Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 Next
Comments 39151 to 39200:
-
DSL at 05:08 AM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Perhaps, DD, but then let's also recognize without hem-hawing just what sort of project Judith Curry is engaged in. Curry is interested in the promotion of uncertainty. In the minds of the general public, uncertainty typically reads as doubt, and Curry knows that. What Curry publishes and what Curry says often result in dissonance.
-
Sam martin8679 at 04:33 AM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
@ wili 8- so are we suggesting that if only the ipcc publication cut off had extended to jan 1 14 then ar5 would have published a likely range of 3- 4.5 degrees c warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Must be an important paper if it so clearly outweighs the 20000 or however many came before it.
-
Sam martin8679 at 04:26 AM on 22 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #3
I note the word "once" in th wunderground article:
Though warming didn't stop completely – global temperatures have risen by an average of about 0.05°C per decade since then, a far cry from the 0.15°C to 0.3°C per decade once projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –
It is written as though 2013 was long ago and predictions have changed since then which they have not. Ipcc predictions have remained a remarkbly constant over a quarter of a century. It is still a far cry.
-
Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
The kind of vicious personal attacks being made here on Curry are not helpful to anyone who wants climate skeptics to be brought into the fold. Curry is not a climate change denier by any means. Her critique centers on specific innaccuracies in various models, some data insuffuciency points, and an attempt to make people aware that there are various physical climate effects impacting -real- temperatures that we do not fully understand (including aquatic heat storage, as mentioned).
Attacking her as an "idiot" and questioning why she is "even invited" to these discussions is tasteless garbage. More importantly, it is not helpful in spreading acceptance and understanding of climate science. She's not some shill for the energy industry, nor is she a denier. Critique her arguments themselves, and show a bit more adherence to the standards of sctientific debate, rather than making ad hominems. Otherwise these kinds of comments just lend credence to the very common narrative among deniers that researchers who disagree with AGW are subject to witch hunts, bullying and suppression. When you start to make deniers sound rational by your own actions, you might be the problem.
Curry's observations are extremely important and healthy to this situation. They are in fact raising good questions and providing opportunities for counter points. If she were shilling and not a respectable climate scientist in her own regards, I'd understand the venom here, but she's just a researcher with some fairly mild objections.Here she is giving an interview a few weeks ago on a podcast. This is not the voice of a cliamte denier, just one who is pointing out reservations she has with many current assumptions. Let's keep the debate with her points, yes? And not descend into name calling.
Link: www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html
-
rockytom at 03:59 AM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Dana1981.
Thanks for all you do for climate science and for excellent posts here and the Guardian. One minor correction in the abopve post: the IPCC AR5, The Physical Science Basis, was released on September 30, 2013, not 2014. Thr remainder of the AR5 will indeed be released in 2014. The 2013 AR5 is a draft but despite instructions to "not quote, cite, or distribute" it seems that many are ignoring this because the report is all we have of AR5 at present.
-
kanspaugh at 03:39 AM on 22 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
I wonder how often Dr. Mandia encounters climate change deniers among his students and how they respond to his pedagogical approach? A few years back I taught a course on the discourses of anti-science and in a class of twenty had three incorrigible deniers.
-
gws at 01:16 AM on 22 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
Stephen @31,
You are of course correct that the viewpoint of electricty production maybe a focus too narrow; the Howarth vs. Cathles discussion in Climatic Change linked in our previous post may give a broader perspective. For instance, for natural gas use in homes (e.g. water heaters) one has to consider extra leakage from the distribution system and compare to the alternative method (here, e.g. heating with electricity and how that is produced), while considering the efficiencies of both processes. In some the natural gas use may be more, in some less efficient than in the power plant comparison. And thus in some regions, the alternative energy source may be even worse while in others better suited to minimize GHG emissions. No one-size-fits-all.
I often invoke the example of Germany ~20 years ago: After the iron curtain fell, the country converted much of its home central heating units nationwide away from oil/electricity to much higher efficiency natgas burners, therefore saving large amounts of GHG emissions. At the same time, this reduced Russian methane emissions because they fixed production and pipeline leaks in response to the economic incentives from the west, a win-win situation. Meanwhile, the Germans have realized that this conversion only goes so far, and that climate change cannot be addressed sufficiently with natural gas ...
