2011-07-05 07:10:49Why does this paper use HadCRUT as it's 'global' record?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Little perplexed by this new paper (my emphasis):

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

It's well documented that HadCRUT underestimates the recent warming trend. So I can understand a denier like Carter using it. But why would this paper, which is obviously not written by deniers, use HadCRUT as their temperature record of choice?

2011-07-05 07:25:53
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.27.170

Boy, these guys might be great scientists, but they're a thick as two short planks when it comes to messaging. I'd have thought Mike Mann would have learnt better by now!

Interesting though, it ties in with work from Trenberth & Fasullo, Katsman & Oldenburgh about ocean heat.

Now that the Chinese economy is starting to get the wobbles, it could unleash some abrupt warming if their economy starts to tank.

2011-07-05 08:00:01That's not 'the' Mike Mann
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229
It's a different Mike Mann. Apparently they made the same mistake at WUWT.
2011-07-05 08:20:25
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.27.170

Well then, you'd think the 'other' Mike Mann would know better too, given the shit his namesake has copped!!.

2011-07-05 08:51:56
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.76

They still call it global

2011-07-05 09:22:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.15
It's an interesting paper. I'd wondered if the increase in coal burning from China could account for some of the slowed short-term warming. Looks like it could very well be a significant contributor. But yes, their messaging is lacking, and HadCRUT is not a good choice.
2011-07-05 17:44:00
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Rob, a publication in PNAS isn't "messaging", it is communication of science.  Messaging is for blogs and the media; journals are for honest and straightforward presentation of scientific truths.  They shouldn't be mixed.

One reason they may have used HADCRUT is becuase that is the one that provides the least support for their own position.  If they can make the argument based on the weakest available evidence, rather than the strongest, then an opponent cannot criticise the robustness of their findings to the choice of dataset.  As I said, a good scientist progresses their argument the way a good chess player plays chess, always assuming optimal play by their "opponent".

I used to make a point of using UAH rather than GISSTEMP in my arguments on other blogs, simply so that the deniers there didn't have the option of dismissing the result as being due to UHI effect and so on.

Of course placed like WUWT will misrepresent the results, plus ca change...

2011-07-05 18:30:40
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.127.55

"a publication in PNAS isn't "messaging", it is communication of science. Messaging is for blogs and the media; journals are for honest and straightforward presentation of scientific truths. They shouldn't be mixed"

Conveying the correct message doesn't mean providing confusion for the lay reader. We're not talking about the search for the Higgs boson here, with little day-to-day relevance, this is life and death stuff. On current course the search for scientific truths is going to become a thing of the past - trying to stay alive will be humans daily pre-occupation.

For me, I'd appreciate it if some of these scientists pulled their heads out of the arses, and started acting like they have begun to connect the dots. 

2011-07-05 18:53:18
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.127.55

I'll write something up on this. Despite the messaging, seems worthwhile.

2011-07-05 22:56:15
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Rob, the trouble with that is that you end up with papers that say things like the statistical test being passed at the 93% significance level means there is a 93% probability that there is a warming trend.  This would be good messaging for the layman, but it isn't actuyally true.  The journal papers are not written for the layman; they are written for other specialists in the field, as the function of the journals is to communicate ideas and to subject them to the scrutiny of the research community.  "messaging" would get in the way of that.

The scientists should "pull their heads out of the(ir) arses by writing for scientific american and new scientists etc (or blogging) to explain what is in the journals for a lay audience and what it actually means.  It is good that laymen read the primary journal papers, but they should do so with caution, and always pick the interpretation that provides least support for their own position.

The strong "messaging" in the recent Fildes paper, for example, is a large part of what is wrong with it.

 

P.S. I only skimmed the paper, but it seemed fine to me.  The only problem with the paragraph John highlighted is perhaps they should have written "observed global surface temperatures", to highlight the point that there is uncertainty in the data, which means that it can be warming in reality, when we actually measure cooling.  But that is being a bit hyper-picky.

2011-07-05 23:15:27
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.14

Dikran,

You said, "This would be good messaging for the layman, but it isn't actuyally true.  The journal papers are not written for the layman; they are written for other specialists in the field, as the function of the journals is to communicate ideas and to subject them to the scrutiny of the research community.  "messaging" would get in the way of that."

This is not true. "Messaging" is not about changing the results to make a stronger message: It's about phrasing your results so that they can be understood more clearly, and cannot be taken out of context easily.

That may include making sure that the scope of your study is broad enough that unrepresentative aspects can be understood as such.

