Human subject research has been concerned with ethical integrity issues for quite some time due mainly to abhorrent past abuses. At most US colleges and universities Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is required before conducting such research and part of the approval process is a training course and certification. One organization in that business is CITI – The Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative – (https://www.citiprogram.org/) whose mission is “to promote the public’s trust in the research enterprise by providing high quality, peer reviewed, web based, research education materials to enhance the integrity and professionalism of investigators and staff conducting research.” All climate researchers ought to be certified by this or a comparable organizations. If it’s required to conduct something relatively trivial as surveys of college students, why shouldn’t it be required of all important research?
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Gary Boden
↧
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
Doesn’t AR5 WG2 assume that the models upon which the conclusions are based are reasonably reliable? If current GCMs are not reasonably reliable for determining changes in conditions upon what were the conclusions reached?
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by curryja
The significant conclusions in WG2 were analyses of historical data.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Szilard
OT, sorry, but maybe of interest if it hasn’t been noticed before.
John Mashey was sued by Wegman et al for tortious interference in state court in VA, subsequently removed to fed court. See http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/05/19/ed-wegman-yasmin-said-milt-johns-sue-john-mashey-2-million
Case # 1:15-cv-00486 in eastern dist VA.
The suit looks like it was very badly pled and the plaintiffs withdrew it a few weeks after the removal. Mashey links to his motion to dismiss on the blog post referenced above – I don’t think he provides the original complaint but you can retrieve it via PACER if interested enough.
I’m not a lawyer but I think I have enough familiarity with basic procedural stuff to recognize the complaint as a hunk of junk, legally.
No opinion on the substantive issues – I don’t really know the background.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Salvatore del Prete
Ferdinand , they do not agree with your conclusions.
As for me until and if I see CO2 concentrations be independent of temperature over a log term of time I tend to be with them. Until CO2 concentrations rise in the face of falling temperatures or rise in the case of increasing temperatures I am not convinced that your conclusions are correct.
Judith Curry,
I appreciate the question expressed by Salvatore del Prete:
”Ferdinand Engelbeen May 20, 2015 at 6:32 am:
‘CO2 levels do lead temperature already since at least 1900, as the increase in CO2 is (far) beyond what Henry’s law shows for the temperature increase.’
What is you reply to this statement Dr. Curry or Lauri Heimonen?
I tend to be with your take of things Lauri, but I can’t reconcile the statement from Ferdinand. Can you, thanks?”
Henry’s law is a tool that one must learn to use in a way that is proper for a certain problem. I have found that there are some physicists who wrongly apply Henry’s law to the combination of oceans and atmosphere like sea water in bottle where partial pressure of CO2 between liquid phase and gas phase are in static balance.
As I have stated, in reality the CO2 content in atmosphere is striving for a level that makes a dynamic balance be possible between all CO2 sources and all CO2 sinks. What is a certain share of manmade CO2 emissions in atmospheric change of CO2 content, is determined by the manmade share in total CO2 emissions. As I have stated in my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 , the manmade share in the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere and in the total CO2 content in atmosphere is only about 4 % at the most.
There is available no empiric evidence, according to which CO2 levels could do lead any trend of global temperature. Vice versa trends of CO2 content in atmosphere follow changes of temperature, as I have stated in my comment above.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
Skeptics aren’t trying to claim the moral high ground that warmers are, or demanding a restructuring of global economies and a redirection of capital to “fix” the problem. The responsibility for the preponderance of proof is on the shoulders of those pressing that the science is settled. There’s an abundance of demonstrable evidence that the progressive culture has permeated everything that touches AGW. It strains credibility regardless of the “real percent” of scientists that are warmers. The fixes have a pedigree of fraud wrapped around them as the propaganda is laced with disinformation and disingenuous innuendo.
Most scientists are involved in field work that is specialist in nature, I’m sure most are honest brokers of data. However, those that aggregate all science that influences climate into a prognosis represent a fractional number of the entire body of science, they’re in league with political pundits, they have the entire globe wrapped in a straight jacket. Its these few whose voices are wedded with a massive body of global progressive politics and a willing aspirational media sympathetic to the cause, who are collusive with methodologies to advance the narrative that have created the AGW drum beat.
So no, skeptics do not have the same burden of proof or motivation as the warmers. They are the voices of reason that see the naked emperor parading down the street.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Salvatore del Prete
This is support of natural variability also.
This question will be answered once the oceans start to cool and what the response of CO2 concentrations will be in the atmosphere from that point in time on.
Right now there is no answer because the ocean temperatures have been acting in concert for increasing CO2 concentrations.
When the oceans are acting in opposition to increasing CO2 concentrations is when the test will come to see which side is correct.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
I should clarify what I’m referring to in the first sentence; by moral high ground behind warmers, it’s a dishonest moral high ground “campaign” because science is used as a tool to advance the progressive movement. Therefire it’s not truly moral the way it’s advertised. Skeptics aren’t trying to push a global governance model, nor ramrod advance any form of politics
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Salvatore del Prete
Thanks for the reply Dr. Curry.
