I heard Tom Fuller’s comments were deleted. So I thought I’d go see if my comments had fallen under the decimating attack of Lewandowsky’s army of moderators. Naturally, the snippage is followed by an justification that provides evidence that the moderators at that blog are simply deluded. Luckily, those of you who want to read the admittedly long winded comment in all its glory, I took screen shots. Most people will want to click to enlarge. 🙂
Based on the moderator response, it appears someone over at Lewandowsky’s blog may think that explaining an obvious design flaw of his methodology that arises from the fact that anyone can use anonymous proxies to enter as many responses as they wish is somehow teaching people how to commit “fraud”. Of course my response to that is to point out that is trivially easy for an academic wishing to conduct a methodologically sound survey to write a script that prevents the vast numbers of people who know how to use free anonymous proxies from doing so. Many people routinely use these — some are required to do so by their employers. The notion that revealing this totally non-secret information is teaching people how to commit fraud is just nuts.
:mindboggled:
Moderator Response: Parts of this comment has been snipped because they openly explain how to commit fraud.
i.e. they explain how it could have been done.
Parts has been snipped due to inflammatory tone.
i.e. they explain how I couldve done it.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall of the back room SkS forum during this circus. Watching the words and actions of those who are *convinced* they’re the smartest person in the “room” and who appear to have 1992ish knowledge of the internet is truly precious. 🙂
The notion that revealing this totally non-secret information is teaching people how to commit fraud is just nuts.
Its the equivalent of pointing out the fact that some people don’t lock their doors at night. (Hope I haven’t let out a secret or turned someone to a life of crime!)
In addition to using anonymous proxies, you can also reset your IP address depending on your carrier. I do that on a regular basis every so often…
Of course he hasn’t a clue about the absolute hatred some CAGW supporters have for skeptics. The DOS attacks on skeptic websites and the snide comments at the CAWG sites should be evidence enough to know that posting a survey that was obviously aimed at connecting skeptics to other extreme conspiracy theories would tempt CAGW supporters into falsifying responses aimed at embarrassing skeptics. Nothing in his methodology attempts to identify those sorts of actors. Amazing what passes for science in the soft sciences.
Tony Mach on climateaudit has uploaded links to archived versions of these threads with Thomas Fuller’s comments intact.
Here’s the link to his comment.
And his links (which I’ve tiny-fied):
I placed caches from earlier today at http://www.climateaudit.info/data/psychology/cache.
Some caches were already gone by then,
“this stupid paper” – sums it up nicely.
h/t to Andrew Mcrae over at Jo’s for a comment which, besides being a laugh-out-loud moment is truly apposite…
The evidence is overwhelming that the skeptical blogospheric response to Lewandowsky’s Moon Hoax paper has been one of consistent outrage and the paper’s credibility is worse than first thought.
And now with his mug pasted at the top of this latest volley, you might even say…
Lewandowsky has the face that launched a thousand [snips]!
Being wrong, doing something stupid — it’s a fairly familiar default state for humanity. Most of us have first-hand experience with both of these. Present company not excluded.
Doubling down on error and foolishness is a little more unusual.
Taking pointers from Minitrue on the best ways to airbrush the past — that is what is bringing well-deserved fame (if not fortune) to Prof. Lewandowsky and his acolytes.
You’ve dug yourself into quite a hole, guys — so keep digging!
I think Lew is finding out that making up stuff is not nearly as much fun as he thought it would be.
At this point I bet this does not end well for SL, in a strictly professional sense. (to be clear so he and his pals do not claim they are under a denialist scum threat)
lurker, that qualification won’t matter. They’ve shown the ability to exaggerate and accept exaggeration. Simply saying “does not end well” and you’re doomed for an Aussie magazine front cover, it seems.
lucia, you should check out the moderation my comments have gone through at that site:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh289/zz1000zz/Comments.png
The last comment in the picture got deleted as well. Apparently, despite breaking no rules, my comments can be deleted at will.
Brandon–
That is such a strange practice of theirs! It certainly makes their site less interesting.
Re comment #103634:
If some guy gets asked about his hunting license, which being laminated he carries with him (of course the pin heads wondered why he would carry it with him in a country where you need a permit to own a gun, anyway I have my voters registration card even though I’m not voting today and my social security card even though I am not planning on looking for a new job) then that escalates into a death threat, and if you point out that this was exaggerated then some how you’re a vile person for noticing it was exaggerated even though you agree other people said things that while not being death threats were very ugly and shouldn’t be said, and mean time nobody in that group has any balls or honesty to admit the “death threats” meme was exaggerated.
And they wonder why they have no respect left among the rest of the community. At the core they’re dishonest shills.
Lewandowsky and Oberauer’s latest dishonest trick is to present a graph labelled ‘how skeptics view global warming’, which in fact does no come from any skeptic site but from the dishonest ‘skepticalscience’ blog. I think that’s dishonest.
I must say Brandon. you are owning Dana .
stay cool. and dont get dragged into a fight over moderation.
you realize its a tactic they use to divert discussions.
The latest is that they can prove the Earth is heating because they show the figure from a paper to have measured the average increase in energy of the Earths oceans down to 2 km.
Really.
I can’t get through to STW or SkS once again. I can get through to the main Univ Western Australia site. I can get through to STW using HmA.
Interesting. They are either having real connection difficulties or they are fiddling with their banning software!
I got banned from SS for offering what I thought well mannered insight. Tamino and Real Climate don’t ban, but just don’t post entries they can’t cope with accepting.
But I know Connolley and Halpern got run from WUWT ( though each of them are given to being snide ).
It fits the info cocoon theory – people like to preserve their pre-conceived ideas and avoid having them controverted or contradicted.
The internet makes a universe of information available, but also allows people to protect their theories by examining only that which supports them and avoiding all else.
Steven Mosher:
The conversation with Dana already ended, so there’s no connection between the two. I hadn’t expected to make any more comments on the page until I saw that the reason given for snipping a comment was “condescending tone.”
If it is an intentional tactic, it’s an incredibly stupid one. As long as they don’t go back and edit my previous comments, it cannot help Dana look better. Instead, all it can do is give more fodder for people to scoff at. Well, that and make me waste a little time making posts/taking screenshots.
There might be some value in trying to disrupt a discussion you don’t want people to have, but that requires you try to disrupt it while people are trying to have it. It doesn’t do any good to try to disrupt it after it’s already over.
lucia:
Yup. I expected things like it so I was surprised when my early comments were unmolested. It made me hope that even though the site was tied to Skeptical Science, it wouldn’t behave in the same way.
But now I have no motivation to post there.
