Recent Comments

Prev  950  951  952  953  954  955  956  957  958  959  960  961  962  963  964  965  Next

Comments 47851 to 47900:

47851. DSL at 02:10 AM on 8 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Kevin, a cherry-pick is a rhetorical move.  It's performed in order to make the data say what the presenter wants them to say.  In essence, a trend period is picked for its support or falsification of the hypothesis.  The trend period is not picked for scientific/statistical reasons.  Any climate energy trend of less than 30 years used to describe "climate" is a cherry-pick unless it is accompanied by methodology/caveat that accounts for short-term oscillations and forcings.  Even 30 years is sketchy. 

       Further, anyone who uses the clause "global warming has paused/stopped/experienced a hiatus" is being imprecise, and probably for rhetorical reasons (the alternative is ignorance).  Increased atmospheric CO2 will increase global energy storage, regardless of what the surface/OHC trends are doing.  It will always be warmer with CO2 than without.  If there are forcings/feedbacks that balance or overwhelm CO2 forcing, then the phrasing should be "the surface temp trend has recently flattened," and that should be immediately followed by analysis.  It would be unphysical to claim that "global warming has stopped" when CO2 continues to rise.  

       Your reputation as a critical thinker is also not supported by your use of "CAGW."  The acronym means nothing without definition of "C."  If you'd like to provide such definition, it would help further discussion with you.  However, your definition would not be universal.  According to the people with whom I have engaged on this issue, the "C" includes everything from the Earth being burnt to a cinder, to 200 feet of sea level rise in the next decade, to simply "more heatwaves."  People who use "CAGW" typically know that the definition is ambiguous (I've pushed at least 50 users on this point, and most agreed; the rest refused to answer).  What the "C" actually does is identify you as a "skeptic."  It's a little "badge of honor," a (not so) subtle sign that you're still "a member," even if you are here engaging with the enemy.  

       
       The 16-year GISS surface temp trend from 1992-2007 is .284 per decade.  Did any scientist claim, in 2007, that 1) this was evidence for global warming advancing at nearly double the expected rate and/or 2) that this was an indication that the theory/models had completely failed, and that sensitivity would necessarily have to be something like 6-7C?  No.  Again, if you're going to discuss short-term trends, have the critical awareness to work with the short-term forcings/feedbacks/oscillations instead of immediately honing in on "global warming has stopped!"

       Yes, it's happening.  Fire up your pyrgeometer.  Go check. 

        

47852. KR at 02:09 AM on 8 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Also of note in this regard are Kouketsu et al 2011, showing a 0.8x10²² J/decade ocean heat content (OCH) rise in waters >3000 meters, and Levitus et al 2005, showing 14.5x10²² J rise over 1955-1998 (3.37x10²² J/decade) in OHC 0-3000 meters.

       ---

       Kevin - Learn some statistics. The surface air temperature of 1997-present is not statistically significant, the 16 year trend is not significant, and therefore the "stall" is not statistically significant either. Claims of a "stall" are therefore meaningless, and if (as in the choice of 1997 for a starting point) the time period is specifically selected to minimize the trend, it is by definition a cherry-pick, a fallacy of incomplete evidence. 

       As to how long? Well, for GISTEMP 1995 is sufficient to show that the trend is significant, that the null hypothesis of no warming is invalid. 

       For any of the instrumental series, over any time span ending in the present:

       • There is no period where warming is invalidated, against a null hypothesis of no warming. 
       • Against a null hypothesis of the long term warming trend, there is no period where a "no warming" hypothesis is validated. None.
       • Over any period with enough data to show statistical significance, that data shows a statistically significant warming trend. 

       Stop cherry-picking. 

47853. KR at 01:45 AM on 8 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       As a note on this, and in regards to the (mis)conceptions exhibited by Kevin and others:

       CO2 feedbacks to a forcing act as an amplifier of those forcings. A temperature rise reduces oceanic CO2 solubility, CO2 increases, temperature rises more. The gain is less than 1.0, so the overall effect is stable, but the end temperature swing is much higher with that positive feedback than it would be with just the initial forcing. 

       Note the important point - CO2 increases due to a temperature rise, increasing total radiative imbalance, temperatures rise more. 

       But a temperature rise and ocean solubility is not the only possible cause of a CO2 rise. For example (ahem) we have been burning fossil fuels at a tremendous rate, and have increased CO2 to levels not seen in the last million years or so. So - temperatures will rise. 

       ---

       From an electronics point of view, with CO2 as the amplifier (which might make more sense to those with engineering outlooks) - rather than increasing the input to the temperature dependent amplifier (Milankovitch forcing, with inherent time delays), we've been directly and very quickly raising the amplifier offset. With the same end result - temperatures are rising. We're turning it up to 11.

