I should point out that <a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/05/uq-and-climate-change-research" rel="nofollow">the public statement by the University of Queensland makes it very clear</a> that they regard the raters as human participants who should be afforded protection:
<blockquote>[…]. All data relating to the “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature” paper that are of any scientific value were published on the website Skepticalscience.com in 2013.
Only information that might be used to identify the individual research participants was withheld.
This was in accordance with University ethical approval specifying that the identity of participants should remain confidential.
</blockquote>
Note the information that was withheld was the subjects information associated with the ratings done by Cooks group, not the information associated with the authors survey. There is no way to parse this public statement in any other way than the University of Queensland clearly perceived the individuals performing the ratings in Cooks group to be human participants who needed protection.
Comment on Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions? by Carrick
↧
↧
Comment on Role of Atlantic warming(?) in recent climate shifts by climatereason
This was in the first few paragraphs.
‘Abstract. An unprecedented strengthening of Pacific trade winds since the late 1990s has caused widespread climate perturbations’
Since the 1990’s? So what. Is that how far back researchers need to go back to claim something is wrong.
Is the rest of the paper better? Is it worth reading or does it all revolve that absurdly recent observation?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Role of Atlantic warming(?) in recent climate shifts by AK
That's part of the problem with people's thinking. Why do they have to be <i>"giant ants"</i>? Why not regular-sized ants, just lots more of them?
↧
Comment on Role of Atlantic warming(?) in recent climate shifts by vukcevic
Lot is written about N. Atlantic quasi periodic variability (‘oscillation’) and possibly far less understood.
Chain of the events does not start with the AMO. The North Atlantic and the Arctic ocean floors are slowly splitting up, and (presumably) have an effect the Icelandic low (semi-permanent atmospheric pressure system), which is in phase with the tectonics of the area, and advances the N. Atlantic SST by number of years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EAS.htm
On the other side of the globe the North and the Central Pacific tectonics work in a push-pull coupled arrangement, (presumably) driving the Aleutian Low and the Southern oscillation atmospheric pressure systems, and the most likely alone bear responsibility for the Pacific SST variability which is very little if anything to do the AMO.
For the origin of all the ‘oscillations’ one has to look within the earth’s interior (decadal magnetic changes are a good proxy), the fact that they go in and out of the phase is most likely linked to internal differential rotation (see fig.5 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/143/3/777.full.pdf J.Dickey et al)
↧
Comment on Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions? by Brandon Shollenberger
Carrick, six entries in the authors’ self-ratings data file were withheld to prevent the authors from being identified. I suspect those six entries are all the University of Queensland is referring to. I think they’ve simply been misled into believing that’s the only relevant data which has been withheld.
Of course, there’s no need to assume that. Your interpretation fits, and it doesn’t require assuming the statement is false. That might make it a more reasonable interpretation. Either way, the University of Queensland has problems.
↧
↧
Comment on Role of Atlantic warming(?) in recent climate shifts by AK
I also find it very interesting how even climate models <i>"forced with the global observed SST trend (shading)"</i> (<b>c</b> and <b>d</b>) and <i>"forced with the Atlantic SST trend and a Pacific mixed layer"</i> (<b>e</b> and <b>f</b>) in <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate2330_F1.html" rel="nofollow">Figure 1: Trends (1992–2011) of SST, SLP, wind stress and relative precipitation</a> fail to replicate the <b>observed</b> <i>"relative precipitation trends (colour scale) and significant wind stress trends[30] (N m−2 yr−1) significant above the 95% level (vector)."</i> Take a look at the differences between panel <b>b</b> (observed) and panels <b>d</b> and <b>e</b> (modeled). It totally confounds me how anybody could regard the output of these models as anything but a preliminary baby step towards understanding how the system actually works.
↧
Comment on Role of Atlantic warming(?) in recent climate shifts by Adam Gallon
We’re now at 30 “reasons”, including this paper. Let’s get all 30 groups into a room and let them argue it out as to which one is “right”.
Now, that’d be fun.
↧
Comment on Role of Atlantic warming(?) in recent climate shifts by nottawa rafter
We need to better understand
Great advice for every warmist. Not, we have this baby down pat.
