Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

Nonsense. I don't believe you actually read what was written, the nonsense about a predetermined universally accepted definition of the 20th Century was laughed at. There's no such definition, any suggestion otherwise is a complete fabrication. It's laughable...

Re: Subject: Definition of "20th century average"
From: "Derek.Arndt@noaa.gov" <Derek.Arndt@noaa.gov>Add to Contacts
To: [redacted]
Cc: cmb.contact@noaa.gov


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi,

Our global temperature anomalies presented at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php are departures from the
20th Century average. The 20th Century average is calculated using the
100-year period beginning with 1901 and ending with 2000.

Deke Arndt
Chief, Climate Monitoring Branch
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center

You are incorrect, the level of denial here is not laughable, it is sad.

 

[Halsu]

What does Dressler's rebuttal have to do with the editor stepping down in the face of internet teeth gnashing?

I got the impression that the editor didn't step down because of the internet discussions per se - that they just served as the messenger. To me it appears he made his decision simply because after reading those discussions he realized he had been (likely deliberately) fooled by the authors and the reviewers to release a sub-par paper.

 

[Furcifer]

That would be an unsupportable and distorted perspective of the discussion and issues that are well documented on these pages.

Nonsense. It's been demonstrated numerous times, and anyone with google can find plenty more. There's no "universal definition" for how the term "20th Century" is used, and quite frequently is does refer to more than or less than the years from 1901-2000. Trying to put a finite definition of a colloquial term is absurdity.
What I find particularly interesting is the refusal to accept this after I happened to stumble upon the very mandate set forth in the preparation for AR3, which clearly indicates "20th Century simulations" are to be run from 1901-2000, but ideally begin in 1880.
It's quite clear to those of us familiar with climate change that the "oddball out" at it were was the NOAA's usage of the period from 1901-2000 in their simulation. In terms of climate change it's very clear the 20th Century quite commonly refers to the years 1880-2000 or thereabouts, and not 1901-2000 and certainly not exclusively. NOAA indicates this departure from the norm in their fact sheet.

That's the facts, there's no disputing this. At least not honestly.

 

[Furcifer]

And what has this got to do with a 20th century average?
The title mentions monthly averages. A month is not a century.

I suggest you read the papers, they answer you question quite precisely.

 

[Furcifer]

You are incorrect, the level of denial here is not laughable, it is sad.

lol, wrong email. Please read the entire thread. You appear to have missed most of the important parts as they pertain to the discussion.

 

[Furcifer]

No one disputes that.
But none of these papers calculate a "20th century average". This is an average over the 20th century.

Yes, and it includes the years 1880-1901.

So we are still waiting for your citations to papers that calculate an average over a range of years the starts from before 1901 and goes beyond 2000 and calls this a "20th Century average".

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts or you didn't read the cited papers for comprehension. It's very clear the term is not exclusive to the years 1901-2000. Denial won't make it true.

Still no answer to Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
(30 August 2011).
How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

Answered numerous times.

BTW: Ditto for the Real Climate web site.

Garbage pseudoscience website. There's nothing to be gained by reading it.

It is a trivial question but the answer is lots and lots and lots. There are several hundred article, most citing at least one paper and many citing several papers. For example look at an article I picked at random -
Tree-ring proxies and the divergence problem which cites Jacoby 1995, Briffa 1998, Cook 2004, On the ’divergence problem’ in northern forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes (D’Arrigo 2008), Briffa 2004 and Wilmking 2008.

There are some articles which do not cite any papers, e.g. the guest post On Mowing a Virginia Lawn … And Contemplating a Greenland Iceberg which is funnily enough about mowing and an iceberg !

Your question though is strange. It implies that you have never read the web site. Otherwise you would have noticed that just about every article cites one or more climate science papers. Hundreds of articles means many hundreds of citations.

The important question is whether you have any evidence that the articles in Skeptical Science (and Real Climate) have cherry picked their papers.

Your own post is evidence of the cherrypicking that goes on at these pseudoscience websites

What more evidence do you need?

 

[lomiller]

I got the impression that the editor didn't step down because of the internet discussions per se - that they just served as the messenger. To me it appears he made his decision simply because after reading those discussions he realized he had been (likely deliberately) fooled by the authors and the reviewers to release a sub-par paper.

This and he wanted to limit the damage the error caused his journal. But otherwise you have it exactly right, the internet discussion pointed to relevant articles the editor simply had been exposed to because they were outside his specialty, from there he wouldn't need to wait for rebuttals to realize the paper was sub-par and should not have been published.

 

[Furcifer]

The bottom 25-year periods indicating the 20th Century from 1901-2000.
The ensembles of data they utilize as they derive 20th century averages cover various portions of the total instrument and satellite records, but the specific calculations and assessments of "20th century" values include very specific 25 year breakdowns of the data for the quarterly periods of the time frame from 1901-2000 (aka "the 20th Century")

Yes, and there's periods used in the datasets that don't go from 1901-2000 and are still referred to as the "20th Century".

