Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 Next
Comments 47051 to 47100:
-
garethman at 04:20 AM on 23 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Ironcage, that was an excellent post and sums up some of my personal concerns with the reductionist methodolgy used in the paper.
-
Barry Woods at 04:06 AM on 23 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Kevin (17) My questions was whether and IF significant changes were made (especially the title), prior to publication to a journal of a work (LOG12) that was cited in other papers, whether it would require withdrawal (or minor) revision or rewrite of subsequent article, this is a fair question, I think. And an entirely sensible thing to consider, with no implications on the authors. As it would certainly be considered in very many other fields of science, that this might be considered, I do not know the niceties of the social sciences..
I do not think it fair to represent this/me as wanting to supress knowledge, nor a characteristic of denial.. Please note, I also stated:
Personally, I would like to respond to the journal Psychological science - Barry Woods
It is unfortuanate that I have not had the opportunity to respond to the journal yet, as LOG12 is currently still press (soon to be published I understand) yet we have another paper responding to named people that criticised the paper, yet they have not had the chance yet to formally respond to the journal Psychological Science
May I draw your attention to a Tom Curtis comment here about LOG12 about his call for withdrawal of LOG12 when the paper was dscussed last year (in full please, as I do not want to misrepresent Tom, Tom's bold), what are your thoughts on his comment, which express similar concerns, and he sought withdawal for a re-write, ( I asked now if this occured, and that I want to respond) and is why I asked whether any changes had occured since the press release:
"Tom Curtis - at Skeptical Science)
A (hopefully) final comment on Lewandowski (in press):
I have been looking through the survey results and noticed that 10 of the respondents have a significant probability of being produced by people attempting to scam the survey. (-remainder of long block quote snipped-)
There were no comment that suggested knowledge supression or characteristics of denial about Tom, so why for me with a far tamer comment, please do not assume motivations for someone percieved to be on an 'opposing side'?
Moderator Response: [DB] Extensive block-quoting snipped per the Comments Policy. Link to quote snipped hyperlinked. -
dvaytw at 03:49 AM on 23 March 2013Tung and Zhou circularly blame ~40% of global warming on regional warming
I'm almost embarrassed to pipe up in these threads because my science knowledge is so sub-par, but I can't resist pointing out: at WUWT right now this AMO is undoubtedly the hot topic.
Does it ever occur to anyone there that this is the God-only-knows-how-many-eth "alternative explanation" they've embraced for warming? First it was the sun, then it was volcanoes, then it was cosmic rays, then it was the Pacific decadal oscillation, now it's the ~Atlantic~ decadal oscillation (I might have the order wrong).
Funny how the one unifying "theory" seems to be Whatever It Is, It ~Ain't~ Greenhouse Gases! That right there to me ought to be a huge red flag to them that motivated reasoning and not genuine curiosity is in the driver's seat.
Moderator Response: [DB] All-caps converted to bold per the Comments Policy. -
Klapper at 03:44 AM on 23 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
@Bob Loblaw #23:
Skip my TSI reconstruction. I'll use the average of Wang et al 2005, Dora & Walton 2005, Krivova & Solanki 2008 and Kopp 2012 instead to calculate delta TSI. They are the most recent I could find so I'll assume they are the best. Also, if I can find an aerosol forcing model, I'll add the aerosol component for 1910 to 1945 to the calculation.
-
Alexandre at 03:37 AM on 23 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
From the list above, the self-sealing reasoning is the most efffective tool for the ignorance seeking.
Even the fact that there is no evidence to back up denier claims becomes evidence of the conspiracy.
-
Klapper at 03:31 AM on 23 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
@KR #22:
I'm not doing model "runs". If you read my posts, I'm accepting the CO2 calculation for temperature change in the period above as done by Dana81. I'm not accepting the calculation for TSI; I think it's too high, but I'm using Dana's TSI formula for the temperature change in this period, but my own delta TSI. Actually, I made a huge mistake by calculating my own TSI reconstruction from SSN's/ACRIM. I should have said "For TSI I'll use the 3 most recent reconstructions I could find" (i.e Wang et al 2005, Dora & Walton 2005 and Kopp 2012). It's pretty much the exactly same number, but no one would have wasted time arguing with me about my TSI estimate.
If I can find a source for the aerosol forcing, I will add a calcuation for aerosols, since adding aerosols to the equation helps my argument by adding a negative number to the model temperature change.
In the end I'm just cross-checking the calculation done by Dana above, but with a different TSI number. My analysis of the various reconstructions indicates his number of 1 full Watt/m2 increase in TSI in the period of interest is too high, even his first statement on 0.5W/m2 increase in the period looks high.
-
citizenschallenge at 02:34 AM on 23 March 2013Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Seems like this thread is in need of some updating.
Here's the most recent news :
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change
Greg Holland, Cindy L. Bruyère | March 2013,http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1713-0
Abstract
An Anthropogenic Climate Change Index (ACCI) is developed and used to investigate the potential global warming contribution to current tropical cyclone activity. The ACCI is defined as the difference between the means of ensembles of climate simulations with and without anthropogenic gases and aerosols. This index indicates that the bulk of the current anthropogenic warming has occurred in the past four decades, which enables improved confidence in assessing hurricane changes as it removes many of the data issues from previous eras. We find no anthropogenic signal in annual global tropical cyclone or hurricane frequencies.But a strong signal is found in proportions of both weaker and stronger hurricanes: the proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased at a rate of ~25–30 % per °C of global warming after accounting for analysis and observing system changes.
