Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 Next
Comments 69251 to 69300:
-
actually thoughtful at 07:22 AM on 28 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
adelady - I am humbled by the hard-fought truth of your post 1t 17. How does that play out in effective communication on the internet on climate issues? I find my first instinct is to pull up facts and logic that refute the deniers untenable position. But, honestly, that approach is not working. I would appreciate your thoughts on specific approaches to combating/educating the tsunami of deniers out there. -
caerbannog at 07:16 AM on 28 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Based on Dr. Jones' example, It's good to know that AGW skeptics will no longer be required to use a particular software package, back up trend claims with statistically significant data or even do the actual data analysis. All in the name of science. And when did skeptics ever do any of that in the first place? Several months ago, the CRU made all of the raw temperature data that skeptics had been demanding freely available to them. Can you point to any actual analysis that skeptics have done with that CRU data? Remember that skeptics have had access to that data for about 4 months. Also remember that the Muir Russel commission was able to produce preliminary analysis results from the CRU data in just a couple of days. -
garythompson at 07:07 AM on 28 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
I used the word "team" in comment #74 because in emails 810, 3115 and 3904 Mann criticizes those who don't support "the cause." If there is a cause, then there appears to be those who are on the team and those who are not. It's obvious who is not on the team and Mann clearly states that they are not "helping the cause." Why are climate scientists supporting causes? Is getting the science right not enough? ( -snip- )Response:[DB] Getting the science right IS the cause.
Trolling snipped.
-
muoncounter at 06:10 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
skept.fr#26: I'm sorry, but that is a case of false equivalence. The term 'alarmist' is impossible to quantify: There are some who believe in the myth that the IPCC is 'alarmist'; others believe that IPCC projections are conservative (the conclusions of the SkS article on Lunt 2010 is a case of the latter point). By contrast, the term 'denialist' is descriptive of a serial willingness to ignore significant factual evidence. Search, for example, for anything on SkS with the word 'Monckton' in it. Let's try to keep on topic. The Debunking Handbook threads would be more appropriate. -
Albatross at 06:07 AM on 28 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
To follow John H's post @88. I would highly recommend that people read Dr. Bickmore's superb post (Bickmore is a former AGW skeptic): "Contrarians File for Intellectual Bankruptcy" You can find it here. -
Alexandre at 05:27 AM on 28 November 2011The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
Great idea to put this together. Great resource. Thanks. -
MA Rodger at 05:19 AM on 28 November 2011Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
With the exception of SF6 (c. 0.6% of GHG forcing), the 'lesser' GHGs do appear to have reached stable levels, including HCFC-22, if this NOAA graph can be relied on. Or are there some further gases missing from this account? HFCs? That's new acronym for me.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] HFC = hydrofluorocarbons, heat-trapping industrial gases used in air conditioners and refrigerators. HFCs are replacements for hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, gases that gained favor in the early 1990s as an alternative to chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, linked by scientists to the depletion of the ozone layer. -
skept.fr at 04:51 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
#24 KenH : a bit off-topic, but I agree with you. When a French interlocutor told me first about SkS, I browsed (very rapidly) and I concluded (very unfairly): ‘oh they seem one-sided, just the same that Idso’s site but on the opposite side’. A more attentive reading leads me to recognize the quality of this site, I was wrong. But I think SkS should be more cautious in the over-use of rhetorically agressive expressions, and also avoid any double standard. For example, if a study find a high sensitivity, it should be explained and examined here with the same scrupulous doubt adressed to Schmittner et al. It seems that it is not the case. For example, here is a SkS article on Lunt 2010 and Pagani 2010. Theses studies concluded to a higher sensitivity (3 K would be the fast feedback response, but more in the pipeline on long term). There is zero critics from the author about the methodologies, the proxies, the models, the uncertainties, etc. So, if the SkS reader is informed with high skepticism on low sensitivity but low skepticism on high sensitivity, he may logically conclude that there are selective biases in the explanation of current climate sciences conclusions. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 04:27 AM on 28 November 2011The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
Thanks for this handbook. The topic is in the current news: Global warming: Propaganda creates myth of disagreement.“Misunderstanding the extent of scientific agreement about climate change is important because it undermines people’s certainty that climate change is happening, which in turn reduces their conviction that America should find ways to deal with the problem,” Maibach, concluded.
