BPSDBRick Hodgin of the MIT Methane fraud is at it again, this time with “Possible natural explanation found for West Antarctica’s warming.”
What he is trying to pull this time is to blame the recently documented warming of the Antarctic on a volcano eruption similar to one discovered to have occurred 2,300 years ago.
It stands to reason that if there is an active volcano in Antarctica, one capable of punching a hole through the ice sheet and spewing “a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards” over 23,000 km2 at some point, then it (and its nearby possibly as-of-yet-unidentified brothers) may well be the cause of a one degree Fahrenheit increase observable in the western section of Antarctica over the past 50 years.
It stands to reason? What kind of reasoning is that? I wonder what it is that he finds reasonable?
Is it the notion that there was a volcanic eruption in the last 50 years
that spewed ash 12 km into the air and spread it over 23,000 km2, and we didn’t notice? is that what he finds reasonable?
Despite satellites, Antarctic research stations and expeditions? Everyone was looking the other way, were they?
Maybe it’s the notion that we can detect such an eruption that happened 2,300 years ago, but find no evidence of one that supposedly just occurred recently? Is that what he thinks is “reasonable”?
Or maybe, just maybe, he thinks it is entirely reasonable to imagine that this fictitious volcano(s) somehow magically caused a warming exactly in synch with the warming of the rest of the planet.
Further, that the effect of that volcano was to cause gradual increasing warming over decades after the eruption? obviously releasing more heat as more time passed since it’s eruption … is that the ‘reasonable’ part?
Well why not? If you are making up magic volcanoes you may as well go all of the way and give them properties that are the opposite of real volcanoes. Certainly makes as much sense as the rest.
So rather than accept the obvious explanation based on evidence that Antarctica is warming due to human caused climate change, just like the rest of the planet, Hodgin thinks it is “reasonable” to make up a magic volcano(s) that is invisible and has properties that are the opposite of real volcanoes.
It’s just too ridiculous for words.
Now obviously he does not think it is reasonable to imagine that a single volcano, even a super volcano, would have warmed the entire continent of Antarctica. So how does he deal with the fact that the evidence shows that the whole continent has been warming? Simple, he lies about it.
Also, if you look at the location of the warming, it is contained in the western region by the mountain range, indicating the warmer air comes from a local source and not a global phenomena to the entire continent.
He gives you the image without a legend so indeed it looks like the red zone is where the warming is. Of course the map with a legend tells a different story.
The Eastern Antarctic has not warmed as much as Western, hence the colour difference, but it has warmed.
I say that he lies because he claims both that the Eastern Antarctic isn’t warming, and an implicit claim is that he has at least looked at the work, presumably closely enough to comment on it. At least one of those is false, and possibly both are.
As if that were not bad enough, he even goes on:
“…there’s just too short a data set for us to be able to draw any conclusions as of yet. If we had 500 years worth of charts, then I might feel more comfortable with analysts pointing out trends.”
At least three things grossly wrong with this statement.
- Despite his statement, we do have more than 500 years worth of temperature data. What Hodgin is implying is that the only valid temperature data is the direct land based measurements, and that is just nonsense. Proxy measurements are different, but valid.
- I wonder what would be a sufficient data set for him? Clearly he is suggesting that we should base science on his level of uninformed comfort, or should it be everybody’s? Should we have polls? ie he gives no rational reason for what would constitute a sufficient data set, and why.
- Hodgin may not have a clue as to what is a sufficient data set to detect trends, but science does. In fact not only a clue, but a reasoned figure based on data as explained here (it is 30 years).
We are then treated to several completely irrelevant anecdotes, presumably to make the utterly trivial point that science does not know everything.
OBVIOUS ALERT!
- Not knowing everything is not a synonym for not knowing anything;
- Listing things one doesn’t know in no way negates what you do know, especially when the examples are irrelevant;
- If you want to demonstrate that the knowledge about something is inadequate or uncertain, then talk about that thing and provide facts and evidence;
- Rambling on about irrelevant things is a tacit admission that you cannot demonstrate any problems with the actual subject, in which case why are you talking at all?
Eventually the irrelevant rambling talks about the sun as a setup for reiterating the totally discredited “it’s caused by the Sun” fable (debunked repeatedly at the links found here and here).
Again given as uninformed and unsubstantiated opinion, despite the fact that 10 min with a search engine would have given him the facts.
This sudden appearance of the Solar fable leads me to ask what happened to the fictitous super volcano? forgotten already? Apparently he cannot even keep straight which nonsense he is trying to push in the piece.
