Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 Next
Comments 56501 to 56550:
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:21 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick 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."). -
Chip Knappenberger at 04:31 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick 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 -
dana1981 at 03:50 AM on 19 July 2012Vision 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. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 02:22 AM on 19 July 2012What 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. -
Andy Skuce at 02:05 AM on 19 July 2012Vision 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. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:49 AM on 19 July 2012What 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. -
Albatross at 00:57 AM on 19 July 2012What 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] -
Tristan at 00:47 AM on 19 July 2012Vision 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. -
dkaroly at 00:41 AM on 19 July 2012What 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. -
Bernard J. at 00:20 AM on 19 July 2012Vision 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! -
KR at 00:16 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick 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. -
Bernard J. at 00:13 AM on 19 July 2012Vision 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. -
Atomant at 22:53 PM on 18 July 2012An 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. -
Tom Curtis at 21:55 PM on 18 July 2012Vision 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. -
Tom Curtis at 21:29 PM on 18 July 2012It'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. -
maximo at 21:15 PM on 18 July 2012It'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. -
cynicus at 20:35 PM on 18 July 2012An 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." -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:16 PM on 18 July 2012Christy 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. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:01 PM on 18 July 2012Simply 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?... -
garethman at 19:58 PM on 18 July 2012An 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. -
Tom Curtis at 19:41 PM on 18 July 2012Christy 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:53 PM on 18 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #28
curiousd, probably the most effective way you could direct your money for that purpose at the moment is towards solar cookers in India. One possible route for such donations is PRINCE. However, I found their website by a google search,and cannot guarantee their bona fides. Alternatively, contact any major charitable organization which assists with developmental aid, such as World Vision. Ask them what options they have in this regard. If you wish to do the research on available options, giving some guide to the reliability of the charity, and what portion of charitable donations go on administration costs, I very certain SkS would be happy to host the resulting article. -
curiousd at 18:11 PM on 18 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #28
I have an idea I would like to discuss, about how to fund renewable energy sources in a new way. Is there anyplace here I can appropriately discuss this, without being deleted? If not, where to go? Basically I want to contribute to a particular kind of charity that would help reduce CO2 emissions but no such charity exists and I would like to find out why. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:09 PM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Tlitb1, all I can really offer to your points is that CSLDF organization is presently an all-volunteer outfit numbering only three part-time workers; without meaning to sound snide, if some of us in the wider world strongly believe some improvements can be made then it seems incumbent on us to volunteer either by making suggestions or offering labor. There's a contact page on CSLDF's site and that would probably be the best place to start. That, or contribute money to help CSLDF hire some staff support! -
curiousd at 18:04 PM on 18 July 2012Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
Regarding Glenn Tamblyn 14; "What to do?" Comments desired on the following: 1. U.S. citizens pay out about $1,000 per capita per year for various charities. 2. All over the place I see well meaning folks straining conditions in , say, New England, to make their own self sustaining home..say online solar plus geothermal. But as for me 3. Why is there no charity I can contribute to for constructing soneone else a renewable energy source where it would do the most good? I can envision some variant of Habitat for Humanity focussed on installing solar in Arizona or people banding together to sponsor a windmill in the Gobi desert. Starting small, this could become big time....hundreds of billions of dollars. Then people living in Chicago high rises could donate money for renewables that are impractical for Chicago high rises? Why is there no such charity? Why? -
tlitb1 at 16:55 PM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug_bostrom at 09:42 AM on 18 July, 2012I 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.
No need to apologise I had no problem finding my way to the CSLDF page via your link and read all I could. As I said found it be rather sparse. In fact you reminded me of another part of interest in CSLDF. When I first asked whether other litigants were being supported by CDSL, I quoted the key section in the campaigns page you quoted:Currently several climate scientists have litigation in the courts.
I asked since the association with CSLDF of those several litigants seemed passively worded to me on that page. You replied:Regarding people directly benefiting from CSLDF assistance, so far the roster includes Mann, Hayhoe, Dessler.
I would suggest a further detailing of these other ongoing cases would be an ideal addition to lend more information. Currently the "Press" page currently only has 9 old references which refer to Cuccinelli's pursuit of the inquiry into grant money used by Michael Mann. Back in September 2011 Scott Mandia is quoted in one of those press cuttings (thinkprogress) as saying:All funds that are in excess of those currently needed for Dr. Mann will be placed into this entity for future use defending other scientists.