... which reminds me of this famous quote:
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else."
-
MA Rodger at 23:33 PM on 21 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
Tom Dayton @46.
After due consideration, I think the case that MoreCarbonOK should be debunked is stronger than you put. Would SkS hesitate to debunk say a Monckton or a Lindzen because Monckton or Lindzen as the author would not be able to understand why their thesis is nonsense?
So an appraisal of the offending thesis is presented here on a more appropriate comment thread.
-
Tom Dayton at 23:32 PM on 21 January 2014Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
Thank you, MA Rodger, for that dissection of MoreCarbonOK's claim!
-
MA Rodger at 23:24 PM on 21 January 2014Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
This is an appraisal of a thesis that was presented off-topic on a different SkS thread by commenter MoreCarbonOK (a different thesis to the one linked @84 above). The thesis is set out in two parts at MoreCarbonOK's blog here and here. This thesis is a bit of a Kelloggs, containing a lot of serial errors that are perhaps best explained backwards.
(1) The thesis concludes that average global daily maximum temperatures vary cyclically, described by a sine wave (centres on y=0) with a wave-length of 88 years (a time interval of great significance apparently). This finding is incorrect because if such a sine wave were fitted to the data use, it would have a wave-length of 180 years +/- 50 years.
(2) Despite arguments to the contrary, the sine wave is derived solely on the basis of 4 data points that present little more than a straight line. Such a sine wave is illusory.
(3) The data plot is not as described "showing speed of warming in degrees C or K/annum versus time." This is accumulative data. Deriving "speed of warming" data from an accumulative sine wave of constant amplitude would result in a sine wave with amplitude increasing exponentially with increasing years-before-present (and presumably also with increasing years-after-present).
(4) The accumulative data is plotted at the start of the period it represents rather than at the mid-point. As these periods are all "...to date", the correct plot would be half the time-interval before-present. Thus the conclusion that the "drop in speed of warming started ca. 40 years ago" presents a value twice as large as it should be (although it is wrong for other reasons).
(5) The accumulative data is calculated as an average but the spread of the raw data within this average has been ignored. The high variance of the data dwarfs the calculated downward trend which is thus statistically insignificance. No trend whatever can be argued from the data. (Happily the averages were calculated without error.) The averages with their 95% confidence intervals are shown below.
0 to 38 years bp. - 0.035 ave, -0.009 to 0.080
0 to 32 years bp. - 0.027 ave, -0.020 to 0.075
0 to 22 years bp. - 0.015 ave, -0.046 to 0.075
0 to 12 years bp. - -0.013 ave, -0.155 to 0.128
(6) The data calculated is accumulative data. Deriving actual data presents a less-straight trend-line for the average 'maxima' and doubles the downward trend but the variance triples so there remains no trend of statistical significance.
(7) The use of linear regression to analyse lumpy climate data (in this case to calculate rate of change of 'maxima' at each of the 46 selected stations over 4 time periods of different length) is well known to often result in dramatic averages that are hwoever statisitcally insignificant due to the presence of very large variances. The data used (in 1-6 above) will be further subject to very large inaccuracies due to the use of regression yet no account what ever has been made for this.
(8) The thesis fails to consider what work already exists on the subject of 'maxima' or DTR. A quick look at say the global DTR work of the BEST project or the regional DTR work of Wang & Dickinson (2013) with a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation should have saved a lot of wasted effort trying to reinvent the wheel and doing it so badly.
-
michael sweet at 22:19 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster,
You have been posting here for long enough to obtain a reputation. You bring up some denier meme from some discredited site and suggest it is shows scientists are doing something nefarious. Then you get angry when people come down on your posts saying you do not really agree with the post you just want it refuted. It is simple to go to one of the denier sites and check their links to find this junk you post. It takes time to refute the argument.
You have not acknowledged scaddenp's link to the actual data you asked about and you appear to have ignored it. Why ask about stuff you are not interested in pursuing? You ignored Tom's question about your motivation. You have not read the background here, at Real Climate and elsewhere that you have been referred to. Since you do not know the background you keep coming up with more junk. You anonymously claim expertise in science. Why don't you use that expertise to read the background?
