Recent Comments

Prev  683  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  Next

Comments 34501 to 34550:

34501. topal at 11:59 AM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       Very weak and vague statements. Not really convincing.

       Wang of Utah State University found the high pressure ridge is linked to a precursor of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

       El Nino is a natural phenomenon. What's the role o global warming?

       but also that human-caused global warming has amplified the strength of these ridges

       Only "human-caused" warming? Do those ridges know who or what caused warming, if any. How do those ridges sense warming if there hasn't been any over the past almost 2 decades?
       

       the journal Climatic Change estimated that in a business-as-usual scenario with continued reliance on fossil fuels, by 2085 the annual area burned by wildfires in California will increase by 40–70%

       How do they know what California will look like in 70 years from now? With the ongoing draught, there might nothing be left that could burn. Or one of those earthquakes might have extinguished California alltogether.
       

34502. scaddenp at 10:34 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       I would further add that the rapidity  by which the matthews original paper was cited after publishing and the number of cites doesnt fit well with the portrayal as an ignored Galileo.

34503. Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Rob Honeycutt @70, the parallels are even closer.  H pylori had been identified (although not by that name) by a number of researchers prior to Warren and Marshall.  Wikipedia summarizes the history:

       "Previous to the research of Marshall and Warren, German scientists found spiral-shaped bacteria in the lining of the human stomach in 1875, but they were unable to culture them, and the results were eventually forgotten. The Italian researcher Giulio Bizzozero described similarly shaped bacteria living in the acidic environment of the stomach of dogs in 1893. Professor Walery Jaworski of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków investigated sediments of gastric washings obtained from humans in 1899. Among some rod-like bacteria, he also found bacteria with a characteristic spiral shape, which he called Vibrio rugula. He was the first to suggest a possible role of this organism in the pathogenesis of gastric diseases. This work was included in the Handbook of Gastric Diseases, but it had little impact, as it was written in Polish. Several small studies conducted in the early 20th century demonstrated the presence of curved rods in the stomach of many patients with peptic ulcers and stomach cancer. Interest in the bacteria waned, however, when an American study published in 1954 failed to observe the bacteria in 1180 stomach biopsies."

       Marshall and Warren (1984) draw particular attention to Freedman and Barron (1940), which is analogous to Arrhenius (1896) in the history of climate science.  The interest in the connection between those spirochetes and ulcers was quashed by Palmer (1954), "Investigation of the gastric spirochaetes of the human".  He failed to find the spirochaetes, thus damping interest in the theory and delaying the proper treatment of ulcers by 30-40 years.  In the analogy, he is a clear parallel to Angstrom (1900).

34504. Synapsid at 09:13 AM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       PluviAL,

       The terms "ridge" and "trough" are descriptive.  In an area of high pressure a given pressure is found at a higher elevation than in the surrounding region, hence "ridge"; in a low-pressure area a given pressure is found at a lower elevation than in the surrounding region, so the feature is called a trough.  Ridges and troughs determine wind direction near and around them, and thus the movement of weather systems; the pattern around a ridge is the opposite of the pattern around a trough, and the associated weather is completely different.  As an example:  If the ridge off the west coast of North America had not been there for the past couple of years, or if a trough had been there instead, California would not be in the present devastating drought.

34505. Tom Curtis at 09:09 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton @69, from the same interview we read:

       " Well, immediately after the rejection [in 1983], my boss, David McGauchie, at Fremantle, said he knew somebody who was the world authority on these bacteria in England, Martin Skirrow, and he said, 'Why don't you give him a call on the telephone?' In those days it was pretty heroic to call someone in England and get permission from the hospital authorities to use their long distance number. So I did that and I spoke to Martin Skirrow, and he said, 'Oh, that sounds exciting. Send some bacteria over.' So we did that, and he cultured them. 

       Then I went to an international meeting right after the publication in the Lancet. So at that point there was a lot of enthusiasm in England, because Martin Skirrow, who was an authority, was now supporting me. So in the infectious disease microbiology fraternity I immediately had followers and in Australia one of the first people that was on my side was Professor Adrian Lee from the University of New South Wales, and we'd corresponded a little bit. And I met him there. And he was a chicken bacteria expert in those days. So we had a bit of a following, and then when I came back to Australia, still the gastroenterology community didn't believe it. And there is a bit of a history of people discovering bacteria all the time and always thinking they're important and they're just, you know, harmless. So for the 12 months I had this frustrating time of some enthusiastic groups around the world - and I'd actually spoken also to some of the top gastroenterologists in Europe, who were pretty excited about it."

       So as early as 1983, the theory had enthusiastic support from groups in England, and Australia, and Europe.   However, there was a history of similar claims in gastroenterology which was a reason for substantial skepticism about the hypothesis.

       Despite that, we read later:

       "And when I went over there [to the USA] I assumed that everybody would be on board with this thing, but, of course, they were totally sceptical in the States and I had to really step back a couple of years and repeat all the work that I'd done in Australia back in the US, plus get my doctor's ticket over there, a lot of exams and things to do. So it took another three or four years after that before people in the US started becoming excited and we had some diagnostic things coming on the market in the United States which meant that I didn't have to have a private practice, I could stay in research once again. And it was about 1993, '94, that we had respectable treatments and good data in the United States, and at that point the authorities over there put their imprimatur on it.

       So internationally it was accepted after about 1990, but people didn't have a good treatment for it, so a lot of patients had to stay on the old medicine. Then by '94 the Americans signed off on it and everybody was interested in the bacteria after that, it was totally respectable."

       So, acceptance was near universal by 1990, except to some residual rejection in the US based simply on US chauvinism.  Further, in 1990 they did not have a treatment but by 1994, when they did acceptance was effectively universal.

