Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 Next
Comments 122001 to 122050:
-
jdinunci at 06:53 AM on 20 March 2010Hockey stick is broken
how boreholes can be used as proxy records? Do they measure the temperature at different depths? Is its temperature determined by the date the borehole was made? Thanks. -
monckhausen at 06:34 AM on 20 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
John, One aspect of denial is commonly omitted: the preventative projection of one's own behaviour patterns and character traits into the opponent (to distract from oneself and to portray the opponent as a copycat). The German language offers a good phrase for this: "von sich (selbst) auf andere schliessen". For example: Deniers frequently refer to AGW proponents as "believers". This is unfounded as AGW proponents/scientists base their opinion on facts and not on faith. On the other hand, skeptics, like creationists, build much of their argument on faith. Another example: AGW proponenents are frequently referred to as "alarmists". Inhowfar is somebody who investigates datasets or identifies scientific facts from the broad body of scientific research panicing? On the other hand, skeptics like Monckton use fear mongering (alarmism) to promote their agenda; in Monckton's case it is the fear of world communism. Fear mongering is used by all religions to keep people at bay and it is an effective tool used by the Republicans, e.g. in their warfare against health insurance. I was in Seattle last summer where some normal looking young people tried to convince me that the Obama administration was going to introduce euthanasia with their healthcare package, aiming to kill old people. -
NewYorkJ at 05:59 AM on 20 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
I like the contradiction page, although it's limited to the drop-downs. ProfMandia's link lists some good logical contradictions, some better than others (some are subjective and arguably not contradictions, particular when science is being compared to economics/budgets). My favorites: 2. They argue that siting problems (e.g. urban heat island) render temperature data useless, while simultaneously arguing that adjusting for those problems constitutes scientific fraud/ fudging the data. 4. They advocate skepticism and oppose proclamations that "the science is certain," while simultaneously claiming certainty that all climate science is one big hoax. 7. They claim that the US temperature record is unreliable when it reports warm temperatures, but have no problems using the US temperature to report cool temperatures. 8. They say it is arrogant and "elitist" for climatologists to defend their science, but have no problems with the arrogance of laypeople questioning a science they have never studied. 19. They demand more science/research before we can make a decision, then oppose funding for that research (Tony O'Brien). 23. They call their opponents "alarmists", but warn of impending economic doom should we try do anything to counteract AGW (anonymous). 25. They plead for balance and respect of dissenting opinions, and yet they continually insult people who disagree with them. (Steve Carson) 29. They say climate scientist have a "bad scientific attitude", never criticising each other. And when there is a scientific discussion they claim it proves that "the science is not settled". 34. They do not trust the reliability of modern instrumental records, citing poor calibration and inadequate coverage, but are quick to point to anecdotes of Vikings or of other early Europeans as evidence that the entire planet was warmer in preindustrial times. 40. When climate scientists don't speak publically about their work they are accused of hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do talk publically they are accused of politicising science. (Anonymous) 43. Deniers claim that anthropogenic global warming is a partisan, political line rather than legitimate science, and then argue against it by citing talking heads and press releases from industry front-groups, or "free market" think-tanks. (Wheels)Response:I like the contradiction page, although it's limited to the drop-downs
Note that if a skeptic argument isn't yet listed, you can always add it to the list. That's why I opened up the database to user input, to make the list of skeptic arguments more comprehensive. -
Ned at 04:55 AM on 20 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
