Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  1350  1351  Next

Comments 67151 to 67200:

  1. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Hey, I have an idea. Lets say Mike Mann is a bumbling researcher who makes mistakes and should be cast into the netherhells with others like him (eg Spenser, Christy, Soon, Baulinus, ... Hansen, Einstein etc). Now lets see what a difference to the science that make. Better? Whoops, still have hockey sticks, global warming and anthropogenic causes...
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Perhaps dawson should review 'Its not about the hockey stick' for some much-needed perspective.
  2. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    Mace, I think you are just going to have to accept that there are different periods of interest, just as a business is sometimes more interested in how this month compared with last month, and sometimes more interested in Q4 year-over-year results, and sometimes wants to see if a product line has grown revenue since 5 years ago. In this case, Dr Hansen may have simply thought that when observing anomalies for the last 30 years, the previous 30 would be an appropriate baseline. I think he mentions his reason in the paper itself, but memory fades. I don't think it matters, other than Hansen's baseline would probably not be appropriate for whatever the Met Office is doing just as theirs would not be appropriate for his observations.
  3. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    It would be really useful, if a commonly defined baseline period from which anomalies should be calculated were used by climate change scientists. It's very confusing looking at graphs that cover different time periods and use different baselines in order to influence the viewer as to the veracity of their argument. Anybody know why different climate change scientists use different baseline periods e.g. The UK met office uses rolling 10 year periods, whereas Hansen et al seem to have settled on the 1950-80 period to be their baseline.
  4. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    There is a high risk of me over-interpreting this information, but I'd like to toss out some thoughts and see what/if anyone else thinks of them. The areas where 3-sigma events are most commonly occurring seem to be clustered in three bands, the equator, and two bands roughly 30-40 degrees north and south. On the north and south bands, I'm wondering if the temperature anomalies are, at least in part, a result of Hadley cell circulation encroaching on regions previously under Ferrel cells. This would be consistent with GCMs that predict, and actual observations of, Hadley cell expansion in a warmer climate. Second SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess): If you project the increase forward, by somewhere around 2020 about 20% of the globe will be under a 3-sigma event in any given year. I wonder what people's memory is for events like Texas, Southern Europe, and the Moscow region. If events like these are happening about every 5 years in any area, will that finally get through to the general population that we are better off doing something about it than not?
  5. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    How can anybody has a physical based argument other than AGW to explain what we are observing?? We are correct to call them deniers. They are in denial.
  6. Philippe Chantreau at 06:24 AM on 3 January 2012
    Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Dawsonjg says, talking about science "What Mann does is not it at its best." One has to wonder then what M&M do should be called; whatever that may be, Wegman's work should wear a similar name. This is recommended reading for all those who think that Dawsonjg or M&M have any kind of a valid point. It reviews the errors in M&M methodology (first identified by David Ritson) and dives deep into the computer code used by M&M, where the explanation lies for their findings. It also clearly demonstrates how Wegman did not truly replicate anything. Dawsonjg has rambled about funding and politics. This contains a nice timeline summary of the emergence of M&M, readers can decide how much the whole thing was influenced by politics and money sources. As usual, with often touted "billions in climate research," fake skeptics make heavy use of the method that consist of accusing others of what they themselves do. It ensures that subsequent denunciation of what is really happening loses all impact, with masses thoroughly confused as to what to believe. They then naturally gravitate toward what they are inclined to believe anyway. All factual information becomes moot. Dawsonjg illustrates very well that feeling in the following quote "So who am I to believe?" Surely enough, he mixes that with "All I can do is read the pro and con arguments." Reading the pro and con arguments found in the press and blogs is the last thing one should do when considering a scientific issue. SkS is a better blog only because it has its roots in the science that has been published. Science publications on the matter considered is what should be read, not arguments from blogs or newspapers. Dawsonjg should know that, as he claims also "I know what science is suposed to do." If one knows what sience is supposed to do, then the "arguments" worthy of consideration are the following, listed by Tom Curtis above: Jones 1998 (Nature), Huang, Pollock et al 2000 (Nature), Broecker 2001 (Science), and Esper et al 2002 (Science). There has been more, Moeberg has been mentioned, along with numerous other reconstructions, some excluding tree rings. All the stuff on blogs and opinions pieces in newspapers are nothing but noise, and, to use some exotic statistical terminology created by M&M, it is not "trendless."
