Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 Next
Comments 66251 to 66300:
-
MarkR at 22:08 PM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
#15 by extension, 72% are correct according to Pielke? i.e. a 72% chance of serious, human caused global warming? -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:50 PM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
It is important to bear in mind that Annan losing the bet doesn't mean that his assessment was in correct. If he though the probability that the record would be broken was 85%, then this imples that he thought there was a 15% chance that it wouldn't. This means that he is likely to gain from an even bet as the odds are in his favour, so taking the bet was rational. However even though he lost there is a 15% chance that he would lose the bet even if his assessment of 85% chance of a record was spot on. This kind of error was made by Roger Pielke Jr in his blog article "How Many Findings of the IPCC AR4 WG I are Incorrect? Answer: 28%", where he calculated that assuming that the IPCC assessments of their probabilistic projections were correct, 28% of those projections would turn out to be incorrect. This is (approximately) true, and only something to make a fuss about if you don't understand why probabilistic predictions/projections were made probabilistically! The IPCC expect 28% to be incorrect and were quite explicit about it. -
Robert Murphy at 21:19 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip K at #35: "We included our version of the figures to help visualize what the authors were describing in the abstracts." Wouldn't using the original graphs the authors made be a better help in visualizing what the authors were describing? Why would doctoring the authors' original graphs (without saying so) make the graphs better express the authors' ideas? If a climate scientist had done that to a "skeptic" graph, don't you think there would be big outcry? As for the omission not affecting the argument you made, what nonsense. Of course it did, that was the whole point in doing what you did. -
MarkR at 20:00 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
#39 Albatrosss : "Now can you imagine their outrage and indignance had someone done that to one of their papers. Well, they now officially have no grounds whatsoever to complain about how anyone presents one of their papers." Honest brokers should always be honest. We should hold ourselves to higher standards than Michaels has done in the past. -
cynicus at 19:32 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
If the graphs are not key instrumental to the point the WCR is trying to make in the text, then why not leave the graphs out? Or, alternatively, show them as the original authors created them. But showing the original graphs means including the data that contradicts the point the WCR is trying to make. However discussing and showing contradictory data is key in science, the IPCC does it constantly but the WCR doesn't. Even worse, WCR does not only fail to discuss existing contradictory data the authors actively delete it. Why is that? I have yet to see Chip or Patrick present a clear valid reason to actively delete contradictory data to the point they are trying to make. -
CoolCloud at 19:14 PM on 18 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
@10: "More cloud cover does indeed mean less warming." SURPRISE: Clouds aren't a positive feedback (means low climate sensitivity). -
Kevin C at 19:00 PM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Tom: Yes, I think this requires writing up for publication, once I've done some detailed analysis on where the differences come from. It's a much less daunting task than my original station based approach because the methods so simple. Talking to Nick is also a good idea - his method gives a complete global reconstruction using a very different approach to GISTEMP. The GISS station count is based on the new GHCNv3 version (introduced 11/2011). All the station counts are the number of record present in the raw data - a few records may be dropped before use. The coverage figures and map for GISS are however from the v2 version - I need to update this, but I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference. -
les at 18:49 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
35 - Chip, Might I point out that your response is not just to the SkS authors (and commentors) but to the audience who read this material; a great many of whom are only interested in the substance of the posts - more than which "side" they're on... ... and, I should ad, many of whom are quite used to reading scientific papers as well as press articles, NGO reports etc. It can't really be said that your response is vindicating Michaels and WCR against the accusations made, now can it? If the authors of the papers put information in graphs to go with their own words, who are you guys to contradict them? All the examples above are of important data having been removed from the graphs which materially changes their content. Very poor practice. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:54 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip said... If the figures bother you so much, just put your hands over them when reading the article, the take home message is unaffected. Or perhaps it might be advisable to cover both the graphs and the words at the same time. //sarcasm -
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
For those new to the discussion: - 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). I have seen a great deal of "advocacy" papers over the years. Many of them are worth reading - presenting interesting data that may have been overlooked, that supports their position. However, 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. -
