Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

AGW and rising sea levels

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 06:34   #126
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
The public profile shows that I'm a retired NASA senior scientist with a specialty in statistical modeling. My Ph.D. is in mathematical psychology. My last 10 yrs. at NASA-Ames were spent researching helicopter vibrations using multivariate time-series analysis, and principal components decomposition. Ten+ co-authored articles in that area can be downloaded in PDF form by searching on "Edward Huff, NASA" using Google Scholar. My co-authors were all experts with a Ph.D. in computational modeling, database management, artificial intelligence, or mathematical analysis.
A doctorate in psychology, a degree almost as irrelevant to climate science as mine (Ph.D, prehistoric archeology). But I do thank you for your civil response to my rather snotty question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
On an earlier thread I posted the attached article which tested critically the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “& The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. My endorsement is the very last one at the end. No newspaper articles will be written about it for obvious reasons. But, if the outcome were different I'm confident it would have showed up in the NYT.
I note that the hot spot article hasn't gone unchallenged by later researchers (cf. https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climat...heric-hot.html).

I have to say, however, that your NYT remark is a cheap shot. There's no left-wing plot against natural causation; the politics are all on the other side, with the fossil-fuel interests and "free enterprise" cranks. If there was respectable mainstream research making a serious case against AGW, the Times (and other "liberal" media) would certainly publish it.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Saturday 1st April 2017 at 06:39.
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 08:18   #127
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
A doctorate in psychology, a degree almost as irrelevant to climate science as mine (Ph.D, prehistoric archeology). But I do thank you for your civil response to my rather snotty question.

I note that the hot spot article hasn't gone unchallenged by later researchers (cf. https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climat...heric-hot.html).

I have to say, however, that your NYT remark is a cheap shot. There's no left-wing plot against natural causation; the politics are all on the other side, with the fossil-fuel interests and "free enterprise" cranks. If there was respectable mainstream research making a serious case against AGW, the Times (and other "liberal" media) would certainly publish it.
The Tropical Hot Spot paper was published in August 2016. The Environmental Research Letter you referred to was published in 2015, and addressed a somewhat different subject. It could hardly have been a "challenge made by later researchers." You obviously didn't read either paper, much less understand them.

Some thought might be given to how someone who feels "irrelevant to climate science," like yourself, can still feel competent to judge someone else's qualifications. Similarly, the last statement is also inane, considering the current polarized political environment.

Goodbye,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Saturday 1st April 2017 at 09:22.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 12:02   #128
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 763
Hi all,

Bit busy chasing my own two possums this weekend, but if I get a moment I'll do my best to respond :)
I have a degree in Earth Science & paleoclimatology, but have since moved into biochemistry and am now working on human disease mechanisms believe it or not (in addition to the odd algal or environmental chemistry project).
So I would not consider myself an expert in the field, but do have a decent background in natural sciences and biogeochemistry. For my research profile just Google Brandsma & Southampton.

Looking forward to a good (and mature) discussion!

Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 17:33   #129
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
The Tropical Hot Spot paper was published in August 2016. The Environmental Research Letter you referred to was published in 2015, and addressed a somewhat different subject. It could hardly have been a "challenge made by later researchers." You obviously didn't read either paper, much less understand them.

Some thought might be given to how someone who feels "irrelevant to climate science," like yourself, can still feel competent to judge someone else's qualifications. Similarly, the last statement is also inane, considering the current polarized political environment.

Goodbye,
Ed
You are right, of course, about the papers, which I didn't read but simply skimmed over to get the gist, and I apologize for my carelessness in getting the dates wrong. Mea culpa, no excuses! It serves me right, in fact, since I seldom read the primary literature on subjects, particularly highly technical ones, outside my areas of expertise but rely on the consensus opinion of the experts. And this, of course, to return to the practical for a moment--and the causes of GW is a thoroughly practical subject with huge real-world implications--is what the vast majority of responsible voters do when confronted with the necessity of deciding between courses of action involving complex science beyond their capacity (for whatever reason) to properly evaluate. What other sensible option do they (we) have?

You are wrong, dead wrong, however, about "politicization" which as I've already pointed out is entirely on one side. What possible motive could the "liberal elites" have in promoting AGW? Insofar as research supporting your position goes unreported in the NYT and other mainstream media, it's simply because it's so minor in impact as to fall below the radar of general interest publications. But you've made your predilection for conspiracy theories obvious in other posts and I don't expect to change your mind here.

