Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 Next
Comments 86701 to 86750:
-
Albatross at 09:10 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Re #57, "Even if we assumed man's CO2 caused 100% of the 32 year trend of 0.3 C, that amounts to only about 1 C of warming over a hundred years." The warming is closer to +0.5 C in 32 years (as per RSS trend of 0.163 C/decade). So 0.163 C/decade translates into another 1.6 C of warming over the next 100 years should the current 32-yr trend continue. Regardless, the observed warming of almost 0.9 C since 1880, and most of that is in response to "only" a 40% increase in CO2 levels. There is just so much wrong with the numbers and logic in the above quote from #57 that it beggars belief.....it also goes to show, you can take people to the science, the data, but you cannot necessarily penetrate ideological barriers. -
Albatross at 08:52 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip, With respect,I agree with Rob's assessment that you are being disingenuous and not making a compelling argument. You claimed in your response that: "We would like to note that waiting for one more year of data is not going to materially affect our analysis or conclusions." We know that claim in demonstrably false, because the melt data for 2010 surpassed those for 2007, which renders the following from your abstract obsolete (i.e., including those 2010 would have very much have affected your conclusions): "The melt extent observed in 2007 in particular was the greatest on record according to several satellite-derived records of total Greenland melt extent." Including those 2010 data also renders the first part of this conclusion in your abstract obsolete, while also calling into question the validity of the second part of the following: "The greatest melt extent over the last 2 1/4 centuries occurred in 2007; however, this value is not statistically significantly different from the reconstructed melt extent during 20 other melt seasons, primarily during 1923–1961" So contrary to your claims made here and elsewhere, the 2010 do very much affect your conclusions and desired narrative. Regardless, the "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW now have a (obsolete) paper to point to which enforces their delusion and to demand delay in taking action. Congratulations. -
Chip Knappenberger at 08:44 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Dr. Pelto, Thanks for your comment. If PDDs are a good predictor of melt extent across the Greenland ice sheet, then their use as a proxy for a longer–term reconstruction should most definitely be explored. However, that was not the method that we used (which combined summer temperature and winter NAO). Perhaps our results could be furthered by examining the potential of incorporating PPDs. As far as “How are those [20] years found to not be statistically different?” we mean that the observed melt extent for 2007 lies within the 95% confidence bounds we determined for 20 of our reconstructed ice melt values. In our paper, we describe how we established those 95% confidence bounds. -Chip -
KR at 08:33 AM on 3 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - "Likewise, according to KR, all energy associated with waste heat must vanish through radiation as soon as temperature increases. If this were true (which it is not) temperatures would never increase, since all energy would radiate the moment something got warm, which it wouldnt, since all warmth would radiate before it could get warm (following KRs "logic")." Totally, completely incorrect. Given 0.028 W/m^2 forcing from AHF, and a warming of ~3/4°C per watt of forcing, AHF's contribution drives the climate warmer by an extra ~0.021°C. With that change the extra IR emitted from the top of the atmosphere will balance the AHF input. And if that was the only forcing on climate change, we likely wouldn't even notice. AHF forcings are trivial in comparison to greenhouse gases. You need to consider relative energies. -
RW1 at 08:27 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
DB (RE: 50), "RW, it is simply unacceptable here to post a quotation without providing both context for the quote and a linked source for the quote. That part of Skeptical Science ain't a-changin', despite the clamor of "skeptics"." The quote is from a recent piece of his entitled "A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action" You can google it if you want to read the whole thing. The quote aside, there is very little going on here with temperature record. The 0.3 C or so upward trend over the last 30 years could easily happen by dumb luck alone. I certainly don't dispute the upward trend or that man's CO2 may have contributed to it at some level, but it isn't very much. Even if we assumed man's CO2 caused 100% of the 32 year trend of 0.3 C, that amounts to only about 1 C of warming over a hundred years.Response:[dana1981] Sure, the warming could be natural variation, if you completely ignore all physics and climate science. Just like if I start a forest fire, it could have been started by a lightning strike! Aren't hypotheticals fun?
For your 1°C warming over 100 years claim, I refer you to Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming.