47854. Kevin8233 at 01:22 AM on 8 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       1. Satistical cherry-pick: The timeframe under consideration is too short for the trend to meet the convention of being statistically significant.

       That is my point!  Get rid of the two "escalator" stairs and compute your own trend line from 1997 to the present.  The result is very close to a slope of 0, with the margin of error greater than the slope.  That means it is not significant!

       What time frame do you consider long enough?  If the "recent" warming period that CAGW subscribers point to as significant is roughly 30 years (1970 - 2000), then I would think that a significant "stall" of 16 years is note worthy.

        

       • Physics cherry-pick: More importantly, the claim usually ignores the underlying physics. Global warming follows from the persistent radiative imbalance at top-of-atmosphere, and as long as this imbalance is in effect, we can be very confident that global warming is ongoing, whatever the vagaries of the surface temperature trend.

       Another way to paraphrase this one is to say - regardless of the data, I know it is happening, therefore it is happening.

47855. Composer99 at 01:11 AM on 8 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Kevin:

       The point of the trend lines based on standard statistical practice in figure 4 starting at the same time as Watts' is to show that his claim (based on the eyecrometer and presumption) is false even when restricting oneself to the timeframe Watts has claimed represents a "stall".

       Of course, a trend further back is plotted to show that ocean warming is in fact continuing unabated as the time frame Watts treats is much too short to be a reliable indicator of what is going on.

       With regards to what constitutes cherry-picking of surface temperature (which is what the "Escalator" animated graphic is meant to lampoon), there are two ways in which claims that global warming has "stalled" or "paused" can be cherry-picks:

       1. Satistical cherry-pick: The timeframe under consideration is too short for the trend to meet the convention of being statistically significant.
       2. Physics cherry-pick: More importantly, the claim usually ignores the underlying physics. Global warming follows from the persistent radiative imbalance at top-of-atmosphere, and as long as this imbalance is in effect, we can be very confident that global warming is ongoing, whatever the vagaries of the surface temperature trend.

       In any event, with regards to the specifics of your claim, pseudoskeptics have claimed in the recent past that warming has "paused" in 1997. Their claims constitute cherry-picking for the two reasons noted above.

47856. Roger D at 00:27 AM on 8 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Kevin@ 21 - I think the trend lines for 2003-2012 are simply the trends for the two respective sets of data points; I don't think they both originate on any "data point".

       To me, as a layperson, the bottomline is: Does Watts try to get at the reality of how ocean energy content is changing; if I read his blog will i be better informed? I have answer no to that question.

       Why wouldn't Watts mention 700-2000m data in his post?

47857. DSL at 00:11 AM on 8 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Smith, Watts knows his audience.  As you imply, if someone knows what the line is about, it becomes useless and irrelevant.  Why, then, would Watts include it?  It's reasonable to assume that Watts communicates toward an audience he understands quite well after all these years.  That yellow line was not a mistake in communication.  He knows quite well that most of his audience is going to read the yellow line as a trend.  Even if it's not, and they become aware of that fact, they'll assume that it's close enough.  This is SOP for Watts.  He's always testing the limits of his audience's gullibility (e.g. the recent Goddard silliness on Arctic ice gain).

47858. Kevin8233 at 23:55 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Cherrypicking?  Generally speaking, cherrypicking is used to show info in the best possible light, it also implies intentional misleading.  To present a claim that a trend has stopped, or even alterred, you must use the data at the end of the series.  Since they are making the claim that warming has stopped since X, how else should the data be presented other then showing a trend from X to the present?

       If they claimed that warming had stopped in 1997 by showing data from 1997 until 2010, then your claim of cherrypicking would be accurate.

        

       In fig 1, by presenting the data with separate trendlines for 1997 - 2003, and 2003 - present, a claim could be made for you "cherrypicking" information, as they have made the calim that warming has stopped in 1997.

       In the animated fig 4, Smith(19) already pointed out the yellow line, however, in the second animation, you show two red trend lines, I guess to show the trends for Levitus and Lyman, but both trend lines originate on the Levitus data point for 2004.  This is wrong and makes the trend line steeper than it is.

        

47859. OPatrick at 23:28 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Smith - it looks like a trend and it quacks like a trend. Watts can call it what he likes, but only a cursory dissection is needed to see it's a herring.

47860. BillEverett at 22:52 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       Rob Honeycutt@59, "I'm quibbling over the 'main' vs 'biggest' exactly because of the semantics issue that Kevin seems to be misunderstanding."
       