I guess what Im saying Brandon is that when invading the foreign lands, then its best to avoid even the appearence of ‘snark’. You have a good sense of how to do that already. of course there is always fun to be had by dropping burning bags of poo, but the nicer you are and the calmer the worse they look. They will never moderate fairly cause they cannot see it. You should never complain about moderation, let others do that. The nicer you are the meaner they will become. They wont be able to help themselves.
If you want a good model to follow watch Amac. He is the god of being reasonable, well informed, polite, and persistent. My sense is that he is like that in person.
Look who’s talking….. hmmm
I second Steve’s description of AMAC. He is my hero as commenter. Sadly, he is not my role model–‘Lord give me a calm demeanor–but not yet…’
Steven Mosher, I don’t get this part of your response:
What is the connection between these two points? You don’t have (appear) to be “snarky” to complain about moderation, and you certainly don’t have to to ask questions about moderation. Besides which:
If the goal is to make them meaner, making comments/asking questions about moderation is a great tactic. Not only would you provoke them by being nice, you’d also provoke them by directly challenging them in a way they cannot rebut. Beyond that, if they’re going to delete your comments, you provoke them without risking giving anyone any ammunition against you.
But then, my goal isn’t to make people meaner. If I had a goal, other than just encouraging moderators to follow their own rules, it’d be to drive a wedge between people. The more unreasonable someone becomes, the more their image is hurt in the eyes of (most) others. There are two possibilities. 1) They agree with my reasonable points, and thus they agree with “the enemy.” 2) They reject reasonable points and push away people who moderately agree with their views.
I feel a little dirty now. I hadn’t actually considered that as a goal, but…
Brandon
What is the connection between these two points?
I listed things. they are connected by being in the same list. duh.
And note I never said your goal was to make them meaner.
I AM TELLING YOU WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN. duh.
now, get out of here and go be nice.
Mosher, I’m afraid your latest response makes even less sense to me than your prior one. You say the things I highlighted are “connected by being in the same list,” but the two things I highlighted were not on a list. The first point was a description, and the second was an example of what was described. One described a list, and the other was part of the list.
But that’s completely irrelevant. I was perfectly aware of that connection between the two sentences. The point I made was about that there is apparently no logical connection between the two points. In other words, an item on your list didn’t belong on the list.
Why you would respond to me pointing out there is no apparent reason for something to be on a list by telling me the connection is that it is on the list is beyond me (even ignoring the fact you messed up just what was on the list).
This is almost as strange. You devoted a number of sentences to telling me how I should behave and what the outcome of that behavior would be. In fact, you alternated between the two a couple times. It’s almost impossible to think of any interpretation other than you were suggesting the goal I mentioned. Why would you be emphasizing the outcome of the actions you recommended if not to imply that outcome was a goal?
That’d be like me writing a sentence in capital letters telling you I never said you said the goal was to make them meaner. After all, I only said, “If the goal is to make them meaner” immediately after quoting you discussing how to make them meaner. I didn’t actually say you said that was the goal.
Brandon:
I think you misunderstood Mosher. He was telling you how great you were doing in the subject debate with Dana. Someone like Mosher does not use the word “owned” lightly. As any serious gamer will tell you, that is the highest possible compliment paid only to brethren of the thumbs.
Also, he was offering you inside tips on how to wage more effective climate combat verbally with people you need to own to the point of mental breakdown. Again, Mosher does not offer this advise to just anybody, so you should be proud and thankful to be recognized, complimented and invited into the circle.
However, you did not appropriately read between the lines to glean the true meaning of Mosher’s offer. You might want to apologize before it is too late.
Good Luck!
Howard gets it. Hoi does not.
Brandon, as I said, you are doing a great job. the world needs more AMacs. I was going to use tom or myself as an example of how NOT to do things, but thoght it was better to use the positive example of Amac.
As I said, try to avoid even a hint of snark or condescension.
Also, never complain about moderation. i dont follow you closely enough to see if you do, but I am just explaining my observations.
For example, on certain sites the moderators would play unfair with with Tom. for example. then tom would get tricked into complaining about the unfair treatment. then the thread is off into a tangent.
Be nice. You are good at it. be nice for whatever reason you like, but I am just noting this. Sometimes the nicer you get, the meaner they will get. Thats not your goal. Im just noting that for you. get it?
its really not that hard to understand. If I gave you one thing to take away.. it would be this. Study Amac. The world needs more Amacs. Now, go be nice.
Howard, your interpretation of Steven Mosher’s comment seems to be the same as mine. It simply doesn’t address the disconnect I observed in Mosher’s comment. My assumption was there was simply some sort of non sequitur. I expected clarification about that. Mosher’s response instead did the exact opposite.
I don’t know why you’d think I’d apologize for pointing out what appears to be a non sequitur and a contradiction. If anything, Mosher should apologize for responding in a non-responsive manner that misrepresented his own remarks.
Brandon …
Steven has paid you a significant compliment. Please accept it as such, listen to the advice given, and keep on doing what you’re doing.
A. Scott, the compliment has nothing to do with anything I’ve said so I’m not sure I get the point of your response. Surely the fact a comment contains a compliment doesn’t mean I should refrain from pointing out it also seems to contain a contradiction and a non sequitur.
“I expected clarification about that. Mosher’s response instead did the exact opposite.”
Seriously? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a clarification from Mosher that was clearer than the original!
If one’s polling technique be quite crude,
And bias is seen to obtrude,
The results which you get
Match conclusions preset.
Such a poll may be said to be “lewed”.
Steven:
I do get it. Read between the lines: you are a self-important priggish fool. The gamer comment is a hint that you display textbook traits of an mind-game bully and the thumbs references behavior associated with physical cowardice. I could be wrong about this, but you give off these tells like cheap perfume. Stick to counting beans, that’s what you are good at.
Brandon:
I’m sorry. My sarcasm did not connect. I thought maybe the gamer/thumbs comment might be a hint of my derision for the Mosher-archetype. You do not owe anyone an apology. You are quite correct and mentally healthy to be put off by the suggestion that you use romance novel reverse-psychology to produce irrational behavior in a debate opponent. Don’t get me wrong, one can find success using these tricks, however, they fall under the “pound the table” category people resort to when the theory and facts are against you. It smacks of needy desperation very typical of the narcissistic baby-boomer generation.
Mind game bully I like. sarcasm is one of them mind games.
btw howie a gamer would say pwned not owned.
The thing I really find funny? being accused of physical cowardice by a moniker. Now that’s irony!
Brandon. I changed my mind. Go complain about moderation. tell them Howie told you too. And stop being nice.