-
mspelto at 08:17 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
There is considerable research that indicates positive degree days are a reasonable first approach to glacier melt. Figure 3 above indicates that 3 of the 5 highest PDD days for Greenland have occurred in the last decade. Further given this graph of PDD where are the 20 years in the 1923-1961 period that FKM maintain, without providing any actual annual values, are statistically not different from 2007. Given the extraordinary melt season of that year and 2003 it is hard to see how there could be more than four years that would even be in the consideration. What was the actual difference between 2007 and those other 20 years? How are those years found to not be statistically different? That is the science question that FKM did not delve into as the results will highlight the unusual nature of recent melt. It is not just the 2010 data that is glossed over. Petermann Glacier is just one example of the canary that indicates the reality. -
Chip Knappenberger at 08:16 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Rob, We stated clearly in our response to the reviewer’s (Box’s) comments why we thought it unnecessary to delay our paper until we were able to obtain the melt data for the summer of 2010:“We would like to note that waiting for one more year of data is not going to materially affect our analysis or conclusions. While the melt across Greenland has been elevated for the past 10 to 15 years (and continues in 2010), this period of time is still only about half as long in duration as the elevated (reconstructed) melt across Greenland from the 1920s through the early 1960s. So the addition of one more year of melt data (i.e., 2010), will not impact this comparison.”
Prior to that comment, we explained why there would be a delay in updating our paper to include data for the melt season of 2010:“We don’t collect any data ourselves, but instead, obtain the processed melt data from various research groups, each operating on their own time schedule. The final/official release of the SSM/I brightness temperatures also takes about 6 months before it is available to centers like NSIDC. The updates in past years were therefore usually not made available to us until 6 to 9 months after the end of the melt season. In fact, the timing (August) of our original submission coincided with us finally obtaining the 2009 updates. Thus, waiting for the 2010 melt data would push the submission of our revised paper back until late spring or summer of 2011, at which point we may find ourselves again experiencing an interesting melt season which reviewers might feel important to include.”
If Jason Box knew that we had erred in assessing the availability of the melt data we required, and that in actuality it was available at the time, he should/could have pointed this out in response to our justification to the editor—and the paper perhaps could have been updated accordingly. However, as far as I can tell, Jason did not see our response to his comments (at his own instruction—although the editor may have thought it unnecessary to send it to him in any case, I don’t know for sure), and so such a clarification was never made. -Chip -
KR at 08:09 AM on 3 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
scaddenp - Thanks, the Dessler and Davis 2010 is very interesting. Paltridge appears to be analyzing a serious outlier (NCEP/NCAR) in the various analyses, and their finding that long term feedback has a different sign (negative) than short term feedback (positive) without an accompanying model for how that could happen seems to indicate that Paltridge is in error. -
Chris G at 08:02 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
The tragedy of the commons certainly applies, but what I think a lot of people who argue that any individual country derives no benefit from reducing its own emissions neglect is the fact that world powers do not exist in a vacuum. If you are a small player, you would derive no benefit, but if, say, China and the US cooperated in reductions, they could exert enormous influence on other countries to follow suit. For example, they could say, "If you want to trade with us, either follow our lead on CO2 reductions, or we'll tax your imports." Either country might suffice to get the ball rolling, but if the EU, China, and the US forged an agreement, the rest of the world would have little choice but to follow suit. -
scaddenp at 08:01 AM on 3 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
