Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for Christy Crock

Comments matching the search Christy Crock:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?

Tom Curtis at 13:43 PM on 16 January, 2016

Some of you are undoubtedly already aware of the excellent video on satellite temperatures recently released by Peter Sinclair:

There is now some denier pushback against that video, led by the infamous James Delingpole, ;at Breitbart.

Some of the pushback (typically of Delingpole) is breathtaking in its dishonesty. For instance, he claims:

"This accuracy [of the satellite record] was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”

It turns out the basis of this claim, is not, however, a NASA report. Rather it was a report in the The Canberra Times on April 1st, 1990. Desite the date, it appears to be a serious account, but mistaken. That is because the only information published on the satellite record to that date was not a NASA report, but "Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends" by Spencer and Christy, published, March 30th, 1990. That paper claims that:

"Our data suggest that high-precision atmospheric temperature monitoring is possible from satellite microwave radiometers. Because of their demonstrated stability and the global
coverage they provide, these radiometers should be made the standard for the monitoring of global atmospheric temperature anomalies since 1979."

A scientific paper is not a "NASA report", and two scientists bignoting their own research does not constitute an endorsement by NASA. Citing that erronious newspaper column does, however, effectively launder the fact that Delingpole is merely citing Spencer and Christy to endorse Spencer and Christy.

Given the history of found inaccurracies in the UAH record since 1990 (see below), even if the newspaper column had been accurate, the "endorsement" would be tragically out of date. Indeed, given that history, the original claim by Spencer and Christy is shown to be mere hubris, and wildly in error.

Delingpole goes on to speak of "the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets which do show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction". What he carefully glosses over is that the combined land-ocean temperature adjustments reduce the trend relative to the raw data, and have minimal effect on the 1979 to current trend.

He then accuses the video of taking the line that "...the satellite records too have been subject to dishonest adjustments and that the satellites have given a misleading impression of global temperature because of the way their orbital position changes over time." That is odd given that the final, and longest say in the video is given to satellite temperature specialist Carl Mears, author of the RSS satellite temperature series, whose concluding point is that we should not ignore the satellite data, nor the surface data, but rather look at all the evidence (Not just at satellite data from 1998 onwards). With regard to Spencer and Christy, Andrew Dessler says (4:00):

"I don't want to bash them because everybody makes mistakes, and I presume everybody is being honest..."

Yet Delingpole finds contrary to this direct statement that the attempt is to portray the adjutments as dishonest.

Delingpoles claim is a bit like saying silent movies depict the keystone cops as being corrupt. The history of adjustments at UAH show Spencer and Christy to be often overconfident in their product, and to have made a series of errors in their calculations, but not to be dishonest.

The nest cannard is that satellites are confirmed by independent data, in balloons - a claim effectively punctured by Tamino:

Finally, Delingpole gives an extensive quote from John Christy:

"There are too many problems with the video on which to comment, but here are a few.
First, the satellite problems mentioned here were dealt with 10 to 20 years ago. Second, the main product we use now for greenhouse model validation is the temperature of the Mid-Troposphere (TMT) which was not erroneously impacted by these problems.
The vertical “fall” and east-west “drift” of the spacecraft are two aspects of the same phenomenon – orbital decay.
The real confirmation bias brought up by these folks to smear us is held by them. They are the ones ignoring information to suit their world view. Do they ever say that, unlike the surface data, the satellite datasets can be checked by a completely independent system – balloons? Do they ever say that one of the main corrections for time-of-day (east-west) drift is to remove spurious WARMING after 2000? Do they ever say that the important adjustment to address the variations caused by solar-shadowing effects on the spacecraft is to remove a spurious WARMING? Do they ever say that the adjustments were within the margin of error?"

Here is the history of UAH satellite temperature adjustments to 2005:

Since then we have had additional corrections:

5.2: Eliminate NOAA 16 data, +0.01 C/decade; Dec 2006
5.2: Discovered previous correction eliminated NOAA 15 by mistake, unknown amount; Dec 2006
5.2 Switch from annual to monthly anomaly period baseline, +0.002 C/decade; July 2009
5.5 Eliminate AQUA data, + 0.001 C/decade

There were also changes from version 5.2 to 5.3, 5.3 to 5.4 and 5.5 to 5.6 which did not effect the trend. Finally we have the (currently provisional) change from 5.6 to 6.0:

6.0, Adjust channels used in determining TLT, -0.026 C/decade; April, 2015

Against that record we can check Christy's claims. First, he claims the problems were dealt with 10-20 years ago. That, of course, assumes the corrections made fixed the problem, ie, that the adjustments were accurate. As he vehemently denies the possibility that surface temperature records are accurate, he is hardly entitled to that assumption. Further, given that it took three tries to correct the diurnal drift problem, and a further diurnal drift adjustment was made in 2007 (not trend effect mentioned), that hardly inspires confidence. (The 2007 adjustment did not represent a change in method, but rather reflects a change in the behaviour of the satellites, so it does not falsify the claim about when the problem was dealt with.)

Second, while they may now do model validation against TMT, comparisons with the surface product are done with TLT - so that represents an evasion.

Third, satellite decay and diurnal drift may be closely related problems but that is how they are consistently portrayed in the video. Moreover, given that they are so closely related it begs the question as to why a correction for the first (Version D above) was not made until four years after the first correction for the second.

Moving into his Gish gallop we have balloons (see link to, and image from Tamino above). Next he mentions two adjustments that reduce the trend (remove spurious warming), with the suggestion that the failure to mention that the adjustments reduce the trend somehow invalidates the criticism. I'm not sure I follow his logic in making a point of adjustments in the direction that suites his biases. I do note the massive irony given the repeated portrayal of adjustments to the global land ocean temperture record as increasing the trend relative to raw data when in fact it does the reverse.

Finally, he mentions that the adjustments fall within the margin of error (0.05 C per decade). First, that is not true of all adjustments, with two adjustments (both implimented in version D) exceding the margin of error. Second, the accumulative adjustment to date, including version 6.0, results in a 0.056 C/decade increase in the trend. That is, accumulative adjustments to date exceed the margin of error. Excluding the version 6 adjustments (which really change the product by using a different profile of the atmosphere), they exceeded the margin of error by 38% for version 5.2 and by 64% for version 5.6 (as best as I can figure). If the suggestion is that adjustments have not significantly altered the estimated trend, it is simply wrong. Given that Christy is responsible (with Spencer) for this product, there is not excuse for such a mistatement.

To summarize, the pushback against the video consists of a smorgazbord of innacurate statements, strawman presentations of the contents of the video, and misdirection. Standard Delingpole (and unfortunately, Christy) fare.

Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia

chriskoz at 15:39 PM on 4 September, 2012

Thanks Dana for nice summary on recent ice, especially the pointers to those arctic/greenland reconstructions that were unknown to me tonow. Fig3 & 4 nicely represent Arctic amplification: delta T=3K within 64-90°N vs. 0.8K globally.

I would suggest to add the recent John Christy's testimony in Congress to Christy Crocks button. That latest crock deserves a big prominence, because it's beyond my comprehenssion how a person of his stature could sacrifice his entire reputation by telling evident lies under oath. And he keeps doing it while evidence keeps mounting with 2012 melt.

Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold

Dave123 at 05:18 AM on 27 August, 2012

You might want to update the Christy Crocks to include the allegation on arctic ice 1938-43. I sure didn't see it on the main page of quotes, and it was certainly new to me. Albatross' post was exactly what I was looking for.

Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold

Albatross at 04:51 AM on 27 August, 2012

John @12,

I share your feelings.

That quote you provided is an unsubstantiated and blatantly false statement by Dr. Christy. We now have another Christy Crock to add to the long list. Dr. Christy is entitled to his own (misguided) opinions, but not his own facts. I have a pretty good idea what Christy is doing here, but the comments policy prevents me from being perfectly candid. I’ll let readers draw their own conclusions.

By the "rest of us", Christy is in fact referring to certain fringe and contrarian elements such as himself who represent 2-3% of climate scientists. Christy's assertions are also at odds with those scientists who specialize in Arctic sea ice (e.g., Polyak et al. 2010; Walsh and Chapman 2001). To wit,

[Source]

As the above figure shows, Walsh and Chapman found no evidence whatsoever of a reduction in total Arctic sea ice in the thirties or forties that came even remotely close to the scary minima in total Arctic sea ice that we are now experiencing. Not to mention that previous minima (as found by Kinnard et al) were transient, what we are experiencing now is a systematic and accelerating downward trend in total Arctic sea ice at a time when temperatures over the northern high latitudes should be decreasing because of a reduction incoming solar radiation.

I will have more to write on this soon, Christy should be taken down hard for yet again making such blatantly false and unsubstantiated statements to the media. This is shameful, irresponsible and unprofessional behaviour for someone of his standing IMO.

Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science

chriskoz at 22:28 PM on 8 May, 2012

alexharv074@26, you said:

Posts here at SkS are filled with personal attacks. I could give you plenty of examples, the most obvious being the graphics at the left hand side of every page - "Christy Crocks", etc. "Christy Crocks" is a personal attack. You know that right?

Your assessment of the nature of SkS articles is false and indicates that you likely misunderstand the meaning of "personal attack". Therefore, please take a note of the correct meaning of the term you are using, i.e. in wikipedia:

ad hominem [...] is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it

The characterization of someone's discourse as "Crocks" (slang term for "foolish talk, nonsense") does not imply "personal attack". It may be considered verbal abuse if it is not justified, however IMO it is justified and understood if you click at "Christy Crocks" button and read the author's debunking of various arguments by prof Cristy. Please also note that verbal abuse is not ad hominen.