And please no more "goodbyes" and "I'm outta heres" unless you really mean them.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 18:46   #130
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
You are right, of course, about the papers, which I didn't read but simply skimmed over to get the gist, and I apologize for my carelessness in getting the dates wrong. Mea culpa, no excuses! It serves me right, in fact, since I seldom read the primary literature on subjects, particularly highly technical ones....
Some of us knew this all along. You've been too busy spell checking or questioning funding to actually read the substance of postings.

Ed, I personally hope you don't allow the personal barbs to discourage and you'll stick around. Those of us without your scientific acumen really appreciate the postings.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 19:31   #131
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
You are right, of course, about the papers, which I didn't read but simply skimmed over to get the gist, and I apologize for my carelessness in getting the dates wrong. Mea culpa, no excuses! It serves me right, in fact, since I seldom read the primary literature on subjects, particularly highly technical ones, outside my areas of expertise but rely on the consensus opinion of the experts. And this, of course, to return to the practical for a moment--and the causes of GW is a thoroughly practical subject with huge real-world implications--is what the vast majority of responsible voters do when confronted with the necessity of deciding between courses of action involving complex science beyond their capacity (for whatever reason) to properly evaluate. What other sensible option do they (we) have?

You are wrong, dead wrong, however, about "politicization" which as I've already pointed out is entirely on one side. What possible motive could the "liberal elites" have in promoting AGW? Insofar as research supporting your position goes unreported in the NYT and other mainstream media, it's simply because it's so minor in impact as to fall below the radar of general interest publications. But you've made your predilection for conspiracy theories obvious in other posts and I don't expect to change your mind here.

And please no more "goodbyes" and "I'm outta heres" unless you really mean them.
Perhaps my predilection for conspiracy theory is obvious to you but I have little control over your perception. In 2015 I wrote this to MJB., which speaks for itself. And as you can also see I was not evasive or timid about my scientific background.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 19:34   #132
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
...

Ed, I personally hope you don't allow the personal barbs to discourage and you'll stick around. Those of us without your scientific acumen really appreciate the postings.
Many thanks.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 19:39   #133
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
Some of us knew this all along. You've been too busy spell checking or questioning funding to actually read the substance of postings.
The lions quarrel and the jackals come slinking round. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 20:13   #134
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Perhaps my predilection for conspiracy theory is obvious to you but I have little control over your perception
See, e. g., your post #61, this thread, in which you posit an unholy alliance between self-serving pseudo-scientists and sleazy politicians. Not an actual conspiracy theory, I suppose, but thoroughly discreditable in itself and hardly a model of dispassionate scientific analysis.

You're on a sinking ship, my friend. Time to admit it, don't you think?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 21:20   #135
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Your annoyance at Chosun's rejection of an "in depth scientific [methodology] review," doesn't square with your own dismissive comments about of the Easterbrook paper, which is an in depth scientific review of natural climate cycles.
Well, I've only got time for a quick reply but there is no way the Easterbrook chapter you present (from his own book "Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming") can be called scientific. I'll happily overlook the fact that it looks like a piece of work cobbled together by a 16 year old and I can even get over the subjective writing style ("the lame excuse...", "have failed badly" etc.). However, beyond that it is an opinion piece, and by an infamous character at that (going on second hand sources here, but this gives you a flavour: https://www.skepticalscience.com/don...f-reality.html).
Now I am a very open-minded person and if anyone presents me with some solid data contradicting existing theory then I think that should be considered very carefully. If the data says "nope" then you probably have to amend your theory. But this is the kind of stuff Easterbrook offers:
"The average winter temperature at the South Pole is -60 C (-76 F) and the average summer temperature is -27.5 C (-17.5 F). [...] The average daily temperature is -55.1 C (-67.2 F) at Vostock and -49.4 -C (-57 -F) at the south pole. In order to get any significant amount of Antarctic ice to melt, temperatures would have to rise above the melting point, i.e., more than 100 F. Thus, claims of large scale melting of the Antarctic ice sheet are highly exaggerated."
First of all, he omits to mention that whether a glacier exists somewhere depends on an interplay between temperature, seasonal duration, precipitation patterns, wind etc. Iceland's glaciers are a great example of this (i.e. no ice cap on the relatively dry northern Trollaskagi peninsula, but instead the Vatnajokull further south because precipitation there is much higher). Large ice caps also shape their own microclimate to a degree. But instead of pointing this out to the reader, Easterbrook simply chooses to state it's all down to temperature, which is either ignorant or disingenuous (or if it is a simplification to cushion the reader then there is no way he can sustain his argument). So, a 100 F increase would be needed to get "any significant amount of Antarctic ice to melt". That statement is only true if the average daily temperature for all of Antarctica is -55 C (-67 F). But that is the value for the coldest and most isolated central part of the continent; everywhere else has (much) higher averages and therefore requires much less heating. Again, is this ignorance, simply not thinking through the argument, or misrepresentation? Does he use the many readily available data repositories about the antarctic ice sheets? No. Does he discuss the multitude of studies about glacial/ice sheet dynamics, and ones about the Antarctic in particular to give a balanced view of the scientific consensus (including observations that don't fit!)? No. We just get two pretty pictures, the second of which is out of date by the way (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07669.html).
I mean, I could go on and on but this is representative of the entire chapter (and from what I understand the entire book).
Sorry Ed, but you'll have to try much harder than that :)