KR, Dessler and Davis 2010 for starters looks closely at it, but also Sherwood et al notes "However, this result had already been reported by Chen et al.[2008], who also noted nearly opposite results in the ERA‐40 reanalysis. Numerous studies have concluded that reanalysis data are easily corrupted by time‐varying biases and are therefore not useful for trend analysis [see U.S. ClimateChange Science Program, 2006]." Not to mention blog commentaries. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:48 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip... That is exactly where I read the comment. Can you tell me honestly, if this were any other topic of research, if a reviewer had notified you of additional information that would change the conclusion of your research would you only "note" the additional information? From reading both sides I get the sense that the issue is how the additional information is treated. Your group chose to note the additional information. Dr Box is saying that's not enough because the additional information fundamentally changes the conclusion of the paper. I'm I accurate? -
Chip Knappenberger at 07:25 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Rob, I appreciate your concern. Our work that was published in JGR grew out of a presentation that Oliver Frauenfeld gave to the Association of American Geographers Meeting in April of 2010 (abstract here) and an earlier presentation at the AGU’s in December 2008 (abstract here). At the time, our analysis only went through 2007. Following the AAG presentation, we decided to submit our research to JGR, and before doing so we gathered the latest data available and were able to update the analysis through melt season 2009 and submitted the paper to JGR in late summer 2010. We did not re-do the analysis between submission and final acceptance of our JGR paper for the reasons given in our response to (Box’s) comments which, as I stated earlier, can be found here. I hope that helps clear things up. -Chip Knappenberger -
Albatross at 07:06 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip, Thanks fro dropping in. I'm afraid you are making an incredibly weak case here and elsewhere on 'skeptic' and 'lukewarmer' blogs. And what is not helping your already weak case is that at least one of your co-authors (Michaels) is actively using your obsolete findings to mischaracterize the events unfolding in Greenland, and indeed globally. In fact, we have seen this very trick used before by "skeptics". It is now quite obvious why this paper was published in the first place, and why you were so reticent to include the 2010 melt data. Further, Tedesco and Fettweiss (2011) and Mernild et al (2011) managed to include those 2010 data, so you have no excuse. The narrative your paper is designed so as to play down the current events, and plays to the myth that "it has happened before", which is part of the "skeptical" memes that "it is not us" and "it won't be bad". Also, by you trying to keep people focussed on the past they are less inclined to think about where we are heading, and that is very much about what this is about, and you know that. Also, that spell of warmer temperatures between 1925 and 1960 and associated increased melt was regional and transient in nature. That is not what we are facing now or in the future. Down the road the warming will only increase as the radiative forcing from anthro GHGs increases (in addition to the natural release of GHGs as the permafrost continues to thaw, for example). I'll let you ponder this Figure:
[Source]
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:41 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip... In your linked article you state: "Response: While we sympathize with the reviewer and would love to have our paper as updated as possible, practical issues get in the way." That's as disingenuous a statement as I think I've ever read. How can "practical issues" get in the way of publishing a paper whose conclusions would immediately become obsolete when published? That doesn't seem at all "practical." It seems "convenient" for the Cato Institute. -
RSVP at 06:34 AM on 3 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
muoncounter 417 Somewhere around posts 389 or so, there was denial about the need to consider the heat that goes beyond skin depth. In order for anything to have a "large mass", there is a need to consider just a little more than surface area. One must multiply volume by density. ... and the following sentence... "Your exercise in high school algebra proves your thesis incorrect" is pure garbage. -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:30 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Sure Daniel. I added a link to your post as the third "here" in that section of our text. -ChipModerator Response: [DB] Thanks again, Chip! -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:15 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Guys, Since Jason Box posted his inital review of our paper (that he submitted to JGR), we have now gone ahead and posted our response to that review (that we submitted to JGR). It is available at: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/02/attempts-to-box-us-out/ Perhaps the information therein will serve to provide more insight into the review process of our paper. -Chip KnappenbergerModerator Response:[DB] In the interests of full disclosure, since you've already linked therein to Judith's and Lucia's blog posts on the subject, I'm sure you will be also linking to this post expeditiously. Thanks, Chip!
