Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 Next
Comments 60501 to 60550:
-
Riccardo at 02:29 AM on 2 April 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
TOP you wrote "[...] and yet it has previously been pointed out that the attack came from Russian hackers [..]". You were wrong then and again know. I'm sure you understand that saying that the file was on a russian server doesn't mean that the uploader is russian too. And andylee made a few more or less realistic suppositions based essentially on nothing but what is generally common over the internet. In any case, as per Moderator's comment, it was a hack and I'm sure you wouldn't say that it's your fault if someone breaks into your house, you'd correctly call it a theft. -
Steve Case at 12:03 PM on 1 April 2012HadCRUT3: Cool or Uncool?
Tom Curftis #31 Wrote… Science of Doom has an extensive discussion of the difference of the ocean's response to heating by solar radiation and back radiation …
I suppose this will be considered nit picking, but back radiation from the cooler atmosphere doesn’t do any heating of the ocean. It does slow the cooling of the ocean by canceling out part of the spectrum, but it’s the sun that does the actual heating and reestablishment of equilibrium. Yes, the effect is the same and it’s perhaps just semantics, but claiming that back radiation heats the ocean leads to erroneous thinking.
Moderator Response: [DB] Your statement about back radiation is off-topic on this thread. Any who wish to respond to it please do so on a more appropriate thread. Thank you. -
Rob Painting at 11:36 AM on 1 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
From Peru - I'm not aware of any SkS author addressing this particular paper. -
From Peru at 10:38 AM on 1 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Is a review of the paper coming soon? It may be interesting. But there is a annoying paywall that blocks any intersted readers that are not subscribed to Earth and Planetary Science Letters -
logicman at 07:06 AM on 1 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
"Yes, I know, I covered it first" The WUWT article has been edited since first publication and doesn't have a time stamp. However, the first comment - by David A - is dated and timed at March 22, 2012 at 7:06 am. The story was covered by Kompas.com on the 22 March at 10:53 WIB. I stand ready to be corrected, but my understanding is that the Earth isn't flat, so for the same calendar day, 10:53 WIB is substantially earlier than 07:06 in the US. So: who covered it first? Or perhaps the better question would be: who covered the story accurately first? -
scaddenp at 06:00 AM on 1 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
The regional variation in MCA remains an interesting question, but note that modelling runs in AR4 does predict MCA as a global event. -
TOP at 02:57 AM on 1 April 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Riccardo The OP alluded to it and so did @Andylee Just be glad you aren't these folks. Lost data may have exposed 800,000 people in Calif SkS may screw up, but it takes IBM to do it right.Moderator Response:[DB] "SkS may screw up"
Again, this was a hack, with all that that entails. Not an exploitation of a programming error.
A crime was committed. Period.
-
Daniel Bailey at 02:57 AM on 1 April 2012Newcomers, Start Here
For the interested parties, Wayne Davidson (Arctic atmospheric researcher) documents changes in Arctic (atmospheric, snow and ice cover) conditions in his blogs here and here. -
Tom Curtis at 02:52 AM on 1 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
caroza @24, unlike "is evidence of", "contradicts" is a very strong evidential relationship. So no, SFAIK, the ikaite evidence does not contradict the any of the evidence that the MWP was not global. That does not mean we should not adjust the probability we assign to the statement that "the MWP was global" in light of the ikaite evidence, and that evidence requires us to adjust that probability so that the statement is more probable than it was prior to our obtaining that evidence. Having said that, "the MWP was global" is a very vague phrase, that could be interpreted as meaning (a) "the MWP was associated with climate impacts of global extent" where the climate impacts could be anomalous cold as much as anomalous warmth outside of Europe. On that interpretation it almost certainly was global. Alternatively it could be interpreted as meaning (b) "the mean global temperature during some period in the MWP was greater than the 20th century mean (or the mean of the first decade of the 20th century)" with the first being probably true, although close to 50/50, while the later is possibly true but unlikely on available evidence. Or it could be interpreted as meaning, (c) "The regional temperature in all regions of the globe was greater than the 20th century mean during some of (or most of) the MWP", which is almost certainly false in the first case, and absurd on the available evidence in the second. It is probable that Lu et al meant something like (a) when they wrote that "...our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in their extent...", although they could have meant something like (b). It is probable that Watts meant something like (b) or stronger. Never-the-less, without specific clarification we cannot just assume Lu et al meant (a) and that Watts meant (b) and that therefore Watts misinterpreted Lu et al. The ikaite evidence is evidence for all of (a), (b) and (c) and their variants, and does not contradict the contraries of any of (a), (b) and (c) or their variants which is why I have not clarified before. Finally, Mann et al 2009 use a largely overlapping proxy set to that used in Mann et al 2008, whose proxy records are kept by NOAA. Mann et al 2009's data is probably also kept by NOAA but I do not have the link to hand. -