  7. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    OPatrick @ 30... My point in saying people new to climate science should watch the video is I think it presents an accurate portrait of the issue which is greatly lacking in general. Who else have you ever heard make the statement that "good for you and end of the world are the two lowest probability outcomes?" And who else ever quite clearly lays out the case that the problem is fossil fuel industry special interests? (Other than Naomi Oreskes.) These are two extremely important take-aways that are rarely if ever heard by the general public.
  8. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg @ 35... "I have read thoroughly convincing analyses that the hockey stick is 'problematic'." We all know what you've been reading and many here have read that same work. But you might stop to consider this... Why did someone go to so much trouble to try to undermine one piece of science? Normally, if a piece of research is poorly crafted and the results are suspect the course of action is to reproduce similar research using different methods to show that the results are erroneous. The new research would conflict and probably supersede the previous research. There you go. Problem fixed. MBH99 shown wrong. Move on with the research. So, why haven't McIntyre or Montford done this? Why do they only operate to try to find flaws without producing any actual research of their own? Why don't we have any multi-proxy reconstructions from them showing a different conclusion? They obviously consider themselves qualified. They obviously have the time and backing to perform such research. But they don't. Why? I can tell you for sure that the Idso's (who are well connected with the same folks) have several hundred studies on the MWP that they've collected and posted online. I've poured through them in detail. But they also don't go so far as to try to produce a multi-proxy reconstruction of that data. Why? You should really go and watch that Peter Hadfield video on the scientific process. Here is the link.
  9. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    climatehawk1#33-While I share some of your reservations about mentioning the myths in a video aimed at dispelling them,I would point out that the excellent Climate Crock series that you cited,also includes small snippets of denialist propaganda in it's videos as well. It's a tough call between showing blatant distortions as examples of what denialsts are up to,and giving their myths 'air time',(regardless of how small).
  10. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Tom C, Off-topic here, but Kennefick 2005 showed that peer review (as we know it) did not necessarily apply at Annalen der Physik. As usual, the real story is not as clear as wikipedia would have us believe. But an Einstein throwdown in a denier argument is about as valuable as 'Galileo was outvoted.'
  11. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Tom C#32: Isn't 'released to the general public' a bit of an overstatement? The video is linked here, on Climate One and a few environmental sites; it is also on plomomedia's youtube channel, where it has all of 3600 views. Isn't it also a major goal of SkS to discuss communication of climate science and issues? Not only do we have books highlighted in the upper right panel of the site; we show the Eureka Award for "excellence in the fields of scientific research & innovation, science leadership, school science and science journalism & communication." Your key points are all vital; however, we must face the fact that we are not exactly winning the battle for 'hearts and minds.' If there are valid points to be made by professional communicators, why not listen and learn?
  12. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg continues his preference for innuendo rather than facts, on this occasion suggesting that there was no proper scientific critique of MBH 98 and 99 prior to McIntyre and McKittrick's interventions. As it happens, following publication and prior to M&M's intervention MBH 98 and 99 where criticized by Jones 1998 (Nature), Huang, Pollock et al 2000 (Nature), Broecker 2001 (Science), and Esper et al 2002 (Science). Mann responded to these criticisms, agreeing with some points and rebutting others. Mann also published a detailed analysis of the virtues of different climate reconstruction methods, developing the RegEM which was later further improved on to become the EIV algorithm. Hans von Storch also published a methodological paper in 2004 performing a detailed analysis of different algorithms for reconstructions. So, before M&M had even appeared on the scene, the scientific community was conducting an extensive debate on methods of reconstruction and Michael Mann had already replaced the MBH algorithm with a superior one two years before M&M decided to criticize the by by then six year out of date method of MBH 99. Clearly dawsonjg's innuendo of scholarly inaction is a complete fiction and without any basis in fact. What is more, it entirely neglects that no substantive criticism in M&M 2003 or 2005 has stood the test of time, and their most fundamental criticism has been shown repeatedly to be itself flawed far beyond any problems found in Mann's earlier algorithm. Given dawsonjg's continued use of innuendo, complete absence of evidence presented in his case, and defamatory comments, perhaps it is time that he be required to fully comply with the comments policy. Muoncounter, it is a minor point but Einstein did go through peer review.
