Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Look at Las Vegas, they are proud of cutting water usage per person from 315 gallons to 235 gallons a day . Melbourne, Victoria has been targetting 155 liters per day, that's 40 gallons per person, during the worst drought ever.

Worst drought ever? In a desert? I doubt it. You just mean since people started trying to live in the desert and not "ever". It's hyperbole that's the real problem here.

 

[Furcifer]

Your statement, as has been multipley demonstrated, is either a lie, or a confabulation.

Or demonstrably true. The confabulation is feigning ignorance at the simple reality in light of the evidence at hand. Unfortunately it's quite common.

 

[Furcifer]

Not even close.

We are still trying to figure out the definition of "20th Century".

Some are to the point of making one up. Some realize they're isn't one because sometimes it's used colloquially.

 

[Cuddles]

Note that the multiquote button works perfectly well in moderated threads. Constantly making multiple posts in a short space of time achieves nothing other than to make the thread unwieldy and cause delays in having posts approved.

Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Reality Check]

They're all referenced as being taken from the 20th Century, when in fact the years may be less than or more than the technical definition of the 20th Century. What's to understand?

They're all trends and averages referenced as being taken from the 20th Century, when in fact there is no 20th Century average (a single number for the 20th Century) in the papers. What's to understand?

There's more than 10 articles cited in this thread that haven't graced the ...snipped insults about web sites....

There are hundreds (thousands?) of papers that are not cited in any climate web sites. Does that make WattsUpWithThat a 'propaganda, fear mongering pseudoscience' (in your words) web site?
It does not.

The question was: 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?

I will get you started:
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 (his models not the sensitivity)
Annan and Hargreaves (2009)
Knutti and Hegerl (2008) "presents a comprehensive, concise overview of our scientific understanding of climate sensitivity." And this review includes many more citations!
They also cite the "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.""

So what papers estimating climate sensitivity did they ignore?
AR4 includes citations to AFAIK all (?) of the pre-2007 climate senstivity papers.

I do hope that your definition of cherry picking is not including every paper that has been ever written on the subject!

 

[Mikemcc]

Some are to the point of making one up. Some realize they're isn't one because sometimes it's used colloquially.

Then there's you, and only you, trying to fit an entirely fanciful definition to fit your ramblings. Your definition has even been shoot down by NOAA who e-mailed to say you were wrong. Why can't you accept that you are wrong?

I might have included the word 'again', but I'd just be satisfied with you admitting these two points; that your use of 20th century average was not mentioned in any of your cited papers and that no-one has been found to have included 19th century data in producing a 20th Century average temperature anomaly.

 

[Mikemcc]

Perhaps, but neither belongs in the scientific review and rebuttal process, period.

I am quite surpised at how this process is discarded out of hand, but that is just me.

It hasn't been, as proved by Andrew Dressler publishing a rebuttal.

 

[Wangler]

...that said, nothing that I've read says anything akin to "this paper was rejected because a bunch of folks on the internet didn't like it."

Of course not, because the paper wasn't rejected. An editor resigned.

The interesting part, is the bits and pieces of the article left out of your selective quotes, and the focal point of my question about your biased presentation of the issue.................

It is rather hard to maintain the prespective you are trying to project when one does a full reading of the material in context, rather than merely reading the little cherry-picked nuggets obviously intended to distort and dissemble with regards to the article's actual content and information.



If science papers are read the way some read BBC articles, it is little wonder that there is so much misunderstanding of climate science in some quarters.

Well, I suppose I could have quoted the whole article. I didn't have a problem with any of the quotes you presented, though. I lead with the quote that was most troubling to my understanding of the peer review process.

From Wagner's resignation editorial (and I will quote a bit more than usual, to avoid the appearance of inpropiety, but I did bold the part that I think is just weird):

"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."

But further in the editorial (bolding again is mine):

"In hindsight, it is possible to see why the review process of the paper by Spencer and Braswell did not fulfill its aim. The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one “accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three
reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong. In science, diversity and controversy are
essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly discussed. Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review
process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be published and responded to in the open literature. This was my initial response after having become aware of this particular case. So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers."

So, the reviewers are here getting lambasted in an editorial for apparently furthering the denier cabal? Who has the problem with conspiracies here? I thought that the deniers made all of those claims?

Back to my point. The editorial leads with the statement that arguments in internet discussion fora were the reason that the editor changed his mind. Only later does the editor mention that the views of the paper in question have been refuted "to some extend" also in the literature, but only after again mentioning "open discussions". It does appear as if the editor was trying to prevent Remote Sensing from becoming another Climate Research by taking this immediate and direct step.