About the other piece you posted, I take it this was not peer reviewed? (couldn't find it anywhere else than blog posts on Google). I'm not a modeler and my maths is pretty rubbish, so I can't really comment on the contents I'm afraid. What did strike me though is the dearth of references to other studies or even protocols, and the difficulty in tracing the source data used for the exercise (esp. Table II-1 - although some are linked later on in the manuscript). And I stumbled over this bit in particular:
"Finally, it should be noted that every effort was made to minimize complaints that this analysis was performed on so-called “cherry picked temperature time series”. To avoid even the appearance of such activity, the authors divided up responsibilities, where Dr. Christy was tasked to provide a tropical temperature data set that he felt was most appropriate and credible for testing the THS hypothesis". In other words, the second author was tasked to cherry pick, and no other reason than his personal judgement is given for the selection. If some sort of reason had been given or discussion presented, then at least I could have scrutinised it as an outsider.
I'll leave it at that for now as it's getting late, but perhaps you would like to comment on all of that? (and apologies for the ramble - a long post after all!)

Cheers,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Saturday 1st April 2017 at 21:22.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 21:31   #136
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
Some of us knew this all along. You've been too busy spell checking or questioning funding to actually read the substance of postings.

Ed, I personally hope you don't allow the personal barbs to discourage and you'll stick around. Those of us without your scientific acumen really appreciate the postings.
Litebeam, I hope my previous posting will show you that I do actually (try to!) argue based on the content of what is posted here. Scientific acumen works both ways, as it should. Ultimately that's what science is about: a logical framework for examining evidence and presenting arguments, leading to (current) best interpretations of objective reality. I hope you'll stick around for the discussion and keep an open mind about either side's arguments!

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 21:34   #137
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
Joost, thanks for your reply, courtesy, and links. I will be happy to engage, and give a bit more detail later this w/e, but for now I'm off to wrangle possums out of the ceiling and do repairs ...... grrr


Chosun
Oh courtesy and the internet, don't get me started!
Hope you'll find the discussion engaging and I'm keen to hear any points or criticisms you want to raise.
How did you possum-exorcism go? I'm visiting OZ for the first time in June and can't wait for all the new birds!

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 22:44   #138
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
See, e. g., your post #61, this thread, in which you posit an unholy alliance between self-serving pseudo-scientists and sleazy politicians. Not an actual conspiracy theory, I suppose, but thoroughly discreditable in itself and hardly a model of dispassionate scientific analysis.

You're on a sinking ship, my friend. Time to admit it, don't you think?
Here is post #61.
Quote:
Dr. Richard Lindzen described what's going on in climate science several years ago, and I share his view. By definition, 'climate scientists' are not mainstream scientists at all. For one thing they don't acknowledge that science requires predictions to be verified against real world data obtained by independent scientists (not just their academic buddies). We recall that Einstein said that it would take only one experiment to prove his theory wrong; AGW theory (as expressed above) has been proven wrong repeatedly. But research funding comes from politicians, and politicians aren't scientists (with exceptions), and the show goes on.

