Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 Next
Comments 66151 to 66200:
-
dana1981 at 04:10 AM on 21 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Julian - the original BEST data included two final data points which were incomplete, only containing data from Antarctic temperature stations. They were probably included erroneously. Various "skeptics" used those data points to argue that BEST showed global warming had stopped. You can't get a recent cooling trend without including those two points, so I kept them in the "skeptic" view, but removed them in the "realist" view, since really they should have been excluded as incomplete. -
JulianRGP at 04:04 AM on 21 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Looking at Figure 2 (How "Skeptics" & Realists View Global Warming), the dark green graph is of course the same in either the "Skeptic" or the Realist view, because the dataset is the same. But there's one exception. On the Skeptic (becoming tired of hunting for the double quote key!) view, there's a huge dip down to -1 deg C. I don't understand what that is. Is it a jokey impression saying that a Skeptic would say that it'll be cool next year? If so, it's not coming over well because it looks as if it's in the past and it's the same colour. If I've missed the point of the huge dip, please say what it is! Enjoyed the article in general. I guess it's like betting on a usually winning racehorse that has occasional off days! -
Martin Lack at 04:01 AM on 21 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
Excellent work, Kate. It's nice to see the fruit of all your work in preparation for the AGU meeting. Your final paragraph says it all though: Palaeoclimatology tells us all we really need to know (as in James Hansen's Storms of my Grandchildren). Unfortunately, so-called "skeptics" refuse to accept the evidence of either models or palaeoclimatology. May be record-breaking numbers of tornados over places like the University of Alabama in Huntsville (Roy W Spencer's home turf?) and the spiralling insurance costs of fixing what were once rare events will change their minds? We can but hope... -
How do Climate Models Work?
Excellent article! I have in the past used the zero dimensional model in discussions and for my own evaluations - use one of the many radiative transfer programs such as MODTRAN to see how changes in GHG's affect total emissivity, and directly calculate resulting global temperatures from direct forcings. Or look at paleo evidence such as Milankovich insolation changes, calculate the direct forcing changes, compare to recorded total temperature changes, and see what that tells you about feedbacks and climate sensitivity. High resolution? Regional forcasts? No. But even the simplest model can provide useful, indicative results. -
barry1487 at 03:41 AM on 21 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
Very accessible explanation of climate models. Great job. I'll be sharing it. Personal nit - the advocacy in the last sentence jars with the rest. -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:18 AM on 21 January 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
What's missing from the paleo paragraph in the OP is that paleo estimates of uncertainty contain one or more of the following: "No, poorly understood, large uncertainties, very few studies or poor agreement, (un)known limitations, low confidence" for most estimation criteria, particularly similar climate base state, similar forcings and feedbacks, etc. As I explained above about a year ago, the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions have starting conditions that don't apply to today's climate. Even if a 3C estimate of paleo-sensitivity is accurate (considering it uses the same models as other estimates so it is not an independent estimate), it doesn't apply to modern climate. -
John Hartz at 02:18 AM on 21 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Zachary Shahan at Planetsave reposted Dana's article with the following introduction: “In another wonderful post on global warming, Skeptical Science conducts a comprehensive review of scientific studies on the causes of global warming.” -
Bob Lacatena at 02:10 AM on 21 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Concerning the "which figures" to include discussion, I believe it is very much a matter of context and perceived intent. Without going into the details of the examples discussed, let me offer one that is equivalent but distinct. The CO2 science "MWP Project" purports to demonstrate that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today. As evidence they offer this graph from one particular paper that studied South Andes ice cores:
This is one segment of a single figure (figure 6) of 3 such graphs for two other cores from that particular paper (Thomspon et al, 2003):
That, in turn, is also paired with another figure (figure 5) of 3 Tibetan cores:
These 6 graphs make the heart of the paper.
Clearly, the inclusion of one carefully selected graph from figure 6 supports their contention, while the exclusion of five other graphs makes their selection seem... tilted. In particular, they demonstrate how widely temperatures varied even within the same continent, and that the peak presented by Quelccaya is not at all contemporaneous (off by several hundred years) with peak temperatures in any of the other cores.
In fact, this one paper, if presented fairly, serves as strong evidence that the MCA was not a global event that is any way comparable to current warming.
Obviously, there is always more information that could be included. As an editor or author, one is always faced with the choice between too much and too little. As an observer, one can always argue the wisdom of such choices after the fact.
