Peter, I like the sound of “accepted and effective straggles” though, I’d like to see some.
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by genghiscunn
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Don Monfort
Why you getting so angry, Steven? Is it really because I don’t know how to ask questions? You have the right to remain silent…
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Peter Davies
Since straggles are in fact groups of people who are dawdling far behind their leaders it seems that one only needs to look as far as the sceptical denizens on this blog to find some. /humour off
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Don Monfort
Nice work, willy.
“elenchus”
Very few trolls could sling that word around and not be embarrassed.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by climatereason
Don
You will remember Mosh getting irritated at me for asking questions. Personally I think its a good way of getting answers and thus moving the debate forward on the basis of more knowledge.
I really don’t know why certain people here have a problem with questions.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by angech2014
rpielke | July 29, 2015 at 8:13 pm | Reply
Re: Willard
Readers of Climate Etc who have not visited ATTP with respect to my post with the Editor of that website
I asked him to debate offline (as I did courteously and successfully with the webmaster of ATTP)
and this is what he wrote
“My main communication objective is quite minimal:
“This is not your main communication objective, it is not a communication objective at all. It is a statement, no element of a communication objective, just a demand to toe the party line.
You say, “I seek a public and quotable response from you regarding the IPCC’s attribution statement.”
Yet you state “we already know rpielke’s answer on the subject
“Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting regional and local climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.”
You already have your public and quotable response and you “know” it.
A simple “I agree (or disagree) with the IPCC’s attribution statement” would suffice.
R Pielke clearly says, I disagree with the IPCC’s attribution statement.
I will reprint it for you even though you have stated you “already know rpielke’s answer on the subject”
“Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting regional and local climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.”
Happy now?
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by beththeserf
Something there is in groups
that loves a wall,
in science you’d think not
but there it is, walls
and gate-keeping, some call
them paradigms, it’s all
the same, anathema
to Nature, and to nature
of evolving knowledge
by discovery, that relies
on open society
and like Einstein says,
a single experiment
that refutes all the rest.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by angech2014
genghiscunn
The ATTP thread referred to is quite good to read. It starts of in a civil fashion with good rapport and then slowly degenerates into the attack mode of Willard {and others who are worse} who decide to play the man and not the ball. Roger bails out understandably and the blog finishes with triumphant tribalism.
ATTP , to give him credit did talk to Roger and get him onside at the start.
Yet, Deja Vu, it reminded me of a savaging he gave Richard Toll in March who also tried to interact with him, when ATTP just wanted to mock his work.
…and Then There’s Physics says: March 26, 2015 at 10:21 am “Persistence”
Richard,
I wasn’t sure whether to post your comment or not, since I was still waiting for you to back up earlier claims. However, I thought this another good illustration of the power of persistence. Say something deceitful and objectionable and simply ignore those who request that you either withdraw it or back it up. They’ll eventually just give up and you can carry on regardless.
Needless to say Richard had to give up, just like Roger. Advice, Roger should read it.
ATTP is quite aware of morals and manners but enjoys the Schadenfreude -not realizing the possible long term consequences and regrets if he has a change of heart.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Peter Davies
+10 Beth
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by opluso
JimD:
Hansen refers to them in this way “They identified eight episodes of large iceberg flux, with the largest flux occurring ∼ 14 600 years ago, providing evidence of an Antarctic contribution to Meltwater Pulse 1A, when sea level rose an average of 3–5 m century−1 for a few centuries (Fairbanks, 1989).”
The “they” above refers to Weber, et al., (2014) and not Fairbanks (cited for Meltwater Pulse 1A). Weber, et al., used iceberg rafted sediments in the Scotia Sea (between South America and Antarctica) to estimate Antarctic Ice Sheet melting between 20,000 and 9,000 years ago. I don’t have a copy of the paywalled Weber article but I wonder how they distinguished Antarctic-sourced iceberg debris from the contemporaneous collapse of the Patagonia Ice Sheet?
Given that calving Patagonia glaciers were far more sensitive to climate fluctuations than western Antarctica, and given the likelihood that paleo sea-ice extent around Antarctica deflected iceberg drift from present pathways, it would be helpful to know how they confirmed the respective continental sources of any dated sediments.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Turbulent Eddie
Hansen refers to them in this way “They identified eight episodes of large iceberg flux, with the largest flux occurring ∼ 14 600 years ago, providing evidence of an Antarctic contribution to Meltwater Pulse 1A, when sea level rose an average of 3–5 m century−1 for a few centuries (Fairbanks, 1989).”
That’s not comparable conditions.
That was glacial transition to inter-glacial. In fact, once global temperatures rose but more importantly, Northern Summer temperatures rose to higher temperatures than today ( for some 5,000 years ), no such pulses are evident ( the flat part of the SLR curve ):
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Turbulent Eddie
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Geoff Sherrington
Have you devoted enough consideration to the dimension of time in relation to the spread of scientific knowledge?
While it can be managerially magisterial to produce results ahead of time and below budget, is it important in climate science except for the ego?
Much of the complexity about which you write is caused by deadlines, particularly the regular conferences of parties (COP21 in Paris, December) and the 5-6 yearly IPCC major reports. One bad effect of the timetable approach leads authors to submit papers that are incomplete, just to make the deadline, even to the point of giving a conclusion that represents subordinate parts of the work but deals ineffectively with what might have been a good advance in the main conclusion, had they reached it. Just to make the deadline.