If you have a peer review that was without error from a purely formal point of view, but an editor resigns due to a furious discussion about the subject of that peer review (mostly on the internet, it seems), that places the peer review process on a slippery slope.

I really can't believe that you are OK with that, but it sounds like you are.

Don't you agree we should let the Dressler paper and other papers refuting Spencer and Braswell do their work, and let science correct itself via the proper means?

 

[Furcifer]

They're all trends and averages referenced as being taken from the 20th Century, when in fact there is no 20th Century average (a single number for the 20th Century) in the papers. What's to understand?

Nonsense. All of the cited papers refer to the means or averages as it pertains to the "20th Century", when in fact the datasets are from the 19th, 21st and of course the 20th.

How can that be made any more transparent? There's clearly no imaginary rule, because none is needed. Most people understand this colloquial usage of the term.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of papers that are not cited in any climate web sites. Does that make WattsUpWithThat a 'propaganda, fear mongering pseudoscience' (in your words) web site?
It does not.

In light of the subject it would be "complacent mongering" I guess.

The question was: 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?

How isn't it? It's pseudoscience by definition. I suggest you read the article on Cargo Cults, it very much describes these agenda driven websites.

I do hope that your definition of cherry picking is not including every paper that has been ever written on the subject!

The more important question is how many of the actual published articles on climate science actually grace the pages of the website?

It isn't a place for open scientific discussion, they're agenda driven propagandists. It's pseudoscience.

 

[Furcifer]

Then there's you, and only you, trying to fit an entirely fanciful definition to fit your ramblings. Your definition has even been shoot down by NOAA who e-mailed to say you were wrong. Why can't you accept that you are wrong?

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.

I might have included the word 'again', but I'd just be satisfied with you admitting these two points; that your use of 20th century average was not mentioned in any of your cited papers and that no-one has been found to have included 19th century data in producing a 20th Century average temperature anomaly.

Nonsense. The papers were found using that exact search term! They all clearly mention the 20th Century and all of them use datasets that don't meet this ridiculous made up definition. The fact is you're feigning ignorance at the colloquial use.

There's literally thousands of papers that use the term loosely because there's no set definition. Scientists aren't bound by made up definitions on the internet! I don't know why anyone would claim otherwise, it's completely absurd.

The fact is it's quite prevalent in climate science because the measuring stations began as early as 1854, but more accurately in 1880. This is why they were encouraged to use the 1880-1899 data in their "20th Century" simulations. In terms of climate science the "20th Century" is actually more correctly described as the period from 1880-2000.

I don't understand why you continue to avoid this simple truth?

 

[Trakar]

Or demonstrably true. The confabulation is feigning ignorance at the simple reality in light of the evidence at hand. Unfortunately it's quite common.

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

 

[Furcifer]

Another example, and not surprisingly the first to come up in the search:

A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate.

Guess where the dataset for the 20th Century simulations begins? If you guessed 1901 because that's the beginning of the 20th Century you'd be wrong.

It's obvious to anyone reading this for comprehension and not being pedantic can see how this is just a general use to describe the bulk of the century for which the data is applicable. There isn't a single scientist in the world that would question this usage. Any attempt at doing so would look foolish.

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.

 

[Wangler]

It hasn't been, as proved by Andrew Dressler publishing a rebuttal.

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

Dressler's rebuttal is welcome, and timely. The editor's stepping down was extreme, and early to the point of being a knee-jerk.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Nonsense. All of the cited papers refer to the means or averages as it pertains to the "20th Century", when in fact the datasets are from the 19th, 21st and of course the 20th.

Damn it wangler you were right .

 

[Reality Check]

Another example, and not surprisingly the first to come up in the search:

A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate.

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

 

[lomiller]

I forgot to mention this in my previous answer, sorry:

I think that the far more interesting question is whether or not folks here think that internet discussion fora are viable venues for scientific rebuttal of a peer reviewed paper.

From the BBC article about the editor stepping down:



So a paper is published in a peer-review journal, and comments in internet forums result in the journal editor stepping down? Is this really how science is done these days?

The editor is almost certainly stepping down in the interest of his fledgling journal. It’s not unusual for bad papers to get published, but when peer review fails so badly in a new journal it can ruin the reputation of that journal to the point where it will not receive quality submissions. Essentially the editor is embarrassed about the quality of the peer review they performed and doesn’t want that to negatively impact the journals future.