The question is not was it a good choice. The question is was it a clearly biased choice, intended to misrepresent the actual available information and the likely, most reasonable conclusion one might draw from that information.
The question is, seeing what was there, do you feel that you (and others) have been misled by the selection of information presented.
-
Daniel Bailey at 02:05 AM on 21 January 2012What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
@ Tealy I believe that part of the stumbling block impeding your understanding of SLR is implicit in the perception that the Earth is a sphere and that its mass is equally distributed. It is not a sphere precisely (equatorially bulging) nor is its mass equally distributed. It is thus more precisely described as a geoid. The reason this matters is that as ice sheets such as the Greenland Ice Sheet and those at the South Pole (the West Antarctic Ice Sheet plus the East Antarctic Ice Sheet) lose/offload mass (such as they are currently doing), the redistribution of mass that occurs will alter sea levels in a dynamic fashion: some localized areas may actually experience sea level lowering while yet other areas, such as Tuvalu, may experience a disproportionate amount of sea level rise. -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:04 AM on 21 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Tom, thanks for the mockup. You have proven that it is possible to create an independent figure from K&H08 figure 3b with just a little work. I don't agree that it is perfectly sensible without knowing that it applies to the estimates in K&H08 fig 3a. Otherwise you are correct, it is now independent of 3a.Here's my list of uses of 3a: wide version:
/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
/lindzen-illusion-4-climate-sensitivity.html
/ppm451.html
/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html
/christy-crock-6-climate-sensitivity.html
/Monckton-Myth-4-Climate-Sensitivity.html
/spencer_ocean.html
/climate-sensitivity-skeptic-end-game.htmlupright version:
/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html
/co2-warming-35-percent.htm
/working-out-climate-sensitivity.htmlsome offsite uses (incomplete search):
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/11/a-new-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/09/19/206503/climate-sensitivity-lukewarmersI'll comment on one of those threads as you suggested.
-
What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Tealy - As I noted here, Tuvalu has gained attention because the islands are indeed suffering from sea level rises, and because they are populated. Hence that set of islands have become a "poster child" example of climate change affecting us. But regardless of trade winds, all atoll islands are going to suffer consequences from sea level rise - Tuvalu is just one of the first. It's simply a matter of time - as Becker 2011 notes, we're going to lose many of the western Pacific islands in the next 150 years, and other islands in other regions will follow depending on local sea level rise rates. And that's because the seas are rising, at rates that are only going to increase with further warming. If you disagree, I would suggest moving to the more relevant threads here or here. -
Tom Curtis at 01:43 AM on 21 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR @156, I probably would have done that, except that Watts had so recently threatened to ban me. -
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Tom Curtis - I have had that experience on a couple of WordPress sites (including WUWT, but also others). Whether due to some cookies being cleared, refresh issues, or site database handling while a post is actually being moderated, I cannot say, but I believe it's simply structural to the mechanics of WordPress blogs. I've learned to come back and look at sites the next morning before getting concerned. -
Tealy at 01:35 AM on 21 January 2012What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
CBD and Stephen Bains @32 & 33. Thermal expansion and ice loss affect all the ocean evenly, in other words these only increase the average sea level not the zonal tilting. For one part of an ocean to have a difference in level there must be a driving force. The difference in level is the effect, I am questioning, delving into, and asking what is the cause. Because to say the effect will continue to increase (ie that sea level rise around Tuvali will continue to rise at a greater rate than the ocean average), requires you to take a view that the cause will increase. I don't think you can take a view that a cause will continue to increase if you don't have a position on what you believe that cause to be. I would like to understand the cause. Reading through this article the basis for the extrapolation seems to be that the sea level around Tuvalu has been observed to increased at a greater rate than the ocean average for 50 years, and that trend somehow must continue for 100 more years. I don't see any evidence or basis put forward to support the extrapolation of zonal tilting, and there should be. What is the nexus? What causes zonal tilting? Why will the cause continue to increase for 100 years? To quote:- "The onus is on he who says it is so". There is evidence and basis that global warming will increase average sea levels, ie a warmer ocean will thermally expand (as long as it is above 6C otherwise it contracts with warming) etc. To say zonal tilting will increase due to global warming is insufficient. The nexus between more co2 and more zonal tilting is not my hypothesis to prove, and just because the two have increased does not prove a relationship. But I do want to understand so I can take a view as to whether the cause and therefore the effect will continue for 100 years. -
Tom Curtis at 01:31 AM on 21 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Sphaerica, two comments of mine did not appear on Watt's up with that when initially posted. Not even the usual "awaiting moderation" status appeared. As a result I incorrectly surmised that I had been banned from WUWT. Hence my intemperate and inaccurate remark (since snipped) at 141 above. While I think the comment is well justified on other grounds, it was not in this case and offer Anthony Watts my (obviously qualified) apology for that remark. However, this is not a case of my being censored at WUWT, although I have been in the past. -
Tom Curtis at 01:26 AM on 21 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Eric (skeptic), as you are persisting in your line of questioning on WUWT, I have produced the following edited version of Knutti and Hegerl's figure 3b for illustrative purposes only:
Now, I put it to you that if you where reading Knutti and Hegerl, and having come across their actual figure 3a as figure 2, and then came across a figure 3 as represented above, you would not think the figure was senseless. You would not find it was impossible to understand. It would be a perfectly sensible figure to you. It follows from that that, logically, figure 3b is an independent figure from 3a in Knutti and Hegerl. It is, of course, not independent of the entire discussion in Knutti and Hegerl, or independent of discussion of climate sensitivity. Despite that, I can certainly imagine contexts in which that figure could be found without the equivalent of figure 3a and nobody would bat an eyelid.