What’s curious, and typical of many Deniers, is that in Hodgin unquestionably accepts the science as it relates to various topics that come up. Apparently science is a credible source of information … unless it doesn’t suit you, in which case make things up and pretend they are as credible.
The whole thing is such a pathetically desperate clutching at any silliness to try and cast doubt on climate science that it is really more sad than anything.
In debunking the Methane fraud story I noted that “There is no way to know if Hodgin knew he was lying or is just a clueless twerp who didn’t know what he was talking about.”
I guess we have an answer, or at least a lot more evidence.
UPDATE: Commenter Jay Alt notes
The satellite that measures the skin temperatures of Antarctic ice (shown on your yellow/orange map) is accurate to tenths of a degree.
Any volcano activity would be localized and very obvious.
This doesn’t show up so volcanism can’t explain the rising in temperatures. (once again)
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 96 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS
Greenfyre's 
But… but… AAAAAAAALLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOOORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reminds me of the dude who mailed me a chart of solar activity overlaid with smoothed solar activity, and claimed that this shows global warming is caused by solar activity variation.
Boy this volcano really gets around….
It was under the Greenland ice, then it was on the floor of the Arctic Ocean and now it was “spotted” in the West Antarctica…
But now it’s missing…
When I let the dog out tomorrow morning I’ll take a look around my back yard…any identifying marks?
Beautifully written piece, as usual, Greenfyre. It continues to amaze me that so many people who know so little put themselves forward as experts and are hailed as experts by the desperate deniers. But I suppose they learned under Bush that if you hope hard enough, the facts will change or go away.
A group of gigantic hypothetical vulcanoes causing a long term warming over all of West Antartica with their unnoticed eruptions – there is an interesting thought ideed…
[…] read more | digg story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Click here to cancel reply. Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> […]
Tom G:
> When I let the dog out tomorrow morning I’ll take a look around my back yard…
Check the laundry basket first. Stuff always ends up in there: keys, phones, volcanoes.
Mike: I’ve heard this damn volcano story from four separate local denialists in the week or so since the news broke about Antarctica. They must have desperately flocked to their security blankets in record time, since they normally aren’t up to date on the denier meme du jour.
Frank: Or those times Watts correlated time with time and went “wow”, flipped a temperature chart upside down to say it’s cooling, or considered straight lines to be curved.
Tom G:
Then again, I’m pretty sure that volcanoes, like Communists, like to hide under the bed.
Brian D:
w00t… I’ll like to know about those! 🙂
Here’s the sunspots and smoothed sunspots graph I was talking about, by the way. I forgot which wag used it to ‘prove’ a correlation between temperatures and solar activity, but that’s what he did.
Frank: Those three are covered on Tamino’s posts on the subject, titled “What’s up with that?”, and the series titled “How Not To Analyze Data”. I’m late for work and can’t link ’em, but they’re all there.
He (or rather the authors of those posts) correlates two sort-ascended datasets (that is, time with time), ran the temperature record through a twisted method that essentially just flips the graph upside down and changes the scale, and plotted sunspots as cumulative anomaly (that is, if you used the same method on a straight line you’d get a curve; note there’s no physical reason to assume cumulative sunspot anomaly has any physical effect you wouldn’t find with direct sunspot observations).
Nope, no volcano here….unless the dog buried it with his bones, but I doubt that. Even he’s not that good.
But I suspect it will show up again…and again….and again…
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. The discussion totally rocks too:
Also, “decibel logic” is a nice term. :-B
And guess what… via the inimitable Lord “i has own’z nobell prise” Monckton, we have another stupid graph!
Followed the link from Climate Progress. I like your style, wit, and humor, and will be adding you to my blogroll.
I’ll also stop by regularly! 🙂
I’m still looking for the WMDs! Now I gotta look for a volcano too! Geez!
@Mark…
The volcano is easy to find. It’s just north, south, east, and west of the area around Tikrit and Bagdad.
Actually, having read the article posted on RC and the discussion about it appears to get warming in Antarctic they had to cherry pick the start date.
The article says that 35-45 was the warmest period in the century.
The article says that from 69 to 2000 there was cooling.
The article says that from 58 to 2006 there was cooling.
Well, when I checked, all studies and the IPCC says that antarctic cooling goes from 69 to present.
Without drawing the a nifty picture, Antarctic went from warmest in 35-45, cooled till around 58, warmed alot but not as much as 35-45, then resumed cooling till present. Between 35 to present 58 falls into one of the coolest periods in the century.
So why is West Antarctic warming when East Antarctic is cooling, do not know. I would think that the Antarctic Penn. and being much lower than East Antarctic most likely has something to do with it but the study did not attemp to address that either per the write up at RC.