-
Jfyre11 at 04:13 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
dana1981 writes: "Another concern regarding the study is in the model they used - the University of Victoria (UVic) climate model, of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCMA)" This is incorrect. The UVic and CCCma models are different models developed at different institutions. Schmittner et al. used the UVic model, which is a climate model of intermediate complexity developed at the University of Victoria. The CCCma models are fully coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models developed at Environment Canada. These models were not used in Schmittner et al. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 03:57 AM on 28 November 2011The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
Thanks for this. I recognize I was making these errors in some of my posts, and even when I was aware of one of the backfire effects, struggled to figure out how to debunk a myth without highlight the myth. Obviously, the handbook works well for any debunking in any subject (creation-evolution, HIV-AIDS, vax-antivax, etc). -
KenH at 03:53 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
“The climate denialists have of course focused on the good news aspect “ “which are the climate denialist "endgame",” ”Somehow the climate denialists glossed over this aspect” “Just another of those denialist self-contradictions” I’d like to suggest that this blog stop using the term denialist. I find when I read a piece that uses the term alarmist, I tend to automatically categorize the author and the mindset, and may not continue reading. Alarmist has become a loaded term, and I don’t expect a rational discussion of climate when I see the term. I think there is a similar danger with using the term denialist. This blog is an excellent source climate information. There are a large number of people whose opinion on climate that is not at the extremes. When these people encounter these loaded terms (alarmist, denialist) they may simply stop reading. KenH -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:39 AM on 28 November 2011Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
I see that what constitutes an ad-hom was not clarifed for Karl. An ad-hominem argument is a rethorical tactic that consists of attacking the person in an attempt to invalidate the person's message, while the attack on the person has no bearing at all on the validity of the message, whether or not there is any truth to justify the personal attack. It is a logical fallacy. Example: Chris Monckton eats little children for breakfast, therefore his tilted graph is horse-puckey. This example consitutes a logical fallacy and is a true ad-hom argument. Whatever Mr Monckton eats for breakfast has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of his graph, as unspeakable as it may be. Of course we all know that Mr Monckton does not eat little children for breakfast, but whether the accusation is true or false is irrelevant. His tilted graph is horse puckey because taking a graph made by someone else and tilting it at an a angle to make it look different is, in itself, a grotesque misrepresentation that needs in fact no particular refutation. A lot of people confuse ad-hom and personal attack. They are different. An ad-hom logical fallacy does contain a personal attack, but goes beyond and draws a conclusion that does not follow from the personal attack. A personal attack alone is just that. If it does correspond to reality, then it becomes pretty close to a statement of fact, provided the language remains factual. As for the "modern luddites" comment, it can be argued to be a statement of fact. It is not an ad-hom, since no conclusion on the validity of anything is inferred directly from the statement. On ideologies, I definitely agree with Paul D. It's only a few select micro-organisms that have killed more people than ideologies. They certainly are one of the worst ever enemy of mankind. -
John Hartz at 03:27 AM on 28 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Suggested reading: “The Truth Behind the Emails of ClimateGate Parts 1 and 2” by John Austin., Decoded Science, Nov 26, 2011 Click here to access this article. -
Don9000 at 03:13 AM on 28 November 2011What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Victull @ 5 and 11 Skeptical Science has addressed this type of thing over and over. If we choose the right short run of data, we can end up with some very odd trends indeed. The problem with this, in other words, is that all of us can identify ten year downward or level trends in the data even though the overall trend is upward: that is the nature of the kind of data we are considering. For example, just eyeballing the graph for Funafuti in Figure 1, I think I can see similar flat stretches or declines in the 1960 to 1970 and then 1980 to 1990 periods. On the other hand, the overall trend for Funafuti/Tuvalu and all the other locations in Figure 1 shows sea levels are rising for the 1950 to 2009 or 2010 period. Indeed, within that period, there are also decades where eyeballing the Funafuti graph can identify rapid rises (1950 to 1960, 1971 to 1981, and my favorite, since it overlaps the trend you've pointed out, 1993 to 2003). While La Nina events don't last for ten years, as you point out, it is readily apparent from the graph in Figure 1 and the associated graph in Figure 6 that La Nina and El Nino events correlate to upward and downward spikes in the data, and it is not fair to imply that there has only been one year of La Nina conditions in the last decade. NOAA identifies two significant La Nina events that predate the 2010-2011 La Nina event, which began in July of 2010. Both of these La Nina events took place after the impressive El Nino of 1997/98, which created spikes in many data sets around the world. One La Nina lasted from 1998 