Please note that the 1901-2000 data in the Gillett figure is also logically independent of the 1851-2010 data. It could have been produced as an independent figure and, again, nobody would bat an eyelid. However, it was not produced as an independent figure. Presumably it was not because the authors (or reviewers) thought the disparity of results raised significant questions about the robustness of the main result, and did not want that issue to escape notice. In contrast to the authors (or reviewers), Michaels and Knappenberg did want the issue of robustness to escape notice, even though it was clearly pertinent to Michaels' discussion. It follows that there is a clear ethical difference between the two cases.
But had Gillett produced the 1901 to 2000 data on one figure, and the 1851 to 2010 data on another seperate figure (even if part of the same cluster), and if Michael's had then reproduced the figure for the 1851-2010 data, then Dana's inclusion of the Gillett case in the above post would have been absurd. What is more, while Michaels' article may have been subject to criticism on basis of intellectual merit because it did not discuss relevant issues, issues of misepresentation of sources would not have arisen.
Conversely, had Knutti and Hegerl included figure 3a and 3b as part of one single figure 3 without distinct discussion, separating them would have been problematic.
Finally, I dislike your raising questions to me on WUWT. I rarely visit that site, and even more rarely comment because a large part of the commenting participants have a demonstrated inability to follow logical argument, and a clear unwillingness of follow basic rules of reasoning. Discussion with them is literally pointless. The Biblical injunction to not cast pearls before swine is very relevant. There appears to me to be no reason for you to raise issues with me on WUWT unless you feel the presence of an abusive, and scientifically illiterate audience to distract me is necessary for your argument.
-
Bob Lacatena at 01:07 AM on 21 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
144, Eric (skeptic),BTW, your reply to me has appeared at WUWT.
Oh, no. Censorship at WUWT? Erasing something just because it's inconvenient? Who'd have thunk it. -
Bernard J. at 00:11 AM on 21 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana at #119. I could say so much about Watts' apparent meaning in the first paragraph of that censored post, but I'd probably run afowl of the polite-posting rules here. Suffice to say that the difference between "inciteful" and "insightful" is noticable in the context of what Watts' thinks he is saying... It goes to prove that WWWT is good for one thing at least - providing a laugh! -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:00 AM on 21 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Ok Tom, the ball is in my court. -
Tom Curtis at 23:57 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Eric (skeptic), I cannot do a search for all uses of a particular image. Consequently I am not able to with reasonable effort find all, or most of the used of that graphic on SkS to comment on. If you think it is worth the effort, you find an example where you think not including figure 3b of Knutti and Hegerl has resulted, or facilitated, in misrepresentation of some part of Knutti and Hegerl by SkS. Failing such an example, the issue is irrelevant to this topic. You may also want to find an example where not including figure 3b of Knutti and Hegerl has resulted in a failure to canvass issues that should have been canvassed in a post on SkS. Note that this is a distinct issue (on several counts) to the Michaels/Knappenberger doctoring of graphs. Never-the-less, it is a bare minimum for relevance in your current line of questioning, and has not been established. (In you believe you have found an instance of this type, please raise the issue in the thread where you find it so as to be on topic.) -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:25 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
BTW, I would please ask those who want to discuss the specifics of K&H08 fig 3b to do so here: /argument.php?p=5&t=268&&a=115#63452 where I pasted it with some of the rows labeled. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:17 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
CBDunkerson, because I asked Tom that question over at WUWT. The debate has no other possible benefit. But please show me the writeup here that describes the caveats of fig 3b in any of the dozen places where 3a is used because I have not seen it. I agree with your points, especially as you stated them in 110. My only reason for continuing my very minor discussion is to get an explanation for Tom of how figure 3b can be considered standalone. -
