Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 Next
Comments 86801 to 86850:
-
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. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:00 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
chris@37 It is definitely not correct that saying a paper is methodologically sound is an indication to the editor that a paper is broadly acceptable, for the simply reason that the interpretation of the results may be incorrect, even if the method used to obtain those results is correct. The language Box used to convey this point to the editor in his review seems pretty standard to me, and I would be surprised if the editor did not pick up on the point that consideration of the 2010 data was a mandatory revision in the eyes of the reviewer, and thus an issue of some importance. Note if you read some of the papers that have been published giving guidelines on how to review papers, you will find they pretty much all tell you that you need to comment on the good aspects of the paper as well as the not so good. It seems to me that Box has a good grasp of how to write a useful review. Sadly they are only useful if you are willing to write them! ;o) I don't think there is much point in speculating on whether the editor was happy with the paper as it stood, simply because without a second review from Box, the editor may not have had enough justification for rejecting the paper given positive reviews from the other reviewers. Papers do occasionally get rejected despite positive reviews, but it doesn't happen very often, simply because the editor is not usually an expert on that particular topic. -
damorbel at 21:00 PM on 2 May 2011Renewables can't provide baseload power
Re #6, adelady you wrote:- "The issue is not variability, it's having enough of solar or wind and their associated storage in enough places with good enough connections to other places that might be running short at a particular time." I do not follow your argument. Surely it is the variability of most renewables that gives rise to the need for "enough connections" to "their associated storage" in the first place. I agree that "It's only the grid being able to accept from as well as distribute to many distant places at a time." But I don't see that as a problem. Grids can as easily source or sink energy as required, that is the essence of the Cross Channel Link - France has a different peak time to England thus it is easy to use one set of generators to assist with the peak load of a neighbouring one. However the assistance can be planned because the peaks are known (approximately); the matter becomes much more hazardous with renewable troughs that are not predictable. Worse still, the troughs in wind power can extend for weeks, far beyond any economic strorage facility to fill - storage in any form is very expensive. -
les at 20:47 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
36 DM... Indeed. It happens frequently that the editor/reviewer will accept a paper which still needs work - at initial review it's normally not much more than a 3 level assessment; reject/good/excellent. On the whole, people (editor, maybe reviewers) are pretty charitable and can often be putting in quite a lot work to get a paper up to scratch. One might also argue that it's in the best interest of a paper to suggest inclusion of the most recent results so that it's not 'obsolete' (as this post indicates) the moment it's published... which reflects poorly on both the journal and editorial board; particularly when those results materially impact the conclusions. Depends on the kind of paper - if the interest is in the method; there's no need to be bang-up-to-date; one can compare this method with that, as applied to any old data (if chris is right that the methods are poor, that's a different issue; I don't know). 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. -
adelady at 20:40 PM on 2 May 2011Renewables can't provide baseload power
damorbel, the only problem with renewables not being able to "provide peak load either" is grid construction and design. The issue is not variability, it's having enough of solar or wind and their associated storage in enough places with good enough connections to other places that might be running short at a particular time. With tidal, run of river and geothermal as a basis for predictable supply - once again depending on the grid - the variable elements may also have to come from outside a particular area. Seeing as centralised generation often serves long distances, that isn't the issue. It's only the grid being able to accept from as well as distribute to many distant places at a time. Remember also that sophisticated heating, cooling and refrigeration systems can be remotely adjusted, varying demand if needed. And in a decade or so, a good (and growing) proportion of electric cars will have a nice neat storage system always available. All we have to do is stop thinking that power (and storage) must always come from a central point. -
skywatcher at 20:36 PM on 2 May 2011We're heading into cooling
#36, Captain Pithart, that is absolutely brilliant! Though I need to go for a wash after reading all the right-wing claptrap in the comments. It doesn't look as if he or any of his faithful read the linked article... -
