Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 Next
Comments 119851 to 119900:
-
Tom Dayton at 11:02 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, one way to comment on cross-post topics is to add your substantive comment to the post that is devoted to that topic (e.g., "It’s the Sun" and the other posts that John Cook and others have pointed you to), and then add a short comment to the multi-topic post (such as this one) with a link to your comment on the other thread saying "I've commented in more detail on the thread X." You can link to your comment by right-clicking on the comment's time-date, copying the link, then pasting it into your shorter comment within the appropriate HTML tags. A major reason for commenting in the appropriately specialized post, is that the post and the existing comments probably address your concern. By reading those first you can hone your comment to more effectively get the answer you desire or to spark the discussion you hope to start. Another reason to stick to the appropriately specialized post is to avoid diluting the discussion of the broader post. -
Nichol at 10:58 AM on 8 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
very nice slides! Nice the way you start by showing the earth is not in a static equilibrium, but in a dynamic one, with lots of CO2 being released and absorbed, but the natural flows balance each other. The balance is now tipped a bit by burning all those fossil fuels. Likewise with energy: lots of energy arrives from the sun, heating up the earth, and the warm earth radiates off lots of energy, balancing what came in. If we add even a thin blanket of CO2, that balance is shifted, causing the earth to warm up. This non-static equilibrium is not so easy to communicate, and I think you did it very well. ok, as you asked for some nitpicking, I'll try ;) I'm curious to see the effect of water in the graph on page 10, is that to the left, at lower frequencies? (Not sure if you'd want to explain at this point that water can be considered a feed-back, but it would still be nice to have it in the plot). Is 'brightness temperature' proportional to energy flow at a given frequency? I'm a bit confused at how you define a 'temperature' at each given frequency, while the energy per foton is also proportional to frequency (wave number). Looking at this plot naively, one might get the impression that the 'dent' due to CO2 is not as bad as the one from methane. Might be worthwhile if you could remake this plot with axes more easily understandable in terms of energy flow. What is the problem with the nice graph on page 11? Are there no measurements in the US and Canada? The white band across Sudan, Congo, Angola might be easier to understand.. but isn't it still surprisingly blank? About page 14: the warming of the troposphere is not all that obvious, compared to the fluctuations. Also: should the big fluctuations in the top and bottom graphs not be more anti-correlated? OK, after zooming in, I see volcanic eruptions played a role.. tricky plot. Did people get stumble over the subtleties during your talk? page 27: after so many plots about melting ice, you only mention that seawater expands when it warms up. Did people pick up that this effect is not less important than the ice? -
kdkd at 10:29 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech: The list of 700 references that you linked to is pretty useless without including annotations at the least. Without reading each of the 700 papers it is impossible to tell why you think they go against the scientific consensus, and given the strength of the scientific consensus, I have a strong position that in many cases you must be misrepresenting the findings of the authors. However because you've decided on this listing approach and provide no extra information, it's impossible to tell. -
HumanityRules at 10:19 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
155.JMurphy at 02:25 AM on 8 May, 2010 Humanity Rules quotes CoalGeologist asking : "the presumption that there has to be some other explanation than AGW, because AGW couldn't be true" For me, the important word in CG's sentance is "couldn't" that may appear in polemical rants but it doesn't appear in any of the science that questions the concensus. You could argue a little of the reverse appears in the AGW arguement. Using CG words from any earlier post. Because CO2 is the biggest (or only) knob controlling contemporary climate change then we have to have theories that exclude all others. There is a little of this in Trenberths ideas on the 'missing energy'. The argo bouys have to be wrong or the energy has to be in the deep ocean because AGW says it has to be somewhere. -
skepticstudent at 10:12 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Well as I said, I give the devil (no reference intended) his due. Whether I agree with all the comments here, it is increasing my education level and honing my skills and making me a better writer. -
skepticstudent at 09:49 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