At least we've got to the point where we can find reference to the 20th Century unlike previous claims. Now it's just a matter of looking at all of the datasets. 1 step at a time.

 

[Furcifer]

And what has this got to do with a 20th century average?
The title mentions monthly averages. A month is not a century.

What's odd is you don't seem to realize this is one of the very simulations we're talking about. If you read the paper instead of the title it might help with your confusion.

 

[Furcifer]

"internet teeth gnashing" is your uncompelling and unsupported qualification; internet discussions of the paper were mentioned but were not categorized as the only, yet alone most prominent reason for the editor's actions.
In fact, the multitude of other reasons discussed in detail in the BBC article you referenced, refutes and repudiates your attempted distortions of the facts.

Nonsense. This is simply avoiding the question posed.

 

[Wangler]

So, that actual article you quoted in support of your argument didn't say things in a way that supported your argument so you are going to move the goalposts to a different source?

Ha ha, not at all, I thought that adding the actual editorial from the editor who resigned might actually add to the discussion.

I guess I shouldn't have brought it up, as now I've doubled my devious distortion workload. Darn!

As it is the author's actual explanation in the journal itself, I have no problem discussing it, but your characterization and statements based upon the originally offered article are noted to be distortions and misrepresentations of the content of that article.

Ad hominem noted.

There is a big difference between technical and formal perspectives with regards to error in peer review. Further, I see no indication that Wagner's decisions were mostly, or even strongly, influenced by "furious" internet discussion, that is your distortion in search of compelling support, and further distortions and assertions do not account as compelling support.

I guess my perspective on his decision being mostly influenced by "furious" (my original addition, true) internet discussion is primarily due to the fact that he lead with that in his stated reasons as presented in his own editorial.

Let me be clear that I think that the points made by the editor in his hindsight regarding the review process for this paper were good ones.

What I have a problem with is the apparent influence that "internet fora" discussions had on his decision making process regarding his resignation and the subsequent negative light that his action has placed upon the scientific review process.

Note that I did not say I have a problem with the influence that "internet fora" discussions may have had on his perception of the validity of the SB11 paper.

But, if "internet fora" discussions are to be considered a valid source, not even the primary source, of input into the peer-review or peer-review editorial processes, then the science is lost.

Heck, even JREF holds a higher standard, as nowhere is "internet fora" discussions held as sources of true authority. The mantra is always: "show me the peer-reviewed science", and rightfully so.

But as I stated before, you are apparently at peace with this lowering of the scientific review bar, so we are likely at loggerheads on this.

 

[Wangler]

I got the impression that the editor didn't step down because of the internet discussions per se - that they just served as the messenger. To me it appears he made his decision simply because after reading those discussions he realized he had been (likely deliberately) fooled by the authors and the reviewers to release a sub-par paper.

As I mentioned before, I think he didn't want Remote Sensing to go the way of Climate Science.

I assume that the reviewers won't be asked to review papers for Remote Sensing (or any other journal) in the future.

If there truly is a conspiracy of denier scientists, they will likely find another journal to dupe in the near future.

 

[Wangler]

Since the journal itself is tangential to climate science, you can’t even try to argue that it’s really only pressure from that cabal of climate scientists participating in the “conspiracy” that triggered the resignation.

Well, climate scientists wouldn't try to gang up on a editor, even of a tangential climate science journal, would they?

 

[lomiller]

Note that I did not say I have a problem with the influence that "internet fora" discussions may have had on his perception of the validity of the SB11 paper.

But, if "internet fora" discussions are to be considered a valid source, not even the primary source, of input into the peer-review or peer-review editorial processes, then the science is lost.

Heck, even JREF holds a higher standard, as nowhere is "internet fora" discussions held as sources of true authority. The mantra is always: "show me the peer-reviewed science", and rightfully so.

The internet discussion cited numerous peer reviewed sources and included commentary from high profile climate scientists. There was more than enough substance in this discussion to point the editor to where he needed to go to verify what was being discussed. There is no reason to suspect he made his decision on the basis of their being an internet furor rather than following the cites to relevant literature that discussion pointed to.

You also need to consider the way the paper was reported on by its proponents and indeed even its author in that internet discussion was in no way indicative of the papers actual contents and this is something the editor in question cloud easily see for himself. This undoubtedly left the impression that he and his journal had been used for political purposes and he clearly didn’t want that stigma hanging over the journals future.

 

[lomiller]

Well, climate scientists wouldn't try to gang up on a editor, even of a tangential climate science journal, would they?

Is it “ganging up” when scientists agree on something? It quickly became apparently that most climate scientists agreed this was a bad paper. I don’t see how science would benefit from them being unable to express this opinion because it would be “ganging up”. Imagine what would happen if we didn’t allow biologists to express their negative impressions of Behee’s work because it would mean ganging up on him.