Steven: “btw howie a gamer would say pwned not owned.”
We say both… 😉
And be nice. Howard, Brandon you guys too. This has really gotten petty.
I hear you Carrick, but the pettiness is a constant that you must not see. This whole Lew matter is this month’s petty one-up-man-ship distraction creating much sound and fury…
Mosher: You are the one telling Brandon what to do. I could give a F__K what he does with his time. To be precise, I never said you were a physical coward… just that your online persona smells of it: thanks for the *correction* on gamer lingo, which is an obvious tell. Yes, I’m a sarcastic a$$hole and I can be a bully who likes to pick on bullies and passive-aggressive nincompoops. TTFN
Howard, I’d rather leave the pettiness to others and other blogs. It’d be something for the STW moderators to keep busy “correcting” like scurrying little ants (or aints if you prefer).
Carrick:
Hey now, some gamers may say both, but not all of us do. Some of us have more refined vocabularies!
For what it’s worth, I think I’ve been perfectly nice. All I ever wanted was clarification on one simple point.
Maybe that’s the problem. Mosher did say if you’re nice, they’ll become meaner…
Brandon:
I say lots of thing while gaming that don’t fit into refined vocabularies. 😉
I don’t know if this is Mosher’s point (and I don’t think it even matters at this point) but the more rational and reasonable you appear the less credible they will appear, regardless of whether they continue to escalate. That’s a principle from cog psych Lew apparently didn’t learn. (Truthfully I think he’s just effing with people now, which is why I switched that thread off.)
Carrick:
Sadly, I type/talk exactly the same way while gaming. Apparently that’s not normal.
Whatever has become of the old-fashioned concept of Delusions of Grandeur?
Mr McIntyre was of course under no obligation to pay any attention to any email received from an unknown sender. This of course is evidently subject to one exception: email from Stephan Lewandowsky, even when not from Stephan Lewandowsky, self-evidently may not be ignored under any circumstance.
Misplaced: agreed. Thrash and purge would have been more appropriate.
Were I to feel the need to raise questions regarding nonresponse to an unsolicited email sent last week, let alone two years ago, I would have the courtesy to do so by emailing the recipient, attaching the said email, specifying the date and time the original email was sent, and with the knowledge that in normal circumstances the recipient would have been under no obligation to treat my unsolicited email as anything other than spam – a carefully drafted subject line being my only introduction.
Were I instead to have played the silly games which Stephan Lewandowsky has indulged in, and were this to have come to the attention of any of my colleagues, I would have expected to hear sharp words, mutterings, or more, of “bringing into disrepute”, and strong suggestions that blog postings be appropriately edited (but retaining, as well as rephrasing, the inappropriate wording – retraction, not denial by censorship).
Whether it matters or not depends on what one is trying to figure out. I should think that if one is trying to evaluate whether to believe that Lewandowsky was honestly and sincerely trying to include participation of people from McIntyre’s blog, the fact that he was presenting results only 3 days after inviting participation strongly suggests Lewandowsky was not really trying to get participation from people who read McIntyre’s blog. It suggest the invitation was window dressing that would permit him to claim he’d invited the blog while doing it in a way that wasn’t likely to result in anyone participating.
Lewandowsky is free to think otherwise. But applying the adjective “Reality-based” is neither an argument or evidence to support his claim that it doesn’t matter when he presented data.
Brandon:
But neither then is gaming “normal.” So don’t sweat it. 😆
Um… wow. I just stumbled across an old issue involving Lewandowsky (also covered by JoNova). While the entire thing is worth reading, the most interesting part is Lewandowsky said:
Lewandowsky seriously suggested people are being paid to post comments on blogs under different names in order to “create disproportionate noise” in an attempt to oppose the global warming movement.
Can we call him a conspiracy theorist now?
Carrick:
I’m not sure that helps. You just said I’m weird even by weird people’s standards!
Carrick (Comment #103712)
Truthfully, the SkS crowd and the popular CAGW commentators just eff with people all the time. The Lew *study* is just another handy cudgel to upset the denialsphere children and occupy analytical lukewarmers time while they earnestly chasing down ghosts and vapor trails. Squirrel
I agree with you, however, that free-market leanings is an indicator of lukewarmer tendencies. Reading WUWT comments, one very quickly concludes that the deniers are into conspiracy theories. They had to grab onto something when Art Bell retired. Therefore, I don’t know why there is any opposition to the Lew report… it’s fake, but accurate.
This kerfuffle is another pointless argument over the wetness of water and identifying mysterious quacking fowl. The apparent seriousness exuded by all facets of the subject are Python-esque.
I don’t have the words. That people listen to Lewandowsky says more than I ever could:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33900.html
Peter O’Neill (Comment #103719)
September 18th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
“Whatever has become of the old-fashioned concept of Delusions of Grandeur?”
In this case, it is more like Delusions of Competence.
NigelSteve appears to be slow walking comments, a technique perfected by Kloor. WTH, it’s their blogs, something folk here have missed.
NigelSteve?
lucia, Eli Rabett is referring to when Steve McIntyre posted comments under a different name, Nigel something. Eli likes to claim that was sock-puppetry on Steve’s part.
Of course, he’s also saying Steve “appears to be” doing something based entirely on the claims of a couple individuals having their comments land in moderation for a while. Apparently if moderators don’t fish out every comment by every critic in a timely manner, it’s an intentional ploy. It’s not like the same thing happens to other readers as well, or anything.
there are some words that automatically land comments into moderation at CA, including “conspiracy”. For obvious reasons, the Lewandowsky thread is triggering more comments into moderation than usual. I’m not online 24-7, nor right now even 12-7.
@Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #103725)
Have you read the comments?
Brandon 103725,
Stephan wants to tar with a broad brush; he is unwilling to accept anyone could rationally doubt the importance of AGW, and so harps endlessly on the looney pronouncements of a fringe few. He would do well to read the blog comments at CAGW hysteria sites and note how unhinged some of those folks are. Like most who are primarily motivated by a desired political outcome, Stephan refuses to engage on the technical substance, and instead appeals to authority and then dismisses all who do not share his politics. It is my considered opinion that he is either a fool, utterly dishonest, or both. Such people have little of substance to offer and should be ignored.
Lucia, Steve McIntyre used the alias Nigel Persuad in blogging on google. He also admitted to it on this thread.
While on this topic, Josh/Eli still hasn’t explained why it wasn’t sock puppetry when Josh/Eli talked up his own paper on his blog while publishing under his pseudonym, published under his real name, or why Grant/Tamino did the same, and wasn’t sock puppetry. Whether it’s sock puppetry or not, it’s ethically challenged.