       Okay. For me, the difference between "biggest" and "main" is rather insignificant. I used "main" in my initial comment because that was the term in Rob Painting's fifth key point and it was used in other comments preceding mine.
       
       I prefer the more specific term "thermostat" to the general term "control knob" when using an analogy to explain the situation to other non-scientists because (1) temperature is what the knob controls and (2) it makes it easier to understand time delays between changes in CO₂ and in temperature.
       
       For those having difficulty understanding the role of greenhouse gases in our climate, I recommend the segment from 4:20 to 6:36 in a very good half-hour lecture on YouTube.

47861. Smith at 22:47 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Dana1981@11 - Then why is the yellow line labeled "denial fake trend" in Figure 4?  If you were aware it was not claimed to be a trend, what possible reason would you have to label it so?

47862. Leto at 18:51 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       As a climate layperson, I find the lameness of this latest WUWT post to be very strong evidence in favour of AGW. Even without dana's comprehensive rebuttal, it just doesn't pass the sniff test. In fact, it reeks of desparation. If there were good arguments against AGW, presumably they would be getting all the blogspace, leaving no room for this nonsense. Anyone who could draw that yellow "highlighting" line and post it in a serious, non-spoof, non-satirical blog piece is clearly in the propganda business, and not even trying to be reasonable. In fact, the whole piece, if published in another context, could be read as a tremendous spoof on denialism - and Watts doesn't even seem to realse it. The fact that his fanboys don't call him on it immediately also speaks volumes about the whole denialist subculture. They really don't seem to care what the anti-AGW argument is; anything at all will do, no matter how intellectually bankrupt.

47863. jyushchyshyn at 18:37 PM on 7 March 2013
       China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
       

       "Since development of the tar sands would cripple any possible efforts by Canada to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions"

       Why would the development of the tar sand cripple any possible efforts by Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or even be an obsticle. Will the development of the tar sands add even one car to the roads in Canada or prevent the placement of one solar panel on the roof. Unless the U. S. were to import just as much oil from OPEC nations as it does now, why would any additional greenhouse gas emissions be produced. To stop OPEC oil imports would mean less flaring in OPEC nations.

47864. BBD at 18:10 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk

       Please see 37 and links. Your questions answered.

47865. Philippe Chantreau at 17:10 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       I think the real problem is that there may be a conspiracy to present conspiracy theorists as having  conspiratorial delusions in an attempt to invalidate their outings of conspiracies. They'll stop at nothing! I also realized recently that the tinfoil doesn't cut it, really. Fortunately, some large furniture store nearby also has nifty stainless steel bowls that nicely fit on my head. Stainless steel baby! Now I'm protected!! Seriously, Tom, John, and others. This is beyond grotesque. It's worse than the 2nd law thread stuff. It's worse than "Pluto is warming." It's really, truly,  not worth bothering with This is pig that will drag you down in the mud so low that no possible outcome is worth the effort. I know some of you love a challenge but gee...

47866. Philippe Chantreau at 17:00 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       I have wasted my time on a few occasions on McIntyre's blog. McIntyre is skilled at not saying anything while still saying it. He tolerates the worst accusations on his blog, to a point that certainly encourages collective conspiratorial thinking in his readers. I have seen how he made the maths in his paper on PCAS do exactly what he wanted it to do. I have read some Schollenberger's prior contributions on various blogs. Here is my personal opinion on this fake debate:

       McIntyre is a denier of the worst kind and he defines what fake skepticism is. Schollenberger is so full of it, one can wonder how he manages the breathe. Any attempt at engaging him in an intellectually honest discussion is futile. This is a clear case of DNFTT.

47867. Brandon Shollenberger at 16:12 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Tom Curtis @33 offers a bizarre interpretation of my comments and personality.  On the former, he claims I say one part of John Cook's comment is "an irrelevant addition."  I've never said anything of the sort.  Pointing out one part of a comment is relevant is in no way saying another part is irrelevant.
       
       Following from this, Curtis suggests the "rational perspective" of my comments is I "desperately [do] not want to discuss Lewsandowsky 2013," but rather want to post "a bit of misinterpretation to spread some FUD."  Not only is this an offensive accusation of dishonesty, it is completely baseless.  The reality is I'd happily discuss the paper, but I'm currently discussing a different issue.  Specifically, I want a simple answer to a simple question.  Asking for that before discussing a more complicated issue is perfectly reasonable.
       