       All of this agrees with Orac when he says:

       "By 1992, multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease, and medical practice rapidly changed. That’s less than ten years, which, given how long it takes to organize and carry out clinical trials, is amazingly fast. Yet somehow a favorite denialist myth is that “dogmatic,” “close-minded” scientists refused to accept Marshall and Warren’s findings. It’s an example of a scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown"

       A statement you reject as false.  You have made no acknowledgement of your error, nor apology for it.  Nor have you apologized for quoting wikipedia in a way that suggests Marshall's comments about the level of rejection in 1984 applied in 1998.  Nor acknowledged that there was an element of hyperbole in Marshall's comment that you indirectly quoted, as shown by groups he mentions as supporting him in 1983.

34506. Doug Bostrom at 08:26 AM on 4 September 2014
       Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
       

       Marohasy's the same highly imaginative person who detected a plot by ABC to cut off her interview midstream and replace her with the notorious, ubiquitous John Cook. 

34507. scaddenp at 08:21 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton, if your analogy is going to make any sense at all, then there needs to be corresponding paper by a climate scientist with the level of research behind it that Marshall has. If there is such a paper, then please provide it. The reason why this argument comes up is because deniers, reading misinformation instead, fondly believe that such a thing must exist. Show us the beef.

34508. Rob Honeycutt at 08:01 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton...  You do realize, I hope, the analogy you're presenting applies to climate science just after the turn of the 20th century (that's two-zero, i.e., in the early 1900's) with the heated debates between Arrhenius and Angstrom.

       Now what we have in climate science is, many many decades of research on a very broad range of interconnected areas of research that all confirm the same thing. And, in the case of Dr Marshall, you're presenting a very narrow area of research that had to, reasonably, rise to a high level of proof in order for it to be accepted by the broader research community. And that change happen rapidly even within that field. Ten years is nothing! 

       Today, if we were getting vastly different answers from the geologists, and the modelers, and the phycisists, and the biologists, and... all the others whose fields AGW encounter, then there would be legitimate reason to be highly skeptical of this issue.

       Problem is, that's not the case. All the research fits very neatly together across a wide range of fields. You have nearly all researchers today looking at each other nodding, saying, "Yup, we have a big, big problem with atmospheric CO2."

       Those who are rejecting this are very few in numbers. Their research is internally inconsistent with any other research, and when you dig a little deeper, you almost always find some sort of political/ideological spin going on. In other words, they just don't like the implications of the problem and are trying to find reasons to believe there really isn't a problem.

34509. Ashton at 06:12 AM on 4 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Tom Curtis. As you clearly like to know the minutiae I think you might like this conversation Barry marshall had with the NHMRC (for non Australians this is the premier body for funding medical research) in March 2011.  In it he notes in an exchange with the interviewer 

       Interviewer: So you really at this point had to kind of prove the connection, though, didn't you? Is this where you did something pretty dramatic?

       Prof. Marshall: Well, that's right, because when ever I presented the bacteria to pathologists and doctors in Australia, they were all very sceptical and they would always say that people with ulcers probably have a bacteria in their stomach just by coincidence and the ulcer forms first and then you would catch a little bacteria sitting around the site, same as if you had a sore on your skin or something. So it was very frustrating to present the information, and I used to get into pretty hostile arguments. At one conference I remember I was just about leaping off the stage throttling people who were making what I considered very inane comments about the whole thing. And so I said, 'I've got to prove that these bacteria can infect a healthy animal and cause an ulcer, or the inflammation at least, in the stomach.' (my note this was in 1984)

       He later in the interview made this comment

       And again we got good publicity from that, and it created a big controversy, because, of course, people were funding research programs worth millions all over the world. The ulcer treatments that were on the market were worth billions and the drug companies were all building giant manufacturing plants and banking money on the current treatments, and lo and behold it suddenly appeared that maybe all people needed was a cheap course of antibiotics. And then they would be cured. And all this investment and billion‑dollar business was just going to go by the wayside".

       Although his findings were eventually accepted, after 6 years, it is clear in the periond 1984 to 1990 there was antipathy to his findings by "the establishment:"

       The URL is http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/podcasts/2009/conversation-professor-barry-marshall

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Your quips are not appreciated. 

34510. Tom Curtis at 03:59 AM on 4 September 2014
       Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
       

       Here is the timeseries of all datasets used for comparison to the ACORN series for quality control, as shown below the fold in the article above:

       

       Of particular interest are the Torok and Nicholls (TN, in gold) dataset, used by BOM prior to the development of the ACORN dataset; the Australian Water Availability Project (AWAP, in yellow) which is not homogenized, and the Whole Network Drift Corrected (WNDC, in yellowy green) dataset, which is also not homogenized.  BOM has published an analysis of trends using the range of avialable datasets shown above, and from which the graph above comes.  In it, on table 1 we learn that the total quadratic change from 1911-2010 was 0.98 C for Torok and Nicholls, which was reduced to 0.94 C by in the ACORN dataset.  That is, by replacing the old analysis with a more recent analysis, BOM has decreased its estimate of total warming in Australia over the last century.  Both, however, are still higher than the 0.69 C increase shown by AWAP.  

       Data homogenization does increase the estimated temperture increase over the century.  That, however, is not an intended effect, and the techniques used for data homogenization are blind to their effect on the trend.  They make adjustments which decrease the trend almost as often as they make adjustments that increase the trend.   It just happens to be the case that when you correct the record for data quality without regard of the effects on the trend, the trend happens to increase.

34511. PluviAL at 01:55 AM on 4 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       B, I did not see the equivocation, but not being a scientists, I have little patience meaningless for nitpicking. Although, I know arguing an important fine point is important and valuable.