This has been balanced by a similar decrease in Category 1 and 2 hurricane proportions, leading to development of a distinctly bimodal intensity distribution, with the secondary maximum at Category 4 hurricanes.
This global signal is reproduced in all ocean basins. The observed increase in Category 4–5 hurricanes may not continue at the same rate with future global warming. The analysis suggests that following an initial climate increase in intense hurricane proportions a saturation level will be reached beyond which any further global warming will have little effect.
Full article: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0/fulltext.html
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:26 AM on 23 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
Klapper @21, etc.
You still fail to see the error of your ways. It's not that your reconstruction of forcings is not possible, it's that it is not possible to exclude the others that are different (based on current knowledge). So you can come up with something that falls within the range of values in the literature? That's like saying "gravity still works!". The answer is "so what? - we've already included that in our estimates of our uncertainty."
You error is assuming that your reconstruction is the correct one, and therefore the models are wrong.
The fact that numerous attempts to reconstruct TSI (or aerosol forcings) lead to different results forces us (pun intended) to conclude that the uncertainty in those forcings is too large to come to reliable conclusions beyond what has been stated in the literature.
By choosing to rely on one estimate of forcings - even if it is within the range of values in the literature - to the exclusion of others that do not conform to your conclusion is called cherry picking and confirmation bias.
The proper way to handle the uncertainty is to accept it. Unless you can provide an independent evaluation of your TSI reconstruction, you are chasing your tail in the noise of uncertainty.
Different estimates of past forcing in the literature may later be identified as problematic through more study of the physics of solar output, and future reconstructions may improve on that basis, but what you are doing is choosing which reconstruction to believe because it agrees with your desired conclusions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:02 AM on 23 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
bratisla@8
Please re-read my comment. I do not say that the authors of the paper think that all critiques represent conspiratorial ideation - I say that someone has accused them of of defining their criteria that way. The paragraph (in the post) begins with "A common misrepresentation of Recursive Fury is..." The contradiction is that someone also accuses the authors of ignoring certain critiques (which the authors did not include specifically because it didn't exhibit traits of conspiratorial ideation).
The inconsistency I speak of is with reagard to the criticisms, not the paper itself.
-
RyanStarr at 01:56 AM on 23 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
...because the criterion for inclusion was simply whether or not they referred to one of the hypotheses.
May I ask which hypothesis Richard Betts referred to?
Perhaps one of the six criteria listed above, or something else? The term hypotheses appears an alwful lot in the paper so I'm vague to the usage in the above quote.
-
Doug Bostrom at 01:47 AM on 23 March 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #4: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
Sotolith, I'd say that a remark such as "it's highly controversial as to whether renewables can provide more than a minor contribution to the AGW problem" is at least suggestive of a bias in itself, let alone for the moment being contradicted by facts.
A case can be made that many people are deeply conflicted over technological choices we need to make in order to confront the subsitution problem required to deal with global warming. This dissonance might express itself as antipathy to a particular technology due to perceived ideological associations, which I think is often the case w/"renewable" (fusion-powered) energy capture/liberation systems, or it might be expressed by unreasoning fear of more judicious and scrupulous application of technologies with a somewhat dubious history of failure statistics.
Pragmatism expresses itself best in such cases as China, where even as the country moves to consolidate and improve coal generation systems, plans for nuclear generators go ahead and simultaneously the WE of well over10 fission plants has been already installed in the form of "renewable" (fusion-powered) domestic hot water augmentation. Parenthetically, it is in the latter case that your supposition of the scant potential contribution of "renewable" (fusion-powered) energy capture/liberation schemes fails to comport with facts.
Compartmentalizing distaste for so-called "enviromentalists" and separating actual risk and hazard from visceral fear will be very helpful in performing clear-eyed assessments of technological choices. In at least some cases doing so makes the matter of choice much easier; paralysis over unjustified and often irrelevant abstractions is not helpful to improving our situation.
-
Ironcage at 00:52 AM on 23 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
I have been following this and it is an interesting direction for the psychology of climate change responses. However as a sociologist I find this approach - typical of the psychology discipline - to be severely lacking of the social dimension. What of the life histories; the societal relations of power; the practices of everyday experiences to which these conspiracy theorists are exposed; what of the historical processes involved in conspiracy making; the historical societal structures that have contributed to conspiracy making; what are the comparable occurrences of such reasoning in other aspects of daily life (do people often respond in similar ways to criticisms about their team, political party, or work?) ; are senses of disempowerment contributing perhaps to a sense of empowerment by belonging to such conspiracy believers; and for me most importantly what are the institutional and societal relations that contribute to such unreflexive dispositions in the first place. To move forward with this study it could really benefit from further interdisciplinary investigation involving people trained in investigating the (largely unconscious) social. I’d suggest a few qualitative investigations would go along way –especially looking into the regularities of people’s backgrounds. I think Pierre Bourdieu’s ‘Social space’ involving a history of practices, and his methodological concepts of habitus, capital and field, would be a good methodological starting point.
On a separate note I was very much glad to see the more sociologically endowed work of Norgaard (socially organized denial) getting a mention on this fine blog.
-
ptbrown31 at 00:52 AM on 23 March 2013Tung and Zhou circularly blame ~40% of global warming on regional warming
In regards to the last paragraph:
You can not assume that ocean circulations only move heat around the earth system and have no effect on the net energy budget. This is because ocean circulations can modulate the distribution of radiativly active clouds, water vapor, and sea ice.
