13 thoughts on “Open Thread: Climate stuff”

1. Antarctica seems to be bucking the global warming trend.

   I’ve read one theory in which they say

   Circumpolar winds act as a barrier to warm air. They have become stronger over the past four decades, effectively sealing off most of the continent each summer from the effects of global warming.

   Is that even plausible?

2. What were our guesses for UAH in March?

3. Re: Skeptikal (Mar 21 13:26),

   Is that even plausible?

   Not really. The measurement of interest is sea ice, not the continental ice cap. Almost 90% of the sea ice around Antarctica melts and refreezes each year. I wouldn’t call that being shielded.

4. Don B –

   All the bets are listed on the “March UAH Bets!” thread. If you scroll down to near the bottom of the comments, Ray has had a look at the range, mean and SD of all the bets.

   Recent data have not been kind to your -0.061, but keep your fingers crossed 😉

5. Thanks, Anteros.

6. Thanks for the “place your bets” idea, guessing what reality as measured by UAH will do next.

   Here is an idea for a variation on this theme. Why not plot some of the IPCC’s model projections against UAH? Just to make it interesting you might want to include some non-IPCC models such as those of Climate Astrologers.

   The way I see it, the IPCC’s AR4 composite is about six sigma from reality right now. By the time the AR5 is published in September 2013 my bet is that they will have reached 8 sigma. If I am right, how about some quatloos?

   Currently I am looking at the AR5 WG1 drafts and thus far have found no sign of any adjustments that would close the gap between predictions and observations.

7. Kevin Trenberth has a new paper out. It seems to have been written up around the same time as his reverse the null hypothesis paper. http://www.springerlink.com/content/0008xl84w0743102/fulltext.html

   In the paper he discusses the last two years of regional/local weather events by calling them climate extremes. And here I always thought things like ice ages were climate extremes. I get the idea he thinks his life is too hard if he isn’t allowed to reverse the null for short term events.

   Part of his conclusion is warming must be caused by human activities as there no plausible way it could be anything else. Sort of makes me think he is advocating ignorance as a valid argument.

8. – Did anyone just catch the thread over on WattsUp where an “earthmother” sent him some rather aggressive & badly reasoned letters ? Just as I posted my comment, the threads were suddenly removed as she was feeling under too much pressure.
   – My comment (I removed her words also) :
   – I am glad that you feel so much sympathy for the planet & for people , but please take a look in the mirror sometime & realise that constantly smearing people’s sincerely held fact-checked beliefs as denial is a form of BULLYING

   – “……..”” ……more bullying. People here put so much upaid effort into checking facts because they DO CARE

   – “……….” ……. more bullying. You might notice in this forum don’t make ad hominem attacks & back claims with evidence..(go & check published energy company donations & see how they donate magnitudes more to green groups), “mouthpieces of big oil” is just a another HOLLOW CLAIM like “the 97% consensus”

   – if you can’t TAKE it don’t DISH it,
   but you are welcome to argue with reason .. there is NO DENIAL of debate here
   ….. Anthony did the right thing by acquiescing, so keeping the moral high ground

9. Stew Green

   Actually, I would characterize her as a spoiled child hiding behind her mother making nasty comments and pointing her finger at people she doesn’t agree with. When people respond she cries that they’re mean to her.

10. You might want to put up a note that you’ve made the post sticky, otherwise some readers will just not notice there’s new stuff.

11. Is Stew really arguing that commenters at WUWT don’t bully and insult people? Wow.

12. I’m reposting from another thread because I hadn’t noticed this was the current Open Thread:

    It would appear Skeptical Science supports Mann’s 2008 hockey stick (read the comments). You’d think when even Gavin Schmidt backs away from it, they’d drop it, but…
    …
    As a follow up to my comment about Skeptical Science, and so I have a record of sorts, I just had a comment deleted from that thread. This is what I said:

    Tom Curtis, I’m confident anyone with an open mind will see through your response, but for the record, I refuse to respond when I’m told by one moderator I should refrain from “personal characterizations” while another moderator implicitly accuses me of intellectual dishonesty. If snide and baseless comments can be used to criticize me, yet I cannot call using uncalibratable data (upside down, no less) “nonsensical,” it’s clear fairness is not available.

    If and when you stop insulting me and try to have a reasonable discussion, I’ll respond again.

    I’m sure the reason I’d be told this was deleted was it doesn’t discuss the science, but given they’re happily allowing Tom Curtis to insult me, that rings hollow. It would appear my previous views of Skeptical Science’s moderation were spot on.

13. Before I forget, I ought to post the original version of the comment of mine which got edited with the note:

    Moderator Response: [DB] Please refrain from personal characterizations and stick to the discussion of the science. See the Comments Policy for further guidance. Inflammatory tone snipped.

    So here it is, for posterity’s sake (removed text made bold):

    Tom Curtis, I wasn’t aware I would need to provide links for major developments in a paper you promote. Given your status at this site, I assumed you would be aware of the major talking points surrounding the papers you discuss. I also wouldn’t have expected you to dismiss a quote out-of-hand when a quick Google search would be enough to verify it. However, I’m always happy to provide sources, so here is a link to Gavin’s remark.

    Now then, you claim “to partially test [my] contention” by looking at Mann 2008’s SI despite the fact I specifically said the 2009 SI acknowledged my point. Why you wouldn’t just open up the reference I provided is beyond me. How providing a specific reference from the author whose work is in question that acknowledges my point qualifies as “providing no evidence” is also beyond me.

    In any event, you can find the SI I referenced here. In it, you’ll find Figure 8 which shows what I said. The only difference is it removes the four Tiljander series and three other series which aren’t relevant to what we’re discussing.

    Finally, you say you think the sensitivity test I mentioned says more about me than the reliability of the work in question, yet that sensitivity test is specifically brought up by Michael Mann. It’s even in the abstract of his 2008 paper. The only thing I add to the test he proposes is the removal of uncalibratable (and upside down) data. Unless you think data which is used in a nonsensical manner ought to be included, there is no difference between what I discussed and what Mann himself discussed. It’s a strange issue to criticize me over.

    Incidentally, I don’t claim removing 86% of the data is necessary to remove the hockey stick. I only go with that test because Mann himself specifically claimed his reconstruction passed it. And Mann’s own work has acknowledged that isn’t true. As has Mann’s major supporter and friend, Gavin Schmidt.

    The same thing happens when you remove a much smaller portion of the tree ring data, but I thought it would be best to stick with the points people like Mann and Schmidt acknowledge as true before discussing other issues.

    The post immediately following mine was from Tom Curtis, and it contained things like:

    Brandon Shollenberger @46 thank you for the links. However, having been able to peruse their contents, it is quite plain why you did not provide them previously.
    .
    If Brandon was serious about his argument,
    .
    [sarc] Who would have thought it? [/sarc]

Comments are closed.