2011-07-05 23:30:59
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.123.225

Dikran, I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from, I'm not talking about statistical significance. I'm talking about clearly communicating -a few carefully chosen words here and there is all it takes. How many laypeople would read past the abstract? Also, if you read what Kaufmann has written elsewhere, the paper was prompted by "skepticism". And this from the paper:

"This seeming disconnect may be one reason why the public is increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic climate change"

He, and his co-authors, have put in the leg work to examine this 'warming hiatus', wouldn't be useful if it were more clearly communicated?

 

 

 

2011-07-05 23:47:34
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Rob: What I am trying to say is that clearly communicating the science to other scientists is not the same thing as clearly communicating to the layman, and if journals do the latter, they can only do so at the expense of the former.  Statistical significance was an example of that, were you very often see things written that are not actually correct, because the lay reader wont understand the correct version.

There is no limit to the amility of deniers to misintepret what scientists write, and scientists have better things to do with their time than trying to second guess what the deniers will make of their scientific papers.  Their time is better spent on doing the science, and leave others to dispell the denialist nonsense (e.g. there is a good reason I submitted a comment on Essenhigh's paper, rather than say David Archer).

neal: As I pointed out earlier, there are good scientific reasons for this paper to use the HADcrut data (whether that is why they actually used it is another matter).  Had they used GISSTEMP for better messaging, that would have detracted from the paper scientifically.  As John says he can understand a denier like Carter using Hadcrut, the reason the authors used HADcrut is probably exactly because it was the dataset Carter would have chosen!

2011-07-05 23:58:30
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.14

Dikran,

It is always possible to add a bit of contextualizing material that prevents the bald statements of the paper from being misunderstood. I do not think adding a little bit of context will shock the professionals into being unable to understand the main body of the paper.

We are not talking about high-energy particle physics here: The "man on the street" cares about the final results. If we are moving into an environment in which "skeptics" can demand to see all of your data and data-analysis algorithms (and we are), I think it is a very minimal extra effort to stop and think, "How could I make the overall thrust of this article clear right at the very beginning?"

It's like taking a moment to lock your house door when you leave for the evening.

Or to set your parking brake when on a hill.

A moment of thought can save yourself, and perhaps a lot of other people as well, a lot of trouble later.

2011-07-06 00:11:58Seems to me...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

that the myriad of scientific organizations out there should be offering courses and materials to their members on how to communicate effectvely. Ditto for academia.

Also, if one takes issue with the way the authors of a paper have communicated their findings, send a note to the authors expressing your concerns. Discussing one 's concerns on a comment thread like this has little to no impact on changing the authors' writing styles. 

2011-07-06 00:25:18
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.14

On one or two occasions I have written to the author of an article that I thought was being misrepresented.

Oddly enough, there was remarkably little concern. One almost had the feeling that the author felt he would get more publcity that way, even though the public impression was that his paper proved the opposite of what he was saying.

Maybe he naively thought that a lay reader would study his paper and realize that the fuss was wrong.

Or maybe he was of the "as long as they spell my name right" school of thought.

2011-07-06 01:28:39nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Good for you.

Unfortunately your experince to date once again validates, "You can lead a horse to water..." Above all, people are creatures of habit and habits are extremely difficult to change -- especially as one grows older.

If what I experienced in undergraduate school (nearly 50 years ago) is representative, people who prusue degrees in science and/or engineering rarely take courses in effective communication. Perhaps that has changed over time. I sure hope so. 

2011-07-06 04:29:49
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Rob, I'm glad you're going to do a post on this.  I'd suggest emphasizing that between 1998 and 2008, virtually every significant natural factor had a cooling effect, plus anthropogenic aerosols on top of it. 

ENSO went from the strongest El Nino on record to a strong La Nina.  Solar activity went into the longest minimum in a century.  China went gangbusters with coal combustion, often without scrubbers to reduce aerosol emissions.  Then there was the stratospheric water vapor cooling as well.  Other than lacking a major volcanic eruption, it's hard to imagine more significant cooling effects lining up over a 10 year period.  Yet even with all these factors aligning in the cooling direction, they still only offset most of the CO2 surface warming (and let's not forget the increase in OHC over this period as well).

2011-07-06 06:19:29Why scientists used HadCRUT
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229
Dikran, the reason you give, "the reason the authors used HADcrut is probably exactly because it was the dataset Carter would have chosen" sound plausible. But that's not a scientific reason, that's a messaging reason. And it it was a messaging reason, then it was bad messaging. They've basically reinforced Bob Carter's myth that global warming isn't happening, using a temp record that is shown in peer review to underestimate the warming trend. Bob Carter's main argument is "not warming" -> "CO2 does not cause warming".

