Recent Comments

Prev  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  Next

Comments 71451 to 71500:

71451. victull at 00:15 AM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Bob Loblaw @ 36 I have read some of your posts at Realclimate and you have made a succinct appraisal of Dr Pielke's modus operandi. He really does avoid the tough questions. I have the impression that when he talks about 'Joules of heat' that he really does not fully understand the principle of conservation of energy. Maybe this is just his poor expression, however he does make a valid point that ocean heat content should be the prime measure of warming. If 90% plus of the heat energy gained by the Earth is stored in the oceans then it must show up somewhere in the system. Temperature change and ice melt is a consequence of this heat gain. I do have a question for dana1981 though. From Figure 1 (Church et al) in your post - does the graph of ocean heat content take account of the instrumentation changeover from XBT to Argo measurement in the 2000-2003 period? The sharp spike in Rob Painting's graph @15 illustrates this better.
71452. MA Rodger at 00:07 AM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       chris @44 I think it is more complex than 'Does he notice? Does he care?" After reading through a couple of the SkS 'Pielke Sr Dialogues' I saw symptoms which you would find in many old professors right across academia. All professors have their pet theories and will do their best to further them. Some push too far with what everybody considers cranky theiries and colleagues distance themselves. This can result in a 'bloody-minded' attitude from the theorist. And very occasionally they can be proved right so 'bloody-mindedness' does have a place in academia. Add to that the effect of being a lecturer/teacher where you soon find listening to what inquiring students are actually saying is a major effort and counter to the main job which is lecturing. So responding to questions can be often 'over-managed' to the point of not listening. All this is fine. It is the stuff of academia where pushing a cranky pet theory is hard lonely work. The problem in climatology today is the new non-academic audience who love cranky pet theories and who, like the cranky professors, don't listen to all of what climatology has to say. They are acting as a cranky professor re-invigoration system. Given the importance of climatology at this time, the last thing we need is loud cranky professors with their bad science.
71453. Tom Curtis at 00:01 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Tristan @5, I will not be drawn into an of topic discussion. I will merely note, first, that you are wrong, and, second, that you have just admitted that in your view any conceivable behavior is compatible with morality. From the second if follows that any conceivable behavior is compatible with what you consider to be acceptable behavior. I will note the second point, and not assume hereafter that any of your actions are restrained by an ethical imperative. I recommend that all your friends and acquaintances do like wise.
71454. Tristan at 23:53 PM on 30 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       I contend that much of ethical theory is unsupportable, arbitrary and has been rendered obsolete by the field of anthropology. There is no basis for the idea of a 'genuine article of morality' that doesn't have roots in a theological/humanistic worldview. That is to say, ethics and morals don't exist in a vacuum. They are a function of whichever axioms exist in a given model. The AGW discourse should steer clear of moral proclamations, although appealing to the public audience will of course involve drawing behavioural equivalences between action/inaction on climate change and action/inaction in other areas.
71455. Bernard J. at 23:19 PM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Whatever their fan-clubs might imagine now, I strongly suspect that in the fullness of time history will look back very unfavourably on the 'scientific' pronouncements of the likes of Pielke and Curry. On the matter of the zombie meme about recent plateauing of global temperature, I would invite both Pielke and Camburn above to engage in this little exercise... 1) consider the scenario where global temperatures increase following the median trajectory described by the IPCC 2) consider too that this scenario unfolds with future annual temperature variability of the same magnitude as has been observed to date 3) on average how many years prior to 'present' would, at any random point on the future time-line, always be statistically non-warming, even when there is an underlying consistent global warming occurring, and even when there is absolute recent warming occurring? Once that has been properly dealt with, they could try this alternative: 1) consider the scenario where global temperatures increase following a severe-case trajectory described by the IPCC 2) consider too that this scenario unfolds with future annual temperature variability of the same magnitude as has been observed to date 3) on average how many years prior to 'present' would, at any random point on the future time-line, always be statistically non-warming, even when there is an underlying consistent global warming occurring, and even when there is absolute recent warming occurring? What do these answers say about folk who trumpet non-warming in short time periods immediately prior to present?
71456. Tom Curtis at 23:19 PM on 30 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Tristan @3, the claim that morality is arational is one of the most pernicious and evil ever made, and flies in the face of much of ethical theory. Because in fact morality, at least the genuine article, is truly rational, speaking rationally may require from us moral condemnation. Indeed, speaking rationally about morality requires of us the moral condemnation of those who would divorce morality from reason, and reason from morality.
71457. Bernard J. at 22:10 PM on 30 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       

       Nah, parody always wins. Or is at least more entertaining. The relevant cherrypick is the interval from 2002 forward.