To Tom and John, I believe it was fair of me to enter my comments here. If the 5 points of the NAS paper have been addressed in other threads, I think it is fair to address them here as they are being brought up here. I don't think it could be fairly construed as off topic when the topic of the thread IS the paper. With all due respect.Response: A fair point which is why the comments stand (and I appreciate you taking my suggestion of shorter, more specific comments). I would still recommend doing a quick search before commenting in the chance that you're bringing up a point that has been examined elsewhere - at least so you can see what is being discussed elsewhere. -
skepticstudent at 09:45 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
As I mentioned yesterday in a post that needs to be re-written end of calendar year 2007 beginning of 2008, Alaska, Canada and Arctic Ice in general saw a tremendous increase in ice levels. 2008 had the 3rd coldest winter since thermometers were created in 1775. Temperatures have been continuously declining since 1999. The main reason for the tremendous increase in Arctic ice was accounting to heavier than normal windstorms causing the snow to not stay in one spot as is typical. As we all know, eskimo's build igloos as the snow acts as insulation. Having said that, because there was far much less snow insulating the ground there was a tremendous amount of ice growth in the arctic. I would like to know what logical fallacy I threw out by the way. -
Riccardo at 09:41 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, being right is seldom obtained by brute force. Your unchecked list just indicates that someone (you?) had a lot of spare time to compile it. Given the lack of science (which your final yawn well clarify) this is what is left to skeptics. We don't need such lists, reading the scientific litterature is a far better tool, the rest is nonsense. -
skepticstudent at 09:40 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
In response to angliss at 08:55 AM on 8 May, 2010 skepticstudent - if you want to be taken seriously here, please supply references and refrain from logical fallacies. Would you care to provide a reference for your claim that winters in Alaska, Washington, Russia, and western Europe have been snowier, as well as evidence that snowier = colder? I will reference the tracked temperatures of the US Weather beareau and the fact that I lived in Alaska in 2008 and it was colder than the previous year etc etc. Snow has typically been known (since I took science in 6th grade) to mean a given point in time that temperatures are colder. It doesn't snow in summer, ergo winter is colder than summer. Given the temperatures of Alaska, Russia and several other places, it would be a reasonable conclusion that my statements were not baseless. It has been suggested to me that my comments be made shorter so I won't go further than that. As to what makes snowier=colder. next comment -
skepticstudent at 09:34 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
To Mr. Cook and everyone else. I just went and read the comments about previous global temperatures and co2 levels. They seem to be right on with what I've been saying both in response to this paper at the top of this thread. The only thing I would have to check from both sides is whether or not during the medevil warming period what the levels of sun activity was. I believe there have been some newer research showing that at times in the past when sunspots were higher the temperatures were similar to what they are today. However I digress. That comment that Mr Cook was nice enough to link me too pretty much denies that any manmade activity could cause disastrous results because the carbon levels in the past were not caused by man. I'm just making this reference here because it was linked to this thread based on my earlier response to this paper. -
Tom Dayton at 09:27 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, in the left margin, near the top, of every page there is a list of "Most Used Skeptic Arguments." At the bottom of that list there is a "View All Arguments" link that leads to a descriptive list with links to all the arguments that have posts. Also useful is the Search field at the top left of every page. -
skepticstudent at 09:23 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Tom, I was responding to the topics as presented by the paper in this thread. Which is why I numbered each of my statements to match the numbered statement in the release. I am new to this blog and I don't know where all the threads are yet, however I was very much on track as I was responding directly to the topics as numbered in the paper. -
omnologos at 09:22 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
re #11 Lest we forget: it took 80 years for the evidence of pre-Cambrian fauna to be accepted. Ironically, Nature magazine rejected one of the most compelling proofs, as it was presented by a "nobody", only to change their mind when finally a renowned scientist bothered to check things out. So much for peer-review and consensus science. -
Tom Dayton at 09:19 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, it sounds like you might want to discuss that topic on the thread There is no consensus.Response: Just for the record, I did email skepticstudent suggesting he post shorter comments on specific scientific topics and he has been doing that. I would also suggest to skepticstudent that you do a quick search before commenting as many of the topics you do raise are covered in detail elsewhere on this site and a quick search will find them easily. -
omnologos at 09:18 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
