2011-04-28 18:00:48Question for article submitters (plus gratuitious display of peer-review bar chart)
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

I'm going to blog about the updated Firefox Add-on and thought I might accompany it with some extra functionality displaying latest articles. Currently you can see submitted articles either grouped by climate myth or by recent articles. I'd like to make the submitted articles more accessible so that people submitting articles via the add-on feel like they can easily see what's being added. And others can see new articles, want to subscribe to the daily climate links email or install the add-on to join in on the fun.

So any thoughts on how I could display all the articles submitted to the database? Any models based on other sites that display crowd sourced links, that do a good job of arranging the info?

And as promised, the gratuitious display of the peer reviewed bar chart (Rob and Ari are adding so many papers, Ville is having to reprogram his animation because the database is getting so big -a good problem to have :-):

User # of links
Ari Jokimäki 1508
Rob Painting 1246
John Cook 601
James Wight 100
Alex C 24
2011-04-28 21:20:35
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.10.125

John, you have the "skeptic" argument labelled as "the diurnal temperature range is decreasing" - the "not" seems to be missing. I'm adding papers to it, can you rectify the wording?. Cheers.

2011-04-28 22:58:10Fixed
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

And holy guacamole, 28 proAGW papers on the diurnal temp range!?! You sir, are a legend!

2011-04-28 23:37:14
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.108.14

There seems to be many local studies classified as pro-AGW. We have to think if we should do that or not. I added some papers to that argument previously and classified most papers as neutral unless they addressed global situation and/or attributed the decrease in DTR to GHG's.

2011-04-29 00:29:54
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.10.125

Very few of the DTR studies are of a global nature, most are local or regional. And?. I don't see any need to constrain them only to those that address the global issue, or attribute GHG's or human activities. If you look at them you'll see the bulk find decreasing DTR trends, and very few find opposing trends, in total they represent a global trend anyway. Furthermore, it demonstrates there actually shitloads of pro AGW papers, even though they may be only looking at one part of the puzzle. 

Ari, I think you're being a bit too anally retentive.

2011-04-29 01:09:48
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.108.14

You have to see it other way: if a denier comes claiming that there's this one location where DTR increases, would you then conclude that AGW is not happening? We would of course say that it is not representative of the whole issue because it's just one location. For the sake of consistency, we also should not make the pro-AGW claim from local studies. After all, there are global studies on the issue. When classifying a paper, we should do it based on how that particular paper sees the issue, regardless of the possibility that it might make another kind of statement as apart of some whole.

I'm trying to approach this scientifically. If we do this well, we even might be able to squeeze a peer-reviewed paper out of this. But for that we would need to take anally retentive approach to the issue. No compromises. However, I don't think it matters that much at this point. Currently we're just gathering in the masses of papers. Final classification can be done afterwards (and have to, as we haven't really discussed the principles of classification that much).

2011-04-29 10:16:40
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.10.43

Ari, I think the total number of pro-AGW studies on any given topic will be a very small pool if constricted by your criteria. Take ocean acidification for instance, if we only consider studies that assess affects on all marine organisms, we will be left with zero studies. Meta-analysis would yield only a handful, is that a fair reflection of the state of the science?

Back to the DTR trend, neither I, nor anyone else here, would contend that a local or regional DTR trend in itself is indicative of the global situation. That's the difference between us and them.

"I'm trying to approach this scientifically. If we do this well, we even might be able to squeeze a peer-reviewed paper out of this"

Well, that's another matter. I think we should continue the current course, and when you want to, I'll give you a hand to whittle the papers so that we have a subset of papers which match your criteria. Deal?.

2011-04-29 14:50:11
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

Yes, sure, we'll keep building the paper mass for now. But in the same time it wouldn't hurt to discuss these classification issues thoroughly.

You brought up ocean acidification. There's this claim about it: "Ocean acidification is caused by underwater volcanoes". Here's how I would classify it: In this case papers that say ocean acidification is not caused by underwater volcanoes are pro-AGW. But also the papers that say increasing atmospheric CO2 causes ocean acidification are pro-AGW. But here a paper describing single underwater volcano which doesn't seem to be contributing to acidification is neutral. Paper describing single underwater volcano which is acidifying the ocean is neutral. Paper that describes underwater volcanoes generally acidifying oceans is also neutral. Paper that describes underwater volcanoes generally have increased acidification is difficult to classify, but I would say neutral. Paper that describes underwater volcanoes have caused acidification instead of atmospheric CO2 is skeptic.

Other claim is "Ocean acidification isn't serious". This I agree with you that only studies that make a general analysis suggesting that ocean acidification causes serious problems are pro-AGW. Acidification conditions change considerably in different locations, so local studies can't address the whole situation. It can be bad in one location but it can be excellent in another location. We just don't know it based on local studies.

I'm not suggesting that my view is the correct one, but I'm suggesting that we need to decide how we approach these issues. Currently we are all classifying these papers differently.