       And that is exactly what happened, to wit: Curry seemed to have jumped the shark whilst simultaneously riding a shark. Sad thing is, I don't think that it was parody... [Not sure how the double posting occurred - apologies.]
71458. Tristan at 21:44 PM on 30 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       A site called 'rationally speaking' makes declarations of moral condemnation? Being rational is the process of evaluation without recourse to moral judgment
71459. shoyemore at 20:46 PM on 30 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Readers might be interested in a more academic evaluation of denialism. Massimo Piglucci has the best philosophical site on the web (and why not? He was formerly a Professor of Palaeontology, with a track record of opposing creationism). In a recent post he drew attention to a journal article by Lawrence Torcello on the subject of ethical standards in public discourse, with special reference to the various "denialisms" - HIV, vaccines, climate etc. Torcello points out that actual skepticism is about positive inquiry and critical thinking, as well as proportioning one’s beliefs to the available evidence (not to mention being willing to alter those beliefs if and when the evidence changes significantly). Pseudoskepticism, on the contrary, makes a virtue of doubt per se, regardless of other considerations, and is therefore irrational. Torcello proposes three recommendations for public discourse: (1) Ethical obligations of inquiry extend to every voting citizen insofar as citizens are bound together as a political body; (2) It is morally condemnable to put forward unwarranted public assertions contrary to scientific consensus when such consensus is decisive for public policy and legislation; (3) It is imperative upon educators, journalists, politicians and all those with greater access to the public forum to condemn, factually and ethically, pseudoskeptical assertions without equivocation In (2), some have typified this as censorship. I disagree - the word "unwarranted" most certainly applies to many climate denialist tropes e.g. that scientists are enriching themselves on great money. Thanks for the post, SkS, I think you are tops for (3) in Torcello's list except that you go beyond condemnation in favour of refutation. All great philosophers have held that, if the playing pitch is level, the truth will always win (eventually!). Rationally Speaking: The ethics of scientific inquiry and public discourse
71460. chris at 20:42 PM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       I've found these "discussions" with Dr. Pielke very iluminating. I had assumed that Dr. Pielke, while occupying the "contrary" position on climate science, was essentially presenting his position in good faith, with an assumed set of scientific justifications. He's demonstrated very clearly that that simply isn't the case. Does he realise the impression of bad faith his discourse reveals? Perhaps he doesn't care. In any case and in line with the general philosophy of SkepticalScience this has been very educational and revealing.
71461. Rob Painting at 19:58 PM on 30 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Great lecture! And no, not just because of the SkS plug. The bull in the china shop analogy is a pearler! The role playing voice gives it that extra spark of humor.
71462. Tom Curtis at 17:56 PM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       gpwayne @42, an incitefull essay, which deserves an easier link. One part I particularly enjoyed was the comment on the similarity in argument style between creationists, 9/11 tuthers, and AGW deniers, a commonality I have noticed myself:

       "In his 2005 book The Wisdom Paradox, clinical professor of neurology at New York University School of Medicine Elkhonon Goldberg wrote that pattern recognition was an aspect of perception that does not deteriorate as we age, and may in fact improve throughout our lives. What we describe as ‘wisdom’ is often an ability to deduce hidden or opaque information, sometimes with (apparently) very little to go on, because we recognise the patterns. When Pielke turned up at the SkepticalScience site to defend his position, the patterns emerged thick and fast. My familiarity with his methods owes much to the time I have spent in CiF arguing with AGW sceptics. Not just them, but creationists, 9/11 troofers, Millennium bug deniers, even – to my surprise, since I thought we’d really nailed down the lid of this particular coffin – a few ozone hole sceptics, emerging from their foxholes to discover the war was over, and they lost. Methods employed by these disparate groups are remarkably similar, and consistently inconsistent. In particular, if you have a really good argument, they will relentlessly avoid it."