  13. Stephen Baines at 02:56 AM on 3 January 2012
    Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg You are stuck on this idea that editors and reviewers can somehow be corrupted by those "billions of dollars," whereever they are, to allow a consensus to develop despite all evidence to the contrary. I am a subject editor at a pretty well read journal and I cannot conceive of how such a thing could happen except in the least populated and most arcane corners of science. You have to understand that people editing and reviewing papers are actually, at some level, professional competitors of the people they edit/review. In fact, the editors deliberately pick the reviewers to reflect a range of opinion/expertise. Editing and reviewing activities also occur in the public eye of at least some of your quite critical peers. The appearance of favoritism or collusion (or the opposite) is very much looked down upon, and often stigmatized. If anything, lack of critical insight in the reviewing process will hurt, not help your chances at getting funding because of the infuence on your reputation as a critical thinker. Knowing someone is no guarantee of a friendly review, either. I have often had to reject papers by people who I consider friends of mine. Given all this, it is really hard for someone truly familiar with the process to comprehend your thinking. Perusing the level of critical discourse even in the "leaked" CRU emails confirms how seriously even those with close working ties interrogate each other about methods etc. If I weren't convinced that you simply didn't have the experience to temper your judgement, I might even find it insulting that you would even intimate that somehow it could as thoroughly corrupted as you suggest. Second, If you think climate science has problems due to the amount of money sloshing around, I can think of no worse counter example than medical science, in which the amount of money sloshing around dwarfs that in climate science. Lots of potential conflict of interest there! Still, as you say, they manage a pretty tight ship...although there are several high profile instances of fraud that pop up now and again.
  14. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Indeed, Tom D, and dawsonjg could further use some reading on Einstein's life and work--the Isaacson bio is readable enough. Good grief. Dawsonjg, you're working backwards. You're starting with models and trying to disprove physics. Read Weart. Understand the development of the science. There is no multi-generational hoax involving tens of thousands of scientists. I know you will say that you're not making this claim, but your rhetoric strongly implies the claim, and all I know about you and your ability to think comes from the words you string together.
  15. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg, you should learn about how science works--including funding--before making such extreme claims. It is obvious that you never have been a published scientific researcher who has applied for funding, been accepted and rejected for funding, and has reviewed funding proposals. Nor do you understand the difference between funding of research and peer reviewing of research results that were produced regardless of the funding of the work that produced those results. You can start learning with historian Spencer Weart's account of the history of Keeling's climate research funding and of funding for science in general.
  16. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    You describe the way the review process should work John Russell, the way it worked for Einstein and the way it still works in some fields such as medicine. But consider who controls the billions of dollars poured into climate research and who influences the peer review process and who has been claiming that the debate is over and anyone who disagrees is an industry funded denier - imagine where we would be if Einstein had politicised the process in that way. And investigate what MM had to go through to get their peer reviewed papers published. And consider whether the graphs presented above would ever have replaced the 2001 hockey stick if McIntyre and a few others had not navigated the obstacles and weathered the vilification to prove it was 'problematic'.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Accusation of fraud, conspiracy, etc violate the Comments Policy. Einstein did not go through 'peer review.'
  17. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg @37, if you cut of the "snake" at 1000 AD (the duration of the MBH 99 hockey stick) then it isn't a snake. Still less so if you cut it of of at 1600 AD to compare it with MBH 98. This ignores the fact that by drastically restricting the data available for the reconstruction, it was inevitable that the green line above should show more variability. The simple fact is that through all your inuendo you have carefully kept the data of stage, and the reason is obvious. When the data is placed front and center your case transparently evaporates, and all you are left doing is playing word games. It should of course be noted that you have not said anything to impugn any of the many other reconstructions which confirm Mann et al 2008's result. Nor, quite frankly have you presented a single substantive reason to think there is anything wrong with any of the proxies used in Mann et al 2008 to begin with. Your entire case todate has consisted of asking some rhetorical questions on another thread, and asserting on this one without evidence that the proxies where "problematic". That apparently is enough to count as evidence in your mind.