John, I think Diethelm & McKee should consider adding a sixth characteristic to their list: Sheer unyielding repetition. This thread is a case in point: (1) Geo Guy introduced the topic of "station dropout" in this comment. (2) Two comments later, tobyjoyce pointed out that station dropout had no effect on the results as long as a gridded method was used, citing and linking to Tamino's analysis of GHCN data. (3) Geo Guy then replied with a longer comment, repeating his complaint that the number of stations has decreased but not addressing the question of whether this has any measurable impact on the results. (4) tobyjoyce reiterated that at least one examination of station dropout shows no effect. (5) gallopingcamel replied to tobyjoyce by ... pointing out that a bunch of stations had dropped out. Still no response about whether this has any effect on the trend. (6) Berényi Péter then chimed in to agree that yes, lots of stations have dropped out. (7) scaddenp replies and points out that gallopingcamel has not actually addressed whether station dropout affects the trend. (8) Ned adds some detail, noting that it's not just Tamino's analysis -- similar studies by others have shown the same results. The decrease in the number of stations reporting climate data hasn't significantly affected the trend. (9) gallopingcamel replies, again saying that stations have dropped out. His only remark about whether or not this actually matters is to say that we need a comparison of the full and truncated data sets, which happens to be exactly what Tamino and the others have provided. (10) quokka points out that the decline in station numbers isn't exactly news -- NOAA was discussing it more than a decade ago. (11) gallopingcamel admits that it isn't news, but still wants and explanation (and doesn't address the question of whether it impacts the temperature trend). (12) Ned writes an excessively long comment again pointing out that there are good reasons to expect that past station dropouts should not affect the trend, or if they did it should lead to an artificial cooling rather than warming trend. He further notes that multiple people have now confirmed this empirically, using different methods, and that neither D'Aleo, Watts, nor anyone else bothered to check this before making wild accusations. (13) JMurphy provides a link to the original Peterson & Vose paper explaining the decline in station numbers over time. (14) Berényi Péter says that a lot of stations have dropped out since 1991. Still no comment on all the studies showing this has no effect on the trend. And around we go, again and again. Since I expect that any moment another "skeptic" commenter will be popping in to let us all know that some stations have dropped out since 1991, I'd like to pre-emptively provide the following links: Here is Tamino's analysis of trends associated with pre- and post-dropout GHCN data: link. It shows no effect. Here is Zeke Hausfather's analysis of trends associated with pre- and post-dropout GHCN data: link. It also shows no effect. Here is Ron Broberg's analysis of trends associated with pre- and post-dropout GHCN data: link. It also shows no effect. -
Tom Dayton at 04:52 AM on 20 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Nick Stokes (the moyhu site's post from 2010/2/16) has illustrated the irregularity with which temperature station data arrive in the GHCN database, by compiling a list of updates across two example months. No conspiracy is evident, just the messiness of gathering real data in the real world. (Sorry if somebody already pointed to this; I thought so but I can't find a previous pointer.) -
Zero132132 at 04:16 AM on 20 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
It's a shame that internet vandalism made its way here. It worries me that anyone would feel the need to attack this resource in particular; you cite your sources well and make very cogent arguments. I suspect that the iPhone app has increased your visibility somewhat, so attempts at this sort of thing might become more common. The contradictions page is a great idea. I always found it odd that sometimes the same exact people will use arguments that contradict each other. At present, though, it seems like the only link to the page is from here. Is there another way to get to that page, so that it's still accessible when this post gets a bit outdated?Response: No other link to the contradictions page yet. Restructuring the navigation links is on the to-do list and will be done with the next housekeeping update. -
Berényi Péter at 03:52 AM on 20 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
#108 Marcel Bökstedt at 20:31 PM on 19 March, 2010 "I'm a little confused here - on the map which Ned links to in #100 there are many stations in northern Canada, but in #102 BerenyiPeter claims that there is only one. Is the map maybe not up to date?" The map is not outdated, just has a dot for each station ever used in GHCN.Since 1991, station number in Canada dropped to less than one tenth of its previous value. Dropout in the North is even more serious. To check this claim you can download the GHCN dataset whenever you want.
-
hank at 03:40 AM on 20 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Good job. I hope you're trying to track down the origins of the cracking and will pursue it. Reminder to anyone who used the same password here and elsewhere, it's time to change _all_ of them to different ones. You don't want them pretending to be you. And maybe time to figure out some kind of authentication.Response:I second this suggestion - do NOT use the same password at different websites.