Here is a very simple example to illustrate the point:
(increase AMOC) => (increase north atlantic temperatures) => (decrease artic sea ice) => (decrease albedo) => (increase net energy absorbed at the surface).
Where did the extra heat come from? It is POSSIBLE that it did come from internal variability changing radiativly active parts of the system. This possibility can not be dismissed out of hand as simply being "unphysical"
See the following paper for a rigorous explanation for this:
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/17627276/why-ocean-heat-transport-warms-global-mean-climate
-
Kevin C at 00:44 AM on 23 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
If it does not have the same title (or has revisions), then presumably the recursive fury paper will need to be withdrawn?
Papers are not retracted for requiring minor clarifications, or even for being subsequently shown to be completely wrong. Papers are retracted for serious misconduct or fraud.
The paper was published in an academic sociology journal. Anyone working in the field will be intimately familiar with both the differences between a signifier and the signified, and the unpredictability of the academic publication process. Therefore I don't see much likelihood of future research being compromised by researchers reading this paper and failing to realise that the version of the first paper which the research subjects were responding to may not be word-for-word identical to the final publiction.
Nonetheless it is a point which could benefit from clarification to avoid tripping up the lay reader or perhaps the odd novice researcher. It's a slightly unconventional thing to do, but under the circumstances including an additional webcite to the original draft would do the trick. Or include the original as supplementary data.
But here's the puzzle: Rather than suggesting a clarification, you ask if the paper should be withdrawn. That seems to me to be a knowledge-suppressing rather than a knowledge-seeking approach to the problem, i.e. characteristic of denial rather than true skepticism. Surely it is better to have the work out there so that it can be evaluated, tested, built on or rejected, rather than making it disappear into a black hole for a trivial point of unclarity?
-
Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Barry Woods, all - Refreshing your page results in multiple submissions; I've certainly done it more than once.
Moderator Response: [Sph]: I know. Sorry. I need to find time to add code to recognize exact duplicate comment submissions and ignore them. Too much to do, however, and too little time... I'll get there. -
It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
Klapper - Just to be clear: are you or are you not using all of the observed forcings in your model runs?
You've stated: "I've said let's ignore aerosols in the 1910 to 1945 period..."
If you are not applying all the forcings to your model runs (by ignoring or assigning arbitrary forcings to aerosols, for example), it is entirely unsurprising that you aren't seeing a good match to observed temperatures.
-
Barry Woods at 00:27 AM on 23 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
something odd is happening with the comments, please delete any duplicates!! ;-)
Moderator Response: [Albatross] Duplicate comments deleted as requested. -
Richard Lawson at 22:58 PM on 22 March 2013David Rose Hides the Rise in Global Warming
It is vital that all UK readers make a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) about Rose' article. I take John Russel's point, that the PCC is a pussy cat, but if enough of us write, and what is more, respond to the Daily Mail's defence when it is sent out, they may do something.
I have posted my complaint up on my blog here http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/complaint-to-pcc-re-david-roses-mail-on.html
It has the relevant links to the PCC and BBC, and you can copy, paste and modify at will.
I am also complaining to the BBC Radio4 because of their mentioning this article on their news bulletin on Sunday morning. I mean, an article on p 22 of the Mail on Sunday merits a mention on the BBC news?
Please let us all give the Mail and BBC a real earache over this, or Rose is just going to continue ad lib. Let us turn this thing around, not just send in a complaint, but follow it through until we win space on the Mail and the BBC to set the record straight.
-
Klapper at 22:45 PM on 22 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
@Bob Loblaw #17 #18:
See my post #20 on the subject of TSI. My model may be crude but it gave the same result for the period 1912 to 1944 as Wang et al 2005, Dora & Walton 2005, and Kopp 2012.
On the subject of aerosols, see my post #19. The IPCC AR4 report says anthropogenic aerosols are a net negative forcing (just like volcanic aerosols). I've said let's ignore aerosols in the 1910 to 1945 period, but if you don't want to, then let's assign the aerosol some negative forcing number for our model cross-check calculation.
My argument is pretty simple, when you put in reasonable values for GHG, TSI forcing (aerosols too if you want), your model forecasts a warming in the 1910 to 1945 period so low that the high end of the forecast is below the low end of the observation error, i.e. the model fails.
-
Barry Woods at 22:45 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
As a number of criticisms of LOG12, identified in this paper were of the title of LOG12 (which had been peer reviewed and is just pending publication)
Will LOG12 be published with the same title? has it had any further revisions since last July? (the version and title that got the medias attention)
NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
If it does not have the same title (or has revisions), then presumably the recursive fury paper will need to be withdrawn?
because the Recursive Fury paper will be concerning itself about a different version of the LOG12 paper, that was not published in Psychological Science and looking at criticisms of a version of a paper that was not published.? (making a nonsense of the comments looked at in the suplementary data of the Recursive Fury paper
Can you confirm whether LOG 12 will be published in its original form, or after any revisions (minor or major, ie title) especially, will it have the same title?
thanks
Personally, I would like to respond to the journal Psychological scence
-
Klapper at 22:26 PM on 22 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
@KR #16:
I downloaded some TSI reconstructions covering the period 1910 to 1945 to cross-check my smoothed SSN/ACRIM model. I started with a relatively new one at the SORCE website described as "computed by G. Kopp using TIM V.12 data on Jan 19, 2012". This reconstruction has annual resolution. Between 1912.5 and 1944.5 (solar cycles 15,16 and 17) the trend in TSI is the same as one I've suggested based on my model (Kopp trend = 0.083W/m2/decade).