  18. apiratelooksat50 at 00:58 AM on 3 January 2012
    North American mammal evolution tracks with climate change
    Excellent article! It was most likely climate change caused in part by the formation of the Great Rift Valley in Africa that led to the development of the human species. Populations of early hominids were separated by the geological forces. The resulting rain shadow led to the demise of the rainforest in East Africa and the transition to savannah. Competition for food, shelter, and water led to animals, including human ancestors, adapting and evolving. Some species perished along the way while others thrived.
  19. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    @dawsonjg As I understand it; if those "thoroughly convincing analyses that the hockey stick is 'problematic'" have any merit, then they'll be submitted to a credible journal and peer reviewed. If the reviewers feel the 'analyses' have any merit, then they'll be approved for publication and will appear in the next available issue of the journal. Then the scientific community will read and consider the 'analyses', and those with an interest will undertake further work and submit further papers, following the same procedure. That's the scientific process. Whether we like it or not, what is said in blogs is largely irrelevant to the consensus view of the science at any particular moment. What Mann wrote a decade or more ago can really never be 'wrong', as it represented the best understanding of the science at the time it was written. If subsequently someone can show that a paper is flawed in some way, then, more often than not, the original author is likely to write another paper correcting any flaws and incorporating the new ideas. That's how knowledge of climate science develops. It's what Steven Schneider did in the 70's when he realised that the paper he'd written predicting forthcoming cooling was based on an over-simple model, and the fact was we were actually warming. As a layman, I find this quite easy to understand. It's a logical procedure that works well. Don't you think so?
  20. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    My profession is communications, not science, and those who are concerned about the video's content are, IMHO, correct. I work on mythbusting daily, and to the best of my ability, I don't even mention the myth I'm responding to, let alone repeat it or give free air time to it (e.g., the short ad on the benefits of CO2 that is included). Tom Curtis in #32 is right about one thing: the video is done. That being the case, my advice is: find another video and use that instead--there's plenty of other good stuff out there, like the Climate Denial Crock of the Week series. This one is excellent as a motivational tool for a group of climate scientists who know the score (like those assembled at the AGU). It is almost useless as an introduction to the problem or as a persuasive piece for the average person who is wondering what's up. I say that with a great deal of regret, because I had high hopes when I sat down to watch it.
  21. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Michel I have read thoroughly convincing analyses that the hockey stick is 'problematic' (to put it in terms that I hope won't get snipped). But knowledgable people on sites such as this ridicule such analysis as il-motivated nonsense (Mann has been doing this very noisily for nearly a decade, before tacitly backing down very quietly on issue after issue). So who am I to believe? All I can do is read the pro and con arguments and pose a few questions to see if I get credible answers. But accusations that my questions amount to 'frantic handwaving' or 'crafted disinformation' for an industry funded defamation campaign are not very informative. I can't give you evidence re the 2001 graph because that's deemed dead horse territory, I've given some evidence re the 2008 graph above.
  22. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    This page contains the supplementary material for Mann 2009 (direct link to pdf). The figure provided in post 32 above has been altered from the original (Figure S8, p31). Specifically, the green line before 1500AD is dashed in the original. This is because it does not pass the validation tests. These tests are described in the section titles "Validation Exercises" on p4. To pass the test the reconstruction must rule out a 'red noise' null hypothesis at the 5% significance level. Care should therefore be taken when interpreting the green line. To quote from the "Sensitivity Tests" section, p9: "This additional test reveals that with the resulting extremely sparse proxy network in earlier centuries, a skillful reconstruction is no longer possible prior to AD 1500. Nonetheless, even in this case, the resulting (unskillful) early reconstruction remains almost entirely within the estimated error bounds of the original reconstruction." I think it would have been nice to show uncertainty bands for the green line alone. However, presumably that would require significant CPU time and not add much information.
