2011-12-08 16:40:20Charlie A getting a failing grade
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Charlie A given his Final Warning here.  Incessantly whining about moderation and being off-topic.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/users.php?u=1458

2011-12-10 04:50:15
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Daniel,

I think we need to tread veyr carefully here. As much bas Charlie is a pain in the arse and as much as he is in denial regarding the dire future of the permafrost. He does make some valid points.

1) Can someone pleas echange the caption for Figure 2.  "Actual" is not correct and is potentially misleading.  We can use strike-out to reflect the initial error, followed by the correct term "Modeled".  And/or add a green box noting that the caption and /or figure have been updated to correct the initial caption error and show the latest model data.

2) If they did create the graphic from the Lawrence et al data they made one or more mistakes, Figure 2 doe snot agree with the figure in the paper, it is close but there are indeed several descrepancies-- I actually agree with him when he says:

"our/WWF's figure 2 does have some similarity to the upper bound of the ensemble of models, but it doesn't really match even that."

 

At this point I see that we have a couple of options:

i)  We digitize the curve, not keen on that,

ii) We get the data from Larewnce and make our own hi res Figure from the  original that John C. can add to the database,

iii) Use the lastest model data from Lawrence et al. 2011.

Either way the post needs updating.  With eagle-eyed deniers and certain lukewamers (enamoured with cats) watching we need to be diligent and act quickly.  Sorry for the bolding, but this has gone unchecked for too long IMHO.  Surely someone other than Agnostic can change the caption?