CBDunkerson at 23:10 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Eric, I'd agree on the 'ridiculous' in that your point has zero apparent relevance regardless of whether or not you are correct. So why bother? What possible benefit could come from a debate over whether 3b can stand on its own or not? Again, while we have two situations of some information not being included they are obviously very different: In the SkS instance the additional details in figure 3b were not shown... but the writeup accurately described the conclusions of the paper. In each of the Michaels examples the details not shown were precisely those which would have proved that the claims he was making about the papers were false. The difference between 'not including every bit of detail' (heck, the next complaint could be that SkS didn't use exactly the same text to describe the figure, or didn't quote the entire paper... 'they excluded information!') and 'removing just the details which prove what you are saying is false' ought to be clear to everyone. So if you aren't trying to make a case for the SkS usage being somehow 'wrong' why continue talking about it at all? -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:45 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Bill, I believe that 3a is perfectly understandable without 3b. I also said above and several times at WUWT that removing 3b is not equivalent to the Michaels graph editing. All I am disputing here is Tom's statement that 3b makes sense as a standalone graph (obviously including the labels from 3a). My point is very specific and narrow, perhaps even "ridiculous", but I won't let it be conflated with something I did not say. -
bill4344 at 22:28 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Oh yeah, Eric ('skeptic'), no one would ever figure out the whole 'range of climate sensitivity predictions based on various studies and types of evidence with the highest probability estimates centering on this temperature band' thing without figure 'b' now, would they? (Well, I had, but hell, I went to Art School for a while there.) This is your tit-for-tat equivalence? Pull the other one! Seriously: this really makes you all look completely ridiculous. Still, by all means keep at it, because it really does make you all look completely ridiculous. -
John Mason at 22:23 PM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
Hank #23, Thanks for flagging that paper up - it's been added to the pile for my next bit of investigation into the whole gas hydrates topic. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:14 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Tom, I disgree. The primary purpose of fig 3b is to add details to 3a, and 3b would serve very little purpose standalone, confusing at best. Can you at least agree that 3b is subordinate to 3a? BTW, your reply to me has appeared at WUWT. -
prokaryotes at 20:20 PM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
To make a point: The latest AIRS methane imaging suggest that not only the ESAS is a major source for methane uptake. And another uptake is observed recently.. Before 2007, CH4 mixing ratio was nearly stable. The average mixing ratio during the last 6 years over major northern hemispheric countries is similar. However, there has been a significant increase in tropospheric CH4 concentrations after 2007 in most northern hemispheric areas, with slightly larger increases over China. EurekAlert -
bill4344 at 17:31 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
You don't really even need to go to Eli's (which is working just fine as far as I can see). If you look carefully you can see intriguing artifacts, even at this resolution. Look at the RCP 4.5 dashed line at about 2045, for instance. Or the truncation of a dash in RCP 8.5 shortly after (both of these are detailed at Eli's). But you might also want to inspect the intriguingly truncated dash in RCP 2.6 at 2026. Or RCP 8.5 at 2076, for that matter. Or try this - copy each of the largest files available by clicking the embedded images above, superimpose the Michaels graph over the original in Photoshop on a separate layer, shift-resize it to perfectly match the original (it's slightly smaller, but identical in ratios, labels, and font, so zooms out nicely to overlay perfectly) and then switch this upper layer on and off as you sweep around and scrutinise the graphs. -
owl905 at 16:39 PM on 20 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Woody@12 - the sunspot paper clearly concludes a reduced role for solar variations. The ENSO graph needs an unobscured link - it reflects neither the cycles shown in SKS on October 10: http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm nor the NOAA report (p.22) of Jan 17, 2012: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf The Timmerman analysis and the NOAA report line up, the tinypic link ... not so much. -
Tenney Naumer at 16:16 PM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Gentlemen, I would appreciate your comments on a PowerPoint I put together of a composite of images of the Arctic from a satellite with microwave sensors (as I understand it), taken in January. Please contact me at my blog for the actual ppt file. The crocodoc thing is not as easy to look at: http://crocodoc.com/5UOfu7A Blog: http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com -
Woody at 16:03 PM on 20 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
The papers all seem to make excessively confident statements about solar influences. See http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf So if Solar influence on Climate is "on shaky ground if we don’t even know solar input" then any paper that uses “solar forcings” as a part of its analysis has very dubious value. I also read suggestions that ENSO was a cooling influence during the period from 1979 to around 2005 and this is just bizarre - http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg The similarity between this graph and this http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.png is surely no coincidence so how can anyone suggest the influence of ENSO during the period mentioned could be anything but strongly positive? -