Both points are false. It IS warming and we know CO2 causes warming. But they've conceded the first point which gives great strength to the cooling meme and makes our job much harder. They could've made the same scientific point they wanted to make without reinforcing Carter's foundational argument.

2011-07-06 06:42:38
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

There actually is a really big difference between HadCRUT and GISTemp over that period.

2011-07-06 08:08:15
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.205

They could have used both dataset, there are both scientific and communication reasons to do it.

2011-07-06 08:37:50Here's why I was concerned: 'A peer reviewed admission that global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008'
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Fuel for denialists:

Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)

I know what the paper concludes and the science is quite interesting. But this is just like Phil Jones' "no statistically significant warming" - it provides a soundbyte for denialists - I can guarantee you "peer review says we're cooling" will be a meme that will persist for years.

2011-07-06 10:48:10Adjusting datasets.
villabolo

villabolo@yahoo...
76.93.65.250

Is it possible to adjust a dataset taking the lower solar activity and higher sulfur emission into account? I'd like to see a chart showing the trend as it would have been without that pesky sun and sulfur shhtuff.

2011-07-06 11:28:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.15
villabolo - problem is we don't have a very good handle on the aerosol forcing. I guess you could estimate it, using transient sensitivity and the solar forcing and best estimate for the aerosol forcing. Take the forcing plots, multiply them by the transient sensitivity parameter, then subtract them from the measured surface temperature. Actually they did most of the work in their Figure 1, but they just plotted the various forcings and associated temp changes vs. observed temps.
2011-07-06 11:38:06More denialist spin on this paper in mainstream press: SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING AS PLANET EARTH GETS COLDER
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/256855/So-much-for-global-warming-as-Planet-Earth-gets-colder

THE controversy over global warming hotted up last night after US scientists revealed that the Earth’s temperature declined over the past ­decade.

Pitched like it's a brand new discovery  "holy ice age, Batman, it's been cooling!"

2011-07-06 13:01:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I just had a quick read of the paper.  IMHO, it is OK, but I do take serious issue with their choice of end points.  Starting with a complete outlier like 1998 and finishing with a strong La Nina year is asking for trouble, especially if one is trying to establish the reason for the hiatus inn the HadCRUT data is an artifact the choice of end points.  Besides, look what happened after 2008....

 

 

I find no mention of this rebound in warming after 2008 in their paper, maybe I missed it or maybe the rebound in temps since then was implicit.  I agree with others that models developed using the GISTEMP and HadCRUT and NCDC global SAT datasets would have made their findings more robust.  I'm perplexed why a paper published in in 2011 only includes data until 2008.

Also, as state don another thread, I am not sure how a surface-based source of sulphates can be expected to reduce the global radiative forcing when those sulphates are known to have a short residence time.  Should the slowdown or cooling be limited to the source region and perhaps regions immediately downwind?  That is a regional signal rather than a global signal?  The GISTEMP map probably won't show, but I'll try...anyhow, it is not particularly helpful.

And a closing comment, why in Figs 2 and 3 are their estimates not shown for 1998, they shown them for 2008.....?

2011-07-06 13:20:58Haven't seen this mentioned yet so I'll chime in
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

If it's been cooling, someone should tell the planet, because the warmest decade on record was the Aughts (2001-2010), warmer than the 90's, warmer than the 80s, etc.

By conveniently leaving out the more current info (2009 & 2010), among the warmest in the instrumental record, the authors play directly into the narrative of the denialarati.  Frauenfeld, Knappenberger & Michaels pulled that same crap.

Prespecified, cherry-picked starting and end points = manufactured controversy.

Seriously, people...WTF?

(apologies for the invective)

2011-07-06 13:31:27
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.250.27

Albie, I think the important thing is that it didn't warm as much in that decade, as in the previous decade. Big deal, we know climate fluctuates. These guys are just trying to fnd out why (poor messaging and all).

Kaufmann 2011 does mention the rebound after 2008, it's in the first paragraph. 

Snap!! I've copied that HADCRUT graph into my post!. Makes my eyes go funny staring at it though, that's a rubbish graph.

As for how the aerosols get distributed, haven't found anything compelling yet. Not that Kaufmann delve into that, they use a statiscal model, not climate model.

2011-07-06 13:32:42
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.250.27

I'll get the post finished up tonight. 

2011-07-06 13:49:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.15

Albie, if you're taking an average global surface temperature, why does it matter where the aerosols are distributed?  If you're measuring temperatures by region then you have a point, but as a global average I don't see why the distribution would really matter.

The paper reminds me of John yesterday tellin me not to lead my Broecker article with the denier myth.  These guys are proving that John knows what he's talking about - leading with the myth just reinforces it.  It doesn't matter that the rest of the paper does a good job explaining why the myth doesn't disprove long-term warming, because all the deniers get is "they admitted global warming stopped!".  And then their heads explode.