       For his second point, Curtis merely misrepresents what I said.  He says I admit "unwarranted attributions of malice are a form of conspiratorial ideation."  I do nothing of the sort.  I said malice is only one part of conspitorial ideation.  That means you need more than just attributions of malice to exhibit such ideation.  Curtis has somehow conflated "part" with "form" to claim I've said the exact opposite of what I actually said.
       
       For his third point, Curtis claims my interpretation would require "Oreskes did not know the content of her talk, until after she had heard Mann's talk."  The only reason this would be true is if the only way Oreskes could have seen Mann's graph is to have seen his AGU presentation.  This is a peculiar assumption, one which is inconsistent Curtis's own argument. 
       
       Curtis says, "Oreskes could have... been 'wrong footed' by information given her in the lead up to the AGU."  If that's true, that information have led her to say what she said in her AGU presentation.  There is no reason she would need to wait until Mann's AGU presentation to know the content of her talk.
       
       Curtis's discussion of the wingman metaphor is no better.  He suggests an individual and their wingman would work together "towards a predetermined goal," thus Oreskes would have to intend to deceive.  That's a non-sequitur.  Mann and Oreskes could easily share a goal of conveying a particular idea or message, thus making her his mini wingman.  That doesn't mean they have the same beliefs about that message.  People supporting the same message often do it for different reasons.

47868. barry1487 at 14:23 PM on 7 March 2013
       Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
       

       Eclectikus,

       "Just a note about pseudoscience. The term itself is a modern term who started on XX century. The pejorative connotation is still more modern, coming from probably when it was linked with homeopathy, astrology and so on...
        
       For example, Feynman includes Social Science and Economy on pseudosciences (but without the pejorative tone): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw
        
       I am almost sure that Feynman would do the same with Climate Alarmism today (again without the pejorative tone), because in many senses, suffers of identical failures than Economy, Sociology... they are no susceptiuble of falsability, and fail to fulfill the Scientific Method."
       
       
       While I don't think it was a good idea for SkS to pull out of the awards Feynman would approve of the principle being defended - good science, to put it simply. Not politically correct (cargo cult) science, or politically driven science, but adherence to the scientific method. While there are patches of sound methodology in the skeptical blogs, the major part of their output is (cargo) cult science. The ideology is primary in those places. They are forever attemtping to disprove 'AGW'. Feynman said;
        
       “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
        
       The skeptical blogs highlight uncertainty to furnish their ideology. They do not operate from a spirit of enquiry. Uncertainty is used to argue that climate science is fatally flawed. I can understand the frustration that led to SkS withdrawing from the awards. The contest is antithetical to science. Quality science is not determined by a vote.
        
       Feynman might have eschewed climate change activism (maybe), but would align with SkS on the scientific principle. You appear to conlfate climate science with climate activism. I think it is unfortunate messaging that SkS have used a political vehicle (protesting) to defend the principle of science. It would be a mistake, however, to characterise SkS' scientific fidelity on this one action.
        
47869. grindupBaker at 14:21 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       Kevin#1: I disagree with your analysis of the semantics re "big control knob". I offer the analogy of open microphone / speaker +ve feedback. You cough in the mike or tap it and a fierce whistle occurs due to +ve feedback. Stopped by a limiting circuit or loss of power. If no sound had entered the mike there would have been no whistle of increasing amplitude but nobody would suggest that your cough or you yanking the power plug out or a fuse blowing were a "big control knob". In fact, the amplifier might have a control knob you can adjust for more or less feedback.

47870. jzk at 14:10 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       Rob says: "It also looks to me like Roe is very specifically discussing global ice volume as opposed to global temperature."

       Rob,

       What causes global ice volumes to change?

47871. Tom Curtis at 14:09 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Shollenberger claims that:

       1)  Cook's acceptance of Mann's description of the case is the point of Cook's post.  To put that in context, this is what Cook wrote:

       "Thanks for the extra details, Mike. I find it interesting that Steve McIntyre automatically lunges towards a conspiratorial explanation of events.Stephan Lewandowsky published a paper last year showing a significant association between climate denial and conspiratorial thinking. The response to the research from climate deniers was a host of new conspiracy theories. We document the originators of these conspiracy theories in the paper Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation: Lew_2013. The chief originator of conspiracy theories? Steve McIntyre."

       By Shallonberger's interpretation, the section in italics is the point of the post, and the section in bold an irrelevant addition.  Given the relative length of the two sections, it is clear that Cook's main point in posting was to draw attention to the discussion of other conspiracy theories by McIntyre.

       Further, even if Shallonberger was correct in his interpretation, it then becomes bizzarre that he wants to discuss the views of a person who merely expressed agreement rather than the views of the person originating the theory.

