The last decade will be the warmest on record...
Falcon
...and the record will be exploited by global warming alarmists.
In the tread "Third coldest October on Record", Earl Evleth wrote:
> On 12/11/09 8:58, in article
> 451a5035-6427-4a55...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
> "enigma" <enigm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Weather and climate are not the same.
>> Wish people like you could comprehend that.
>
> No way, they will grab and run with anything they can.
>
> The world average climate data will appear shortly.
Evleth makes an excellent point; world average climate data will appear
shortly. What they will reveal is a forgone conclusion; the last decade will
be the warmest on record.
A detailed and well-researched discussion of why this is the case appeared
on Bob Tisdale's excellent weblog at http://xrl.us/bf33q9 (Link to
bobtisdale.blogspot.com). For those of you interested in more than childish
one-upmanship and arrogant ill-informed mud-slinging (if there are any of
you out there), the article deserves the very closest scrutiny.
Bob writes: "It became apparent a number of years ago that the current
decade, the 2000s, would have the highest surface temperature since the
start of the instrument temperature record. Prior to now, the record decade
for Global Surface Temperature Anomalies, Global Lower Troposphere
Temperature (TLT) Anomalies, and Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST)
anomalies had been the 1990s. .... with the end of this decade drawing near,
one should expect to hear of this new record time and time again. There are
those who will exploit this in the next few months and in the years to
come".
In the rest of the article, Bob explores the reasons for recent changes in
our climate, which go far beyond the IPCC's obsession with C02. Climat
alarmists will, of course, blame anthropogenic greenhouse gases for the
rise. In doing so will they continue, perhaps unintentionally, to mislead
the public.
In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale,
the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature
trends, have constantly overstated the role of the radiative effect of the
anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other
human climate forcings on global warming, and more generally, on climate
variability and change.
The IPCC is totally obsessed with external forcing, that is, energy
imbalances imposed upon the climate system that are NOT the result of the
natural, internal workings of the system
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Comments of a political nature and those not
supported by references will be ignored.
Earl Evleth
<fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> Bob Tisdale's
Never heard of him, who is he?
I have an innate distrust of bloggers, whatever
their opinions they are bound to be one sided.
I am an academic by training and published
a fair amount, although not in the climate area.
I don't like scientific claims published outside
the normal, peer review process.
Falcon
Earl Evleth wrote:
I don't care who he is. I judge everyone's work on its merits. Even yours.
Responses like yours are notable if only because of an implicit reluctance,
on the part of those who make them, to discuss the issues they raise. It has
to be said that recently, to their credit, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Keith
Briffa and Josh Willis among other 'peer reviewed scientists' haven't taken
such an unresponsive and narrow-minded attitude when discussing the work
of 'sceptical' scientists, statisticians, meteorologists and other concerned
'bloggers'.
Steve McIntyre [1] and Roger Pielke Jr [2] (both of whom have published
peer reviewed papers) have commented on issues concerning diligence and
disclosure in peer reviewed literature, raising concerns which deserve
serious consideration. Their concerns are a valid today as when they were
made. Of course, they did so in blogs, so their concerns will probably be
ignored by academics; especially those, it has to be said, of an AGW
persuasion.
[1] http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66
[2] http://xrl.us/bf335w (Link to sciencepolicy.colorado.edu)
I noticed that you recently resorted to questioning my credibility, rather
than making any attempt to deal with the contents of an article. I'm sorry,
Evleth, but not only will I continue to ignore poorly referenced articles of
assertion and those based on political bias rather than climate science, I
will not get involved in any name calling festivals or childish dick-waving
contests either. Maybe you should take some time to consider your own
attitudes to those who disagree with you, and concentrate a little more on
what they are trying to tell you rather than where they are doing it.
James
The peer review system is more of a mutual admiration society. A friend of mine has done peer review (not in climate but economics) and he looks at the credentials and decides if the paper is worthy without actually delving much into the content. It would seem climate papers have the same problem. With all the alarmists here claiming a physicist, chemist, geologist etc is not a climatologist, the hoax is not limited to usenet.
Earl Evleth
<fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> I don't care who he is. I judge everyone's work on its merits.
To judge in the climate science area you'll have to a member
of that group.
> I noticed that you recently resorted to questioning my credibility, rather
> than making any attempt to deal with the contents of an article.
Exactly, I want to know if you are trained in the "scientific method"
and have accomplished something;
`
> I'm sorry, Evleth, but not only will I continue to ignore poorly
> referenced articles of assertion and those based on political bias rather than
> climate science,
If you are talking about peer reviewed articles published in climate
science journals, there is no political bias. Referees take a
certain glee in going after those types.
> I will not get involved in any name calling festivals or childish dick-waving
> contests either.