People who have a background in science who post here usually come around to the science after two weeks of reading here. Your recent posts primarily complain that you do not like the tone of the replies to your posts. I suggest, again, that you read some of the background so that you can engage in an informed discussion here. It is not the job of SkS to screen all the web sites you choose to read. You will find people are much more friendly when you have done your homework. When you take a confrontational position (for example suggesting that data has been fudged by international data collection agencies), do not be surprised when people are confrontational in return.
-
barry1487 at 20:44 PM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Good evening, Bruiser. Please provide a link for the solar data as requested. I'd like to follow it up.
[mods, thank you. I see what I did wrong]
[Tom, yes hosting at photobucket was what I should have done in the absence of archived images (I looked). NT is probably showing because the source code for each state is what is highlighted when the cursor hovers over the continent. Discovered that just now]
-
Dan001 at 20:15 PM on 21 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
The link to Mike Santalucia's paper takes you to the wrong article.
Response:[JC] Thanks for the heads up, have fixed the link.
-
Poster9662 at 19:59 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Tom Curtis Skeptical Science is your stamping ground not mine. If what I posted initially, when knowing nothing of Steve Goddard's reputation, was seen merely as an irrelevance then I apologise for that. You recognise the "research" Goddard reported as "myth" I didn't. Perhaps i should have done and again I apologise. I do recognise however that the pendulum of public opinion is not stationary and may ulimately move to a stopping point that neither you nor I might like. Perhaps a little less confrontation and a little more conciliation might be an approach worth taking to avert that.
-
bruiser at 19:18 PM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
@Barry - Hi Barry, Your map of NSW solar radiation in 2013 would appear to be within the "normal" range however the map itself is something of an anomaly if compared to almost any weather station across Australia. Take the capitals, Alice Springs and fill in the blank spaces at your leisure. They mostly show 6 months of record exposure. 2-4 months above average and 2-4 slightly below average. On balance they are well above average on an annual basis.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:34 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster @21, I do not have a PhD, but am very well versed in the reasons for not misquoting. Certainly sufficiently well versed to know that, in order to misquote you I must first quote you. Your pointing to a sentence in which I present my assessment of what you have done and pretending it is a misquotation constitutes a rather grotesque misrepresentation.
Further, that you have presented it to us as interesting is shown by the fact that you presented it to us. It is logically possible, of course that a person would discuss and provide a link to something that they consider irrelevant; and that they expect their readers to consider irrelevant. It is, however, not rational. So, either you had a reason to be interested in Goddard's article, and a reason to think we also ought to be interested in it - or you were being flamboyantly off topic in your posting, presenting material that had no relevance either to the OP nor even to you own post.
The interesting question is why do you find Goddard's post interesting enough to bring it up in discussion here?
You said:
"It is this type of report that creates unease in many as it suggests that results from "official bodies" might be not be entirely what they appear to be. This, I think, does a disservice to all who are involved in studying the climate."
But what is the basis of that unease?
(1) Is the interesting fact that the report has no substantive basis for its accusations of fraud, and yet is believed uncritically anyway? Certainly, most of the "unease" with climate science is focussed by factually deficient, poorly analyzed and often contradictory myths - but that his hardly news to us on this site. So it is very puzzling as to why you would advise us of what we so patently already know - particularly in so obscure a manner.
(2) Alternatively, are you purporting that the report is interesting because you think Goddard establishes at least a prima facie case? That would seem the most reasonable basis for your post - especially given that you appear to think we should in fact refute his "case". But his "case" consists of nothing more than periodically drawing attention to data gleaned from Menne et al, 2009 as if it were a new discovery, and inferring fraud with no further analysis. That is, he has no case, and that should be evident to you.
(3) Finally, do you simply not care whether Goddard has a case or not. Do you think the mere existence of slanders means the consequences of those slanders on public opinion are the fault of the person slandered? Should scientists make no adjustments to data (no matter how scientifically justified) because they can be misrepresented as being fraudulent to the detriment of popular sentiment?
