Comment on Death(?) of expertise by lolwot

January 26, 2014, 12:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement by Herman Alexander Pope

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Joseph

$

0

0

It’s unclear what watts what with what is up about.

The only reputations imminently to be hit are those who predicted global cooling is on the way (archibald, easterbrook, gosselin, Abdussamatov etc)

On the otherhand the only group of people predicting the world will continue warm is … climate scientists. The more WUWT spin and whistle about “global cooling” and “the pause”, the bigger the cred gain climate scientists will make as the world continues to warm.

People will say “hey those climate scientists were the only ones who predicted this, how did they do that?” “skeptics thought the world would cool into an ice age”

pundits might wonder “why didn’t skeptics notice the clues in warmest la nina years on record?”

---

Comment on The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement by Herman Alexander Pope

January 26, 2014, 12:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by lolwot

$

0

0

As long as temperature stays inside the same bounds that it has been inside of for ten thousand years, you cannot rule out that natural variability is still most likely taking care of all or most of the climate change.

We are where we should be if you look at data for the past ten thousand years and project the same cycles forward.

Warm, Cold, Warm, Cold, Warm, Cold, Warm, Cold, Roman Warm Period, Cold Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warm Period, Next Cold Period.

They have not told us how they stopped this natural cycle such that now we only warm because of manmade CO2.

This Apollo Rocket Engineer does not buy that junk.

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by manacker

January 26, 2014, 12:25 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by JimR

≪ Previous: Comment on The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement by Herman Alexander Pope

$

0

0

Max_OK

Did anyone with credibility say Michael Mann’s major conclusions were wrong?

Yep.

The Wegman committee and a NAS panel (under oath before a congressional committee).

Here’s how it played out:

The Wegman committee testified under oath that the M+M critique of Mann’s study was valid for statistical reasons having nothing to do with climate science per se and that the “hockey stick” conclusions were not valid.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf

”Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis”

“The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.”

The NAS then issued a rather “wishy-washy” report, which did not address the statistical flaws in the hockey stick, but referred to several “copy spaghetti hockey sticks” that had popped up like mushrooms after a spring rain. The report gave confidence to the results after 1400 AD (after the end of MWP) but not before.

The congressional committee then asked NAS for specific clarification regarding the Wegman testimony. A panel from the NAS subsequently confirmed the conclusion of the Wegman committee under oath.
http://www.energy.probeinternational.org/climate-change/lawrence-solomon-under-oath-north-faults-mann-too

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

Barton then asked North’s colleague on the NAS panel, Peter Bloomfield, a similar question.

Bloomfield’s reply:

“Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.”

A bit of light on a subject always clears things up better than simply statements with innuendos.

Max_CH

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by JimR

January 26, 2014, 12:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by manacker

$

0

0

Max,

“I’m sorry, JimR, but the NRC saying “less confidence” doesn’t mean the NRC had no confidence in Mann’s conclusion or believed it was wrong.”

“Less confidence” means exactly what it says. While Mann made claims about the past 1,000 years the NRC didn’t find compelling evidence to support these conclusions prior to 1600.

“Please note the following statement by the NRC on page 3 of the report: ”

You posted a link to the NRC report. Have you even read it? Here you post the summary statement of the issue. The conclusions start on page 117 and the NRC didn’t support Mann’s conclusions beyond 400 years ago and place very little confidence on the 2,000 year claims due to sparse evidence prior to 900 AD.

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Jim D

January 26, 2014, 12:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by JimR

$

0

0

lolwot is correct. This point (as of early 2014) in the discussion should be noted for posterity because they will deny that they had said the pause would last 20-30 more years when we have had another 0.5+ C warming by then. They are digging themselves their own credibility grave. They will say it was just a few loons that said that. Luckily the internet can preserve this point in time.

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Don Monfort

January 26, 2014, 12:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Jim D

$

0

0

Max (the smart one) strikes again. How much more of this can maxie take?

Comment on Open thread by Brandon Shollenberger

January 26, 2014, 12:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Steven Mosher, if you keep fabricating aspects of conversations, we’ll never get anywhere:

How so?, the reason I used the word MIGHT is because there are two uncertainties

You say you used the word “MIGHT,” emphasizing it to make a point, yet you didn’t actually use the word might. Your supposed reason for doing something couldn’t possibly be true if you didn’t do it.