It isn’t just pseudonyms (depending on web definition) that makes it sock puppetry. I used to define it as “holding a conversation with one’s self.” Tim Lambert recently relaxed the standard to merely referring to yourself positively in the third person, generally to make it look like there is more support for an idea than there really is. (Endorsing your own paper certainly does exactly that.)
We can also start calling everybody else by their real/pseudo names. Mine is Carrick/Carrick. 😉
Carrick–
Yes. Now that you mention it, I remember that conversation. I don’t necessarily think using two names or using a pseudonymn is “sock-puppetry”. I don’t know why Eli-“thirdperson”-Josh of all people is throwing fly-by snark about use of pseudonyms!
Really important work going on here. Continue.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #103722)
September 18th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
To believe that no one anywhere is being paid to post blog comments would be naive.
Here is an actual blog post about how to get paid to be a blog commenter.
http://www.dollarshower.com/get-paid-to-comment-on-blogs/
Boris (Comment #103742),
I completely agree; it is very important to identify and differentiate between leftist political rubbish produced by the likes of Lewandowsky and actual technical analysis of climate. Separating the green/left politics from the science is the only possible means to reach a rational public consensus on policy.
SteveF: (Comment #103745)
I disagree. Lew and other drivel spouted by the usual suspects are distractions to be ignored. Paying attention to it is a success for the catastrophists. Having it audited by SM is like winning the Nobel Prize.
Don’t feed trolls. I tried to teach that to Mosher. He learned after biting on the bait a couple times.
Howard,
Then let’s agree to disagree.
SteveF,
By all means, enjoy the Bread and Circuses!
harrywr2:
Thank you for that true, but completely irrelevant comment.
Carrick:
Ah, but you don’t include your last name, so clearly you’re still a dishonest coward!
Brandon,
SteveF/Steve Fitzpatrick 🙂
No sock puppetry involved. I did play sock-puppet games with my kids when they were little; their favorite character was ‘Monsieur Sacrebleu’ (which was in fact a navy blue sock on my right hand), who spoke with a heavy french accent had a terrible tendency to tickle smallish children.
I know we’re both being sort of snarky, but I do sincerely agree with you here. L.’s piece is irrelevant and a bit boring because ideologues of all stripes believe lots of crazy things so who cares. Of course we have to separate out the conservative/corporate BS as well.
Heh, on the subject of real and fake names, I generally only use “fake” names (lies of omission, ie, leaving my last name out, not withstanding) in less serious discussions. However, at wordpress blogs I often show up as timetochooseagain (when I’m signed in to wordpress this happens) and try whenever possible to get people to use my real name, ie Andrew. But most people call me TTCA anyway. At Jeff’s, at least, the regulars usually recognize me. The non-face of The Question is the key indicator.
And I never talk myself up. Down, absolutely. Who is this Andrew person? Sounds like a daft fool. But up? That’s just not proper.
Howard – if all we had was the Lew blog which nobody sees then a laissez-faire attitude is fine. Do not feed these worthless trolls. However, Lew got a friend in the UK, a noted climate scientist Adam Corner – to read the lew paper and he made a splash on a national newspaper – The Guardian. This means a deatailed take-down is required, doesn’t it? before a meme is established in hoi polloi’s mindset.
The problem is that to some extent it can’t be ignored because for some mysterious reason, it’s supposedly been accepted in a peer reviewed journal. That said, at JoNova, they noticed that most papers with late July “announcements” as to be published in that journal appeared in the Sept. issue. This one has not.
Also.. somewhere it seemed L. was saying he was adding to the supplemental materials. (I think?) That would be odd. Ordinarily, you’d expect that would be all set by the time they announced it was accepted. So… maybe something is “happening”. Or maybe it will just appear in Oct. We’ll see!
SteveF (Comment #103745)
“I completely agree; it is very important to identify and differentiate between leftist political rubbish produced by the likes of Lewandowsky and actual technical analysis of climate. Separating the green/left politics from the science is the only possible means to reach a rational public consensus on policy.”
Howard (Comment #103746)
“I disagree. Lew and other drivel spouted by the usual suspects are distractions to be ignored. Paying attention to it is a success for the catastrophists.”
SteveF (Comment #103747)
“Howard,
Then let’s agree to disagree.”
I happen to agree with both these comments. I think these blogs expend way too much band width responding to nonsense from the likes of Lewandosky and in replying to Boris, for that matter, when it is much more stimulating, for me, at least, to be analyzing important papers on climate science.
“The problem is that to some extent it can’t be ignored because for some mysterious reason, it’s supposedly been accepted in a peer reviewed journal. That said, at JoNova, they noticed that most papers with late July “announcements†as to be published in that journal appeared in the Sept. issue. This one has not.”
And we, of course, realize that flawed papers are not infrequently accepted in peer review and are published. If the implication here is that the publicity given to the Lew paper may have stopped or at least delayed its publication, I would say that is one instance and further that the peer review system might have worked this time for the wrong reasons.
Lucia,
” So… maybe something is “happeningâ€. Or maybe it will just appear in Oct.”
I’ll bet on it being published in October. We might hope an editor has seen some on-line comments on the data sources and belatedly recognized that the paper is nothing but a dishonest political hatchet job which adds exactly zero to human knowledge…. but I would not count on it.
It’s great that Rodney King’s dream has come true… we can all just get along! That includes Mosher (you gotta admit that someone has to really ef with you once in a while). No sarc. And Boris, I agree, we are all clouded by our conformity: corporate, peer, politics or otherwise.
Cheers.
One thing many people forget (me esp.) is the *inside baseball* aspect of the climate wars. Dilbertesque corporate types call it “granularity” or “in the weeds”. The Lew paper IMO, is so totally nothing, even with the press coverage. People who read about it use their confirmation bias to either affirm or refute the findings. The great mass of folks in the middle do not give a whit about such things. Any energy expended on it, unless you are SM solving a statistical problem (crypto-granularity?) is a waste.
We all have biases. Jeff C (Airvent) has a post that shows that a SkS kid is actually very smart and thoughtful WRT *team* BS. A glaciologist. Carrick did a nice job of bringing the kid out.
Isaac Held seems to know what he is doing.
The climate noise is like tinnitus. Tune it out, ignore it.
lucia:
I wouldn’t be surprised. Likely, whatever supplemental materials were made weren’t adequate, but the authors were content anyway. Then, after controversy arose, they decided to “get their stuff together.”