       The point I take from this is that cost, or money, always goes to energy, and energy use always goes to the lowest cost component, which is usually the most carbon intensive fuel. Further, since the non-monetary costs; fires and increased evapotranspiration also add to the problem, we are in a nasty feedback loop already {:[

34512. bpnjensen at 23:50 PM on 3 September 2014
       Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
       

       Low pressure features are referred to as troughs rather than ridges.  Otherwise, very interesting article - Thanks! - B

34513. chrisd3 at 23:00 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @Jim Hunt #23

       At what venue might an analogy assist then? I negotiate the maze of twisty passages, all alike, in the perhaps naive belief that some people read that stuff who aren't dyed in the wool "skeptics". Am I in fact wasting my time?

       Not at all. You've nailed the real reason for posting analogies, or anything else for that matter: The real target of the analogy (or whatever it is that you're posting) is not the "skeptic" to whom you're responding but the much larger number of individuals who are simply reading the comments silently, many of whom may be open minded but underinformed.

       Analogies do work. They just don't work with "skeptics." 

34514. Dikran Marsupial at 22:47 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       CB Dunkerson, very good example, Angstrom's (1901) argument that the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide was saturated close to the surface held back research on the greenhouse effect until the work of Callendar in the 30s & 40s and Plass in the 50s and 60s.  See the relevant entry in Spencer Wearts jooly good "The Discovery of Global Warming".

34515. CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       You know what is really a good example of a now accepted theory which was initially dismissed by the scientific community?

       Anthropogenic Global Warming

       The 'skeptics' should use the early rejection of Arrhenius's work to show how scientific consensus can be wrong. :]

34516. Leto at 20:00 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Tom,

       I was a medical student in 1989 and, in the lecture about peptic ulcers, the H pylori theory was presented as one that was yet to reach full acceptance, but one that was likely to be generally accepted by the medical establishment as further evidence came in.

       As you note, it is not a particularly good example of the supposed inability of scientists to respond intelligently to dissent and new ideas.

       Cheers,

       Leto.

34517. MA Rodger at 19:56 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Aston @60.

       I have met this particular denialist argument in the past. My response is that I must have missed something because I didn't know Lindzen & Curry had been awarded a Nobel Prize.

       Do note that the 1998 quote you cite does not (indeed cannot) refer to opposition to Marshal & Warren occuring in 1998. The timeline is as follows. The pair of them worked together from 1981 investigating bacteria in the gut that would develop into their theory that stress was not the sole cause of peptic ulsers. They published in 1985. The opposition to their findings was officially marginalised in February 1994 (see here in Warren's own words - "I had been waiting for ten years for this day") with Marshall starting to pick up awards, receiving the Nobel Prize in 2005.

       So from the Marshal & Warren example, it is a decade from published pariah to praise-laden prophet. Where then is the denialist equivalent?

34518. Tom Curtis at 19:44 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton @60 should be thanked for his creative efforts to provide live samples of "skeptical" trolling to enliven this topic.  In this case he demonstrates a trojan horse tactic in which he first disavows the argument he is about to present is his own, then presents it as creatively as he is able without any comments showing the flaws in the argument.  In the particular example @60 he even strengthens that be explicitly stating that true claims made elsewhere are false, misrepresenting the contents of wikipedia, and claiming a false authority based on a purported geographical and professional connection to the events described.

       The actual facts of the case he discusses are that by February of 1994, the US National Institute of Health had released a consensus statement (their description) stating among other things:

       "The discovery of H. pylori as a gastrointestinal pathogen has had a profound effect on current concepts of peptic ulcer disease pathogenesis. Evidence presented at this Consensus Development Conference has led to the following conclusions:

       • Ulcer patients with H. pylori infection require treatment with antimicrobial agents in addition to antisecretory drugs whether on first presentation with the illness or on recurrence.
       • The value of treatment of nonulcer dyspepsia patients with H. pylori infection remains to be determined.
       • The interesting relationship between H. pylori infection and gastric cancers requires further exploration."

       That establishes that by 1994, ie, within ten years of first publication of the theory, acceptance was wide spread.  Despite this acceptance, a year later Marshal himself acknowledged that the case for H Pylori as the causative factor in peptic ulcers had not been demonstrated to the normally accepted standard, stating:

       "Koch’s postulates for H. pylori have not been fulfilled in the case of peptic ulceration because, at present, no human or animal experimental model has produced peptic ulcer after inoculation with H. pylori"

       Clearly consensus in favour of the theory was not lagging the evidence significantly.  Kimball Atwood has an extensive survey of the literature and response to Warren and Marshall's theory, which shows that interest in the theory was keen from the start, with many other researchers immediately investigating the theory - and that acceptance was rapidly forthcoming as the evidence mounted for the theory.

       Turning to Ashton's specific claims:

       1)  Asthon claims that Orac's claim about scientifid research by 1992, was false.  However, a search on google scholar excluding citations and patents for "Pylori" and "Peptic" returns from 1984-1992 returns 2,300 results, and as noted above, by Feb 1994 it was the NIH's recommendation that patients presenting with ulcers be treated with antimicrobial agents.  Clearly it is the case that in less than ten years of publication of the theory (in June 1984), " multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease" and that "medical practice rapidly changed".

       2)   Ashton quotes wikipedia about Marshal saying in 1998 that "Everyone was against me".  While true, however, what he actually said in a 1998 interview was:

       "Q: Is it frustrating when you're at that point in your research and things are not going your way and people are weighing in with those kinds of dismissive remarks?

       Barry Marshall: I'm a lot more mature now, and I know that this is how science works. You've got to be pretty thick-skinned and ready to take the blows. In those days, it used to really cut me to the quick when people — even my boss — would get up and criticize my work this way. I was a... "brash young man" is a term that came out of the Reader's Digest article many years ago. "Zealot" was another of the names that I was given. I read the history of the zealots, and you know, I was exactly like that.