chris at 20:34 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Pedantry is quite useful in science Dikran! One should try to make one's point as clearly and robustly as possible. But I take your point. He could have recommended rejection at that point, but if he's already indicated to the editor the paper is methodologically sound (I have doubts about the validity of the statistical analysis but Box didn't even bother to address this), that's a clear statement to the editor that the paper is broadly acceptable. Note that the editor doesn't have to take account of a reviewer's recommendations and I think it's understandable that he didn't in the first instance back in September. It's possible that he might have reconsidered following a re-review in Jan 2011 (but we'll never know). I suspect he would have still allowed the paper through in it's present form, but with some very obviously required alterations of some key statements ('specially in the abstract). We'll never know that either! -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:13 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chris@34 That is a little pedantic, but o.k., Box should have recommended the paper be rejected. I read Box's review, and I disagree with your interpretation, Box made it quite clear what aspects of the paper were, in his opinion, good (method) and which were not (interpretation of the results likely to be misleading giving more recent observations). There is nothing at all unusual in saying that a paper is good, but still making a revision mandatory. There would be nothing at all wrong with rejecting the paper at the second review because a revision was not made, regardless of how good the paper were otherwise. I say this as someone who has been an author, a reviewer and an editor. -
logicman at 20:01 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
#3 - mozart In Arctic regions, ice shove formerly generated thick natural sea walls protecting the coasts. Those ridges of shorefast ice now melt out in summer. The result is a rate of soil erosion about 1/2 meter per year on average. Want to buy some nice beachfront property in Alaska or the Aleutians? http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/45803 #22 - Raymond F. Smith. Unless I am mistaken about your areas of expertise and your environmental concerns, my above reference to coastal erosion should be of interest to you. As to 'natural unstoppable' processes, there are none, just as there are no irresistible forces or immovable objects. Were you testing to see who is awake around here? As to a navigable Arctic - various dating techniques by various scientists show that the Ellesmere ice shelf began forming circa 5500 years ago and existed virtually unchanged in area until about 1945. Given that the shelf could not break up when held in place by the thick multi-year ice of the main pack, I strongly dipute any assertion that the Arctic was navigable in any meaningful sense until the USSR opened up the North East Passage with icebreakers circa 1930s. Given the overwhelming evidence that the Arctic ice is retreating faster than at any time in human history, that the Arctic generally is warmer than - and warming faster than - any time in human history, it is unsurprising that Greenland is warming also. What I find incredibly surprising is that any scientist would publish a paper excluding the latest data which would reaffirm such warming. -
Captain Pithart at 19:59 PM on 2 May 2011We're heading into cooling
Here's Neil Snyder in the American Thinker arguing for global cooling, using this very article as evidence to bolster his view: The Climate is Changing Alright, But It's Getting Cooler It's the link "Are we heading into global cooling?". Something makes me think he did not really read the entire article ;) -
chris at 19:53 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Dikran, I don't think Dr. Box was in a position to reject the paper in a re-review. That's the role of the editor who must balance the input of authors and all the reviewers. Also Dr. Box painted himself into a corner a little by indicating to the editor in his first review that the paper be classed as "good". One can hardly turn around in a second review and say actually now I don't think it's "good" anymore. However he was in a very strong position in early January 2011 to make some very forceful recommendations. He should have categorically insisted that the offending sentence (see point 4. in my post above] be removed from the abstract since this is a categorically incorrect statement. In my opinion the statistical analysis in the paper is also flawed (I am happy to be corrected, but the question of assessing satistical significance between contemporary melt data determined using one method with a reconstruction of historical melt using a different method is simply unjustified). Sadly, Dr. Box declined to address these points. -
chris at 19:46 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Incidentally, I might add that apart from the stuff about the review of FKM2011 and Dr. Box's role in this, the information in the top article about very recent Greenland tmperatures and melt is excellent. There's clearly good reason to be very concerned about the very recent data from Greenland. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:41 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
