He can, He has, Reference this - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/d ... nsitivity/.Josh Cryer wrote:Spencer cannot demonstrate why he believes climate sensitivity is lower, either. He just says so. If he felt it really was lower than what the best models and the best data can come up with, then he should write a paper.
Yes.More rain at night than during the day? Do you have a reputable (peer reviewed or not) cite for that?
Unfortunately "skeptics" tend to lead me to the peer review in search of actual answers, so I'm not too inclined to find their statements very credible.I would especially give weight to an article by a sceptic (argument against interest).
The peer review should always allow for comments on papers.The implication of statement (1) above is that LC09 basically skated through the peer-review process unchanged, and the selected reviewers had no problems with the paper. This, and for GRL to summarily reject all comments on LC09 appears extremely sketchy.
During this period, summer afternoon precipitation frequency increased by 30−60% in the Southwest and decreased by 15−30% in the Southeast.
Josh,and Precipitation has increased by 10% across the contiguous United States since 1910 and the increase is reflected primarily in the heavy and extreme daily precipitation events[Karl and Knight, 1998].
One of the participants in the Hide The Decline scandal. Until that gets sorted and all the papers of the participants gone over with a fine tooth comb I'm afraid any one who uses their papers to prove a case has to fall into the not proven category.(e.g. Trenberth, 1998;
And we know the peer review process was corrupted.Unfortunately "skeptics" tend to lead me to the peer review in search of actual answers, so I'm not too inclined to find their statements very credible.
I could give you more cites on how skeptics were kept out of the process. But one is enough.In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
I just gave evidence of the falsity of that statement.If Lindzen and Choi (2009) could get published, then there is obviouisly no conspiracy that "skeptics" aren't allowed in the litratature. Indeed, what was first pointed out with Lindzen and Choi's paper was the fact that they weren't even considering emissivity (a part of the equation that many skeptics or "alternate theory" people like Nordel leave out).
andUPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
links to the evidence for the statements is at the above url.You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."
Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."
The numbers refer to the identifiers on the ClimateGate e-mails.Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460)
[Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
• Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
Doesn't have to be a conspiracy Josh. Just a confluence of interest:Trenberth compiled the paper, he did not acquire the data sources, which are gathered by many tens of thousands of climate people and weather men in the world. I suppose the conspiracy must go so deep as to involve all of these people.
Jones and Mann are being investigated for misconduct. It is a start.BTW, it is clear to me that you have little knowledge of the peer review process, because if there was corruption at the level you allege, then there would be mass firings. The scientific community does not take misconduct lightly.
Aynsley Kellow: It's not the way scientists should behave and, indeed, I must say that most of the climate scientists that I know here in Hobart don't behave in this kind of way, at least not that I see. But it's more than just some colourful language between climate scientists. The emails and the data released include some of the computer code that they've used to manipulate the raw data, and I'm afraid that they indicate modes of operation that should be anathema to any decent scientist.
Michael Duffy: Can I just ask you to explain to our listeners why this code is so important, because I don't think a lot of people are aware of it.
Aynsley Kellow: Almost everything in climate science is not raw data by the time we see it, it's been subject to manipulating using computer code and so on, and there are now some details...listeners who are familiar with the hockey stick controversy might realise that Michael Mann, the author on that paper and one of the people mixed up in these emails, as indeed was Gavin Schmidt of course, so they're trying to defend their reputations so he would say that, wouldn't he...but he steadfastly refused requests to make his code available.
And now of course we've got access to that code and we can see, for example, that they were quite well aware in what they were doing in excluding results from their analysis beyond the 1980s because there was a divergence between what the tree ring proxies were showing and what they knew the temperature to be. And the computer program has written very nicely for us saying that they're stopping the analysis at 1980 and they'll fill in the other results since then manually. This is in many ways worse than many of us expected when we knew about this case from the outside without access to these kinds of exchanges.
So it's certainly not just the case of some colourful language being expressed in emails amongst scientists. What you have is evidence of a quite clear willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, you've got a resistance to any notion of transparency, an active resistance to freedom of information requests or quite reasonable requests from scientists to have a look at data so that it can be verified.
You ought to read the whole thing Josh. It might (I doubt it) open your eyes.Michael Duffy: Aynsley, many in the Schmidt camp maintain that this scandal of the emails does nothing to change the fundamentals of the science of manmade climate change. What's your assessment of that argument?