A hand waving statement "You know that right?" is the only support of your assessment. It is not only meaningless but can be considered the form of "shouting" similar to "upper-casing" prohibited by the comment policy on this site.

Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science

alexharv074 at 14:51 PM on 8 May, 2012

Dana #4,

I don't disagree that Lindzen's estimate of climate sensitivity is an outlier. Lindzen is arguing that the cloud feedback is negative, and not many agree. On the other hand, the last couple of years has been exceptional in the number of papers that revise downwards the IPCC best estimate of 3 K per doubling of CO2. I mentioned Schwartz (2012), Kohler et al. (2010), Schmittner et al. (2011), Gillett et al. (2011). I mentioned Held's work. I could have also mentioned Loeb et al. (2012) that found a best estimate of the TOA imbalance of about half of what Trenberth et al. were requiring. Hansen et al. (2011) found the TOA imbalance just a bit higher than Loeb et al. Levitus et al. (2012) has also found the imbalance from ocean data lower than expected.

Notice, these are all the most recent estimates. Are there similarly recent estimates finding higher than expected warming?

You write that there are reasons to believe that Schmittner et al. might be too low, presumably echoing statements made at RealClimate. But how do you explain Kohler et al. (2010), who find the same sensitivity using a completely different method? Gavin Schmidt told me that he agrees that Kohler et al. is the best and most up to date treatment of paleo forcing. If so, one needs to see that to get a best estimate of sensitivity even as high as 2.4 K, Kohler needed to assume a "scaling factor" to increase sensitivity by some amount (10% or 15% I think), despite it being quite possible that the scaling should have been even negative (I think Hargreaves and Annan is the ref for this, I'll have to check). They also had to go with the highest value in the literature for global cooling - 5.8 K from Schneider von Deimling et al. (2006). I would forget about Schmittner et al. You need to explain why Kohler et al. is too low, if you really want to argue that 2.3 K is too low.

Meanwhile I see you wrote,

"first of all, we at SkS always keep our posts free of ad hominem attacks, so there is nothing unusual about this."

I wish that were true. Posts here at SkS are filled with personal attacks. I could give you plenty of examples, the most obvious being the graphics at the left hand side of every page - "Christy Crocks", etc. "Christy Crocks" is a personal attack. (-snip-) In the case of the present post I contragulated you because this post is above average for this website. It still does, however, contain ad hominem attacks. The first one I find is:

"[Lindzen] is one of the relatively more credible climate contrarians (although he has a long history of taking contrarian positions on nearly every climate-related issue, and being almost universally wrong on those issues)".

That is, indeed, an ad hominem attack, and an extraordinary overgeneralisation. "nearly every climate-related issue" - really? Lindzen has published over 300 papers, and several books, including a widely-cited graduate textbook on atmospheric dynamics. Unless you want to claim that atmospheric dynamics is not related to climate it is nothing short of bizarre to claim that Lindzen has disputed and then been wrong "about nearly every climate-related issue".

On the subject of atmospheric dynamics, Lindzen's argument for low sensitivity has always been fundamentally a dynamical one. He has argued since the late 1970s that the observed distribution of climate change during ice age cycles (e.g. in CLIMAP 1976) where the tropics cool just a little relative to the poles which cool enormously implies operation of negative feedbacks in the tropics (e.g. Lindzen, 1994, Ann. Rev. Fluid Dynam.). I look forward to a future post here where you have understood the actual history of Lindzen's thought and address his dynamical considerations too.

Finally, in your post #14 you echo a popular internet confusion about the equilibration of the climate system. You write,

"the timescale to equilibrium is something of an unresolved question, which I think we'll be addressing in a future blog post. Off the top of my head, I think that after 50-100 years, somewhere in the ballpark of two-thirds to three-fourths of the equilibrium warming is realized. It mainly depends on how efficiently heat mixing happens in the oceans, which is the somewhat unresolved question".

It sounds like you think that the equilibration timescale can be considered separately from the matter of the climate sensitivity. However, Hansen et al. (1985) showed that the timescale for equilibrium is related to the climate sensitivity. Thus, if Lindzen was right, the system would already be virtually in equilibrium - the timescale for a sensitivity of 0.7 K is just a few years. Schwartz has also made the same point (e.g. Schwartz, 2008). It is, thus, a circular argument to say Lindzen has ignored the unrealised warming, and use that as evidence that his argument is wrong. In Lindzen's model, there is no unrealised warming.

CO2 limits will make little difference

Trent1492 at 13:09 PM on 1 February, 2012

Came to this page via the Christy Crocks page. When I click on any link in the Climate Myths column for April 1,2011 I receive the following error message:

Media Player
You are not authorized to view this resource.

I have received the exact same message in regards source links in the Lindzen Illusions. I am using Windows 7 with Firefox as a browser.

Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data

Eric (skeptic) at 02:04 AM on 21 January, 2012

Tom, thanks for the mockup. You have proven that it is possible to create an independent figure from K&H08 figure 3b with just a little work. I don't agree that it is perfectly sensible without knowing that it applies to the estimates in K&H08 fig 3a. Otherwise you are correct, it is now independent of 3a.

Here's my list of uses of 3a:
wide version:

/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

/lindzen-illusion-4-climate-sensitivity.html

/ppm451.html

/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html

/christy-crock-6-climate-sensitivity.html

/Monckton-Myth-4-Climate-Sensitivity.html

/spencer_ocean.html

/climate-sensitivity-skeptic-end-game.html

upright version:

/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

/working-out-climate-sensitivity.html

some offsite uses (incomplete search):

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/11/a-new-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/09/19/206503/climate-sensitivity-lukewarmers

I'll comment on one of those threads as you suggested.

2012 SkS Weekly Digest #2

funglestrumpet at 09:04 AM on 17 January, 2012

Rating: about 8/9

Suggestions:

Make the Monckton Myths, Christy Crocks etc section more formal in layout (looks a bit childish at present). It should have a title, such as: Prominent Mis-Informers.

Move the OA not Ok, Interactive ... (needs checking as it appears broken!), Prudent Path and Lessons ... to their own separate section – they are not myths or crocks etc.

Add a list of threads currently being discussed on this site.

Have provision for visitors to suggest a new thread (the number of times something is suggested will indicate how important it is to the public at large).

Have provision under the Comments tab for having a list all personal comments made by the person logged on and include references to their name so that replies are easy to see. At present, there are so many topics each week, remembering what one has said is a bit daunting. Then finding the comments and searching for replies is all a bit much. I now tend to comment and leave it at that. If people reply then I often don’t get round to finding out. It goes without saying that these should be in date order with latest at the top, and have a limit to one month, say. If possible, have an automatic email notification of replies posted. Overall, this would require a discipline regarding posting replies, such as: 'name'@X being required. Perhaps even having provision for replying to the actual post in situ, as some sites do (tabbed in to mark a reply), which would make the argument easy to follow (and drive John Cook mad, I suspect).

Have links to all other prominent sites dealing with the topic of climate change. I suggest that this should even include WUWT. It would tell visitors that this site is sufficiently confident of the veracity of what it posts that it doesn't fear what other sites say. Have it near the myths section and the visitor will know that they can always return to see what the grown ups say.

Leave a comment not yet submitted in a draft folder if the writer goes off somewhere else on the site in order to check something instead of just wiping the comment clean and lost to all (said with feeling!)

Over and above all that, I am extremely grateful for all the hard work that is put into making this site as excellent as it is, thanks!

Climate Solutions by dana1981

Colin at 08:44 AM on 16 January, 2012

Fair enough John, I stand corrected. But I think you've missed my point... This web site, and every other site I've seen is solely focused on promoting a particular view. Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data, bolstered by it's own interpretation, to convince the reader. Each side ridicules the other as being uninformed, biased, unqualified etc etc. This very web site has sunk to the adolescent level of name calling... "Baked Curry", "Christy Crocks", "Lindzen Illusions". However, my point is simply that nobody seems to want to discuss the cost of the cure. As an average citizen, with a vote, I think it is only reasonable that I learn the cost before I accept the prescription. I can't understand why that concept seems so difficult...

The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?

scaddenp at 07:16 AM on 22 November, 2011

Just to further reiterate the point. The rebuttals in links like Lindzen Illusions, Spencer Slip-Ups, Christy Crocks are not to statements they have made in published literature but to misinformation they stated in public forums.

And since you are not impressed by Mann's tree ring data, perhaps you would like to discuss (on the correct thread) the published papers that have led you to this position. I would sincerely hope that since you respect science that your position is based on some published science and not blog commentary.

The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?

skywatcher at 16:53 PM on 21 November, 2011

TIS: I see you're not actually willing to provide evidence to support your assertions, as requested by Daniel Bailey @23.

"I fully agree with the concept that this site tries to explain the science from the ~~warmist~~ scientific point of view." There, fixed it for you. Funny you should resort to calling names in the same post as complaining about name-calling.

That you compare this site to WUWT in terms of content and treatment speaks volumes about your ability to think critically, or discern abuse from scientific criticism. Spencer, Christy and Lindzen have made a great many errors, slip-ups, crocks and presented a good number of illusions too. Some articles here call them on that. 'Constructive dialogue' can only start when these people stop misinforming the public about the science of climate change, using all sorts of tired myths.

Nobody has presented a scientific case as to why Mann is wrong, and his work has been repeatedly independently verified - do you condone the unjustified abuse heaped upon him at WUWT and elsewhere? Skeptics perpetually fail to understand the consequences of Mann being wrong: that this would mean climate sensitivity is even higher than previously thought! Oops.