On the one hand it's hard to blame them, because scientists are used to writing stuff that's meant to be read by other scientists.  On the other hand, climate scientists have to get used to the fact that deniers are going to distort everything they say.

2011-07-06 13:58:00
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Rob,

Thanks. Face palm...I make one lousy speed reader!  From the first para.:

"Furthermore, global surface temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008. Although temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1), combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators (2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface temperature."

OK, I'll forgive them that, but I still have some concerns with this type of paper that focusses on such crazy short periods of time when studying a noisy system, and the end point issue is still valid.  I'd appreciate concerns on the regional versus global impacts of surface-based sulphates.  Damnit, the loss of the Glory satellite is incredibly unfortunate.

Mind boggling how the denialist take on this is that it did not warm between 1998 and 2008....sigh (I bet that the trend for that period was not even stat. sig., but the deniers won't let that fact get in the way of their ideology).  They really are intent on misisng the point entirely; yes I know, it is their job....

Kaufmann was interviewd by CBC radio tonight, he did an excellent job in explaining their research and placing their findings in the appropriate context, better than they managed in the paper IMO.

2011-07-06 14:04:30What about the "evil twin"?
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.169.88

Not sure if this is applicable, but should/could ocean acidification perhaps be also mentionend, if only by referencing the new series "OA is not OK"? Even if global warming was dimmed by other factors, I guess that there was no "dimming" of ocean acidification during that same (short) period and this in and by itself should be a big concern for everybody (but it is rarely mentionend in this type of context).

2011-07-06 14:17:28
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Thanks-- we cross posted. I agree with most of what you say, well all but one point really. I'm not saying I'm right about the aerosols, but I am still confused after reading your post.  Their model of global SAT assumes that the forcing from those surface-sourced aerosols is distributed globally, like the well-mixed GHG gas CO2.  However, such surface-sourced sulphates are not well-mixed and they have a very short residence time, so my thinking is that assuming the forcing of the sulphates from China applies globally is not correct, and appears to be supported by these satellite data:

 

 

I'm all for improving our understanding, but IMHO, this paper went about it the wrong way.

2011-07-06 16:57:59The authors discuss GISS in their supplemental info
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

In the Supplemental Info, they repeat their analysis for GISS:

A reviewer suggests that we repeat the analysis with the GISS data because the measures of temperature differ after 1998. Specifically, the CRU temperature data peak in 1998 while the GISS temperature data peak in 2005. To evaluate the degree to which these differences are meaningful, we test whether the two temperature series cointegrate and whether the cointegrating relationship between the two temperature series breaks down after 1998 (using the R statistic—equation (S-3)).

For the three sample periods described in Tables S3 and S6, the Cru and GISS measures of temperature cointegrate and we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the cointegrating relationship is stable throughout over the entire sample period, against the alternative alternative hypothesis that the cointegrating relationship breaks down during the 1999- 2005 period (See Table S7). This implies that the differences between the two temperature series are not statistically meaningful and therefore the temperature series used should not have a significant effect on the statistical results, a hypothesis that is consistent with the similarity of results in Tables S3 and S6.

Statistically makes no difference to their result. But from a messaging point of view, makes ALL the difference! Bloody naive scientists!

2011-07-06 17:05:55
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

If mainstream scientists use GISSTEMP to maximise the strength all of their arguments, we cannot then criticise skeptics for using UAH (or whatever) maximises their arguments.

Using GISSTEMP would also leave their argument open to accusations of cherry picking to maximise the message (and hence ignore uncertainties).  You can't win in a rhetorical debate with an opponent that is not bound by the need for logical consistency or truthfulness.

2011-07-06 17:36:52
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.139

I don't think that scientists should write scientific papers having the general public in mind. I would be very unfortunate if it happens because you introduce any sort of bias in what is supposed to be the highest expression of the scientific litterature.
Criticise scientists when they're interviewed, when they write books or blogs but let the peer reviewed litterature be what it has always been, pure and high quality reporting of scientific findings directed to other scientists. The communication problem with the general public should be managed later and otherwise.

2011-07-06 18:04:02
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.60.67

Albie, take a look at this paper: A Description of the global sulfur cycle........... Rasch 2000

I'll cut to the chase, it's long-winded:

"sulfate from the Asian emissions reach the fartherest from their point of origin. They make a noticeable contribution to the burden in both hemispheres, primarily from plumes reaching out in the middle and upper troposphere"

So it's not like the idea is without some solid foundation. 