caroza at 02:29 AM on 1 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Tom @9, what proxy did the NOAA reconstructions use? Surely it's relevant that the Antarctic Peninsula was by and large grey, i.e. little or no data existed for the region at the time this reconstruction was done? So Lu's paper fills in a couple more blocks, but so far doesn't contradict any of the evidence that the MWP wasn't global. At least not that I can see. -
Michael.M at 02:23 AM on 1 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
"loaded Dice" is a nice phrase, but I think its not really suitable. When loading two six-sided dice, only the distributon will change: More double-six, less double one. I think we have gone beyond this point: We have thrown away one dice, and replaced it with a seven-sided one. So we now can roll a thirteen, as e.g. the russian heatwave, while rising the average from 7 to 7.5. And when we dont stop burning fossil fuels, we throw away the next dice, replacing it with another seven-sided, or even eight-sided one. -
adelady at 01:50 AM on 1 April 2012Newcomers, Start Here
AWUN. Being new to the site, you're not yet used to using the search facility. I've found this item which gives a bit of a rundown on the Arctic versus Antarctic sea ice. But there were dozens of items on the search list. If this one doesn't suit, do your own search to find something more relevant. And you'll learn a lot just by doing that anyway. -
muoncounter at 00:13 AM on 1 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Those on the science side of this discussion understand the importance of the points raised immediately above. Just as those on the science side will look to the Lu etal paper before trumpeting any conclusions. Note that these presumptive conclusions appear to be based on what the abstract calls 'qualitative.' However, Watts and his fellow travelers ignore these points and invent the fabrication that SU hasn't asked that the story be withdrawn. Look at the SU statement: on their letterhead, under the same name as the initial release, the meaning could not be more clear. We're in a situation analogous to the flap over Kirkby's initial CLOUD results. He simply did not say what the W gang heard, but that didn't slow them down. [snip]Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped. -
Tom Curtis at 00:00 AM on 1 April 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Icarus @21, the globally averaged Milankovich forcing of only about 0.25 W/m^2 as you say, but that is only because the geographical configuration of the Earth made it extremely sensitive to very large regional and seasonal forcings associated with the Mikankovich cycle. Specifically, the greater sensitivity to summer forcing, and the existence of continents in the NH between 30 and 60 degrees North, but ocean in the SH between 30 and 60 degrees South meant high or low summer NH insolation can trigger very large albedo feedbacks. Consequently it is not possible to determine climate sensitivity from the very low globally averaged Milankovich forcings which trigger glacials or interglacials. It is, however, possible to treat the slow feedbacks of the transition between glacial states as forcings, and determine the climate sensitivity of the fast feedback response. That turns out to be approximately 0.75 degrees C per watt meter squared of forcing, or 2.8 degrees C per doubling of CO2. Of course, that is the fast feedback only. The climate sensitivity including slow feedbacks may be up to double that, and will certainly be larger. What the extremely sensitive balance of the glacial/interglacial transition does tell us is that the assumption that we can warm the Earth by 2 to 4 degrees C and be sure of a predictable response is nonsense. We may be lucky, or we may pass another transition which adds on another 2 to 3 degrees of warming rapidly. As Richard Alley says, we know that those transitions are out there. We just don't know whether we will pass one of them with 1, 2, 3, or even 4 degrees of warming. -
Icarus at 23:41 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
My understanding is that ice age/interglacial cycles are triggered by globally averaged climate forcing of no more than a quarter of a Watt. Presumably then, the relatively small global warming and cooling trends of the last millennium (probably less than 1C from max to min) must have been the result of even smaller forcings. Today's anthropogenic forcing is already much greater - about 1.7 Watts net forcing since 1750 - and so can be expected to produce much larger climate changes if we carry on with anything like 'business as usual'. So the 'MWP', far from reassuring us that there is No Problem, should be taken as a clear indication that we're conducting a very dangerous experiment with the Earth's climate. -
Dave123 at 22:09 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