These three, I think, almost exhaust the possibilities. Either you recognize Goddard's article as a myth, and are bringing to the attention of SkS the stunning fact that climate myths influence public opinion; or you think there is something in Goddard's claim, and are bringing it to our attention for that reason; or you don't care, and think the scientists should avoid actions leading to such potential slanders (or how else is the fact that such slanders effect public opinion relevant).
There is one other way to escape this tetralemma. You may be simply introducing the myth so that it can influence potential readers, but doing so at arms length so that you are not committed to defending it. That is, you may be seeking to gain rhetorical advantage to further the "unease" if we don't refute Goddard, but without committing yourself to the lose of credibility that would come from trying to defend him.
Please feel free to clarrify which of the four applies. But please don't insult us by pretending you were confused by Goddard's report and hoping we had a refutation to hand. Your discussion of the influence on public opinion ("...this type of report that creates unease in many...") shows that personal understanding of the flaws in Goddard's argument was not your objective.
-
wili at 16:58 PM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Sam, it is not unchanged. Read the last line of the above article more carefully and click on the relevant passage to go to the page that discusses the recent Sherwood et alia paper that shows that all models that show sensitivities below 3 degrees C per CO2 doubling can now be pretty well dismissed, unless someone can find a major flaw in that studies methodologies...
This is not good news.
-
Poster9662 at 15:37 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Tom Curtis I assume you have a PhD and therefore are well versed in the reasons for not misquoting. Given that assumption I am surprised you state with relation to my first post "So why are you presenting his opinion as interesting?" Nowhere did I use the word interesting nor did I imply that it was. Or are you saying that because I presented it I found it interesting? If so that's an incorrect assumption. I think that you and many others on this blog "don't get it". The mood in the populace has changed and is changing. with increasing numbers expressing doubts on the AGW proposition. Very recent examples are at tinyurl.com/mqspjos tinyurl.com/l866f5b and increases in doubters is reported in Australia with the ABS showing a fall from 73% to 57% in those concerned about climate change (tinyurl.com/nlvtoa2) Similar findings also have been reported in the UK. Bearing this in mind it seems odd to antagonise those who come to Skeptical Science with a desire to learn rather than try to convince them that your view point is correct by a using a more amiable approach. As for your question "Or do you claim that the trapping of the Akademik Shokalskiy in ice is likely to merit a paragraph in the next IPCC report?" I'd be a conceited fool to claim any such thing. If you'd asked do I think it might have merited a paragraph I would have answered "no" with the caveat that neither would I have thought that the melting of the Himalaya glaciers would have been in an IPCC report either. So who knows?
I am aware of the requirements for comments and hope this reply does not contravene those requirements
-
Jim Eager at 15:06 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster, you've pointed to the blog of a well-known denier of the legitimacy of not just climate science, but of basic physics itself, and then objected to the tone of the response here. Now you've pointed to the blog of someone with both a financial interest in the mining industry and a weapons-grade hate-on for that science, plus a track record of being highly selective in representing the facts.
As a PhD scientist, would your advice to a new graduate student embarkng on a research project be to first review the relevant scientific literature, or to run off and check the blogs to see what crackpots with absolutely no training or expertise in the field had to say on the topic?
You're 0 for 2. Three strikes and someone is really going to call you out on it.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster:
1) Steve Goddard shows that there is a temperature difference between USHCN v1 and USHCN v2. As both use essentiall the same raw dataset, it follows that the difference is due to come change in adjustments. Steve Goddard then asserts an explanation for the change in adjustments, ie, fraud. He did not survey the literature on the subject. He did not itemize the differences in adjustments between the two. He did not examine the difference between raw and adjusted records at sample sites to identify the reason for the difference. In fact, he presented no evidence whatsoever in support of his hypothesis beyond the original fact it was intended to explain.