       I think the more rational perspective is that Shallonberger desperately does not want to discuss Lewsandowsky 2013, which is after all the topic of this thread, and sees the potential in a bit of misinterpretation to spread some FUD without actually needing to engage in a battle he knows he will loose.

       2)  Shollenberger denies that McIntyre used conspiritorial ideation, saying,

       "McIntyre's attribution was not conspiratorial, whether or not it was right. Malice is only one part of such ideation. " 

       (My emphasis)

       Of course, he has given the game away because unwarranted attributions of malice are a form of conspiratorial ideation, as he admits.  It is not necessary for somebody to dispaly all types of conspiritorial ideation for them to display one type.

       3)  Somewhat bizzarely, Shallonberger argues that McIntyre did not think there was collusion between Mann and his "mini-wingman" because Oreskes was, purportedly, wrong footed.  By his interepretation, we must presume that Oreskes did not know the content of her talk, until after she had heard Mann's talk - a claim that is simply absurd given the long lead in to AGU conferences.

       In fact, the mataphor of "wrong footing" does not imply an immediate response, and hence in no way argues against the purported collusion.  Oreskes could have as easilly been "wrong footed" by information given her in the lead up to the AGU as by the lecture itself.

       In contrast, the metaphor of the wingman almost demands that there be cooperation between the two towards a predetermined goal; and indeed that there have been discussion of tactics beforehand.  It is only a metaphor, so McIntyre leaves himself some plausible deniability.  Never-the-less, the suggestions of collusion is fairly emphatic.

       Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed link that was breaking page formatting.
47872. Rob Honeycutt at 13:49 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       And that jibes very well with what scaddenp is saying relative to the radiative forcing being much higher at latitudes above 60N lat.  

47873. Rob Honeycutt at 13:47 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       It also looks to me like Roe is very specifically discussing global ice volume as opposed to global temperature.

47874. Rob Honeycutt at 13:42 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk...  You're talking about two different things.  The article here is saying dominant control over the past 40 my.  Roe is in reference to glacial-interglacial cycles.

47875. jzk at 13:16 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       scaddenp,

       My quote is not from Roe?  I suggest you read it again.  "relatively weak" is how CO2 forcing is described as it relates to driving global ice volumes.  You admit that CO2 is secondary, but this article alleges it is the "Dominant control."  Is it the Dominant, or Secondary?

47876. Rob Honeycutt at 12:43 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon...  I have to add, it's actually quite important to get this straight because it's the very basis of your position on the issue.  Only if we clear this us can we even begin to talk about the substance of your original post.

47877. villabolo at 12:39 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Does the decrease in solar luminosity that started in 2002 have any bearing on the matter? Would ocean temperatures have increased more if the sun's luminosity stayed the same?

47878. Rob Honeycutt at 12:37 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon...  It seems fundamental to the issue where you actually stand with regards to your position.  Either Mann is claiming that McI is engaging in "conspiracy ideation" as you state in your first post, or you're claiming that Mann is saying that there is a specific conspiracy that McI is referring to.

       You're perfectly fine to say that you mis-stated your position in one of these posts.  There's no crime in making an error.  But to continue to claim that there is no inconsistency is to double down on your mistake.

47879. Rob Honeycutt at 12:26 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Don...  But it certainly explains a lot about Anthony's methodology.

47880. Brandon Shollenberger at 12:24 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Rob Honeycutt, I offered an explanation.  As far as I can see, you haven't addressed any part of it.  You haven't even quoted or discussed the second question I asked in my original comment.  It would serve no purpose for us to continue repeating ourselves.  If there is a problem with my explanation, feel free to point it out.  Otherwise, I'll leave it to readers to decide if you've shown any sort of inconsistency in my remarks.

       In the meantime, I'll offer one thought.  Even if I were inconsistent as you claim, that inconsistency wouldn't make anything I said wrong.  All it would mean is I offered two different arguments.  The validity of each would still need to be addressed.  Finding a failing on my part wouldn't do that.

47881. Rob Honeycutt at 12:16 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       And Brandon...  With regards to: "My intended meaning was quite clear."  

       Your meaning is taken from your unequivocal statement saying, "Do you believe McIntyre's post an example of conspiratorial ideation as Mann claims?" (My emphasis.)

47882. Rob Honeycutt at 12:13 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon...  Again you're grasping at straws here.

       The point is, in your first post you accept that Mann is discussing "conspiracy ideation."  Those are your words (hence, I'm not putting them in your mouth).

       Then in your second post you try to back pedal and say that Mann is talking about a "specific conspiracy theory."