I don't really understand why Dr Box said he didn't want to review the paper again unless it was revised to include the 2010 observations. It would have been far better if he had said that such a revision was non-negotiable in his view and he would reject the paper unless it were made. Performing the re-review would then be simple, if a satisfactory revision were not made, he could simply give the review "The paper was not revised to include the 2010 observations, as detailed in my previous review, and hence is not suitable for publication in its present form." Refusing to review a paper unless the revisions were made simply makes it easier for a poor paper to make it through peer review as a hostile reviewer may be replaced by a less hostile reviewer. If there has been a failure of peer review here, sadly Dr Box is partly to blame - he should have re-reviewed the paper and rejected it. -
chris at 19:41 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
les, yes that seems right. Of course it's speculation to consider whether or not Dr. Box had "doubts" about the editorial process (perhaps he'll tell us!)...I don't see any objective reason for considering he should have had any doubts - confidential review procedures are (happily) not usually turned into blog circus's..... But no doubt this is something that can also be picked over to the delight of those engaged in diverting attention from the science and towards personaliites, conspiracies and personal slights over mean review processes. But yes you're right that Dr. Box declined to re-review the paper. That's pretty unfortunate and likely a reason that an unjustifiable statement was left in the abstract. Too bad.... -
les at 19:24 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
johnd - 11. I've got to agree with 14 - Rob Honeycutt Article reviewing isn't a democratic process. Normally each comment from each reviewer and the editor (not, normally, the publisher) should be answered by the author. The editor may advise the author regarding some comments from an individual reviewer if it's clear that comments are to far 'out of scope' (lets say; normally because some reviewer is having a rant - it happens!). If there is conflict between two reviewers, the Author has to find his way round that, normally by making both points-of-view and the alternatives obvious in the paper. As the editor sees fit, the paper may circulate several times till everyone is satisfied - so that a good editor/review team tends to add substantially to quality of the final paper. Apparently, what Dr. Box said is that he "did not wish to re-review the paper if the authors chose not to include 2010 temperatures." - so he did not 'point blank' decline to re-review the paper. This indicates to the editor the strength of his feelings on this issue... ... it's pretty clearly a message to the editor and, I'd read it as indicating that Dr. Box had his doubts about the editorial process at that stage. -
chris at 19:21 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Have to say I think this is one you haven't got quite right, and IMHO Dr. Box doesn’t come out of this in a particularly good light. The reason it’s worth pointing out the following is to counter the speculative theorizing about AGU/JGR editorial policy and the actions of the editor who dealt with this paper. 1. You should remove the quotation marks from the apparent quotation in the sentence in the top post:”Had the authors considered all available data, their conclusion that ‘Greenland climate has not changed significantly’ would have been simply insupportable.”
Nowhere in FKM2011 does that quotation appear. On the contrary the very first two sentences of FMK2011 read:“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.”
So FKM2011 do state both that 2010 had record high temperatures and that the cryosphere has likely been significantly altered. That doesn't sound like a conclusion that "Greenland climate has not changed significantly". 2. You should correct the statement that ”Their selective ‘findings’ were obsolete at the time the paper was submitted for publication in December of 2010.” The paper was submitted for publication in August 2010, and so the findings (why ‘findings’?) weren’t obsolete when the paper was submitted. 3. The reason that the editor didn’t consider that FKM2011 should update their analysis to include 2010 is likely rather different to what your article indicates. FKM2011 determined historical and contemporary melt using a model based on S. Greenland temperature/ice melt that was compiled from three separate groups. According to the authors this data doesn’t become available until 6-9 months following the previous year’s melt season (I guess one might want to check whether this is actually the case). If FKM2011 were to have waited to update the analysis in their paper to include 2010, they would have effectively had to wait a year, and would be left in the same situation of a referee saying: ”come on, why don’t you include the data for 2011?”. In my opinion it was appropriate that the editor over-ruled Dr. Box’s recommendation on this point. 4. The most problematic statement in FKM2011 is the one in the abstract that is reproduced in the top article, viz:”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.”