71463. gpwayne at 17:36 PM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Well, my reaction to all this is a sense of deja vu. As a student of communication strategies, the discussions have followed a path very similar to that employed by Pielke in response to my basic rebuttal on this site of his claim that 'global warming has stopped' based on a single metric - that of upper OHC. The constant shifting of goalposts, the obfuscation, the claim to be offended by 'allegedly' personal remarks while also making them (e.g. 'snarky'), all conform to the pattern of rhetorical sleight of hand on display in my previous discussion with the man. I have written about my encounter, and the patterns employed by people who I find disingenuous, here: http://wp.me/pv7Zf-9J That said, I think the manner in which the discussion has been held, moderated and maintained by SkS is a credit, both to the site and to the discussion of science. You have exposed the weakness in Pielke's science, and allowed him sufficient rope, as it were. Those who can be bothered to check the facts, the arguments and the rhetoric can, as ever, decide for themselves who is properly sceptical, and who is not.
71464. Albatross at 15:58 PM on 30 October 2011
       Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
       You rock Daniel. Thanks!
71465. Daniel Bailey at 15:54 PM on 30 October 2011
       Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
       It was a good day, it was a bad day; added 3 months of posts long thought lost: Jan 13, 2010 Models Jan 19, 2010 Hottest Year Jan 27, 2010 Post Dispatch Jan 30, 2010 It’s a slow week Feb 4, 2010 Skikda Feb 6, 2010 Gridiron Games Feb 8, 2010 Combining Stations Feb 8, 2010 The Real Climate McCarthy Feb 13, 2010 Prime Meridian Feb 15, 2010 Dropouts Feb 15, 2010 Open Thread #18 Feb 15, 2010 Summer and Smoke Feb 16, 2010 Growthgate Feb 18, 2010 Cherry Snow Feb 22, 2010 Statistical Geometry Feb 22, 2010 Snow Feb 23, 2010 GHCN: preliminary results Feb 25, 2010 False Claims Proven False Feb 25, 2010 Shame Feb 25, 2010 Interesting Comment Feb 25, 2010 Show and Tell Feb 26, 2010 Thanks Feb 28, 2010 Update Mar 1, 2010 Replication, not repetition Mar 5, 2010 Global Update Mar 5, 2010 Message to Anthony Watts Mar 11, 2010 Update, and a good post by the Rabett Mar 11, 2010 Not a Random Walk Mar 16, 2010 Still Not Mar 21, 2010 The Power — and Perils — of Statistics Mar 22, 2010 Good Bayes Gone Bad Mar 24, 2010 Bad Bayes Gone Bad Mar 25, 2010 Temporarily Offline
71466. dana1981 at 14:05 PM on 30 October 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #20
       The content of the post contradicts the "scientific robustness" claim too, trying once again to blame global warming on the all-but-dead galactic cosmic ray hypothesis. Basically calling Dr. Muller stupid while themselves making a really dumb argument.
71467. Albatross at 13:14 PM on 30 October 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #20
       Another defamatory depiction of Dr. Muller curtesy of Dr. Pielke Senior's friend and colleague Anthony Watts at WUWT. Yet, Dr. Pielke continues to assure us that Anthony Watts is "devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness".
71468. muoncounter at 12:41 PM on 30 October 2011
       The BEST Kind of Skepticism
       BEST's FAQ page tackles the meme we've heard a lot lately: Has Global Warming Stopped? The graph shows the results of our analysis with 1-year averaging (to smooth it) for the last 6 decades Their conclusion: the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
71469. Tom Curtis at 12:27 PM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Camburn @35, Dana noted above Dr Pielke's abuse of imprecision about statistical significance. You show the same pattern. In particular, while it is possible to draw a line from a point inside the 2004 1 sigma error bars and a point inside the 2011 1 sigma error bars which is flat, trend lines are not determined by drawing a line from peak to peak, still less from peak to trough as is so often done by so-called "AGW skeptics". Because of the relatively low 2006 values on that graph, a trend line from 2004 to 2011 would rise.
71470. Tom Curtis at 12:18 PM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Camburn @24, I have responded to your points elsewhere, where the comments are on topic. In brief, I show a graph of the BEST temperature results for CONUS showing a positive linear trend over the last 100 years. The graph matches the pattern shown inline by DB @24. I also point out the need for spatially homogeneous sub-samples to avoid distortions, a requirement not met by the BEST sub-sample on which you relied. Please respond on the other thread.
71471. Tom Curtis at 12:13 PM on 30 October 2011
       The BEST Kind of Skepticism
       Elsewhere Camburn is trying to maintain that BEST shows that temperatures have not risen in the contiguous states of the United States (CONUS). Unfortunately for him the BEST program includes a paper analyzing the difference in trends between OK and Poor climate stations as rated by Anthony Watts'Surface Station Project: As can be clearly seen, CONUS shows a warming trend over the 20th century. There are three statistically significant phases - a warming trend from 1900 to the 1930's, a cooling trend from 1940's to the 1970's, and a warming trend since then. The three warmest periods all fall within the last 15 years. What is not so clearly seen, because their patterns are so close, is that the poor stations as rated by Watts show a smaller warming trend than do the OK stations. That is something worth noting. Also worth noting is that Camburn's discussion of CONUS was a distraction after he was shown to incorrectly describe the BEST results for the entire world. On that point he defends himself by saying:

       "GISSTEMP tells us that the number of sites used is not important. The BEST data in the reconstruction that you are talking about should match fairly closely the other sites used."

       Of course, what GIStemp shows us is that reasonably sized spatially homogenous sub-samples of the data will show the same pattern. The BEST data set on which Camburn based his claims (a randomly chosen sample of 2000 stations excluding all stations used by GHCN, Hadley/CRU, or GISS) is not a spatially homogenous sub-sample. On the contrary, it shows significant spatial bias because of the very heavy bias in the station quantities towards North America and Western Europe, a bias exacerbated by the exclusion of the overlapping stations.
71472. michael sweet at 11:45 AM on 30 October 2011
       The BEST Kind of Skepticism
       Why do the BEST results seem to stop at the start of 2010 instead of going up to the present like all the other data sets? That makes the graph end on a cold month instead of the hottest year. Since GISS and NCDC both have 2010 as the hottest year, this ending month biases the BEST graph low, especially to lay people using their eyecrometers. Since everyone else has the data presumably BEST had it also.
71473. dana1981 at 11:42 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Even Dr. Pielke has admitted that the upper 700 meters of OHC warmed since 2003, and of course when we include the deeper layers, the warming is even larger. All of this is discussed in the post above. Camburn seems determined to deny this, but the thing about denial is that it doesn't change reality.
71474. dana1981 at 11:28 AM on 30 October 2011
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       dging, see the final figure in this post (although it uses 3°C sensitivity, not 3.4°C. As you can see, the result is that the projection is a bit low).
71475. Composer99 at 10:52 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Camburn: The Skeptical Science team has carefully laid out the remaining points of disagreement between themselves and Dr Pielke. If you have anything to add to this post pertaining to those points of disagreement which you feel bolsters Pielke's position, please share it. Assuming, of course, that you have the goods (empirical evidence or solid statistical reasoning). There are, if memory serves, three other threads on BEST. Please take any quibbles regarding the BEST results to them.
71476. Bob Loblaw at 10:52 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Re: Camburn @ 35 when you enlarge the photo, you will see that a flat reading is very possible within the error bars of the 0-2000M readings. ...and it is also possible to place a very steep line within the same short period of data (with error bars) - much steeper than the long-term statistically-significant trend. But that would be cherry-picking, not science. At the very least, it's good to know that you know about errors bars on regression slopes. Please stop abusing them.
71477. Bob Loblaw at 10:47 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Although I've been reading SkS for a while, I've only recently begun posting here, and the discussions with Dr. Pielke have been interesting. (I've also been involved with discussions with him at RealClimate, which followed similar patterns, but we'll stick to the discussion at SkS here.) As a general comment on the exchanges with Dr. Pielke, I find it particularly illuminating that he so frequently avoided direct questions, and so frequently dealt with repeated questioning by saying things like "let's agree to disagree" or "let's move on". I once went through a mediation session with someone who would make unsupported (and in my mind, incorrect) claims about stuff (the stuff that we were in mediation about). I would of course challenge these claims, which would lead to a period of discussion about why we each held the views that we held, and nearly every time it looked like I was correct, he would stop this discussion before it could be finalized. He would say things like "let's agree to disagree", or "well, it looks like we won't be able to resolve that now" - basically anything to prevent ending up at a point where he would be clearly shown to be wrong. The key elements of this behaviour were two-fold: 1) his method of ending discussion made it very difficult to actually resolve anything, because he was a) usually wrong, and b) unwilling to let the discussion go to places that would show he was wrong. 2) he had a habit of going back to the same point later, treating it as if he was correct, and pretending there had never been any discussion that questioned his correctness. He would hold that view because I had not proven to his satisfaction that he was wrong. This, of course, led to us having the same debate again... I have no idea whether he thought this pattern was a clever debating strategy, a reasonable way to discuss things, or a sub-conscious psychological method of avoiding admitting he was wrong, but it surely was not a constructive process. At times, he would actually lose his temper, and I suspect that the "agree to disagree" type statements were a way of ending the discussion before he lost his temper. As for Dr. Pielke, he exhibits some of the same traits. Clearly, he seems more comfortable in an environment where his statements are not examined critically. His tendency to leave the discussion to return to his own blog where he can say what he pleases without opposition is quite telling. He is, or course, free to do so - his blog, his rules - but it makes him look (to me) as someone that wants a soapbox, not a scientific discussion. The fact that he thinks that SkS has "an argumentative manner of debate" and snarky comments, but sees nothing particularly wrong with WUWT, says to me that he only looks at tone when the comments disagree with him. It's just a way of avoiding substantive discussion that isn't leading where he wants it to lead. Overall, his participation here has not left me with a favorable impression of him, science-wise.
71478. Camburn at 10:45 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Thank you Albatross: when you enlarge the photo, you will see that a flat reading is very possible within the error bars of the 0-2000M readings. The same can be said of the 0-700M readings.
       Response:

       [DB]  This is off-topic on this thread.  Take it to one of the OHC threads.

71479. Albatross at 10:39 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       SkS readers, Here is what the oceanic heat content (OHC) data look like, with error bars. [Source] Regarding uncertainty of the full depth Argo data, this is what von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2010), found [my bolding]: "Annual mean GOIs from the today’s Argo sam[p]ling can be derived with an accuracy of ±0.10 cm for GSSL, ±0.21×10^8 Jm-2 for global OHC, and ±700 km^3 for global OFC. Long-term trends (15 yr) of GOIs based on the complete Argo sampling (10–1500m depth) can be performed with an accuracy of about ±0.03mmyr-1 for steric rise, ±0.02Wm-2 for ocean warming and ±20 km^3 yr-1 for global OFC trends." Those readers, are the facts, the statistics.
71480. Albatross at 10:21 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Everyone, Camburn is clearly trying to derail the thread in an attempt to shift the attention away from Pielke, there is a name for doing that. Discussing (and misrepresenting) the BEST data is off-topic, and can be done on that thread. Can we please try and keep our eye on the ball? Thanks.
       Response:

       [DB] "Camburn is clearly trying to derail the thread in an attempt to shift the attention away from Pielke, there is a name for doing that.  Discussing (and misrepresenting) the BEST data is off-topic, and can be done on that thread."

       Agreed.  Take the details to the pertinent threads.  This thread is about Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary.  And the word you referred to is "trolling".

71481. JMurphy at 10:19 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Camburn : "OHC has leveled off since 2003, temps have dropped as confirmed by BEST." Oh, but I thought BEST confirmed that the globe was warming ? Better check what they actually stated :

       In so doing, we find that the global land mean temperature has increased by 0.911 ± 0.042 C since the 1950s (95% confidence for statistical and spatial uncertainties). This change is consistent with global land-surface warming results previously reported, but with reduced uncertainty. Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process