Oh and Frankbi, while I do not think that RegEM is twisted, but it had been found to introduce a small warming trend and to dampen low frequency variations. Since they used this method and found a slight warming trend in East Antarctic while other studies that used different methology does not find the warming trend.
There are a number of volcanoes in the Antarctic region. Some of them are active. Therefore some sort of volcanic event this century is probable. The USGS has a list.
Dating such events in Antartica is difficult, therefore we don’t know how many such events to expect. I’d guess three, but that is only a guess.
As a result of global warming an Antarctic volcanic event may have a greater impact than in the past.
Then the deniers will blame the event. That is the way of deniers. To a large extent, we will let them get away with it.
Global warming events are always delivered by another vector. The latest la Nina was hotter than the one before, that is global warming. The comming El Nino (when it does come) will be hotter than now because it is an El Nino.
The sudden decrease in ice a few years ago was because of the wind. But the wind would not have had that effect if not for global warming.
I can see where this is going…
us: Which studies? Cite a few, preferably with paragraph numbers?
Vernon: All studies.
us: Which studies?
Vernon: All studies.
us: Which studies?
Vernon: Argh, you uncivil name-calling fascist communist Inquisition-like bureaucratic warmaholics! Ever wonder why the public is rapidly turning against Al Bore Gore’s global warming scam? THIS IS WHY!!!!!!!!!!!
us: Which studies?
It seems Mt Redoubt in Alaska is getting ready to blow its top.
Bit of a distance from Antarctica so it can’t be blamed for warming down there…but what are the odds that somebody will pounce on this and blame it for the ice loss in the Arctic Ocean this summer?
Forgot to mention…
Mike, Joe Romm has given you a big thumbs up over at Climate Progress.
Well deserved I think.
Frankbi, I see you are unable to have civil discourse. So your saying that the IPCC and Steig are wrong. Read the RC article, I am mearly pointing what the author of the study says.
Take a look at the graphic:
If you have 35-45 being warmer than any other time in the century, again Steig’s words not mine. Then picking the coldest time since 35-45 is cherry picking.
There are lots of times you can pick to show cooling or warming but picking the warmest point and going to the end of the century would bring howls. Why does picking the coldest not also bring howls? Whatever happened to the 30 year trend being climate?
If you really want to have a civil conversation, I would be happy to point out the studies that I am aware of.
Vernon..
I can see why frankbi is annoyed with you.
I’ve read the RC articles, quite clear and straightforward, and it’s clear to me that you are just trying to confuse things.
Tom G
How so? Everything to this point indicates that the Antarctic is cooling. The 30 year running average indicates that the Antarctic is cooling. The author himself says that in 45 it was the warmest it was in the century. The IPCC says that Antarctic cooling is what the models predict. The IPCC graph shows that starting at 58 your picking the coldest time between 45 and 69. If that is ok, then lets pick (now this I am not sure whether it was 34 or 39) 39 and do a trend for the rest of the century within the US… what it shows cooling? You would be yelling and say you have to used the 30 trend to seperate climate from weather. The last 30 years in the Antarctic have been slight cooling.
It looks like cherry picking to pick for selecting the start date.
Vernon,
Do a quick Occam’s Razor:
1. the thousands of climate scientists involved in the accumulation of data re. global warming are wrong / lying
2. you have misinterpreted what is happening because of lack of training / basic knowledge
Which do you think is more likely? Honestly.
DavidONE,
1. Did I address whether global warming is happening or not:
Nope, actually I do believe the globe is warming… has for a long time.
2. Have I misinterpeted what is happening because of lack of training / basic knowledge
Maybe, but the fact is that weeks before Gore goes in front of Congress there is now a study that does away with all the studies before it that says the Antarctic is cooling.
The tool used to reach that conclusion has been determined to induce a slight warming trend during the calibration period. Can I prove that no, but I read the peer reviewed papers by those that can.
The teams use of the coolest point in the last 65 years of the century to start. Why not start in the 35-45 period when it was the warmest. (Yes, I got this from reading the RC post that the team supported there.)
Do a quick Occam’s Razor:
1. the thousands of climate scientists involved in the accumulation of Antarctic data re. global warming are wrong / lying?
2. you have misinterpreted my point about this article because you thing I doubt climate change (global warming has been replaced.)
3. are models that ignore that actual data better than the actual measured data?
Vernon,
When you start ducking questions, people quickly start losing respect. It suggests someone lacking intellectually honesty and good intentions. And before you say “but you didn’t answer mine” – I’m not a scientist and I don’t have the time or inclination to try and work out what you’re suggesting and why it is wrong.