As a PhD scientist, you therefore know that he has not supported his opinion in any relevant way. So why are you presenting his opinion as interesting? And given that he has not supported his opinion, pointing out that he has a history of unsupported and ridiculous hypotheses is a relevant rebutal. There is no need to rebut his detailed arguments because he has not made any.2) I find Steve McIntyre's article interesting, in that I once raised with him the issue as to why his "audit" of climate science was so one sided. Why he audited Mann, and Jones, and Briffa, and Marcott etc in such obsessive detail, but never bothered auditing the Salby's, the Morner's, the Easterbrooks, etc. His reponse was that he only auditted things that were likely to make it into the IPCC. His article on Turney, therefore interests me in that it gives the lie to his excuse. Or do you claim that the trapping of the Akademik Shokalskiy in ice is likely to merit a paragraph in the next IPCC report?
-
scaddenp at 14:09 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Not the moderator, but use the Search box, top left to find a topic. All topics are open. Most people use the "comments" item to follow activity so messing not really a "topic du jour" here. Discussion continues on topics for years.
Moderator Response:[RH] I think the general idea is to try to keep a thread on topic. If you answer a specific off-topic question that you think might go off on a tangent, better to err on the side of caution and see if you can find an appropriate thread for the comment. As Daniel said, everyone follows the collected comments in the menu bar, so there's no chance your comment will get lost. Moderators usually only snip off-topic when it's obvious the commenter chronically can't manage to stay on topic.
-
Poster9662 at 14:03 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Moderator I would very grateful for you r advice. If I'm asked a question on a topic not really related to the topic du jour, am I allowed to answer it without being snipped for being off-topic?
-
Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Barry @18, I think you meant to display this image rather than that of the Northern Territory:
However, that image, and the two you show have a URL ending with "latest.gif". That indicates the image will be updated early in February to show the Period Feb 1, 2013 to Jan 31, 2014; and again each following month. If you want a permanent record of 2013 you need to either find a gif that shows that, or copy the image and host it at a convenient site; or possibly use the waybackmachine to host the current image. (I haven't done the last so I don't know how to go about it, or whether it is even possible with just images.
-
Sam martin8679 at 13:08 PM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
The above raises an interesting point about the sensitivity to doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration- Why is it that after 24 years of research and huge advances in computing power and model detail the sensitivity prediction range is unchanged from 1.5- 4.5 degrees C?
-
Daniel Bailey at 12:59 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Model data and codes are openly available, and have been for some time:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#GCM_code
Note that the Muir Russell Commission was able to do a full global reconstruction from the raw data linked to from the above page, WITHOUT ANY CODE, in a mere 2 days (when asked, they replied "any competent researcher could have done the same).
The Auditors over at McIntyre's Climate Audit have been struggling with their "audit" reconstruction for years now.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:46 PM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
The fact that Curry is still being invited to state deliberate deceptions at such hearings, her history of behaviour clearly indicates this should be expected from her, is the most telling point.
Deliberate deception can succeed when a lot of people see no benefit from admitting the truth. The global socioeconomic system is fatally flawed. It leads to the development of damaging unsustainable activity because it is more profitable and beneficial if you can get away with it. And this type of irrational behaviour is required to develop 'excuses' for the unacceptable activity so many people want to try to benefit from developing.
So that lays a significant aspect of the problem. It is pretty clear. The difficulty is figuring out how to get 'decent considerate reasonable' behaviour from leaders in a game of 'popularity'. So the politics of 'popularity' are also part of the problem.
The real fundamental problem seems to be the change of cultural focus in the late 1800s that Susan Cain outlines in the beginning of her book "Quiet: The Power of the Introverts". The importance of 'substance' was usurped (my term) with the importance of 'Image'.
You can get a sense of the content of the book can be obtained from her TED talk at the following link. She discusses the culture value change starting at about the 11:30 point in the presentation.
http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.html
Current Politicians and business leaders are likely to be 'more extroverted'. Current Scientists are likely to be 'more introverted'. Introverts are being dismissed in the socioeconomic-political system. This is to the detriment of the society and the economy, but the extroverts (politicians and business leaders) are happy to believe messages that 'Impress them most, telling them what they prefer to hear'.
Hopefully the introverts providing the best understanding that contradicts the interests of people who want to get more benefit for themselves will become more 'popular' than the deceptive messages that 'suit the interests of those who have allowed the socioeconomic system to make them become selfish and greedy'.