Albatross at 16:38 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR @37, Actually Patrick Michaels also omitted key portions of the text from Gillett et al., so either way their readers have been mislead. Same deal with Schmittner et al. (2011). Now can you imagine their outrage and indignance had someone done that to one of their papers. Well, they now officially have no grounds whatsoever to complain about how anyone presents one of their papers. -
Bob Lacatena at 16:23 PM on 18 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
So let's agree... 1) The current situation in the Puget Sound requires investigation and action to determine and mitigate all factors causing the current drop in pH. This is based on the fact that (a) a serious drop in pH is dangerous and (b) we do not know all of the factors involved in reducing the pH. 2) Anthropogenic CO2 represents a significant and irreversible future threat to the Puget Sound, and one that cannot be prevented without taking serious action in the near future. This is based on the fact that (a) a serious drop in pH is dangerous, (c) a drop that results from increased levels of CO2 concordant in both the atmosphere and the oceans is a situation which, once attained, cannot be mitigated in any way, and (d) the burning of fossil fuels at the current or an accelerated rate for a sustained period of decades will result in (c). Therefore, study and action is required in the case of point 1, and action is required in the case of point 2. -
Albatross at 16:22 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR @36, Good points and valid ones too-- Michaels et al. have in the past modified the text of scientific papers to change its meaning as I noted at #4 above. It is very sad that Patrick Michaels apparently still has not got the decency to come here and defend his own transgressions, instead we have to repeatedly hear from a loyal apologist. If the graphics were immaterial to their case/narrative then why did they have to doctor them or even bother including them for that matter? The fact remains that they did both. You saying they are being disingenuous is being incredibly generous. Now this is when reasonable and rational people would apologize to both the authors and the journal, and would replace the doctored figures with the originals. But I they probably won't. If so, then I sincerely hope that the AGU goes after them. That is the nice thing about being a fake skeptic, you never have to concede error or correct mistakes. There is simply no accountability. There are more problems with Michael's sad attempt to justify his scientific misconduct while slander (SkS and Dana; for all we know Chip co-authored that response), but I'll let Dana have the pleasure of dealing with that. -
paulhtremblay at 16:15 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
>>If the figures bother you so much, just put your hands over them when reading the article, the take home message is unaffected. That strikes me as rather a silly defense. Obviously, the experts here could put their hands over the graphs and still get the message you are trying to convey. Unfortunately, the non-experts would be mislead by your graphs. If you claim that your message "would not be impacted in the slightest" had you left out the graphs, then why didn't you? What could possibly be the justification for doctoring a graph? My job right now involves creating graphs for a report. One thing I refused to do, even though my boss requested it, was make a graph with two scales for the same units, one on the left and one one the right, specifically because the difference in scale is considered bad practice and misleading. Your graph goes beyond what my boss asked me to do: in your case, even a careful reading of the graph would not reveal the missing time frame and easily leads to the wrong conclusion. -
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger - So: you have modified major graphs from various papers for various reasons. Does that mean you would support modifying quotes from various papers as well? Because that's exactly the same behavior - changing context and presentation to emphasize a particular point. "But to go after our handling of the figures with such disdain, when they are immaterial to the points we are making..." Yes, folks can dig in further. And find out that Michael has misrepresented the data by omitting large portions of it. Your figures are essential to the points you are making - and you are being disingenuous. -
Chip Knappenberger at 15:48 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
(-snip-). Our WCR articles covering the work of Schmittner et al. and Gillett et al. would not be impacted in the slightest had we not included the figures in question at all. In both cases, we included large portions of the abstracts in our coverage so our audience could read how the authors summarized their findings in their own words. We included our version of the figures to help visualize what the authors were describing in the abstracts. If the figures bother you so much, just put your hands over them when reading the article, the take home message is unaffected. If you don’t like the conclusions of our WCR articles, fine. But to go after our handling of the figures with such (-snip-), when they are immaterial to the points we are making (because you could read a textual description of them written by the authors themselves in the included abstracts), just seems like making noise for the sake of making noise. -Chip Knappenberger World Climate ReportResponse:[DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
adelady at 15:20 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