By the way, the day that a climate skeptic procides a sound scientific case for any of "CO2 isn't the main driver of global warming", "Warming isn't having negative consequences for food production, severe weather, coastal communities etc", "the oceans are not acidifying or sea level rising", then I will break out the champagne, I'd love to be wrong. But I need a sound science case for it, not all the mutually incompatible and easily-debunked myths that seem to be the best the skeptics can come up with. Despite the fact that the big hydrocarbon producers could easily fund just about any scientific study they liked, from Antarctica to the Marianas Trench, with their loose change, not to mention their logistical capabilities, and thus scientifically demonstrate that their product is not polluting the atmosphere, they haven't managed to do so. Inconvenient?

The BEST Kind of Skepticism

Albatross at 15:28 PM on 24 October, 2011

Dale,

The "skeptics" and those who are in denial about AGW need to catch up with the science, the fact that internal climate variability can modulate the long-term warming trend has long been known by climate scientists. As the "skeptics" like to point out concerning CO2 and global warming, correlation is not causation (yet the fingerprints of anthropogenic warming are everywhere). Also, the way the AMO is defined introduces its own issues that complicates matters.

Dale, I hope that you will join us in condemning Watts parroting misrepresentations concerning the correlation between the AMO and the global land temperatures the BEST papers on his web site.

Either way the claim that "skeptics" do not question that the planet is warming is demonstrably false. Arguments "challenging" the warming currently rank 5, 7 and 9 on the most used climate myths. Those myths exist because "skeptics" and those in denial insist on repeating them. Also a recent survey in the USA shows that over 50% of Republicans believe that the global temperatures are not increasing [H/T ThingsBreak].

[Source]

Another demonstrably false statement that "skeptics" are now making in their state of desperation is that the amount of warming caused by humans is unknown and that it is largely attributable to natural causes. First off, climate scientists are not attributing 100% of the observed warming to CO2, so "skeptics" claiming that are not being honest. Second, we have very good estimates that know that "a net anthropogenic warming of 0.49 to 1.12°C with a central estimate of 0.65°C warming of average global surface temperature." See here. Also see here and here and here.

In reality, the people making a big deal about BEST are the "skeptics". They are besides themselves with panic, and even turning on each other. Seeing them trying to spin this and at the same time attack the BEST group is rather bizarre; but I must admit it is rather entertaining. Why are "skeptics" making such an effort to discredit, undermine and dismiss the BEST results if they agree that the planet is warming and that the global temperature records are reliable? No, they are in deep, deep denial of course, and that includes Mr. Anthony Watts and his apologists such Pielke, McIntyre and Monckton and Delingpole. etc. Now Dale, are you a real skeptic or a fake one?

Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming

Albatross at 13:38 PM on 14 October, 2011

Dr. Pielke on another thread here at SkS:

"Policymakers, in my view, are being misled into believing that the climate should more-or-less monotonically warm when in reality both natural variability and the diversity of human climate forcings makes the issue of climate system heat content much more complex."

With all respect to Dr. Pielke, that is his opinion, but the facts show that he has it backwards. He is also making an unsubstantiated assertion with regards to policy makers being "mislead". Dr. Mojib Latif and other IPCC scientists are aware that the warming will not be monotonic and have in fact cautioned that it will not be, it is actually the "skeptics" who seem to think so.

I say that because it is in fact those who deny the theory of AGW and "skeptics" (even some "skeptic" scientists who know, or should know, better) who get excited every time there is a short-term slowdown or cooling (perceived or real). It is for that very reason that science sites like SkepticalScience (and OpenMind) have had to spend a lot of time refuting claims that global warming stopped in 1998 and 2002 etc. (the number of choices to cherry pick increases as the window is shortened). See here, here, here, and here. There are more, but I think you get the point. The scientific literature abounds with papers speaking to the variability of global temperatures and SSTs (some examples here and here).

Unfortunately, because the global temperature records are inherently noisy (because if internal climate variability, such as El Nino and La Nina), "skeptics" can continue playing this deceptive game (and it is a game for some) of cherry picking statistically insignificant short-term "cooling" trends all the while the statistically significant long-term trend is UP. To do so is in fact misleading policy makers and confusing the public.

Monckton, the Anti-Nurse

Crispy at 13:01 PM on 27 September, 2011

I have heard it said that ridicule is a last resort when you have run out of arguments to put, but I think its use is broader than that, and employed by both sides of the war. 'Christy Crocks' and 'Lindzen Illusions' are whimsical headings, but arguably ridicule. And fair enough, I say. Albatross notes this is a 'PR game' for the deniers. But it is really a PR game for all of us - concerned laypeople, scientists; skeptics and industry drones alike. Hearts and minds have to be won to one side or the other, and we are all doing PR, like it or not.

It's a shame we can't have a bipartisan approach to this issue, but so be it. War it is.

As to ridicule, (neat segue coming up), Australian readers of SkS might like to check out 'Crownies' on ABC1 this Thursday 29/9, 8.30pm. Climate Change makes it into pop culture, with B-story status at least, with a denialist in court against a climate scientist. Regulars can play Climate Blog Bingo and tick off the skeptic memes. You may recognise some of the one line rebuttals :). And a few less than subtle references to key players.

The issue is skated over, as only TV can. But if you like a bit of ridicule in your war, this episode is fun. Thursday. 8.30.

SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions

Albatross at 05:44 AM on 22 September, 2011

Dr. Pielke @96,

Thank you. I think I know how we can come to terms on your position about land use and land cover change. I'm going to make a suggestion to you comment:

"Land use-land cover change is a first order forcing for regional climate as it can alter regional climate more than that caused by the radiative forcing of added CO2; in contrast, the role Land use-land cover change in driving global climate change is still uncertain and as shown by Forster et al., is unlikely to be significant relative to forcing from GHGs and aerosols."

On that I can agree. And I'm not sure how you can continue to argue that something which has (near) zero net global radiative forcing can be considered a first-order radiative forcing. The forcing from CO2 is going to continue to escalate of course and the resulting changes will also impose feedbacks, included but not limited to land cover change...

Re EOS, if someone were to contact them and ask whether or not your 2009 manuscript underwent official "peer-review", with peer-review as understood in terms scientific papers. What would they say? Also, do you honestly think that the government official to who you presented your 'paper' understand these nuances?

"Also the alterations in spatial diabatic heating from this heterogenous forcing may alter large scale circulation features such as Asian monsoon, the NAO etc. "

Earlier you referred to Takata as a example of regional change. Now you are using it as an example of large-scale circulation changes, while technically correct (the monsoon and AO is a large-scale phenomenon), that language may confuse readers. Also, the science has shown that oscillations (i.e., internal variability, do not account for the observed increase in global temperatures). See here, for example.

And yes I have given your paper a cursory read-- iI have quoted from it above remember Have you watched Dr. Alley's talk yet? No models required to understand that we need to reduce GHGs aggressively and promptly ;)

SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions

VeryTallGuy at 01:40 AM on 22 September, 2011

And my last word on this (promise), John Hartz @78

"Although Dr. Pilke's relationship with Anthony Watts is a bur under many of our saddles, let's confine this discussion thread to the science of climate change."

This is exactly why personalising the science with "Christy Crocks" etc was a mistake. It implies that certain scientists paper are favoured over others because of who they are.

The inevitable result has been a focus on personalities and politics rather than the science.

Christie, Pielke et al have little to offer on the science, and the debate is now where they want it.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

John Hartz at 00:42 AM on 21 September, 2011

Memo to my fellow SkS authors:

Let's change the damn "Christy Crocks" button and move on!

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

adelady at 18:21 PM on 20 September, 2011

Surely if SkS had a blog list on a side panel, beneath or opposite the Christy Crocks button there'd be a link to
'Climate Denial Crock of the Week'.

I really don't understand the fuss.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Bern at 17:08 PM on 20 September, 2011

It's an interesting discussion here. I'm left with two thoughts:

Perhaps the badge "Christy's Crocks" should be changed, to something like "Christy's Confusions", to avoid offending those who only know of one association for the word "Crock".

However, that immediately leads me to my second thought:

At what point do we draw the line, and stop letting the self-described "sceptics" control the framing of the discussion?

It's a tough question to answer.

On the one hand, being polite and analytical, not emotional, is what scientists are trained to do in their communication (some have more success at achieving this goal than others).

On the other hand, as the ~~interview~~ interrogation of David Karoly by Alan Jones showed, that approach doesn't work so well in the world of the 'sceptical' media.

Similarly, if it's a message for the general public, and you have one person speaking in a calm, scholarly tone about data, models, and probabilities, while another person is jumping up and down, frothing at the mouth, screaming about economic ruin and "condemning billions to a CO2 death"... well, you know, if the media themselves don't act like journalists and expose those claims for what they really are, perhaps the real sceptics need to?

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Shub at 16:20 PM on 20 September, 2011

Philip

You state:

"Saying that Spencer and Christy are "somewhat infamous" as the guys who claimed their data invalidated global warming until others corrected their errors is a mere statement of fact. They did that and are known for it. That is a simple fact."

Merely calling Spencer and Christy 'infamous' is not an ad-hominem argument. Implying that there may be cool biases in the UAH record due to the prior infamous history of errors in the UAH record, is, an ad-hominem argument. The Sept 14 article makes such an ad-hominem argument.

The article above states:

"He [Pielke Sr] seems to think Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups pertain to satellite temperature data analysis:

...