Aynsley Kellow: Well, it depends how far back you want to go in the fundamentals of climate science or at least of anthropogenic forcing in climate science. What we do know, the basic physics tells us that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does cause a modest forcing of temperature, but it's subject to saturation and it decays rapidly, and most of the temperature increase from that effect alone, from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we've already seen. The key in all the modelling is the assumption that we've got correct an important positive feedback mechanism which is that a slightly warmer world will produce more water vapour and the water vapour itself is the source of most of the future forcing.
Just by way of an interesting example, Garth Paltridge, who is in Hobart here and has now retired, did a paper looking at all the weather balloon data which is available for about 50 years and couldn't find much evidence that as the Earth had warmed slightly that vital increase in water vapour was there. He eventually had it published but when it was first submitted for publication it was rejected on the basis that the message that it would send would give too much encouragement to sceptics, which really just draws attention to the need to open up the scientific process, to deal with this kind of attempt to politicise it, to suppress views that are inconvenient, because unless we very quickly establish and re-establish some quality assurance mechanisms in the conduct of climate science then we're heading for a potentially very costly...either way a very costly set of policy responses based on some science in which we can have much less faith now than we had in the past.
Michael Duffy: Another thing Schmidt says in his defence is there's no evidence in the emails of any worldwide conspiracy. But once again it struck me that there was actually discussion between people in England and America about how to frustrate British FOI law, one way being by destroying documents.
Aynsley Kellow: Yes, and that, if it has occurred of course...I mean, what's being talked about is advocating that the law be broken because if the documents are subject to FOI in the UK then to willingly destroy them rather than...I mean, we all occasionally probably purge our email, but we know in universities that our email is subject to FOI request, it's subject to discovery should a student have a legal case against the university, we're prohibited from running around and destroying stuff, we're supposed to archive it properly, it's supposed to be there so that some disgruntled student can actually see what was written about them. This is standard practice for most of us, but this bunch seem to think that they're somehow above those sorts of restraints.
Well yes it is.Josh Cryer wrote:Scientists are humans. The scientific method is assured by independent review and comparison. We know that, for instance, the NOAAs antarctic temperature readings are collaborated by IceCube. NOAAs temperature record is still called in to question. Why? Because non-scientific thought processes are prevalent on the internet.
Spoken like a true engineer.If airplanes were built the way GISS and CRU do climate science I would not live within 100 miles of an airport or major airway. (I doubt any airplane designed that way would make it more than 100 miles, so that ought to be a safe limit ;-)
The one thing that has been driven home to me more than anything else in this whole “Global Warming” technical investigation is just how much more rigorous Engineering is when compared to “science” and “research”.
But maybe I’m biased. Dad was a “combat engineer” and if you screwed up even a little bit, people died. (One guy stacked some enemy tank mines they were removing from a field “one too high”… Dad tackled his buddy in time to prevent his death from flying “debris”… Another time they got a bridge built from “found materials” (and under fire) in time for our tanks to cross. If they had done the math wrong, tanks would have been swimming on the bottom of the river.) The kind of “stuff” done in “climate science” would have gotten someone’s heads knocked together… or they would have been assigned to “mine clearing duty” for a while and the survivors would be kept…
For me, “Science” has gone from a “High Holy” to a “One step removed from Nintendo Nerds”. I have no idea if it will ever recover that former status, but I doubt it.
I now read “peer reviewed papers” with a eye to who is who’s buddy and what journal is in the pocket of whom; and I now read the “public science magazines” with the same level of trust and belief that I give to science fiction magazines. It is, until proven otherwise, just marketing and PR fluff hustling for the next grant.
Ah. Josh. We have probable cause to believe the data has been tampered with. (dodgy code) And then we have Jones saying he would delete the data before he would release it. And what do you know. CRU announces the data was deleted. Many years ago. So they claim.Josh Cryer wrote:You're right, the data should always be in question, but in this context I am talking about data being questioned without any explanation and with no attempts to improve it. Throw it in to question, and leave it up in the air, so people can "ponder" whether or not the data is good.
In science when data is questioned it is always under the guise of improvement and refinement, because to *prove that data is wrong you have to show how it can be made right.*
Newtons observations were wrong, it has taken telescopic observations and many thousands of experiments to continually prove it wrong.
And here we have engineers sitting around claiming they are "more rigorous" while questioning data points without any explanation.