into 2001, and the other from 2007 through 2009. And now we have a third ongoing La Nina event. Here is the NOAA link: Multivariate ENSO Index with El Nino and La Nina events since 1950 Thus, the trend at Funafuti/Tuvalu from 2000 to 2010 is strongly influenced by the fact that it begins with a La Nina event which raises the local sea level, and ends with an El Nino which decreases it. [This paragraph inserted per request] Ultimately, it is important to note that because Funafuti/Tuvalu is in a relatively small area of the Pacific that has been exhibiting very large sea level increases, relative to the global average, over the 1950 to 2009 period, it makes sense (to me at least) that its graph contains these kinds of seemingly contradictory trends. An analogy that works for me is this: If I submerge my foot into a bucket of water or take it out, the water level in the bucket rises and falls quite appreciably, but if I insert my foot into a lake or take it out, the effects are much less dramatic. Tuvalu Island just happens to find itself in a part of the Pacific that for various reasons is behaving more like the bucket than the lake.Moderator Response: [DB] Inserted missing text per request. -
les at 02:41 AM on 28 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
84/86 - Tom Curtis, Mango: Apologies, I think I read and reacted to quickly, not having read the original text in the Torygraph. IMHO using excel, in the casual point-and-click way alluded to in the email, is almost a 'sackable' offence for any serious, reproducible, work! It is not only bizarre to read that people think this a key skill; but indicative of how many people are clued out as to how science is actually done in real life. Anyway, sorry again for a poor post. -
twallace at 02:15 AM on 28 November 2011Sea level is not rising
This explanation is not up to the standards of excellence I would expect from this site. What would be helpful is more explanation in support of the statements that LMVoB (Monckton) has blatantly doctored graphs, notably a discussion of his key claim that "a global isostatic adjustment correction" is open to questioning. He says in the caption to the graph that appears before the second one you show: "The question is whether or not this “correction” is justifiable." Quite. Given this is his justification for tipping the graph like so, I would be grateful if someone with a better grasp of such things than I could furnish an answer. -
pauls at 01:44 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Victull, Higher sensitivity implies that surface temperatures will rise faster due to greater climate feedbacks and a shorter time to reach an equilibrium Not necessarily. Greater feedbacks simply result in a greater radiative energy imbalance, which takes the system further away from equilibrium. That leads to faster initial warming, but also to more eventual warming so speed to achieve equilibrium will be largely unaffected. In the range of GCMs, there is a fairly robust 2:1 ratio for equilibrium to transient response regardless of sensitivity. Differences between the models on speed to reach equilibrium relate to thermal inertia and thermal capacity of the system, particularly the oceans, not to magnitude of sensitivity. -
skept.fr at 01:43 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
victull : 'Higher sensitivity implies that surface temperatures will rise faster due to greater climate feedbacks and a shorter time to reach an equilibrium; and conversely with lower sensitivity. In energy gain terms there might not be much difference as a higher forcing imbalance over a shorter period might equal a lower imbalance over a longer period' This is not the way I interpret the difference between high and low sensitivities. You suggest that they differ in the rhythm of warming until a new equilibrium is reached. But more fundamentally, they diverge in the estimation of total radiative feedbacks (albedo, WV, lapse rate, cloud, carbon cycle) due to a 2xCO2 forcing, with moderate feedbacks in low sensitivity and pronounced feedbacks in high sensitivity. The pace of warming, whatever the sensivity is, is related to other factors : ice response, oceanic thermal mixing, etc. As far as I remember, there are no particular correlations in IPCC models between the levels of transient and equilibrium climate response, nor clear indications of total relaxation time's range among models. -
Riccardo at 01:41 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
bartverheggen @16 the model is fitted to the locally reconstructed temperature, it is forced to give less cooling by lowering climate sensitivity. Looking at the behaviour of their model, it gives a sensitivity of 3 K when applied to current global warming. If not constrained by the MARGO dataset, like in this paper, the model gives a cooling of 3.6 K with prescribed ice sheets. In my (humble, really) opinion much of the low sensitivity they found is due to the dataset and to a regional bias. I'm confident that others will take a deeper look into these results. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 01:30 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
You say "This is particularly true since the LGM only experienced fast feedbacks,...." I'm not sure why you say that. -
skept.fr at 01:25 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