Unfortunately for this piercing critique, these two series of articles do not touch upon the topic of the satellite temperature data. Indeed, the only time SkS has mentioned this work was when we used it as an example of the self-correcting nature of the scientific process."

Clearly, all the above claims are refuted.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Philippe Chantreau at 13:05 PM on 20 September, 2011

Eric, read my post again. I am not pointing to threats to justify calling stuff BS, only to expose double standards.

The BS stands on its own. The BS is the stuff similar to what is covered in "Christy Crocks" and "Spencer Slip-Ups." The BS is pretty much everything that Monckton eructs in his presentations. The BS used to be all over the place going unchecked. The BS is Pielke accusing SkS of ad-hom, then trying to talk about something else.

The BS is calling a pseudo journal with a self professed agenda a peer-reviewed science publication. Would skeptics consider legitimate a publication with a stated goal of providing a "platform" for papers favoring AGW, to the exclusion of other works? If not, then why give any credence to the opposite? That's BS.

The BS is Wegman doing a half a$$ed plagiarized job of not really replicating anything and then calling Mann's work flawed. The BS is a fanatic like Cucinelli then arguing of that plagiarized report to justify a witch hunt. The BS is advising readers to send FOIA requests from countries where they have no residence only to multiply the number of requests for harassment purpose. The BS is so thick we could use it for natural gas production.

Beck is relevant because the lack of scrutiny applied to his "work" by fake skeptics is an indication of how one-sided they are. If you think Beck is easily dismissed, go give a shot at that on WUWT and come back to tell us how it went. I can't wait.

Tamino received threats of physical violence on several occasions from anonymous writers, although he has not made a whine fest out of it. That is not BS but an example of the kind of behavior we are up against.

Sorry Eric, you certainly are one of the better skeptics, and as such, more the exception than the rule.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

NewYorkJ at 11:28 AM on 20 September, 2011

Dr. Pielke does not like titles such "Spencer's Slip Ups". It's deeply offensive to him, as it suggests that Roy Spencer has "slipped up" or has made a mistake, which is impossible. "Christy's Crocks" is at least as offensive, as it suggests that Christy has made multiple statements are that are wrong - also impossible. But the "excellent" blog run by Anthony Watts is well above the fray, sticking to the science. Some other titles and quotes from WUWT:

"The Worst "Cook"book Interview Ever?"

Wow - a derogatory play directly on John's name. I demand Watts retract that.

"Skeptical Science? John Cook - embarrassing himself

Another fall from grace."

"Speaking of Australia, John Cook of Skeptical Science works out as a cartoonist (and blogs “faux skepticism” in his spare time) , but he’d never be able to produce anything like this."

(the above referring to a Roy Spencer book entitled "The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda")

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Chemware at 11:26 AM on 20 September, 2011

There is an important word that has not been said yet in this article or its comments:

Ridicule.

That's what "Christy's Crocks", "Monckton Myths", "Lindzen Illusions", etc are really doing. These people richly deserve the ridicule, as the associated articles make clear. They also deserve it because because they support and encourage people who ridicule (and worse) climate science and scientists ... and nothing feels better than a bit of "eye for an eye". And that's what is upsetting Pielke, and maybe others as well.

But do we want Skeptical Science to be a site of ridicule, or an authoritative, dispassionate, science-based site ?

Let's take a step out of the muck.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Albatross at 07:58 AM on 20 September, 2011

Eric@71,

Really? Regarding defending McIntyre, I do not think you wish to go down that road. But you did, so.....

Do you not remember Mr. McIntyre saying this?
"However, as CA readers know, the resulting Yamal chronology with its enormous HS blade was like crack cocaine for paleoclimatologists"

Nice...not. And funny how McIntyre cherry-picked those pseudo-proxy series that showed hockey sticks, and which was dutifully and uncritically reproduced by Wegman in his plagiarised "Wegman report".

But I think that I can better that. McIntyre,
"James Hansen and his disciples have a more jihadist approach"

I think just those two examples beat "Christy's Crocks" by a very long shot.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

wingding at 07:53 AM on 20 September, 2011

Crocks is the only one that seems a little aggressive. Perhaps change it to Christy Confusion. The cartoony font used and the alliteration in other buttons puts it in context anyway.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Eric (skeptic) at 07:42 AM on 20 September, 2011

#68 Rob, IMO McIntyre's titles do not compare to Christy's Crocks. If you believe otherwise, please point to an example. The various thread titles should not distract from the message, so I would propose something like Christy's Crocs which are comfortable and colorful, but relatively cheaply constructed and which should not be worn on a serious hike.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Shub at 06:06 AM on 20 September, 2011

I have no emotional attachment to the titles themselves and am happy to change them if they bother people. Suggested alternatives are welcome.

I don't what the outcome of these deliberations are going to be, but the statement above, indicates an open mind and this has to be appreciated.

Take the recent example of the Christy-Santer contrasting topical post. It is not clear at all, from the post that Christy committed such a great faux pas that it deserves to be called a 'crock'. But it has been filed in that category. Christy, and Spencer are scientists - and even scientists have opinions - which is the a coalescing of a broad array of evidence, data, lifelong experiences, biases etc. Sometimes these may not congeal in a way that resonates with a supposed consensus that is put out officially (IPCC).

I think scientists must be judged by the quality of their scientific work (which is itself not an easy thing). A Congresssional testimony is not the place of primary scientific exposition. People use it to put across their personal point of view. Every Congressional testimony has been, and will be like this. Hansen's influential Congressional testimony served as a platform for climate scientists of a certain view to push a certain paradigm. It may be easily questioned as to whether the summary of evidence existed at the time, for the certainty that was put forth in his testimony. For some skeptics, that may be a crock. But neverthless, Hansen did what he did and I don't believe in demonizing him.

Thanks

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Tenney Naumer at 05:35 AM on 20 September, 2011

Time for neutral tones is long gone.

Christy's science is a crock, and he more than deserves this title.

Tell it like it is.

And while I know you are striving for alliteration, "Spencer's Bombs" might be a more appropriate name for his work.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Andy Skuce at 05:03 AM on 20 September, 2011

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the origin of the word "crock", as used in "Christy Crocks", does not come from the expression "crock of gold". I could provide an image of the actual OED entry here but words used in that entry would offend SkS community standards, apparently.

I know that for many people "crock" no longer has a scatological association, but please accept that for others it will always come with a noxious whiff.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

FatherTheo at 04:45 AM on 20 September, 2011

It seems to me that, given the number of times Christy and co. have 'said the thing which is not' in defense of inaction on climate change, using the word 'crock' to describe their testimony hardly seems excessive. But whatever. As long as it is made clear the low quality of testimony we are talking about here, it can be labeled any old way.

The idea is not to please Pielke, though. He is hardly neutral. The idea is not to be off-putting to people in genuine search of information about climate change. They may have been misinformed by Christy or Lord Monckton. Inform them better using the science, as you have been doing.

Keeping it civil adds to credibility, up to a point. But there are points beyond which you need a human response because being human gives you credibility too.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

NewYorkJ at 03:48 AM on 20 September, 2011

Might I suggest a section:

Roger's Red Herrings

Yeah I know, which Roger? But the last name has the same problem - which Pielke?

Dr. Pielke starts by claiming SkepticalScience engages in ad hominen presentations on the subject of the UAH MSU temperature record, an assertion he could not support.

When that's noted, he puts forth several scientific issues not related to the topic of the post, asserting that "is where the discussion should be focused".

After persistent efforts to try to steer Dr. Pielke back on topic, he asserts that his beef is with titles like "Spencer's Slip Ups" to categorize broadly criticisms of claims being made. But "Spencer's Slip Ups" and "Christy's Crocks" are conclusions. They aren't part of any argument to discredit someone or their argument. The only ad hominen argument here is Pielke's, as he is using the category title to discredit the content, which he hasn't given any indication he's read.

Dr. Pielke then went on to reveal that he has a double-standard, admitting his standard is limited to those whom he has not "recently published with and/or closely worked with", while he actively seeks to defend those who has published or worked with. This was good evidence for both tribalism and the title of the post "One-Sided Skepticism". It also explains why Dr. Pielke describes the blog of Anthony Watts as "excellent", and asserting he complies to the highest scientific standards, while trashing the quality of this site, which he's given little indication he's read much of.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Stephen Baines at 03:41 AM on 20 September, 2011

hank_

I think John has fairly described what happened in the Pielke exhange. Pielke never addressed the substance of the critiques of Christy's and Spencer's statements. He never identified the ad hominem's. Insted he tried to change the subject, posting off topic comments that were clearly tolerated far more than usual by the moderators. He wanted to talk about the science, for sure, but only as long as it didn't involve the science that was misrepresented by Christy and Spencer and which was the subject of the post.

In my opinion, you could add another button for Pielke Prevarications.

As for the labels,

I don't get the same mental image from "crocks" that some do, but I understand the negative response to that word. Still, it's hard to come up with an alliterative word that doesn't have even worse associations. "Christy's confusions" perhaps.

I do agree the personalization of the debate is regrettable. You have Santer we have Spencer, you have Alley we have Christy, you have Mann we have Lindzen...it's all part of the attempt to level the terms of debate by assigning a 5-aside to take each other on with their super-powers, x-men like.

That said, I'm not sure I am for removing the buttons. The fact is that the personalization is a reality of the public debate, fabricated though it is. I'm not sure ignoring the situation makes sense. These people are so visible compared to your average climate scientist, precisely because they are so rare and must be relied on over and over again to legitimize the "skeptic" arguments.