-
dana1981 at 06:12 AM on 3 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
I have the same thoughts about Curry's blog as comments #54 and 55. In my short time there (about a week), I was treated quite rudely by other commenters. The majority of the comments were either off-topic, insulting, or both. Most would have not made it through the SkS moderation process because they would violate the site comments policy. There is clearly no moderation at Curry's. You can't blame her, since the volume of comments is so high and she has better things to do. But to compare the commenting and moderation at Curry's favorably to that at SkS is just bizarre. There's really no contest in terms of quality of both comments and moderation (or quality of the blog posts, for that matter). Like I said, I left Curry's after less than a week and haven't been back since, that's how bad I found it (mainly due to the rude comments). -
JMurphy at 05:45 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
ClimateWatcher, how about you work out the difference between the most recent trend you have given and, say, the trend for the 32 years previous to that - from 1949 to 1981. What do you find ? -
KR at 05:38 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
ClimateWatcher - My apologies - reading that over, my last post was unnecessarily harsh. However: we're at 390 ppm, pre-industrial levels were 280, and we won't have doubled CO2 until we reach 560 ppm. At that time the best estimates are of a 3C temperature increase for short term, rather more for long term as ice and CO2 feedbacks kick in. Hence a 1.5-1.7K per century, rate increasing, (~0.8C so far) for the GHG increase we have induced so far is just about right for the various IPCC estimates. -
muoncounter at 05:35 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
CW#8: "I'm having a hard time justifying the 3 spot from there. " Why? Just because? Or do you have some inside information that you'd care to share? The current trend of 0.15C per decade is consistent with 2-3deg/doubling of CO2. Considering the NH warming rates are more than twice the global and the global temperature graph is concave up, worse is yet to come. -
KR at 05:30 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
ClimateWatcher - I hope you will note that we haven't doubled CO2 yet, and that in addition there hasn't been enough time for a full response to the forcings we have induced. 3K seems about right. Your comments are rather hard to justify, though. -
ClimateWatcher at 05:20 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
2. & 3. The trends since 1979 indicate a rate of warming at 1.5 K per century (1.7 for GISS, 1.3 for CRU). I'm having a hard time justifying the 3 spot from there. -
dana1981 at 04:59 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
CBD - I agree, Lindzen's position is likely based on a presumed low climate sensitivity. As I noted, we'll be addressing that Lindzen Illusion next. There really is no reason whatsoever to believe Lindzen is correct on low sensitivity, other than perhaps misguided wishful thinking. -
CBDunkerson at 04:48 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Presumably Lindzen's belief that global emissions cuts would have negligible impact is founded upon his belief that doubling CO2 would cause at most 1 C of warming... which doesn't appear to be founded on anything, and indeed directly contradicts observed reality. -
Paul D at 04:36 AM on 3 May 2011Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
The whole idea of 'base load' was invented by generating companies because they wanted to build large power stations for economic reasons. As a result the spare offpeak capacity had to be dealt with (the generators have to keep running even if the demand isn't there), to do this they pushed the consumer goods explosion in the 50s. Of course because the whole concept is established, it is inevitable that they now are scared of losing their share of the 'market' so are happy to push large nuclear and gas power stations and 'joke' about the inability of renewables to meet the demand that they manufactured in the first place! -
dana1981 at 04:27 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
As it so happens, the next Lindzen Illusion (coming later this week) will be on climate sensitivity. For now let's just say the smart thing to do is to assume the IPCC is right. -
Paul D at 04:26 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
The longer you argue that limits on CO2 will have no effect, the more truthful it becomes. Which of course is the whole point of the skeptic/denier game. The aim is to delay. -
arch stanton at 04:09 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Climate Watcher (#1) appears to have cherry picked a quote out of context and in doing so is essentially arguing against the contextual point of the author: “So Lindzen and Christy have a point here, right?” -
JMurphy at 03:55 AM on 3 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Interesting how some not only feel the need to defend those who they feel are on the same side as themselves and accuse others of a version of ad hominem (while turning a blind-eye to any such examples from said fellow-travellers). But even more interestingly is how such people also believe that websites like Judith Curry's are paragons of scientific discussion carried out in a rational, level-headed and objective version of reality - as opposed to Skeptical Science, I presume. Anyway, from the latest thread there on Curry's site, these fine examples : Ya know, you really haven’t got a clue about the true objectives of the UN via its front organization the IPCC and the white-coated wiseguys, but you do now. What if CO2 is beneficial? Yes, but not just more likely, it has been proven with experiments. Temperature and mean sea level indices are objective and non- manipulable? News to me. There have been far too many inaccurate climate predictions which seem to somehow be swept under the carpet and expediently forgotten when the forecast is ‘busted’ and there are seemingly no penalties for such alarmist behaviour which continues unabated. For me, Judith, this thread shows that neither you or the lawyer understand the idea of the “null hypothesis”. Climate change has always happened and it always will. It’s unstoppable. (I’m sure “Travesty Trenberth”, “Juggler Jones” and “Hysteria Hansen” have thought the same recently.) Of course ivory tower scientists and impractical wafflers have no clue about realities of the world. And the reaction to anyone who varies slightly (and I mean slightly) from the tribal viewpoint : Oh Bart – such obvious posturing from the clown prince of verbosity. Yes, I had a problem replying to silly Bart's silly description of Aus But were any of them "warmists", "lukewarmists", whatever-term-you-wish-to-make-up-to-define-those-you-oppose-ists ? Who knows. And what fine examples of courtesy and respect... -