-
scaddenp at 12:45 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster, if someone was wondering about quackery with say a "provocative urine test", as an endocrinologist, would you suggest someone looks up anonymous blogs with Doctor Data funding it; or look up material by written by endocrinologist with a long publishing record and reporting on a consensus position?
As to McIntyre, he has a long record of being long on innuendo and short of actually publishing much which he is quite capable of doing. He writes well and impresses with his even tone. However, you might like to look at this example of manipulating the message. Perhaps if he spent more time on science than on reading other people's email, then he might accord more respect. It would be wonderful if he used his "auditing" skills on the bunkum put out by pseudo-skeptics but casting aspersions on working scientists is more his thing.
-
Poster9662 at 11:28 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
The comments made here do not surprise. (-snip-). I am surprised that anyone who has supervised graduate students has not learned that some people are not worth reading", I had never heard of Steve Goddard or Real Science until yesterday, had absolutely no knowledge of him or his blog so had no idea whether or not he was worth reading. If you're not immersed in a particular topic (and mine is steroid endocrinology not climate science) you don't know the credibility of a writer until you've read his/her work and has sought comment from those that are familiar with that work. I've done that here but on balance, excepting of course Rob Painting @2, I rather wish I hadn't as no one really likes to be insulted and the oblect of condescension.
That said, and in the context of this blog as I've seen something, I should say something, I've just read an interessting article on the Chris Turney expedition to the Antarctic (tinyurl.com/l7jmgz5) by Steve McIntyre at Climate. I've read a lot of stuff from him and find his explanations are generally clear, seemingly unbiased and credible. But what are the view of the experts? Is he also considered a charlatan at SkepticalScience?
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
Dave123 at 11:22 AM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Wait-BJ- Tamino says artifact or no, sea is has still grown.
-
Dave123 at 11:22 AM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Esop- it's not strange. Congressional testimony, like court testimony is a legal proceeding. You have no obligation to tell the "whole truth" unless asked. If no one asked Professor Curry about the Antarctic Temperature, she has no obligation to bring it up.
It's not strange, it's par for the course. Next time the congressional torturers, ooops I mean staff, need to be primed on what questions to put to the witness.
-
bjchip at 11:21 AM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
In case you missed it, Tamino just analyzed a paper describing an "artifact" in the processing of the Antarctic Sea Ice. Do check that out for the next time someone does the "Antarctic is setting records" assertion.
-
scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster - obviously reply is not necessary but for people interested in engaging with the questions, then an occasional acknowledgement of points made doesnt hurt when other people have done the obvious and checked the facts. When someone doesnt do so, then it's easy to regard them as drive-by trollers. I accept your explanation that this does not describe you, especially since you replied here but understand why I asked please.
People here have pointed out some of the nonsense pulmagated over the years by "Goddard". I would assume with your background that you would quickly agree that they are nonsense. If you have just found "Goddard's" stuff without knowing the track record, well then, you know now, and see why the "sneers". Otherwise, its surprising that you would bother to go there more any information on climate. Anyone still reading his stuff is generally a die-hard denier so hardly surprising that the commentators are clapping fanbois.
For an alternative take, you could look at Menne et al 2009 which describes the changes introduced in USHCN V2 and see whether you think these were reasonable or not. As noted above, other critical scientists most certainly think so.
-
Esop at 10:17 AM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Worn out denialist talking points from Curry, who would have guessed.
Strange that she did not mention that according to her ''skeptic'' buddy, Roy Spencers UAH dataset, Antarctica as a whole was a whopping 1.5C warmer than normal in 2013. The ''skeptics'' never mention that little fact when they make their normal noise about Antarctic sea ice. Wonder why.
-
davidsanger at 10:08 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Rob @2 : so who is "the anonymous blogger calling himself Steve Goddard"?
Does anyone know?
-
michael sweet at 09:56 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster,
All the changes in USHCN have been very well documented and scientists have validated those changes. Curry and Spencer have checked over all these issues. Why would you imagine a person like Goddard has anything new to bring to the table? You need to provide evidence of a problem. A post at Goddards site does not rise to that level.