On a lighter note...why 255? Did they run out of memory on their Z80 processors? 8-) -
skepticstudent at 09:16 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
robhon I gave them the respect they deserve. Whether I agree with them or not does not mean I don't respect the hours, sweat, and time away from family any scientist puts into their scientific degree. However, and I mean this with all due respect... Einstein was laughed out of numerous houses of academia because he had not proven his theory of relativity. He went from one to another with the same results. If I were around at the time of Einstein, I would have told him the same thing I am saying today, just because you say the same thing over and over based on previous results doesn't make it any more right this time than the previous times. It doesn't make it any more valid when you have a bunch of well respected scientist saying the same thing that less experienced scientists say. -
Riccardo at 09:11 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
notcynical, given the well known offical position of the NAS I bet many of them will agree at least on the part about the science. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:06 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@skepticstudent... I think you need to step back for just a moment and challenge yourself and your own grasp of the subject matter. We are talking about 255 members of the NAS. These are not your run-of-the-mill PhD's. These are some of the finest minds in the world, and these are also the members of the NAS who are most familiar with climate science. They know of what they speak. One needs to ponder the significance of the statements these people are making. These are NOT willy-nilly assertions. They are making very definitive statements about the state of climate science and the predicament humanity faces. Stop and listen. -
notcynical at 09:03 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
It would be interesting to know how many, if any, members of the Academy were asked to sign and declined to do so. -
skepticstudent at 08:58 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
5.5.The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more. Again, there is no scientific evidence to date that shows any horrendous raising of coastal water. I believe the IPCC worst estimate brought forth in any of the 1-4 assessments was a raising of about 1 foot globally. Where is the catastrophe in a one foot rise in oceanic levels. The seas have risen and lowered far more drastically than that through the ages. If there is any question, I can take you to places in Alaska where ancient natives wrote in rock that is now under water and then other ancients that wrote on rocks which is now dozens of feet from shoreline even at highest of tides. The importance to note is this is at a known native Alaskan fishing village which is over 2000 years old or older. Another good example is Lake Shasta, California. My grandfather grew up there in the latter half of the 19th century. The town he grew up in was flooded and covered by water for 45 years because of heavy rainfall for several decades. It is now uncovered again.Response: Sea level rise is observed by tidal gauges all over the world - you can't judge a global trend by a few anecdotal examples. This trend is confirmed by satellite measurements.
Observations of sea level rise since the IPCC predictions show they have underestimated future sea level rise by not taking into account the accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica. When this is taken into account, various studies using independent methods have found sea level rise by 2100 in the range of 75cm to 2 metres. -
angliss at 08:55 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent - if you want to be taken seriously here, please supply references and refrain from logical fallacies. Would you care to provide a reference for your claim that winters in Alaska, Washington, Russia, and western Europe have been snowier, as well as evidence that snowier = colder? Also, just because CO2 has followed initial temperature rise over the ice core record, that doesn't mean it's doing so now. This is referred to as a "predictive appeal to history" fallacy, and it's something I addressed here. In fact, given that deglaciations take thousands of years, scientists currently hypothesize that a CO2 feedback in response to a small initial change in insolation is what drives the ultimate transition from a glacial period to an interglacial (Source). -
skepticstudent at 08:53 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
4. Where are the studies that say the oceans are becoming more acidic in nature? I have not seen one. Throw into this again the fact that combined NASA and Remote Sensing Systems study showing oceanic temperatures are showing global oceanic cooling over the last 10-20 years. Are we absolutely positively sure beyond a 100% shadow of a doubt that any possible acidity levels have not been caused by volcanic effluence beneath the oceans surface? I have not seen any exhaustive studies on either side of this comment.Response: I have links to studies on ocean acidification here (note - it is by no means a comprehensive list - I very much welcome anyone willing to submit more peer-reviewed papers to our database). There's also more exposition on ocean acidification here.