       It was a campaign, everyone was against me. But I knew I was right, because I actually had done a couple of years' work at that point. I had a few backers. And when I was criticized by gastroenterologists, I knew that they were mostly making their living doing endoscopies on ulcer patients. So I'm going to show you guys. A few years from now you'll be saying, "Hey! Where did all those endoscopies go to?" And it will be because I was treating ulcers with antibiotics. "

       (Italics in original)

       In context, it is very clear that Marshall was describing his attitude several years in the past.  Indeed, given that he had done "a couple years work" that was his attitude around 1986 or so, when indeed, presenting a revolutionary new theory he was indeed expected to prove it.  As he himself says "this is how science works".

       We might ask how Marshall's work was regarded in 1998, and that can be answered by his list of honours up to that point:

       "Marshall also received the Warren Alpert Prize in 1994; the Australian Medical Association Award and the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research in 1995; the Gairdner Foundation International Award in 1996; the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize in 1997; the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Medicine, the Florey Medal, and the Buchanan Medal of the Royal Society in 1998"

       So, within 14 years of first publication, Marshall has recieved six prestigious awards for his work, and all prior to (or in the same year as) that interview.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You have described Ashton's schtick to a tee.  Thank you. 

34519. scaddenp at 19:43 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       If some skeptic climate scientists were able to successfully challenge the scientitic consensus, then frankly I would praise them to skies. A successful challenge has to mounted with data and proper analysis. The pseudo-skeptics (because I think most scientists are real skeptics) however mistake blog-"scientists" for real science and misinformation for data. If you are seriously able to challenge the science then you do so in peer-reviewed journals. If your arguments are judged to have merit, then they will be tested by others and  change will occur. Now get your "skeptics" to point to these challenging papers please.

34520. Kevin C at 19:23 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       I would love skeptics/deniers to raise this argument, as long as they follow through with it.

       What would that involve? The most naive analysis would be to roughly enumerate the number of scientific disciplines of comparable scope to the peptic ulcer community. My half-arsed guess as an interdisciplinary scientist whose main field has some overlap with drug design is that it is in the tens to hundreds of thousands.

       Then enumerate the number of cases in which a consensus of corresponding strength has been overthrown. I'm guessing that's in the ones, just possibly tens.

       From this we can infer a crude estimate of probability that the climate science consensus is wrong under the assumption that the situations are, as you suggest, in some way analogous.

       Now, that's hopelessly naive. Ideally we'd look at the sociology as well. In the case of peptic ulcers the fact that there were major financial interests in providing drugs for their treatment may have had a role in maintaining the consensus, with no corresponding interests on the other side. I can't speak to the size of the financial interests supporting the climate science consensus, but there are clearly significant financial interests in disputing it.

       So I think this is a very useful line of argument. There might be an interesting sociology of science paper in it, but doing it properly is beyond my expertise.

34521. Ashton at 17:36 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Would you please note that the comment that follows does not, repeat does not, reflect my own views on the "97% consensus" on climate change but is put forward as an example that might be used by sceptic/deniers when challenging this aspect of climate change science.   I also think this is relevant to this thread and hope the moderators agree.  I should note I was involved in medical science in Pert/Fremantle at the time Marshall carried out his now renowned experiment.  

       I am interested in the comments in this and many other articles on sceptic/deniers choice of Galileo as an example of how scientific consensus  is not necessarily correct.  Possibly a better example and one that is a) very recent and b) compatible with my own areas of interest is the discovery by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren that H.pylori is a major cause of peptic ulcers.  Use of this of an example of how consensus is not always right has been addressed and "debunked" in ScienceBlog (http://tinyurl.com/oduwnxg).  However the "debunking" is factually incorrect.  In the article it is stated that:

       "By 1992, multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease, and medical practice rapidly changed. That’s less than ten years, which, given how long it takes to organize and carry out clinical trials, is amazingly fast. Yet somehow a favorite denialist myth is that “dogmatic,” “close-minded” scientists refused to accept Marshall and Warren’s findings. It’s an example of a scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown"

       The medical fraternity and the drug companies most definitely did not accept the findings of Marshall and Warren.  From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall):

       "Marshall has been quoted as saying in 1998 that "(e)veryone was against me, but I knew I was right" On the other hand, it has also been argued that medical researchers showed a proper degree of scientific scepticism until the H. pylori hypothesis could be supported by evidence.

       As is now very well known Marshall, to prove his point, drank a culture of H.pylori and developed gastritis thus establishing the point he was making.  This experiment lead directly to revision of the prior consensus that spicy foods and acidity caused peptic ulcers. 

       The final sentence in the quote  I referred to above is:

       "It’s an example of a scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown"

       Surely questioning the current consensus is exactly what sceptical climate scientists  are engaged in and for which they are often denigrated.

        

34522. bill4344 at 12:48 PM on 3 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #35
       

       I'm also curious about the 'dark widget'. Links to a similarly darkened full-frame interactive flash carousel thingy, complete with the ominous countdown, but what's it all about? Curious minds etc. ...

34523. Bob Loblaw at 11:00 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       The only possible answer to the question "what is the optimum global temperature?" is to say "what do you mean by optimum?".

       The question is so ill-defined as to be meaningless. It's like saying "provide me with the optimum code for this problem". Is the optimum code the one that

       • runs the fastest?
       • uses the least memory?
       • takes the least amount of development time?
       • is most robust to input errors?
       • takes the least maintenance time?
       • runs on the most operating systems?
       • maintains the company's monopoly?
       • produces the most patents?
       • is the most profitable?

       There is no "all of the above" answer.