Phil at 03:50 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
angusmac @51 Hansen (2006) suggests that we should be able to differentiate between Scenarios B and C by 2015. This statement only refers to the simulations reported in Hansen 2006 which were for the period 2000-2100, it is wrong to conflate Hansen's scenario C from 1988 with his AS from 2006 -
Albatross at 03:22 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
ClimateWatcher @1, Vacuous comments are not constructive. You need to please read this post, and the overwhelming scientific literature that supports a sensitivity of near +3 C warming for doubling CO2, and then re-read the article. -
JMurphy at 03:04 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Raymond F Smith, just in case you do return here, you would do well to (as well as go to the pages recommended by the moderator) have a look at skeptical arguments sorted by taxonomy. There you can type in most of your assertions (warmer before, ice-free Arctic ocean, green Greenland, current temperature rise, etc.) and find responses giving you the facts and figures. -
ClimateWatcher at 02:45 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
"Assuming the IPCC most likely climate sensitivity value of 3°C for doubled CO2" Aye, there's the rub. -
KR at 02:28 AM on 3 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
Berényi - From the Griggs 2004 conclusions: "Calibration has been performed so that the three datasets of spectrally resolved OLR recorded in 1970, 1997, and 2003 can be directly compared... which show features in the absorption bands of the major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... Simulations created using profiles merged from a number of datasets show that we can explain the differences seen in the CO2 and ozone bands by the known changes in those gases over the last 34 years." Water vapor indications in early datasets did not match well, which they conclude upon analysis of the OLR data is due to poorly understood temperature profiles for those early datasets - the 2003 dataset profiles are obviously more accurate. Results? Measured changes in CO2 and H2O spectra match observed concentration changes, and match the theory. Again. I cannot speak to the "weak lines" versus "far wings" issue directly, not having run line-by-line spectra (have you, Berényi?) - but the total CO2 focing is right along that predicted. This, I will note, discounts/disproves your rather vague questions of whether CO2 has a strong effect. Increasing CO2 concentrations are doing just what we expect them to do from the physics. --- scaddenp - Do you have links to any discussions on the Paltridge paper? -
Albatross at 02:27 AM on 3 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Chris @51, "Judith Curry’s Climate Etc has managed to create a very civilised forum with vigorous contributions from “warmists,” “lukewarmers,” sceptics,” and “deniers” alike all treated with equal courtesy and respect. Absolute and utter twaddle Chris, and you know it. Climate Etc is a cesspool of invective and vitriol, and innuendo (by the host), not to mention the posters are allowed to run amok and hurl insults at each other, and in some instances worse. Anyone who has spent any amount of time perusing the threads at Curry's place can attest to that fact. I could post some examples, but they would probably violate the "comments policy" here. If Curry's place is your idea of a "civilized forum", then we simply have to agree to disagree. And if you feel at home there and prefer that sort of poisoned environment, then by all means feel free to do so. SkS has very reasonable rules, that make it one of the most pleasant places on the internet to read and contribute to. If poster breaks those rules, including me (I had quite a few comments removed when I first started posting here, but instead of blaming SkS I took it upon myself to up my game and respect the host's rules), then they are welcome to try again, up their game or go elsewhere. What is more, they will often be warned first, and then only if they continue are posts deleted. The fact that some "skeptics" here are now reduced to complaining and arguing about the very reasonable moderation and comments policy here goes to show just how much trouble they (or rather their arguments) are in. And a closing note, as for "playing the ball and not the man", I am all for that, but certain "skeptics" here are very much in the habit of playing the man, and that then annoys others who, after much provocation, sometimes respond with comments of a personal nature. Now can we please get this thread back on track. If you want to pursue this further might I suggest that you please email John in person instead of clogging up threads? Thanks. -
chris at 02:18 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Tom Curtis at 01:46 AM on 3 May, 2011 Yes I agree with you Tom. There's no question that Michael's is using this paper to misrepresent current understanding of Greenland temperature progressions and ice melt. Unfortunately the reviewer(s) chose not to address the comments that support these interpretations. On the other hand, leaving aside the marked changes in 2010, the Greenland mass-balance changes were sufficiently "mild" (if that's the right word), for Dr. Box to state in 2009 that (concerning surface mass balance ("SMB") of the Greenland ice sheet):"All SMB estimates are made relative to the 1961–90 average SMB and we compare annual SMB estimates from the period 1995–2005 to a similar period in the past (1923–33) where SMB was comparable, and conclude that the present-day changes are not exceptional within the last 140 years."