You made things up about what David Springer said. You made things up about what David Appell said. You now make things up about what you yourself have said. You then have the audacity to claim:

Since you seem unable to clarify what you meant lets take a stab at it

There is nothing in any of my comments that would make it seem I’m unable to clarify the comment in question. All I’ve done is indicate it would be pointless to attempt to clarify something to a person who serially fabricates things about what has been said.

The fact you ignored your fabrications when they were pointed out to you merely reinforces this view. It’s either a blatant sign of intellectual dishonesty, or it’s a sign you’re incapable of following simple conversations.

And you portray yourself as more than good at the latter.

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Don Monfort

January 26, 2014, 12:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by RickA

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by Brandon Shollenberger

$

0

0

How many have said that the pause will last another 20-30 years, jimmy? Document it. name names and provide the quotes. Put up, or shut up your tiresome vacuous yammering.

---

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by RickA

January 27, 2014, 11:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Tenney Naumer

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Steven Mosher:

I replied to your statement below in the subthread above by mistake.

sorry about that.

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Tenney Naumer

January 27, 2014, 11:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Conor McMenemie

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by RickA

$

0

0

As you know, Lewandowsky has done research on this and the results strongly suggest that conspiracy ideation is more prevalent among certain groups than it is among others, although it appears that hardly any group is completely immune.

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Conor McMenemie

January 27, 2014, 12:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Tenney Naumer

$

0

0

In the olden days before CC scientific facts used to trumph baseless opinion. But now that the opinionados have a budget of £27,000 per minute (UK) facts have been cast at the wayside.

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Don Monfort

January 27, 2014, 12:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Generalissimo Skippy

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Conor McMenemie

$

0

0

I recall reading that the GCMs project Arctic warming of 4C by 2100. How we doing on that? Will we have to start interpolating from Bermuda to reach our goal?

Bob Tisdale has done a thorough analysis of cowtan and junior:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/on-cowtan-and-ray-2013-coverage-bias-in-the-hadcrut4-temperature-series-and-its-impact-on-recent-temperature-trends/

The punchline:

“The datasets produced by Cowtan and Way (2013) do not appear to provide polar amplification for the period of 1979 to 2004, because the HADCRUT4 data warmed faster than the Cowtan and Way (2013) data before 2005. See the discussions of Figures 3, 4 and 5.

Increasing polar-amplified warming in the Arctic does not help climate models, which show poor polar amplification results. Refer to the discussions of Figures 7, 8 and 9.

And due to the differences in the spatial patterns of warming and cooling, using lower troposphere temperatures to infill surface temperature data appears questionable.”

Mosher, are you ever going to give a detailed response to Fank Lansner’s criticisms of the BEST data and methods? Your response on that thread were meek and unsubstantive. Unlike your detailed and plausible defense of junior:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/on-cowtan-and-ray-2013-coverage-bias-in-the-hadcrut4-temperature-series-and-its-impact-on-recent-temperature-trends/

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Generalissimo Skippy

January 27, 2014, 12:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by RB

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Don Monfort

$

0

0

‘Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/HadCRUT4vCERES_zpse5107cfd.png.html?sort=3&o=27

And there appears to be larger variability earlier in the 1998/2001 climate shift – captured by a couple of methods. Unless the modes and variability of TOA flux is understood – it all seems a colossal waste of time.

Indeed surface temperature seems a colossal waste of time in itself in understanding climate. Important only in terms of local weather and complicated by differing lapse rates over land and oceans. What would seem to matter more – wrt climate and not weather – is the total energy content of the oceans and atmosphere. The former is fragmentary prior to ARGO and the latter is assessable only with satellites.

The available ARGO record to June 2013 is showing annual and interannual variability but it would seem vain to make much of it.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/237f9f0f-7543-40dc-bec5-ead3859d7758_zpse9c0cb59.jpg.html?state=copy

I doubt that much should be made of the satellite record either.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2013_v5.6.png

What seems more interesting is the change in ocean and atmospheric circulation that occurred in the 1998/2001 climate shift – climate shifts are a relatively new concept but one that is central to understanding climate. The presumption is that this contributed to warming between 1976 and 1998 and is counteracting warming influences now. These patterns persist for 20 to 40 years in the long proxy records.

The changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation are associated with changes in cloud cover and therefore the global energy budget and the complications that Loeb et al 2012 discuss in their paper.

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by RB

January 27, 2014, 12:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Generalissimo Skippy

$

0

0

Wow, those Deltoid links are quite something. Meanwhile I confirmed that McKitrick is indeed listed under economists <a href="http://citec.repec.org/p/m/pmc85.html" rel="nofollow"> with an h-index of 7 </a>. What to make of that? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index" rel="nofollow"> Wikipedia </a> says: <blockquote> The London School of Economics found that professors in the social sciences had average h-indices ranging from 2.8 (in law) to 7.6 (in economics). </blockquote> Presumably the averages include economists of all years of experience.

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

January 27, 2014, 12:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Howard

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by RB

$

0

0

Oh man that’s funny, Barry.

---

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Howard

January 27, 2014, 12:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

$

0

0

Just because you are some sort of New-Age *Intuit* doesn’t mean you see all that clearly. In any event, your one recent paper does not constitute settled science. It might end up being A#1 correct, but you can’t expect people (other than your sick-o-fants at SkepSci) to serve it up to Congress as gospel before it’s been fully vetted.

I left off self-adsorbed from Drama Queen… sorry about that, Chief.

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Joshua

January 27, 2014, 12:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Hans Erren

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Howard

$

0

0

Tenney -

As you know, Lewandowsky has done research on this and the results strongly suggest that conspiracy ideation is more prevalent among certain groups than it is among others,

As far as I am familiar with Lewandowsky’s work, which isn’t very far, it seems to me that it shows that there is some association of conspiratorial ideation and climate “skepticism,” but fails to address in a scientific manner the question of whether it predominates, relatively in “skeptics” as compared to “realists.”

I see conspiratorial ideation expressed quite often by my much beloved “skeptics” here at Climate Etc. – so I don’t really feel like I need Lewandowsky’s evidence to support such a conclusion, but: (1) I think that while it is often expressed, it is likely that such expressions of conspiratorial ideation are often only skin deep – and that if you probed more deeply, you’d find that it was mostly back-slapping, yuk-it-up rhetorical hyperbole of the sort we saw from NW in this thread. Although his comment suggested such, I doubt that he really believes that individual commenters here were responding because something had been “deemed urgent” by some unspecified “deemers,” and, (2) it seems to me that you might be drawing conclusions from Lewandowsky’s research that (assuming you find his research methodology to be valid – which some seem to question) are not supported by the evidence he offered: Evidence that informs the question of whether conspiracy ideation is relatively more prevalent on the “skeptical” side than the “realist” side.

My own personal bias is that conspiracy ideation, and offering hyperbolic rhetoric is not disproporationate on one side of the climate wars compared to the other, and further, that what we know about human psychology and cognition would make such an outcome implausible.

Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Hans Erren

January 27, 2014, 12:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Joshua

$

0

0

Fan of more: The selfproclaimed “most comprehensive process in science review” doesn’t adhere itself to elementary rules of science. ONLY when the IPCC fully has implemented the IAC recommendations on transparency of the process I will start looking seriously at at any publication by the IPCC. Until then it’s GIGO green lobbyism..

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Joshua

January 27, 2014, 12:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Tim

≪ Previous: Comment on Death(?) of expertise by Hans Erren

$

0

0

<blockquote>What I mean is, if your going to lock up Steyn for calling someone a fraud (liar, creep, nimrod, sex offender), consistency will require that most of the staff at the Daily Kos follow him into the slammer.</blockquote> Good lord, the drama-queening on this issue is really out of control. What was that Howard said? Oh, here it is: <blockquote>Just what the world needs, another Climate Drama Queen. </blockquote>

Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Tim

January 27, 2014, 12:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann versus Steyn by Joshua

$

0

0

Yeesh David. That is some pretty caustic rhetoric there. It will be forgotten within seconds by the readers of it, but it lives in your head, just sayin’.