       Even the (now frail and elderly) Koppen Climate Classification System, developed in the 1800s, was intended to explain global patterns of vegetation, not climate. The fact that different vegetation types do better in different parts of the world, due to different climates, is an indication that biology finds different regions "optimal" for different organisms. Each has its own niche.

        

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] I think this one has been done to death. Please respect no dog-piling.

34524. michael sweet at 07:43 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Tom,

       Your mention of Curry was so small I did not see it. 

       I stand by the point of my post: Ashton's reference to Curry was primarily to distract from your proof that Ashton's "skeptic" question was completely answered over a year ago.

       This is one of the primary issues dealing with Skeptics.  They do not keep up on what is known and are angry that their questions have not been addressed.  In fact, their questions have been addressed and they have ignored the answer. 

       Moderator Response:

       [JH]  Please let the Moderators do their job and keep your focus on the facts of the matter under discussion.  

34525. Ashton at 06:19 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Tom Curtis.  Thanks for putting the record straight

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] And thank you Ashton for acknowledging the effort. Can everyone take a deep breath and continue a focus on the science, without meta-comment on motives etc?

34526. Tom Curtis at 02:33 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Michael Sweet, it was in fact I who first mentioned Curry on this thread.  Nor was my mention particularly respectful, although I would not call it "dissing" and it gave Curry more respect than she probably deserves.  Your first point is, however, exactly correct.

34527. Tom Curtis at 02:29 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       MA Rodger @53, thanks.

       With regard to Curry, I had in mind particularly her Italian Flag post, but examplars are easilly multiplied.

34528. michael sweet at 02:28 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton has demonstrated another key denier tactic: to insult the person you are talking with when you have no data to support your position.

       I noticed that Ashton was the first person who mentioned Curry.  Ashton accused Tom fo dissing Curry when Tom had done nothing of the sort.  This accomplished two things at once:

       1) It changed the subject without Ashton having to conceed that Tom had answered Ashtons primary question from his previous post (it would be polite to acknowledge that his question was completely answered).

       2) It allowed Ashton to (falsely) accuse Tom of being disrespectful for  no legitimate reason.

       A brief review of the posts here shows that Tom had cited a Real Climate post (about Curry) that contained the specific data  that Ashton had asked for.  Tom's purpose in the cite was to provide support for his argument from an authorative source.  Tom never dissed, or indeed never commented on Curry before Ashton brought her up.  Ashton was successful in changing the subject to Curry from his failed attempt to claim that the question:

       "that sceptic/deniers often ask is what percentage of climate change is due to the burning of fossil fuels."

       has not been answered at length.  Ashton should apologize for his false claim about Curry and acknowledge that his previous question has been answered.

       Moderator Response:

       [Dikran Marsupial] Please can we keep the discussion focused on the topic of the article, rather than focus on the behaviour of particular individuals.  Please leave it to the moderators to take appropriate action if there are infringements of the comments policy.

34529. One Planet Only Forever at 00:54 AM on 3 September 2014
       Keystone XL: Oil Markets and Emissions
       

       A clarification of what I mean by impacts in my earlier comment. They would include the impacts that currently have no financial value in the marketplace. And the risks of impacts like a pipeline leak or ocean tanker accident also need to be included in the ranking of the differenet resources and how they become end-user energy.

       The lack of up-front financial implications for these impacts and risks in the marketplace leads to the development of higher impact less safe ways of doing things because it is cheaper and more profitable to get away with less decent ways of doing things. Some may argue that investors include an assessment of risk of harm. But many of hose investors have proven to be gamblers betting on getting away with their quick early profit and escaping serious personal consequence from a 'future accident' that is no real accident, it was made more likely because of their desire for more quicker profit. That is the reason the free action of everyone in the marketplace is unlikely to properly address this issue.

34530. MA Rodger at 00:51 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Tom Curtis @51.

       It might be useful to show AR5 WG1 Fig 10.5 so folk know where you're calculating your PDFs from.

       

       I note in her running tiff with Gavin Schmidt over attribution, Judy Curry recently made clear how wedded she is to recent warming being about 50:50 anthro and natural. She wrote "I think both 0% and 100% are extremely unlikely.”

       And with Ashton @47 accusing you of "dissing Judith Curry" for your comment @45 saying "I see ... concerted efforts to obfusticate (a la Curry)," I would suggest Exhibit A in any case against Curry for "concerted obfuscation" would be her 2011 'Nullifying the climate null hypothesis' paper that does a pretty good job of leaving no twist untied.

34531. KR at 00:28 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton - "...let me make it very plain to you I'm not asking the questions sceptics/deniers that I have spoken to are doing the asking..."

       This is the very essence of concern trolling - tossing out well-refuted denial talking points but refusing to own the questions raised. You have, I'm certain, sufficient critical capacity to evaluate these questions and decide whether (in your opinion) they are significant. If they are, ask them as your questions, taking ownership by having raised them. If not, don't bother repeating questions you consider nonsensical; that's just noise. You've made quite a lot of noise in these threads, supplying little content in the process. 

       WRT the "what's the optimum global temperature" canard, the global temperature is a measure of global climate, while "optimum" only makes sense on a regional basis with that microclimate and biota. In that regard the 'optimum' is whatever temperature, precipitation, agriculture, etc., the region is adapted to. Changes from the point of adaptation induce costs (both biological adaptive and financial), with faster changes costing more. Change, particularly rapid change, is the problem. 

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Plese note that I have informed Ashton that his schtick is wearing thin. I have also advised him to carefully read and adhere to the SkS Comments Policy. 