If I produce a blog post claiming evolution has been disproved by some creationist do you have to provide a detailed explaination? It takes Goddard no time to make this stuff up, since he has no concern for facts. It takes hours to corrall the facts to prove he is wrong. There are better things to do in life than argue with people like Goddard.
You need to learn not to listen to people with very long track records of being incorrect. I am surprised that anyone who has supervised graduate students has not learned that some people are not worth reading. Read more background information like the information at RealClimate, Spencer Weart and here. Once you know the background you will no longer waste time at places like Goddard.
-
Roger D at 09:00 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
opps - in the first sentence of my comment at 8. i meant "...for concluding Real Science is NOT worth.."
-
Roger D at 08:57 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Jim Eager – Yes, the examples of “Goddardisms” are legion. A favorite of mine as an example of the “purpose” of his blog, because of the extreme obviousness of trying to fool his readers, was his cherry pick of sea levels declining during 2010. Since 2010 was probably the second warmest year on record, and since there was a decline in sea level for a while in 2010, he had a perfect cut and paste opportunity to try to score a gotcha. I forget if was trying to show that those darn scientists can’t be depended on to obtain a reliable global average surface temp, or that temperature has no effect on seal level. In any case, looking at all showed that he was being disingenuous.
-
Roger D at 08:49 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster,
I’m not a PHD, or a scientist, but I can relate my reason for cocluding Real Science is worth reading. Maybe “Goddard” is onto something, maybe not with respect to his blog post you mention on the USHCN data. But personally, I concluded that life is too short to bet finding something that will increase my understanding of the Global Warming issue there.
The response you’re getting from others regarding using what “Steve Goddard” has, or more likely based on experience, has not found, is probably because of “Goddard’s” track record of so obviously trying to trick those that read his blog: at some point those that don’t want to be fooled will check him off the list of resources that have any likelihood of teaching them something. It is as simple as that. I’d be interested in finding out about the purported USHCN issue, but he’s likely not the source because lasting contributions to understanding the issues is not his purpose. Just because a lot of people want to believe him doesn’t mean others should (most likely) waste their time.
-
barry1487 at 08:32 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Damn. Which box should I put the width (450) in the insert fields, and do I need to fill in the height box too? Is there a link to explanation on how to use the insert dialogue boxes? I couldn't find it if so. Just discovered the relocated preview button. Sorry.
Moderator Response:[DB] If you've selected the proper URL for the image, populating the desired width should auto-fill the height. See the moderator response to your previous comment.
-
barry1487 at 08:27 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Thanks Composer99, Here are the anomaly maps for 2013, maxima and minima from the Bureau of Meteorology.
From here.
Bruiser's hypothesis isn't blown yet, but I'd still like to see their source for solar data.
(mods, I followed the instructions for formatting images, so I hope it comes out right)
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed images. In your BOM graphics, the images in the URL are embedded in the html of the page; you first need to copy the URL of the image from the page and not the URL of the page itself. Then it would have worked.
-
Poster9662 at 07:45 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
scaddenp I didn't realise I had to reply and my apologies for not doing so. As to whether I'm "stll impressed with that op-ed" the answer is I was never either impressed or unimpressed, it was, as is my comment here, an observation on a publication. At the risk of being moderated to the max I think you and others don't realise that the plebeian world is becoming increasingly disengaged from the stratospheric levels inhabited by the denizens of SkepticalScience. I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a PhD earned from laboratory experimentation in the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology, have published in journals with a credible Impact Factor and have devised laboratory based research projects for and supervised many honours and PhD students undertaking these projects during 33 years as a university academic. If I have a "knack of really finding the dregs" who is the arbiter of dregginess? You? Many who read pieces such as that by Goddard won't think twice about believing what is said is true. "It's published so it must be right" is their maxim. Despite your sneers, I had sufficient nous to bring it to a forum where others better qualified than I, could, if they so wished, objectively crticise and in doing so increase my understanding. To their credit some posting here have done just that and in particular, I think the comments from Rob Painting @2 show the true scientific approach. And to answer the question he asks: Steven Goddard claims that when moving from USNCN V1 to USHCN V2, NOAA manipulated the temperature data so as to give the impression that temperatures are rising steadily. To quote "In USHCN V1, older temperatures were considered good, but recent temperatures were adjusted upwards by about 0.5F. After 1990, no further adjustments were considered necessary. That wasn’t getting the global warming marketing job done, so in USHCN V2 they did the exact opposite. Older temperatures are now cooled, with a hockey stick of adjustments after 1996." end quote. There are a plethora of graphs allegedly supporting these claims. Make of them what you will. The 113 comments following the piece show the writers of (most of) these comments are in no doubt as to what it means. The caveat "most of" is there as I had no desire to read the comments in detail but just quickly skimmed the comments section.