It's obviously very easy to misrepresent these data. I think Daniel Bailey's top post is very good in putting recent Greenland changes into proper context. My main beef (which I've probably overdone by now) is that a tiny victory for the misrepresenters is in danger of being amplified by turning what is supposed to be a confidential scientific review process into a circus.... -
citizenschallenge at 02:17 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Daniel your post is quite the impressive tour de force of relevant information. Though I'll admit when I read meltfactor.org a couple days back, Box's approach felt unsettling. OK I'm just laymen, but it seemed like he was enabling another distracting "skeptical" dogfight. I think Chris has done a nice job of defining what I couldn't. On the other hand, I think you did a great job of putting the Greenland situation into perspective. After all it is that data that's more important than academic bickering over distracting minutia. You know how them “skeptics” love their mud wrestling. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ As for: "It seems the market, distilling all the information available, is not particularly worried." Right... perhaps if there were something like a real market out there. Unfortunately, our current free market’s dedication to Profits Über Alles has tossed out all notions of sober assessment. Here’s a apropos interview with Bill Black Associate Professor Economics and Law University of Missouri. Over at Harry Shearer’s Le Show {May 1, 2011} {litigation inspector for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board during the Reagan administration (S&L meltdown)}. Examines the endemic fraud within our banking and home loan system, and where it’s leading to. It’s a jaw dropping expose of what our “market” has to offer our people. -
grypo at 02:02 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
"And it's obvious that 2010 was a very warm year with a large melt. We don't have to pretend that FKM2011 are somehow hiding this reality" As we know from Pat Micheals' Cato ties, he was going to use the results from his study to promote what he wanted to. The point is made obvious by the fact it is exactly what happened . So I guess we can use all the angel pin dancing McIntyrian-isms we want to complain about how Jason Box went about what he did, but the facts remain. The paper is obsolete. It has been used as political tool. Box predicted this. Now the usual defenses against publishing crap are to attack what real scientists say about it. It's handwaving. Predictable. PS. Not attacking chrris here, just ranting. -
chris at 01:51 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
I don't think that works Dikram. In one sentence he specifies that data from 2010 be considered. In a second sentence he states that data from 2010 be included. I get the impression that everyone (Box, editor, authors) consider Box meant that the full analysis should be extended to include the data from 2010. That's certainly what the authors indicate in their comments on Dr. Box's blog. If that's not the case then the whole circus is a farce. And you think FKM might have been unsure what was needed??? It would be a dereliction on the part of the reviewer if they were. Neither the editor nor the authors should have been unsure. It's the job of the reviewer to make his recommendations clear! I'm very familiar with the language of reviews in scientific papers. I've eased around 80 of my own papers through the scientific review process. I don't know how many papers I've reviewed, but since I probably review 1.5-2 papers for every one submitted, I expect I've reviewed the better part of 150 papers. I would never submit a review as poorly written as the one we're discussing. If you feel strongly about something in a paper or a review, then you make sure your comments properly convey your meaning. I would never send a review with grammatical errors, ambiguities, vague statements and sentences that start but don't finish. And you say that the review isn't particulalry ambiguous...yet you've apparently come to a differnt conclusion than me (and everyone else??) about what Dr. Box meant in his sentences using variously "considered" and "included"....well....how ambiguous does a review have to be before it becomes more than not-particulalry ambiguous! -
Albatross at 01:48 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
CBDunkerson @54, " Lindzen at #50 provides another prediction... that warming will be limited to "a few tenths of a degree"." Indeed, that prediction has already been proven incorrect. Moreover, even if one looks at the satellite era (1979 onwards) , there has already been about 0.5 C warming in the lower troposphere during that period (1979-present warming trend +0.163 C/decade in the RSS data). Daniel Bailey @53, "Why you refuse to understand any of it is beyond me." Not that this is news to you, but the reason is very clear to everyone but the person being referred to, and that reason is denial. -
Tom Curtis at 01:46 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
chris @29, while your discussion with Dikran Marsupial about the ins and outs of reviewing articles is interesting, I am far more interested in the first point in your original post which seems overstated. You quote the paper as saying:"“Observations indicate that in recent years, surface air temperatures over and around Greenland have been considerably higher than during the previous four decades [Hanna et al., 2008], with record high temperatures during 2010 [Box et al., 2010b]. Likely as a result, Greenland’s cryosphere has been significantly altered.”