I agree until CO2 actually leads the temperature what Ferdinand’s conclusions are in question.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Bad Andrew
“because science is used as a tool to advance the progressive movement”
Dr. Curry’s next post. Science As Pretense.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
SPM.1 and the RFC’s are in your opinion are reasonably good?
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by ticketstopper
@Chief Hydrologist
The punctuated equilibrium theory is interesting, but ultimately interesting hypotheses are worthless without confirmation data.
A key piece of confirmation data would be the thresholds at which the Roman and Medieval warming periods started (and ended) as well as the LIA trigger (and end).
Another key piece of information is the level at which “abrupt” change occurs. If, for example, we’ve already passed this level, then ongoing radical economic changes are pointless. If, for a different example, we’re far away from said level, then equally radical economic changes are pointless. Only in the “Goldilocks” case where we’re right near or at the level where abrupt changes occur does it possibly make sense to undertake radical economic change – but the decision to do so is still a political one, not a scientific one.
Thus “abrupt climate change” is in many respects merely a variant of the precautionary principle – without said confirmation data.
↧
Comment on Modeling Lindzen’s adaptive infrared iris by jim
Reblogged this on <a href="https://pdxtransport2.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/modeling-lindzens-adaptive-infrared-iris/" rel="nofollow">pdx transport</a>.
↧
↧
Comment on Modeling Lindzen’s adaptive infrared iris by Peter Davies
Hi Tony
The Iris effect seems to me to be a feedback hypothesis which would be quite difficult to trace or put down to any particular forcing, given that there are probably numerous other forcings at play at the about the same timeframes. There would also most probably be lags at work as well.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by jim2
From the article:
…
As companies look to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, many are turning toward rooftop photovoltaic (PV) power systems, or solar panels, as a source of renewable, clean energy. However, this technology comes with specific risks. One of the many dangers to solar panels is how the panel and its mounting system impact the combustibility of the overall roof system. Some solar panels, for example, include a backing of highly combustible plastic.
In laboratory-based fire tests of roof assemblies,1, 2 the maximum allowable fire spread is between approximately 20 and 40 ft2 (1.9 and 3.7 m2), depending on whether an A, B or C rating is desired. In actual roof fires with roof-mounted solar panels, fire damage has involved areas of between 1,000 and 183,000 ft2 (93 and 17,000 m2). In the most extreme case the fire spread to the inside and destroyed the entire building (see Fig. 1).
,,,
http://magazine.sfpe.org/issue-92-fire-concerns-roof-mounted-solar-panels
↧
Comment on Modeling Lindzen’s adaptive infrared iris by KenW
“Cirrus indisputably net warms.”
Then the dramatic increase in jet traffic (contrails) starting in the 1960s would also have somewhat counteracted the Iris Effect.
Considering that the vast majority of jet traffic is in the northern hemisphere, is a “human fingerprint” of that discernable?
↧
Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Ian Wilson
Judith,
The dominant source of variability in precipitation in the equatorial regions, on intra-seasonal time scales (< 90 days), is the Madden Julian Oscillations (MJO). It is characterized by the eastward progression of a large region of enhanced convection and rainfall (moving along the equator). This region of enhanced precipitation is followed by an equally large region of suppressed convection and rainfall, with the precipitation pattern taking about 30 – 60 days to complete one cycle.
It is generally believed that MJOs consists of a large-scale coupling between the atmospheric circulation and atmospheric deep convection. When a MJO is at its strongest, between the western Indian and western Pacific Oceans, it exhibits characteristics that approximate those of a hybrid-cross between a convectively-coupled Kelvin wave and an Equatorial Rossby wave.
Surely factors which affect the transmission of convectively-coupled Kelvin and Rossby waves along the Equator would play a much larger role in determining the overall (natural) variability of the intensity of precipitation, compared to the variability produced by anthropomorphic warming?
↧
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Barnes
Joseph- before determining if agw will cause problems, it would be good to verify that agw exists and is not dominated/overwhelmed by natural variation.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by russellseitz
Tallbloke | May 26, 2015 at 4:15 am
Reblogged this on Tallbloke’s Talkshop and commented:
“Judy Curry grasps the nettle of the ideological bias that has skewed climate science.z”
All climate blogs that ouch on public policy reify ideology to some degree, but few carry Ideological bias to its purest expression in active censorship. As one of Watts’ gatekeepers you sir, are one of its practitioners.
Can you tell us how reducing the scientific bandwidth of such websites serves to raise the signal to noise ratio of the comments they elicit?
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Mike Flynn
Joseph,
You should fund the climate research which you feel gives you satisfaction. After all, it’s your money.
As to “we”, if that includes myself, then the part of the climate we should not be doing more research on is the irrelevant and unimportant part. I’m pretty happy to part with not one cent.
I have no unanswered questions of any consequence regarding climate. It’s the average of weather. Easily calculated, and quite unimportant. Don’t you agree?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