34532. Tom Curtis at 23:47 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ammendment to my posts @45 and 49.

       I have discovered my error in calculating the attribution likelihoods.  Therefore here is an ammended graph correcting the error:

       

       Further, the 5-95% confidence interval are:

       GHG contribution to recent warming: 138% +/- 107%

       Total anthropogenic contribution has been 108% +/- 29%

       Non-GHG anthropogenic factors was -38% +/-93%

       There is a 99.94% likelihood that the anthropogenic contribution was >50%, and a 99.07% chance that it was greater than 66%.  Any further differences between my and Gavin Schmidt's figures should only be due to rounding errors.

34533. DSL at 23:23 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton: "Read what I wrote. First let me make it very plain to you I'm not asking the questions sceptics/deniers that I have spoken to are doing the asking."

       What Leto wrote. 

       Ashton: "Second I agree there is a range of temperatures. That being so how can the IPCC or anyone else give a global temperature? But they do. Are the satellite measurements giving global temperatures meaningless?"

       Global temp is meaningless as an absolute figure in isolation.  As a time series (and, by extension, the anomaly), it is quite useful.

       Ashton: "In the context you describe, apparently they are. So can you advise if why, on the one hand global temperatures are reported while on the other you say optimum has no meaning? If it has no meaning how can decisions be made as to the effect of an increase of, say, 2C will have?"

       Global mean surface temperature isn't used as anything other than as a time series (note that you use the word "increase").  You're trying to turn a strawman into Godzilla.  It's embarrassing.  

34534. Tom Curtis at 22:32 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton:

       1)  Judith Curry quotes the IPCC as saying:

       "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

       As the IPCC explains in a footnote that "Extremely likely" means a likelihood of "95–100%".  Therefore the above statement can be parsed as

       "There is a likelihood of at least 95% that more than 50% of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

       That is, I put it to you, not at all ambiguous or imprecise.  Further, as based on Fig 10.5 the likelihood of the anthropogenic contribution being 50% or less is 0.000027%(*), and thus that the IPCC statement is extremely conservative given the likilihoods represented in Fig 10.5.

       In response to this, Curry writes:

       "I’ve remarked on the ‘most’ (previous incarnation of ‘more than half’, equivalent in meaning) in my Uncertainty Monster paper:

       Further, the attribution statement itself is at best imprecise and at worst ambiguous: what does “most” mean – 51% or 99%?

       Whether it is 51% or 99% would seem to make a rather big difference regarding the policy response. It’s time for climate scientists to refine this range."

       If "most" is equivalent in meaning to "more than half", than the IPCC statement is not at all imprecise, and it is hardly beneath anybodies dignity to make it clear when a purported authority on a subject takes what is clear and precise and tries to get people to believe it is the opposite.

       (* - My calculation still gives a far more restricted likelihood than does that by Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate - a discrepancy I cannot at present account for. He, however, gives a likelihood of 99.5% that the anthropogenic contribution is greater than 66%, so the difference in no way affects the logic of the argument.)

       2)  The Earth's surface does indeed experience a range of temperatures, and that in no way prevents it from having a Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST).  Not distinguishing between a mean temperature and a common temperature for all the globe, as you do is some pretty sterling obfustication itself.  Even if we take you to be talking about the GMST, your point is a non sequitur.  If you disagree, I am willing to discuss the point in detail where it is on topic.  

34535. chriskoz at 20:53 PM on 2 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #35
       

       What's the top-right "dark shadow" image above heat_widget.htm and what is it down counting? Currently, it's 5 days (?) of the countdown left...

34536. Leto at 19:56 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton,

       It is tiresome enough reading simplistic denialist talking points without the added vexation of having those talking points tossed into the debate by someone who will not then take responsibility for them. If you personally think the question: 'What is the optimum global temperature?' is worthwhile, and more than a distracting rhetorical trick, defend it as your own. If you don't think it is a worthwhile question, please don't give it airtime.

       The diss-worthiness of Curry is a whole extra debate, but it is disingenuous and unfair to accuse Tom, who always scrupulously sticks to the data, of dissing someone merely because they disagree with him. Your own interactions with him should already have been enough to make you realise that. If you knew more about climate science, and more about Curry in particular, you would recognise the remarkable restraint with which Tom describes Curry's position.

       If you do not want to be dismissed as a concern troll, I suggest you stop quoting the ideas of others and stick to comments about the actual data and your own interpretation of it.

34537. Ashton at 16:50 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Mancan18.  A couple of points.  You ask: "Your question, what is the optimum temperature has no meaning when you consider the temperature gradient across the planet from the equator to the poles, between the hemispheres and between the ocean and the land. Also, the context of the question is important".

       Read what I wrote. First let me make it very plain to you I'm not asking the questions sceptics/deniers that I have spoken to are doing the asking.  

       Second I agree there is a range of temperatures.  That being so how can the IPCC or anyone else give a global temperature?  But they do.  Are the satellite measurements giving global temperatures meaningless? In the context you describe, apparently they are.  So can you advise if why, on the one hand global temperatures are reported while on the other you say optimum has no meaning?  If it has no meaning how can decisions be made as to the effect of an increase of, say, 2C will have?  That question also is relevant to the comment by Tom Curtis that "the question "What is the ideal global temperature" is too simplistic"

       But all that aside, my point was that far from being trolls and thickos and dunderheads and lower forms of life, many sceptic/deniers I have spoken to clearly are not.  And Tom Curtis, dissing Judith Curry because she does not agree with you is a bit infra dig.  Does she diss you because you don't agree with her?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Your schtick is wearing thin. 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

34538. One Planet Only Forever at 15:12 PM on 2 September 2014
       Keystone XL: Oil Markets and Emissions
       

       This issue highlights the reality that the currently developed global financial, industrial, and trade systems cannot be expected to 'lead to the development of a sustainable better future for all'. All signs point to 'something' needing to be done to change what is happening. Yet the decades pass without anything significant being done.