  23. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg... "Why can't you just admit that Mann and the IPCC got it wrong?" and "Thanks Rob - I know what science is suposed to do" Do you really know - or are you just using the words for rhetorical effect? Why do you fall into the common trap laid by incorrigible denialists of pretending that new science can ever be about presenting 100% perfect papers? That is an impossible standard which has never been achieved or has never been presented (by scientists) as achievable. It is absolutely not how science works. Only the ignorant, or those wishing to twist ordinary people's minds with propaganda, would ever claim that. What you are doing is this. You are misrepresenting the situation by trying to suggest that Mann, by presenting 13 years ago a "first of a kind" paper that was not 100.00% "perfect", was "wrong". Clearly, you do NOT know what science is supposed to do. You, along with all the others like you, are clearly trying a well worn propaganda technique by creating a blizzard of misdirection that because the paper was not 100.00% perfect it must, in the weird, difficult, nit-picky, obstructive way that too many think, be wholly worthless and evidence of incompetence at best and fraud at worst. Deny you are doing that that, dawsonjg. I dare you. The all too familiar use of such innuendo was the reason for my "mole-on-the-face-of-the-supermodel analogy. She remains incredibly beautiful and any minute nit-picky perceived flaws (most of which are misperceived camera artefacts anyway) doesn't in any way take away from that. Similarly, small perceived flaws, even if a few of them are real, in otherwise sound science are only "evidence" that climate science is "wrong" in tinfoil hat land, not in the real world.
  24. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    OPatrick @30, what ever the merits of your view, it still remains the case that the video has been released to the general public. That being the case, the best way to ensure viewers take away the main points and not some of the denier fluff included is to discuss those main points. Continuous discussion of the merits of the video only distract further from the key points that: 1) There is a scientific consensus on key aspects of climate science; 2) That consensus shows that very optimistic views and very pessimistic views both have low probability (ie, that life itself is threatened); 3) That special interests try to distract from that key consensus with "blather"; 4) That a proper response involves realistic risk assessment; 5) That a realistic risk assessment recognizes that the center of the probability estimates suggests significant damage to the planetary life support system; and 6) There are tipping points which make a controlled response much more difficult if it is a delayed response.
  25. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    ...churn...
  26. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Tom Curtis, to be fair Rob Honeycutt wrote "If you have friends who are just starting to become interested in the climate change issue, this would be an excellent place to point them for an introduction." It seems fair to question whether this is an effective piece of communication. I would show this video selectively. There are some people I would trust to be reflective enough to see and remember the genuine message in the video, but if the Debunking Handbook is correct then I suspect this would not be an effective communicator for everyone. What I think the introspection here illustrates is the fundamental difference between selling doubt and communicating confidence. Those selling doubt can afford to chirn out anything they like, it only takes one of those messages to hit the mark for them to succeed.
  27. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    John Russell @28, you don't communicate a message by talking about the best way to communicate a message. This site is about communicating science, not about communicating the best way to communicate science.
  28. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Dawsonjg is referring to this chart reproduced from a chart which I believe to be from the supplementary material of Mann 2009: The original Mann 2008 EIV reconstruction is in red, the no tree ring reconstruction is in blue, the reconstruction with seven series with higher uncertainties (including tiljander) removed is in brown, and the reconstruction with neither tree rings nor the seven series with higher uncertainties is in green. Some things are immediately obvious: 1) The green reconstruction is still a Hockey Stick; 2) The highest temperatures in the MWP in the green reconstruction is still less than current temperatures; 3) The highest temperature in the green reconstruction still lies withing the error bars of the original reconstruction (shaded yellow); and 4) The green reconstruction is still closer to Mann 2008 than to Lamb 1966. These four facts show clearly, according to the deniers, that Mann committed fraud; that Mann's reconstructions of MWP temperatures are entirely in error regardless of how many independent confirmations show the same thing; and that Lamb's 1966 guesstimate was much more accurate than Mann's 2008 reconstruction. More reasonable people might consider these facts to show that Mann's reconstructions are essentially confirmed by this sparse network. They might also conclude that the increased variability is more likely to be due to the restricted number of the remaining data sets rather than because Mann 2008 got anything wrong.