It will take years to get away from this deadline problem, but the more people who are aware of it, maybe the sooner there will be improvement. That improvement would see the main publishers (if they are still part of the structure by then) putting their effort in publishing breakthrough type papers of major importance, of which there are few each year on any topic of science.
Apart from the fundamental scientific advances of the breakthrough papers, there is an hierarchy of classes of lesser papers, along the lines of those which –
• Confirm or deny the main thrust of a breakthrough paper by arriving from other angles
• Provide an alternative or improvement to the main findings of breakthrough papers
• Contribute more observation to the breakthrough paper and discuss its relevance
• Seek to set a complementary base for a breakthrough in a related aspect of science
• Report the views of a clutch of authors about a topic they deem to have political importance
• Ditto for educational importance
• Write papers that are knowingly lacking good science to place authors in one camp or another
• Lambast an author or authors for being on the ‘wrong’ side of a polarised topic
• Perform meta analysis
Etc. There are more types than this. I am setting a scene with these examples by suggesting that for many classes,
(a) Time to publication is hardly important
(b) The topic is too incomplete to warrant publication until complete (that is, the original, stated hypothesis has been tested and a result derived).
(c) The topic is of such little importance that changing occupation to taxi driver (a customary Australian solution from some decades back) is more productive for the would-be scientific author.
In short, in the last 50 years there has been an excess of junk papers that should have been smothered at birth. Sadly, I think that many guilty authors already know this, but continue.
All of this is well known, but different scientists put emphasis on different classes. They can show this by pre-publication releases, by strong suggestions that something big is about to break, etc.
My personal view is that as a whole, we are not coping well with the transition to the electronic era. We have now a system less useful than the time-honoured rules of strict silence before publication, peer review by anonymous experts chosen by others, fewer word length restrictions, fewer time restrictions, more studious looks at references cited and so on. As this thread on Climate Etc indicates, we have now a system in some need of repair, but no clear plan of how to repair it. Peer review, which has long rested on the grace of experts to give freely of their time, is in particular danger as materialism grows. Maybe we will soon have a Union of Peer Review Workers, to set terms and conditions.
Maybe a start can be made by making a more formal classification of that hierarchy of papers and have rather more separation of publishers and reviewers for each class. Why not have, as in the medical world, specialists as separate from GPs as separate from homeopaths? Readers can make personal choices as to how the quality of papers from each group will aid their learning. The distribution of reader/writer numbers should (but might not) weed out the time wasting pop-science authors-to-be who might revert to ‘Popular Mechanics’ or ‘Scientific American’ or something with ‘Roswell’ in the title.
The processes available for a newcomer to discover what is best for her/him to study is too fragmented, vague, dominated by non-science material and a self-important press working way beyond its group intellect.
I would be forever grateful to the bright person who could devise a successful structure to allow selection of educational material in science to be presented in an honest, neutral and useful way to newcomers (plus oldcomers who have lost their way and need a sharp jab of honesty revitalisation).
Prof Curry, once again you are inspirational in dissecting problems like these. You are in the handful of candidates who might just influence society to reward genuinely good scholars and to demonstrate the failures of the multitudes of also-rans, particularly the ones who know they are wrong and misleading but persist with the drivel in this surreal world that calls itself climate science. Thank you.
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by JCH
None of them are “comparable” conditions. You sort of miss the point.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by rpielke
angech2014 Thank you for your comment. I initiated the offline communication with the host of ATTP once I found out who he was and could e-mail him directly. In that forum, we were able to communicate courteously and effectively. We closed on an agreed to post.
I was hoping that this constructive debate would carry on in the comments on ATTP, and, indeed, for a short time they did as you notd.. But than Willard and others jumped in (troll is a good description) and polluted the debate.
The webmaster does not have the interest and motivation, unfortunately, to police ATTP. Thus it falls into the frame of an type SKS weblog which is just an advocacy venue with a failure to permit, courteous, constructive and informative debate.
Roger Sr.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Turbulent Eddie
None of them are “comparable” conditions. You sort of miss the point.
True, and to that extent, neither is the Eemian that Hansen wants to invoke ( notwithstanding the questions about whether an Antarctic collapse actually occurred for the period in question ).
But the HCO did encounter higher temperatures for millenia without a collapse.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Peter Lang
From JC Conclusions:
We need more maverick climate scientists that devote time to looking at the big picture in an integrative way. And that is why I applaud Jim Hansen for what he has done, in spite of not finding much in his paper to be very convincing. We need to figure out ways to nurture and reward this kind of scholarship, suitable publication venues, and accepted and effective straggles for publicizing this.
I agree with the first sentence. Hansen has done it for the orthodoxy, but how can the mavericks do it? How can they achieve the same publicity as Hansen? I would expect there would be five times as much funding for the maverick researchers as for the orthodoxy? Why not? Isn’t that how science is supposed to work – most effort goes into trying to replicate and disprove theories and hypothesies?
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
JCH, “None of them are “comparable” conditions. You sort of miss the point.”
High sensitivity estimates require starting at a glacial maximum. Since the majority of sensitivity is related to feedbacks not initial forcing, all conditions are “comparable”, just the comparison might not be useful for some and required for others. If you want scary you need all the improbable conditions.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by blueice2hotsea
The time for debate has ended. – Marcia McNutt, editor of Science
In other words, “your paper is quite nice but …”.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by climatereason
Captain
Could you repost that graphic you showed some months ago of the indo pacific warm pool and whose paper was it based on?
Tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