I also downloaded a daily TSI reconstruction from the Max Planck Institute, authored I think by N Krivova. In the period of 1912 to 1944.5, the trend of this reconstruction is lower than mine (Krivova trend = 0.042W/m2/decade).
I then discovered a link to a spreadsheet compiled by Leif Svalgaard circa 2009? containing a number of reconstructions, albeit all annual and not well documented as to source. However, from the labels I assume these are Hoyt & Schatten 1997, Lean 2000, Wang et al 2005, Dora & Walton 2005, and one by Leif himself.
from 1912.5 to 1944.5 the TSI deltas from regression of these reconstructions are:
Hoyt: 0.401W/m2/decade
Lean: 0.280W/m2/decade
Wang: 0.083W/m2/decade
Dora: 0.090W/m2/decade
Leif: 0.041W/m2/decade
Krivova 0.040W/m2/decade
In summary, there are 3 reconstructions the same as mine (Kopp, Wang, Dora), 2 substantially lower (Leif, Krivova) and 2 substantially higher (Lean, Hoyt). Note the 2 oldest reconstructions are also the highest, so I'm sticking to my estimate of a net TSI change between 1910 and 1945 of about 0.3W/m2, which calculates to an equilibrium temperature rise of about 0.05C.
-
Barry Woods at 22:11 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
(think I had a few tech problems making comments, my PC most likley, please delete any earlier duplicate versions of this one. thanks)
There is one assertion, which the data for the paper is based on, in the Recursive Fury paper, that is demonstrably incorrect, that I find very unlikely (no conspiracies theories please ;-) ) that the authors were not aware of:
"LOG12 only received public attention in late August 2012." - Lewandowsky et al
When, very public, and very widely read articles about the paper were written in July, in fact we would probably be not here today discussing this, but for these article, where myself, Paul Matthews, Geoff Chambers, Foxgoose and others named in this papers data, were raiseing questions and concerns about LOG12 in July
Psychological Science (APS) itself wrote about the LOG12 paper on July 19th, which was duplicated in the Huffington Post (also 19th July) with over 400 comments.
A Climate for Conspiracy - Wray Herbert - 19th July 2012 - APS
The same article was reproduced with a more sensational headline (and url) at the Huffington post- baring in mind, see my earlier comment, LOG12 data does strongly not back up the paper's title, (the free-market angle having much stronger data))
Huffinton Post (19th July 2012):
A Climate for Conspiracy: Imaginary Plots and Global Warming - W Herbert
Prof Stephan Lewandowsky personally sent a copy to Dr Adam Corner (Cardiff University,and Guardian contributor) who wrote about it in the Guardian on the 27TH July. (with over 1300, comments, including some of mine,as BBCbias)
Guardian: Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists?
Dr Adam Corner 27 July 2012
"New research finds that sceptics also tend to support conspiracy theories such as the moon landing being faked"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-sceptics-conspiracy-theorists
Note the 'moon connection, and all conspiracy theories' being spread into the media, not something that the data supports, where in fact the data appears to reject this. (see earlier comment for evidence) which was of concern amongstthe sceptics, that another soundbite would be set loose amongst the media and activists denigrating them.
Virtually nobody of course would ever be ikely to go and look at the original data/paper, just quote the press release, and the articles in the media (not even Dr Adam Corner had asked for the data - no scepticism there (see his comments at Talking Climate, link follows))
'Stephan told me his paper was forthcoming and sent me a copy of it. I wrote about it, unprompted.' Adam Corner - Talking Climate
Were the authors unaware of this Guardian article, especially after the personal contact from Prof Stephabn Lewandowsky, no email back from Dr Adam Corner and fellow resercher in the field, to say, look here?
It was the Guardian article that 1st attracted the readers of sceptic blogs attention (Bishop Hill being a high profile UK blog, Andrew Montford author of - The Hockey Stick Illusion, and Hiding the Decline)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/1904675 (70 comments)
Note the readers started a discussion thread, not the blog owner.
with individuals like myself and Geoff Chambers asking questons about the paper, then when Dr Adam Corner, reproduced the article at the publically funded blog - Talking Climate, the discussion continued there:
http://talkingclimate.org/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists
other late July, public articles and comments (just some examples) July 27 2012 http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/29/australian-psychologists-claim-climate-science-skeptics-are-the-moon-landing-conspiracy-theorists/ (19 comments).
(P Gosselin mentions that LOG12 has already been mentioned on German warmist blogs, which I haven’t tried to trace). and this is where (I think) the so called 'pro-science' blogs were first publically identified as being the survey particpants
July 30 2012 http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/07/30/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-1/
all this raises questions, the Recursive Fury paper limits itslef to date from late August, claiming incorrectly that LOG12 only recived public attention in late August, when this is clearly wrong.
And most of the detailed concerns about the methodology of the paper was already raised by its critics publically much earlier. yet the Recursive Fury paper does not capture that. a major flaw?
-
MichaelM at 22:05 PM on 22 March 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #4: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
sotolith7 - I've never seen this site as politically dispassionate, quite the reverse. How can they not be when the forces against them seem not to be scientifically motivated.
The choices we make in the energy mix are political given the levels of subsidy and levels each type faces but stating that this site sees "renewables as the panacea" is laughable.
-
garethman at 22:03 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
"Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy."
