|
Post by nickrr on Jul 21, 2012 19:13:54 GMT 1
That's because their conclusions aren't denyinbg climate change. They are just suggesting that the actual temperature rise so far may be less than some other people think. But they haven't proved it, hence the qualifications in their conclusions.
In any case the principal reason I posted on this thread was to point out the dishonesty in the reporting of this paper by WUWT - which I notice you haven't challenged.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 21, 2012 19:19:46 GMT 1
Interesting. Do you propose that all branches of science abandon the per review system? Maybe we should leave the interpretation of the results of the LHC to bloggers?
Or is this proposal just for areas of science where you chose to disagree with the findings of the people who actually understand the subject?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 21, 2012 19:24:41 GMT 1
Why don't you address the issue rather than arguing semantics. The quotes clearly (in my mind) showed the dishonesty of WUWT. Do you disagree with this conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 22, 2012 1:34:53 GMT 1
NOBODY denies "climate change", nickrr. Some of us are dubious that the minimal change that is occurring is because of a bit of extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Certainly NO-ONE has demonstrated that this is the case either by experiment or by observation. Yes, peer review could be carried out MUCH more efficaciously via the internet than by the longwinded , laborious and largely anonymous pal review system of old fashioned print journals. Why should a couple or three anonymous reviewers, often with their own dog in the fight, have a better grasp of the actualité than a large group of interested experts from many disciplines collaborating? You are behind the times, I'm afraid. Did you not notice the remarks by Koutsoyiannis who said "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." Certainly Steve McIntyre and his brainy pals have provided a marvellous example of how the audit of statistical data can be carried out, demolishing many of the assertions of the incompetent so beloved of the IPCC in so doing. The most recent example is of the Gergis et al paper on Southern Hemisphere paleo temperature proxies which was withdrawn after only three days of mauling on Climate Audit. I have no doubt it would be beneficial in other disciplines apart from climate studies, too. But you would know all this if you bothered keeping up with the debates about climate instead of assuming everything that needs to be known IS known. What a prat!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 22, 2012 9:36:18 GMT 1
"Why don't you address the issue rather than arguing semantics"
cz th pnt made wz semantical,
"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. "
an nw usin txt spk, Iv mde it grammatical 2.
143
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 23, 2012 18:11:16 GMT 1
I presume that you use the term in the sense that the climate has always changed. Of course it has. Why do you keep harping on the bleeding obvious?
To a high degree of probability they have.
Because these "experts" aren't experts, as has been demonstrated on this forum many times. Furthermore many have shown themselves as incapable of reporting and discussing AGW without misrepresenting and distorting the evidence.
It's ironic that you start this line of reasoning on a thread which has specifically shown that one of the principle bloggers on climate change misrepresent the argument!
And I further note that you've not been able to provide any defense of WUWT. I take it that you accept their guilt in this case?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 23, 2012 18:28:12 GMT 1
No idea what you're on about but I note again that neither you nor MR seem able to answer my original observations concerning WUWT.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 23, 2012 19:16:34 GMT 1
The leading lights on Climate Audit are very much experts in their fields, nickrr. Otherwise they wouldn't have enjoyed such success in auditing the purported findings of the leading lights of the IPCC.
Genuine researchers with nothing to hide have nothing to fear and much to gain from the audit of interested experts and amateurs alike.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 27, 2012 18:09:31 GMT 1
Maybe they are. But your favourite blogger obviously isn't. How can you tell the genuine from the charlatan? The answer is you can't. What you need is some system to distinguish the two. Something like peer review maybe?
And still no defense of WUWT? And yet despite this you will continue to quote them as if they have something meaningful to say.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jul 27, 2012 20:55:48 GMT 1
They must have something meaningful to say otherwise they wouldn't have won the science blog award. A much more prestigious award than the lefty back slapping event the Nobel prize has become.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 28, 2012 16:35:07 GMT 1
One might have thought so. Except no one on this board seems able to defend their obvious dishonesty.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jul 28, 2012 20:10:24 GMT 1
One might have thought so. Except no one on this board seems able to defend their obvious dishonesty. Yawn, I think you're on shakey ground with that one considering the arse the IPCC and their acolytes have made of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 28, 2012 21:06:16 GMT 1
We're not talking about the IPCC. We're talking about WUWT. And unless someone comes up with a defense of their dishonesty I'm on very solid ground.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 29, 2012 9:19:55 GMT 1
It's is now symptomatic of the alarmists that they can find no way of defending their ropey "science" other than attacking a contrarian blog whose "blatherings", heretofore dismissed, have suddenly become very important to them. Why? Because they have lost the argument over the purported "science" of anthropogenic global warming and are finding their alarmism very hard to defend indeed in the face of the accumulating and previously unreported research that casts serious doubt on their pet hypothesis.
WUWT is an excellent source of reporting all the current weather and climate research that the IPCC and its acolytes would just lurve to sweep under the carpet and which until fairly recently they have succeeded in having sidelined in the mainstream media.
Get used to it, nickrr. This is how science is supposed to work - by argument, counter argument and presentation of empirical evidence, not by "consensus".
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 30, 2012 10:11:28 GMT 1
Breaking News! PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.Anthony Watts and friends produce a new analysis of United states Surface Station temperature data using the latest (Michel Leroy) quality control technique for assessing station siting quality in the service of fully and accurately accounting for the previously fudged Urban Heat Island Effect. As those of you who follow the issues surrounding temperature measurement will know, Anthony Watts instigated the Surface Stations Project in 2007 to physically survey the entire United States Historical Climatology Network. This involved photographing and other data collection of all the US stations used in the compilation of the United States' part of the Global Historical Climatology Network which is used by ALL three global dataset compilers to "estimate" the global mean temperature. From my very first introduction to climate studies in 2007 I concluded that the purported global mean temperature was the Achilles Heel of climate alarmism and that the Urban Heat Island Effect was being passed off as CO2 induced anthropogenic warming. Why? Simply because most of the surface stations are located in urban and urbanising areas and because the adjustments to and homogenisation of the raw temperature data carried out by the compilers has been inexorably towards warming the present and cooling the past. This has, surprise, surprise, provided the scariest possible temperature trend to frighten the wits out of the gullible and "concerned", i.e the "worried well of the West". What Anthony Watts et al have now demonstrated with respect the US temperature measuring stations is is precisely that Koutsoyiannis estimated by other means i.e. a DOUBLING of the actual temperature trend. [See my previous post on this thread, #90!] Anthony Watts and friends have now demonstrated beyond all doubt with this latest study that this is indeed what has been happening with their excellent empirical study of the United States weather stations. Below you can see the NOAA adjusted temperature trends for the 30 years 1979-2008 compared with those from the best sited stations and the worst sited stations. I'm afraid the alarmists have definitely been gilding the lily! -------- New study shows half of the warming in the USA is due to faulty weather-station sitingwattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.
Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007... Read the draft paper here wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdfand view the graphical data etc here wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al-2012-figures-and-tables-final1.pdf
|
|