2011-12-30 15:47:22Skepticism is a Two Way Street
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

This is intended as the mainstream (TreeHugger and maybe Guardian) version of the UAH post, just focusing on the one claim that UAH temps prove that either models or surface temperatures (or both) are wrong.  I'll also create a rebuttal, and a similar post aimed at Forbes, but first some feedback on this MSM version would be appreciated (keep the audience in mind).

This post is also the maiden voyage of my bitchin' new laptop!

Skepticism is a Two Way Street

2011-12-30 18:07:33
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.218.89.133

Dana

General thrust of the piece is good, really good. However, I am not sure about the level of technical language for a Guardian/TreeHugger audience.  An SkS audience yes, just not sure about the more mainstream outlets. How many Guardian readers have even heard of Spencer or Christy.

This is a hard thing. We know these gob-shites are full of it. But joe public hasn't even heard of them. Let alone the issues with their methods.

2011-12-30 20:14:58
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Dana – there are about 5 basic tests that true skeptics apply and climate "skeptics" fail to apply any of them – they would be good to be in post but I can’t find them – will keep looking though. Anyone know them?  

2011-12-31 03:24:14
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Glenn - that's why I introduced Spencer and Christy in the second paragraph.  I don't expect the audience to know who they are.

I tried to keep the language as simple as I could, like using "lower and upper atmosphere" instead of troposphere and stratosphere.  But if there's any too-technical language that could be simplified, let me know.

2011-12-31 05:42:42
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I'm curious if the UAH satellite data takes into account the falling concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.  I don't know if that would affect the results but it's just something that popped into my head reading the article.

2011-12-31 06:36:16Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Kudos on an excellent draft. It merits posting on SkS as a stand-alone article. it should also be shopped for possible repost on Climate Progress and/or Planet Save. 

As constituted, the article is too lengthy for either Treehugger or Forbes.

For Treehugger, I recommend that you craft an article focused on the Spencer & Christy news release -- e.g., the first two-thirds of your draft article.

For Forbes, I recommend that you craft an article focused on rebutting the Taylor article -- e.g. the last one-third of you draft article plus whatever other points tha need to be made.

For the Guardian, dunno.

I have a number of suggested tweaks to your draft. I'll convert your draft to a Word file and will insert my suggesetd edits in it. I will transmit the resultant document to you via email.  

2011-12-31 07:20:20length
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I don't think the length is a problem - it's only 961 words in its current form.  Definitely no problem for TreeHugger, and our articles published by the Guardian were also longer.

The Forbes version will definitely have to focus more on the content of the Forbes article.

2011-12-31 08:11:57
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Dana,

Great as always (happy to hear your Mac is working out, my PowerBook died (or rather the control board did) last summer, sigh).  For some reason that last sentence sticks in my mind.

"In order to be considered a true skeptic, one must consider all lines of evidence with an open mind, including those which we may find inconvenient."

My thinking is that it is the fake skeptics who are claiming that Santer et al are trying to dimsiss inconvenient truths about the models (up until now) running too warm.  So contrarians might say-- "err, that is exactly what you warmists are doing".

I have not had time to think how one could word it to avoid that potential comeback line, but maybe I'm worrying about nothing.

This may be off topic--but I was tinkering with the UAH data at WFT last night and from November 1994-November 2011 the rate of warming is ~0.13 C per decade.  That window inlcudes the super strong El Nino in the first half of the window, does not inlcude cooling from Pinatubo, starts in an El Nino year (finishes with a Lan Nina) and  17 years long.  So Chrsity had another option to deal with the volcanoe issue while still considering a stat sig length of time.  Problem is doing so would not have given him the answer he wanted ;)

Would it be possible to mention that Spencer and Christy are now in the rather unenviable position that, despite their claims of cooling in the 1990s,  their own data are now showing warming?  They are now using tricks to try and remove/reduce the warming present in their own data.  That would stike most reasonable people as being very odd and suspicious-- and it is.

Note how in Taylor's article the warming of 0.45 C is reduced to Christy's manufactured 0.3 C warming over 33 years, and he then uses that value to claim that the warming in the GISTEMP data is twice as high as the UAH data over that period....the smoke and mirrors being used by Taylor is shameless.

2011-12-31 08:17:46
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Alby - in the Forbes version I'll mention a bit about reducing the trend by removing just the volcanic effects (which is how Taylor got 0.3°C warming), and some of Taylor's other BS.  I want to keep the MSM version focused on the claim that UAH temps prove the models and/or surface temps are wrong though.

2011-12-31 08:26:09
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

OK Dana,  your call.

Just calculated the correpsonding GISS rate of warming (not exactly the same as November 2011 is still not posted for some weird reason), but that is ~0.15 C/decade.  So GISS is about 15% greater than 0.13 C/decade for UAH when one ignores the volcanoes, not 100% as claimed by Taylor.

Have you conacted Forbes about a rebuttal?  If so, any news?

2011-12-31 08:26:53Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I've completed my editing and will forward a marked-up version to you via email.

PS -- You're right. The article is not as lengthy as I had first thought.

2011-12-31 09:58:49
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Thanks John, I'll have a look.

Alby - I'm just going to send Forbes the rebuttal once I've got it finished and see if they'll run with it.

2011-12-31 11:23:44
Agnostic

mikepope_9@hotmail...
118.208.178.1

Dana - the language used is clear and eminently understandable, certainly by the average reader of the Guardian.  Nice article.

2011-12-31 12:13:35
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Dana,

I hppened across "Wow – Christy’s Global Warming Skepticism is Evolving!" posted Nov 14 by Ove H-G on Climate Shifts. You might find it relevant. 

2011-12-31 16:02:46
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Dana - these five skeptical tests may be buried in SkS archives or in books somewhere. There is a podcast (about 12 minutes) in link but the article I was looking for was written by Eran Segev specifically on how climate deniers completely ignore these tests - but it was a couple of years ago so maybe gone.

It would have made a good post on SkS.  

2012-01-01 17:05:38Letter sent to paper
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178
People take umbrage at being called “Climate Deniers” but how else should they be described when they overlook the following “rules of thumb” that critical thinking skeptics accept as evidence of true or false or don’t know?
  • Ockham’s razor (simple explanations take precedence over more complex ones)
  •  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
  •  Anecdote and testimonials are not reliable
  • Experts do know more
  • Trust the scientific method

Australian Skeptics Society President, Eran Segev, gives an explanation of these; just websearch using - radiovicskeptics - and look for “ How to assess evidence beyond your own expertise”.
The climate disbelievers would claim they don’t but critical thinking skeptics disagree.

2012-01-02 01:35:57
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Prior to Brian's note, I had not seen "Ockham" spelled "Ockham."  I therefore googled Ockham and discovered who he was and that the razor is also referred to as "Occam's" -- the version I was familiar with.

According to the article, "What is Occam's Razor?" [Physics FAQ], there are multiple contemparary statements of Ockham's/Occam's Razor. Not all are completely accurate.         

2012-01-03 02:15:33Recommendation
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Dana,

Before you post this article, you best take a gander at "A Big Picture Look At 'Earth’s Temperature' ” posted on WUWT. It was authored by "Just the Facts", not Anthony Watts.