       Even here in your post #27 you're being completely inconsistent again.  In your first post you clearly state that Mann is discussing conspiracy ideation and now you state,

       "[Rob said,]"it's quite clear that [Mann] is referring to 'conspiracy ideation' rather than a specific 'conspiracy theory."  I explained why that seems to be untrue. [...]"

       So, which is it Brandon?  Is he or is he not discussing "conspiracy ideation?"  You have to state that you were in error in one of these posts because they are not consistent.

47883. Don9000 at 12:13 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Well, Rob, it is very, very fine, and to see it you have to believe ... It might help if you donned a pair of ruby red shoes, clicked their heels together three times and--

       
       No. I don't even think that would work.

47884. Don9000 at 12:06 PM on 7 March 2013
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       

       doug,

       I'm no expert either, but I trust that the recent volume calculations are fine. But I do wonder if the visible bouncing might be due to the shift to satellite observations which might possibly be better at recording the last stages of the summer melt season. That said, I think the explanation for the plunges is that there is now too little year-round ice both in terms of volume and area to keep the Arctic basin functioning as a year-round freezer. In other words, when most of the Arctic Ocean remained ice-covered throughout the melt season, the summer lows in ice area were reached by a fairly steady and slow process of melt around the edges and from below and this helped keep the volume loss low because the ice lid was still mostly in place. The last few melt cycles seem to simply reveal that the thin ice that does manage to form each winter is almost completely melting away with relative ease each summer--and then some of the old ice is also lost, hence the overall decline.

       We need to remember that in previous years a fairly signficant portion of each winter's new ice survived to live another year, but that is no longer happening. I'd say that the magnitude of the annual range in volume is going to become even more dramatic--with much lower lows and gradually lower highs going forward until the summer ice volume bottoms out, whereupon the seasonally frozen pond/lake comparison will be very clear.

       I'm curious about the relative temperatures of the ice in the pre-1980 days and more recently. I suspect that the current season's ice of the new Arctic is on average warmer, thanks to the influence of the ocean water beneath it and the relatively warmer air above it, at the start of the melt season than the old season's ice cover, which included more multiyear ice and had a colder atmosphere above it and potentially colder water below it, would have been.

47885. Brandon Shollenberger at 12:03 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Rob Honeycutt, I never claimed you put words in my mouth.  Why would you bring that issue up?  Quoting words doesn't ensure you interpret them correctly.  That's especially true when you only quote some of the words.  In this case, youignored this question from my original comment, "If so, what conspiracy did he discuss?" 

       If McIntyre invented a conspiracy theory, he necessarily showed conspiratorial ideation.  When Mann claimed McIntyre invented a conspiracy theory, he necessarily claimed McIntyre showed conspiratorial ideation.  The one requires the other.  The most you can say is I was unclear when I asked if people agreed McIntyre's post was "an example of conspiratorial ideation" instead of being more specific.

       But I had already quoted Mann's exact words, and my very next sentence was, "If so, what conspiracy did [McIntyre] discuss?"  My intended meaning was quite clear.

       Speaking of clarity Rob Honeycutt, you said, "it's quite clear that [Mann] is referring to 'conspiracy ideation' rather than a specific 'conspiracy theory."  I explained why that seems to be untrue.  You didn't respond to my point.  Do you still believe what you said?

47886. Rob Honeycutt at 11:49 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Don9000 @ 12...  Oh! I had no idea that pixie dust came in flourescent yellow!  ;-)

47887. bill4344 at 11:40 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       If Watts has ringed the area in question with the highlighter he might have more of a defence!

       
       Also, could someone from his camp point out the 'global warming "pause" ' since 1997 I keep hearing about in this, his very-own chart? I'm having some difficulty seeing it...

47888. Don9000 at 11:14 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Matt,

       It looks to me like the vague summation I've quoted above and the nonsensical yellow line was the best material Watts could come up with. After all, his tired comedy act must go on, but the material he's using has been ground very fine--perhaps even as fine as pixie dust.

47889. dana1981 at 11:04 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Matt @10 - to be fair, Watts didn't say the yellow line was a trend, just that he was 'highlighting' the apparent lack of warming since 2003 (which is only apparent because he drew a bogus flat line and didn't plot the actual trends).

47890. Rob Honeycutt at 11:02 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon...  You're grasping at straws.  You, yourself stated in your first post, "Do you believe McIntyre's post an example of conspiratorial ideation as Mann claims?"  (My emphasis.) Now you're saying that Mann isn't saying that and is making a statement of an actual conspiracy of some sort.  You can't have it both ways.

       You state that my statement is "not true" but I've not put any words in your mouth.  I've used your direct quotes.  You have made two statements in two posts that are internally inconsistent with the argument you're trying to present.