[inflamatory snipped] The reason the MWP makes a difference to them is that they have their own imaginary version of what AGW theory is that bears no correspondence to reality. So in the case of MWP, their basic idea is that if the earth warmed and cooled within historic times, we 1) can't figure out why and 2) can't tell any difference between then and now. Magical denial. Scientific evidence that the MWP was just heat being redistributed around the globe doesn't fit their worldview. Their worldview is more about identity politics than even ideology these days. But to John's point in 19...the MWP is about the rhetorical point of denying the current situation is unique. Only temperature matters, causes are irrelevent. "Natural Cycles" don't require explanation. For my part I'd like to see a supplement on the MWP that offered explanations of what was going on then...shift in current patterns etc...why they shifted, why they shifted back etc. And in my view Mann's 2009 paper as cited Tom Curtis is brilliant piece of work...making clear the differences between then and now. Just don't expect a denier to give it any credence- because Mike Mann is an author it's tainted. Some points on arguing the 2009 paper... all the data and methods are archived with Science and freely available. So much for the memes of hidden data and methods. However you do get people stuck in a 1998 timewarp. Does anyone know if the self-appointed climate auditors have done anything with Mann 2009 or BEST? Or is the silence deafening?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory material snipped. Please can we stick strictly to the scientific issues and avoid inflamatory or partisan comments. -
Doug Hutcheson at 19:42 PM on 31 March 2012Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun
tompinlb @ 20, thanks for clearing up the misplaced decimal point. I think all the other points in your post have been answered by others subsequently, but you ask meIf the evidence presented in this paper is not satisfactory, what would constitute "satisfactory evidence to support the allegation," as you say. Why do you conclude that "the apparent correlation is a curio, not more," and then compare it again to hemlines.
As far as being satisfied that the paper was adding to the sum of human knowledge is concerned, I would be satisfied with a robust explanation for the effect they are reporting and for the effect being delayed by the length of a full solar cycle. Until there is an explanation, the information in the paper is curious (ie: a curio), but not useful. In the same way, a report that ladies' hem-lines tracked solar cycle length would be curious, but not useful. Here is an example: I could say to you "Ladies' hem-lines have risen since 1921, with a dip against the trend during the 1960s (when Granny dresses were all the rage) and, during the same period, we have witnessed a warming of the globe." So what? The rise in hem-lines is a result of changing fashions and has nothing to do with the slight increase in global temperature and it is purely coincidental that the two effects have been observed concurrently. Similarly, the fact that a correlation between observed temperatures and the observed length of a previous solar cycle has been noticed in some places is a "so what?" curiosity, unless someone can come up with a cause-and-effect relationship between the two sets of observations. I hope that clarifies my reaction to the paper you referred to. -
John Mason at 19:05 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Good point, Baerbel. The current situation is somewhat unique in the history of Planet Earth! -
Doug Hutcheson at 18:03 PM on 31 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
The foregoing discussion of Monckton's Olympian career as documented at the Science And Public Policy Institute led me to do a bit of research. Now, I am not a scientist, so I have made no scientific claims, but I have tried - probably unsuccessfully - to evaluate SPPI's biographical notes, both versions, regarding Christopher Monckton. Anyone with a minute to spare is invited to cast a glance at my blog post on the subject. WARNING: you may need a head-vise, to stop your brain from exploding. -
BaerbelW at 17:31 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
What I don't understand in discussions about eg. the MWP is, that even if it was global, why that supposedly disproves AGW today? Just because something similar to today happened in the past, doesn't mean that it happened for the same reasons, does it? This is like the analogy with bushfires which were started due to eg. lightning strikes before humans appeared so today's fires could not have been started by arson. -
Tom Curtis at 14:24 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
bill @16, it is not a question of being kind to Watts, something I am scarcely likely to be accused of. It is a question of being accurate. Beyond that (though less important IMO), it is a missed opportunity. Had the initial challenge to Watts been why he had not notified his readers of the misrepresentation by the Mail, he may have responded by defending the Mail's coverage. Certainly his readers would have. In either case, they would now be facing the situation in which your challenge was vindicated by the lead author himself. Had Watts himself supported the Mail Online's claims, he would have no refuge to hide in. He himself would have been caught clearly misrepresenting the science. Had his readers defended the Mail's coverage, then Watt's would have no excuse for not correcting the record when he first published the link. In particular any claim that his readers are sufficiently well informed to not be deceived by the Mail would be refuted by their defense of the article. -
bill at 13:54 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
'Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global' [Link to the Daily Mail's absurd article: Watts - 'I must have had 20 tips... like this one'] ...WUWT had the story first, 5 days ago on March 22nd. Somehow a lot of people missed it, so I’m linking to it again. Read it here: More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global And I have more graphs and information from the actual paper than the Daily Mail has.