The dichotomy between skeptics and warmists.
↧
Comment on Role of Atlantic warming(?) in recent climate shifts by nottawa rafter
Jim D
Past centuries…. add a few 0s and you may have something interesting to discuss.
↧
↧
Comment on Role of Atlantic warming(?) in recent climate shifts by Tomas Milanovic
The article being behind pay wall, I just read what could be seen at the Nature site.
This is typically a “paper” of the kind we have been discussing in the Kardashian thread.
.
Let us see :
– they had to be 7 to produce 4 pages
– colored pictures in numbers but 0 equation
– the colored pictures are produced by a GCM (easiest and fastest way to produce colored pictures with an Earth map on them)
– no physical interpretation of the numerical “experiments” is provided
– despite the fact that the 7 authors explicitely say at one point that the GCM underestimated the wind stresses by a factor 3, it doesn’t stop them from going on. An inquiring reader is bound to ask at that stage what other parameterss are off by a factor 3 or 5.
– accompanying hype about unprecedented phenomena (Note : unprecedented here means not being seen since early 1990ies …)
.
I think we can safely add these 4 pages to the useless mountain of pseudo scientific musings containing no value and no progress.
I vaguely remember that some time ago we were told that the GW would weaken the trade winds – this result was of course based on numerical “experiments”.
Today we are told that based on other numerical “experiments” they will strengthen.
It is only a matter of time untill 14 authors (they must be at least 2 times more) will prove that based on unprecedented numerical “experiments” they will weaken.
And as was rightly said that “causality is a very difficult concept in spatio-temporal chaos”, this little game can go on for a long time providing occupation to otherwise idle computers and to the scientists who feed them.
.
Nonwithstanding the uselessness of this paper, I agree with Judith that oceanic oscilations and more specifically the AMO belong to the defining spatial patterns that dominate the climate dynamics.
Understanding their interactions is certainly a clue for advance but this understanding will not come from running this or that GCM on a computer even if I must admit that they are good in producing colorful pictures.
.
You may even parameter the colors what is doubtlessly unprecedented :)
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by rls
JimD: Conservatives disagree with liberals on tax policy but not for the reason you think. Conservatives want a policy that will support economic growth, reduce government corruption, and reduce crony capitalism. Your mind reading ability is seriously lacking. Or maybe you’ve been subjected to too much propaganda.
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by GaryM
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by GaryM
Well, the White House believes in intellectual diversity. Just not of the progressive/conservative kind.
↧
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by cwon14
It seems Dr. Curry’s purpose to negotiate the surrender of climate extremism in some face saving way. This isn’t going to happen of course, she’s been catching up on that point for sometime.
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by Jim D
There’s democracy and there’s idiocy. Suppressing science is just plain censoring and government overreach. They didn’t like the results and possible political consequences, so that is what they did.
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by NW
And this government’ still doing it, according to one of my colleagues who worked with some (still secret) randomized controlled trials on some social program or other, and they (the current administration’s folks) didn’t like the results, so they are sitting on them. He is sworn to secrecy of course.
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by Jim D
GaryM, you need to catch up. Your view is something from the 1960’s. Read some books on the subject.
↧
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by cwon14
Tetlock, another middling academic liberal if you do the research, sort of triggered a minor mental and board breakdown Joshua. His basic thesis, requiring about 28000 samples was that experts are no more effective in making predictions then throwing darts or asking your barber;
One good synopsis of 20th century history and he could have saves the costs of the samples.
You’re post is the usual muddle, that the IPCC is a creature of state interests. That climate academics are largely ideologically uniform to expanding state controls and activism is reduced to pointless comparison on a blog post?
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by Joshua
cwon –
Did you read his findings with respect to the correlation between political orientation and the veracity of experts’ predictions?
↧
Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by cwon14
We’ve really never had a situation where middling government workers such as Jim Hansen or Gavin Schmidt and the many more stealth activists have turned their jobs into full time political operations where they assumed “untouchable” as they dress their politics as “science”.
It’s untenable for the democracy and a broad decline of science in the process.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