Stephen Baines at 16:02 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I just tried to go back to Eli's site to double check after reading through his evidence before. No luck...can't seem to scroll to the critical image now. Anyway, it definitely is unethical to just erase parts of a graph in an attempt to make an argument. That is basically fabricating a pattern. It's just a short step between that and completely fabricating data. That's a firing offense in academia, to my mind. It simply boggles the mind that Michaels would be careless enough to leave evidence of that. -
Tom Curtis at 15:45 PM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Eric (skeptic), I responded to your post on WUWT only to find that WUWT no longer accepts my posts. The (-snip-) has strengthened the walls of his (-snip-)'s castle. In short, there is a common but not universal convention to use common axis for two distinct figures when their axis are identical. This was done in Knutti and Hegerl, and has no bearing on whether 3a and 3b are distinct. That they are distinct is established conclusively by the fact that they are distinctly enumerated.Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
This is a very interesting discussion on moderation, transparency, and the like. I have to say I consider increased transparency the correct action, both here and elsewhere. That said - I wonder if various skeptic blogs will extend their moderation to including a "Bore Hole" for deleted/edited comments? Or updates? Or links indicating when a current posting contradicts a previous one (an issue at WUWT, compare this and the later post, for example, to call the kettle black). Will they live up to the standards they call out for SkS? Or are those blogs holding others to standards they are not willing to adhere to? -
Tom Curtis at 14:45 PM on 20 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
actually thoughtful @58, we are aware of the lack of an explanatory advisement of the modification. That is only due to the fact that discussion as to the best wording is still ongoing, not because we wish to do anything in secret. As you can understand, we thought it better to correct the incorrect quote immediately rather than delay correction until we had nailed down every nuance. As it happens, I particularly liked your wording, and have recommended it to others in more direct control of the situation. Thankyou for your suggestion and for your various comments on this issue (and on moderation policy in general) which are greatly appreciated. -
actually thoughtful at 13:27 PM on 20 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Argh! Look I may not have all the facts, and I certainly don't have the decision making power but I can tell you this - the moral high ground goes to honesty and transparency. It appears that a climate myth posting about antarctic ice was extensively revised today in response to an error. Good for SkS! But was it handled transparently? Is there a note that says "On 1/19/2012 we extensively revised this article upon learning it referenced an incorrect quote. We apologize to Mr. (Dr.?) Michaels and to our readers for the error." Thats it - that is the difference between "blog wars" over minutia and a site that is beyond reproach and is simply the go-to site for climate science. Apologies is this is happening and I have somehow missed it. -
A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
dana1981 - Excellent summary. Multiple model studies using the best physics understanding available, plus multiple regressions of time-varying forcings against temperatures, all independently supporting a common conclusion of anthropogenic influences. Very very clear. -
John Hartz at 11:41 AM on 20 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
As detailed in the article cited below, Katharine Hayhoe is not the only prominent climate scientist to recently come under attack by political and religious zealots in the US. "Who’s Afraid of Kerry Emanuel? Why Republicans Are Attacking a Republican Climate Scientist” by Chris Mooney, DeSmog Blog, Jan 19, 2012 -
bill4344 at 11:38 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Busted! Eli has a genuine point - that's certainly simple erasure of the original graph; and clumsy erasure at that! Shades of Don Easterbrook! Perhaps Mr. Knappenberger would care to run his tu quoque argument filter over this particular point... -
skywatcher at 11:34 AM on 20 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
#47 saltspringson, how about taking your analysis beyond individual towns? This NCAR study finds an increasing trend in daily heat records outpacing cold records using 1800 weather stations across the US, a trend that continued through 2011.
Much like global temperature graphs, inventories of retreating/advancing glaciers, or global maps of extreme heat (the Hansen et al study), once you get beyond cherry-picked individual sites the bigger picture in every case clearly shows the trend.