-
Ned at 03:37 AM on 20 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Thanks, also, for that Kelly O'Day site - very informative indeed. Yes, it is. The recent posts are mostly R scripts for downloading and processing climate data, but if you look back there are some other interesting things as well. If anyone either uses R or is interested in learning R, particularly for working with climate data, I highly recommend Kelly O'Day's site. -
Nescio at 03:21 AM on 20 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Unfortunately hacking appears to be the new weapon (climategate anyone?) the anti-science crowd uses. If you can't win on the merits ...... -
Albatross at 03:19 AM on 20 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
John, the "Global Warming Skeptic Contradictions" is a wonderful idea. If I'm providing links or resources for people, form both sides, I almost exclusively cite your site now, it has become an invaluable resource. The so-called "Friends" of science fell into this trap with an ad campaign against science and AGW last year in the run up to Copenhagen. Anyhow, this post by you has reminded me that I still have to donate some funds! Sorry for the delay, I'll move on that today. -
JMurphy at 02:44 AM on 20 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Ned, your response is a great illustration of how troublesome it is to counter the usual arguments from denial : gallopingcamel types out several assertions (some with poorly referenced links), and you have to post lots of detailed information (with proper links) in response. However, unbiased readers should be able to see clearly where the facts are - in your posts. Thanks, also, for that Kelly O'Day site - very informative indeed. -
Ned at 02:00 AM on 20 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
As far as I can see from your link, the global sea temperature anomaly is currently the highest since 1998. What do you mean by 'falling' ? Am I reading the table wrong ? You're reading the table right. gallopingcamel is wrong when he says the numbers are "falling", and he's wrong when he says the table is "sea surface temperatures". (See my too-lengthy comment above). -
JMurphy at 01:12 AM on 20 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
As for gallopingcamel's concern about station drop offs, why not look at what the people actually involved have to say, i.e. like this : The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database -
JMurphy at 00:54 AM on 20 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
gallopingcamel, you stated that "The satellites do not show warming at least in the last 12 years, as noted by D'Aleo & Watts." Well, John Christy reckons there has been warming since 1978 : 'Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade' - http://www.atmos.uah.edu/essl/news.html Figures here : http://www.atmos.uah.edu/essl/news/UAHDataset5.3.pdf Who shall we believe ? You also stated : "The ground station data is diverging from the satellite data. Check John Cristy at UAH." RSS trend is +0.156 C per decade : http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_decadal_trends HADCRUT3 is 0.15 °C per decade http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/ GISS is 0.2°C per decade http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/ Can't be bothered to look up GHCN, NCDC or JMA, but I'm sure they're all similar. So, what exactly does John Christy say ? In fact, have a look at this graph to see how close the trends are in all the ones I've given : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png You finally stated : "Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) are very high but are currently falling." http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt As far as I can see from your link, the global sea temperature anomaly is currently the highest since 1998. What do you mean by 'falling' ? Am I reading the table wrong ? -
Ned at 00:20 AM on 20 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
GFW: Ned & Tony, Tamino *is* one of the authors of Foster et. al. so he's getting his due credit. Not quite sure what my name is doing there. Is this a response to something I posted in another thread? -
Ned at 00:15 AM on 20 March 2010Was Greenland really green in the past?
Marcel's comments are very wise. Argus, I do not believe your description of "AGW supporters" are reasonable, particularly if you include in that group the IPCC, which has staked out a very middle-of-the-road territory, avoiding extreme claims on either side. For example, from time to time people make claims that climate sensitivity is > 6C per doubling of CO2, but those are generally rejected by mainstream climate scientists. Although the IPCC offers support for a range of 2.0 - 4.5 C, most people seem willing to settle on a probable 3C, in the middle of that range. As for claims that supporters of AGW "never disagree" ... they generally agree on the big picture, but there is lots of disagreement (sometimes vehement!) over the details. -
James Wight at 23:59 PM on 19 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
I've been perusing the full list of arguments looking for contradictions (I hope I haven't gotten too carried away – you can delete my additions if they clog up the list) and noticed that "It's SSCs" refers to a measure of solar activity. Shouldn't this belong under "It's the Sun"? And “A drop in volcanic activity caused warming” has to do with volcanic aerosols, not volcanic CO2, so does it really belong under “Human CO2 is a tiny & of CO2 emissions”? Also, “CO2 is plant food” and “Ocean acidification isn’t going to happen” don’t relate to consequences of global warming per se, but increased CO2, so perhaps they belong under “CO2 is not a pollutant”.Response: These are all good suggestions that I've adopted in the Global Warming Links. There are so many arguments and the list was assembled in such a chaotic fashion, it's inevitable that some have ended up sorted not quite right. So I appreciate the feedback and have shuffled the arguments around so the sorting is a little more accurate.