Some time back, at your request, I posted a very fine scientific analysis, which I officially endorsed, concerning what turned out to be IPCC's non-existent "tropical hot spot." Such materials are ignored by climate scientists. That community is completely insular.
Nope. Not a word (or thought) was said about "conspiracy," "sleazy politicians," or "pseudo-scientists*" and it's very consistent with what I said in 2015, which described the academic-political mechanism that gives rise to an insular and polarized situation. For some reason you're trying to fit me into a niche like "liberal" or "conservative," and then apply attributes like "conspiracist" or "denier" to demonize everyone in the niche.

Hopefully, the Liberal party of the future will be liberal- or open-minded as well, and Govt. will go out of its way to fund both sides of any important scientific debate that has strong policy consequences. (The Conservative party should be similarly open-minded.) That is not easy to do because every agency has a political appointee sitting at the top (as we are learning), and NASA/NOAA are executive agencies, i.e., they report to the President. So it is important to have bi-partisan legislation that puts such a policy into effect for all Govt. science organizations, because science should be apolitical.

However it my sound to you Fugl, I do know what I'm trying to say, and I accept responsibility for not expressing it clearly. Believe what you wish, but there is no conspiracy lurking behind anything I've said. Let's hear something more constructive from you than simply a check-list of accusations.

Ed
* In 2015 I said:
Quote:
"Fraud," "conspiracy" or "cabals" are unnecessary hypotheses to understand what's happened in this area. In my view the scientists who support AGW theory are quite sincere.
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Sunday 2nd April 2017 at 01:55.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 22:47   #139
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Litebeam, I hope my previous posting will show you that I do actually (try to!) argue based on the content of what is posted here. Scientific acumen works both ways, as it should. Ultimately that's what science is about: a logical framework for examining evidence and presenting arguments, leading to (current) best interpretations of objective reality. I hope you'll stick around for the discussion and keep an open mind about either side's arguments!

J
Yes, it does, J.
It's refreshing to see guys from either side respectfully consider a counter-point.

I do plan on hanging around, and I'll strive to do the same.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 23:52   #140
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Nope. What a mind you have! Not a word (or thought) was said about "conspiracy," "sleazy politicians," or "pseudo-scientists" and it's very consistent with what I said in 2015, which described the academic/political mechanism that gives rise to an insular and polarized situation. You're trying to fit me into some niche like "liberal" or "conservative," and then apply attributes like "conspiracist" or "denier" to demonize everyone in the niche. Unfortunately, that attitude has now come full circle and our collective reward is the present administration.
This from the post in question. .
"By definition, 'climate scientists' are not mainstream scientists at all. . .".
For one thing they don't acknowledge that science requires predictions to be verified against real world data obtained by independent scientists (not just their academic buddies). We recall that Einstein said that it would take only one experiment to prove his theory wrong. . . ".

When you get a moment you might explain to us the distinction between "not mainstream scientists at all" and "pseudo". And "academic buddies", for shame--simply the argumentum ad hominem writ large!

And, puhleez, have the grace to leave Einstein out of our low-level squabbling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Hopefully, the liberal party of the future will also be liberal- or open-minded, and its Govt. will go out of its way to meticulously fund both sides of an important scientific debate that has extreme policy consequences.
"Metticulously fund both sides"? I'm bemused! Are you implying that the Obama administration was actually out to prove AGW? Why on earth would it want to do that? Or are you simply stating the obvious truth that the Trump administration is currently out to do the opposite?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 2nd April 2017, 00:07   #141
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,456
Fugl,

Note that I edited #138 (which was a draft that posted unintentionally ) before I saw your response on #140. So please revise #140 accordingly. I'm not going continue this interchange with you because it's unproductive, so you can believe whatever you wish.
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Sunday 2nd April 2017 at 00:56.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 2nd April 2017, 01:13   #142
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
I'm not going continue this interchange with you because it's unproductive. . ..
Dto. Definitely wrung dry I would say!. Til next time. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 2nd April 2017, 01:22   #143
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,456
Joost,

Many thanks for Post #135. I'll get back to you after it percolates a bit. For starters, I don't wish to defend Easterbrook, but simply to ask for a better explanation of climate cycles and how (or if) they relate to hypothesized AGW? He seems to think we're basically in a natural long-term cycle rather than a short-term man-made global emergency. I could be persuaded otherwise, but my default state is to agree with him.

I'll respond in greater detail to the other study, which is more my area of expertise.