The oceans are not cooling. The upper waters show some short-term variability due to exchange of heat with deeper waters. But measurements of ocean heat down to 2000 metres show a steadily warming trend. -
skepticstudent at 08:50 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
3. Again at numerous times in earth history the co2 ppm levels have been 18 to 36 x's higher than they are now so, which natural forces are being overpowered by human interevention. At times when the equator was a sludge pot so hot you'd boil just getting into the water the co2 levels were lower than they are today, there have been an ice age or two where the co2 levels are higher than they are today and there have been times with similar temperatures where the co2 levels were 18x's higher than they are now. Once again there is a statement of previous times natural forces being affected by man's activities but no scientific evidence to back this up. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:46 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech...I would also point out, as John just has on his latest post, that the 255 NAS members who signed this letter were the list of members who are MOST familiar with climate science. -
skepticstudent at 08:45 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
2. ***( deforestation surely plays a role, however since many of the farms which stole trees from the South American Rain forests are now growing back in exponential numbers we should see some leveling in that region. Also again CO2 is known to be the 5th least effective of the greenhouse gases and there have been points where it was 7000 to 14000ppm compared to the paultry 385ppm today. Where is the emergency? The earth is still here and has levelled out numerous times. It has been proven numerous times that when you look at things over a million to 10 million year period, it is very obvious that carbon levels follow temperature levels so again what is the emergency? -
skepticstudent at 08:44 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Let me be the first to respond to this august panel (my compliments to anyone who sits through 4-12 years of science to earn a degree of any kind) 1. **** NO, but a decade of snowy winters in Alaska, Washington, Russia and most of western Europe make a statement towards declining temperatures. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:34 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech... The individual degrees these people hold is irrelevant. This is THE top scientific organization in our fine nation. This is a rather large group of HIGHLY accomplished scientists, arguably many of the finest living scientists humanity has to offer. Their issue is not about climate science per se. It is about the outside political and special interest forces being exerted on their colleagues. They are also making a clears statement that the climate science is sound, to the point of declaring it a "theory" same as evolution and the big bang, and stating that it can be viewed as fact. These are extremely definitive terms they are choosing to lay out. And they are also stating that climate science is, at the same time, a process of discovery that involves, as I have pointed out, disagreements. But you can't take the disagreements and hold them up to suggest that AGW is not real, anymore than you can hold up a disagreement in evolution and hold that up to suggest that evolution is not real. -
MarkR at 07:40 AM on 8 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
cdion: the argument seems quite complex in the papers I've read (Hansen did one in '95 iirc), involving interactions with clouds too... But one simple explanation might be that days are cooler than nights. Heat flow is related to temperature by something like Planck's Law (accounting for emissivity), dQ/dt = A ε σ T4 (that's heat flow proportional to temperature to the power 4, the other symbols are constants). If you change heat flow by a given amount, a hotter thing will warm up less than a cooler thing will. To increase from a T of '1' to a T of '2' requires an increase in heat flow of 15/(Aσε) (from '1' to '16'). To increase from a temp of '5' to a temp of '6' requires an increase in heat flow of 671/(Aσε) units. So if you add a heat flow of 15/(Aσε) from, say, greenhouse gases, you could warm something from 1K to 2K, or from 5K to something like 5.02K. i.e. nights should warm faster than days. Once again though, the real argument seems pretty complex; with the full observations requiring greenhouse gases and cloud changes and scientists seem to take a full paper to explain it! Maybe a quick look at Hansen's '95 paper is worth a go, you've reminded me to check it again when I next have time! -
Tom Dayton at 07:36 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, instead of pasting large blocks of content from other sites (your comment with that was deleted), you should link to the original site. In response to your request, no I will not do that research for you. The signers of the letter are listed at the bottom of the letter, and their affiliations are listed in the supporting material. But if you want to argue about how many scientists take which position, the appropriate thread is not this one. Instead, post on There is no consensus or on the threads listed in the "Related Arguments" green box at the bottom of that one. -
carrot eater at 07:30 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
This is turning into a mere exercise of digging up things other people have said somewhere. Which is useful inasmuch as they're relevant, but simply linking something is not the same as reading it, understanding it, critically assessing it, and then discussing it. Simply showing that something exists does not demonstrate that it is valid. Granted, for somebody who isn't a specialist in paleoclimate (and I surely am not; I'm not even that interested in it), there's only so much time you might want to devote to getting into it. No one person can be an expert in all things. I applaud robhon for being upfront, that he isn't a specialist, but that he appreciates that the process works out - science proceeds over time. -
Riccardo at 07:20 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Again, as in the main post, this is just a useless fight. This kind of argiung is not in the interest of adding something to the science. There's something really a-scientific behind it. Sentences like "Defending Mann's work is the equivalent of defending the Titanic as unsinkable" means absolutely nothing but make clear the intention. Which is unacceptable. -
