Our Venn diagrams overlap more than you perceive.
Comment on Week in review by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by Nick Stokes
Yes, I agree. In this case, letting the anomaly period vary doesn’t hurt much.
But the result is not at all flat. Trend since 1940 (to 2014), 1.50 °C/cen. Since 1960, 1.34. Since 1920, 1.26.
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by David Wojick
It is flat in the sense that it goes down then back up. It is actually an oscillation, like pretty much all climate data on all scales.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ken Denison
Jim D:
How long is the record? How significant is that length in terms of climate?
Answers: ~34 years and 0% significance.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ken Denison
Hey Jim D, let’s suppose sea level rise impacts Norfolk. Over what time period do you think it would have a significant impact? Perhaps we could just deal with it in real time versus spending $s trying to predict it, eh?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
How many standard deviations below the mean? Maybe three?Significant.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
They are just trying to figure out what to adapt to and how, when the sea-level rise rate is already accelerating and they are planning infrastructure to last for decades. It makes sense to let them rather than defund just that part because it mentions climate change.
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by climatereason
If you go back far enough with CET you can see the oscillations clearly with different levels of peaks and troughs over the centuries.
The period 1525 to 1540 looks similar to the decade concluding in 2000 There has been a general upwards trend since 1700 .
Perhaps we are on a downward slope again but it’s much too early to tell. 2014 was one of the warmest on record.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by justinwonder
From “When it comes to science, conservatives are no more biased…” :
“Lessons for science communicators
We end with two important lessons for science communicators that come out of our study.
The first is that political journalism too often treats science like a political issue to be debated by non-experts in televised partisan theater. This type of media coverage about scientific issues often obscures the actual scientific evidence and consensus and unfortunately only deepens polarization by providing partisan cues for both conservatives and liberals.
Our study’s findings suggest that such intensive, polarizing media attention depresses the public‘s confidence in the scientific community for liberals and conservatives alike.
The second lesson is that that science communicators who target conservatives specifically as somehow uniquely deficient when it comes to understanding science turn the focus to a clash of ideologies and away from promoting communication that bridges ideological gaps about science issues—and yes we think such gaps can be bridged!
Demonizing a third of the population in science policy debates by claiming they have an insurmountable psychological deficit does nothing to promote a solution to the challenges of effective science communication—and unfortunately represents our human biases at work.”
We have to accept that everyone has multiple biases and that we are all susceptible to the same biases. Every educated person that wants to understand that should read Khaneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow”. We need a shared vocabulary of bias to work together successfully.
↧
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Brandon Caswell
“We know there is a recent spike. We have the instrumental temperature record. The problem in their paper was that their representation of the recent warming was not statistically robust, not that it doesn’t exist.”
Yes, we know there has been warming in the last 60 years on the reconstruction, but the methodology of the paper could not possibly have measured it. Period. The spike is an artifact of the smoothing, and not real from the data. Regardless of if it was seen in other data not used in the paper. Re-adding in something that doesn’t exists in your data, is not good practice. Don’t you agree? Something Marcott understood when he originally did the paper and left it out. If he had left it as he originally done it, it would not have been an issue. It was only added to give people who did not pay close attention another “hockey stick”, something brutally obvious based on the media campaign that accompanied it’s second release. If your media campaign states something your paper does not support, your acting like political shills, not scientists. You can defend it, but only look silly.
” However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.”
Probably not robust? Something that your methodology could not possibly have measured, is only “probably” not robust? Give me a break, it was 100% not robust, something he admitted later. But again, why add it back in when you didn’t have it the first time? Unless you are acting politically and want something convienient to the narrative.
“I just find the typical attempts to discredit anything that’s inconvenient to the narrative that some would like to promote rather tedious.”
The Marcott paper was presented as a new “hockey stick”, in the PR and interviews. Something it was not true, in reality. All it showed was that there was a general large scale cooling trend, but had no data to inform anything about the recent temps. The simple fact is that the resolution could not have possibly shown historical temp variations on the scale we are talking for AGW in the past either, only a very general century scale trend at best. It was used for a “narrative” that it was not suited for. It was misrepresented to the public, often by the scientists in interviews. Acting like the political shills you claim isn’t happening. You did not get annoyed, instead you defend such “narrative” inspired misrepresentations by saying “there was nothing wrong in the paper”.