This latter is certainly true. Too bad the Daily Mail's piece is hyperbolic BS, but this was apparently not worth mentioning at the time of posting. While I appreciate your position, Tom, I do feel you're being rather kinder than I'm inclined to be. As muoncounter says @ 14, the damage on this one is done with little chance of any meaningful correction of the record in the public mind. Celebrations of the propagation of such a misleading meme seriously irk me. -
Tom Curtis at 13:47 PM on 31 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
AWUN @196, without a link I cannot comment directly on the Inuit claims. Certainly I know of no Inuit claims regarding shifts in the axis of the Earth such as would be necessary for the Arctic to receive more sunshine. More importantly, it is known that Arctic summer sunshine is reducing at the moment, continuing to follow a trend that began about 10 thousand years ago. During the Holocene Climactic Optimum (about 8000 years ago) the Arctic received much more summer sunshine than it currently does, and (by a small amount) we currently receive less summer sunshine in the Arctic than we did in the Little Ice Age. Because the sun is high in the sky in the Arctic Summer, and because snow and ice melt reduce albedo during the summer, summer sunshine is far more important in determining Arctic ice conditions than winter Sunshine (which does note exist in the Arctic Circle in any event). -
AmericaWakeUpNow at 13:27 PM on 31 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
I am new to this sight and have not read all posts. Has anyone brought up anything about the Inuit Eskimo claiming that they have measured a significant polar shift. If what they say is true, it would line up with the calibration of major airport runways in 2011. This could also answer why the Arctic ice mass is melting at such a rapid rate. But, I never see anything about a rapid ice mass melt of the Antarctic. Would the South pole gain ice mass if the North pole is tiled closer or rather in a more direct line with the Sun? If the South pole were to be melting at as rapid a pace as is the North pole area, I would believe that there would be significant coastal flooding by now! -
Tom Curtis at 13:07 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
muoncounter @11, I noticed the boilerplate about "Mann's gospel" which is typical of Watts and why (among other reasons) I do not consider him in anyway a reliable source on science. Regardless of of what we think of him, however, it is important to criticize what he actually says, not what we expect he would say. On that basis, the criticisms of Watts in this thread are unfair. We can contrast the coverage of this issue by Watts and by the Daily Mail. The lead headline by the Daily Mail for this story reads:"Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures Warming was far-reaching and NOT limited to Europe Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'"
This headline, and the the article that follow it completely misrepresent the paper and deserve harsh criticism. More importantly, it is clearly the target of the Syracuse and Lu rebuttal. In particular, Lu quotes from this headline when he says:"Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions."
Hence it is the Daily Mail article in particular, and other similar articles in the mainstream media which are the subject of criticism by Syracuse and Lu. Indeed, Lu himself may not even be aware of Watts. In contrast, Watt's claims have been quite circumspect. The essential claim is that the paper is "More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global", which is a reasonable gloss of the claim made in the paper that, "...our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in their extent...". If that claim is treated as meaning that the data in the paper establishes a prima facie case that the MWP was global in extent, it is false. If it is treated as claiming that it overwhelms the counter evidence, it is also false. But if it is understood as making it more probable that the MWP was global than the opposite finding at that site would have done, then it is true. I think Watts is subject to legitimate, and harsh criticism on many grounds. I think he can be criticized even in this episode in that he linked to the Daily Mail article without stating the obvious that it radically misrepresented the contents of the paper. I think also that he would do better to publish the full clarification from the University of Syracuse rather than just a link. But the criticism of Watts in the first few posts on this thread is unjustified and based on an over interpretation of his claims. -
muoncounter at 12:58 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
In essence, Watts' work is done on this issue. The echo chamber has already picked up the meme and it is spinning out of control. If you search 'ikaite,' a mineral few had heard of before this, you even find a repeater who claims ikaite is a vegetable. Watts knows that once he gets a story going, his sycophants will happily create so much noise that any fine details will be drowned out. Here, the poor author is saying 'that's not what the research shows!' Nobody (except a few of us) is listening. -
soo doh nim at 12:50 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
This sort of thing is most disturbing. Not only does the good doctor have to explain the meaning of his paper, he now must refute, word for word, those that willfully misrepresent him.I did that myself, because whatever I typed in that space would have gotten snipped anyway. I worry that this is going to serve to intimidate people who would otherwise produce meaningful research because it's just not worth the hassle. -
bill at 12:47 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Which was the point I was making all along. Watts clearly was celebrating inaugurating this very meme in his second post on the subject,'Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global'