They have asked for the attention, so they deserve the scrutiny. Having them up top provides an immediate way for people who are less informed to quickly locate specific rebuttals to their arguments and to get some context on the real science.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

cynicus at 01:28 AM on 20 September, 2011

To prevent the impression that Christy is a crock you could change the buttons to "Crocks by Christy". That way it is clear that by "crocks" is meant Christy's arguments, not the person. Spencer' slip ups would then become "Slip ups by Spencer". How does that sound?

Perhaps the tone troll is also happy with that?

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Rob Honeycutt at 01:13 AM on 20 September, 2011

The only change I would make to the titles is to adjust them to add an apostrophe S to each one to further clarify that the subject is the "crock" that is being propagated by that person.

Christy's Crocks and Spencer's Slip-ups.

And to add to all this, Dr Pielke has yet to address the question of misinformation being given to to Congress under oath by Dr Christy.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Rob Honeycutt at 01:10 AM on 20 September, 2011

The comparison has been made to Anthony Watts having a post on his site called "Al Gore is an Idiot" relative to an absurd statement he made about the core of the earth being millions of degrees, but that is a completely incorrect comparison. That is clearly an ad hom, an attack on the person rather than the misinformation. When SkS is creating these title's the attack is on the "myth" or the "crock" not on the perpetrator.

I'm sure both Spencer and Christy have done lots of good science in their careers. I'm sure they are both intelligent, hard working scientists. However when they step outside of good science and start propagating misinformation the way each of these people have done, then they leave themselves open to having that misinformation called out for what it is.

No one is saying that Christy, himself, is a crock. SkS is saying the misinformation is a crock and needs to be called out. Anthony Watts was just flat out calling Al Gore an idiot.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

logicman at 00:57 AM on 20 September, 2011

I have often remarked in my own blog that a sound knowledge of how language works in the real world is a very useful tool in any scientific discipline.
That said, I am delighted to see the comments here which demonstrate a depth of linguistic knowledge which many deniers seem to lack.

Re: 'crock'.
Here in the UK, a 'crock' is a very old car. We celebrate the repeal of the red flag law with our annual London to Brighton Rally, affectionately known as 'The Old Crocks Race'. The race - actually a rally - was celebrated in the excellent movie 'Genevieve'.

In that context, a crock has these characteristics:

it has historic value but is of no practical use;
it is brought out once in a while purely for show;
it not entirely original;
it tends to run out of steam when faced with the slightest obstacle.

Just as the proverbial 'Rolls Canardly' rolls down one hill but can 'ardly get up the next, so the denier arguments fare badly when faced with the uphill struggle against real science.

Maybe the Christy button should show an image of Genevieve ?

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

dorlomin at 00:33 AM on 20 September, 2011

If people are uncomfortable with crocks, perhaps "Christys concoctions?"

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

CBDunkerson at 23:50 PM on 19 September, 2011

Shub wrote: "Indeed, the ability of a scientist to quickly admit to errors and provide for corrections advances science"

Unfortunately for your intended point... Spencer and Christy did NOT "quickly admit" the errors in their model for estimating global temperature anomalies from microwave emission proxies. Indeed, they loudly proclaimed for years that they were right and everyone else wrong... until the evidence to the contrary became overwhelming. Indeed, there are still some disputed factors in their model. Coincidentally, these factors, like those previously corrected, result in a cooling bias.

That said, S&C DID eventually acknowledge the most significant errors in their model and it is now in fairly close agreement with the temperature anomalies derived from surface measurements. This is thus not the primary 'complaint' against them. Rather the 'crocks' and 'slip-ups' series focus on their false statements and extremely flawed scientific analysis on other matters.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

SoundOff at 23:11 PM on 19 September, 2011

Overall I don’t object to the button labels used by SkS but the "Christy Crocks" one does bother me a bit when associated with a single person’s name, though I understand it’s really intended to refer to the person’s statements.

Looking up “crock” alone in the dictionary provides only one meaning: an earthenware pot, jar, or other container. It’s only when one looks up “crock of $^@!” that one comes up what the slang meaning surely intended here: a mass of lies and deception worth no more than dung. This seems unnecessarily crude for a serious science site, as accurate as it may be.

How about "Christy Chicanery" instead? (trickery or deception by quibbling or sophistry)

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

les at 18:36 PM on 19 September, 2011

174 - Eric (skeptic)
"first, this thread is not an "invitation" by any stretch of the imagination."
It has several links to his blog and comments on the blog entries... I really don't think it takes any stretching of the imagination to see that that is an invitation.

"Now the Christy crocks issues are in two places. But for dana1981's decision to pick on Christy above, Spencer slip ups would be in two places as well."
Great - two places in which to reply. Those are not, by far, the only places where there is more than one appropriate thread to discuss a single issue. If that's a problem, the "Comments" button is your friend.

"Unless I am mistaken, the discussion of Pielke's topic, the satellite data, is nowhere."
And, indeed, Pielke has not case for complaining about the treatment of himself by SkS - he's proxy complaining.

"Specifically how is the integrity of SkS being defended?"
Because, as I said before, people often complain that they get censored or abused if the post contrary opinion on SkS. As you know more than most - and now Pielke knows; and anyone who cares to actually read the comments knows - people get to post all kinds of stuff and get plenty of discussion - with in the terms of the comments policy. That is clearly a demonstration of a site with integrity.
Hope that helps.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Stig Mikalsen at 18:16 PM on 19 September, 2011

'Crocks' are well known by now, associated with Peter Sinclair and his Climate Denial Crock of the Week

So Christy Crocks is good

To Spencer, how about the catchy 'Spencer Spam'? I associate spam with Monty Python, but it also means something like 'really annoying blanket advertising (in public places), with little value'

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:59 PM on 19 September, 2011

The titles Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups are apt, to the point and accurately signify the content.

I see no need to change them at all.

They are also in keeping with this site, which is to cast a sceptical eye over the 'claims' of 'skeptics'.

Keep up the good work.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

skywatcher at 16:26 PM on 19 September, 2011

Very nice summary of what's been a rather interesting exchange over the past few days. It's amazing how thin-skinned some skeptics are to scientific criticism. As I said on the other thread, calling Spencer and Christy's misinformation 'slip-ups' and 'crocks' is actually being kind to them. 'Slip-ups' in particular are usually accidental.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Shub at 12:54 PM on 19 September, 2011

[To Philip Chantreau moderator]

You state:

" this thread is about Dr Pielke's accusations of ad-hominem and one sided skepticism."

and

"You were asked to provide an example of real ad-hom committed by SkS and you have so far failed to respond."

On the 14th Sept, this website carried an article, that is still extant, that contains the statement:

"and it's also entirely possible that the satellite temperature data is still biased on the cool side. Christy and Spencer are somewhat infamous for claiming for the better part of a decade that the UAH satellite data proved the climate wasn't warming as fast as models projected (sound familiar?), until research by a number of scientific groups [including Christy and Spencer themselves] discovered errors in their data analysis which accounted for most of the discrepancy."

The article in question deals with the disparity between the global troposheric temperatures measured by satellite, and those estimated by models. In the backdrop of the open, transparent availability of the methods used to derive satellite temperatures, the author speculates that a cool bias may still exist in the UAH record, stemming from a alleged deficiency on Spencer and Christy's part. He terms this an "infamy".

Pielke Sr on the other hand, characterized the same process of error-detection and correction in the satellite record as a learning exercise and one, in which Spencer and Christy participated responsively. Indeed, the ability of a scientist to quickly admit to errors and provide for corrections advances science and this example has been documented, also, at this very website.

There is a contradiction between these two positions. Pielke Sr of course has taken stance firmly behind the latter position. Skepticalscience must decide whether Spencer and Christy are good scientists because they correct and maintain the UAH record, or they are bad scientists because there were errors in the satellite record.

The post at the top of this thread claims that skepticalscience website never questioned the UAH satellite record, in order to bolster its labelling of scientists' activities.

The passage quoted above, however, does exactly the same. It is listed in the Christy Crocks series of articles.

Pielke Sr criticized derogatory blog posts and news items, resorting to labelling of scientists and their activities, which also questioned the UAH temperature recordkeeping of Spencer and Christy. The present post denies having done either. It is clear however, from examining the skepticalscience post, titled, "Santer et al. Catch Christy Exaggerating" published on the 14th Sept, that neither can be denied.

The article did make claims based on insinuations about the UAH record, and did classify the article as a "Crock".

This is the example you were seeking me to point out. This is the example you demanded Roger Pielke Sr point out to you.

Thanks.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Bob Lacatena at 08:56 AM on 19 September, 2011

173, Shub,

If you want to discuss Christy's Crocks, do so on that thread.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Eric (skeptic) at 08:54 AM on 19 September, 2011

les, first, this thread is not an "invitation" by any stretch of the imagination. Now the Christy crocks issues are in two places. But for dana1981's decision to pick on Christy above, Spencer slip ups would be in two places as well. Unless I am mistaken, the discussion of Pielke's topic, the satellite data, is nowhere. Specifically how is the integrity of SkS being defended?

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Shub at 08:43 AM on 19 September, 2011

Stephen Baines:

You say:

"[Christy's] statements deserve criticism in this instance."

So, Christy's Congressional testimony in 2010 should be "measured", as in, take into account Santer's paper published in 2011?

Additionally, you state:

"After all, analyzing satellite output requires complex models, too! It's not that straightforward. That's why [Christy's] contribution is noteworthy, afterall."

Satellites measure temperature. Models produce estimates of temperature. It is pretty straightforward. Measurements don't exist to support models.