2011-07-06 18:10:17
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.203

I think there's a bit over-reaction on the use of HadCRUT. It's almost global and a good temperature analysis so I don't think there's nothing wrong in using it, especially as the differences to other analyses really are quite minor.

2011-07-06 19:15:21
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.6

Riccardo:

Climate scientists can be expected to be hounded with demands for data dumps and data-processing software; and will later be hounded with explanations on how to use them by people who don't know enough to use them anyway. That's where we seem to be heading.

In such a world, a little bit of "defensive writing" might save a lot of unintentional PR damage.

2011-07-06 20:29:57neal
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

I probably don't like where we're heading. I don't want science at all levels being involved in PR, marketing, sociological or whatever considerations. The price is too high, in the end you'll destroy what is left of the scientific prestige and scientist will be considered at the same level as politicians, advocacy groups or think tanks.
I strongly disagree to put upon scientists shoulders this impossible task which is outside the scientific culture and method. I also think that we who value science high should refrain from attacking scientists for not being good at PR in the scientific litterature; others (single scientists, science journalists and even us at SkS) took the burden to let them do their job.

2011-07-06 20:37:08
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.6

Riccardo:

- Don't like where we're heading? Don't blame me: McIntyre, WUWT, Wikileaks and Climategate show the direction.

- Science is ultimately funded to the level that society thinks it is worthwhile. If scientists cannot learn to educate the public as to the value of their work, other people will do it for them - less well-informed people, possibly people with an agenda.

- Criticism is not equal to attack. It is not attacking someone to point out that he is just about to hammer his thumb.

2011-07-06 21:22:30
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

"McIntyre, WUWT, Wikileaks and Climategate show the direction". I don't blame you, but we should not follow them and their agenda. On the contrary we should reinforce the value of science against politics, ideaology or any other "distraction".

"Criticism is not equal to attack" Saying that they should use this or that dataset in a scientific paper because of our idea of good PR, i.e. something outside science proper, you're trying to stear them from what they consider to be good science; this is an attack to science, not just to a few scientists. We can and should criticise a scientific paper on a scientific ground, as we always do here at SkS. Moving the goalpost to PR will allow Spencer and other deniers to tune their paper accordingly and we should judge them on the same ground. In this way we loose our stronger weapon, science.

We have to consider PR, or Jones or whoever when interviewed, not scientists when writing a papers. Never cross this line or the whole building will collapse. On the contrary, attack those who want scientists to cross it, because they'd win and we loose.

2011-07-06 21:25:06
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

McIntyre et al. do indeed show the direction, but it is the direction to avoid.  If we adopt the same tactics they do, we will deserve to be tarred with the same brush.  "Messaging" just reinforces the skeptic claims that we are all politcially motivated and only in it for the power/money, as it will show that we are seeking to influence public opinion rather than pursuing science in the traditional manner - i.e. self-skepticsim and avoiding making nuanced claims that can easily be attacked as non-robust or cherry-picked.  Riccardo is exactly right.   

2011-07-06 21:39:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.6

We are in an environment, figuratively, with bombs going off and bullets flying in all directions.

There is no obligation to wear a helmut and other protective gear.

No obligation at all.

2011-07-07 01:52:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I don't think anyone is saying they should have used GISTemp instead of HadCRUT, I think we're saying they should have used both.  They say statistically it makes no difference, but why not include that analysis in the paper?  That's both good science and good PR.

2011-07-07 02:38:26
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Fox News story on this paper claims greenhouse gases are causing global cooling (in other words, they claim SO2 is a greenhouse gas).  And America's collective IQ drops another 5 points.

2011-07-07 03:02:40Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

When it comes to climate science, America's IQ is already in negative territory.

2011-07-07 03:36:27
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob @6 Jul 2011, 6:04 PM,

Thanks mate.  I'll have a look.  I learn something new every day....

 

Dana @2:38 am,

Oh my God, the lies, the lies.....they really don't give a sh1t do they?

And upon reflection, I am inclined to side with Riccardo's argument at 9:22 pm.  Always science first.  And Dana makes a valid point at 2:38.

2011-07-07 08:09:42
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.95.209

I don't know how Kaufman 2011 citing a newspaper column by Bob Carter, and global cooling claims by that idjit Easterbrook, qualifies as sticking strictly to the science.

And as for a few carefully chosen words bringing about the collapse of peer-review, isn't that "skeptic" argumentation?

2011-07-07 08:18:10
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.95.209

Albie, the total shielding effect of sulphate emissions from China is four times that of Western Europe, because of it's location and ability to get spread about in the upper atmosphere. North America has a similar effect, slightly smaller, or larger, depending on which modelling study one reads.