2011-12-05 09:06:31Weekly Digest
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

I'm headed off for AGU shortly, so here's the info for SkS in the News:

Rob Painting's Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years was re-posted on Climate Progress, which also referenced Dana's post Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky's Debunking Handbook is widly popular, with over 220,000 downloads in its first 5 days, and re-posts by countless websites, including DeSmogBlog, Think Progress, Daily Kos, Planet 3.0, ClimateBites, and many others.  The handbook has even been suggested for debunking other types of myths by Richard Dawkins and others.

 

Daniel - maybe you can publish this when it's ready?  If not, I'll probably be able to publish it late tonight.

2011-12-05 10:37:06
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Sure, dana. 

Is John Hartz still putting the weekly digests together (I've been battling the double-whammy of a sinus infection and an ear infection for a couple of weeks now, so I"ve been a bit out of it)?  If so, I can publish it whenever it's ready.

2011-12-05 12:43:45Daniel Bailey
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I'm in the processes of putting it together -- got a late start on it today. It should be ready soon. 

BTW, would you do me a favor and take a gander at the comment thread to "What Will Become Of The Kyoto Climate Treaty?" posted on NPR and let me know how I am doing.

2011-12-05 12:57:19Daniel Bailey
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Est fini! Click here.

2011-12-05 13:52:01
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Looks good; published.

2011-12-05 14:03:30
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

John,
You must read the entire text. Fig 7 averages previous land data (from fig 3 and 4). The data is there, just intentionally masked to reduce it a bit. That was counter-intuitive so that is probably why you had difficulty following why they washed their data in Fig 7. I thought it too was a bit dishonest (or at least an attempt to obfuscate).

Sunday, December 04, 2011 7:02:53 PM

 

You will never get anywhere with this one directly. 

  • Never address him personally in your responses to him. 
  • Refer to him in the 3rd person and speak to the ideological bias in his comments (in red above). 
  • Expose the fallacy of his position. 
  • Keep the emotion out of it on your end; your goal is to win the argument in the mind of the reader. 
  • Whomever loses their temper loses the argument. 
  • A tone of wry amusement, as long as it doesn't descend into snark, is probably ok. 
  • Dispassionate is best (think clinical, like CSI).

Example:

In his previous comment, Mark Fraser (MarkyBaby22) exposed his ideological bias through his allegations of fraud and dishonesty (hilited in red in the quote below):

John,
You must read the entire text. Fig 7 averages previous land data (from fig 3 and 4). The data is there, just intentionally masked to reduce it a bit. That was counter-intuitive so that is probably why you had difficulty following why they washed their data in Fig 7. I thought it too was a bit dishonest (or at least an attempt to obfuscate).

Sunday, December 04, 2011 7:02:53 PM

Why is it when the facts are against people they then expose their underlying bias by resorting to attacking that which upsets them?

2011-12-05 14:55:45
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
144.131.30.68

John

Ypu've got yourself into a bit of a knot here. In your discussion about Fig 7 you have said that the graphs are of lower troposphere temps. This isn't accurate. The UAH & RSS numbers a LT, but the other curves, HadCRU etc are surface - usually taken 2 metres above the ground as a meteorological station on land, and from ships buoys and satellites of Sea Surface Temps in the oceans. So they are temps of the ocean, but strictly only the surface. And that is what is used for measuring the Global temp trend since we can't get sea surface air temps.

 

Perhaps a better tack to take if you are arguing the slowdown is to use Heat Content from the oceans and then compare 0-700m vs 0-2000m It looks like a big part of the slowdown of surface temps over the last decade has been due to increased circulation in the ocean drawing more heat down below the 700m layer, warming those lower layers but retarding warming in the upper layers and hence surface warming.

2011-12-05 15:41:21Daniel Bailey & Glenn Tamblyn
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Thanks for the feedback. It appears that I screwed this one up -- partly because Advanced Rebuttal was not very well written nor the graphs adequately explained.