Christy's note is confined to the latest decade. Santer's analysis extends over a longer period. The two are not even necessarily contradictory. Christy's discrepancy figure is 3; Santer's 1.73. 1.73 is ok, but 3 is a 'crock'?

Not much of a 'crock', is there?

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Eric (skeptic) at 07:02 AM on 19 September, 2011

DSL, the thread draw my attention to Dr. Pielke Sr. and examples of goal post shifting (namely his original blog post did not address Christy crocks allegations). The Christy crocks thread is a much better example of what you describe, an example of bias.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Bob Lacatena at 06:03 AM on 19 September, 2011

163, Shub,

Yes. And what name was Christy called? Nothing. His statements were described as crocks, because the slang definition of "a crock" is nonsense or foolish talk.

The article that you site then goes on to itemize statements Christy made that have been proven to be false or contradictory.

That's exactly what a "crock" is. There is nothing ad hominem about it. He and others like him are being taken to task for making false statements in public. What exactly is wrong with this?

Sorry if you don't like the use of a slang term to create a catchy title, but that's hardly grounds for your position.

At the same time, I'm sure you give a free pass to the venomous and unfounded assaults perpetrated by sites like WUWT and others.

So, again... can you find evidence of name calling? Or does it merely bother you that "skeptical" scientists have been caught making clear falsehoods before the U.S. Congress, so all you can do is bluster that "that's not fair?"

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Shub at 05:49 AM on 19 September, 2011

Stephen

But Shub...what names were they called?

Take a look at this thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/santer-catch-christy-exaggerating.html

skepticalscience characterizes Christy's views as 'crock'. The website may well be run by climate experts who are far advanced in their views that they may see John Christy's views as a 'crock'. But, the topic reads rather like a complex disagreement, with no definitive resolution of the question it considers.

Hardly a 'crock'.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

skywatcher at 04:07 AM on 19 September, 2011

Where's the rhetoric, Shub? If you follow the links, you'll see Spencer's and Christy's misrepresentations of the science shown for what they are, with clear reference to the best available evidence, and explanations of where they went wrong. IMHO, calling Spencer and Christy's misrepresentations of the science 'slip-ups' or 'crocks' is actually being pretty kind.

SkS has documented in detail some of the places where these respected scientists have departed from logic and reason. Skeptics concentrating on the title of the links (certainly not ad-hominem BTW) are merely trying to divert attention away from the content of the failings of Spencer and Christy. In fact, it smacks of desparation.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

KR at 01:31 AM on 18 September, 2011

Actually, "Joe Bob is an idiot" is an insult, not an ad hominem argument. Insults do not add to the discussion, and in fact generally detract, but are not part of the process of logical argument.

If you state "Joe Bob is an idiot, hence his statements about global warming are wrong", then you have committed an ad hominem logical fallacy. You have used an insult rather than evidence/logic related to the issue to attempt to dismiss an argument.

If on the other hand, you state "Joe Bob has been wrong on A, B, C, and D due to W, X, Y, and Z", where those are logical statements, and then state "Hence I consider Joe Bob an idiot", that is not an ad hominem argument. Rather, it is a judgement based upon past behavior.

That kind of judgement can be an influence in reviewing further work by Joe Bob, as in the Trust but verify statements made earlier. You do have to be wary of the Poisoning the Well fallacy - dismissing further arguments from a person you hold a negative opinion of without actually judging those arguments.

But judgement statements such as "Christy Crocks", "Spencer Slip-ups", and "Lindzen Illusions" are supportable by the long list of repeated errors, focus on inadequate models, quickly refuted papers, and public presentation of flawed conclusions by these people.

Just be careful not to use those labels to shortcut actual evaluation of their work!

---

I will further note that Dr. Pielkes initial accusations were that SkS was dismissing the UAH satellite data based upon ad hominem arguments. That is demonstrably false, and he has presented exactly zero evidence to support that statement.

Shall we move on now?

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Dikran Marsupial at 01:07 AM on 18 September, 2011

critical mass wrote "The authors of this site have a lot invested in the AGW position". Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Scientists tend to be rather odd people who actually don't mind being proved wrong, as it is usually a pretty interesting experience. Certainly we would generally prefer to be proved wrong rather than continue in ignorance. Anybody who can't handle critcism and takes it personally really ought not to be in science.

Real scientists go where the science takes them, the climatologists I know are no different, and I'm sure they would like nothing more than to be wrong about the projections.

Whether a scientific argument is correct or not doesn't depend on whether it comes from a formally qualified scientist or not. An ad-hominem against a politician is just as much a logical fallacy as an ad-hominem against a scientist. The number of peer-reviewed papers someone has published is irrelevant (otherwise what would someones first paper be worth?). For Prof. Pielke to be consistent, he needs to acknowledge that WUWT does go in for ad-hominems and labelling and he needs to be equally critical of WUWT.

Note that "Christy crocks" and "Spencer slip-ups" refer to arguments made by Christy and Spencer, not to Spencer and Christy themselves. These arguments are shown to be incorrect based on their content not their source. "Al Gore is an idiot" on the other hand is a criticism of the person, and hence actually is an ad-hominem.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Dikran Marsupial at 18:14 PM on 17 September, 2011

Prof. Pielke wrote: "I object to personal attacks by anyone on any side of this issue.". I am glad to hear it. However, as far as I can see the only evidence of an ad-hominem against Spencer or Christy at SkS is that groups of articles presenting scientific criticisms of the work of two climate scientists under the labels "Christy Crocks" and "Spencer Slip-ups".

I have some sympathy over "Christy Crocks" (as it is a bit rude, rather than because it is an ad-hominem), however there is not an ad-hominem to point out that a scientist has made "slip-ups". We all do, and any scientist that thinks there are immune to slip-ups is setting themselves up for embarassment.

Personally I think Prof. Pielke should withdraw the accusation of an ad-hominem (an appology to John is in order as well) as he has been unable to substantiate the existence of the ad-hominem. Wherever Spencer and Christy have been criticised it has been their scientiic work that has been criticised, not them personally. Unless Prof. Pielke can demonstrate a post where a genuine ad-hominem has been made.

Perhaps as a gesture of good faith, Prof. Pielke could post an article on his blog condemning the ad-hominems at, say WUWT, where they are frequently made, demonstrating the truth of the above quote.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Dikran Marsupial at 09:48 AM on 17 September, 2011

Prof. Pielke, perhaps a more constructive way for you to defend your colleagues is to post a specific comment on each "Christy Crock" and "Spencer Slip-up" article, in each case stating what you see as the errors in that particlar article.

For the purpose of this thread, for me your comment earlier that you defend your colleagues against what you see as ad-hominems, rather than criticising all ad-hominems that crop up in the debate is a tacit admission of tribalism and one-sidedness. Now if you see that as a reasonable position, then just say so, if you think this does not represent your position, then we are keen to hear your explanation. I would agree that it seems inconsistent that you complain about perceived ad-hominems at SkS and yet support WUWT where ad-hominems are very common.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

dana1981 at 06:03 AM on 17 September, 2011

Dr. Pielke, we have not made personal comments against Spencer or Christy, nor have we questioned their sincerity or motives. That is directly against the policy of this site.

What we have done is evaluate the scientific accuracy of their claims. For example, we found that in his testimony to US Congress, Christy badly misinformed our policymakers - a fact which you have yet to acknowledge.

Considering that you seem to agree on the importance of accurately informing policymakers so that they can determine the proper response to climate change, your criticism of our site (apparently because you don't like the term "crock" and no other reason) and your silence regarding Christy's misinformation appears to be contradictory.

In short, you are criticizing our series title while ignoring its content, which shares your goal of accurately informing the public and policymakers. Dr. Christy did not adhere to that goal in his testimony, or various interviews, nor did Dr. Spencer in his books, and so forth. We would appreciate it if you would acknowledge this.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

hal9000 at 05:58 AM on 17 September, 2011

This probably beating on a dead horse, but I thought I would add my 2 cents. The link in #45 is really a great illustration of how to identify an ad hominem argument, and I agree, there is nothing at all ad hominem about "Christy Crocks" and "Spencer Slip Ups". If anything, it seems to me that both of those blog posts stick quite clearly to attacking Christy's and Spencer's ideas and statements. The title "Christy's Crocks", which Pielke seems to take umbrage at, is obviously referring to what Christy says, not what kind of person Christy is. I think SkS should keep them the way they are.

If you want to see a real ad hominem argument, you can find one in about 3 seconds on WUWT.. the last 24 hours was a regular ad homimen blowout over there. See if you can count the ad hominems in this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/15/al-gores-climate-reality-project-brings-on-miss-rhode-island-to-talk-about-sea-level-rise/

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

NewYorkJ at 03:32 AM on 17 September, 2011

Dave (#42),

The point was the Spencer was not at all skeptical of what was a seriously flawed satellite data product, which he claims was both accurate and precise, and claimed with confidence that instead models were grossly inaccurate.

For a summary of key corrections made to this record, see

UAH satellite temperature record

The largest of these errors was the orbital decay correction in 1998. The 2nd largest was the diurnal drift correction in 2005. Both problems were identified by others. The total of these corrections is extraordinarily significant - roughly their entire decadal warming trend. In contrast, when any error of the most minor consequence is discovered in the work of mainstream scientists or the IPCC, it is held up as an example of massive incompetence and/or fraud.