That said, I’m starting to think there is something wrong with Lewandowsky’s calculations themselves (in addition to everything else that’s wrong with this paper). I’m no stats expert, so I may just be off about something, but it seems to me Lewandowsky’s published numbers are wrong.
As for the identity topic, it’s true I regularly post, and even e-mail, under “Brandon Shollenberger.” However, that’s secretly just a disguise for my real name which I only use for gaming purposes. I can’t tell you my real name, but I can tell you it has four letters and four numbers.
@SteveF (Comment #103739)
could be because he is a psychologist, not a climate scientist. He would naturally defer to the experts on matters of climate science.
You are also doing exactly what he accuses you of, peddling a conspiracy theory. The endless accusations of ” desired political outcome” and “only in it for the gold”, seen here and at other sites, are good enough evidence for me that he is on the right track.
bugs,
SL is not even engaging in his area of expertise, and you know it.
Do you ever notice that you are getting muddy as you defend those who dwell in the slime?
Bugs,
He may be a paychologist by training, but is a left wing political advocate in practice. Try reading what he writes. One does not need to invoke conspiracy theories to make plain observations of reality. One does not need to invoke conspiracy to note the behavior of many climate scientists suggests they have strong left/green political views, views which may distort their objectivity and lead them (a la Stephen Schnieder) to exaggerate the dangers to convince the public to adopt specific policIes. There is no claim of conspiracy in noting that Peter Gleick acted illegally and was aplauded by many who advocate for draconian resuctions in fossil fuel use. If you really believe that climate science is not practiced mostly by people with left/green political views, then you have not been paying much attention. Perhaps your own similar political views blind you to what for most is obvious.
@lurker passing through, laughing (Comment #103764)
September 20th, 2012 at 5:38 am
He is not a dweller, just an observer, as I am.
SteveF (Comment #103765)
What green/left views does it take to seriously understimate the time it would take the Arctic sea ice to retreat as quickly as it has?
bugs:
Tell us why that’s important.
Carrick (Comment #103768)
I asked first. If the green/left (a label you have applied to him) is so alarmist, how did the miss the Arctic sea ice extent.
oh bugs, you are a funny bunny. You are just an “observer” and “not a dweller”? Are you saying you are not a leftwing green? And by that I mean that you jump on every green trend there is, as long as it has a left wing tinge. If you are saying that then name one single left wing green idea that you do not blindly support. “Observer” is not your online persona.
Bugs,
Repeating what you seemed to miss the first time:
“If you really believe that climate science is not practiced mostly by people with left/green political views, then you have not been paying much attention.”
.
Not being skeptical of “The Team” is like trusting the foxes to keep the hen house safe. Climate scientists may not understand that acting like an advocate makes lots of people think, well, that they are advocates. Lots of people don’t trust lawyers either. No delusions of conspiracy are involved in seeing the obvious in either case.
SteveF,
It is common for the AGW extremists to pretend to be either ‘not standing for anything’ or to deny they have a political dimension to their belief in AGW, even as they accuse skeptics of political motives and conspiracies.
It is endlessly entertaining, as we see from little believers like bugs to bloviators like Gleick and Lewandowsky.
bugs:
Well then I’ll answer first. Weren’t they predicting 2012 to be ice free?
I’ll withdraw my question as unfair.
[Edited to fix the link.]
@hunter (Comment #103773)
September 20th, 2012 at 10:33 am
You are not a conspiracy theorist, but you say there is one. You can’t have it both ways.
bugs–
Where does SteveF say there is a conspiracy? I don’t see it in the words you quote. Is it somewhere else?
I quoted Hunter, but his conspiracy is just that, how does he know what is motivating Lewandowsky? Is he a mind reader, does he posses some magical powers?
There have also been repeated accusations here that research into AGW is done just so scientists get some research grants, another conspiracy theory.
bugs:
Jeebus, another English-impaired English speaker.
That’s not a conspiracy. Were it true, it’s an example of “group behavior”.
Having said that, please point to the exact quote where this accusation was said once in those terms (“just so”), let alone repeated.
It’s easy to be bugs: 1) make stuff up, 2) don’t understand what the words in your native language mean, 3) think illogically, 4) write something illogical.
PS: What Hunter described/proposed was a group behavior, which again is not a “conspiracy.” doy.
A group that just happens to be all green/lefties out to achieve a political goal.
Bugs #103808:
It is not unheard of for members of a group to share political outlook.
Bugs, a group usually has characteristics and it sometimes has political goals. Is the Democratic Party in the US a conspiracy? NO. Look, it has been explained I don’t know how many times in these threads what a conspiracy is and is not…
Carrick, I don’t know how easy it is to be Bugs but I know that I would be extremely embarrassed by now if I was him/her.
The Democratic party is a politcal party. What else do you expect. Climate scientists on the other hand……
….are for a large part also acting like advocates. To distrust or at least be somewhat skeptical about the work of climate scientists who are also acting as advocates for certain left/green views is only rational.
What Steve F said 🙂
bugs,
Pointing out that you dodge speaking about your politics, while attributing political motives to others, is not a conspiracy.
You should be less derivative in your faith. It makes you look…..limited.
I was quoting a particular believer troll who summed up the technique rather well when he asserted he did not have to stand for anythign, except to point out the wickedness of believers.
You, however seem to limited in vocabulary or are perhaps fixated to the word ‘conspiracy’ in order to dodge discussion.
I have never proposed an organized conspiracy, just for the record.
I talk about how like minded fools in AGW think the same way, because you all are trapped in the apocalyptic clap trap at the base of AGW. I do talk about how there is rent seeking involved in AGW, as there are in all social moveents: someone is always going to seek ways to enrich themselves when money is flowing.
none of those are conspiracies in any actual definition of the term.
But I do have a question, if you are capable of considering it:
Now that SkS turns out to have a private chatroom where a recent topic of conversation amongst its believer members was regarding their stated need for a conspiracy to sell AGW (or something to that effect), does that still allow you to pose as someone who can still assert sincerely that skeptics are relying on conspiracy with no self awareness as to how incredibly shallow and lazy you look?
@Hunter
Sure, I’ll deny there is any political motivation in my accepting the evidence for AGW. My initial response to news reports was to discount it as just another blow up of some research, similar to ‘global cooling’. The news did not go away, and peak scientific bodies around the globe accepted the evidence as being valid. Here we are, 30 years later, and the evidence is mounting that AGW is real. Personally, it would be much more convenient if CO2 causing global warming was not an issue to be dealt with. Denying physics because it’s inconvenient doesn’t work, though.
