Can you spot the difference between what they actually said and what WUWT says they said? Can you see the word "between" hiding just before 0.4 and 0.7? Funny how the interpretation of results can alter when you don't try to distort the message.
However nothing we haven't come to expect from those charlatans.
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 17, 2012 23:11:38 GMT 1
from marion, again
Interesting post from Steve McIntyre on homogenisation -
"I expressed a particular concern that Menne’s algorithm might be spreading UHI [Urban Heat Island] warming at low-quality stations to better-quality rural stations through biased detection of changepoints. In a comment on the Berkeley study,which used a similar method, I noted their caveat that the methodology had not been demonstrated against systemic biases (such as widespread UHI)"
The IPCC reports have overestimated even the trivial amount of warming estimated over the last century.
The authors only suggest that the temperature rise may be less than 0.7C. It's clear from their abstract that they are not certain about this.
Other people disagree with their position. Why do you automatically think this paper is right whereas others that disagree with it are wrong? You certainly don't have the technical ability to distinguish between them.
The answer of course is that you make no effort to judge the relative merits of any climate related data, you simply champion anything that contradicts AGW and slate anything that supports it.
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 18, 2012 13:42:13 GMT 1
I don't "automatically" think it's "right", nickrr.
I post this sort of research finding to demonstrate to you who think that the "science is settled" and that "consensus rules" that crap data are still being exposed by "auditors" and that the debate over whether CO2 is the unique culprit for temperature change is very much on-going.
Geddit? This is known as "the scientific method"
I'm surprised you haven't taken a pop at Steirou and Koutsoyiannis for being "deniers" actually, nickrr.
"A posting can be made which simply provides evidence relevant to the discussion" ... then that becomes the argument, the values implicit in that evidence provided. It's the shorthand, or lazy way, to help ones case, like this below, I use Wiki to describe my plea that in fact I'm correct and thus provide the answer, by implication, that the alternative answer/conclusion drawn is incorrect.
"Just as in standard mathematical usage, the argument is thus the actual value passed to a function, procedure, or routine (such as 37 in log(37)), whereas the parameter is a reference to that value inside the implementation of the function (log in this case). See the Parameters and arguments section for more information."
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 20, 2012 16:51:46 GMT 1
Demetris Koutsoyiannis writes:
I believe that science blogs have offered a very powerful means in scientific dialogue, which is a prerequisite of scientific progress. I have very positive personal experiences. In 2008, a poster paper in EGU, “Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series”, was widely discussed at blogs and this was very useful to improve it and produce a peer-reviewed paper, “On the credibility of climate predictions” , which again was widely discussed at blogs. In the follow up paper, “A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data” we incorporated replies to the critiques we have seen in lots of blog comments.
In comparison, the formal peer reviewed system, while in principle encourages post-publication discussion through formal Commentaries and Replies, was able to offer us a single Commentary for the second paper (none for the former), which also gave us the opportunity to clarify our methodology (and feel safer about it) in our reply, “Scientific dialogue on climate: is it giving black eyes or opening closed eyes? Reply to “A black eye for the Hydrological Sciences Journal” by D. Huard”.
.....we plan to produce a peer-reviewed paper (unless we have made a fatal error, which we hope not) and we keep studying the topic more thoroughly. That is why we think that we are lucky to have received all these comments from the blogs. I did not have the time to read them all, let alone to assimilate them, so I will not provide replies here. From first glance I find most of them very useful, whether they are positive or negative.
But of course these are scientific disagreements and it is fine if scientists disagree. Some arguments, though, fall into other categories, such as arguments from authority or ad hominem. Well, I am familiar with such arguments within scientific transactions, formal (paper reviews) or informal (in blogs), but they are always saddening and also make it necessary to refer to personal information in order to reply.