And, technical defensibility of his original headline notwithstanding, this was clearly the place for him to point out that the lead author disagreed with this very assertion - to whit, that based on his paper anyone could simply assert 'the medieval warm period was global' particularly given that he was well aware of the advance of this meme, if only by the contents of the comments posted on his own blog! To my mind Watts simply could not credibly maintain bystander status in the propagation of this meme. And I note that he has not rescinded the headline above. I note also that this apology beginsSince a number of commenters that are getting bent out of shape over the issue can’t apparently be bothered to read the paper, and since the authors at Syracuse themselves are under pressure because the alarmosphere has gone ballistic over the possibility that Mike Mann’s “there is no MWP much less global” gospel might be challenged, I offer readers this passage from the actual paper: [my emphasis]
I had ready put to him that authors will have to fireproof the wording of their conclusions from agenda-based constructions, and pointed out that university PR staff are not the people to confirm whether a particular construction is a fair interpretation of a paper's conclusions, particularly as opposed to the authors themselves, as anyone whose large workplace has a PR department will doubtlessly be aware. He does not offer Zunli Lu's statement on the matter in the body of his own article/s, which is what I challenged him that he had a clear obligation to present. He still only offers a link to it, and I find it very difficult to credit that he would not have been perfectly content to ignore it entirely had not the issue been repeatedly raised. Now he has acknowledged that the very Daily Mail article he originally linked to without qualification is an over-interpretation, and he certainly deserves credit for doing so. May I remind you what he headline in question at the Daily Mail was?Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study
I believe I played some part in this matter of the record-correcting updates in the body of his pieces, and am pleased to have done so Further, I will point out that this is a result, in that the folks at WUWT must acknowledge they cannot credit the Daily Mail's absurd spin on the tale I'll further suggest that such results is what this is about - and, to my mind, constraining blatant 'dog-whistling', such as is exhibited in the original second article. -
muoncounter at 12:37 PM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Tom, Watts' 2nd post takes the immediate approach of suggesting pressure on SU researchers, postulating some 'Mike Mann's gospel.' This is more of the same old-same old. There are no over interpretations of his post here -Watts' words speak for themselves. The SU statement, '"completely misrepresent our conclusions," is ample justification of comments here. -
Tom Curtis at 11:54 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Update: Watts has now included an update in which he defends his interpretation, but says:"Some media (The Daily Mail for example) have oversold the conclusions of the paper, and thus this is why the authors have issued a statement. Based on their words above in their own paper, I stand by my headline. Note that the authors at Syracuse have NOT asked me to change my headline nor any part of my post on the issue."
I believe the authors statement deserves more prominence than a simple link. I also believe the section of the paper from which Watts quotes is poorly worded, implying as it does that all points between Europe and the West Antarctic Peninsula were warm during the MWP, which goes well beyond the evidence in the paper. (I do not think it was what the authors intended to imply, but was, as I say, a poor choice of words.) -
Tom Curtis at 11:35 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
With respect, and with the caveat that I have not read any comments on either WUWT thread, Anthony Watts has nothing to apologize for with regard to this paper. His first post, linked by Albatross @1 above, merely asserts that the paper is evidence the MWP was global. That is true, and massively over interpreted by readers both here and (I am certain) at WUWT. X being evidence for Y is a very weak epistemic relationship. It is true whenever it is the case that the probability of Y given that X is greater than the probability of Y given that it is not true that X. The paradox of the ravens demonstrates how weak the "is evidence of" relationship is. Briefly, the statement that a) All ravens are black; is logically equivalent to the statement that b) Everything which is not black is not a raven. It follows that any fact such that, given that fact it is more probable that everything which is not black is not a raven also makes it more probable that all ravens are black. Ergo, discovery of a red apple is evidence that all ravens are black, as paradoxical as that may seem. It seems paradoxical only because humans have the habit of interpreting "X is evidence that Y" to mean that "X is conclusive evidence that Y", or at a minimum that "X is very substantial evidence that Y". Most people would endorse the claim (I suspect) that if X is evidence that Y, then given X, prima facie Y. However, the real world is far more complex that. It contains evidence for many statements which are in fact false. Indeed, science is built on the notion that evidence Y does not close the case. Now, I suspect that Watts takes the view that the Lu study "is another nail in the coffin" of the view that the MWP was not global. But evidence exists that it was not:
Consequently there is substantial doubt that the coffin for the view that the MWP was not global will ever be built, let alone have the lid nailed down. But that in no way precludes some facts taken in isolation making it more probable than not that the MWP was global.