I very much appreciate all the suggested contradictions added to the Contradictions Page, both by yourself and everyone else. It was quite a pleasant surprise waking up in the morning to find so many suggestions submitted - much better than last week waking up to find the Skeptical Science website hacked! Of course so many submissions means now I have no excuse and have to get working on Phase 2 of the contradiction page (actually Phase 2 is going to be the really interesting part but it's also a bit more work than Phase 1). -
Ned at 23:57 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
gallopingcamel writes: UEA/CRU needs to explain why they discarded the majority of the data they got from the IEA "IEA" is an obscure right-wing Russian economics "think tank" associated with the US Cato Institute. They don't operate met stations and they don't provide data to GHCN. Can you please stop churning out one incorrect claim after another? -
Ned at 23:51 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
gallopingcamel writes: Take a look at post (#102). Canada is the largest country in the world. Can you justify eliminating all but 44 of that country's weather stations? Canada is not the largest country in the world. Temperature anomalies are spatially correlated over large areas, and 44 stations are enough to cover the country. And neither NASA nor NOAA are "eliminating" weather stations -- they use the data that are provided to GHCN by participating national meteorological programs in other countries, and in some cases those stations are dropped by their home countries or there are delays in reporting. For example, with Canada, there are many more stations with data currently through 2008 which presumably will be providing updated data at some point. If you have a problem with this, complain to Canada, not to NASA or NOAA. Continuing, gallopingcamel writes: You can put all the statisticians in the world end to end but they will still not reach agreement. Your claim may be correct but the only way to prove it would require comparing the full data sets with the truncated sets. This is exactly what Tamino and others have done. More to the point, there are good a priori reasons to believe that dropouts of high-latitude, rural, and high-altitude stations would if anything artificially decrease the warming trend, not increase it. Since these areas are warming faster than the globe as a whole, when they drop out it would tend to decrease the overall trend (if the gridding methods weren't sufficiently robust to handle the dropouts). So, it was highly irresponsible of Watts, D'Aleo, etc. to accuse NOAA and NASA of "dropping stations" to fraudulently increase the warming trend. They made those accusations without ever testing them. Now their claims have been tested by different people using different methods, and have been found to be false. At this point, if you want to claim that there IS an artificial warming trend introduced by dropping the stations that are warming fastest, you need to prove that. All the evidence is against you. Moving on, to the next point: The satellites do not show warming at least in the last 12 years, as noted by D'Aleo & Watts. That's a very interesting claim. Let's look at all 10-year, 11-year, 12-year, etc. trends in both the UAH and RSS temperature series. In the UAH record, trends running through last month and starting in March of the following years are positive: 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979 UAH trends starting in the following years are negative: (none) Well, let's look at the RSS record. Again, trends starting in March of the following years are positive: 2000, 1999, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979 And RSS trends starting in the following years are negative: 1998 It's interesting that your choice of "twelve years" just happens to be the only period where either one of the satellite records shows a negative trend, that it just happens to start with the largest El Nino on record, and that even so only one of the two records shows a negative trend from that year. Continuing: The ground station data is diverging from the satellite data. Check John Cristy at UAH. Actually there's very little divergence between the two, and in the past disagreements between the satellite and surface records have turned out to be due to errors in the methods used to process the satellite data. Thus, over time, the satellite records have progressively become closer to the surface record. Still continuing: Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) are very high but are currently falling. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt Those data aren't SSTs! They're the same MSU lower-troposphere data, just disaggregated into different spatial regions (northern vs southern hemisphere, land vs ocean, tropics vs extratropics vs poles, etc.) Actual SST data are available here, or see Kelly O'Day's excellent graphs and scripts here. And there's no very meaningful sense in which "sea surface temperatures are falling" is true. You can only get a negative trend if you cherry-pick a length of 5-9 years. Trends of 1, 2, 3, or 4 years, or of any number of years greater than 9, are all positive. ================== So ... this all leads to the question of why people employ such weak, wrong, or misleading arguments. If there were really good, convincing arguments to support the "skeptic" position, presumably there wouldn't be a need for the kinds of cherry-picking and factually questionable claims we see in this thread, nor for papers like McLean 2009, Lindzen & Choi, or that embarrassingly wrong Chylek one (link, link). Or E.G. Beck's physically impossible claims about chemical CO2 measurements being representative of actual global CO2 concentrations. Unfortunately, it takes a lot more time and effort to track down and refute these kinds of incorrect claims than it takes to make them in the first place. -
gallopingcamel at 23:49 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Marcel (#108), thanks for setting me straight. Canada is only #2. It appears that Russia still accounts for 12.5% of land area so the UEA/CRU needs to explain why they discarded the majority of the data they got from the IEA. quokka (#107), I think you are referring to Peterson & Vose (1997). That paper does record the station drop off that was occurring at that time. We should thank D'Aleo & watts for bringing us up to date on the continuing drop off saga. While you are right to say that the station drop off is no secret we are still waiting for a valid explanation. Do you know of one? -
Nick Palmer at 23:37 PM on 19 March 2010Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
You wrote: Schulte's paper (going on DailyTech's account) places great emphasis on the fact that only one paper endorses 'catastrophic climate change'. This is a classic straw man argument. Oreskes' 2004 paper never refers to an imminent catastrophe. Neither do the IPCC nor do the Academies of Science from 11 countries that endorse the consensus position that most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. As I've been trying to point out, the above is the major deception in the Oregon petition's crafted wording which explicitly asks people to sign to confirm that they do not have 100% confidence in catastrophic climate change/disruption. Even James Hansen could sign the Oregon petition as it has been worded. People should stop totting up the numbers of real scientists vs Mickey Mouse as a method of countering the credibility of the petition -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 23:37 PM on 19 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
John, very sorry to read about the hacking. Not at all nice. Obviously you've ruffled the feathers of a nasty and cowardly person. This has reminded me that my donation is overdue, will rectify this immediately - (small consolation I know). BTW I don't seem to be able to log out. I wanted to check my new password, but when I click the logout button I remain logged in. Is it my system or something at your end? -
joabbess at 23:32 PM on 19 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
sorry to hear about the hack job. i noticed the other day that the website looked like it had been taken back a week, and i thought, "nothing to worry about". i just assumed you were doing some maintenance or recovery. i didn't realise you'd been ransacked ! if i see anything untoward in future, you can be sure i'll be on the blower to alert you. this website is a completely priceless set of information. it's very hard to piece together a summary of the climate change science in every area. it's a constantly moving thoughtship, floating like a UFO in the night above the suburban streets, with lights of certainty flickering on every now and again. we have such a strong signal for evidence of climate change, and clear indications from the past about how it's going to develop; but many people cannot see this because they can't see inside the science machine and they do not trust the cogs and gears and data collection or analysis. keep up the excellent work. that fact that you were hacked is proof that you're getting through to people ! -
ProfMandia at 23:31 PM on 19 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
WAG has a list of 54 hypocrisies here: http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-of-hypocrisy.html -
Marcel Bökstedt at 23:19 PM on 19 March 2010Was Greenland really green in the past?