> …I do believe the globe is warming… has for a long time.
That common trope implies that you deny anthropogenic climate change and it therefore follows that you believe the planet’s climate scientists are wrong / lying in a massive, decades-long global conspiracy. If you have no evidence for either, it earns you the label ‘Denier’.
> …models that ignore that actual data…
Which models? What data? All of it? How many decades back?
If you’re not aware, the conclusions of the climate scientific community has little to do with ‘models’:
“An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
And why are you here arguing about something reported at Real Climate? Comment there if you think you’ve got something valid to say.
I’m also checking this site out after the graph and comments on Climate progress. Reminds me of a stock market graph. I’m a scientist/ecologist with a strong interest in climate warming, although it’s not my main line of research. I’ll be back.
DavidONE,
I see that answering your questions directly is now called ‘ducking,’ interesting but factually wrong. While I do believe man affects the climate, I do not believe that is due to CO2 for many reasons. If you want to discuss them I am willing but I do not expect to change your beliefs so do not see where that is worth the effort. What is being discussed here is a single study. This study says that everything we knew about the Antarctic and has been produced for the last 30 years is wrong. I happen to think that this study has inconsistencies.
Now you attacked me based on your perception of my beliefs. You are so sure of what I believe that that you do not have to discuss the actual issues but can just point a finger while chanting “Unbeliever!” But because I am basically a fair person I will point out your error before you dig that hole too deep. The model I am referring to is the one used by Steig et al (2009) which is the topic under discussion on this blog in this thread. If you bothered to read what Dr. Steig and the rest of RC said in the discussion at RC by the team that wrote the paper, you would know that they say that they disregarded the actual physical data with their model. The core of that Model is the RegEM algorithm which has been found to cause a slight warming trend.
The lead author for the IPCC AR4, for this section, does not agree with the findings of this study. So how about discussing some of the issues instead of playing word games and calling me names?
RegEM ref:
Smerdon, J.E., and A. Kaplan (2007), Comment on “Testing the fidelity of methods used in proxy-based reconstructions of past climate”: The role of the standardization interval, by M.E. Mann, S. Rutherford, E. Wahl, and C. Ammann, Journal of Climate, 20(22), 5666-5670
Smerdon, J.E., A. Kaplan, and D. Chang, On the origin of the standardization sensitivity in RegEM climate field reconstructions, Journal of Climate, 21(24), 6710-6723.
> …I do not believe that is due to CO2 for many reasons.
As expected, and as Frank nailed in one, you’re a wingnut, delusional Denier.
> If you want to discuss them I am willing but I do not expect to change your beliefs…
Not interested in your scientifically illiterate rambling. And I don’t have ‘beliefs’ about ACC – I accept the *science*.
Good luck trying to work out why you get little or no respect from the reality-attached community.
Vernon,
Regarding the 35-45 warming period you described, its worth noting that I just went to a talk by Phil Mote (on the IPCC) that discussed in short one explanation for the warm period. It has to do with how the measurements were taken. During this time period much of the measurements were taken by ships. There was a switching between english ships and american ships which dominated the shipping traffic during the time period. The english ships used bucket drops which might have given the an underestimate of temperature (air temp effecting) prior to the time period and the american ships used engine intake temps. Not sure on the exact publication as I think I remember him saying the publication was in press.
Vernon…you don’t deserve a civil discourse.
The RC articles are clear as a bell and easily understood.
Anyone who can’t understand what they say is being deliberately dense, aka a “denier.”
If you don’t like the term “denier”…tough, live with it.
“This study says that everything we knew about the Antarctic and has been produced for the last 30 years is wrong. ”
Wrong.
“If you bothered to read what Dr. Steig and the rest of RC said in the discussion at RC by the team that wrote the paper, you would know that they say that they disregarded the actual physical data with their model.”
Wrong.
“The lead author for the IPCC AR4, for this section, does not agree with the findings of this study.”
Wrong.
You fail.
Well I guess when the fact do not support your position go with name calling.
lenny
About now local information is ignored:
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=625
“Indeed, we essentially ignore local information”
Dr. Steig’s words not mine.
About the models:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/
“Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.”
About what Dr Trenberth said:
He was a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change (see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) and serves on the Scientific Steering Group for the Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) program. In addition, he serves on the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme, and has made significant contributions to research into El Niño-Southern Oscillation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_sc/sci_antarctica
“This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical,” Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an e-mail. “It is hard to make data where none exist.”
So where am I wrong?
I happen to agree that this study does make Antarctica match the models but last year at this time RC said that a cold Antarctia is what the models predicted. Actually it is a mixed bag some say warming some say cooling.