Is there not a paradox here that interpreting any evidence or commentary against the results of an investigation as standard and typical response can also be seen as conspiracy theory, and so on and so forth ? I have a suspicion that those who radically oppose any climate science or support everything regardless of evidence are singing the same song, just in a different key. It is rather reminiscent of radical left and right wing politics having remarkably similar outcomes.
-
Klapper at 21:40 PM on 22 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
@scaddenp #15:
Are you saying that the soot effect (warming) outweighs the sulphate effect (cooling) in the period 1910 to 1945? From the IPCC AR4 report, FAQ2.1, Figure 2, the net effect of anthropogenic aerosols is clearly negative (cooling), totalling about -1.2 W/m2 since the dawn of the industrial era in 1750 to 2005.
-
sotolith7 at 21:15 PM on 22 March 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #4: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
My opinion used to be that this site was politically dispassionate and concerned itself only with scientific facts. But I've had to revise that, because whenever energy is discussed there is an exclusive and overweening concentration on renewables. It surely hasn't escaped the attention of the people who edit this site that it's highly controversial as to whether renewables can provide more than a minor contribution to the AGW problem. This was pointed out most prominently in the UK by MacKay of course, but he's by far from the only
qualified person arguing this (another tip: Scottish Engineers).Renewables as the panacea betrays a political agenda, which, it seems, is more important to the authors of this site than global warming.
Moderator Response: [JH] As stated in the SkS Comments Policy, we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering. Please cease and desist from doing either. -
Boswarm at 20:52 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Why do you continue along this line:
However, there is no mention of Professor Betts in our final paper and we are certainly not claiming that he is a conspiracy theorist.
Why mention him in the 1st place. Leave it go.
Get back to the science, it works and you will win. This is not good if you don't.
-
Ray at 20:27 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
To suggest, even by association rather than directly, in the supplementary data that Professor Betts, a lead author of the IPCC and head of Climate Impacts at the UK Met Office espouses conspiracy theory makes one wonder if any other of those who the paper claims "espouse conspiracy theory" are not "deniers" but proponents of CAGW. Professor Betts in his tweets on the matter states the suggestion he is "espousing conspiracy theory, that's just crazy" and "Lewandowsky et al are clearly deluded". Naturally I assume you regret this incident as it does rather put "egg on the face". Perhaps more significantly, Professor Betts, who is manifestly not a "denier" posted on Bishop Hill a site more anti- than pro-CAGW and asks this question "The thing I don't understand is, why didn't they (Lewandowsky et al) just make a post on sceptic blogs themselves, rather than approaching blog owners". He then refers to Steve Mcintyre at Climate Audit as "Moderating with a very light touch" and states "I doubt Steve McIntyre would have removed such an unsolicited post" These comments clearly show that a) although he is a well respected climate scientist he is not averse to reading and posting on anti-warmist sites and b) he regards these two sites as being vety lightly moderated.
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Moderation complaints snipped. -
Barry Woods at 20:25 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
I was fascinated to find one of my comments was included in the Recursive Fury paper's Supplementary data, alongside such exalted company as comments/articles by Prof Richard Betts (Met Office- Head of Climate Impact, IPCC AR4, AR5 lead author), Prof Judith Curry, and Paul Matthews (Reader of Mathematics Nottingham Uni)
but I was concerned to find that my comment included appears to be quote mined and not displayed in full, 'quote mined' is how I perceive it, let me explain carefully.
ie when I tracked down the link (I could not cut and paste it, some tech probs from PDF) I found that my FULL comment had not been included/quoted... just this:
“someone has looked at the data. and the conclusions and title of the paper are utterly fraudlent. ie 45 out of 48 those that reject climate science REJECT the moon landing conspiracy theory” – Barry Woods
LOG12 heading/Tilte:
NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
the url provided in the supplementary data didn’t work for some reason (tech issue), so I had had a search for my comment and found that just 2 sentences had been used from a much longer comment.
Why did the papers 'raw data' exclude my very next sentence? where I describe how some of the conclusions made (and title) of the LOG12 paper, is actually rected by its own data!
"Looking at the data, those that most strongly ‘reject’ climate science, ALSO strongly reject ALL the conspiracy theories…" - Barry Woods
MY full comment is show below, which backs up my statement, whilst linking to an analysis of Lewandowsky’s actual data for LOG12, a link which contains survey data, so anybody can check for themselves
Barry Woods (Comment #102532)
September 2nd, 2012 at 3:53 amsomeone has looked at the data. and the conclusions and title of the paper are utterly fraudlent. ie 45 out of 48 those that reject climate science REJECT the moon landing conspiracy theory
Looking at the data, those that most strongly ‘reject’ climate science, ALSO strongly reject ALL the conspiracy theories…
extract below-
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/09/01/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-3-data-analysis-of-the-conspiracy-theory-element/
So what of the conspiracy theory that most the moon landings were faked? The one in the title 'NASA faked the moon landing:Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science'
45 out of 48 of those who dogmatically reject climate science, also dogmatically emphatically reject the conspiracy theory. The two who score 4 are rogue results.
In fact, the response is pretty emphatic in every group. Consider the abstract.
We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets.
Let me be quite clear. The title of the paper makes a false claim from authors with an agenda of silencing opponents. It is entirely without any proper evidence.