If it is the case and the excess funds are now being used to support other scientists then, regarding suggestions for improvements or updates to the CSLDF site, I would suggest this fact should be made evident to help show some progress of the organisation since September last year. -
angusmac at 16:23 PM on 18 July 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Dikran Marsupial @82 (or should I say Gavin). I have been aware of your qualifications since my post @76. My comment regarding the difference between an engineer and scientist should not be construed as personal. It was meant to illustrate the difference between scientists (who carry out research and derive physical laws) and engineers (who use these physical laws to build things). In other words, engineers are involved in the appliance of science. Regarding good or bad engineering, let's assume that the temperature chart is analogous to wind speed. Now, engineers design structures for the 95-percentile (1.64σ) value to prevent collapse under loading, e.g. 50-year wind loading. This loading is derived from the existing wind climate records. However, these records may not apply to the next 50 or 100 years. Consequently, engineers would need to design structures for the projected (mean + 1.64σ) values determined by climate models. However, actual values are skirting the projected (mean - 2σ) levels and, if this trend continued, engineers could safely. design for the projected mean alone, i.e., approximately actual (mean + 1.64σ) values. This would result in huge savings in construction materials (circa 60%). I suggest that designing to the lower actual (mean + 1.64σ) level would be good engineering practice. I, for one, cannot condone the wastage of scarce resources which would be incurred by designing to the higher projected (mean + 1.64σ) level but, until the models become more accurate, this is what engineers will be forced to do. Regarding your penultimate paragraph "hubris". I don't think that I was being hubristic (having lost contact with reality or being overconfidently arrogant) when l stated that the parameterisations (rules of thumb) should be reassessed. Some models cannot even agree on the sign of these rules of thumb, e.g. cloud feedback. I am glad to hear that modellers are constantly revisiting the physics and I look forward to the day when there is much closer agreement between the models - presumably due to fewer differences in the individual models' rules of thumb (parameterisations). -
skywatcher at 15:57 PM on 18 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
#29, I was motivated to actually check the source of one of your fragmentary statements. This is what I found. Hansen, making a model-observation check in 2005:Curiously, the scenario that we described as most realistic is so far turning out to be almost dead on the money. Such close agreement is fortuitous. For example, the model used in 1988 had a sensitivity of 4.2°C for doubled CO2, but our best estimate for true climate sensitivity[2] is closer to 3°C for doubled CO2. There are various other uncertain factors that can make the warming larger or smaller[3]. But it is becoming clear that our prediction was in the right ballpark.
In 2005, the observed temperature was, as it had been doing for the preceding six years, following Scenario B closely (Figure 1 in Hansen's piece). In 2005, it was ever so slightly above the B scenario; 2004 a little below, and 2003 almost exactly on the same value. These observations did not require elucidation of errors, they were a comparison of observations to a specific model, and the observations at that time merited "almost dead on the money. Hansen also goes on to say that was lucky in this, as his sensitivity was too high and other factors weren't included. But the 2005 'dead on the money' quote, when placed into context is correct. Its context is 2005, not 2012, where the fortuitous circumstances that allowed Hansen to make the above statement no longer apply. -
angusmac at 15:27 PM on 18 July 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
scaddenp @79 and Dikran Marsupial @80 May I summarise your responses as GISS had a lack of time to re-run Model II and I respond as follows:- I have downloaded Model II and the EdGCM version.
- Mark Chandler and his team should be congratulated for providing an excellent user-friendly interface to Model II. Only experienced FORTRAN programmers will understand the original Model II source code.
- A typical simulation run from 1958 to 2020 takes approximately 3-4 hours on my laptop but, more importantly, the simulation works in the background and therefore you can work normally whilst the GCM is running.
-
angusmac at 15:01 PM on 18 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Tom Curtis @26 & 27 Could you please elucidate regarding Hansen and the 2-sigma levels. I have already shown in SkS here @78 that the Hansen 1988 projections were statements of certainty. No mention of error bars in Hansen (2005) "almost dead on the money" or Schmidt (2011) "10% high". Your comments would be appreciated. Furthermore, my Figure 1 shows real-world temperatures are at the low end of the AR4 Commitment Scenario. Your comments would also be appreciated. -
angusmac at 14:59 PM on 18 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Dikran Marsupial @24 & 25 When I said that the grey hides the 2-sigma trend in Figure 2 perhaps I should have been more explicit. The uniform grey shading implies a uniform probability of occurrence but what I should have stated is that a contour diagram similar to that below shows the probability distribution much better.