And let's face it. If you want to use a particular part, range, area, scenario of a graphic to emphasise that you are talking about this specific thing, modern photoshopping or other techniques can easily let you bold or highlight the target and present the others in faded or other minimised fashion. No need to omit entirely. And the same thing goes for arguments and for data selection. If you want or need to exclude them, you can find a way to say "I've left out ... because ..." There is neither explanation nor excuse for silent omission. -
skywatcher at 14:56 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I am astounded that Knappenberger thinks that Michaels' actions are acceptable. That he compares paper abstracts to selective use of figure portions makes me think he has never drawn a figure for publication, yet he is author on several publications. I wonder how he would feel if, as in one of his publications, all mortality data below 70F temperature was casually missed out and a new caption written? It would utterly alter the conclusion one takes from the graph. An abstract is written by the author and so is usually a fair summary of the key elements and findings of the paper (though there are of course poor abstracts!). There is less room for misinterpretation as it is the author summarising the paper's findings, in a setting where a summary is expected. A figure is usually a very important element of a paper in which details are refined and the exact presentation is often quite painstakingly deliberated over in order to present a point and make best use of space. Deliberately leaving some of the information out of a figure can completely alter the conclusion one takes from the figure. It is noteworthy, as Dana says, that the data deleted always happens to be in one direction - this is not a neutral "abstraction" of a figure. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:44 PM on 18 January 2012The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
I look forward to the day that this Yooper may lift flagon in a pub with the peerage of this forum and to talk science until my scuppers leak. -
Albatross at 14:43 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Tom @31, "....if Michaels and the World Climate Report similarly reported on (for example) studies which find high climate sensitivity" Highly doubtful. They wish to pursue a very particular narrative-- that climate sensitivity is low, so there is no need to limit GHG emissions. Quite simple. For example, I find no evidence of WCR or Michaels publishing and highlighting the paper by Lunt et al. (2010). -
skywatcher at 14:37 PM on 18 January 2012The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
Surely not the Glasgow in Scotland? If you think Glasgow to be truly civilised, look up "Old Firm", this east-coaster digresses! The pub is a great place for quality science discourse, lubricated by some fine Scottish ale. :) -
Tom Curtis at 14:18 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
It seems to me that Chip Knappenberger's defense of Michaels and the World Climate Report @25 can only hold validity if Michaels and the World Climate Report similarly reported on (for example) studies which find high climate sensitivity. They clearly do not do so. Given that failure, a failure to analyze and report on the caveats and possible flaws of studies that they do report on can only be regarded as telling half truths. In stark contrast to Michaels'and Knappenburger's very selective approach to information, the new series (for SkS) on Skeptical Science that he highlights does report on all relevant studies, even those we personally consider to be poorly done, or whose results we may happen to disagree with. -
muoncounter at 14:11 PM on 18 January 2012The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
See this video of Dr. Eugenie Scott, NCSE director, speaking about the US education system. The parallels between the systematic denial of climate change and evolution are striking. Glasgow is clearly a civilized place. We don't often have science lectures in pubs in the US. -
dana1981 at 14:01 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip, if you really can't see what's wrong with repeatedly deleting inconvenient data from other scientists' papers, then perhaps you should take that as a sign that you've been working with Pat Michaels for too long. -
Albatross at 13:46 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I would also like SkS readers to note that Chip elected to post his above comments after Pat Michaels made several untrue, offensive and disparaging comments about Dana and SkS in his post at WCR (which has now predictably been parroted uncritically by Anthony Watts). I find that highly duplicitous on Mr. Knappenberger's part. Chip can drop the "good cop, bad cop" shtick, no one is buying that little act anymore. -
Albatross at 13:31 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip @25, "Try as I might, I honestly cannot see why the uproar over our treatment of either Schmittner et al. or Gillett et al." Seriously? You are that numb to the severity of your actions?! (-snip-). People are very good at rationalizing and defending even the most indefensible of crimes Chip. It is also probably because you chose to simply ignore/dismiss Dr. Urban's and Dr. Hansen's legitimate concerns-- ignore them and the problem goes away, at least in your mind. If you fail to see the uproar, just shows how completely divorced you are from acceptable and ethical scientific practices. You and Michaels are routinely engaging in scientific misconduct-- but you will deny that, just as you deny the seriousness of continuing along our current emissions path. Anyhow, I for one will from now on respond only to Patrick Michaels (the promulgator of misinformation, distortion and half truths, and the deleter of inconvenient data) (-snip-). I hope your conscience, (-snip-) does not let you sleep well tonight.Response:[DB]Again, let us embody that we wish others to emulate.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