#16 boba10960 : I agree with this strange divergence about proxy interpretation, that I mentioned in another discussion (interested persons can read the full Shakun et Carlson 2010 paper). #17 bartverheggen : ‘It's a little strange at first sight that the UVIC model resulted in a larger temp trend than most other models due to colder pre-ind temperatures’ As I interpret it (to be confirmed), this is not exactly the point made by tamino, and I don’t think it is a good argument against CCCMA skill for paleoclimate simulations. Tamino showed that when simulating the 20th century in IPCC runs, CCCMA obtains a too low warming in the first half of the period, and a too high warming in the second half (albeit with a correct overall warming trend for 1900-2000). The most plausible explanation is that such models of intermediate complexity deals poorly with decadal variations due to AO circulation (short term natural variability) and, maybe, that aerosol forcing for industrial period is not correctly parametrized in the model. But I don’t see the poor realism on short period with relatively small variations (20th century, 0,8K) as a fatal flaw for simulating longer periods with more pronounced changes (LGM-Holocene, 3 or 5 K on 10 ka). #11 Andy : these technical questions remains quite obscure for me too... even with Tom Curtis' explanations on #13 or Annan's on his blog! -
victull at 01:13 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
dana1981 The Schmittner et al. (2011) paper has aready been seized upon by deniers to claim that the global warming story has been exaggerated. The Murdoch mouthpiece Weekend Australian has already quoted it in Editorial in an attempt to cast doubt. It is important that the issue of climate sensitivity not be given too great an emphasis so that the clear case for the cause of global warming is not sullied. Higher sensitivity implies that surface temperatures will rise faster due to greater climate feedbacks and a shorter time to reach an equilibrium; and conversely with lower sensitivity. In energy gain terms there might not be much difference as a higher forcing imbalance over a shorter period might equal a lower imbalance over a longer period. -
victull at 00:58 AM on 28 November 2011What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
DrTsk @6 Well DrTsk, I don't see any of the respondents disagreeing with my point about the last 10 years. You are talking to a lukewarnmer here - not a skeptic. That does not mesn that any query about a confusing picture need be dismissed as 'pink elephantry'. Rob Painting - I noted the 'hide the incline' post, however La Ninas don't run for 10 years. The 2010 La Nina was a big one but would not account for a 10 year trend. -
boba10960 at 00:53 AM on 28 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Anyone working in paleoclimatology is well aware of the fact that any proxy for temperature is influenced by other factors as well, and correcting for these other factors introduces substantial uncertainty in paleo temperature estimates. For example, for sea surface temperature (SST) estimates, it was recently shown that the Mg/Ca ratios of foraminefera shells, one of the most commonly used SST proxies, has a large salinity bias (J. Arbuszewski et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters 300 (2010) 185–196), particularly in the subtropical Atlantic where Schmittner et al. note warmer SST values than expected. Also, I have seen unpublished data showing systematic offsets of about 4°C between SST values derived from alkenones in surface sediments (another commonly used SST proxy) and historical SST data. One must be cautious in interpreting paleotemperatures, both on land and from the ocean. A reflection of this is can be seen by comparing another recent synthesis of Last Glacial Maximum temperatures presented by J.D. Shakun and A.E. Carlson (Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 1801-1816), who reported a global average cooling of 4.9°C: "The magnitude of the glacial-interglacial temperature change increases with latitude, reflecting the polar amplification of climate change, with a likely minimum global mean cooling of (approximately minus) 4.9 °C during the LGM relative to the Altithermal." This is substantially greater than the estimate by Schmittner et al. Shakun is the third author of the Schmittner paper, so I am curious to know why Schmittner et al. do not cite Shakun's finding. -
MangoChutney at 00:05 AM on 28 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
@les #83 Like most people in the world, I'm a nobody. However, I strongly believe the use of a particular software package doesn't stop people from doing their job properly. I used to work at a university in the UK and I know of a professor, who held in high regard, but he didn't know the SI unit for something in his own speciality and, I heard, he had to be told by one of his students. Didn't stop him from doing his job and being bloody good at it.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Correction: Every person in the world is a somebody. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 23:22 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
My last house mate is a post doc Researcher and generally tries to avoid using any Microsoft software. Instead he mainly uses Linux based computers running R for stats analysis and for producing graphs. All his publications are written using LaTeX instead of Word. His background is Theoretical Physics, which may explain why, however his current research is in carbon capture and storage. My point is that scientists may not know how to do simple functions on excel because they use other packages to perform that same function. These other software maybe more suitable for there general needs. I think most people will agree excel isn't very useful for more than general applications such as simple personal accounting. -
Tom Curtis at 23:01 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
les @83, MangoChutney said that inability to use Excel was not a sackable offence. While it may be that the Vice-Chancelor of the University of East Anglia disagrees, it seems very implausible, so I do not see your problem with his comment. -
les at 22:48 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