       That's strange : BEST actually reckon the globe is significantly warming and Camburn reckons that BEST 'confirm' that temperatures have dropped. Now, who to believe and rely on...
71482. Camburn at 10:17 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       muoncounter: No, I have not had enough time yet to fully digest BEST results. Their press release indicated that CONUS had not warmed, which is correct. With that statement, I think the rest of the results will be accurate. Bob: Yes, slopes of regressions have error bars. Albatross: I have not read anything that can establish with certainty a warming of the OHC to 2000M. The quality of the data with XBT was not good. ARGO is much much better, but the length of time is not sufficient to state that a genuine warming has occured. I will agree with many things concerning AGW. I will not agree with statements made with a certainty that is not there.
71483. muoncounter at 10:11 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Camburn#22: "Best has a cooling bias since 2003." Already addressed here. Statistically insignificant.
71484. Bob Loblaw at 10:10 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Rob @20: This is why I tend to agree on Dr Pielke on this one issue, OHC is a great metric of global warming, but only if we can measure right down to the bottom. Um, my recollection is that Dr. Pielke has a much stronger position on this one: he keeps arguing for using OHC as the primary metric. I would agree that it is a good one, but his attempt to discount everything else seems unwise. Camburn @25: Dr. Pielke Sr. saying the OHC has been flat since 2003 is totally correct Only if you ignore the error bars (and stick to the 0-700m layer), which you claim to look at. Slopes of regressions have error bars, too.
71485. muoncounter at 10:08 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Camburn#24: "BEST shows that CONUS has not warmed in the past 100 years." So that must mean you have not looked at anything related to the BEST data?
71486. Albatross at 10:08 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Camburn, "Dr. Pielke Sr. saying the OHC has been flat since 2003 is totally correct with the information and length of credible measurements that we have today. " That is simply not true. Please, these antics are getting offensive, they really are. The oceans are not 700 m deep. And, regardless, the 0-700 m OHC has most definitely not "been flat" since 2003 as we have shown here at SkS: "However, we examined the data from several studies on the subject (provided by NOAA), and found that between 2003 and 2009, the upper 700 meters accumulated between 1.1 x 1021 Joules (Levitus - though this reference may be slightly out of date), and 5.6 x 1022 Joules (Palmer), with Willis et al. falling in between at 5.1 x 1021 Joules. " You can verify that yourself by downloading the data and analyzing them. You are making demonstrably false and unsubstantiated claims, and defending Pielke's cherry picking with you very own cherry picking. Beautiful. In doing so, all that you have demonstrated is 1) your complete disregard for proper statistical analysis, 2) that you are ignoring internal variability in the climate system, and 3) that you are ignoring the fact that the Argo floats measure data down to 2000 m, and 4) that you believe the warming should be monotonic (which is has not been and will not be).
71487. dging at 10:08 AM on 30 October 2011
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       The article says "we find that in order to accurately predict the global warming of the past 22 years, Hansen's climate model would have needed a climate sensitivity of about 3.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2." Can you show me those results. I'd love to see just how well the model worked for the 3.4 degree forcing.
71488. Camburn at 09:59 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Tom@19: No, I have not been accused of anything at WUWT. I seldom post there as I am not an ardent follower of that site. As far as the KKK, if someone made that accusation, that is intolerable. As far as you being insane?....mmmmm.....(Ok. I am laughing, that is a reallllly good one.)......I hope?...:)
71489. Camburn at 09:55 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Albatross: Long before Dr. Pielke Sr. stated that, I stated that. I look at the error bars of the metrics in question. Dr. Pielke Sr. saying the OHC has been flat since 2003 is totally correct with the information and length of credible measurements that we have today.
       Response:

       [DB] "Dr. Pielke Sr. saying the OHC has been flat since 2003 is totally correct with the information and length of credible measurements that we have today."

       Actually, the only way your statement would be correct would be to word it as follows:

       "Dr. Pielke Sr. saying the OHC of the 0-700m has been flat since 2003 is consistent with the information and length of measurements (which are admittedly incomplete as they do not monitor the full depths of the oceans) that we have today. 

       But of course, any time series of that short of length has no meaning anyway; therefore, Dr. Pielke's statement itself only serves to confuse those with a passing understanding of the science."

71490. Camburn at 09:52 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Tom: GISSTEMP tells us that the number of sites used is not important. The BEST data in the reconstruction that you are talking about should match fairly closely the other sites used. From what I have been able to read so far, BEST shows that CONUS has not warmed in the past 100 years. I can agree wholeheartedly with that as that is what all of the temp data from the NOAA site indicates, and it is born out by old folks living here. Yes, antidotal, but true.
       Response:

       [DB] "From what I have been able to read so far, BEST shows that CONUS has not warmed in the past 100 years."

       Perhaps you will need to re-read that passage.  Of course, the experts at NASA/GISS would take issue with the veracity of your statement:

       

       [Source]