       The impacts of the XL pipeline would be irrelevant if it were determined that the Oil Sands are undeserving of being part of the buried hydrocarbons that are allowed to be burned.

       It is clear that to develop a sustainable better future there must be a limit on the benefits people can get for themselves in their time. But the system that has developed is all about encouraging the attempts of people to maximize the short-term benefit they can get without a concern for the future, or even a concernb for the current day impacts. The future is an easy target to harm because it has no vote, no buying power, and no legal recourse.

       As unpopular and unprofitable and impossible as this may sound one solution would be for the global community to collectively agree to an evaluaton of all the buried hydrocarbons we have located and know how to extract and burn. The evaluation would measure the impacts of each resource per unit of end-user energy obtained for comparison. The impacts would not just be CO2, they would be all impacts. The different resource promoters have already done a lot of the leg-work for the comparisons. All their internal data and their deceptive marketing pitches would contain the majority of the required data. All their information would just need to be evaluated by a team of scientists, like the IPCC. Then the resources could be ranked from least impact per unit of end-use energy obtained and the resources that add up to something like a 1.5 degree C limit would become the resources that can be extracted. And all the resources below that line would be quickly, but rationally shut-in with an expected impact of approximately 0.5 C as they are curtailed bringing the total impact to 2.0 C .

       This approach would mean that regions and investors that gambled on benefiting from the high-impact operations that don't make the cut would "lose their bets". Someone has to lose. Those who still have high-stakes gambles on getting away with high-impact actvity deserve to lose. Game-on.

34539. Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       On a side note, "ideal temperature" differs by organism, by mass (larger prefers cooler), by metabolism (ectothermic prefers warmer up to about 40 C, endothermic prefers colder), and by specific adaption (polar bears prefer cold, thermophiles prefer hot).  Because different organisms will respond differently to changes in temperature, rate of change in temperature becomes a relevant factor.  For example, trees, ceterus paribus, do better with warmer than typical north american summer temperatures, but beetles do even better still so that the net effect of warming is devestating to trees - at least in the short term.  Consequently rates of change in temperature greater than 0.01 C per century sustained over multiple decades would be net harmfull to ecosystems regardless of whether or not they are net beneficial or harmfull after several thousand years of adaption.

       Given all of the above, the question "What is the ideal global temperature" is too simplistic even assuming it is intended seriously rather than as a rhetorical ploy.

34540. Tom Curtis at 10:44 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton @39, the GHG contribution to recent warming (since 1950) has been 138% +/- 63% (90% confidence range).  The total anthropogenic contribution has been 108% +/- 19%.  The combined contribution of all non-GHG anthropogenic factors was -38% +/-54%.  Negative contributions indicate that the factor would have cooled temperatures in the absense of other effects; while contributions greater than 100% means that absent some cooling effect, the factor would have caused the warming to be greater than that observed.  The large uncertainties for GHG contribution and Other Anthropogenic (OA) contributions are not independent.  A larger GHG contribution implies a more negative OA contribution, and vice versa.  The PDFs of the three factors is plotted below:

       

       Like the figures for the total anthropogenic contribution in a recent Real Climate post, these figures are derived from the AR5 WG1 figure 10.5.  There figures differ slightly from mine.  They round the mean estimate of total anthropogenic contributions up to 110%, and give a 90% confidence interval of 80-130% compared to my 89-127%.  I am not sure of the reason for the difference.  It may be due to aggressive rounding of the 95% confidence interval mistakenly attributed (84.7-130.8% by my calculation), or to an error on my behalf.  The difference is not large enough to be relevant for internet discussions.

       This information has been in the public domain now for a year.  Sufficiently accurate equivalent information has been in the public domain since 2007 (AR4).  I do not see any skeptics/deniers accepting their "question" as having been answered.  Rather, I see either concerted efforts to obfusticate (a la Curry) or outright dismissal of the figures because they come from the IPCC.  The reason is simple - it is not an answer that sits comfortably with skeptics'/deniers' ideology. Granted a small percentage of skeptics/deniers may be simply scientifically confused, but polls show that most adhere to a right wing economic ideology - in many cases an extremist right wing economic ideology; and an astonishingly large percentage of their leading lights have direct connections with righ wing think tanks.  By objective measure, it is opposition to the findings of the IPCC that is politically motivated - not acceptance.

       I think this example, chosen by you, shows very clearly that AGW "skepticism" is not based simply on having some relevant questions unanswered.  That is only a plausible supposition if the questions have in fact not been answered.  

       Further, in this case, the straightforward answer of the IPCC that it is 90-100% certain (ie, "is very likely") that "More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is ... due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations"  is more than sufficient to give mitigating AGW a high policy priority.  Quibling because exact mean and range estimates are not given in executive summaries is plainly an obfusticatory tactic, ie, it is trolling.  This is particularly the case given that the more detailed answer can be obtained by simple maths from that same report.  (I assume that somebody genuinely interested in a more detailed result would do the maths themselves, or at least consult the figure to obtain the mean and 90% range of temperature contribution, which requires no more than a pixel count.)

34541. mancan18 at 08:32 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton

       In this debate, it is not only the quality of the arguments that are important, it is also the quality of the questions asked. Your question, what is the optimum temperature has no meaning when you consider the temperature gradient across the planet from the equator to the poles, between the hemispheres and between the ocean and the land. Also,  the context of the question is important.

       Perhaps, you need to explain how increasing greenhouse gases are NOT going to warm the planet and change the climate? Also, you need to explain why these greenhouse gases are at least 40% above the norm of the past million years, even through the ice ages and inter-glacials,  particularly since we have seen this increase occur in under 200 years when normally, in the past, such a change would take thousands or tens of thousands of years. Also, you need to explain why we are seeing a change of 2 ppm annually, which again is unprecedented prior to the industrial era? What is different today that these changes are happening  if they are all occurring naturally? Magic or do you think all the scientists who have observed these changes are just fudging the figures? You could also answer, how burning all the known reserves of fossil fuels and increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere back to the age of the dinosaurs, considering that the Sun's radiance level was at least 10% lower at that time, could possibly be good for the global climate considering that this was the climate that allowed us to evolve into who we are today?