Source: AR4 Figure 6.10c (IPCC, 2007)
If Figure 2 had used percentile contours (as in the above diagram) then it would be evident that the 2-sigma values would be the lines at the extremities of the diagram and that most of the model runs would be near to the mean.
-
skywatcher at 13:41 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Eric #30, to me, it crucially depends on the question. If the question is: "How does variability in 1955, 1965 and 1975 compare to variability in the 1981-2010 period?", then Hansen's Figure 3 is your friend, and is the correct use of standard deviation (1981-2010); I agree with Hansen's consistent use of 1951-1980 as a fixed baseline period from which to compare more recent changes. Alternatively, for: "How does variability in 2006-2011 compare to variability in the 1951-1980 period?", then Hansen's Figure 6 is your friend. Here, the 'base' variability is 1951-1980, and we see how recent years fare on that scale. Both are (slightly) different, and both perfectly valid, depending on the question. I suspect Figure 6 is land-only as they consider the 1951-1980 marine data not as good for baselining as the 1981-2010 period (from text bottom of p7). For the land areas, we can actually see the difference the sd's make by comparing Figure 3 and Figure 6. We may well agree quite a lot, but only, I think, if you'll agree (in contrast to your earlier statements), that there is excellent global-scale evidence for heatwaves to have increased both in frequency and in intensity. The evidence is pretty plain in Figures 1 and 5 of the Hansen paper. -
CRV9 at 13:10 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
@23.Paul D at 04:42 AM on 18 July, 2012 I don't know what do you mean but I think it works like this. Refrigirant takes heat/heat exchange, like water evaporation, from the inside of a fridge. And it carrys to out side in the back of the fridge then releases the heat/heat transfer, like water vapor becoming rain. Electrocity is used to run a pump to circulate the refrigirant and the electric pump gets hot when it is running. So if you leave the fridge door open on a hot summer day, cool air inside cancels out hot air in the back of the fridge. And heat from the electric motor pump would warm up your room, I think. I don't think it is quite same as "a gradual increase in energy in the climate system, from green house gases.", though. -
JohnMashey at 12:41 PM on 18 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
The point is: 1) ATI seems to exist to litigate. 2) Cuccinelli&Ruseell seem to exist to litigate. 3) But for CSLDF, it may be necessary, but it's not the primary purpose. -
michael sweet at 12:18 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Eric (skeptic), It is good that you have dropped your false standard of the 1950's being "cold". Your suggestion for moving the baseline is completely incorrect. Hansen is comparing temperature distributions from 1950 to the current distribution. Hanson has used a 1950-80 baseline for comparison ever since 1980. Why should he change to a period where the temperatures have gone up an additional .4C? The data I linked shows that in 1950 the temperature had already risen by about 0.5C from 1880. Your suggestion to continually raise the baseline artificially hides the increase in temperatures. Why would you use the hottest temperatures in the past 2,000 years as your baseline for measuring an increase??? I noticed a recent post at WUWT that used a baseline of 1980-2010 to hide the increase in temperatures in this way. Have you complained to them about their misuse of the baseline? Suggesting "the old climate normal of 1971-2000" is simply uninformed. This is only "normal" on skeptic sites who are trying to fool people who do not understand the data. Perhaps you should change your handle to Eric (credulous) since you believe anything you see on the "skeptic" sites without any supporting data. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:17 PM on 18 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
skywatcher, you are right about the baseline not mattering when depicting plain old anomalies. But Hansen et al show anomalies in fig 3 using the 1981-2010 std deviations as units, not simply temperature anomalies. In fig 6 they used the 1951-80 standard deviations. I am really not sure which depiction if any shown is most valid. I would have depicted the broadest baseline and standard deviations from that. My dilemma may be resolved by fig 4 which shows my preferred distributions in the right hand column. When using standard deviations, the baseline period does matter. I think you and I may agree on weather more than you suspect. I was trying to point out that the reason there are more extremes is that AGW creates them from existing patterns. What would have otherwise been a heat wave becomes an extreme heat wave. There is no resolution yet on pattern changes from AGW. The flattening distribution is evidence in that direction but not conclusive. sauerj, I'm not sure about the article, but I claimed above that El Nino will shift the jet stream south and bring relief to the continental US (at first only some parts). The El Nino will also raise global temperatures next year if it continues, but may or may not raise US summer temperatures (really strong -> yes, not strong -> no). -
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.
Prev 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 Next