This shouldn’t have been allowed. And yet Dr. Box didn’t make any specific recommendation on this. He was offered the opportunity to re-review the paper on Dec 27th 2010 and declined to do so. It was very easy for the editor to over-rule Box’s main point [see (2.)] above following submission of Dr. Box’s review in September (after all the melt season was barely over). However Box was in a very strong position to make extremely forceful recommendations if he had taken the opportunity to re-review in early Jan 2011. But he didn’t. If I were reviewing the paper I would have insisted at this point that that sentence be removed from the abstract, since it was now clearly factually incorrect. Sadly Dr. Box chose not to do so. 5. Dr. Box’s review of the paper (he’s dumped it on his blog) is poor and sends a mixed message to the editor. Box rated the paper as “good” which is a clear indication to the editor that the paper is likely to be publishable. Clearly he doesn’t think it is “good” at all, as indicated by the storm he’s brewing up on his blog – so why give it a pass on that score in his review??. The review is a mess of grammatical errors, sentences lacking consequent clauses and gives the impression that he (Dr. Box) couldn’t be bothered to spend half an hour putting together a carefully thought out and convincing set of recommendations. He didn’t bother to address what seem to be dubious statistical analyses in FKM2011. He just threw his hands up in the air. 6. Dr. Box wrote a paper on a similar topic in 2009 [L.M. Wake et al (2009) Surface mass-balance of the Greenland ice sheet since 1866, Annals of Glaciology 50, 178]. The abstract concludes: (concerning Surface Mass Balance = “SMB”):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.”
One might argue that FKM2011 is rather more accurate in its conclusions (at least they say that Greenland’s cryosphere has likely been significantly altered!). If present day changes in Greenland were unexceptional in Box’s own words in 2009, then FKM2011 merely serves to reconfirm Box’s own conclusion. Clearly 2010 is anomalous. It remains to be seen whether this is a blip or the start of a greater period of rapid melt. Box’s own analysis from his (Box’s) excellent 2009 paper on historical Greeenland ice sheet surface air temperatures supports the latter conclusion, and I personally think his arguments are quite convincing in this respect. 7. Overall I think Box is playing into the hands of those that misrepresent the science. He was in a strong position to address some serious problems with FKM2011 and declined to do so. He indicated to the editor that the paper is "good" when it clearly isn't - considering that the paper is a purely descriptive and rather unenlightening confirmation of Wake et al (2009) [see (5)] above, I'm surprised Dr. Box didn't recommend it's rejection on that basis. Now he’s turned the issue into exactly the form of nonsense that the misrepresenters are more than comfortable with – a blog circus. He's made it all the easier for those that dump confidential reviews on their blogs as part of a complaint about unfair treatment during review - they can now say "well Dr. Box did it". To answer the “lingering questions” posed in the top post: 1. ”Why did Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels not include year 2010 data when they were asked to and when the data were readily available, yet the other papers containing the 2010 data published before theirs did?” The answer is (see [2] above), that data to include 2010 in the FKM2011 model for Greenland melt based on independently compiled S. Greenland temperature data wasn’t available either at the time of submission or right through the review process, and may still not be available. 2. “Why did the journal publish this paper without the requested revisions?” The answer is because the major requested revision was considered unreasonable (a justifiable decision in my opinion), and because other obvious revisions that would have improved the paper apparently weren’t requested (at least by Dr. Box). It’s a little late in the day to complain about this now, and isn’t very professional to do so on a blog! And one might as well point out that it's bleedin' obvious that Greenland temperatures were extremely high during 2010, and that this was the (so far) record melt season. It's not as if this can be hidden! An unnecessary storm in a teacup... -
damorbel at 18:14 PM on 2 May 2011Renewables can't provide baseload power
This thread presents a false dichotomy. The problem with renewables - except for hydro - is that they cannot provide peak load either. Hydro, in the form of pumped storage, is used where possible right now, it is not likely to be expandable to meet the difficult volatility problems arising from wind, wave and solar renewables and the slightly more tractable tidal variability.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Before we get going with multiple-hundreds of comments, please note that unsubstantiated claims have little or no value. Your statement about pumped storage not likely to be expandable falls into that category.Note the older version of this thread also addresses many of these points.