As for wording, I'm not sure why Dr. Pielke is offended by "Christy's Crocks". As Dhogaza points out, Pielke has worked fairly closely with Anthony Watts, a person not exactly know for tempered language, yet I haven't yet seen any posts of his taking offense to any of it. In fact, didn't Dr. Pielke describe the Watts blog as "excellent"? Perhaps the wording could be modified to "questionable statements made by a distinguished scientist at UAH". Why bother naming names? It's too offensive.

In all seriousness, like others, I would encourage Dr. Pielke to contribute here, or open up comments on his blog, which could be very constructive. He could address some of the other questions others are asking.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Composer99 at 01:58 AM on 17 September, 2011

Christy & Spencer have been shown to have made statements, whether on blogs, in press releases, or in testimony to Congress, that are at odds with the evidence as outlined in the scientific literature.

Given that, I do not find it at all out of line to (a) point these erroneous statements out, and (b) use a bit of poetic license in describing their ongoing mis-informing of the lay public regarding climate science.

Christy & Spencer are getting caught out (and called out) making false statements about the current state of climate science. If they or others have a problem with that they need to come out with better evidence than that marshalled by their detractors. Then they can start asking for apologies.

Until then:
- Christy's egregious testimony before Congress and other glaring errors can be accurately categorized as crocks, in my opinion.
- Pielke is just engaging in concern-trolling/tone-trolling.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Stephen Baines at 01:47 AM on 17 September, 2011

"I don't see these facts being called 'Trenberth's Travesties' nor 'Hansen's Howlers' by this site's authors who would have to disagree with these scientist's points. "

You completely misunderstand the point of this site then.

It is about scientific evidence, not supporting a predetermined position or message regardless of the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence in support of human effects on climate is overwhelming, but there are nuances, gaps and things we understand less. We learn from studying those - that is what science is about.

The evidence IS the message. What Christy does with his crocks is deny the evidence. That does not apply to those statements by Hansen and Trenberth, who are actually describing patterns in data.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Stephen Baines at 01:38 AM on 17 September, 2011

I'm not sure what the complaint is about the tone of the titles. The title isn't "Christy is a crock," or "That Crock Christy" or "Christy Crock-it."

It's "Christy's crocks." The focus is on the erroneous statements. Christy makes errors in his statements about climate change. Egregious ones at times, at other times subtle but insidious ones. They are his, he owns em. He can disown them if he chooses. He chooses not to.

I guess the concern is with the word "crock" somehow. But why would that word be of concern? The only reason I can see is because it is actully effective. It's catchy and colorful -it draws attention to itself. "Christy's mistakes" or "Christy's incorrect statements" would be kind of dry and non-distinctive. Not the kind of thing that recommends itself.

But what else is one to do in this case? In science, we draw attention to mistakes in the hopes they will be corrected. Usually, the corrected party is grateful and it doesn't take much. If the mistaken party refuses to acknowledge evident mistakes, as Christy has not, we point the mistakes out louder and more openly, until they are acknowledged/corrected. Soft-shoeing it in this case has not done the job.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

MarkR at 00:12 AM on 17 September, 2011

Christy Crocks alliterates. I think that was the priority in the name...

And it picks specifically on crocks, not on Christy. There's an argument either way - I wouldn't see myself getting annoyed by "Mark's Mistakes" but perhaps I would be a lot more sensitive in reality.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Mike3267 at 23:38 PM on 16 September, 2011

I think the section title "Christy Crocks" is needlessly offensive. You can argue for it on technical grounds, but you don't want to put off new readers who are just looking for information.

The "jogging" article by Spencer is obviously sarcastic. It is poorly done. Spencer makes himself look foolish in my view and undercuts his ability to claim his disagreements with mainstream scientific opinion are objective. But the piece is clearly not meant to be taken literally, as Chris at 39 pointed out.

This site contains a wealth of scientific information of great use to the general public. Don't let it turn into a personal grudge forum. Most people could care less about blog-vs-blog grudge matches. Rise above it.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Albatross at 05:48 AM on 16 September, 2011

Dr. Pielke,

Let me remind you what you wrote:

"As a result of the persistent, but incorrect (often derogatory) blog posts and media reports on the robustness of the University of Alabama MSU temperature data....The ad hominem presentations on this subject [i.e.., the UAH data] include those from the weblog Skeptical Science who have sections titled Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups"

That statement by you was wrong-- you were clearly trying to implicate SkS in some strongly worded recent critique of the UAH product and its developers (which reminds me, you seem to have a very selective memory as to how that all unfolded), and you would have known that it was wrong of you to state we were implicated had you read the series.

It is unfortunate that you cannot concede error on your part. Equally unfortunateis that you elect to turn a blind eye to the repeated misinformation and half-truths propagated by Watts, Spencer and Christy and others. Yes, Spencer and Christy undertook some novel work with the MSU data, but that does not mean they now get free pass to continually berate their colleagues, misinform, float conspiracy theories, politicize science, confuse and mislead the US Congress. Or do you disagree?

Again, you were wrongly trying to implicate SkS in some strongly worded critique of the UAH product, and your "arguments" to the contrary on your blog do not hold up. We have of course discussed the UAH product here at SkS, why wouldn't we for goodness' sakes?

In fact, it is stated at SkS that:
"The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.

Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space."

In both Spencer's and Christy's bios shown at the beginning of the series, we mention that they received an award from NASA for their work with the MSU data.

But by all means please do continue to choose to think what you wish to.

Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism

Albatross at 15:03 PM on 15 June, 2011

Jonicol, say hi to Tom Harris (the head of your sister astro turf "skeptic"/disinformation group in Canada (ICSC)) from us. How about "Friends" of Science, any connection between ACSC and them? The ICSC links to your group, FoS, and ClimateDepot, and NewZealand CSC, ICECAP and SPPI-- quite the social network dedicated to misinforming.

But I digress. This thread is about Christy's crocks. You claiming/asserting above that @52 that <"I could find none which goes deeply enough into the science to show "WHY" they are wrong. " is a rather odd strawman argument to make. First, you could start by actually reading the main post and following the links therein. If that does not suffice, then you can use the search function here at SkS to find articles dedicated to refuting Christy (and Lindzen and Spencer). Third, there is plenty of science and information, both here and in the scientific literature refuting Christy (and Lindzen and Spencer). Finally, while your post @52 is lengthy on pontification and rhetoric, but very short on substance and on science.

Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism

scaddenp at 10:59 AM on 14 June, 2011

"On rare occassions, those on the edges of the scientific spectrum are proven correct". Rare enough, that it would be extremely unwise for policy not be based on scientific consensus. You apparently think Christy could be right, but then how do you feel about the Christy Crocks?

Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism

Tom Curtis at 10:00 AM on 13 June, 2011

jonnicol @18, this should help, although I can't help but feel you would have found what you asked for (which may not be what you are looking for) had you followed the numerous links in the article.

An Interactive History of Climate Science

AuntSally at 05:52 AM on 13 June, 2011

This is a wonderful visualization. However...

...I'm a bit "skeptical" about the numbers. Specifically, they don't seem to square very well with the numbers in Peterson (2008) -- as pointed out in severa SkepticalScience posts (see here, for example: http://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-crock-1-1970s-cooling.html). Petereson found a total of 71 peer-reviewed publications on the topic of global warming and climate change in the 15-year period 1965-1979.

Yet according to the graphic in this post, the year 1975 alone had 240 publications. Something seems askew...

Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism

dana1981 at 13:04 PM on 12 June, 2011

madmike - I'm not really sure how to respond to that. Thanks for sharing your opinion, I guess? You seem to provide no explanation whatsoever for your conclusions, which don't match the paleoclimate data. But if you want to discuss climate sensitivity, I suggest either Christy Crock #6 or 'climate sensitivity is low'.

Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism

dana1981 at 01:03 AM on 12 June, 2011

Badger - yes, we'll add the Christy Crocks button to the other Christy Crocks posts. In fact I'll do that now.

Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism

John Hartz at 01:00 AM on 12 June, 2011

@Dana or John Cook:

Will the "Christy Crock" button be inserted into all of the other articles in this series?

How about adding a Note similar to the above to all of the other articles in the series?

Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity

John Hartz at 06:33 AM on 11 June, 2011

I suggest that every article in the Christy Crock series have a tab listing the titles of the other articles in the series with a link to each embedded in the title.

Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity

CBDunkerson at 03:51 AM on 10 June, 2011

Badgersouth, no the earlier items in the series can be found here.

Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world

KR at 03:06 AM on 10 June, 2011

Badgersouth - Using the "Search" box with "Christy Crock #" will locate all of them.

Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity

John Hartz at 02:02 AM on 10 June, 2011

Is this the first article in the Christy Crock series to be posted? If so, why is it #6?

Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity

Dikran Marsupial at 20:31 PM on 9 June, 2011

agnostic Indeed "the ability of CO2 to absorb and radiate energy is a constant", however this describes the radiative forcing due to increased CO2, climate sensitivity describes the response of global temperatures to that additional forcing.

Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity

Dikran Marsupial at 20:27 PM on 9 June, 2011

okatinko wrote "precisely I doubt the validity of this assumption since the various forcing have different spatial repartitions"

As I have already pointed out, those different spatial repartitions have no effect on the equilibrium global average temperature, as the averaging averages them out.

"My point is that the temperature can be higher with a lower energy input, "

Yes, but that is a statement about the absolute temperature, not the rate of change of temperature with a change in the forcing. CLimate sensitivity is the latter, not the former.

"T(F, x, y...) where x, y.. are parameters describing for instance the repartition in latitude,"

In my original notation I used A and B as index variables representing the state of the planet. It was you that incorrectly changed t to be a function of f alone, not me.