81 - Mango - just who are you to dictate that? I was once speaking with a MS engineer who told me he had learned that people where using Excel in an operating theater (something to do with anesthetics or something) - he almost hit the roof as, in his opinion, it was dangerous to depend on Excel in that context. Excel does some things well but a lot of the add-ons (not least of all graphing) are decidedly dodgy and it's often not possible to know or control what it does. If you are producing assured results, you should use a tool which is built to do the job (R, matlab, etc.). Maybe, maybe not 'sackable'; but arguably - by those who know the domain - unprofessional. So, again, who are you to make decide how appropriate this is? -
Paul D at 22:29 PM on 27 November 2011Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
Oh and BTW, I have in the past had my comments deleted by moderators here. Yes it is annoying, but life goes on and one finds ways of expressing ideas within the context of the rules. -
Paul D at 22:24 PM on 27 November 2011Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
Karl an 'ad hominem' attack has to be directed at a person, not a loosely defined group of people. Regarding my observation of America. It was an observation and an expression of disappointment in the current situation. I am on record as being critical of all current political ideologies, whether left or right. -
skywatcher at 21:44 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
#80,81 Mango - thanks for your honest assessment of this particular non-controversy. -
MangoChutney at 21:30 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
sorry, i was referring to the wrong email. Inability to use excel is still not a sackable offence -
MangoChutney at 21:24 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
@garythompson gary, I'm sceptical of the whole AGW thing, but I think the inability to use Excel isn't a sackable offence, even if Jones meant the comment seriously. When making this remark Jones was refering to Scott Rutherford's mistake when providing data to M&M - Rutherford transposed data wrongly because he didn't realise the limitations of Excel. Again a genuine error -
bartverheggen at 21:21 PM on 27 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
It's a little strange at first sight that the UVIC model resulted in a larger temp trend than most other models due to colder pre-ind temperatures, whereas in this Schmittner study that same model resulted in a warmer than usual LGM temp. It's a bit apples and oranges of course, but it seems to require some explanation or the other? -
Tom Curtis at 20:42 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
With regard to Gary Thompson's efforts to start a fake controversy over whether Phil Jones uses Excel, Fortran, or Matlab for his statistical analyses; clearly that is no more grounds for controversy than whether he uses an IBM, HP or Acorn computer in his office. Frankly, who cares. But he is correct that email 1885 is evidence of a genuinely controversial act which reflects very poorly on the person involved. I refer, of course, to David Whitehouse's attempt to argue that global warming has stopped because over a six year period with a warming trend, that trend was not statistically significant. In Phil Jones' words,"Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I'm getting at you. I'm not - just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense. ... I would have thought that this writer would have know better! I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing." Indeed, stupid nonsense is right. Arguing that evidence of continued warming is evidence of a cessation of warming because the evidence of warming is not statistically significant (Whitehouse's argument) is beyond absurd. You would think denier's would be more wary about drawing attention to such examples of ... stupidity(?), dishonesty(?) ... I'm not sure how to categorize it. Perhaps the deniers are to used to people staring fixedly at the Great and Powerful Oz, rather than looking at the small man behind the curtain. -
Riccardo at 19:01 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
So we should judge the experties of a scientist from his ability to use a spreadsheet? I bet most would let a student do the dirty job. This email is telling for another reason. Jones is well aware of what trends and statistical significance are, unlike other skeptical scientists; Pielke Sr. and Curry come to mind. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:13 PM on 27 November 2011Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years
In references to Lars earlier comments about Nordic swimming exploits (Although Beowulf probably beat him) and water temperatures. Although Lamb's comments are anecdotal, they may well be right. Surely that is the whole gist of the map from Mann 2009. If the North Atlantic basin, particularly around Greenland was an area that showed so much warming, one would expect the water to be warmer. In fact our Nordic Hero/Shepherd couldn't have done what it is claimed he did if it wasn't. And it is most likely that an incursion of warm water into those regions was the likely cause of the hot spot on Mann's map. Nothing exceptional about any of this. But it has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether the whole Earth was warmer at this point in time. Which is surely the point of why skeptics love to cite Greenland, grapevines in England etc ad infinitum but don't mention the North-East Pacific, Australia, etc during the same period. That is surely the point. It is what the global picture looks like that counts. -
Bob Lacatena at 16:09 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Dan Bailey, I would suggest deleting the e-mails from Gary Thompson's comment. I personally don't think SkS should be a party to publishing private e-mail correspondence, no matter how prevalent such a transgression may be across the rest of the Internet.Response:[DB] Agreed and done.
