2011-09-10 13:42:20Santer et al. Catch Christy Exaggerating
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Spencer and Lindzen have been taken down this week, but we don't want to leave Christy out of the fun.  Here's a post on the Santer et al. (2011) paper which among other things, debunked claims made by Christy in his Congressional testimony.

Santer et al. Catch Christy Exaggerating

2011-09-10 17:23:04
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.243.43

Whoa! That sure is a formidable list of co-authors on Santer's paper!

Looks good, however under the heading 'Debunking Christy's Congressional Testimony' you don't explain what temperature trend is being talked about - the satellite record, nor what TLT is, or what the issue is about. Obvious to me & you, but perhaps not so for someone new to this. I'm just suggesting a sentence or two.

2011-09-10 19:42:51
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.94

"in order to assume responsibility" => "in order to take responsibility"

"Assuming responsibility" means "taking control", "taking responsibility" means "taking the blame".

 

The graphs of figure 6 very badly need a walk-through: What features should the reader be looking at, how do you draw the conclusion at 45%? For the non-expert, figures are hardly ever self-explanatory.

2011-09-11 01:30:52
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Good comments thanks.  Figure 6 is though because there's 6 of them and they're difficult to separate, but I added explanations of 6A and 6F, which are the main ones I focus on in the post.

2011-09-13 05:06:06
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Any more comments before this is published?

2011-09-13 06:17:51
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Nicely done.  I do not think that yiour article comes across tis way, but be sure to note that the models are not perfect, have their limitations and should nto be assumed to be truth.  A meme used by deniers is that the data are being "forced"/"fudged" to fit the models which are assumed to be correct.  So best to avoid that.

2011-09-13 06:43:13
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.33.165

Not much can be done about the graph, a shame. Looks good to me.

2011-09-13 07:14:34
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.4

"Christy and Spencer are somewhat infamous for claiming for the better part of a decade that the UAH satellite data proved the climate wasn't warming as fast as models projected (sound familiar?), until research by a number of scientific groups in 2005"

Just for the sake of being definite, I would state the actual span of years. We may need this fact in future articles.

2011-09-13 07:51:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Just a thought Dana,  you could also take down Lindzen with this...remember his "no warming since 1995" email to Watts?  Also, so much for Pielke saying:

Scientific Robustness Of The University Of Alabama

2011-09-13 08:38:56
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.163.165

Dana, would this be usefull to you?

 

 

IF you use it, I would recommend that the link from the image still go to the original figure.

2011-09-13 09:38:55
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yeah thanks Tom, I think I'll use that.

neal - it's hard to be precise about how long they made that claim.  They're sort of still making it, in fact (as the post discusses).  And I'm not sure when they started - 1995 I think.

Alby - I think it would be better to stick to the core of Christy's arguments here.  I see your point, but I think that would be too far off topic and distract from the main point.

2011-09-13 09:49:46
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.4

dana,

At some point in time, the numbers were changed.

2011-09-13 15:37:03
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

True, at some point I think they said the trend was negative.  Then they said it was positive but small.  Then they said it was positive and larger, but still much smaller than models.  That's what they continue to say.  It's been a gradual evolution, so it's hard to pinpoint specific dates.  Frankly they're still lowballing the trend, which is one of the points of this post.

2011-09-13 17:39:11
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.212.161.211

"It's a bit surprising that Christy seems unwilling to consider the possibility that his and Spencer's satellite data analysis might be flawed when that has been the case  in the not-so-distant past"

Just a general observation here Dana. The history of satellite temperature measurement, UAH vs RSS with others adding supplementary analysis isn't necesarily a case of flawed analysis - ultimately all science is about flawed analysis that steadily becomes less flawed. Yes there were errors but also there are simply competing methodologies. That is a whole different kettle of fish from skeptic scientists saying one thing in their published work and something different to Congress for example.

Perhaps tone down somewhat the use of past methodological errors as attacks against them when there is real ammunition about more recent and perfidious activity. A critique based on real failings can backfire a little when lesser sins are dragged in simply for further ammunition - particularly with those we might most want to reach, moderatly skeptical but philosophically inclined towards the Christy's of the world. For those people they need to reach the conclusion that someone might be a 'bent penny' on their own. Us putting forward the evidence for it helps but us telling them that directly doesn't work as well. And as soon as they feel we are 'unfairly' tarnishing Christy etc with other lesser things they may not be receptive to the main message. If the Battleship is using its 16 inch guns, the 4 inch guns might be counter-productive.