tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post447429137954023797..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Drop That Paper And Back Slowly AwayEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56985460593833797332013-10-20T14:28:09.128-04:002013-10-20T14:28:09.128-04:00I was struck by this from Spencer: I didn't ex...I was struck by this from Spencer: I didn't expect this from him!<br /><br />(italics is all quote:<br /><i>C’mon, folks! Do you really think that of the billions of dollars spent on designing, launching, and keeping these satellite instruments going, that no one thought to analyze the data? Really? That’s why hundreds of scientists and engineers collaborated on such projects in the first place!<br /><br />Just because you can’t find some technical issue described in blogs doesn’t mean it hasn’t been addressed. It’s in the scientific literature, and in workshop reports, conference proceedings, etc.<br /><br />In retrospect, it’s now clear that public interest in climate change has led to citizen-scientists like Willis taking matters into his/her own hands, since so little information is available in a form that is easily digested by the public. Career scientists like myself have not done enough public outreach to describe what they have done. And when we do such outreach, it is usually too technical to understand. We are too busy publishing-or-perishing.<br /><br />As a result, just about every time someone posts an amateur analysis of data that becomes popular, I’m asked to read it, critique it, and respond. Well, I simply don’t have the time. But these things sometimes get legs, and when they do, I get even more e-mails.<br /><br />For example, I still get the occasional e-mail because the Sky Dragon Slayers took a NASA report about CO2 cooling of the upper atmosphere (which we have known for at least 50 years) and spun it into ‘proof’ that CO2 can’t warm the lower atmosphere. Well, greenhouse gases cool the upper layers, and warm the lower layers, of planetary atmospheres. Nothing new there…except maybe to misguided public perceptions of the science, which usually only involve the warming effects of greenhouse gases.<br /><br />Anyway, I applaud Willis, who is a sharp guy, for trying. But now I am asking him (and others): read up on what has been done first, then add to it. Or, show why what was done previously came to the wrong conclusion, or analyzed the data wrong.<br /><br />But don’t assume you have anything new unless you first do some searching of the literature on the subject. True, some of the literature is paywalled. Sorry, I didn’t make the rules. And I agree, if research was public-funded, it should also be made publicly available.</i><br /><br />There's some nonsense in there, but it's not all nonsense!<br /><br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/citizen-scientist-willis-and-the-cloud-radiative-effect/<br /><br />link from Stoat's "Woy vs. Willis" (I *did* want to put Villis ...)Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13740339563216394802013-10-19T23:38:47.080-04:002013-10-19T23:38:47.080-04:00read down on the citizen debbil, link and you'...read down on the citizen debbil, link and you'll find Watts' criticizing Spencer, which never fails to amuse:<br /><br /><br />"<i>Thanks Dr. Spencer for spelling out your position, and for noting my contributions.<br /><br />Part of the problem that citizen science has is that we are often outside of the orthodoxy/literature path. What is an easy immediate lookup of a paper from most any .edu domain can take us days of emailing, begging (do you have a copy of Smith et al I can read?), and sometimes just flat-out refusal of authors to share papers with skeptics.<br /><br />Sometimes, all we are left with is the “science by press release” residual to work with.<br /><br />If only “big oil” would fund our subscriptions to journals.<br /><br />In any event, I hear you about the time sink. My personal and business life suffers much like yours from emails asking for comments, I’ve finally just resigned myself that I can’t answer them all and focus on those tasks which do the most constructive good.<br /><br />In any event, I see this little tiff as a bump. No worries from my end."</i>THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85637980370374295452013-10-19T10:58:58.740-04:002013-10-19T10:58:58.740-04:00"they did mention LOD as a proxy measure of v..."they did mention LOD as a proxy measure of variability. It does seem to supply the right inflection point contributions to explain multidecadal changes"<br /><br /><br />Inflection points (where second derivative changes sign), are highly dependent on filtering. <br /><br />The problem is that second derivative is very susceptible to noise, even more so than first derivative which is more susceptible than no derivative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87687735373178732762013-10-19T04:31:03.607-04:002013-10-19T04:31:03.607-04:00For years deniers have refused to use mathematics ...For years deniers have refused to use mathematics to separate short term noise from long terms trends, so they can claim a cooling trend that isn't there. Now deniers go to the other extreme with mathematical fantasies like this. <br /><br />The one analysis the deniers will not perform is the one that matches reality: its the CO2 dears.<br /><br />Regards, MillicentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33256204725218213332013-10-19T03:43:55.346-04:002013-10-19T03:43:55.346-04:00All Eli could think about is that the Great Mentio...All Eli could think about is that the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/the-great-mentioner.html" rel="nofollow">Great Mentioner</a> has taken a Climate MOOC.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85371751763180285842013-10-19T02:55:33.373-04:002013-10-19T02:55:33.373-04:00Well they did mention LOD as a proxy measure of va...Well they did mention LOD as a proxy measure of variability. It does seem to supply the right inflection point contributions to explain multidecadal changes. Since it has no bias it is perhaps a good candidate as a time series detrender and defluctuator.<br /><br />test it out here:<br />http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate<br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75619019441225171412013-10-18T23:22:15.921-04:002013-10-18T23:22:15.921-04:00Eli,
Sorry to be a tease, but look who was on Wya...Eli,<br /><br />Sorry to be a tease, but look who was on Wyatt's <a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/marcia-wyatts-university-of-colorado-at-boulder-ph-d-dissertation-a-multidecadal-climate-signal-propagating-across-the-northern-hemisphere/" rel="nofollow">supervisor committee</a> ;) They also worked with Scafetta at some point.<br /><br />Knowing that, the mathurbation in Wyatt et al. is not at all surprising. I'm sure the (cough) "auditor" will be all over this very soon, casting aspersions on Curry's credibility and honesty ;) <br /><br />Fake skeptics seem to find mathurbation addictive, a bit like... oh never mind.<br /><br />PS: Old Revkin seems to have <a href="http://revkin.tumblr.com/post/63721011974/stadium-wave-signal-predicts-that-current-pause#notes" rel="nofollow">taken the bait</a>.Albatrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14444036939651524737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14298402570881578412013-10-18T20:48:50.177-04:002013-10-18T20:48:50.177-04:00He looks a bit like Edward Snowden, but he's n...He looks a bit like Edward Snowden, but he's not nearly as important as him.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68xkSpUaUeQ<br /><br />In a more sane and just world, Edward Snowden would be hailed as a national and international hero while Obama, Cheney/Bush, Bush, Clinton, and the remnants of the Reagan and Nixon administrations would go on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.<br /><br />Nuremberg, where are you when the world really needs you?Cynthiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04026077296763575637noreply@blogger.com