-
Bob Lacatena at 16:08 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
74, garythompson, I'd also suggest that he's probably more used to working with the actual numbers and a stats package and could care less himself about graphs. He deals with other (numerical) aspects of the data. He could well have other people create graphs for the people that need them. Graphs are for amateurs. He pretty much says this in his e-mail, when he says "This is a linear trend - least squares. This is how statisticians work out trends. They don't just look at the series. The simpler way is to just look at the data...". -
Bob Lacatena at 16:07 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
74, garythompson, I've known tons of very high paid CEOs that also could not even start Excel, let alone create a graph... yet they do presentations for multi million dollar deals all the time. How do they do it? Oh, that's right, they have other people to handle the trivial details like creating graphs. They do the hard part, the thinking. Similarly, scientists have legions of grad students. Can many scientists do this? Yes, probably. Does it mean he's incompetent? Not remotely. Get off of your high horse. -
garythompson at 15:41 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
I have 2 problems with email #1885. First, It shows Mr. Jones doesn't have a basic grasp of data analysis that should be routine for any scientist-let alone one that requires this type of analysis to prove his hypothesis. Forget about Excel, he says that he can't graph 2 columns of data and no one at the office knows how to do it either! Do they hire any scientists at CRU? According to the email he had someone do this for him in 2006. Again, he can't do it himself? Many people in the world can't do this type of work but they don't call themselves scientists. I can't hit top spin on a tennis ball but I am not a professional tennis player. A scientist who can't do this simple data analysis would be equivalent to a plumber who can't use a pipe wrench, an electrician who can't read wiring diagrams, an auto mechanic who can't change the oil in a car or an astronomer who can't understand the celestian coordinate system. Pretty simple stuff and Jones appears to lack it. Second, Jones makes claims about trends when he hasn't plotted the data and when he knows it is not statistically significant. He says the "trend is up" even though he also says the data isn't statistically significant and he hasn't plotted the data to verify this. So it is now ok to eyeball the data, come to conclusions based on prior bias and not worry about statistical significance? ok, got it. Think how the AGW team would feel if they realized these types of comments came from a prominent skeptic. How would you be reacting? (-Snip-)Response:[DB] First, as noted earlier, Dr. Jones expresses an unfamiliarity with Excel, laments that no one who is familiar with Excel is currently available there at that time, and then proceeds to walk his correspondent through the methodology on how to calculate significance.
Scientists have email corespondences like this all of the time, many more caustic. Those who hacked the servers to steal these emails who have then selectively released a cherry-picked, minute portion are counting on fake-skeptics to overlook that loss of context.
It doesn't say what you imply that it does. The skeptical thing to do would be to acknowledge that and get over it.
Second, Jones makes claims about trends when he hasn't plotted the data because he knows it is not statistically significant because the time series length is too short for any trend to rise to the level of significance (so no need to plot the data and then test for significance).
He says the "trend is up" even though he also says the data isn't statistically significant and he hasn't plotted the data to verify this, because he knows it is not statistically significant (as defined above). So in this case it is now ok to eyeball the data and say that the "trend is up" even though he also says the data isn't statistically significant. Because the time series length in question is too short.
And how does he know that a trend since 1998 is too short? Because he has already tested for significance in temperature trend time series analysis often enough to know that such a length of trend is far too short for it to be significant. Got it?
Third, your focus on "teams" is misplaced. Science is not performed by "teams" (or "tribes"). There is no "us versus them". There are scientists doing science. Period. Anything else is ideology.
Copy of stolen property snipped. A link to it would have been sufficient.
-
Karl_from_Wylie at 15:17 PM on 27 November 2011Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
bill @1 You say... I seriously doubt that concern for the poor is an actual motivation... The Comments Policy states.... "You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives."Response:[DB] Please cease with the Concern Trolling. Thank you.