muoncounter at 13:23 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger#25: "... It was never our intention to discuss the intricacies of the paper" That is a recipe for spreading misinformation. By pulling selectively from the abstract and neglecting to analyze the work, you may as well be summarizing a newspaper by reading the front page headlines only. A case in point is Michaels' commentary here: Schmittner et al. results join a growing number of papers published in recent years which ... have come to somewhat similar conclusions, especially regarding the (lack of) evidence to support the existence of the fat right-hand tail. That 'presentation' cleverly missed the fact that Schmittner found low sensitivity in large part by using data that were truncated at the high and low ends and a model with known limitations. There is 'no evidence' of the fat tail because the authors didn't look at the fat tail. But from this you feel free to build false conclusions: But, as the evidence mounts against a high value for the climate sensitivity ... the IPCC is going to be hard-pressed to retain the status quo in its Fifth Assessment Report, especially in light of the enhanced scrutiny that its AR4 misdeeds brought upon the process. Nice to see Michaels taking an opportunity to throw a punch at the IPCC with unspecified 'misdeeds'. Such superficial analysis has lots of color, but no substance. Gross simplification makes it easy to spin, if that is your real goal. -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:22 PM on 18 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Sphaerica at 27 Paragraph 7: Good idea and FedEx and UPS pretty much design their routes like that already. Can't say that for the USPS who runs the same route every day. The private sector companies are in it for a profit and do a much more efficient and cost-effective job than the government run USPS. Paragraph 8: Until someone can offer a better solution than what we have now, please don't refer to my pragmatism as escapism. Again, offer realistic solutions. How comfortable would we be sending our children off to a school out of state where power is intermittent and their physical comfort and health (heating/cooling/hot water/cooked food) is not guaranteed, and we could only contact them sporadically? Paragraph 9: (Back to the OA) Please tell me how I am distracting anyone. I am offering (and actually doing) my part to work on the solution. If you can justify that statement about me you put in quotation marks, I will send a personal check of $100 to any charity of your choice. Otherwise, I expect an apology. (-snip-). OA appears to be a very realistic and troubling issue in which humans may be playing a significant role. Regardless of the significance of our roles in OA, there are many, many things we can be doing now, and should be doing to better protect our marine environments.Response:[DB] All parties, please tone down the personal remarks and dial back the emotions a bit.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
Albatross at 13:16 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip @25, Please let Michaels speak for himself. Why does Pat Michaels send someone else to cover up his dirty work for him? This speaks volumes about Pat Michaels, he likes to try and control the message-- no one is allowed to comment at WCR. How cowardly, how totally untransparent and how nicely designed to evade critique. The double standards at WCR are astounding. I suggest that from now on you let Pat speak for himself and defend his own transgressions. Surely he is man enough to to defend his own work, rather than have a foot soldier do the work for him? What stuns me is that in trying to defend/rationalize/justify his doctoring of graphs, Michaels then elects to propagate more half truths, and misinformation, while making a good few strawman arguments to boot. (-snip-).Moderator Response:[DB] Please, let us model what we wish others to emulate.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
Chip Knappenberger at 12:46 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
dana1981, Try as I might, I honestly cannot see why the uproar over our treatment of either Schmittner et al. or Gillett et al. As Pat pointed out over at WCR, our presentations closely followed the Abstract (as written by the original authors) of each paper. It was never our intention to discuss the intricacies of the paper, but to introduce our audience to their existence and place the findings in some context. Don’t you all, here at SkepticalScience publish collections of abstracts from the recent literature from time to time to alert your readers? Perhaps it would sit easier with you if you just considered us as presenting an “abstract” of main Figures in each paper? And as far as the 1998 testimony goes, your article has added absolutely nothing new to the topic which has been discussed ad nauseum at various point and places across the web. I have laid out my take on the event in various Real Climate discussions (see here and here and my comments esp. #21, #65, and #90 of the first link). Nothing has really changed since then, from either side. So to me at least, your article lacks both novelty and substance—but then again, perhaps I am too close to the situation to offer a fair assessment. -Chip Knappenberger World Climate ReportResponse:[DB] Chip, you are neither the focus of the OP of this thread nor are you the Chief Editor of the World Climate Report (WCR). Michaels is, both. So while your opinion is duly noted, Michaels failing to personally present his case on this thread will be construed as de facto evidence of the merit of the OP.