  29. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    @Tom #27 writes: "I will point out that endlessly discussing whether or not the video is effective at communicating its message does not aid in communicating that message." I only respond to what other commenters have written and they seem to want to talk about how effective the message is, Tom; and the moderators have not offered any steer away from that. Also is this website not about communicating climate science? I find your sentence above very strange, in that one learns how to communicate by analysing and learning from what others have done before. Is there a better way?
  30. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Dawsonjg, Where is your evidence that "When you eliminate all the 'problematic' Tiljander and bristlecone data together rather than one at a time, you eliminate Mann 2008's claim to fame"? here you claim to ask if Mann performed these analysis. here you claim that you have not seen the analysis done. You now claim that the analysis shows Mann was wrong. You are not arguing in good faith.You have been given the information that Mann has done that analysis and it makes no difference in the result, except lowering the statistics. You are now claiming, without any evidence, that Mann is wrong. Please produce some evidence to support your frantic handwaving.
  31. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    John Russell @26, the filmmaker's target audience SFAIK was the audience of the presentation of the inaugural Stephen Schneider Climate Communication Award to Richard Alley. The video was intended as a tribute to Stephen Schneider at that presentation. I will point out that endlessly discussing whether or not the video is effective at communicating its message does not aid in communicating that message. Perhaps we could return comments to the message rather than the technical value of the video.
  32. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Well made point, Chris G. #24 As a film maker (but excluding those just making 'art') the first and most important thing is to be aware of the audience you're creating your film for. Everything Steven Schneider says is spot on, but I don't think he was aiming at the lowest common denominator. The film maker has made this film following Schneider's death and when watching it, it's clear that he has aimed for a different audience to that which Schneider was addressing. So, to be clear, the producer has taken disparate sound bites of what Schneider said over the years and woven them together to tell a story that Schneider never told -- or at least not in those words. He's also laid over Schneider's words images which both support and possibly, to some degree, modify what Schneider says. So we're all arguing about two different things: what Schneider was saying and what the film maker is saying. It is my contention that the film will work with a sophisticated audience who understand and sympathise with the message. I question whether it will be understandable to an unsophisticated, uninformed or cynical audience (i.e., think a typical GOP politician or someone who might vote for them). As a tribute to Schneider it works with people who remember and agree with him. To the uninformed it's not a persuasive piece of work that will bring them on side. What's frustrating to me is that if I had rights to use the right footage, I could do this. Unfortunately as a professional working in this area I could not just use footage without the necessary permissions. This film, for instance, contains scenes shot for the feature film 'The Road' and I'm pretty certain they didn't receive any permission to use it. If this film was as high-quality and effective as we'd like it to be, the copyright owners of the material would take the producers to court and take a lot of money off them -- or, more likely, have the film destroyed.
  33. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Thanks Rob - I know what science is suposed to do. What Mann does is not it at its best. Thanks DB, I've read Tamino's review. I guess comments would be deemed 'beating a dead horse' Thanks jmsuly, I've read some of what you suggested. Might I suggest further reading at http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/06/dirty-laundry-ii-contaminated-sediments/ ? When you eliminate all the 'problematic' Tiljander and bristlecone data together rather than one at a time, you eliminate Mann 2008's claim to fame. But why their persistent inclusion when it has been acknowledged that they are 'problematic'?
  34. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    barry @23 - that’s pretty well the way I saw it too and a lot of people I know, as well. And a bit of advocacy helps motivate people and Stephen Schneider excelled at it.
  35. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    The debate on weather disturbances being usual, unusual, part of a pattern & what the possible pattern might be influenced by, will be best understood by our insurance companies. From what I know, their rising premiums and recent tendency to exclude high-risk regions tells the story convincingly enough.