-
Jim Eager at 07:26 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Other Goddardisms:
- Lake Superior is cold because it "remembers" the last glaciation.
- Mercury's surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead because of atmospheric pressure, not because its greenhouse effect ran away and cooked all the carbon out of its surface rock.
Chances are that anyone citing Goddard is simply attemptng to derail a discussion.
-
StBarnabas at 05:47 AM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Dessler comes across as being very sensible and having things as correct as is possible at present. Curry comes across as an idiot or more disturbingly a "liar for hire." I despair of the false balance. Curry is not to be trusted.
-
scaddenp at 05:16 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
So Poster, you seem to have a knack of really finding the dregs. You never got back to us about this comment. Are you still impressed with that op-ed?
-
william5331 at 05:02 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Re 6
I only gave the end of the piece of string. You would have to dig deeper using the names of the researchers in the article to see their full results. Sorry, I was being lazy, not giving a link to the original work.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:35 AM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Steven Goddard? Really? The carbonic snow guy, so clueless he could not be brought to reason by the phase diagram of CO2? The guy who claimed in a 2012 YouTube vid that the big Arctic storm was going to "halt" the sea ice melt, then later removed that embarassing bit altogether? The guy who averages snow cover percentages without weighing them for area? Goddard indeed does a disservice to mankind by keeping up that blog of his.
If you think there is any kind of choice between trusting Goddard or NOAA, your only excuse may be that you haven't followed this pseudo-debate for as many years as others among us. Whatever it is Goddard has found, it is likely something he can't understand. Instead of trying harder to understand, he then casts accusations, in pure WUWT/climate audit/whatever-crap-is-out-there fashion. I'll remind you, like others above, that allusions of fraud are not welcome here.
-
Composer99 at 00:05 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
It appears I set the incorrect field in the "Insert Image" dialogue box to 450 px, resulting in an over-large embedded picture. Mea culpa.
-
Composer99 at 00:03 AM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
For what it's worth, the ABC has an article showing the Bureau of Meteorology records for minimum temperature deciles through all of 2013.
There is a tiny patch of "Below Average", a few blobs of "Average", and most of the continent is "Above Average" or higher.
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed image width.
-
Tom Dayton at 23:36 PM on 20 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
MA Rodger: No, MoreCarbonOK (snip) would not be influenced at all, though I don't know if that's because he would be unable to understand, or would not pay attention, and if the latter whether he would choose to not pay attention or can't sustain attention. Other folks, of course, might benefit from your explanation, which perhaps should go over on some other post, as Rob P. pointed out.
-
michael sweet at 22:17 PM on 20 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster,
Goddard was one of the people on WUWT who asserted that there was no problem because excess CO2 would fall as snow at the South Pole. His reliability (as a skeptic) is so low they have banned him from posting at WUWT because he was making them look stupid! You have to be seriously unreliable for WUWT to think you make them look stupid. If you find that " It is this type of report that creates unease in many as it suggests that results from "official bodies" might be not be entirely what they appear to be." when anonymous people with no scientific experience or training make unsupported claims of error, you need to examine how you judge information you read on the internet. Hint: everything you read on the internet is not really true!! If you have chest pains do you ask the janitor at work if you are OK?
This is a scientific board. You are welcome to ask questions. Making the assertion that respected scientific bodies might deliberately fudge official data is against the comments policy, and makes you look uninformed. In any case, the data is carefully reviewed by the scientists who work for Exxon and the Peabody Coal company. Do you claim that the scientists who work for Exxon are so stupid they cannot find obvious data errors?
Prev 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 Next