Oracle2world> There are several places on this site where the medieval warm period is discussed, like here : http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm It seems to me that they make a strong case (but perhaps not completely airtight one?) for the assumption that a warmer Greenland was a local phenomenon. Its not just an empty claim, there are various data to back it up. I have no idea about what you are hinting at with those Siberian trees, so I can't answer that. Argus> You have a certain not too favourable impression of AGW supporters. I don't share your point of view, and for instance it is not my "impression" that AGW supposters on this site always agree on everything. However, it is very hard to answer such general claim except by similar but opposite generalizations. Maybe you could be more precise about who it is that in your opinion ignores data etc., and give some precise references. Then we could examine the situation together. -
Alexandre at 22:40 PM on 19 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
This contradiction page is a good idea. The general public often does not grasp when they're presented to conflicting arguments, as the Plimer/Monckton debate illustrate. I've even seen one skeptic use the arguments below on the same speech "It's not warming - it's all urban heat island contamination" "The warming is actually a natural phenomenon from the end of the last Ice Age" "The warming is caused by the PDO" -
quokka at 21:21 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Watts site has a fine example of denialism in action at the moment. It seems that they have dredged up a copy of National Geographic from 1976 which shows a chart of NH temperature from 1880 to 1976 showing a marked drop from 1945. Of course it differs from the CRU record which gets the author quite excited about "hiding the decline". As far as I can tell the National Geographic piece is not peer reviewed, or based on something that is peer reviewed. There is no mention of methodology or data sources. It seems to have very little authority whatsoever. Nevertheless it is totted out to sow "doubt and confusion". Desperate times indeed for Watts and fellow travelers. -
Argus at 21:00 PM on 19 March 2010Was Greenland really green in the past?
oracle2world, I think you got it straight! What you describe with an example, certainly seems to be the way in which the advocates of AGW work, whether they are scientists loyal to IPCC, or just well-read opinion makers. They pick out the data that support the trend that they want to prove, and ignore the data that do not support it. Then they make impressive-looking graphs, where the proper 'corrections' are always added, so that the desired slope of the curve is achieved. The uniformity, the flaw-less consensus, and the lack of debate within the group of AGW supporters, all just works together to make me more skeptical. It would be a healthy sign if they sometimes disagreed, if they ever showed doubt, or if they once in a while agreed that a skeptic arguments had some merit. -
gpwayne at 20:52 PM on 19 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Sorry to hear this John. Still, if they're shooting at you (as it were), you must be doing something right. Small consolation, but I'm sure you'll be keeping up the good work. The fantastic work, actually... -
Marcel Bökstedt at 20:31 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I'm a little confused here - on the map which Ned links to in #100 there are many stations in northern Canada, but in #102 BerenyiPeter claims that there is only one. Is the map maybe not up to date? And just for the record, gallopingcamel, Russia is the largest country in the world (you knew that, didn't you?) -
David Horton at 18:59 PM on 19 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
After you have chopped the veges John, how does one get to the contradictions from the Home page (as distinct from the link in your post)? I might be befuddled, having just eaten dinner, but I can't see the link to it anywhere.Response: No other link yet - will add some navigation drop downs for my next housekeeping session in order to get more easy-to-find links to all those nooks and crannies. -
James Wight at 18:56 PM on 19 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Every day, this site becomes a more useful resource. Keep up the great work! As regards the hacking, I was wondering what exactly was the content that got changed? Was it obviously vandalism or could a reasonable reader have assumed that it was coming from you?Response: It was obvious vandalism - I found out because several readers emailed me overnight saying they thought my site had been hacked. A nice surprise to wake up to. -
David Horton at 18:44 PM on 19 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Well done John, as always, but as your wife would say - time you got off the computer!!!!!Response: She is, actually, I have to go cut up some vegetables... -
GFW at 17:55 PM on 19 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Typo in my previous comment. ... a greater difference the less "black" the object is. -
quokka at 17:37 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