IMO, AGW is real and people who deny it mostly do so for political reasons related to proposed amelioration. I don’t think you can objectively deny the evidence that CO2 causes warming (and sulfates cause cooling), the question is “how much?”
The real issue is how serious is it (i.e., is CAGW real?), and whether exaggeration of the effects of it is occurring. IMO people who tend to exaggerate its seriousness (relative to the available evidence) tend to do so for political reasons, which again relate to amelioration strategies that they find palatable for reasons other than basic science (“social justice” aka wealth redistribution is a common theme).
Regarding scientists, you’ll have to keep in mind that choosing to become an academic professor is a “self selecting” behavior, and from within the group of academic professors, they tend to hire “like thinking individuals”. If you aren’t liberal enough, >you won’t get hired, and hired, you’ll have more trouble with tenure.
And not, that’s still group behavior. It only becomes of true conspiracy if they all sit down together and agree not to hire more conservative candidates. That’s never discussed. They sort for people they think they can get alone with and won’t cause waves in the department. People too “different” from the pack aren’t allowed in. AFAIK, there’s nothing illegal about that, except as it is impacted by equal rights laws (which don’t apply to political persuasion).
Again, these are tendencies, not written in stone. Conservatives can get hired, they just have to be either really good (Edwin Teller level) or stay quiet about their beliefs. The problem is worse in liberal arts departments than in hard science (it’s my impression that engineering at major universities tend to be very diverse compared to other schools, that could be because they can augment salary from private and public funds above the normal university max, so the dynamics of capping salaries below industry standards may not apply).
There isn’t that problem at most laboratories (non-tenurable positions). First of all, people don’t go to a particular lab “for life”, whereas most people who accept an academic position, expect to remain at that institution (they are “set” once they are tenured). So you find a much more mixed political environment at labs that at universities.
Anyway, universities tend to have big PR departments. This adds to an amplification effect to the liberal bias in academic organizations. Their voices are heard louder, because they have to offset the fact they don’t get as much accomplished (being an academic does eat into your research time of course) by being “glitzier.”
Carrick,
I guess what puzzles me is that any serious person would doubt an overwhelming left/progressive bias among university faculty. All you need to do is state something obvious, like people have a wide range of incomes in part because people vary a lot in intellegence, to cause an uproar. That this bias is also present among climate scientists is painfully obvious, yet those who actually are biased seem blissfully unaware.
SteveF, you only need to look at google results for “liberal professor” to realize how overwhelming the evidence is for it.
One of my favorite studies was the one that explained the reason for this is liberals are smarter than conservatives.
There’s another self-selecting process that goes on with climate scientists (for many of them, who didn’t just sort of fall into it)…which is they are mostly “green-oriented” to start with, and that carries with it political baggage.
It’s very odd that anybody could honestly deny that this bias exists.
“The real issue is how serious is it (i.e., is CAGW real?), and whether exaggeration of the effects of it is occurring. IMO people who tend to exaggerate its seriousness (relative to the available evidence) tend to do so for political reasons, which again relate to amelioration strategies that they find palatable for reasons other than basic science (“social justice†aka wealth redistribution is a common theme).”
I suspect with regards to AGW I would fall in the same category as you. I tend to be very skeptical of the scientists and on all sides when the issues involve policy and politics, such as AGW does, and particularly so where so many of the participants are obviously advocates.
When considering the AGW debate in political terms I liked to frame it as one side mainly seeing the issue of AGW mitigation as one where government involvement portends no or little unintended consequences and is an area where the government should be involved regardless of whether the consequences of AGW are detrimental, while on the other side they see it mainly as a potential for major problems with government mitigation and politically see government involvement in such issues as one to taken on only after showing good evidence for doing so. Under such motivations it is rather easy to see that one side would not need much probability for showing detrimental effects from AGW but rather would like to use the evidence to merely influence the undecided and those who might otherwise be hesitant to act. On the other side, the result of that thinking is that a much higher probability for detrimental effects of AGW is required.
Obviously some of this argument gets caricatured by those who are standing by their side regardless of the evidence one way or the other and tend to spin the evidence without really understanding it. In dealing with the more reasonable participants, I can see where one side from their perspective of government actions would see the other side as being overly critical/skeptical of the scientists and scientific evidence presented while the other side would be puzzled by the lack of criticality and skepticism from the other side.
Carrick,
” they are mostly “green-oriented†to start with, and that carries with it political baggage.”
Something I have tried to explain many times in many places. I wrote much the same at Bart’s blog once a couple of years back, and was roundly vilified by the denizens. Bart wrote that he thinks climate scientists have a very wide range of political views, so there is no possibility of a net bias in the field; like most appear to be, he is bizarrely disconnected from reality.
.
“It’s very odd that anybody could honestly deny that this bias exists.”
Yes, but they claim to honestly think that no bias could possibly exist. It is difficult to know if they are just unaware or if they are being less than straightforward.
bugs (#103862) –
I went through a similar stage of doubt, especially since the global average temperature changes quoted are so small compared with diurnal, seasonal, and regional variation. I was eventually convinced that, whatever the utility of the metric, it could be computed with reasonable accuracy. More precisely, the *change* (anomaly) can be computed with reasonable accuracy.
.
“[I]t would be much more convenient if CO2 causing global warming was not an issue to be dealt with. Denying physics because it’s inconvenient doesn’t work, though.” I don’t see that I’m denying physics because it’s inconvenient, if I have concluded that CO2 does not have to be dealt with. It’s a matter of comparing likely effects of warming due to CO2, with the likely effects of mitigation.
.
First off, accepting temperature as a proxy for climate change, what sort of temperature rise are we talking about? I think the temperature sensitivity (to the extent that a linear model is accurate) will turn out to be very much on the low side of the IPCC range (1.5-4.5C per doubling). That’s not doubting physics, that’s doubting climate models which seem to run hotter than observations. [You’ve seen Lucia’s graphs.] Climate models are *not* physics. The conflation of mistrust of models with “denier of physics” is very common, but not at all accurate. I suspect you understand this, but continue to use the term regardless.
.
And what would CO2 mitigation cost? Aside from nuclear power, I don’t see any mitigation effort as close to making sense at the moment.
Carrick,
I suspect that for many who work in climate science, bias toward claims of catastrophe and/or willful exaggeration of both the extent of warming and it’s consequences is not ‘wrong’ but instead a moral imperative to ‘save the Earth’… a la Peter Gleick. Sort of like people opposed to abortion vandalizing or burning abortion clinics; they think it a moral imperative.
.