This study done six or seven months ago shows that the Antarctic was cooling and why the models got it wrong.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507132855.htm
“We can now compare computer simulations with observations of actual climate trends in Antarctica,” says NCAR scientist Andrew Monaghan, the lead author of the study. “This is showing us that, over the past century, most of Antarctica has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe. The challenges of studying climate in this remote environment make it difficult to say what the future holds for Antarctica’s climate.”
The study marks the first time that scientists have been able to compare records of the past 50 to 100 years of Antarctic climate with simulations run on computer models. Researchers have used atmospheric observations to confirm that computer models are accurately simulating climate for the other six continents. The models, which are mathematical representations of Earth’s climate system, are a primary method for scientists to project future climate.
Antarctica’s climate is of worldwide interest, in part because of the enormous water locked up in its ice sheets. If those vast ice sheets were to begin to melt, sea level could rise across the globe and inundate low-lying coastal areas. Yet, whereas climate models accurately simulate the last century of warming for the rest of the world, they have unique challenges simulating Antarctic climate because of limited information about the continent’s harsh weather patterns.
The study was published on April 5 in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor, and the Department of Energy.
The authors compared recently constructed temperature data sets from Antarctica, based on data from ice cores and ground weather stations, to 20th century simulations from computer models used by scientists to simulate global climate. While the observed Antarctic temperatures rose by about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) over the past century, the climate models simulated increases in Antarctic temperatures during the same period of 1.4 degrees F (0.75 degrees C).
The error appeared to be caused by models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere, the new study concludes. The reason may have to do with the cold Antarctic atmosphere handling moisture differently than the atmosphere over warmer regions.
Found here: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032630.shtml
So a study based on the physical evidence, largely disagrees with the study under discussion. It shows that yes, the antarctic did warm in the century by .2C but that it has been cooling during the period where man made CO2 should have caused warming.
Does any one here actually what is published and discuss the facts or do you just fall back on denial and name calling?
Vernon does not have the basics.
Without the basics of logic and analytic skills, there is no point in Vernon trying to hold a position on any serious issue. Not only will he not have a sound argument at any point, but he is not going to understand the reasoning of others. He won’t recognize the influences of defective ideas or distorting perspectives on his thinking, and he cannot be expected to understand what he reads about the science.
Poor Vernon.
Except he obviously likes to be confrontational in the apparent belief that this makes him controversial. It is sad for an adult to be so attention-seeking.
Of course if we ignore, that is also reinforcing to a certain extent.
I am prepared to go with a praise/ignore formula. I will praise good reasoning and accurate understanding; and ignore bad reasoning and profound misinterpretation of information.
I am forced to ignore everything written by Vernon, so far.
😦
So far the total extent of the level of conversation here has been.
Your wrong
Your a liar
Assorted Adhoms
A total lack of discussion of the facts to include other studies, past history, and opinion of like minded experts.
Martha,
Other than a nifty personal attacks you have ignored the points I have made with your response to my posts. I see that you are confused.
I actually read the studies as they become available and most of the blogs of all persuasions.
To put it mildly, you are full of bovine excrement when you say “Not only will he not have a sound argument at any point, but he is not going to understand the reasoning of others.” I have posted my arguements with the supporting documentation and your response is this? Please, so me your clear reasoning and sound arguments? Child, I do not know how long your perspective is but this is gross ingnorance to make this statement “He won’t recognize the influences of defective ideas or distorting perspectives on his thinking, and he cannot be expected to understand what he reads about the science.” You do not know what my understanding, education, or personal perspective is. The only thing you had to know was that I am not a believer in CO2 being the principle driver of climate change and that hersy was enough to make you believe that anything I say, regardless of how well documented must be wrong.
You do know that is not how science and scientific discourse is handled? That is how a member of a religion responses to someone who is not a fellow believer. There is no logic, no facts, just faith; otherwise the concept of defective ideas or distored perspectives is a religious issue not logical analytics.
So no, I do not expect to hear from you again but it is disappointing that no one here is willing to discuss the facts as presented in peer reviewed studies. When there are things that I am wrong about, then I learn something new, with your attitude, where there are things you are wrong about you talk about defective ideas or distorting perspectives rather than learn anything new.
And no, I do not know you, I mearly judge you by your works or in this case words.
Arron,
What does sea temps, done with buckets and then sensors on the engine cooling inlets have to do with temperatures in Antarctica?
This article is not about sea temperatures but I will point out that there has been no deep water warming per the Argo buoy system and the PDO has entered its cool phase.