  36. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Muon, I think the information is straightforward, particularly for those already familiar with the topic. It is like taking a seldom used path in a familiar garden. I think the overview of the point the creator is trying to make is not as clear as it could/should be if the target audience is not already familiar with the topic. The transitions are a bit abrupt, and the audience could get lost at a crossing. Human memory is faulty; a naive audience is just as likely to remember Geraldo's forceful assertion that the science is not settled as they are to remember Stephen's least-probable-outcomes dichotomy. Example: My wife and I when we were putting things on our wedding present registry needed dishes and were adding some to the list, there was a particular pattern at the local store that we did not like, and everything else would be great. So, we put on the list "no ducks". Twenty years later, half of our dishes still have ducks on them. It was like the average person who saw the list remembered "ducks" and forgot the negation. Honestly, we would have been better off having said nothing and taken our chances. So, no, I have little confidence that the average person will get the intended primary meaning on the first pass though that video. I don't think you can wait until 4 minutes into a video to tell the audience the main point you are trying to make. The video works if you are preaching to the choir; otherwise, it is open to incorrect interpretation. DB, Thanks, but that tip is actually what I'm complaining about. Compare the tip for links where "http://url" clearly means a URL and "Description of page you're linking to" is whatever text you use to describe the contents of the link, with the next tip where, I've learned, the text "Description of page you're linking to" actually has two meanings, "URL of the linked page" and "URL of the image within that page". In the first, it is a description, and in the second it is two different URLs. It would be a more helpful tip if the it indicated that the contents between the quotes were URLs.
  37. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Other than some unfortunately unqualified language ("...we keep adding unprecedented levels of warming to the system..." 9:38) and that there is more advocacy here than I'm used to for SkS, I enjoyed the presentation. Schneider outlines the issues that matter very clearly and concisely. After the science comes the policy. Schneider's lecture is the bridge between.
  38. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg... Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) has a youtube video I've always enjoyed titled "The Scientific Method Made Easy." I'm not trying to be patronizing here but there is an element that he brings up in the video that I always find interesting. He says (paraphrasing), "Whether other researchers think John (the "evil" scientist in his example) cheated or just got things wrong doesn't matter because his work won't be consistent with other research and will eventually be discarded." Ultimately what all scientists want is to get things right because that will mean their work will stand the test of time. Even if Mann was (as deniers suggest) trying to push fraudulent work it doesn't matter because if he was it wouldn't fit the broader body of research. What has happened though is Mann's work has fit quite well. Other researchers have been able to reproduce his results with other methods. In fact, there are now almost a dozen multi-proxies that are pretty well consistent with Mann's earlier work. That work has improved on what he did and even Mann's own work has improved on his earlier work. All a case of science doing what it's supposed to do.
  39. UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 2 - Of Cherries and Volcanoes
    Isaac Held talks of MSU: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2012/01/01/21-temperature-trends-msu-vs-an-atmospheric-model/
  40. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg... "Why can't you just admit that Mann and the IPCC got it wrong? " You're describing science at it's best. Mann's work in 1998-99 was new and different. Why would you expect it to be correct by today's standards? Do we expect Darwin's work to be correct by today's standards? No. But what I would say about Mann's work (as with Darwin) is that it has stood up to intensive, hostile scrutiny and has lead to a better understanding of the subject matter today. What more could you want from science?
  41. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    dawsonjg, You obviously have not actually bothered to *read* the Mann 2008 paper or the associated SI (and the online update at Mann's personal website). Mann did a reconstruction, reported in the main paper, which excluded all of the dendro proxies. He got essentially the same answer although it was not statistically significant as far back in time as the full recon. In the SI, he tested the results of leaving out the problematic proxies (Tiljander and a couple of others) to test the sensitivity of the main recon to these proxies. No big differences. As a result of complaints in the blogosphere Mann reported in the updated SI the result of tests which left out the Tiljander data and the dendro data. The result of this was reduced significance in the earliest part of the no dendro/no Tiljander part of the reconstruction, mostly due to the fact that Tiljander represented a significant part of the earliest data. So did Mann 2008 get it wrong? I would say no. He showed that dendro evidence is a valid proxy, in spite of the attacks mounted on it by the denialists. There are almost certainly not enough non dendro proxies with sufficient resolution to do a long recon with nothing but non dendro evidence. The fact that Mann 2008 agrees broadly with other reconstructions despite differences in proxy selection and analytical methodology would seem to indicate that he is in the ballpark. We'll never know with any certainty what the exact history of global temperature is over the last couple of millennia but I think that it is possible to get a pretty good idea of what happened by using the multiproxy methods which Mann pioneered.