I am not calling you a name, I am just asking or you to establish
professional credibility in the area. If you can't you have to be
rates as like all the rest of us.
Earl Evleth
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> The peer review system is more of a mutual admiration society.
Have you submitted an article to a peer reviewed journal?
> A friend of mine has done peer review (not in climate but economics)
> and he looks at the credentials and decides if the paper is worthy without
> actually delving much into the content.
You have a friend who does not respect the responsibility is is given
in judging a paper. I don't know how many I have reviewed, at least
as many as I have published (over 100). Most of the time I did not
know the authors nor what their professional rank might be.
HOWEVER, one of the pleasures in reviewing a paper which has
name authors is to look for errors carefully and rejecting
the paper! I was "theoretical chemist", quantum mechanics
had the possibility of checking by direct calculation an
suspect results. I never found an paper with a factual error.
Errors of interpretation occur. Also if the author failed
to cite my work I might object!
> It would seem climate papers have the same problem. With all
> the alarmists here claiming a physicist, chemist, geologist etc is not a
> climatologist, the hoax is not limited to usenet.
It would seem not to me! Hoaxes are rare and largely limited to the
biomedical area where big buck research money is involved. Quantum
chemistry never had big bucks although all together a large amount
of moment is spent in modeling biochemical systems, new drugs
etc.
Falcon
Earl Evleth wrote:
> On 12/11/09 14:02, in article 7m2fbrF...@mid.individual.net, "Falcon"
> <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't care who he is. I judge everyone's work on its merits.
>
> To judge in the climate science area you'll have to a member
> of that group.
Could you clarify something for me please? Earlier you wrote: "I am an
academic by training and published a fair amount, although not in the
climate area." Does that mean that you feel that you are not qualified to
pass judgement on, for example, Klotzbach et al 2009, and if so, what method
would you use in deciding whether or not the conclusions reached by the
researchers have any merit?
James
> On 12/11/09 17:58, in article 4afc3ea1$0$4046$d94e...@news.iglou.com,
> "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The peer review system is more of a mutual admiration society.
>
> Have you submitted an article to a peer reviewed journal?
No.
>
>> A friend of mine has done peer review (not in climate but economics)
>> and he looks at the credentials and decides if the paper is worthy
>> without actually delving much into the content.
>
> You have a friend who does not respect the responsibility is is given
> in judging a paper. I don't know how many I have reviewed, at least
> as many as I have published (over 100). Most of the time I did not
> know the authors nor what their professional rank might be.
I agree with you. It should be based on the merit of the paper. Credentials be damned. However, by what I have absorbed here and in the media, it would seem my friend is not alone in his judging and many here would, and have, judged similarly based on credentials, title or status. Perhaps I was shooting from the hip when I said the above but you can now better understand why one might say or think that in such a heated issue.
>
> HOWEVER, one of the pleasures in reviewing a paper which has
> name authors is to look for errors carefully and rejecting
> the paper! I was "theoretical chemist", quantum mechanics
> had the possibility of checking by direct calculation an
> suspect results. I never found an paper with a factual error.
> Errors of interpretation occur. Also if the author failed
> to cite my work I might object!
>
>> It would seem climate papers have the same problem. With all
>> the alarmists here claiming a physicist, chemist, geologist etc is
>> not a climatologist, the hoax is not limited to usenet.
>
> It would seem not to me! Hoaxes are rare and largely limited to the
> biomedical area where big buck research money is involved. Quantum
> chemistry never had big bucks although all together a large amount
> of moment is spent in modeling biochemical systems, new drugs
> etc.
I disagree there. I have said before that the alarmists are bastadizing science. I still believe that. Who would write negative science reports on a federal grant when they thought that only positive ones would assure that something that was a political issue would continue and not cut off the money spigot. Hoaxes are rare but climate has been labeled here and there as the biggest ever and the alarmists will write the history of the issue and it's outcome no matter how it turns out. At least for awhile. JMHO
I don't put evolution and global warming in the same category but when the argument went on and on in the 1800s it was decided the naysayers would just naturally die away and the issue would become fact by those that survived and embraced it. It pretty much did but there are still those who question it quite regularly.
JohnM
> > <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >> I don't care who he is. I judge everyone's work on its merits.
>
> > To judge in the climate science area you'll have to a member
> > of that group.
>
> Could you clarify something for me please? Earlier you wrote: "I am an
> academic by training and published a fair amount, although not in the
> climate area." Does that mean that you feel that you are not qualified to
> pass judgement on, for example, Klotzbach et al 2009, and if so, what method
> would you use in deciding whether or not the conclusions reached by the
> researchers have any merit?
Congratulations on your superb snipping of, and dodging of, Earl's
very direct question. That's worthy of artful dodger Bill Ward
'isself.