And even further off topic there is a greater correlation between Solar and PDO vs global temperatures then there is between CO2 and global temperatures. I believe that what I last read, and I could be remembering it wrong, is that Solar/PDO has and RE of .88 while CO2 has an RE of .44 over the time we have been recording temperatures.
While correlation does not indicate causation it does raise the question, why does solar and PDO correlate so well. The IPCC AR4 said that for almost all aspects affecting climate change our knowledge is low except for green house gases.
I do not doubt that doubling CO2 will cause a .7C rise in temperature if it doubles from the 280 point earlier last century. However, the effect is logarithmic and most of the warming due to the increase should have already happened. It is what happens next that I have issues with and that is will there be positive or negative feedbacks to CO2 warming. The drives to the feed backs are the climate drivers that the IPCC says we have low knowledge of, which are most of the drivers. How then do we trust climate models for policy decisions when most of what they model is not a know scientific process that is modeled? The answer as I see it is testing of the models and to my knowledge, there has been no testing of the models inline with:
Sandia Labs report by Easterling, et al(2003) Statistical Foundations for Model
Validation: Two Papers
Click to access 030287.pdf
” This report reprints two papers that were presented at the Foundations for V&V
(Computer Model Verification and Validation in the 21st Century Workshop, October 22-23, 2002. This workshop was sponsored by the Defense Modeling & Simulation Office and other government agencies and hosted by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Its first objective was to produce a clear & comprehensive description of the state of the verification and validation art for modeling and simulation. ”
Until this is done and the models have been verified and validated so we can have some reasonable expectation in the accuracy of the models simulation, then making policy decisions is pure foolishness.
Tom G & Martha (& anyone else):
1) If you use Firefox, consider installing Greasemonkey:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
http://www.greasespot.net/
2) And then killfile:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107
=====
This is not as powerful as the Killfile features we had in Usenet newsreaders 20+ years ago … but it’s still very useful.
In addition, for blogs where this doesn’t work, consider thinking:
“I have a virtual killfile list. Once I put someone one it, I will never again read what they say, and never comment.”
As reinforcement for this, consider returning to a few threads in which you’ve actively engaged, a year later, and ask yourself whether or not the time spent was worth it.
[There is obviously no right answer, but if you find yourself saying “Did I really do that?” too often,, it might provide perspective.]
“a statement prepared for US Senator Inhofe for an analysis of the US EPA’s proposed policies for greenhouse gases. ”
From the same folks who just made a fool of you on the “Hansen’s Boss” story, Mr. “Skeptic”?
I’m sure you’ll let us know when he publishes a paper supporting his assertions.
Wrong thread
John,
My ‘virtual kill file’ is far too often overridden by http://xkcd.com/386/
.
.
.
Vernon,
> You do know that is not how science and scientific discourse is handled?
And fussing over reference-free assertions and a flawed, simplistic understanding of a highly complex scientific discipline by a ‘lunchtime Google scientist’ – i.e. *you* – is not science either.
You don’t have *science*, you have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
And, if you did have science, you would not be wasting your time in the comments here, you’d be publishing to a peer-reviewed journal and preparing your acceptance speech for when you collect your Nobel for falsifying a branch of science that is supported by over a century of multi-discipline research.
Vernon, you are delusional – but you’re so far down the rabbit hole, you can’t see it.
Vernon wrote:
“And even further off topic there is a greater correlation between Solar and PDO vs global temperatures then there is between CO2 and global temperatures. I believe that what I last read, and I could be remembering it wrong, is that Solar/PDO has and RE of .88 while CO2 has an RE of .44 over the time we have been recording temperatures.”
I guess Vernon is thinking of this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/
And those are US mainland temperatures, not gobal temperatures. That is a big difference!
Lars,
If Vernon is getting his ‘science’ from Watts, it’s no surprise that he’s misinformed. Watts is a severely deluded, self-important individual with zero scientific qualifications. He reads the weather forecast on some sideshow radio station – that’s as close as he gets to climate science.
Lars,
No actually I was looking at the paper over at ICECAP. Thanks for pointing out my error, it was against US temps.
Click to access US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
DavidONE,
How about addressing some issues, I do not believe that I have on the topic this tread is about reference anything but peer reviewed published pappers and RC where several of the authors spoke about their work.
How about addressing that.
And on an off topic note: Emperical evidence indicates that the only long term rural network for recording temperature was in the US. As a further note Mann’s various works primarily use SW US strip barked pines because they teleconnect the global temperature.
At least deniers are consistent in their perspective: they represent current economic attitudes and interests; and they do not care about the real world where the experiences of our people in northern Canada (and Latin America, Australia, etc.) are verifying what the climate models and theory tell us. The disconnection is striking.