It is a clear example of scientists acting exactly like the political creatures they are largely becoming. So if you are concerned about “attempts to discredit anything that’s inconvenient to the narrative”, why do you not get annoyed when people attack papers that go against the AGW narrative, with big oil slurs? You have a blog, can you post a link to a post where you were tediously annoyed with the alarmists flailing attempts to discredit anything they don’t like? I can find many comments I have made over the years pointing out errors and flaws in sceptical opinions and alarmist ones, can you do the same? I am curious, and I think it would go for everyone on both sides. How many people can claim the have gone out of their way to correct someone who made a error that supported your “narrative”?
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by Nick Stokes
“It is flat in the sense that it goes down then back up.”
That’s an unusual “sense”. But it’s flaky before 1920. Very few stations, and before about 1905, no BoM and probably no Stevenson screens.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)
I support climate research. I also support lots of data acquisition. Lots and lots. But I don’t see a need for the Pentagon to be getting involved in “climate research”. If they are that worried they can have the base operating design basis reviewed. That shouldn’t be a big deal for the US Corps of engineers to perform.
↧
Comment on Week in review by aplanningengineer
I agree bill1984, in light of being so different from what is commonly heard about water fears but it’s been “known” for a long time. In 1984 I worked for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and understood the situation then to be as described in the one article lots of cheap water guaranteed to farmers (who sometimes could sell for public consumption). Sometimes the more things change the more they stay the same.
Crazy politics. Our CEO in the late 80s was hounded out of his job. by the Mayor because he had said there was no water shortage. The Mayor needed water rationing and did not want to admit it, due to poor sewage infrasctructure (which worked better with less waste water). I was glad to leave behind the BS regulations that prevented me from putting a half gallon of water in a plastic splash pool even once a month for my 1 and 3 year olds to enjoy on a sunny day. All water was cheap but some uses just wee not not allowed, but some were allocated sufficient amounts for their pools and lush lawns
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
Willard, if you had any awareness of the business world you wouldn’t be asking for citations.
You wouldn’t be expected to know the reasons why U.S. companies are sitting on large cash stashes. Do you think it’s a conspiracy? Maybe they are doing it because Obama is of the wrong race and they don’t want him to succeed. Consult you left-wing sources on pseudo-economics and get back to us.
Blame German unions for what? I don’t think the unions that represent the highly skilled and hardworking German workers are responsible for the fact that German GDP is less than the cash holdings of U.S. corporations. I don’t even know why anyone would make such a dumb and irrelevant comparison. Can you explain what tf you are talking about?
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by cerescokid
Nick
Why isn’t it equally appropriate to identify the trend since 1890?. There are oscillations all over the place in climate science. Sea levels show oscillations. Arctic temperatures show oscillations. Going back thousands of years show temperature
oscillations.
Climate science is too much in its infancy for anyone to proclaim the last 50 or 70 years to be statistically significant about anything.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)
JimD, I found that ice area report to be very worrying. I had to take two aspirin and see if I could find a positive spin. Lucky for me I found the ice was a bit less extensive, but it was thicker. This made me sigh with relief. Now I can write the ice mass is not doing that bad.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)
Here in Spain that yellow Anerican cheese is quite rare. The debate revolves around the advantages of goat cheese over mozzarella and Emental.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)
David, that’s great news.
↧
Comment on Week in review by JCH
As soon as I get my second house sold, I'm hiring a student from TCU to show me the basics on R. Wood for Trees is just barely keeping up. RSS GISS are the only temperature series that are currently updating.
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979.08/every:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979.50/every:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/trend" rel="nofollow">more of the trend appears to be from summer months than winters months</a>
↧
Comment on Week in review by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)
I’m for a change in inmigration policy. We should only allow lawyers, politicians, and individuals with the qualifications to be CEOs, bankers, and business consultants. I’m sure we can find a few hundred thousand bangladeshis and indians to do that kind of work.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