71491. Albatross at 09:52 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Dear "skeptics" and those in denial about "AGW", Please, instead of trotting out long debunked myths and cherry picking, could you focus instead on the scientific discourse between SkS and Dr. Pielke, and Dr. Pielke's misrepresentations and disregard for professional statistical practices. If you wish to try and defend those by using accepted statistical methods and the peer-reviewed scientific literature, then by all means go ahead. Thank you. Interestingly, the posts thus far by Pielke apologists and "skeptics" are only reinforcing the truth behind Dana's statement: "Dr. Pielke, on the other hand, seems to constantly try to feed these "skeptics" ammunition for their arguments. For example, as we have discussed here, Dr. Pielke cherrypicked data in an attempt to argue that TLT and OHC have not increased since 1998/2002/2003/etc. in an attempt to argue that the warming has stopped. The "skeptic" interpretation of these comments could not be easier to predict - "Dr. Pielke says that global warming stopped a decade ago." So a heartfelt thanks for so nicely proving our point.
71492. Camburn at 09:48 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Dana1981: Best has a cooling bias since 2003. Daniel: The quality of the deeper ocean readings is such that one can not make a case that they have warmed, nor cooled. The error bars are just to big as of yet. The 0-700 meter readings are basically flat, with a cooling bias since 2003. I agree, the time period since 2003 is to short to conclude that the trend of warming has stopped. One thing for sure tho is it has not accelerated.
       Response:

       [dana1981] First of all, the word you're looking for is "trend," not "bias."  Secondly, when somebody shows you the data that proves you're wrong, and you still maintain that you're right, I think that's the very definition of denial.

71493. Tom Curtis at 09:45 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       actually thoughtful, in one BEST paper they show a temperature reconstruction from a random selection of 2000 sites, excluding all sites used by either the NCDC, GISS, or Had/CRU. That represents just 6.5% of all available stations. Because those agencies use the best available sites, and because there are few available sites not used by those agencies in many parts of the world, the reconstruction based on a limited selection of BEST only sites is very noisy (conspicuously so), and shows a decline in temperature over since 2002. Camburn is apparently quoting that reconstruction as being the full BEST reconstruction, which is of course incorrect. From his example, we can expect this to be a new denier meme in the near future.
71494. Rob Painting at 09:39 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       It would absolutely weird if the global surface temperature trend wasn't following the trend of the surface ocean given that the oceans cover around 70% of the Earth's surface. But as the observations show, most of global warming is going into the oceans, and a large chunk of that is going into layers below 700 mtrs. This is why I tend to agree on Dr Pielke on this one issue, OHC is a great metric of global warming, but only if we can measure right down to the bottom. The 700 metre layer just doesn't cut it, even though it is largely responsible for surface temperature trends.
71495. Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Camburn, your comments merely show that you have not been accused of insanity or associated with the KKK at WUWT. I have (for both), the former by A Watts himself. When the latter was pointed out, A Watts first deleted the post, and the offending post, but then falsely accused me of being the only person to mention the KKK on the thread.
71496. Daniel Bailey at 09:31 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Dana, Camburn's bowl of cherries also included a leveling of OHC since 2003; a claim clearly refuted by Rob's graphics. Regardless, the "skeptics" (of whom Camburn is but one) love to focus on the noise in hopes of taking the focus off of the larger trend (which is significantly up). It would seem that the only thing significant about Camburn's 8-year trend is that "skeptics" simply choose not to understand what significance really means in science.
71497. dana1981 at 09:20 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       BEST is actually dead flat since 2003, though as we all know, 8 years is too short of a timeframe to make any meaningful statements.
71498. actually thoughtful at 09:03 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Camburn at 14 - radical claims need to be supported. What is your source for stating: "temps have dropped as confirmed by BEST. A period of cooling overall is very evident."?
71499. Rob Painting at 08:43 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Ken in Oz - The upper ocean (down to 500 metres) is very strongly associated with ENSO due to the tilting of the thermocline. So the fact the 700 metre layer heat content has stagnated in the last 5 years, when La Nina has dominated, is hardly surprising. This is something Dr Pielke should be aware of, but apparently isn't. Regardless, as seen in figure 1, the oceans below 700 metres are readily warming up. More on this in an upcoming post. But note the interesting trend between the various ocean layers: SkS commenter jsquared broke down the NODC data into Northern & Southern Hemisphere components too: So just looking at the 700 metre layer really tells us little about the ocean warming as a whole. And that is the whole point of the SkS article Ocean heat content and the importance of the deep ocean.
71500. Camburn at 08:39 AM on 30 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Ken in Oz: There is an acknowledged spliceing problem when ARGO data was incorporated with the XBT data in the 2000-2003 time period. OHC has leveled off since 2003, temps have dropped as confirmed by BEST. A period of cooling overall is very evident.
       Response:

       [DB] "OHC has leveled off since 2003, temps have dropped as confirmed by BEST.  A period of cooling overall is very evident."

       Umm, no.  Incorrect, nonfactual and unsupported (take your pick).

Prev  1422  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  Next