Climate sensitivity appears to be exactly what yopu have in your notation when your write ∂T/∂F |x,y..., where x and y etc. describe the configuration of the planet independent of the forcings, which has not changed between the last ice age and the current interglacial, but has changed between e.g. the Triassic and now. Hence on geological timescales climate sensitivity does change, but only on geological timescales. Note glaciation is not a change in planetary configuration as it is a consequence of a change in forcings (i.e. a feedback within an essentially constant system).

Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?

dana1981 at 02:57 AM on 31 May, 2011

RW1 @21: claiming sensitivity is just 0.5-1°C for doubled CO2 (3.7 W/m2 forcing) denies the massive body of research using many different lines of evidence that all consistently shows otherwise. Just as one example, it's nearly impossible to explain the ~5°C warming between glacial and interglacial period if sensitivity is that low. Also see the forthcoming Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity which is due to be published sometime in the next week.

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

dana1981 at 12:08 PM on 13 May, 2011

Victor - we addressed the hypothesis of an internal forcing in Christy Crock #3, I believe. But that wasn't Lindzen's argument, so I didn't address it here.

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

johnny4550 at 04:00 AM on 9 May, 2011

well thanks. My comment on the posts would be :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-crock-3-internal-variability.html : of course short term cycles can not explain long term trends since they are .. short term. To exclude long term trends, as far as I can judge, the argument is mainly based on computations. Not very reliable ...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm : I mainly disagree with the assertion : A natural cycle requires a forcing. Unforced variability is by definition... unforced. Meaning without change of forcings. Non linear, chaotic systems can exhibit a lot of spontaneous variability with the same external conditions (see the predator-prey system for instance.

An interesting sentence however :

"The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended due to a slight increase in solar output (changes in both thermohaline circulation and volcanic activity also contributed"

In my sense, changes in thermohaline circulation are an unforced variation ! so it seems to contradict the first assertion.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/internal-variability.htm : basically, same as #1.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-global-warming-be-caused-by-natural-cycles.html
same as #2.

Anything else as a "strong" counter-argument ?

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

Albatross at 03:14 AM on 9 May, 2011

Johnny @25&26,

"but of course I would appreciate if you can give me good estimate of the "natural noise""

Well, you could start off by reading the post written by Dana above. You could also read this, and this, or this, or this.

The science and observations are very clear-- natural variability alone cannot account for the observed warming, not even close.

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

funglestrumpet at 03:51 AM on 8 May, 2011

Just how many times must we simply sit back and allow Lindzen to give us his illusions, Monckton with myths and Christy his crocks? Isn’t it about time this community took the initiative? How about asking Lindzen and his compatriots for their response to these debunking posts and tell them you are going to make public the challenge and also the ensuing correspondence to a conclusion? If a point is reached where a stalemate is reached, the opportunity to join in is offered to those most competent to contribute.

This site has enough kudos to be able to contact anyone these ‘sceptics’ happen to use to publish their disinformation and show them how much they have been deceived.

It is fun to see their arguments being demolished, but like the warm feeling one gets from peeing ones pants while wearing a dark suit, who notices?

Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?

Albatross at 07:09 AM on 7 May, 2011

In this CATO Institute missive, Michaels makes this extraordinary claim:

”Our simple computer model further indicated that there were several decades in the early and mid-20th century in which the ice loss was greater than in the last (ballyhooed) ten years. The period of major loss was before we emitted the balance of our satanic greenhouse gases.

So, about half of the observed change since 1979 is simply Greenland returning to its normal melt rate for the last 140 years or so, long before there was global warming caused by dreaded economic activity.”

Really, "there were several decades in the early and mid-20th century in which the ice loss was greater than in the last (ballyhooed) ten years..."? Their research demonstrates no such thing, and they even state in their abstract that the melt in 2007 was the highest on record,

"The greatest melt extent over the last 2 1/4 centuries occurred in 2007; however, this value is not statistically significantly different from the reconstructed melt extent during 20 other melt seasons, primarily during 1923–1961."

and we also know that the 2007 record was surpassed in 2010. Michaels is publicly misrepresenting and exaggerating his own work, and that of his co-authors. If I were Knappenberger or Frauenfeld, I would very incredibly uneasy and unhappy about that. Also, I was unaware that Greenland had a "normal" melt rate.

The above quote from Michaels also (predictably) plays into the “skeptic” myth that what we are experiencing now, and what we will experience under business as usual, is nothing out of the ordinary. It also suggests that the recent acceleration of ice loss from Greenland is attributable to natural variability.

As the GISTEMP maps below show, the warming in the vicinity of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) between 1923 and 1953 (based on the “warm” period noted by Wake et al. 2009) was highly regional in nature. Now compare that with what has been observed since 1980 (the most recent 30-yr period). Quite the striking difference. Something very different is happening, and this is still relatively early in our rather bizarre experiment that we have decided to undertake.

Now, of course, internal climate modes and regional climate regimes can amplify or mute the underlying long-term trend. No denying that. But, oscillations cannot generate a long-term trend as we are witnessing (see here and here). As greenhouse gases increase, the greatest warming is expected to occur at high latitudes, and we are already observing polar amplification of the warming over the Arctic (Flanner et al. (2010), Screen and Simmonds (2010)) in response to the long-term warming trend.

Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions

KR at 05:30 AM on 3 May, 2011

ClimateWatcher - I hope you will note that we haven't doubled CO2 yet, and that in addition there hasn't been enough time for a full response to the forcings we have induced.

3K seems about right. Your comments are rather hard to justify, though.

Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming

Albatross at 02:06 AM on 22 April, 2011

Jimbo @2,

That is quite the find! SOme nuggests from Lindzen's talk in late 1989:

"I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,..."

Well, it is now known that the recent warming has easily surpassed any warming that can be expected from natural variability.

"Urbanization also creates problems in interpreting the temperature record, he said. There is the problem of making corrections for the greater inherent warming over cities--in moving weather stations from a city to an outlying airport, for example.

Lindzen has also been shown to be wrong on that front here, and here.

""The trouble is that the earlier data suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880. The entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree."

This paleo reconstruction from Ljungqvist clearly shows that assertion to be false, the minimum occurred around 1700, not near 1880.

[Source]
Lindzen also seems to be floating the myth about the climate rebounding from the LIA, well that too has been refuted.

And those demonstrably false claims and predictions came from the first third of his talk!

I am once again reminded the sage words of an esteemed climate scienetist Dr. Kerry Emanuel:

"... [B]eware those who deride predictive science in its entirety, for they are also making a prediction: that we have nothing to worry about. And above all, do not shoot the messenger, for this is the coward’s way out of openly and honestly confronting the problem."

Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?

CBDunkerson at 21:29 PM on 19 April, 2011

I gave up on Gilles when he swapped in a new graph to 'contradict' my reading of the one he had originally posted.

However, if that hadn't been enough, the bit in response #1 above about stratospheric cooling models being wrong because they didn't predict volcanic eruptions certainly would have done the trick.

Christy isn't the only one who produces crocks... Muller is not alone in his misinformation... et cetera. The same problems are observable with 'skeptics' right here. We should point out the fallacies once and move on... rather than allowing them to drag things out ad infinitum.

Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?

Bern at 14:57 PM on 19 April, 2011

rhjames: er, no. If we take 1995 as the starting point for your "last 15 years", then go across horizontally - a strong downward trend would have put temperatures well below the IPCC projections.

And if you're not seeing a rising trend in that data, then I suggest you stop squinting and turning your head sideways to 'blank out' the grey IPCC bounds. The last time it was as cool as 1995 was back in 2000. The last 10 years have all been considerably warmer.

If you want a good statistical analysis of the temperature trends over the past 35 years, I strongly recommend this post over at Tamino's blog. He removes the effects of ENSO so the underlying trend can be seen more clearly.

More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.

muoncounter at 04:27 AM on 19 April, 2011

Volunteer#133: "projections can't be trusted."

They sure can't; things are worse than they were projected to be. See the new thread Do the observations match the models?

Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability

Albatross at 00:51 AM on 15 April, 2011

Cloa513,

Great, first david rose, and now a Australian talk show. Your link is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Also, he contradicts Christy, saying that recent changes are small-- Christy suggests that the changes (from a natural climate variability) are quite large quite large-- almost 0.9 C.

Dana I see a Lindzen crock in your future-- Lindzen repeats his favourite trick, and the interview was made on 6 April 2011 .

Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling

JMurphy at 18:25 PM on 12 April, 2011

Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "He also wrote: "The lies of eco-warriors.""

Getting back to the subject, especially regarding Christy's intellectual dishonesty, why is it that so-called skeptics prefer to listen to people like that who have such political/religious views which guide their opinions ? It's the same with the quote above, talking about "lies" and "eco-warriors" - it's almost as if the so-called skeptics need their 'experts' to have the same opinions as them, otherwise they don't trust them.

In other words, they prefer subjective opinion (using emotive, political, aggressive language) over objective fact. And that is why many of them will never be persuaded to accept the reality of AGW...until one of their preferred 'experts' decides that going along with the consensus is a political imperative which will bring more benefits than negatives, and takes all his fans with him - who will then forget what happened in the past and carry on as if they always accepted AGW !

Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?

dana1981 at 00:53 AM on 11 April, 2011

Alexandre #1 - we'll address your question in Christy Crock #3. Stay tuned.

Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling

dana1981 at 01:14 AM on 9 April, 2011

Nick #17 - we'll be addressing both the myths that you mention propagated by Christy in future Christy Crocks.

Arkadiusz #16 and #18 - please try actually reading the article that you're commenting on.

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results