The other eleven results are below
well worth a look at the pivot tables in the above link"
that was my full comment, link:
thus this full comment which linked to LOG 12 survey data, and fully backed up my concern that the title of LOG12 was not supported by the survey data (in fact, those that most strongly – as you say ‘rejected the science’ in fact STRONGLY rejected the conspiracy theories), making the title of the paper, problematic. and perceived by many, hence the criticism, that the paper was as deliberately and incorrectly provocative..
NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science - Lewandowsky et al
If you may recall from Skeptical Science and Shaping Tomorrows World comments by SkS regular Tom Curtis, he also had similar concerns (full comment, my bold):
"Sou @42, the direction of causation conspiracy theorist -> AGW "skeptic" correctly represents the findings of the paper. The use of "therefore" in the title, however, indicates that that is supposed to be a logical inference. That is not supported by the paper, and is not reflective of the reasoning of any person I am aware of, or (I believe) any real person.
It is very difficult to believe that the title is anything other than a deliberate attempt to be offensive so as to draw attention to a paper of poor quality, but which is thought to be useful for "messaging" in the climate wars. Steve McIntyre has incorrectly attempted to infer a moral condemnation of Lewandowsky from certain of my comments (now corrected). Let me leave no-one in any doubt. In choosing the title of his paper, Lewandowsky not only acted unscientifically, but immorally as well. It was a despicable act. - Tom Curtislink Shaping tomorrow world blog here
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=397&&n=166#1460
I await the final publication of LOG12 with interest, as it would be of course by far the best course of action, to respond formally to a journal any concerns or issues with LOG12, than by comment on blogs. Unfortunately that is all that I and others could do, despite the paper having wide media attention, yet it is still (not quite?) published. thus LOG12' many critics are not yet able (many of whom, whose blog comment/concerns that the Recursive Fury paper is about), to actually formally respond to the journal Psychological Science.
Personally, I do not see how LOG12, can be published with this title..
NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
yet if the title were to change, the Recursvive Fury paper would be about, with criticisms about, a unpublished (in the journal) version of the LOG12 paper. This would make the publication, and of the Recursive Fury paper, in its current form problematic aswell.
Please add my full comment to the suplementary data, as I think you misrepresent a name identifiable person comments.
Additionally can you advice me of the ethics considerations and approvals for the Recursive Fury paper.
-
bratisla at 19:24 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
@boblaw : reread once again the previous paragraph. The previous paragraph stated that they selected the comments exhibiting conspiracy thinking characteristics defined in other papers. In no way do they state that all critics of LOG12 meet the criteria.
You make the same logic mistake that was made for LOG12 : they study a subset of datas showing conspiracy thinking. In no way did they consider that the subset represents the whole set. And their focus is on the subset only, not the whole set.
-
Bob Loblaw at 18:42 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
To me, the paragraph where you say
"A few critics have complained that we didn’t include their methodological critiques of LOG12. Such critiques do not fit the conspiracist criteria, which is why they weren’t included."
is quite interesting. It is, of course, a direct refutation of the earlier paragraph where you note that someone thinks that any critique of the original paper would be considered conspiratorial ideation.
Which is it? The net is cast so wide that any critique is conspiratorial ideation, and that is wrong? Or critiques that are not included in the analysis are omitted in error, because all critiques really are conspiratorial ideation?
But, as you note, consistency is not a requirement - any port in a storm.
-
Bob Loblaw at 18:26 PM on 22 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
A second comment, because the issue is sufficiently different from the ones that I addressed in the comment above. In #12, Klapper says
"My real point is that I think you have a problem with your models in this period, which is a good one to evaluate as I've discussed above and it's not enough to just say it's within the margin of error and call it a day."
I think this is following on the discussion on the other thread, where it was stated that lack of accuracy in model inputs places limits on how well we can expect models to match past temperature records. This has led to the current discussion of reconstructing past TSI and aerosol forcings.
Klapper seems to feel that the models need some fixing to better match past climates, and seems unwilling to accept that there may be not much that can be done about it, due to inaccuracies. I will try to illustrate why limited accuracy of forcings limits our ability to "fix" a model, by using a very simple (non-climate) model.
Let's assume that we have a model that says A + B = T. We have measurements of T that tell us it was 15.2 +/- 0.1 at some past time. Unfortunately, we do not have good estimates of A or B at that time - we only have proxies, and our best guesses are that the past values were A = 10.4 +/- 0.6, and B = 5.6 +/- 1.0. Thus, our model says that T = 16.0 +/- 1.2 (assuming independent errors for A and B).
Is the model right or wrong? Well, the direct measurement of T is 15.2 +/- 0.1, and our model says it should be 16.0 +/- 1.2. The observation falls within the errors for the model, so the observation does not disprove the model. The model could be right.
More importantly, are we justified in modifying the model? We could "improve" the model, by making it 0.923*A + B = T, and our model would then predict T = 15.4, which matches the observation. Is this justified? We could just as easily make the model A + 0.857*B = T, and get an exact match. Or, we could play with any combination of fudge factors for both A and B to get a matchj - there are an infinite number of them that would work.
The problem is that there is no way of determining if any of these arbitrary "fixes" is correct, because we have no further observations of any kind that can differentiate amongst the possibilities. Indeed, within the error bounds of our data, the fudges that give an exact match between predicted and observed T are no better than our original model A + B = T. They all fall within the error bounds. Those error bounds already tell us that the original model may be correct.