-
bill4344 at 11:03 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana @ 108If SkS is getting "bashed" in the "skeptical blogosphere", it means we must be doing something right. The truth hurts, and people in denial don't react well to it.
Indeed: I'm reminded of Noam Chomsky's endorsement of Greg Palast; 'hated by all the right people'! This 'you deleted data with your chart, too' false-equivalance thing is one of the most transparently daft - and shameful - things I've seen in this debate, and that really is saying something. -
muoncounter at 11:00 AM on 20 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
saltsprings#47: "no mention of the word "record" either in the mapping or at the source you quote." Really? The linked NOAA map clearly displays state-by-state rankings of wettest and driest for the year. '#1' on that map would be record driest and '#117' would be record wettest. -
JMurphy at 10:54 AM on 20 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
saltspringson, you wrote on another thread : "A Google news search for "record cold temperature" for the past week gives 29 results. "Record high temperature" 9 results.". So far, adelady (above) has pointed you towards Capital Climate (which is showing 312 high records already this year in America, and 19 records for Jan the 9th alone), so I will just point you towards mherrera.org, (which also shows records for all countries each year since 2002), where you will see 7 of the 8 records so far this year are for maximums, not minimums. Do you have more details of the records you found on your Google search ? -
EliRabett at 10:39 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
The argument here (such as there is one) goes to intent. There is strong internal evidence (of the grade of finding a fish in a milk container establishing that the milk was watered) showing that Michaels simply COPIED the Gillett graph and erased the dotted lines Didn't do a very good job of it, you can spot it in the figure at normal size and it is completely clear when blown up. That sort of behavior is not ethical. Chip Knappenberger's argument that the 1851-2010 data is better than the 1901-2010 data is risible. Instrumental records are increasingly unreliable the further back you go, and more so pre-1900. If you doubt this take a look at the BEST record with uncertainty intervals shown -
Bob Lacatena at 09:53 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
136, hank, _hank, _Hank, hank_, Hank_, and _h_a_n_k, It's probably an act of extreme hubris to register for a site on the world wide web using nothing more than a familiar form of one's own first name, don't you think? :D
-
hank at 09:46 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Pssst, serious disambiguation -- "Hank_" is the guy using both the capital letter and underscore. "hank_" is the one with the lower case letter and the underscore. Neither of them is me. Is there any collision detection in the signup algorithm? Are we going to be joined by a "Hank" and a "_hank_" and a "_Hank" eventually? Aiee. If you wonder who's who, click the link behind the names, I suppose that can't be fudged.Response:[DB] I keep tabs of who's-who; there's no confusing the two of you.
-
John Hartz at 09:42 AM on 20 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Recommended reading: "Chatting with the climate scientist Newt dissed” by David Roberts, Grist, Jan 17, 2012 -
adelady at 09:34 AM on 20 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
saltspringson "There is no mention of the word "record".." If you ever want to keep on top of "records" set for the USA I can recommend Capital Climate which devotes most postings entirely to records. Just check out the posting for January 2012 so far. The neat little graphic on the left gives you a running total of records set for the current year. -
actually thoughtful at 09:29 AM on 20 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I have had my opinions about moderation informed by spending a few days on WUWT - it particular on the issue of Michaels testimony to Congress (raised here, "answered" on WUWT). I found the following: I wasn't moderated (with one caveat - 2 of my replies were eaten by the server - I take the moderator at his/her word that this was a server malfunction) - I did raise some tough points, and was answered (not to my satisfaction, but I wasn't ignored either). Dana1981 WAS moderated right before my eyes (whole post snipped due to something he said on Deltoid (according to Anthony at WUWT)). I don't particular care for the blog wars (even as I contributed in some small way). I heard quite a bit about folks who were moderated on this site. I like the moderator response for those comments that are partly snipped - transparency. I would like to see a comments/bulk where comments with no redeeming value are diverted to. So when someone claims "I was banned/deleted from SkS" - we can find their comment in Comments/bulk and show them WHY they were removed from the adult conversation. I don't see any other way to own the high ground (SkS can certainly claim it). Transparency is incredibly important when people are feeling like they were inappropriately deleted or banned. Most posters, even the trolls, are not aware of how unsupportable their posts are. Being able to point out that they are posting unsupportable claims on a science post will give SkS defenders a valuable tool, and continue to educate the curious about the differences between a science blog and a denier site.
Prev 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 Next