47891. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:54 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       I think I found out what the problem with line breaks was.  My browser blocked a number of scripts this page uses by default, and one of those scripts controls the comment box.  Without the script enabled, the comment box seemed like a mundane text box.  With it enabled, I have various formatting options available.  I bet something about that not having that script running caused my linebreaks to be stripped out.

       Hopefully that solves that mystery  And who knows, maybe that knowledge will help someone in the future.

47892. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:49 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       Rob Honeycutt @22 suggests my comment have been inconsistent. This is not true. I asked two questions in my comment. It is true the question he quoted is not addressing the same point as my later comment. However, I asked a second question immediately after the first, "[W]hat conspiracy did [McIntyre] discuss?" That is the point I referred to in my comment @20. I asked the question I asked because my contention is there is no answer.Rob Honeycutt also claims "it's quite clear that [Mann] is referring to 'conspiracy ideation' rather than a specific 'conspiracy theory." I don't see how he came up with that interpretation. Mann explicitly referred to a specific conspiracy theory when he claimed Mcintyre, "chose to invent an entire conspiracy theory." It seems "quite clear" he was referring to a specific conspriacy theory rather than conspiracy ideation. Why else would he refer to a specific conspiracy theory?
47893. Matt Fitzpatrick at 10:42 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       First time I've seen anyone draw an arbitrary line through a graph (Fig. 3), sprinkle magic stats fairy dust on it, and call it a trend.

       The stats fairy will love and accept any arbitrary line if it's short enough. That's what makes her useless. I could likewise draw an arbitrarily short and steep — dare I say, alarmist? — line, and it would pass the same stats fairy test.

       Even the eyeball test reveals the yellow line as nonsense. 2003-2007 are all near or well under the yellow line; 2008-2012 are all near or well over it.

47894. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:40 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       Sorry for the lack of paragraphs. None of my line breaks are going through, and I have no idea why.
47895. Rob Honeycutt at 10:33 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon @ 20...  Your original post states, "Do you believe McIntyre's post an example of conspiratorial ideation as Mann claims?"  My following post is saying that, yes, McI's post is an example of conspiratorial ideation, per Lew 2013.

       Now your post @20 says, "Michael Mann explicitly stated Steve McIntyre invented a conspiracy involving "[Mann], multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc." That's a very specific claim, and my point has been it is unfounded."

       This was not in your original post and, in fact, you stated differently in each of the two posts.  Re-reading Mann's FB post, it's quite clear that he is referring to "conspiracy ideation" rather than a specific "conspiracy theory."  

       The overriding point remains, rather than looking for a rational explanation (or even bother to ask direct questions) McI takes it upon himself to create his own story out of whole cloth.

47896. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:33 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       Tom Curtis @19 raises three points. He first claims discussing this example given by Mann "evades the point raised by Cook." This is untrue. Cook promoted this example by favorably commenting, associating his work with it, as well as by promoting it on Twitter. By implicitly agreeing Mann's claim was another example of what his paper found, he made Mann's claim perfectly relevant.Tom Curtis's second claim is McIntyre's post "certainly contains conspiracy theory ideation" because "it consists of attributing to malice what should properly be attributed to laziness, or carelessness." This is a red herring. McIntyre's attribution was not conspiratorial, whether or not it was right. Malice is only one part of such ideation. Moreover, even if one believed attributing malice is inherently engaging in conspiratorial ideation, that is not what Cook referred to. Cook explicitly said McIntyre "lunges towards a conspiratorial explanation of events." There was nothing conspiratorial about McIntyre's explanation.Tom Curtis's third point is just... strange. He says McIntyre suggests connivance between Naomia Oreskes and Michael Mann when he says Oreskes seems "to have [been] wrongfooted." Being wrongfooted requires one be mislead. Curtis's interpretation requires Oreskes be mislead by Mann yet intentionally play along with him. That's impossible. If Oreskes was mislead to believe a point, she was necessarily unaware the point was wrong.Stephen McIntyre alleged Michael Mann made decisions with the intent to deceive. He then argued it appears those decisions mislead Naomi Oreskes into believing untrue things. Right or wrong, that is not conspiratorial.
47897. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:18 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       Tom Curtis @18 is right. Somehow the second link in my post got malformed to have the Skeptical Science URL appended at the beginning. I have no clue how that happened, but you can get the right URL by stripping out the first part (or just following the link Curtis provided).I'm afraid I can't understand the point made by Rob Honeycutt @17. Michael Mann explicitly stated Steve McIntyre invented a conspiracy involving "[Mann], multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc." That's a very specific claim, and my point has been it is unfounded.
47898. Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon Shollenberger @15,

       1)  John Cook's comment referred to conspiracy theories developed by McIntyre with regard to Lewandowsky's "conspiracy" paper in 2012.  Referring us back to McIntyre's post on Mann's AGU presentation evades the point raised by Cook rather than adressing it.