Tom Dayton at 06:57 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, the letter from a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences was published in the May 7 issue of the journal Science. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:47 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
The NAS letter is about YOU. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:39 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech... It takes only one but also takes more than one person to believe it. The broader scientific community has NOT accepted it. But again, that is part of the scientific process. What you are doing is literally taking film of one punch in a 12 round fight and deciding the whole match on it. The rest of the scientific community obviously did NOT see this as a knock out blow, as witnessed by the open letter from 255 NAS scientist that came out today. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:31 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech... I think you should read my previous post again. It wasn't about Mann at all. It was about the public perception of science and the battles that go on that are part of the scientific process. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:19 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, for the slow-witted among us, could you explain how Mann's reply to Mc&Mc 2009 is incorrect, in your own words? How is it funny? Tell us in your own words, please. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:50 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech... I think what doug's comments point out is the same thing that I'm actually trying to say in my main post above. This IS what scientists do! They challenge each other. They battle. They quarrel. They snipe and sometimes even get unpleasant in their exchanges. That is part and parcel to most science and is particularly true of a contentious issue like global warming. The mistake to make is thinking that Mc&Mc somehow completely invalidate Mann's work. This is the process by which solid scientific theories are built. But what is happening is the broader public out there is being fed details of this robust scientific process and are being told that everything is broken, when in fact it's not. The good fight is extremely important. Science would get nowhere without it. The problem with the public perception of this process has to do with a lot of unfair amateur refereeing going on along at the side lines. -
cdion at 04:50 AM on 8 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
Nice slides! I have a question. In the notes, you say: "The greenhouse effect operates day and night so this means nights should be warming faster than days." The logic for this escapes me. Why faster warming during the night? -
NewYorkJ at 03:12 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Ned: "Maybe you're right and the previous commenter was just referring to "why he cannot get any climate change papers published." If that was unclear to me, it was probably unclear to others as well (or, maybe not :-) " I took it to mean "why he cannot get [the stuff he's complaining about] published". Thanks for the link to the E&E discussion. -
Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, Let's assume we toss out the CRU data. Now what? Where does your argument go from there? The remaining datasets all show either the same results or more warming, and most of them do have the raw data and source code available. Your entire line of argument is a red herring. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:45 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Waiting for acknowledgment by Poptech of Dikran Marsupial's concise and complete explanation of which historical temperature data is available, which is not, the reasons for that. By the way, complaining about supposedly "missing" raw temperature data is akin to complaining that you can't read War and Peace because you can't read the same physical copy of the book I read. Get a copy of the book, read it yourself, draw your own conclusions. My margin notes don't change the book. -
JMurphy at 02:25 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Humanity Rules quotes CoalGeologist asking : "the presumption that there has to be some other explanation than AGW, because AGW couldn't be true" Humanity Rules then asks : Who is making this presumption? Oh wait I remember, it's the straw man. Do you mean this 'straw man' : Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. Dr Tim Ball -
michael sweet at 02:04 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Manns' work in 1998 (with subsequent additions to the present) was detailed and built on the work of others. Loelhe makes many basic errors that were worked out before Mannn even became involved. Since Loehle retains errors that others corrected over 14 years ago, why should he be given a voice at the table with those who are informed about how to do this work? Loelhe may be a good scientist in other areas. He should know that if he comits basic errors and adds nothing to the discussion he will not be able to publish in reputable journals. Scientific journals are not op-ed pages, you need new data or analysis to participate. This paper has neither. -
HumanityRules at 01:52 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
151.chris I don't understand your first point sorry The CPC data is from here (near the bottom of the page) http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/ There isn't really much context. Just data. -
HumanityRules at 01:48 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
145.chris Again you confuse a scientist recognising possible limitation in his work with bad work. 147.chris 1207 sounds like a big number. Only six (3 if you're using the screened database) of them cover the SH for the MWP. 6 is a much smaller number. The SH data is sparse. Mann's work covering the MWP is essentially a NH reconstruction. The problem is he and you can't recognise the limitations of his work. Loelhe appears to have that important skill. A question. If Energy and Environment is just a rag for peddling denier propaganda why does Loelhe bother putting all these caveats in his work? -
chris at 01:42 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
HumanityRules at 01:26 AM on 8 May, 2010 HR, you're misrepresenting CoalGeologist by false precis. He said:"That said, the presumption that there has to be some other explanation than AGW, because AGW couldn't be true, is what distinguishes denialism from skepticism."