When a model's output (value plus error bounds) already falls within the error bounds of the observations, it is a Bad Idea to try to tune a model through purely arbitrary adjustment of parameters. Such adjustments, even if they improve the match between model output and observations, do not mean that we have improved the model. It is a Good Idea to try to improve upon the knowledge of the various input variables/parameters, but you do not accomplish this by just trying different numbers in the model - you need an independent source of information. Blindly fudging parameters is just fitting to the noise.
The Blogosphere is full of fake skeptics that think they have a good model just because they can get an arbitrary series of equations (usually "cycles") with arbitrary fitting of parameters, all while ignoring the known physics. It will be gussied up in terms of statistics or Fourier Analysis, or some fancy words, but it is not good science. A great place to see these things taken down is Tamino's, where is is often called Mathturbation.
In Klapper's case, it appears that he is looking at the experts' models, for which observations do fall within model output (value plus uncertainties), and replacing them with worse models, which show a poorer match with the observations, and convincing himself that the experts are wrong.
-
jyushchyshyn at 18:18 PM on 22 March 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #4: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
What could I say that could be deleted? My comment to the effect that skepticalscience should not be saying that the U. S. State Department is being fraudulent.
Moderator Response: [JH] The contents of the articles linked to in the OP stand or fall on their own merits. SkS provides these links as a service to its readers. Readers are encouraged to provide links to other articles about the Alberta Tar Sands and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project in this comment thread. -
Bob Loblaw at 17:32 PM on 22 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
First, a quick clarification for anyone that reads this portion of the thread at some point in the distant future. Klapper's comment #8 is the result of a thread happening here that was getting off topic, and is moving into this thread where it is more on topic.
Now, to address a few of Klapper's points:
From what I understand, you have regressed TSI in the recent period against sunspot numbers, and then used that to estimate TSI in the period 1910-1945, and then used that TSI trend to compare to the temperature trend. In essence, what this is doing is just attempting to explain the temperature trend by correlating it with sunspot numbers. This is not a very sophiitcated model, and the idea that your model is better than the models in the literature is - shall we say - somewhat dubious. All I can suggest is that you take scaddenp's comment to heart, and think about how crude your model is (and it is a model).
But to expland on certain points, let's first think about your use of sunspots. Sunspots are dark areas on the surface of the sun, and thus are spots that emit less radiation, not more. This has been directly observed using space-borne measurements of TSI during times of transit of sunspots across the visible solar disk. Yet increased sunspot numbers are associated with increased TSI on average, so the increase can't be just because of the sunspots. In fact, sunspots are just an indicator of something else that is going on with the sun, just as tree rings are an indicator that something is going on with the local climate. Sunspots are a proxy for solar activity, not a measurement of TSI. Sunspots are a not the best that science has to offer. Thus, you are basing your conclusions on a poor proxy for TSI, and this is leading you astray. Better estimates of past TSI use more sophisticated models, and are more likely to provide more useful results.
Your understanding of aerosols and their effects is also very simplistic. In #14, you say "aerosols can't cool", and this is wrong. The effect of aerosols differs greatly depending on whether they are mostly-absorbing (e.g., soot), or mostly-scattering (e.g., light-coloured dust). This is usually quantified in terms of the "single scattering albedo". Although generally aerosols cause surface cooling, this is not always the case. A highly-scattering aerosol over a highly-reflective surface can have a warming effect, because is also affects the solar radiation reflected off the surface. A highly-absorbing aerosol reduces the solar radiation reaching the ground, but causes warming at the altitude the aerosol is located at. To thoroughly account for aerosols, you have to have knowledge of their optical properties and size distributions, as well as their geographical location and altitude. The trends in these properties over time will affect the temperature trends. Thus, you are basing your conclusions on a poor understanding of aerosols, and this is leading you astray.
Looking solely at direct relationships between forcing factors (TSI, aerosols, etc.) and temperature ignores any time lags in the climate system. We know that forcings don't instantaneously result in temperature changes - it takes time for the climate to equilibrate. Thus, your anaylsis uses a simplistic relationship between forcings and temperature, and this is leading you astray.
You have assumed that your simplistic reconstruction of TSI is better than the experts. You have assumed that aerosol effects over the period are zero. You have assumed that a simplistic model of T = f(CO2, sunspots) is valid. You then conclude that the experts have something wrong, even though the experts' models are much more sophisticated. Thus, you have assumed your conclusion. This is leading you astray.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:07 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Doug
Don't forget Cascsading Idea Deficit Implosion.
-
Doug Bostrom at 16:50 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Further research can delve into classification of fissioning of rationality via uncontrolled mental chain reactions produced by excessive crowding of the like-minded into blog comment threads:
Prompt Criticality Excursion
Transient Criticality Excursion
Exponential Excursion
Steady State Excursion -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:10 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
mandas
And why would I want to just give away my money to you mandas?
One thing that really stood out in blogosphere reaction to LOG12 (and I am certain will occur again in response to this paper) is the self-sealing behaviour. The usual suspects will be utterly incapable of seeing that there is anything off-key or irrational in their behaviour. And it isn't simply self-sealing by individuals. It is actually a complete, self-sealed community.
They truely think that they have created a great movement against a terrible wrong, that something called 'citizen science' has been created by them; a superior tool for evaluating the world.
I am sure their closed world offers some sense of emotional sustenance to them. Sadly it is a sustenance that has the same food value as fairy floss.
We can now await Recursive Fury2
-
2013 SkS News Bulletin #4: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
Terranova - Please remember: Reality has a well known liberal bias.
On a more serious note, current American politics seems to involve the Republican party denying the scientific basis of reality, in favor of emotional/ideological constructs. It's a very sad state of affairs - the Republicans used to be the party concerned about the environment, but are now the party of social issues over facts...