The problem I have with left/liberal thinking (of which climate science is only a tiny part) is a simple one: they believe they are absolutely correct on every issue, so most any action, even if unlawful (like Mr. Obama refusing to enforce specific laws and to skirt others) is morally justified. The prevalence of this mindset has grown in dominance during all of my adult life, and I truly fear for the future of personal liberties. Read Justice Breyer’s rational for a ‘living Constitution” (i.e. one that means whatever you want it to mean) if you want a perfect example of liberal thinking; the plain words of the Constitution do not constrain Breyer in any way…. just frightening.
SteveF:
People are ego-centric. They tend to think that where they are is the “center”. Most people will describe themselves as substantially more moderate than they really are. I think you are seeming a bit of this, a bit of self-denial, and a bit of self-serving denial, some mix of these three.
Having Bart claim there is a real diversity, then watching them gang up on anybody who deviates from the group think that goes on over there is just plain lol funny.
HaroldW:
I can never figure out what “sensitivity” to believe is most accurate. I really wish we had some better measure to use for global warming. The idea of using one temperature value for the entire globe just seems… sloppy.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #103884)
September 22nd, 2012 at 6:29 pm
“I really wish we had some better measure to use for global warming. The idea of using one temperature value for the entire globe just seems… sloppy.”
———————————————
I would suggest ocean heat content as the best measure of global warming. ~90% of the thermal imbalance caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect goes into the ocean. Quasi reversible heat transfers between ocean and atmosphere cause atmospheric temperatures to fluctuate wildly (due to the considerably lower heat capacity of the atmosphere), whereas the OHC provides a more stable, direct measure of global warming.
Owen, that may work better, but I’m not convinced it would be. First off, measuring ocean temperatures is much more fraught with difficulty, and consequently, we have less information for it. If we cannot get a truly reliable measure of surface temperature changes, I doubt we can do so for ocean temperatures. And even if we could, we did not have that information in the past, meaning we cannot say much about the past.
Brandon,
Actually, I think the ARGO system (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html), (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/How_Argo_floats.html) will provide reliable ongoing measurements of OHC.
Brandon,
Regarding historical data for OHC, we have direct historical measurements back to 1955 (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html) and modeled proxy data back 1000 years (http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/ghegerl/Crowley.2003GL017801.pdf), although I’m not real confident on proxy data in general. We also have tidal gauge sea level measurements (a proxy for OHC) back to 1870 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise)
Owen (Comment #103888)
September 22nd, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Brandon,
Actually, I think the ARGO system … will provide reliable ongoing measurements of OHC.
ARGO is a good start. However, check out the distribution of the floats. It is not exactly what you would call random – still too few around Antarctica http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/images/argofloats_may2011.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110902_oceanacidification.html&h=736&w=1261&sz=364&tbnid=pcHYJ5uzek-dGM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=122&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dargo%2Bfloat%2Bmap%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=argo+float+map&usg=__ywuLq2x9AKBNCdIaYrshBYa6JwI=&docid=PuAU0tBS_MQHpM&sa=X&ei=l5teUO_OH66UiAf_mYC4CQ&ved=0CEoQ9QEwBg&dur=7356. (Much better than in the early days, though).
Carrick (Comment #103863),
Your confession as to what you believe is the motive for skeptics sort of puts you on the “stuck on stupid” side of the argument from the get go.
It is as if you ignore books, papers, interviews, the history of weather events, all to confabulate a class of people (deniers) who for the sake of their politics prefer evil things to happen to Earth and humanity.
How poorly you understand, and how hard you have to work to maintain that level of misunderstanding.
bugs,
-it is rather bizarre that you still think of the models and predictions of global climate doom by way of CO2 are ‘physics’.
They are not. They are interpretations of physics.
– You have apparently given trying to attach “conspiracy” to my writings or interpretations so that is some progress on your part. Congratulations.
– you still seem in denial (ahem..) regarding the possibility that your political view is part of why you so easily confuse models and predictions with physics.
These are the sorts of methods they use to come up with the fake 97% consensus.
MrE (Comment #103904)
So there’s a conspiracy, then?
This is spin.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/your-joe-bastardi-entertainment-moment.html
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #103884)
Thank god they don’t do that then. The average surface temperature of the globe is a convenient metric to use for simple ‘speedometer’ type analysis. The models and climate are much more complex than that.
I would just note that a lot of people I know get snippy when they are criticized about anything. So, Lewandowsky or his protectors are merely displaying normal behavior. Now, if they hiss at your comments, you will know they’ve moved on to having a hissy fit, which is also not unusual in a lot of debates, especially on the losing side.
Just going to point people to faustusnotes post. Worth a read.
THere’s this little comment by “sou” who I’ve never viewed as a deep intellectual. He makes the comment:
My post crossed with the previous or I would not have clicked ‘post comment’.
Sou is a frequent commenter on STC and SkS, both of which quite commonly make groundless accusations of incompetence or worse of climate skeptics. Just thought I’d point out the irony and save this little gem for the posterity it deserves. (It has already been deleted.)
Carrick,
Re-reading your comment at 103863, I owe you an apology.
I was in a hurry and distracted by work related stuff and I failed to read your comment fully.
Your comment is actually quite thoughtful and on the mark.
Hey, Eli is quietly sipping carrot juice and Bugs tosses Rabett Run into the argument. That’s Tom Fuller’s act.
Look folks, this is Lucia;s blog, Climate Audit is NigelSteve;s blog and Shaping Tommorow’s World is Prof. L;s blog. You own the blog, you do what you please, why Willard Tony even tossed Eli and the Weasel, quell horror.
And Brandon, Comment #103736, if you want classic passive aggressive take a look at NigelSteve’s blogroll, Eli just wants to have fun.
Oh yeah, there is a new outrage of this week. Move on
Eli Rabbett, you’re terrible at making points, but I’m interpreting your comment here as saying Steve McIntyre is displaying “classic passive aggressive[ness]” by listing your blog as “Josh Halpern.”
I’m not sure how it is being “passive aggressive” to not promote sock-puppetry by calling a sock-puppet by his real name, but then, I don’t expect you to make sense.
It’s not passive aggressive. It might be aggressive, but not passive aggressive.
Passive aggressive is often the appropriate response to a “nagger”. Example:
Nagger: “Do X”.
Naggee: “No”.
Nagger: “I told you to do X. Do X”.
Naggee: “I’m not going to do X. Go away.”
Nagger:”When are you going to do X like I told you?”
Naggee: “Fuck off! I’m not going to so X!”.
Nagger:” Come on. Do X! I told you to do X. Do it!”.