Unlike WCR, comments are allowed by all parties in this forum, with the caveat that comments be on-topic of the thread on which they are placed and that they also be constructed to comply with the Comments Policy. That standard should prove no difficulty for men of good character and conscience.
-
Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
ClimateWatcher - "Don't need every square meter, but if there are no measurements within a 5x5 degree box..." You do understand basic geography, I hope - and that at the poles a 5x5 degree box becomes a very small area? Basic distance is a much better criteria than degrees, as it's invariant over the globe. Thou doth protest too much, methinks (Hamlet, Act III, scene II)... -
Tom Curtis at 11:50 AM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
ClimateWatcher @10, it appears you have completely ignored Kevin C's post @1, not to mention the evidence that the new Hadley-CRU product shows an increased trend post 1979 relative to HadCRUT3v, with the only known difference being an increase in the number of stations used. There are at least five reasons why GISTEMP could show a greater month to month variability than HadCRUv3: 1) HadCRUTv3 uses less than as many 51.9% as does GISTEMP,with reduced stations resulting in greater variability; 2) HadCRUTv3 has less than 82.7% of the surface area coverage of GISTEMP (and less than 88% of the surface area coverage of NCDC), with less coverage resulting in more variability; 3) The HadCRUTv3 5 degree grid weights tropical stations more strongly than temperature zone stations, and temperate zone stations more strongly than sub-arctic stations. As climate variability increases strongly as you move away from the equator this would artificially result in less variability in HadCRUTv3 than in a strict distance based weighting method as used by GISTEMP (I suspect this is a major, if not the only cause); 4) As I understand it, HadCRUTv3 handles the land ocean interface differently than does GISTEMP, with CRUTEM3 (the land only product) including sea surface temperatures from withing the the 5 degree cell in determining Land temperatures, with a consequent reduction in variability. (This is a technical point on which I am not fully clear. Perhaps Kevin C could elaborate on how much of a factor it would be.); and 5) The areas which HadCRUTv3 does not cover tend to be concentrated in polar regions and areas of high aridity (Sahara desert, Middle East) both of which are regions of higher than average variability in temperature, thereby under sampling total variability. Isn't it amazing how you (Climate Watcher) have managed to pick out as the only relevant factor from these five the only factor which would suggest HadCRUTv3 is more reliable than GISTEMP, and unerringly picked it out without any need for actual numerical analysis? As monthly variability is highly correlated with expected temperature trend due to global warming; the most likely reason for the reduced trend in HadCRUTv3 compared to GISTEMP is the reduced number of stations, the tropically weighted index (due to grid area), and the reduced spatial coverage. That this is the case in confirmed by the fact that by adding additional Russian and Arctic stations, HadCRUTv4 has a higher trend than does v3, and much closer to that of GISTEMP. -
Tom Curtis at 11:16 AM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Kevin C @1, I believe that your research is important enough to bring to a wider audience. Have you considered writing it up, and submitting it to a peer reviewed journal? I know that a major effort would be involved, particularly as it now appears that you would also need to do a comparison between HadCRUv4 and GISTEMP as well (if the relevant data is released). Perhaps you could coordinate with Nick Stokes or some of the other members of the amateur surface temperature analysis community to share the work load. It is ridiculous considering the extent of recent divergence between HadCRUTv3 and GISTEMP that no significant peer reviewed analysis of the reason for that divergence exists. You have done the analysis, so now you need to get it peer reviewed. -
logicman at 11:12 AM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Remember, folks, Patrick Michaels is the guy who republished a map with two entire islands missing and claimed it was accurate, see Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island I'd bet Michels never won a spot the difference competition. -
ClimateWatcher at 11:11 AM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
#6 KR: My disagreement with CW is that, while having some uncertainties (until we cover every square meter of the planet in thermometers), Don't need every square meter, but if there are no measurements within a 5x5 degree box... The GISS process amplifies the readings around the un-measured areas. When the anomalies are positive around an unmeasured area, the GISS will be higher than CRU. When the anomalies are negative around an unmeasured area, the GISS anomalies will be lower than the CRU. This is why the variability ( from month to month ) of GISS is greater than CRU. That's also why the GISS was 0.4 K/century LOWER than the CRU from 1910 through 1945. And it's why the GISS was 0.3 K/century HIGHER than the CRU from 1979 through 2011. In the longer term, for the period 1900 through 2011, CRU = GISS at 0.7 K/century. When one uses the GISS online tool and uses the 250km smoothing, the results are quite similar to CRU ( they're using the same stations after all ). -