-
mandas at 14:08 PM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
(I have cross-posted this comment on Shaping Tomorrow's World :-))
Thanks once again John and Dr Lewandowsky.
I especially love the last paragraph before the conclusion, regarding some of the discussion that has taken place on this blog and elsewhere (disclosure - I have been involved in some of them).
Can I make a prediction? You have suggested that: "It will be interesting to see whether this commenter resists the "Something Must Be Wrong" urge......:
I predict that he won't - and will post his usual long diatribes and he will be completely immune to any evidence or rationality that he may be incorrect. Anyone want to bet against me?
-
chriskoz at 13:54 PM on 22 March 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #4: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
Terranova@3,
Please provide a proof to your point that John shows "extremely heavy left-wing liberal bias". If I was you, I would not pronounce such heavy weighed opinion without any proof (in this case an alternative choice of articles that acurately analyse KXL from an oposing, say right-wing, conservative point of view) otherwise, I could just be accused of sloganeering.
Accordingly, I am interested in analysing any reputable article that you are going to cite, or I'm going to ignore the sloganeering.
-
chriskoz at 12:37 PM on 22 March 2013The ^ New! Abridged Skeptical Science Quick Reference Guide
Climate Change Cluedo by Tom Curtis is a perfect complementary explanation of 10 AGW points above, together with nice pictures, recommended if you haven't seen them yet. Also very useful reader comments (apart from few moderated/snipped ones worth skipping) therein.
-
Chappo at 12:34 PM on 22 March 2013The ^ New! Abridged Skeptical Science Quick Reference Guide
Thank you Daniel. Very useful.
A later edition of this basic, essential piece might include a little more on the key scientific proofs (further to the NAS summary thing). Eg step by step proof - with the latest key references as published. Sufficient to PROVE clearly why a 'trace' molecule in the atmosphere causes what it does.
With that also including a little of those authors' own words perhaps, or as translated into plain english.
Also, some more diagrams and graphs.
So that any fool in the media can follow it, and take it in.
JC -
Terranova at 12:17 PM on 22 March 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #4: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
John Hartz, your choice of linked-to articles show an extremely heavy left-wing liberal bias. Are you posting articles that you personally like (and that is ok), or are you posting articles that advance the science?
-
It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
Klapper, others - Note that there is some ambiguity about the sunspot numbers - according to Svalgaard 2012, due to changes in counting methods the sunspot numbers pre-1875 are low by a factor of 50%, and the numbers from 1940 onward are high by a factor of 20%.
I don't know if these adjustments are generally accepted, but if they are correct your TSI estimates will be off accordingly.
[Source]
-
GCNP58 at 11:38 AM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
You guys are cracking me up. In a good way. Thanks.
-
bill4344 at 11:33 AM on 22 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Minor typo, sub-para #1 - New York Times
Response: [JC] Fixed, thanks. -
bill4344 at 11:17 AM on 22 March 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #4: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
Gee, let's see now, you don't know if your comments will be deleted, and this concerns you? (In fact you appear to be reluctant to make any unless you can be reasonably certain they will be deleted! Could this be what's known as a Freudian error? ;-) )
Here's a suggestion; try reading the comments policy (handy link above), comprehending it, and then making them! See what happens!
(If you reverse-engineer it enough you might even achieve your apparent goal! But I'm being facetious, of course; you wouldn't want to do that...)
-
scaddenp at 10:43 AM on 22 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
We do not agree on net aerosol effect. Again, you are claiming that your construction of the net forcings over this period is better than the published ones, but you do not seem to be making reference to any of the published papers to challenge their methodology and, as TC and Bob have pointed out, ignored important factors in aerosols. (Change in BC, volcanic quienessence).
-
Klapper at 10:38 AM on 22 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
@Tom Curtis #13:
Your point 2: Show me the math on aerosols warming 1910 to 1945. Aerosols can't warm, they can only cool (not quite true since black carbon can be a positive forcing).
Your point 3: I'm not "benchmarking" (whatever that is in this context) on the solar minimums. I'm saying you can only calculate trends in pseudo-waveform functions like TSI by calculating trends from peak to peak or trough to trough, either method works, hence my adoption of the 1910 to 1945 as a good period to evaluate. My calculated delta TSI of 0.09W/m2/decade is based on a minimum to minimum trend period only since the minimums are less noisy than the maximums. I checked both 1902 to 1954 and 1912 to 1944, but got the same number (0.09W/m2/decade) for delta TSI.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:12 AM on 22 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
Klapper @12:
1) Regarding anthropogenic aerosols, the period 1910-1940 saw the phase out of coal and replacement by oil as a fuel for ships, and a partial replacement of coal with oil for stationary power generation. That means there were less aerosols produced per unit CO2 in that period than during the preceding thirty years.
2) More importantly, the virtual elimination of stratospheric aersols over that interval represents a strong positive forcing. I believe it, rather than the enhanced solar forcing, is considered to be the primary reason for the rapid increase in temperature during that interval, just as the reintroduction of stratospheric aerosols is a significant factor in the slight cooling from the mid 1940s to the late 1960s. I do not think we are agreeing. I think you have missed my point.
3) Even allowing that you are interested in the period from 1910-1945, peak solar output increased far more over that period than did minimum solar output. By benchmarking your trend on the minimums, I still believe you to be underestimating the increase in solar forcing.
Prev 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 Next