Naggee (switching to passive aggressive): “Sure. If you do Y, I’ll do X right after the ball game”. (Ballgame ends. Nagger does Y. Passive aggressive person doens’t do X. This is passive aggressive because the nagee got ‘nagger’ to do Y while never doing X. Had nagger just not done Y, maggee would be passive-passive (not resistive of aggression). But often, they’d be accused of being passive-aggressive because they said they would indulge Nagger to get Nagger of their back.)
Thanks for that link though. I haven’t had a chance to look at report they generated, but I downloaded their “Findings and recommendations” file and read through it. I’m sure I’ll be interested in how they conclude 350,000 people will die every year, because of global warming, starting in 2030, if we don’t do anything.
bugs, its worse than a conspiracy its faith in incompetence.
@Mr E.
No ‘faith’ required, it’s all documented in published papers. If you don’t believe them, it’s pretty hard to explain the Arctic ice any other way. Unless you are Joe Bastardi. He rambles for five minutes, then comes up with completely the wrong answer.
Bugs, “explain the arctic ice”? You can’t explain the arctic ice without an explanation for the Antarctic ice.
You can, the Antarctic ice is doing pretty well what was predicted. If you look at the global sea ice, it’s down, the Antarctic growth is within normal bounds, the Arctic is way outside it.
What are the values for “normal bounds” and how did you come up with them?
MrE–
I suspect me thinks he means “range anticipated by models”.
Of course, in some sense, it’s easier to predict the amount of ice that is attached to a continent. It’s not 100% predictable– but all the ice on the Antarctica can’t just get blown north to warmer waters or out the straights of the Fram. Warm water can’t penetrate the continent itself and melt from below and so on. Unpredictable mechanisms exist but there aren’t as many of them and those that exist are somewhat less variable.
Lucia, I don’t think bugs knows what he means. I think he is just evangelizing.
Brandon (#104066)-
“I’ll be interested in how they conclude 350,000 people will die every year, because of global warming, starting in 2030, if we don’t do anything.”
I haven’t had a chance to read the report yet, but it seems worse than that. From the Executive Summary, “Continuing today’s patterns of carbon-intensive energy use is estimated, together with climate change, to cause 6 million deaths per year by 2030,
close to 700,000 of which would be due to climate change.”
Their figure for 2010 is 5 million deaths per year.
Evidently carbon mitigation is going to result in immortality for all.
lurker passing through, thanks. I missed your original comment, but would have been too busy to react to it anyway even if I had seen it.
RE making Dana “scooter” Nuccitelli look better – duct tape and a paper bag are my recommendations.
RE Eli Rabit’s fly by snark – he’s a silly rabbit, what else would he do.
RE: Continuing today’s patterns of carbon-intensive energy use is estimated, together with climate change, to cause 6 million deaths per year by 2030,
close to 700,000 of which would be due to climate change.â€
Brought to you by the folks who calculated the 50 million climate refugees by 2010, I’ll wager.
I don’t have to argue physics and statisical analysis when they can’t manage simple arithmatic.
Brandon, Eli suggests you dig Mark Twain, Candidus, George Orwell and a bunch of others up for sock puppetry. OTOH, you might look up the difference between a sock puppet and a pseudonym, or you might not. NigelSteve was a sock puppet. Eli is a bunny.
Really, the ignorance of the young astounds.
Eli is a bunny who talks about papers written by this other guy Josh Halpern. If that isn’t sock puppetry, why isn’t it?
Just looking for honest answers why Eli thinks it’s ok when he does it or tamino who has done the same thing on a paper discussed on a recent thread here, but it’s not OK for somebody else?
Interesting that Eli raises a question, berates the youth that they can’t tell the difference, then doesn’t respond to simple queries like this. Repeatedly. (I’ll get this loaded eventually in google to the point where this comes up as a top search, if Eli doesn’t relent on this continued flawed meme.)
My working hypothesis.
👿
You know Carrick, that’s what I heard!
@MrE (Comment #104096)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7-4-4.html
SMB = Surface Mass Balance.
bugs (#104376) –
The cited IPCC paragraph concerns Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance. The original question was about Antarctic sea ice extent, though. So let’s look at what AR4 says about that.
.
10.3.3.1 says, “In 20th- and 21st-century simulations, antarctic sea ice cover is projected to decrease more slowly than in the Arctic.” Figure 10.13 shows Antarctic sea ice projections. While there’s quite a spread, the mean for the A1B scenario is a strong negative trend, esp. for the JAS season. [By eye, it seems as strong a negative trend as Arctic JAS.]
.
One year does not a trend make, but we should be clear that the AR4 prediction was a significant negative trend.
HaroldW, I think Antarctica sea ice is not a very useful test of the models at this point. We know they lack regional skill, and there is such a balance between different effects that govern Antarctica sea ice that depend on regional skill, that really all we can conclude is Figure 10.13 bottom panels is completely meaningless, and another example of the IPCC overstating certainty in places where there is virtually no useful information coming from the models.
The gain of ice mass on the interior is a more robust result as is loss of land ice cover near shorelines. As far as I can see, both of these are following their expected trajectories (with the exception of the GRACE satellite ice mass “measurements”, which I’ve felt for years were flawed).
Carrick, I wasn’t intending to put Antarctic sea ice forward as a test of the models. bugs had written earlier (#104089) that “Antarctic ice is doing pretty well what was predicted…Antarctic growth is within normal bounds.” It’s true that the observed increase is within the spread of models’ predictions — in IPCC-speak, it is “not inconsistent with the models.” I was trying to correct the impression that AR4 forecast Antarctic sea ice increase. In fact, it predicts a significant negative trend.
Yep, I got that HaroldW. I just thought it was interesting to note the adverse consequences of understating uncertainty in documents like AR4, even though I understand the political reasons why these useless graphs almost had to be included.
It would be helpful for people like bugs if they were to learn enough of the background science (not talking fluid dynamics here) that they could be better consumers of the information they read.
Almost cries out for a book that helps people get a less politicized [*] view point, but whoever wrote it would need to already be persona non grata in the climate community, so by a self-selection process people like bugs wouldn’t read it anyway.
[*] I’m used politicized in the sense of being forced to include some really crappy GCM run from an Italian lab (purely hypothetical example of course 😛 ) in the AR4, not in the sense of an activist movement.
Brandon such parsing!:).
So Eli organized a reply to a really bad paper (ask Fred Singer). True, the bunny had some internal debate about which name he should use on it, but decided that for formal publication purposes and since others were involved, his daytime address and moniker should be used. That love ain’t sockpuppetry whatever it is, anymore than, well for example, Samuel Clemens going on book tour for Mark Twain.
You have some concept issues here.