We need to consider many sources of information.
The idea that the average citizen has either the time or the background to argue over the most technical details and interpretations of the math and physics involved in advanced, critical science models, is ridiculous.
We must arrive at our conclusions by reading and observing what we can, by having good analytic skills and recognizing quality analyses, and by taking an interest in the social justice and moral issues at hand.
I have yet to see a denier make a comment that indicates he has lifted his head from his computer to pay any attention to the reality of the people, animals, rocks, water and trees that constitute the world around him. Oblivious to the international situation and the women and men leading the responses to climate change in their communties, climate deniers will be left behind.
I have read the links provided by both AGW and deniers on volcanic activity. The current research on volcanic activity is indicating that it does not correspond to recent climate change i.e., since, say, the 1970’s. The timescale indicates it is not relevant.
The difference between this conclusion and the conclusion of a denier is one of current information and quality analysis.
A study, say, in 2002, is so far behind current assessments of models for analyzing and explaining climate change impacts and the discussion of policy to stabilize these impacts, that it is pointless to review it in general, never mind in any detail.
The denier issue speaks to the importance of current knowledge and quality discussion, which appears throughout this blog for any denier who takes the time.
It also speaks to the normative issues. An attitude of caring about others and a basic willingness to challenge one’s own perspective is completely absent from denier posts.
It is hardly the first time I’ve seen somebody referring to D’Aleos curves, believing (or pretending) they represent the global temperature. But Vernon is actually the very first person I’ve seen who had the decency to admit he was mistaken.
I make mistakes, is that not the purpose of discussion? Got to admit I do fail to see where social and moral issues are involved in this discussion? And can anyone explain why a 2002 study on the verification and validation of simulation models does not matter because it is 2009.
Vernon, I commend you for admitting your mistake (global vs US temperatures). One doesn’t see that happen very often.
Lars, I do not have a problem admitting my mistakes, I have discourse to learn.
How about the rest of what I have said, where does my logic or data fail?
Nicely written, Martha.
Vernon… I usually take John Mashey’s advice, and don’t respond to comments like yours.
But this is a true story. Three or four times over the last six months, I’ve read comments like yours referencing scientific studies that are supposedly discussed on “science” sites like Ice Cap and Watts Up. And I’ve gotten in touch with the researchers who actually wrote the studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Here’s what I’ve learned. Inactivists don’t know their ass from their elbow. The sites you frequent either don’t understand the issues involved, or they misrepresent the results.
You say you want to learn. Fair enough. Stop going to the web sites you frequent. They are evil and dishonest. Pick up a copy of Heat by George Monbiot, Keeping Our Cool by Dr. Andrew Weaver, or Hell and High Water by Dr. Joe Romm — to mention just three — if you want a thorough analysis of the issues involved.
If you don’t do this, then your mind is closed, and your veneer of reasonable inquiry will be revealed for what it is.
Let me make my point this way. Let’s say the dearest person in your life has cancer, and will die without treatment. Would you:
1) Take your loved one to an engineer for medical advice.
2) Let your GP sort it out.
3) Or find a compassionate and gifted specialist who knows exactly what needs to be done.
You’re telling us to trust the first and second options. We’re telling you to spend a little time with option Number 3.
Nicely written, Martha.
Vernon… I usually take John Mashey’s advice, and don’t respond to comments like yours.
But this is a true story. Three or four times over the last six months, I’ve read comments like yours referencing scientific studies that are supposedly discussed on “science” sites like Ice Cap and Watts Up. And I’ve gotten in touch with the researchers who published their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Here’s what I’ve learned: Inactivists don’t know their ass from their elbow. The sites you frequent either don’t understand the issues involved, or they misrepresent the results.
You say you want to learn. Fair enough. Stop going to any of the web sites you frequent. Pick up a copy of Heat by George Monbiot, Keeping Our Cool by Dr. Andrew Weaver, or Hell and High Water by Dr. Joe Romm — to mention just three — if you want a thorough analysis of the issues involved.
If you don’t do this, then your mind is closed, and your veneer of reasonable inquiry will be revealed for what it is.
Let me make my point this way. Let’s say the dearest person in your life has cancer, and will die without treatment. Would you:
1) Take your loved one to an engineer for medical advice.
2) Let your GP sort it out.
3) Or find a compassionate and gifted specialist who knows exactly what needs to be done.
You’re telling us that the first two options are good enough. We’re telling you to spend a little time with the experts.
onebluemarble: It is nice to see that you already have an opinion about me but are not willing to discuss the studies or issues. While I do read watt’s and CA, I also read Desmogblog, RC, and others. And you do bring up the biggest problem I have with what is happening now.