(My emphasis) What is note worthy about this quote is that the last four decades prior to "recent years" indicates the period of approximately 1960 to 2000, ie, the period following the "...period of high melt lasting from the early 1920s through the early 1960s". In fact, the paper also says (according to one of its authors) that:It is worth noting that the satellite observations of Greenland's total ice melt, which begin in the late 1970s, start during a time that is characterized by the lowest sustained extent of melt during the past century. Thus, the positive melt extent trend [during the past 2-3 decades] includes nearly equal contributions from the relatively high melt extents in recent years but also from the relatively low ice melt extent in the early years of the available satellite record. The large values of ice [melt] extent observed in recent years are much less unusual when compared against conditions typical of the early to mid 20th century, than when compared against conditions at the beginning the of the satellite record.
(explications by Michaels, emphasis mine.) The highlighted sentence looks very much like a claim that "‘Greenland climate has not changed significantly’", and the entire passage looks like a claim that the appearance of significant change is just a product of the start point of satellite observations. That certainly the way Michaels is interpreting it on his blog.Response:[DB] The recession line history mutely evident on the picture of Mittivakkat Glacier in Figure 4 directly contradict Michaels' and the FKM paper's position.
-
CBDunkerson at 00:26 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Actually, RW1's quotation of Lindzen at #50 provides another prediction... that warming will be limited to "a few tenths of a degree". Frankly, this is already false... unless we ignore the thermometer and proxy temperature records and consider only Lindzen's own, much shorter, satellite records. However, even that won't be true in ten to twenty years for the 'future generations' Lindzen speaks of. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:20 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
chris@44 "But you've apparently found a sentence that indicates that the data needn't be included but only considered" Yes, it is in the first paragraph of Box's review. " The paper thus, in the very least, requires a revision that includes consideration of 2010 data.". Also, the sentence before "I would therefore not recommend accepting the paper without a revision that included 2010." is "The paper may already be obsolete without considering the extreme melting in 2010.", which again implies that "including" 2010 data, does not necessarily mean a full reanalysis, but merely "consideration". If FKM were unsure what was needed, they could simply have asked the editor for clarification. There was nothing particularly ambiguous about Box's review, but perhaps you are not familiar with the language used in reviews of scientific papers. -
chris at 00:00 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
OK now we are being silly Dikran. We're attempting to "second guess" what Dr. Box meant when he said stuff in a review. My interpretation is quite the opposite of yours, and this is clearly a problem with Dr. Box's communication style. The role of a good reviewer is to provide clear and unambiguous recommendations to the editor. I take his statements to mean that the full analysis employed by FKM2011 be updated to include 2010. After all he stated: "I would therefore not recommend accepting the paper without a revision that included 2010." That seems pretty clear to me. But you've apparently found a sentence that indicates that the data needn't be included but only considered. Perhaps we can now undertake to see how many angels we can fit on the head of a pin! And if Box had really meant that "All the authors had to do was remove any assertions that were not well supported by all observations and/or added a section containing a caveat explaining the implications of the 2010 observations on their findings." then why, of why, didn't he say so??? It's not the editors job to attempt to assign meaning to ambiguous reviewer's staements. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:28 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
We are indeed about to go around in circles, Box made it perfectly clear that the paper should be rejected without consideration of the 2010 observations. This choice of words makes it clear that he does not necessarily require a full reanalysis, but an appropriate reinterpretation of the results in the light of those more up to date observations. If Box really meant that the analysis should repeated including the new model output as well as the observations, he would have said so explicitly. This could have been done at the time of review, and hence it would not have been reasonable for the editor to ignore that comment from the reviewer on the ground of availability of model output. All the authors had to do was remove any assertions that were not well supported by all observations and/or added a section containing a caveat explaining the implications of the 2010 observations on their findings. At the end of the day, the real problem was that Box did not participate in the second round of reviews. Once Box was not willing to recommend rejections, it limits the editors scope for rejecting the paper. Box was doing the authors a favour, we should all be aiming for quality rather than quantity. There is little (scientific) point in publishing a paper that is very likely to be obsolete (or at least questionable) by the time it appears in print. If the methodology is sound, the authors (and the journal and the scientific community) are better off for delaying publication to get produce a paper of genuine value, rather than a paper that is principally of interest to blogs, but otherwise of little impact. Of course if the additional data reverses the finding, then that completely vindicates Box. If it doesn't, then the FKM11 is vastly stronger for having done their best to disprove the result* (self-skepticism is key to being a good scientist). -