Watt's second post is even less objectionable than the first, containing as it does just the full text of the press release from Syracuse University plus some quotes from the paper.
The issue here is not whether Watts should correct the errors in his coverage of this issue for it is not evident that he has made any. Rather, the issue as this relates to Watts is will he, or will he not include the latest statement from Syracuse University as an update to his post to avoid over interpretation of the data? That he do so is a reasonable request. Should he not do so upon request, that would be reasonable grounds for criticism. It would be evidence of bias in his coverage of the issue, and evidence that he is quite happy that the paper be over interpreted.
However, whether he does or not, that does not justify our over interpreting his posts as has been done in this thread.
-
muoncounter at 09:17 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Bill: Courageous, but pointless. First rule of denial is never admit an error. However, this episode should be documented and word of it shouted from rooftops. The author says they have it wrong and they don't care one bit. If this is what passes for credibility in the denial-o-rama, who can believe a word they say? -
bill at 09:06 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
I have already endeavoured to take this up with Watts, and have been labelled an 'anonymous coward' for my pains (I have a rather old WordPress profile that kicks in wherever I browse a WP blog, much as many of his regulars appear to). I was also lambasted for having 'green' in my email address, a clear indicator of bad intent, it seems. (For the record I used to run a business called 'Green Heritage' supplying local-native seeds to state and local government.) I kid you not. You'd almost think I hit a nerve. He's neither retracting nor revising, and he will not be publishing Zunli Lu's response in either of the articles he's devoted to the issue, including the one that celebrates his own success in inaugurating the 'this paper proves the MWP was global and is yet another disproof of AGW' meme:REPLY: I’m not discomfited, but quite amused. The headline is accurate and stays. Syracuse is well aware and was within minutes, and has no issues with it. Again, with my sincere blessings, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
-
Composer99 at 08:09 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Albatross: I see no reason why Pielke Sr cannot be sincere as you suggest, so I will retract my interpretation of your comment. That said, it does not follow from "Pielke Sr's assessment of Watts' devotion to scientific robustness is sincere" that "Pielke Sr's assessment of Watts' devotion to scientific robustness is correct", which is what I presumed was the humourous subtext you were trying to convey. ===== With regards to the Lu et al 2012 paper, the commentariat at WUWT appears to support the notion that the paper says what they think it says, not what the paper's author(s) report it says. Commenter bill at Deltoid shares some examples there. -
Rob Painting at 07:48 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
The author, Zunli Lu, deserves a pat on the back for quickly responding to the misrepresentations of his paper. We don't see that often enough. -
Albatross at 06:36 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
John H. and Composer, Actually, see no reason not to doubt the sincerity of Pielke senior's statement and do not doubt that he meat to say exactly what did. What is very unfortunate is that Pielke senior's position on this particular issue/matter is clearly horribly wrong (as evidenced by pretty much every blog post made at WUWT, inlcuding the one misrepresenting Dr. Lu's findigs), but that Roger cannot bring himself to admit it. -
muoncounter at 06:28 AM on 31 March 2012Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Earth Observatory has a nice display of tar sand mining's emissions. ... the emission of pollutants from oil sands mining operations in Canada’s Alberta Province are comparable to the emissions from a large power plant or a moderately sized city. So we get to enjoy these emissions twice - once in the form of NO2 released during mining and then as CO2 when the crud is burned. -
Composer99 at 06:24 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
John Hartz: How do you know Albatross isn't, in a deadpan manner, taking the accuracy of Pielke Sr's statements with a grain of salt (or two)? -
John Hartz at 06:16 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Albatross: Perhaps you should take Dr Roger Pielke Sr.'s statement about Anthony Watts with a grain of salt? They are, after all, bossom buddies pursuing a common agenda. -
Albatross at 05:15 AM on 31 March 2012Scientist Sets Record Straight on Medieval Warming Research
Dr. Lu should contact Mr. Anthony Watts and ask him to please correct the glaring error on WUWT. Mr. Anthony Watts, proudly declared that this paper was vindication of his long held belief that the Medieval climate anomaly was global. Mr. Anthony Watts: "Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global" Will Mr. Watts, in the interest of scientific integrity and robustness, correct the error? Dr. Pielke Senior maintains that "I have worked with Anthony and he is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness", if that is true, Mr. Watts will respect Dr. Lu's wishes and correct the record, and refrain in the future from perpetuating scientifc myths. -
John Hartz at 05:02 AM on 31 March 2012Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