As you may have noticed, I did not quote blogs but the actual papers. I quoted the words of the actual individuals who were the authors of the work being discussed. So, how about not judging me and actually read the works. I have yet to see where social or moral having any meaning in a scientific study.
I did notice that Steig is attacking Hansen but it appears that Hansen was right on this issue.
To follow your analogy if a loved one was sick would you take them to a board certified medical doctor or to someone that is not certified to practice medicine?
The tools (models) being used to base policy on have not been V&V’ed or certified. Now you may not have a back ground in software/systems development but I do. Having seen what has been released as ‘code’ from GISS for GISS temp and Model E indicates that they do not have a configuration management process which is why places like CA are finding errors. There is a lack of documentation. Per the literature the models have not been verified and validated. Without going to a systemic process to verify and validate the simulations, then the system cannot be certified. For a scholastic model, it may be fine but for something that policy decisions hinge on, I do not find it acceptable.
Oh, and I did notice that CA identified a problem with the AWS data that Hansen does not use, due to qualtiy issues, in GISS. Seems that CA is supporting Hansen now. Who knew.
The satellite that measures the skin temperatures of Antarctic ice (shown on your yellow/orange map) is accurate to tenths of a degree.
Any volcano activity would be localized and very obvious.
This doesn’t show up so volcanism can’t explain the rising in temperatures. (once again)
—-
[…] bookmarks tagged unbearable The unbearable desperation of ignorance « Greenfy… saved by 4 others roman705 bookmarked on 02/11/09 | […]
[…] reading up for an upcoming post on the recent paper in Nature I came across a simple 4 point list showing how real people aka non-cranks/denialists/deniers debate scientific […]
[…] But perhaps the funniest manifestation of the Antarctic warming derangement syndrome is Rick Hodgin who blames the warming trend on a massive (yet undetectable) volcano. It stands to reason that if there is an active volcano in Antarctica, one capable of punching a hole through the ice sheet and spewing “a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards” over 23,000 km2 at some point, then it (and its nearby possibly as-of-yet-unidentified brothers) may well be the cause of a one degree Fahrenheit increase observable in the western section of Antar… […]
Well, if the study could actually prove there was warming what is discussed here would make some sense Jay. The problem is that the wheels start coming off the apple cart once you look at and begin to reproduce the work. For example:
For Table S1, why was 40% complete calibration information picked for the cutoff?
Why are stations that do not meet the 40% data cut off: Enigma Lake, LGB20, LGB35, Larsen Ice Shelf, and Nico included?
Why are stations that exceed the 40% data cut off: Byrd, Mt. Siple, pre-correction Harry excluded? If it was because they did not show enough verification skill then how could they be used to show a correlation in Table S2?
While AWS recon and AVHRR have trends seem similar 1957-2007, this is not the complete picture. AVHRR shows warming from 1980 – 2006 and AWS shows no warming (basically flat) from 1980 – 2006. The trend prior to 1980 was created by RegEM using manned data so is the same for both AWS and AVHRR. It appears that AWS benchmark does not provide the needed certainty.
Why does the AVHRR data and the AWS/Manned stations show a different trends for the periods where they all three are collecting real data?
Until these questions are addressed, then it hard to see how the study in question can be taken as valid. As to the accuracy of the IR accuracy, since the satellite is not positioned to look down at the Antarctic how does the extreme off-angle of the look affect the readings. This is the reason that neither RSS or UAH will do reading for either the Arctic or Antarctic all the way to the poles.
—-
I have attempted to post these questions twice. Here is what I posted:
So far I have not made it past the moderation. That seems odd since these are straight forward questions about the study.
—-
Thanks!
It would seem that RC does not want to discuss serious issues about Steig et al (2009). Thanks for contacting Gavin but I have posted that six times and it does not make it though moderation.
When someone does not want to discuss serious issues about their work, it really makes me think that the questions were things they did not want to discuss and maybe the paper is weaker than they though.
—-
[…] reading up for an upcoming post on the recent paper in Nature I came across a simple 4 point list showing how real people aka non-cranks/denialists/deniers debate scientific […]
[…] But perhaps the funniest manifestation of the Antarctic warming derangement syndrome is Rick Hodgin who blames the warming trend on a massive (yet undetectable) volcano. It stands to reason that if there is an active volcano in Antarctica, one capable of punching a hole through the ice sheet and spewing “a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards” over 23,000 km2 at some point, then it (and its nearby possibly as-of-yet-unidentified brothers) may well be the cause of a one degree Fahrenheit increase observable in the western section of Antar… […]