    Response:

    [DB] In addition to your sage advice, and also the reading of the OP and the other comments above, this post at RC by Tamino is relevant:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

  42. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    ChrisG#17: "the take-away is muddled." No, its straight-forward. The section around 4 minutes in deals with a multiple range of possible outcomes: what science does is try to winnow out the relative probabilities of possible outcomes, if you try to cover it as a yes or no you are distorting and yes, we get a little mad about that. There's the key message. One who gets distracted by '5 ft of sea level rise' or 'catastrophic change' or 'end of the world' is missing the point. And isn't that the ultimate goal of propaganda? To manipulate your thought process so that you miss the point? Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group. So we hear about 'balance,' we hear an endless succession of false equivalences and a blizzard of 'it can't be true' spin stories. Schneider is very clear on this point: Feeding people the yes/no message when there are a range of alternatives is still propaganda. Hyping the supposed 'uncertainty' when there are factors that are well-understood is still propaganda.
  43. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Tom @15. Thanks for cheering me up a bit....
  44. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Thanks michael Mann responds by deleting problematic sets from his 2008 paper one at a time, not by deleting them all at once. I'd like to know where he deletes both bristlecone and Tiljander sets at the same time. You have a very malleable definition of a hockey stick. No one anymore defends a millenium graph with a straight handle and 20th century blade such as appeared in the IPCC's 2001 report to (-Snip-). Why can't you just admit that Mann and the IPCC got it wrong?
    Response:

    [DB] perhaps you missed this warning about needed compliance with the Comments Policy.  This site is about the science of climate change, not about scoring rhetorical points.

    Inflammatory rhetoric snipped.

  45. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    Dawsonjg: Please see my response on the tree ring thread linked above.
  46. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Dawsonjg, Who says including those data sets was in error? Mann uses specific criteria to exclude problematic data sets. Deniers then add data sets they like and claim Mann is in error for including ones that they do not like. Mann responds by showing that deleting the supposed problematic sets does not affect the result. You are confusing unsupported blog criticism with actual peer reviewed criticism. Keep in mind that the Mann hockey stick has been reproduced by numerous other peer reviewed studies. Can you provide a reference to a peer reviewed study that does not show a hockey stick? If everyone gets a hockey stick, how can you claim that Mann is in error?
  47. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    (-Pointlessly off-topic snipped-)
    Response:

    [DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  48. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    Thanks caerbannog. I confess that running those scenarios is beyond my capacities. But I would be interested if you can point me to where anyone has done that exercise. I believe that Mann and co have excluded Tiljander and bristlecone proxies one at a time to claim that they don't matter, but has anyone eliminated both at once and checked that result?
    Response:

    [DB] Anyone responding to this please do so on the Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960 thread or other, more appropriate, thread; follow that up with a placeholder with a redirect link from here. Thanks!

  49. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    If I adopted the same mind set as those who crafted your twisted disinformation - that means they wrote it to deceive, not to enlighten, I would describe the supermodel Cindy Crawford as having a foul pestilential precancerous eruption on her face and highlight it microscopically to try to convince gullible people that not only was she ugly, but that all her family and relatives were ugly too. Other more rational people might see just a facial mole. Some might even call it a "beauty spot".
  50. Michael Mann, hounded researcher
    Thanks Nick, I'll take that as a no he didn't make those errors. Thanks Philippe, glade to amuse. But I made no accusation that Mann made those errors purposely to deceive - I agree that its unlikely he's that stupid. That, however, doesn't answer my questions. I'll take your answer to mean: he might have made those errors but they dont matter.
    Response:

    [DB] This fixation you have on Mann is useful only as an affirmation of the title of the OP.  You were earlier directed to place such specific questions on more specific threads on Mann, his research and the "hockey stick" (many exist; use the Search function to locate).

    Comments continuing here in this vein will be deleted.

Prev  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  1350  1351  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us