       Answer those questions and show that it is all just natural and then perhaps you will be taken seriously.

34542. pete best at 05:17 AM on 2 September 2014
       Keystone XL: Oil Markets and Emissions
       

       Oil and Gas are very hard energy sources to replace, but coal is the easiest but economically and politically it does not look so easy. For some reason some countries either produce a lot of it or use a lot of it and it employs a lot of people, and makes money for producers and consumers. I always felt that technologically coal was the easiest to replace, its a baseload power source and hence there are lots of suitable alternatives available such as wind, solar, solar thermal, nuclear, tidal, wave and gas etc but as they grow so does demand and globally coal usage is not slowing at the rates needed if at all.

       we need to clean up our grids to zero coal or CCS coal.

34543. jimspy at 03:57 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       In my experience, the Galileo Gambit most frequently arises in the context of the "science doesn't work by concensus" myth.  "The consensus in Galileo's time," trills the troll, "was that the sun went around the earth.  Galileo stood alone against that model."  My response takes a somewhat Socratic approach: "How do you know Galileo was right?  Have you yourself peered through a telescope and done the various orbital calculations?  I'm guessing not.  I propose that you learned he was right by reading science texts, which represent the aggregate opinion of modern astronomers.  In other words...consensus!" 

34544. Charliec65 at 01:06 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       It's isn't the science that's frequently in question.  The argument is about "selling newspapers," "garnering alliances," and individual and social power relationships.  Humans, chimps and baboons do it along with all other primates, and that's the dynamic in play.  For better or worse, factuality is frequently a wallflower in the great social debate.  It always has been.

34545. DSL at 23:19 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton (or the fake skeptics he represents): "What is the optimum global temperature?"

       Optimum temperature for what?

       
       Before you respond, I'll point out that the question is irrelevant.  It's a rhetorical ploy designed for those who don't understand the central problem with global warming.  There is an optimum temperature range for life on planet Earth.  The danger from global warming is the rapidity of the change in temperature.  Now that you're included in the group the meme targets, perhaps you might want to do a bit more reading before simply acting as a parrot for those who design these sorts of ploys.

34546. MA Rodger at 23:00 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton @39.

       Good of you to volunteer to role-play for this thread on trolling. In citing Ólafsdóttir et al (2013) as some form of evidence for the existence of "long term cycles in natural phenomena such as in the NAO and AMO" that may or may not have played a significant role in recent warming, did you manage to read it? If not, you may find this bundle of 2 studies useful as it is open access and includes the Hvítárvatn study.

       Also note that the "clearly isn't 100%" message assumes all those devilish natural wobbles don't go and all cancel themselves out, which they probably would do at some point in time, just as they would at times produce a net cooling resulting in an embarrasing +100% AGW contribution.

34547. Ashton at 20:56 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       There's a few strawmen around in this discussion perhaps the most egregious of which are that sceptics/deniers claim there is no climate change and/or all climate change is due to natural causes.  Obviously I haven't met every sceptic/denier but based on the comments from those that  I have, the sceptics/deniers view on climate change is:

       "of course climate change is happening it has been happening since the earth began"  and

       "of course CO2 from the burning of fossils fuels is contributing to climate change in addition to the contributions from natural causes"

       A question  that sceptic/deniers often ask is what percentage of climate  change is due to the burning of fossil fuels.  Various scientific bodies have stated: "Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years." (American Geophysical Union 2013}.  This doesn't of course specifically address burning of fosil fuels aa deafforestation and other activities are covered by this sweeping statement.  Others state "anthropogenic contributions are significant." (American Medical Association2013), "the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases", (American Meteorological Society 2012) and the IPCC states "“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

       Clearly these august bodies do regard burning of fossil fuels as contributing significantly (as indeed do the sceptics/deniers I have spoken to) but do not put any sort of a figure on how much this contribution is.  Consequently it seems a fair question from sceptics/deniers as to what percentage is due to human activities.  It clearly isn't 100% else unless the roles of the AMO and PDO and other natural factors is nil and taking the change over 50 years may not exclude long term cycles in natural phenomena such as in the NAO and AMO (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113001145)

       Another question asked by many of the sceptic/deniers I have met is"What is the optimum global temperature?"  Most sceptoics/deniers are aware the global temperature in  the Mediaeval Warm Period may well have been cooler than today but that doesn't answer the question of what is the optimum.  

       Naturally, I expect this post to be classed as trolling and if so, so be it.  But uncritically dismissing sceptics/deniers as trolls is perhaps not justified.

       I don't think that has been answered above.  Other questions are"What is the ideal global temperature

34548. localis at 17:06 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       It might be interesting to challenge deniers to try and convince us "warmists" that Co2 in the atmosphere isn't rising by 2ppm per year and the science that proves Co2 creates warming is false. Given that they won't be able to a more revealing question might then be to ask them why they would want to deny something so well proven. All weather forecasters should include current Co2 levels as part of their forecasts. At least that might start a few million people to actually start thinking about the issue. The biggest problem at the moment aren't the deniers, it is the total lack of interest the majority of people have in the subject. Those of us who argue about it are still a minority of the population.

34549. bouke at 16:25 PM on 1 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #35
       

       The link "The EPA’s limits on emissions are important but not enough" is broken

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention. 

34550. scaddenp at 14:58 PM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Okay Tom, understood in the context your analysis.

Prev  683  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  Next