5 the shift in mean is about one standard deviation of the variation. How much of a shift in the mean has occured in terms of SD? Very crudely I took the Mean and SD from the Hadley Cru anomally dataset from 1940-1990, and got a mean of 0.06C with an SD of 0.14C, I then took the series from 1980-2011, and got a mean 0.26C and a SD of 0.16C (reflecting the smaller times series), although very simplistic that suggests that the mean has shift ~1.5SD, (1.43ish), which mean in figure 5, the mean is now centred at 1.5SD from its orginal position, meaning a previous 3SD event is now well within 2SD, so much more common. But overland the temperature increase has been greater.. So maybe it is little wonder we are experiencing so many extreme events, Amazon drought, European heatwaves, American Heatwaves, Recording breaking rain events all over the world, heat wave the Arab states last year... With the peaking sunspots and incoming EL Nino further regional records should be toppled some. What does a 1.5SD shift mean in terms of the frequency of 1:500 year events considering that most infra-structure is only secure against a 1:300 year event? And of course this can only get worse as if the mean shifts another 0.7C (stopping all CO2 emissions now);that is a further 4-5SD of shift in the mean, and means that 1:1000 year events will be the norm. A further 1.3C to get 2C is now looking scarey! 350ppm anyone? -
Rob Painting at 21:43 PM on 17 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Eric, yes 1951-1980 is cool compared to today. It has warmed since then, which is kind of the point - a warming climate will lead to more record-breaking heat. And to extend the wave/boat/incoming tide analogy a little bit further - you are claiming that the rising tide has no effect upon the frequency of record-breaking height. Clearly this is absurd. Both the frequency and the maximum height of record-breaking will rise moving forward in time. Furthermore, looking at one individual record, and the immediate circumstances that led to it, does not change the odds of the rising tide creating records. These are two separate issues. -
Tom Curtis at 21:36 PM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
tlitb1 @167, you took the opportunity of an appreciative but uncritical audience to slagg off a climate scientist when he was not present to defend himself. That makes it quite clear, in my mind, that your side is not that of the climate scientists or climate science. Rather, you have sided with those like McIntyre who make the CSLDF necessary. -
CBDunkerson at 21:31 PM on 17 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
"Sadly the temperatures are in the archaic Fahrenheit scale..." Hey now, no 'scalism'. The Fahrenheit scale is a mere 18 years (out of 288) older than Celsius. :] -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:26 PM on 17 July 2012New research special - methane papers 2010-2011
pauls The US is only a small part of the world, so it isn't necessarily surprising that there would be a global trend, without there being a conspicuous trend in the US, especially if the US has been making an effort to curb methane emissions. Further down the document it mentions natural methane emissions of 208 Tg, which if I have worked it out correctly is equivalent to 3,900 Tg CO2 equivalent, which is much larger than the US manmade component. -
pauls at 21:07 PM on 17 July 2012New research special - methane papers 2010-2011
EPA have a table showing figures for US methane emissions sources at various intervals between 1990 and 2009. From these data I can't see any clear trend. -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:53 PM on 17 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Rob, I agree that frequency of extreme or record breaking heat waves will increase over time. But figure 4 above is notional and Hansen's figure 4 compares an abnormally cool period (1951-1980) to more recent warm periods, so I don't think either figure is conclusive. Your explanation in this post essentially ignores the role of the natural factors that start and end continental heat waves. For a specific example, at some point this summer the upper ridge over the Great Plains will break down. That breakdown will be a result of natural causes, namely teleconnections from Pacific ocean pattern changes. That breakdown will not be delayed because of AGW. However until that happens the heat wave and drought will continue to be enhanced or amplified by AGW. -
Rob Painting at 20:42 PM on 17 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Eric - you don't appear to have understood this blog post. Both the intensity & frequency of heatwaves and record-breaking heat will increase in time. The steadily rising mean temperature (i.e a warming climate) dictates this - see figure 4 above & figure 4 in the Hansen paper. The frequency has increased. Whether further heatwaves are likely this summer is anyone's guess. Certainly the conditions (extreme drought in the US) still exist for further episodes to develop, but that's outside the scope of this post. -
Kevin C at 20:42 PM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Well, I'm grateful to the skeptic effort for one thing. McIntyre may have not have downloaded the CRU data, but I did. My own reimplementation of the CRUTEM3 algorithm gets the same result as Steve Mosher, that CRUTEM3 very slightly underestimates recent warming (although the effect is small compared to the coverage bias). If I had time, I'd look into it, along with half a dozen other small effects (e.g why is BEST so much cooler in 2002? What causes the disagreement in records from ~1900-1935's?). But the question still stands - why do the people who call for the data to be released generally not do anything with it when it is? (I think it is because they are not interested in the science.) -
tlitb1 at 20:13 PM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
@Tom Curtis at 19:05 PM on 17 July, 2012 Tom Curtis can I talk to you? What do you mean by "well resourced organization"? Also can I ask you about this statement?It is doubtful, however, that that concern would be due to an unwanted use of money he donated, because I doubt very much he would be donating any in any event.
I am not clear if the "he" in that sentence above refers to me. Do you mean me? If so, for the puposes of saving time, I would answer I would donate to such an organisation if its remit could be strictly and cleanly shown to be purely for defending financially vulnerable people against organisations or persons intent on silencing them. I would do this because it would help illustrate my desire to be seen to be deflating the elements of partisanship in climate debates - an adopted posture if you will. E.g. I supported (only morally I'm afraid) Simon Singh in his case against the homeopathists. I am at the stage of hypothetical in that path I admit, and my questions here should illustrate my purpose without too much extra interpretation I think. To be clear though I will say I do sense if someone like me were to donate then my requirements could be seen as limiting or egregious if I was to complain about mission creep into tactical litigation, or spending too much time and money worrying about FOI defences which are the reponsibility of the public bodies not individuals (in the UK at least). BTW. As for your opinion about my "loyalties" just for the record - so silence isn't considered consent - I'm just going to state I don't submit to agree to anything you may mean by that. But I am not interested in further debating what you may mean by that. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:13 PM on 17 July 2012Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
Byron, statistical hypothesis testing is a rather subtle issue, watching a trend to see where a trend goes from insignificant to significant violates the underlying statistical assumptions of the test (e.g. that the period in question is a random sample from some population of samples), and is essentially the same error being committed by the skeptic when they wait for a long period that isn't statistically significant to make a fuss about. One of the problems with statistical hypothesis tests is that if you wait long enough the trend will always be statistically significant, even though the magnitude of the trend is meaninglessly small. As the forcings are changing, we know a-priori that the real trend is not exactly zero. Statistical hypothesis testing is a useful sanity check to prevent you from getting over-excited about your hypothesis, very little more. -
maximo at 20:05 PM on 17 July 2012It's the sun
It's interesting to note that the thermosphere where the greenhouse gases are located subsequently cooled a short time thereafter. Those gases seem to be good at doing their job of reradiating most of that energy back into space. The storm lasted approximately 72 hours and you are right the other instruments do not measure CME'sModerator Response: [DB] The thermosphere is not the primary location of most of the greenhouse gases. The tropopause is considered the location of the optical depth emission layer.
Prev 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 Next