so it's not a strawman at all. Your plots are nice. Can you give us the link so we can look at them in context? Obviously the OLR is likely to depend on the surface (especially ocean) temperature, and so it isn't surprising if this fluctuates as surface temperature fluctuates. However AGW is about the net imbalance between incoming and outcoming radiation in response to enhanced atmospheric forcing, and its temporal evolution towards a new equilibrium. -
chris at 01:28 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
My last word on the non-science aspects of Dr. Loehle, but something which is odd and perhaps a little sad. This is the extent to which his recent efforts are so diametrically opposed to the sentiments he apparently held 20-odd years ago. He felt so strongly against attempts at political interference in science, and particularly the efforts at "fraud-hunting" and "auditing" that he wrote a letter to Nature on the subject. some excerpts [see Nature (1989) 338, p. 370]:"There is a danger in the controversy over fraud in science of merging the concepts of fraud and error. The call for an audit of scientific papers for error is a symptom of this trend. Fraud such as fabricating data or publishing the work of other's as one's own is of course serious, particularly when it involves assessment of drugs and other medical treatments whwre lives are at stake. But error is an inevitable part of science. The fundamental point is being missed in the current debate...."
and towards the end:"Who will review the error hunters? Who is qualified to punish whom?"
And yet Loehle spends time on a blog where the sort of "auditing" that he decried all those years ago is used to bully and harass scientists. Googling "Craig Loehle fraud", uncovers many examples of his work being used to bolster the efforts of those bellowing "fraud" against science. Dr. Loehle seems to think this is now acceptable. ....how one's views and philosophies can change over the years.... -
HumanityRules at 01:26 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
60.CoalGeologist "the presumption that there has to be some other explanation than AGW, because AGW couldn't be true" Who is making this presumption? Oh wait I remember, it's the straw man. I don't know if this is full filling my duty but I was trawling through the CPC website, as you do, and found this. Again energy rather than atmospheric temperature. If this isn't something other than CO2 affecting energy loss from the earth then I don't know what is. The similarity of SOI and equatorial OLR is amazing.
-
Nichol at 01:15 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Wondering about the error-bars, without intimate knowledge of the various kung-fu techniques.. + There is a basic problem with the above curves: without error bars, how can we know they're not all consistent with e.g. the hocky-stick like curves in the middle? Is there a 'fight' going on between these curves at all, or do they simply agree with the one or two using the largest data sample, the ones most likely to be the most precise? Obviously, one would expect the blue curve with much less data also to have much larger error bars. + The question #2 about local vs global temperature proxies is a serious one. It raises the possibility of systematic errors if you limit yourself to localized datasets. Maybe a better approach towards a global curve would be to take the average of one curve for the northern hemisphere and another for the southern? + could somebody explain what was the reason for avoiding the tree ring data? I only remember reading that there are problems with recent tree-ring data. Is there any understanding of the reason for that? Are recent tree rings affected by recent burning of fossil fuels, or other changes in the air? Or is there any reason to believe that there can be problems with older tree ring data? Does 'tree ring data' consist of anything else than just the width of the rings, e.g. some chemical/isotopic analysis of the wood? If not, does #75 have a good reason to be (properly) skeptic about the meaningfulness of tree ring data? Or are there reasonable ways to estimate the systematic errorbars on tree ring derived data? -
chris at 01:11 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
HumanityRules at 00:52 AM on 8 May, 2010 Mann's recent paleoreconstruction (PNAS 2008, 105, 13252-13257), comprised 1209 records [1,158 annually and 51 decadally-resolved proxy series including tree-ring, marine sediment, speleothem, lacustrine, ice core, coral, and historical documentary series]. I'd say that's not sparse. Each of Mann's series meets criteria of verification with respect to temperature relationship validation, dating, temporal resolution and overall homogenisation criteria. He is clear in the criteria by which his (and his colleagues, of course) paleoreconstructions are appropriately N. hemispheric or global. Contrast that with Lohle's use of poorly validated proxies. The use of proxies with inadequate dating and that have temporal resolution of as poor as one point every 100 years. His pretence that by including a couple of poorly validated S. African and one equatorial Pacific set his 18-proxy reconstruction can be considered a global reconstruction. Loehle could have used many more avaliable proxies [he chose one proxy series out of a whole set of ocean sediment proxies compiled by Kim et al (2004) Quaternary Science Reviews 23, 2141-2154, at least 2 others of which had the temporal resolution and dating validation appropriate for inclusion]. And Mann et al. acknowledge the limitations of their work. All science has limitations. As far as Mann's paleoreconstructions go and Loehle's, I consider one to be science and one to be something else...
Prev 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 Next