For an informative update on status of the proposed Keystone pipeline, check out: “Climate Change Disappears from Keystone XL Pipeline Debate” by Lisa Song, Inside Climate News, Mar 29, 2012 -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:47 AM on 31 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"I suspect Spencer would blow a fuse at this level of misrepresentation." Which is fitting since, as we all know, "blowing a fuse" is what happens when a wire designed to melt under certain conditions meets these conditions... :-) -
Tom Curtis at 04:29 AM on 31 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
It is not often I am moved to defend Dr Spencer's reputation, but in this case I can make an exception. What Dr Spencer said, that has been misinterpreted by BernhardB, was:"The more you can reduce the rate of energy loss to the cold walls, the hotter the plate will get. Yes, the surrounding objects act to control the rate at which the plate can lose energy. I have no idea what happens if you can keep the plate from losing energy at all….I suspect the heater wire melts "
I say misinterpreted because Dr Spencer is clearly discussing the case of no heat loss. The only way a convection based heat sink place in a vacuum would lose no heat is if all external surfaces emitted no thermal radiation. Of course, if they did that, then there would be no "back radiation" between adjacent fins of the heat sink so BernhardB's thought experiment would not hold. So BernhardB has taken a correct explanation by Spencer, applied it to a situation that does not satisfy the conditions Spencer specified, and then claimed that Spencer's prediction would fail, and that Spencer was talking nonsense when the prediction fails outside of the conditions in which it applies. I suspect Spencer would blow a fuse at this level of misrepresentation. Which brings me to the second point. BernardH claims that the only way the wire can be melted is by increasing the voltage. Given the large number of industrial applications for melting wires by increasing the resistance while holding the voltage constant, his claim is simply false. Perhaps the most common of those applications is electrical arc welding (most commonly as MIG welding), but others abound.
(Image from wikipedia)
So far BernardH shows that his arguments depend on not just miscomprehending the physics, but a complete failure to understand how common industrial processes and computer components works. It is not the esoteric, but the commonplace that shows BerhardH is ...
(Image from BernhardB)
Well, you get the idea.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:16 AM on 31 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
I note that, although Monckton could argue that he was not aware of the glaring faults of the V&T piece at the time he spoke, he should have known that there was already a correction factor in the paper multiplying costs, if he had actually read it attentively. Considering how egregious the whole thing was, I wonder if it is possible to introduce a formal complaint to the legislative body/committe that was involved in this pathetic display. You probably could not establish outright intention to deceive without a doubt but could easily demonstrate negligence. I mean it is as if he did not completely read the paper, and the said paper has been rather thoroughly demolished since it first appeared. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:03 AM on 31 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernhardB your misunderstanding about radiators has been addressed. Since you ignored my earlier comment, I'll ask you again the question, which was also asked before to other GHE deniers on this thread: if there is no radiative GH effect, where does the downwelling IR measured at the surface come from? No GHE denier has yet come up with a good answer, perhaps you have one. -
Martin Lack at 22:32 PM on 30 March 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Since Lord Monckton hassled me to retract a carelessly-worded comment I made about him in my Lindzen complaint to MIT, it seemed only fair to reciprocate with an email to him today... Dear Lord Monckton, That's another fine mess you've got yourself in to With reference to your recent presentation to 5 members of the California State legislature, can you please advise me as to where and when you shall be publishing your apology for so grievously misrepresenting the supposed costs (and ignoring all the benefits) of sensible GHG emission reductions policies? [hypertext link to this page] I can't wait to read Part 2 of Dana Nuccitelli's report; and am tempted to consider that it may be time for me to write a Part 2 of my own report. Regards, Martin Lack -
Phil at 21:14 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernhardB @1396: I thought it`s rather humorous, that Roy Spencer did not realize that in any resistive heating wire the resistance (Ohms) increases with the temperature and drop the current, ergo limits the amperes that can possibly flow through his heater wire preventing the wire from melting. The only way to heat the wire to a higher temperature would be to increase the Voltage ! does however speak volumes how poor Spencer`s understanding of power expressed in watts is. Just to be clear, Spencer's misunderstanding is not "of power expressed in watts" but a misunderstanding of the properties of metals. Changes in conductivity with temperature depend very much on the material being heated, as a simple Google search will inform. Obviously this is just one (of many) places where Spencer's analogy breaks down - but of course all analogies break down if you push them far enough. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:48 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernhardB writes "Then I would like to know why the fins on power transistor heat sinks don`t "back radiate" each other into a China Syndrome melt down." I would have thought that was pretty obvious. Assuming the fins are identical and adjacent fins on the heatsink will be at approximately the same temperature, their radiation will be identical. In the worst case, all of the energy radiated by a fin will be absorbed by a neighbouring fin. In this case, fin C will absorb half the radiation emitted by fin B and half emitted by fin D. However this sums of this incoming radiation equals the energy radiated from fin C in the first place. As there is no net gain in radiative energy then fin C stays at the same temperature. However, in practice, not all of the energy is absorbed by the neighbouring fins, a lot of it is radiated away into space, which is why heatsinks are used to cool things. As others have already pointed out, heatsinks still work in space without convection by increasing surface area and emissivity. This isn't exactly rocket science, just a simple bit of accounting. -
Tom Curtis at 18:37 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
BernhardB @1396 makes a rhetorical point about the superfluous nature of fans in space, clearly ignoring the fact that the illustration in question was related to the operation of heat sinks in atmospheres. He also makes several unsubstantiated claims about the design of satellites. This appears designed to evade discussion of the operation of heat sinks at the Earth's surface on which he makes no comment. Frankly, I find BernhardB's discussion of satellite design dubious at best. The multi-finned heat sinks used on Earth bound electronic components would constitute so much waste mass in space, and as low mass is critical to keeping launch costs down, I doubt any aerospace engineer would be so negligent as to use them. Rather, they are likely to use heat pipes, and axially grooved heat pipes (such as those shown below) to conduct excess heat to external radiators: Heat Pipes
Axially Grooved Heat Pipes (cross section)
Heat pipes work by being partially filled by a volatile liquid. Heat evaporates the liquid which then quickly carries the heat the external radiator where it cools and condenses. Surface tension keeps the resulting liquid in contact with the walls of the pipe, and thereby transports it back to the heat source. In axially grooved pipes, the grooves introduce a capillary effect, thereby improving the transport of the fluid back to the heat source. Note the single fin on the right hand Grooved Heat Pipe, which by increasing surface area improves radiative cooling.
With regard to the internal or external deployment of heat sinks, some may well be internal. Many satellites operate on surprisingly little power so that heat accumulation is not a problem and an internal heat sink (or no heat sink at all) may be adequate. However, some require more robust solutions:
"Dissipation of the heat generated by increasingly powerful satellite electronics presents inherent challenges. Today’s satellite applications, especially in the military sector, demand increasingly powerful functionality and a wider variety of electronics, which must be accommodated within a limited space. The drawback of increasing the number and power of electronics components is the generation of increasing amounts of heat while the available exterior surface area of the satellite —— through which the heat is rejected to space —— remains constant at best. Satellite designers and engineers rarely if ever have the luxury of increasing the exterior surface area of a satellite to improve heat rejection; and in many cases, any such increases would quickly be overtaken by increasing heat created by next generation electronics. As heat increases, the thermal devices used to dissipate the heat must transfer the heat effectively in any orientation and in the absence of gravity. Finally, satellite thermal solutions must operate under conditions in which maintenance and repairs are not possible, making flawless reliability a critical factor. To meet these challenges, thermal engineers are turning to deployable radiators. These occupy minimal space on the satellite surface until deployment in orbit, to create increased surface area for heat dissipation."
(Source) So, to summarize, BernhardH makes false assumptions about the nature of heat sinks in space. In assuming that they have the same design as those used in earthbound electronic instruments, he makes a similar mistake to somebody who assumes that heat sinks in computers must be full of small tubes through which water is pumped just because they serve the same function as radiators in cars. He also falsely assumes that waste heat is radiated into the interior of satellites, whereas in fact, if heat is a significant problem it is radiated to space. Based on these two false assumptions he assumes that the actual design features of heat sinks are designed to work in a vacuum, despite obvious facts to the contrary (see my previous post). From this chain of errors he unsurprisingly comes up with false conclusions. -
Riccardo at 17:43 PM on 30 March 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
One more example of a denier giving "skeptics" a bad name, to borrow Fred Singer's wording. "It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics" and indeed the 2nd law of thermodynamics is maybe the most misunderstood law of physics, probably because it's only apparently simple but its consequences go far beyond the too common superficial (mis)understanding.
Prev 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 Next