gallopingcamel (#105), You obviously have not looked into this at all. Older station data in the record comes from multiple historical sources. 1. It has been gathered and digitized over the years from something like 30+ sources. Most of these sources no longer produce temperature data and the current record is updated 'real time' from just three sources - the most important being the World Meteorological Organization. 2. There is no secret about this - it is documented in a paper by Petersen (1997 I think). 3. Hansen also discusses this in a paper (2001 I think) about how the GISS record is constructed, so no, he does not 'need to explain' because if you cared to look you would find it has already been explained - long ago. Could we please leave all this nonsense over on Watt's site? -
GFW at 17:35 PM on 19 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Barry, the UAH numbers are negative because they are brightness temps - the temperature of a pure black-body spectrum that would yield the same total observed energy. So brightness temp is always lower than actual temp, with a greater difference less "black" the object is. Ned & Tony, Tamino *is* one of the authors of Foster et. al. so he's getting his due credit. -
gallopingcamel at 15:30 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Ned, (#104), Your claim (1) Take a look at post (#102). Canada is the largest country in the world. Can you justify eliminating all but 44 of that country's weather stations? Your claim (2) You can put all the statisticians in the world end to end but they will still not reach agreement. Your claim may be correct but the only way to prove it would require comparing the full data sets with the truncated sets. Your claim (3) The satellites do not show warming at least in the last 12 years, as noted by D'Aleo & Watts. The ground station data is diverging from the satellite data. Check John Cristy at UAH. Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) are very high but are currently falling. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt -
gallopingcamel at 15:01 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
scaddenp (#103), thanks for accepting that the station drop off is real. Do you have any explanation for the drop off? If scientists discard ~80% of the data before starting their analysis some kind of explanation should be given. In the case of NASA/GISS we are still waiting for Tom Peterson, Gavin Schmidt or James Hansen to explain what is going on. The HADCRUT3 situation and the associated IEA (Russian) station drop off is still under investigation. I am not sure who should be speaking up for NOAA/GHCN. The "before and after" Tamino statement you mention is meaningless. What is needed is a comparison of the full data sets with the truncated data sets. Wild claims by Tamino (or anyone else at this moment) are paper tigers unless they have the missing information. You can prove or disprove anything using statistics. For a pungent explanation on this point, there is a well known saying that Mark Twain attributed to Benjamin Disraeli that I am not allowed to quote on this blog. Several of the D'Aleo & Watts allegations have to do with station quality control which NASA and NOAA have already admitted is poor. Are you defending a position that has already been abandoned? Like you, I don't trust D'Aleo & Watts but I am still keeping an open mind while weighing all 15 of their allegations. -
barry1487 at 15:00 PM on 19 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
"could someone explain to a science illiterate why the global average shows a temperature below zero?" The values are not actual temperatures. Each temperature record has a baseline, which is the average of temperatures over a given period. The baseline is zero, and the the temps are represented as departures from the baseline - known as 'anomalies'. This has no impact at all on trends, of course, as each value is equally offset. Here's the GISS anomaly data for monthly temps. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt At the top of the page they give you the baseline period, at the bottom they tell you how to convert the anomalies back to the *real* temps. On the chance you're referring to the UAH daily temp website, which appears to show only negative, values, I have no idea why that is. Perhaps someone else knows the answer to that. -
jyyh at 14:10 PM on 19 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
that's the lowest they can measure accurately, the name of the channel is 'near-surface layer' but actually it's something like a mile and a half up, was it 850mb-level? Does someone know the actual average height of the plane? -
Ned at 13:33 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
(1) There are more than enough existing stations to compile the monthly global mean temperature data, so the decline in the number of stations is irrelevant. (2) The stations that were dropped have no different trends than those that kept reporting. Furthermore, selectively deleting high latitude, high altitude, or rural stations has no impact on the trend. This has been shown repeatedly in separate analyses by Tamino, Ron Broberg, and Zeke Hausfather. Neither Watts, D'Aleo, nor EM Smith bothered to actually test their claims statistically before loudly claiming that the dropped stations affected the trend. They owe NOAA and NASA an apology for their false accusations of fraud (and they owe people like gallopingcamel and Geo Guy an apology for misleading them). (3) Even without the statistical analyses, everyone who thought about this knew that Watts, D'Aleo, and Smith were wrong. The satellites show warming, and there's no UHI in space. The oceans show warming, and there's no UHI in the middle of the ocean. In fact, we know from longstanding physical climatology that the warming trend over land is going to be larger than that over the ocean. In conclusion, all of the complaints about station dropouts are irrelevant. The observed warming is real and not an artifact of composition of the station lists. -