-
Karl_from_Wylie at 15:11 PM on 27 November 2011Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
Paul D @2 "... politics in the US has taken a path for the worse, resulting in political trench warfare" Your comments are Political... "....I actually consider many AGW skeptics today to be modern luddites" AND ad hominem...... Both are against the Comments Policy Comments PolicyResponse:[DB] The relevant portions of the Comments Policy you refer to are:
- No politics. Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments will be deleted.
Paul D was fairly even-handed in his discussion of politics, so it cannot be construed as a rant.
- No ad hominem attacks. Attacking other users or anyone holding a different opinion to you is common in debates but gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get deleted. Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' are usually skating on thin ice.
Since Paul D is not addressing anyone specifically, but is referring to "many AGW skeptics" he is, at worst, "skating on thin ice" with his use of the word luddite:
1. One who fears technology (or new technology, as they seem pleased with how things currently are...why can't everything just be the same?)
2. A group led by Mr. Luddite durring the industrial revolution who beleived machines would cause workers wages to be decreased and ended up burning a number of factories in protestA luddite generally claims things were "just fine" back in the day, and refuses to replace/update failing equipment/software/computers on the basis that they were just fine 10 years ago. -
rockytom at 13:28 PM on 27 November 2011SkS public talks in Canada and AGU, San Francisco
Hi John, It's interesting that you will be joining Callan Bentley from NOVA. I taught a geology course at the Annandale campus there in 1980 or '81. I don't know Callan personally but have been following his blog. I'm especially interested in his geology photos. Best of luck on your talks and seminars. My wife and I had a great trip to Vancouver Island and Victoria a few years ago. Be sure and see the butterflies. Tom -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:14 PM on 27 November 2011SkS public talks in Canada and AGU, San Francisco
That's great, John. Let's hope you all get plenty of positive publicity. (If not, I guess you will know how to correct it - grin.) -
skywatcher at 12:23 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
#72, it's also interesting that you demonstrate your own ignorance on the subject, taking interpretations from the self-confessed "Interpreter of Interpretations", Delingpole. If you follow the link back to the source, you'll see that Jones was explaining how to do a simple plot and least-squares regression in Excel, but cannot be faffed to do it at that monent (hence the keyword "now"). That he claims modesty on the speed of his computer skills is nothing new - many brilliant people do exactly the same thing, but only a fool would take that completely literally. He was complaining about a junk article by David Whitehouse, who clearly has no idea about how to determine if global warming has stopped, and provided a nice explanation for the guy who answered the question. If Jones couldn't work a spreadsheet, why is it that the second quoted paragraph is a perfectly reasonable explanation of how to plot and do a simple LS regression in Excel? Or do you just swallow whole every bit of misinformation from "the Interpreter of Interpretations"? -
garythompson at 12:03 PM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Does anyone else find it odd that Phil Jones doesn't know how to plot data in Excel? Or more importantly, how he makes claimes about trends without doing the plotting and while knowingly stating that the data is statistically insignificant? Sounds odd. It's in email #1885 and here is a link. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119495/climategate-2-0-the-not-nice-and-clueless-phil-jones/#disqus_threadResponse:[DB] "Does anyone else find it odd that Phil Jones doesn't know how to plot data in Excel?"
Many scientists do not, as Excel isn't the best platform for their work (R, or one of several other packages, are better suited for their work).
"while knowingly stating that the data is statistically insignificant?"
PRATT. Jones knows it's statistically insignificant because the time series length is too short for the trend to have risen to the typical level of significance.
Please show the original email in its context, not Delingpole's odd-sounding, served-up-on-a-platter, version.
That's what a real skeptic would do.
-
pauls at 11:09 AM on 27 November 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Tom Curtis In general, climate change occurs faster over land than at sea, but that is because of the large thermal inertia of the oceans. Over long time spans, the temperature change should equalize. Sutton et al. (2007) is a model study which finds that the land-ocean warming contrast is a robust feature of equilibrium warming as well as transient. To me this suggests equalisation wouldn't be expected. There's supposedly a more detailed follow-up paper on the land-ocean equilibrium response due this year - Dong, B.-W., R. T. Sutton, and J. M. Gregory, 2011: Understanding land-sea warming contrast in response to increasing greenhouse gases. Part II: Equilibrium response (in preparation) -
John Hartz at 10:49 AM on 27 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
@Mikel #70: If someone reading this comment thread knows of such a site, he/she will likely post it. In the meantime, I suggest that you engage in some serious surfing of the web on your own.
Prev 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 Next