Additionally, in this case even if there were some conspiracy what leverage would this cabal of climate scientists have? The journal was tangential, so it’s not like boycotting it would have any impact at all.

 

[Wangler]

The internet discussion cited numerous peer reviewed sources and included commentary from high profile climate scientists. There was more than enough substance in this discussion to point the editor to where he needed to go to verify what was being discussed. There is no reason to suspect he made his decision on the basis of their being an internet furor rather than following the cites to relevant literature that discussion pointed to.

Good points, but I would agree more with your last statement if it said: "There is no reason to suspect he made his decision solely on the basis of their being an internet furor rather than following the cites to relevant literature that discussion pointed to."

You also need to consider the way the paper was reported on by its proponents and indeed even its author in that internet discussion was in no way indicative of the papers actual contents and this is something the editor in question cloud easily see for himself.

Another good point, and one that I had not considered fully previously.

 

[Wangler]

Additionally, in this case even if there were some conspiracy what leverage would this cabal of climate scientists have? The journal was tangential, so it’s not like boycotting it would have any impact at all.

Plenty of leverage. Remote Sensing wants and needs to publish meaningful papers to survive; all journals do.

Getting black balled by respected scientists in general, and vocal ones at that, would be bad by any definition. It wouldn't matter if the black ballers were "sensing" scientists or toxicologists.

 

[Reality Check]

Furcifer's cited papers do not calculate a "20th Century average"

Yes, and it includes the years 1880-1901.

No it does not according to all of the papers that you have cited. The only citations that I can find have nothing to do with the "20th century average":

• trends are not averages
• Monthly averages are not 20th century averages
• Annual and seasonal averages are not 20th century averages

To which we can add

• A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate.
  Monthly averages.
• And maybe the other 35000 results from an unspecified search in an unspecified seach engine.

But I think that your basic mistake is in this post:

There's 35000 more in this particular search, 6 of the first 10 it appears have already been cited in this thread. It's quite clear the use of the term 20th Century does not imply the years 1901-2000 exclusively.

You are correct but this has nothing to do with a "20th Century average". You can read the word average in the term?

This started from a comment you made about a NOAA page which presented data from outside of the 20th century as anomalies from a "20 Century average" that explicitly included only the years 1901-2000 as NOAA themselves state.


But here you are just looking up "20th Century" and ignoring the average bit. FYI, I can also ignore terms. There are 1,910,000 results returned for 'climate century' in Google Scholar !

None of your cited papers calculates a "20th Century average" that includes the years 1880-1901.

But I may be wrong: All you have to do is quote where they do so.

Answered numerous times.

Repeating unsupported assertions is not evidence. You claim to know something about science so you should know that.

Still no answer to Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
(30 August 2011).
How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

Your own post is evidence of the cherrypicking that goes on at these pseudoscience websites

When I listed the papers cited in these two articles

• Tree-ring proxies and the divergence problem cites Jacoby 1995, Briffa 1998, Cook 2004, On the ’divergence problem’ in northern forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes (D’Arrigo 2008), Briffa 2004 and Wilmking 2008.
• A detailed look at climate sensitivity cites Rahmstorf 2008, 2008 study led by James Hansen, Zeebe 2009, Wigley et al. (2005), Forster et al. (2006), Gregory et al. (2002), Hansen 1988, Annan and Hargreaves (2009) and Knutti and Hegerl (2008) together with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report .
  N.B. The last 2 are reviews and cite just about every paper on climate sensitivity.

You seem to make the mistake of thinking they are cherry picking because they do not cite the thousands of climate papers that exist !

Thus you are giving the impression that you have no idea what cherry picking means. To show that cherry picking is being done you need to cite the papers that they missed out, i.e. evidence for "ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position".

Therefore my question above (Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science )

 

[Reality Check]

What's odd is you don't seem to realize this is one of the very simulations we're talking about. If you read the paper instead of the title it might help with your confusion.

Once again: And what has this got to do with a 20th century average?
Quote where in the paper they calculate an average over a range of years that starts from before 1901 and goes beyond 2000 and calls this a "20th Century average".

 

[CapelDodger]

I got the impression that the editor didn't step down because of the internet discussions per se - that they just served as the messenger. To me it appears he made his decision simply because after reading those discussions he realized he had been (likely deliberately) fooled by the authors and the reviewers to release a sub-par paper.

Had he had our experience of the world Spencer inhabits, Wagner would have foreseen what was going to happen. Sometimes one has to remind oneself that most people have no experience of it, and a scientist would not expect it from another scientist. Spencer is, of course, not just another scientist. He's a man with a mission to save us from intrusive government.

Wagner's steep learning-curve, and his response to it, has served as a warning to many others. I doubt Spencer will get peer-reviewed publication again (outside E&E), and I don't doubt he'll whine mightily about it to his last breath (and after that, to his maker).

Allthe denier flow now is whining, and it was always going to be thus. I'm just surprised it's happened so soon.