dana1981 at 11:01 AM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Michaels has responded on WCR, but his response as usual is a whole bunch of...let's call them untruths. We're discussing whether his comments warrant a response. -
logicman at 10:44 AM on 18 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
In response to the comments about site searching, Google has a very useful feature for searching specific sites. Just type 'site:' together with the url, a space, and then the search term or phrase. For example: site:http://skepticalscience.com spectral radiance To show the power of the mighty Google, just enter this string and check the top result! site:http://skepticalscience.com search comment threads :-) -
dana1981 at 10:20 AM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
If Kevin @1 is correct (and he knows his stuff), then GISS also uses ~twice as many temperature stations as CRU. I didn't realize that. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:58 AM on 18 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Our problem is that we have a seemingly "cheap" energy source that comes with an immense sticker shock we will not experience until after we've already taken it home and unwrapped it (i.e. another 400 Gt of carbon emissions). Our actions should be to be intelligent and realistic thinking creatures and to factor in the full expense of our actions, not simply the obvious, immediate expense. In particular, there is a vast amount of unnecessary waste in the system, and an unnecessary and harmful adherence to an aging infrastructure which keeps us in that rut. Things must change eventually, and that change will be for the better when it comes. The only people who are benefiting from the status quo are those who stand to profit from as yet untapped fossil fuel reserves. Transitions to new behaviors, methods, technologies and systems will create both jobs and savings. The solutions do not all revolve around getting the price per kilowatt of solar power down to some tolerable level. Example: People in the USA do not need everything they buy on the Internet over-nighted to their doorstep. A delivery truck could come through the neighborhood once a week with all of the deliveries for you and your neighbors, but at an immense cost savings. The huge, carbon-emitting infrastructure that routes and delivers zillions of individual packages one by one by one is unnecessary and foolish. But... as long as there is a plurality of people who view ignoring the problem as "pragmatism" rather than escapism we are going to be trapped and tricked into buying a product that comes with a price that we cannot afford to pay, much like any deal with the Devil where the gravity of your own choices does not hit you until all you can do is scream in terror. It is necessary that people like you who are capable of understanding the problem do so in its entirety, and do not attempt to distract others from the realities of our course by saying, in effect, "well, look, a lot of the problem today is from the estuaries, so let's study that and not worry so much about something none of us can change anyway, because I don't want to be bothered with the effort." -
eradani at 09:45 AM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Even though Annan technically lost the bet, hope I do better on my $20 bet that the arctic will see an ice-free day <= 2020. lol that sounds really stupid. Actually I hope I lose that bet but bet that I won't. -
muoncounter at 09:22 AM on 18 January 2012The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
NCSE is a terrific organization. They've linked to SkS here (and its above their link to RC). -
muoncounter at 09:17 AM on 18 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
Shocking news! Tang and Leng 2012 find evidence for negative correlation between 'normalized cloud cover anomaly' and 'normalized temperature anomaly:' More cloud cover does indeed mean less warming. They studied Eurasia over the timespan 1982-2009; there is no hint in their data (see their Figure 3) of anything even slightly resembling cosmic ray flux. Surprise: It's not cosmic rays. -
Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Robert Way - ...And yes, I agree that the HadCRU extrapolation of average global anomaly (rather than the anomaly of the nearest regions) is a horrible method of handling the polar regions. -
Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Robert Way - Actually, I think the GISTEMP data is rather stronger than that. The correlations in temperature anomaly between randomly chosen stations vs. distance are greater than 0.5 at 1200km, making extrapolation to >80% of the world quite reasonable. My disagreement with CW is that, while having some uncertainties (until we cover every square meter of the planet in thermometers), the correlations of temperature anomaly are not speculative, but rather based on quite a lot of data. -