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.

 

[Trakar]

Another example, and not surprisingly the first to come up in the search:

A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate.

Guess where the dataset for the 20th Century simulations begins? If you guessed 1901 because that's the beginning of the 20th Century you'd be wrong.

It's obvious to anyone reading this for comprehension and not being pedantic can see how this is just a general use to describe the bulk of the century for which the data is applicable. There isn't a single scientist in the world that would question this usage. Any attempt at doing so would look foolish.

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.

All of which is a dramatic shift to a casual titular reference to "20th century" occurences from the technically specific term and assertion of the "20th Century average" in reference to temperature.

And to look at this paper we find that, as in all the previous cases you have presented so far, the content and context of usage not only does not support your assertion, it (like all others thus far presented) actually refutes your distortion:

"...The bars plotted in the lower part of Figure 3 show natural (separated into volcanic and solar) and anthropogenic (combined GHG, direct anthropogenic sulfate and ozone) forcing components in 25-year bins...

...While the total natural forcing (thin black bars) undergoes changes from negative values of about 0.1 Wm2 at the beginning of the century, after 1925the lack of volcanic eruptions together with increased solar irradiance produces positive radiative forcing of 0.23 Wm2. During the second half of the century, although solar irradiance remains high, increased volcanic forcing of 0.13 and 0.2 Wm2 (for 1950–1974 and 1975–1999, respectively) essentially compensates for the positive values. It is during this time that the anthropogenic forcing emerges from very small values earlier in the century (<0.1 Wm2) to be the dominant player...

...PCM 4-member ensemble average global surface air temperature with full forcings (red line) compared to the range of observational estimates (blue shaded area) from Jones et al. [2001], Hansen et al. [1999] and Quayle et al. [1999]. Bottom: 25-year averaged forcing contributions. Thin black bars: combined natural forcing (solar +volcanic)....

...Both observed and simulated time series show that the total combined forcing as the sum of the 25-year averages (thick black bars for combined anthropogenic and thin black bars for combined natual..."

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")

 

[Trakar]

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

Dressler's rebuttal is welcome, and timely. The editor's stepping down was extreme, and early to the point of being a knee-jerk.

"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.

 

[Reality Check]

Nonsense. All of the cited papers refer to the means or averages as it pertains to the "20th Century", when in fact the datasets are from the 19th, 21st and of course the 20th.
[/quotre]
No one disputes that.
But none of these papers calculate a "20th century average". This is an average over the 20th century.

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".

...snipped avoidance of the question....

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?

BTW: Ditto for the Real Climate web site.

The more important question is how many of the actual published articles on climate science actually grace the pages of the website?

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.

 

[Trakar]

Well, I suppose I could have quoted the whole article. I didn't have a problem with any of the quotes you presented, though. I lead with the quote that was most troubling to my understanding of the peer review process.

From Wagner's resignation editorial (and I will quote a bit more than usual, to avoid the appearance of inpropiety, but I did bold the part that I think is just weird):

"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."

"In hindsight, it is possible to see why the review process of the paper by Spencer and Braswell did not fulfill its aim. The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one “accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three
reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong. In science, diversity and controversy are essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly discussed. Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be published and responded to in the open literature. This was my initial response after having become aware of this particular case. So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers."

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?

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.

The editorial leads with the statement that arguments in internet discussion fora were the reason that the editor changed his mind. Only later does the editor mention that the views of the paper in question have been refuted "to some extend" also in the literature, but only after again mentioning "open discussions". It does appear as if the editor was trying to prevent Remote Sensing from becoming another Climate Research by taking this immediate and direct step.
(...)
If you have a peer review that was without error from a purely formal point of view, but an editor resigns due to a furious discussion about the subject of that peer review (mostly on the internet, it seems), that places the peer review process on a slippery slope.

I really can't believe that you are OK with that, but it sounds like you are.

Don't you agree we should let the Dressler paper and other papers refuting Spencer and Braswell do their work, and let science correct itself via the proper means?

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.

Again, publication now under discussion, for those trying to follow along, seems to be this: Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

Approximately two pages (sans references) of Wagner's discussion and explanation of why he is stepping down as editor at the Remote Sensing Journal.

Mr Wagner makes the case for the impropriety of his own actions and holds himself accountable while slamming the distortions and misresentations of the paper's authors and elements of the media:

...With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few....