-
chris1204 at 17:38 PM on 2 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
DB: Thank you for your courteous response. Wouldn't the Judith Curry citation alone (admittedly from another Skeptical Science thread) qualify under the Comments Policy as an ad hominem remark? I guess so much of reality is in the eye of the beholder. However, Ken's integrity was fiercely attacked especially in the Flanner thread. I've never met Ken, have never corresponded with him, and indeed know nothing about him save what I have gleaned from his comments. I really don't want to regurgitate the arguments. However, looking at the Miriam-Webster definition of “ad hominem,” I note two meanings: 1) appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2) marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions I suspect rightly or wrongly that the website moderators might be relying on the literal meaning as in (2) sometimes referred to as “Play the man and not the ball.” However, I think there has been evidence aplenty of appeals to feelings (if not prejudices) rather than intellect on this and other threads. Marcus' most recent comments ("I will simply continue to dismiss [Ken] as a one-eyed contrarian") possibly fall into this latter category. As someone who has spent the better part of a professional lifetime writing reports and giving expert evidence in court, I've learnt that courtesy and politeness even towards people with whom you strongly disagree is integral to good argument. Knowing and acknowledging the weaknesses of your own position/ hypothesis is equally vital. In relation to the latter, I don't recall any sceptic here citing Plimer or Monckton in support of their positions both of whom I find somewhat an embarrassment (but I'm happy to stand corrected). I've also learnt that labelling others' arguments as "ridiculous" or "bad" invariably spills over into an inference that the proponents of these arguments are being deliberately obtuse or posting only to make trouble. It is far better to state that an argument is "flawed" and to point out the flaw without rhetorical flourishes. Simple formulae on the lines of "With respect" are essential lubricants of a genuine civil discourse. Other formulae on the lines of "You may have overlooked this" or "Have you considered such and such?" are equally helpful. It takes a patience and consideration but it’s always worth it in the end. I note a couple of contributors have suggested that I ought to look at what takes place on other sites. With respect, I’m not that naïve. I know the blogosphere is all too often a feral place. However, it doesn't need to be.Response:[DB] Thank you, Chris, for taking the time to make your reply.
I don't know who brought Judith's home on the webs into play here, but the only difference between that & CA or WUWT is the spelling of the URL. I simply do not care for the lack of respect, invective and abandonment of science and the scientific method expressed daily there.
WRT Skeptical Science and the dialogue on the various threads: it is an on-going work-in-progress keeping the conversation on-topic and focused on the science and not on the individual. The moderators are human and sometimes miss things. Nor is there any wish to stifle the conversation or dictate its direction.
That being said, certain individuals have taken it upon themselves to derail discussions on various threads. Some refuse to adhere to the Comments Policy, treating it as an optional practice not only not applicable to them, but raise a fuss and commotion when they force the moderators to intervene (further derailing the dialogue). Please realize that what the reader sees is but the tip of the moderation iceberg: the 90% of comments you don't see simply beggar belief. And yes, some of the most egregious were written by active contributors to SkS.
So it's a no-win scenario.
While I appreciate the candor and the striving for calm, invective-free dialogue you call for, please realize we are trying, and that Skeptical Science is one of the best places to interact in its online community of all the various climate science blogs on the Internet.
If you choose to remain & participate here, your contributions are welcome. If you choose not to, then I'm sorry to say that you will be the one depriving yourself of some of the best science dialogue available anywhere on the Internet. And I will miss the moderating example you have set.
-
Marcus at 16:31 PM on 2 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
"This last seems largely in response to Ken’s tongue in cheek references to belief in the angelic qualities of human nature and the apocalyptic tone underlying the predictions of the Club of Rome with a mild jibe recycling a chestnut relating to angels dancing on pinheads (none of this sounded even mildly religious in tone)." No Chris, my comments were in relation to Ken's *constant* insinuations-& outright accusations-that the consensus regarding AGW are some kind of religious belief-even though its clearly backed up by more than 100 years of physics & chemistry. Now had his comments been deleted, I'd have said nothing, but there's only so much denigration of the scientific community that I can stand-from Contrarians-before I'll step forward & say my peace, even if that involves intemperate language. Now, if Ken would like to stop making unfounded attacks on the proponents of AGW, & offer a more credible theory for the last 30 years of warming, then I'll be quite happy to respond in a civil fashion. Heck, I'd even like to see him take a break for long enough to make a criticism of the massive errors made by the more prominent members of his own side of the debate. Until he does so, then I will simply continue to dismiss him as a one-eyed contrarian.
Prev 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 Next