       2)  As noted by Rob Honeycutt, Lewandowski's theory is about the presence of conspiracy theory ideation, ie, the types of thought patterns typically found in conspiracy theories, rather than the presence of conspiracy theories themselves.  McIntyre's post on Mann's AGU adress certainly contains conspiracy theory ideation, regardless of whether it contains an actual conspiracy theory.  In this case the conspiracy theory ideation consists of attributing to malice what should properly be attributed to laziness, or carelessness.

       On that topic, Mann's AGU presentation should have used updated data.  The updated data is readilly available and should have been replotted to avoid any possibility of accidental deception.  This is particularly the case given the fact that the updated data appears go against Mann's argument.  Further, Mann should not have used the land station only data.  The comparison was to a projection of global temperatures, so a global temperature index should have been used.  If I understand Mann's explanation correctly, he in fact sent a diagram containing both Land station only, and Land-Ocean data to his publishers, who tidied up the graph by removing the later.  Mann should have noticed that the wrong temperature series had been retained, although it is a natural mistake to not have done so.

       3)  McIntyre does not just criticize Mann, but also goes on to criticize Oreskes.  In fact, he does so in terms that suggest connivance between Mann and Oreskes, saying:

       "Mann's AGU Trick appears to have wrongfooted his mini wingman, Naomi Oreskes."

       and

       "Oreskes’ starting point was that models had supposedly under-estimated relative to observations – a starting-point that seems oddly disconnected to the IPCC graphic shown above but, hey, Oreskes is an expert in manufactured disinformation. If Oreskes was not in fact wrongfooted by Mann, then one would like to know the provenance of her assertion that models were “underestimating” observed temperature increases."

       To clarrify, Oreske's is indeed an expert in analysing the manufacture of disinformation by pseudo-skeptics.  McIntyre's (at best) ambiguous phrasing suggests that she manufactures disinformation rather than analyzing that manufactured by others.

       Be that as it may, Shollenberger's claim that McIntyre "... blames everything in that post on Michael Mann", and that "That cannot possibly be talk of a conspiracy" are simply false.  McIntyre has alleged or strongly suggested that both Mann and Oreskes misrepresented data with an intent to decieve; and strongly hinted that they connived to do so.  That is a conspiracy theory, even if not as wide ranging as suggested by Mann.

       It is worthwhile noting that McIntyre completely misrepresents the basis of Oreske's talk.  As pointed out in comments, it was based on this recently published paper.  Contrary to McIntyre's suposition, it was not based on temperature data alone.  It was not based on analyzing Hansen 88.  It was based on clear assessments of earlier reports by later reports.  There is a certain audacity in McIntyre's suggestion that because Hansen 88 scenario B temperatures are running above observations; that therefore they are running above all projections of temperature increase since 88; and that a general claim that climate scientists have erred on the side of caution must be false because they have over estimated temperatures increases (if they have) regardless of how drastically they have underestimated the retreat of Arctic Sea Ice, Greenland melt rates and sea level rise.

47899. Tom Curtis at 09:33 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       RH, the "fixed link" now goes to an SkS page.  I think you will find this link is the one you are after:

       http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/

       Moderator Response: [RH] The link I fixed was the one going to the Lew_2013 paper.
47900. scaddenp at 08:58 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk - please read what I actually wrote (and preferrably some of the scientific literature pointed to in Chp6). Globally averaged, the CO2 forcing are around 3W/m2 but note that this applied to all of globe since GHG are well mixed in the atmosphere. Locally (60N), the milankovitch forcing is much higher. Easily enough to locally overwhelm GHG forcing. Ice sheets changes also change sealevel, albedo,  - and GHG. Got an alternative model where the number add up for a synchronous SH glaciation to NH forcing. 

       Now what Roe actually says is "This implies only a secondary role for CO2– variations in which produce a weaker radiative forcing than the orbitally-induced changes in summertime insolation – in driving changes in global ice volume"

       Your quote does not from Roe. Roe is quite correct - CO2 is secondary to NH summertime insolation which does the driving - but its an important feedback that makes it global. You might want to look at Denton et al 2010 as well as my earlier Hansen cite.

Prev  950  951  952  953  954  955  956  957  958  959  960  961  962  963  964  965  Next