scaddenp at 12:47 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
101/ Huh? Tamino states "Two of the most prominent claims of global warming denialists have proven to be utterly false." No one is denying that fewer stations are reporting. Tamino's analysis is refuting the false claim that the cutoff introduces a warming trend. Doing this analysis, he compares subset before and after the cutoff. Where is the "economy with truth" here? Where is the "provably false testimony". -
Mangeclous at 12:24 PM on 19 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
#19: could someone explain to a science illiterate why the global average shows a temperature below zero? I know "global temperature" is in some way kind of an abstract concept, but not as much as to show such unexpected figures, am I right? Thanks for your patience and help. -
Berényi Péter at 12:14 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
#100 Ned at 09:33 AM on 19 March, 2010 "Can you explain what you think that sentence means? Because there are certainly lots of stations north of latitude 65 in the GHCN dataset used by NOAA for their surface temperature record" I think I know what he has meant. He was referring to recent Canadian data. In that country only one station north of 65 has data in GHCN for 2009-2010. 40371917000 EUREKA,N.W.T. 79.98 -85.93 And in fact only three more north of 60 40371964000 WITHEHORSE, Y 60.72 -135.07 (1942-2010) 40371966000 DAWSON,Y.T. 64.05 -139.13 (1897-2010) 40371915000 CORAL HARBOUR 64.20 -83.37 (1933-2010) It's weird, since otherwise GHCN has 119 stations in Canada north of 65, 118 of them are discontinued. And 298 stations north of 60. Between 1989-1991 the number of active GHCN stations in Canada dropped from 496 to 44. -
gallopingcamel at 12:12 PM on 19 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
tobyjoyce (#99), your dismissal of Geo Guy based on the provably false testimony of Tamino shows that you have not looked at the evidence. D'Aleo and Watts make 15 allegations concerning temperature records based on surface stations. Like you I was sceptical about their claims so I decided to check them myself, starting from raw data. As I don't have the time or skills to check all 15 claims I went for D'A&W claim #4: "....more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting." I downloaded the NOAA/GHCN v.2 raw and adjusted data sets and counted the number of stations versus reporting year. There were over 6,000 in 1972, falling to under 1,000 in 2009. You can easily do the analysis yourself by downloading from the NOAA web site: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/ When I point out Tamino's economy with truth on this blog, my comments usually get deleted; he seems to be some kind of minor deity around here. This time I have been very careful with my "rhetoric" so maybe it will get through. If you don't have time to do the analysis yourself take a look at: http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/01/station-drop-out-problem.html -
NewYorkJ at 11:05 AM on 19 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
James Annan (one of the co-authors of the refutation) has some comments. He references this site. http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/03/mclean-debunked-at-last.html -
shargash at 10:25 AM on 19 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
If El Nino events were the source of a long-term warming trend, there is a thermodynamics problem. Where is the heat coming from? We know it's not from increased insolation, and the heat leaking from the earth's core is too weak. On the other hand, my understanding of current theory is that El Nino & La Nina events cancel each other out over time. One releases heath into the part of the earth whose temperature we can measure; the other removes heat and sinks it in the ocean. Because it is a transfer, there is no need to postulate a new (as yet unknown) source of heat. -
Ned at 09:48 AM on 19 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Berényi Péter writes: Just noticed the trend in differences (significant on 95% level, strange for such a short series). It might or might not be strange if it were significant at 95%, but it actually isn't. Slope -0.026 Two-tailed p-value 0.087 You're really grasping at straws here. The NSIDC data set is fine, the JAXA data set is also fine albeit a lot shorter, they both show declining trends in Arctic sea ice, and neither gives any validity to Jeff Id's claims about "recovery" unless you set an astoundingly low bar for the word "recovery". -
Albatross at 09:44 AM on 19 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Thanks Peter @86
Prev 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 Next