chris at 23:18 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
But if the methods are standard and the overall assessment of the state of affairs is key then, sure, they better be solid and up to date. I agree les. And as far as we can tell the data were up to date. The authors used the available data covering the latest possible year (2009). Compare the paper on a very similar subject that Dr. Box wrote published in 2009: [L.M. Wake et al (2009) Surface mass-balance of the Greenland ice sheet since 1866, Annals of Glaciology 50, 178]. This paper was presumably submitted in 2008 or 2009 and it analyzed Greenland mass balance. Did they included data through 2009? No. In fact they included data only through 2005. Why is that? I expect because that was the data available at the time. This all seems completely silly to me. You can't included data that doesn't yet exist, in a paper! It's completely acceptable to publish a paper that has a well defined end point that incorporates all of the available data that is used in your particular methodology. . You don't have to wait until another years data is available. And it's obvious that 2010 was a very warm year with a large melt. We don't have to pretend that FKM2011 are somehow hiding this reality. -
chris at 23:04 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Absolutely Dikran, As I'm sure you are aware, two of the main criteria that a reviewer uses to assess a paper (and thus to give clear guidelines to the editor are): 1. Is the data robust and the analysis of the data methodologically sound. 2. Are the interpretations consistent with the data. Dr. Box gave a clear thumbs up on 1. We can look at [2.] ourselves and conclude (especially with the categorically incorrect statement in the abstract) that there are problems there. Unfortunately Dr. Box chose not to address that. I don't see much point in complaining about it now. We're going to start going around in circles, but putting myself in the editor's shoes, I think it was very straightforward for him/her to reject Dr. Box's stipulation in September 2010 that data for 2010 be included in a revision. The authors would be quite right to state that this is an unreasonable stipulation since the data for updating their model to include 2010 wouldn't be availabe for a full 6-9 months. In other words they would find themselves in a situation where they might never be able to publish their data. Under these circumstances, the reviewer(s) should really have then stipulated (e.g. in a re-review) that (a) very strong statements about the very high temperatures and likely high melt be included in the paper (to be fair to everyone, some of this was done), and most importantly the categorically incorrect statement in the abstract be removed.... -
mspelto at 22:53 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
HR note that the Tedesco paper was accepted on January 7, 2011 and was published with lots of headlines across the blogosphere on January 21, 2011 and here on Jan 22, so ClimateCrocks is more up on the info than FKM. It was not a surprise at that point. FKM chose to ignore this very germane point, even if they could not model it properly without all of the data. I should also add that on January 31, 2011 I had to submit the chapter on Glaciers and Ice Sheets for BAMS State of the Climate 2010, and I included the Greenland data. The other aspect of FKM (2011) is the rather limited view. There are many papers in the last 18 months that more comprehensively examine the issue of surface mass balance and melting in Greenland. This paper just did not advance any new knowledge. We should be focussed on the weak underbelly of the Northeast side of the ice sheet Zachariae Ice Stream, and whether the Wordie and Wilkins Ice Shelf demise are an analog for it, resulting in a Hariot Glacier type acceleration and retreat. -
CBDunkerson at 22:00 PM on 2 May 2011Models are unreliable
trunkmonkey wrote: "How much CO2 would you figure was released by the burning of the European oak forest (much of it to slake lime)?" First, I don't see how this is relevant to CO2 levels in the models... given that those are based on measured atmospheric CO2 values, CO2 levels in air bubbles in ice cores, and various proxies. Second, you are ignoring the other half of the equation... when you burn down forestland you get grassland or cropland. All that new vegetation needs alot of carbon... which it gets from the atmosphere. The net effect is very little change in atmospheric CO2... though Ruddiman and others have suggested that the ~20 ppm rise over the ~8000 years prior to the industrial revolution was due to such 'land use' changes.
Prev 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 Next