robert way at 08:52 AM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
KR and CW Well it is speculative to some degree to use correlation to explain extrapolations in very dynamically different locations such as by Gistemp. However, HadCRU does an extrapolation itself... it assumes that the unextrapolated areas are changing at the rate of the rest of the planet... to say that the arctic is warming only as quick as the entire planet is much more dubious. -
Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
ClimateWatcher - "As to whether the extrapolation is accurate, that remains speculative - one cannot verify extrapolations with non-measurments." Actually, it's anything but speculative. Station contributions are geographically center-weighted in a 1200km radius, based upon excellent data as to how these anomalies relate. See Hansen and Lebedeff 1987, Fig. 3, for temperature anomaly correlations between stations having >50 years of data in common. They clearly show the very strong correlation versus distance relationship, including results for various latitudes. Measured correlation, ClimateWatcher. That's not speculative at all. -
Philip Armit at 08:19 AM on 18 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
Survey response: 10. Definitely a 10. Never have I been had access to the kind of information (articles, etc.) links, and discussion that this website provides. Will continue passing SkS site address on to as many people, especially bloggers, as I can. Truly grateful to all who contribute. -
ClimateWatcher at 07:56 AM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
"GISTEMP achieves much better coverage by allowing every station to cover an equal circle of 1200km radius, where in HADCRUT the coverage of a station is a 5x5degree box, which gets smaller as you move to higher latitudes." GISTEMP does not achieve any better coverage - it extrapolates. Large portions of Africa, Antarctica, and Greenland remain un-measured. As to whether the extrapolation is accurate, that remains speculative - one cannot verify extrapolations with non-measurments. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:35 AM on 18 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Sphaerica at 25 I would use irresponsible or unwise in place of whimsical, and FWIW I agree with you in paragraph 4. I will rephrase what you addressed in paragraph 5. We know there are several different paramaters that affect the health of the bays. Some we can address right now and some we can address in the very near future. The CO2 part of the equation is going to be around for the long term regardless of our actions. So, why not address what we can right now? If we can immediately minimize, or better yet eliminate the human impact of the nutrient input - then we are helping the health of the bay and giving it a better prognosis for survival when facing the rising impacts of the anthropogenic CO2 issue. And, to be perfectly clear, my thought processes continue well past wanting to know more about the biology, chemistry and ecology of the bay. Shame on you for writing that I am not concerned about the other issues. I am one of those guys who actually does something about the environmental health of our waterways, through writing, implementing and/or monitoring Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), or Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans (SPCC). You've seen my environmental consulting website. As matter of fact, when I formed my company my very first consulting job involved studies of cooling water intake structure impacts, riverine tidal zones, and a very complex study of coastal effluent mixing zones using the CORMIX modeling software. That is the area of my expertise and that is where I can help (and make a little money along the way). Other than my personal actions and behavior, there is not a lot I can do about CO2 emissions. I will leave that to the experts in those specialized fields. I am very much cognizant that current CO2 is here to say and future CO2 will only add to the problems. Whether anyone likes it, or not, fossil fuel use is going to be with us a long time. Don't confuse my pragmatism with ignorance or apathy. I am curious as to what you believe the actual problems are and what our "actions" should be? Do you honestly believe they will be solved in our lifetime? You and I probably have a good 30 to 40 years left. We can take that off-line if you would like. Being polite, I will dismiss your last 2 sentences. -
Paul D at 07:13 AM on 18 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
Re: the weather forecasting test: All I know is that it is starting about Feb this year, will last 3 years or so and is being assessed by the Royal Meteorological Society and the Royal Statistical Society. I think the agreement is to do short term forecasting 1 to 5 days. The Met Office don't believe seasonal forecasting is statistically accurate enough.
Prev 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 Next