Thanks,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Sunday 2nd April 2017 at 02:11.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 2nd April 2017, 09:48   #144
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Perhaps my predilection for conspiracy theory is obvious to you but I have little control over your perception. In 2015 I wrote this to MJB., which speaks for itself. And as you can also see I was not evasive or timid about my scientific background.

Ed
...and you remained courteous, too.
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 2nd April 2017, 15:16   #145
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Silver-lining Department--

"Southern White House" completely underwater later in century
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...mp-v-the-earth
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 2nd April 2017, 23:48   #146
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
...

Now I am a very open-minded person and if anyone presents me with some solid data contradicting existing theory then I think that should be considered very carefully. If the data says "nope" then you probably have to amend your theory.

About the other piece you posted, I take it this was not peer reviewed? (couldn't find it anywhere else than blog posts on Google). I'm not a modeler and my maths is pretty rubbish, so I can't really comment on the contents I'm afraid. What did strike me though is the dearth of references to other studies or even protocols, and the difficulty in tracing the source data used for the exercise (esp. Table II-1 - although some are linked later on in the manuscript). And I stumbled over this bit in particular:
"Finally, it should be noted that every effort was made to minimize complaints that this analysis was performed on so-called “cherry picked temperature time series”. To avoid even the appearance of such activity, the authors divided up responsibilities, where Dr. Christy was tasked to provide a tropical temperature data set that he felt was most appropriate and credible for testing the THS hypothesis". In other words, the second author was tasked to cherry pick, and no other reason than his personal judgement is given for the selection. If some sort of reason had been given or discussion presented, then at least I could have scrutinised it as an outsider.
...
Joost
Joost,

BF readers may be anticipating a "dust-off," but the most we could accomplish is a meaningful exchange of ideas.

Before getting started, would you please clarify your last comments, which I find somewhat ambiguous regarding a willingness to consider the paper worthy of discussion.

I don't understand the awkward cherry picking statement either, but I'm sure it wasn't an open admission of Dr. Christy's guilt. What they did mean is hard to imagine, but later on they say on pg. 66:
Quote:
Given the potential significance of this research, it is appropriate
to question everything about it. Questioning everything is fair
game from 1) the selection of the particular 13 temperature time
series by one of the authors for this analysis to the 2) econometric
parameter estimation methods utilized to 3) the actual models
estimated. On all three, the authors have attempted to be
completely open.
By "completely open" they appear to mean that questions can be directed at them by interested readers. Other databases could also be suggested, but so far I haven't seen their choices disputed.

Peer review deserves a response. This report is an issuance of James Wallace's company, and apparently not submitted for journal publication. Such company reports are very typical for Govt. funded contractors, which often don't find their way into journals. This one was done pro-bono. I am willing to accept the persons listed on pg. 2 as equivalent to reviewers.

Thanks,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Monday 3rd April 2017 at 00:55.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 3rd April 2017, 02:18   #147
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,456
Is this news "fit to print?"

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 3rd April 2017, 02:41   #148
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Is this news "fit to print?"
Interesting but cold comfort to the hardened denier. . ..

"According to project head Werner Schmutz. . . this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. "We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change." But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum."
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Monday 3rd April 2017 at 05:01.
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 3rd April 2017, 04:50   #149
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
Intereresting but cold comfort to the hardened denier. . ..
... referring to you or me?

Chosun might agree that there's finally a silver lining, but:
Quote:
The researchers still have a fair amount of work to do before they have a detailed understanding of the relationship between solar activity and the global climate both in the past and in the future.
— i.e., plump up the research budget, please.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 3rd April 2017, 05:07   #150
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
... referring to you or me?
Who do you think?

[Damn, how on earth did the "intereresting" typo manage to slip through? I get more careless by the minute!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
...plump up the research budget, please.
Yes, by all means, full steam ahead. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Monday 3rd April 2017 at 05:11.
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rising Sun Sets in the South Farnboro John Cetaceans & Marine Life 3 Wednesday 2nd April 2014 19:49
Rising to the challenge (RSPB) BF Newsroom Latest news from the RSPB 0 Thursday 29th March 2012 15:58
Camera Insurance/rising prices simon Equipment Insurance 0 Thursday 22nd January 2009 19:59
Rising sea could end bittern boom (BBC News) BF Newsroom Live Bird News from around the World 12 Saturday 8th March 2008 08:57
Cormorants rising from the ashes.... Jos Stratford Birds & Birding 9 Tuesday 30th November 2004 14:17

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.29483700 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:07.