Reader Lorax has many things to say about Climate Audit, all bad as far as I can tell. Editorially, this is leading to OT discussions on many threads, so I’ve established a thread for discussions with Lorax. (I’ve backdated the thread slightly so that it’s not at the top of the masthead right now.)
-
Tip Jar
(The Tip Jar is working again, via a temporary location) -
Pages
-
Categories
-
Articles
-
Blogroll
- Accuweather Blogs
- Andrew Revkin
- Anthony Watts
- Bishop Hill
- Bob Tisdale
- Dan Hughes
- David Stockwell
- Icecap
- Idsos
- James Annan
- Jeff Id
- Josh Halpern
- Judith Curry
- Keith Kloor
- Klimazweibel
- Lubos Motl
- Lucia's Blackboard
- Matt Briggs
- NASA GISS
- Nature Blogs
- RealClimate
- Roger Pielke Jr
- Roger Pielke Sr
- Roman M
- Science of Doom
- Tamino
- Warwick Hughes
- Watts Up With That
- William Connolley
- WordPress.com
- World Climate Report
-
Favorite posts
-
Links
-
Weblogs and resources
-
Archives
Climate Audit 
161 Comments
Oh please, Lorax (#138), leave our grandchildren out of this. Or we might talk about how you want to make food even more expensive for a poor and hungry world.
Lorax,
Bizarre comments. I think Mr McIntrye would dearly love to be involved in this with the Team. Maybe they should ask him rather than refuse him data? Maybe if they did, none of this would happen. Maybe Mr McIntyre would say “Gosh, I did not understand that, fair enough”. So I hope that the Team reads your comments and invites Mr McIntyre to visit them and maybe put an end to this debate, for the good of science. Waddya think?
Lorax, despite days of warnings, again off-topic, bloated, inflammatory, rude, against blog rules in ascribing motivation… is there a function to automatically reroute his comments to “unthreaded”?
Re: Lucy Skywalker (#141),
That’s why I originally suggested to lucia to develop a rubber room – a place where guys like “Gunnar” could be automatically rerouted. Then she went and made something useful and intelligent. Curse her silly “Blackboard” 😦 Can we throw chalk brushes at Larynx?
Can anybody post here or just Lorax?
Steve: Anybody.
I want my own thread. 😀
ooh, ooh, let me try me first:
“What do you make of the McKitrick missive at NP? Do you dissociate yourself from the title? Will you write a letter to the editor condemning their choice of title? My grandchildren are trolling here, so don;t let them down.”
Do I win?
But seriously …
Lorax – now I may ask you freely – what do you mnake of the Kaufman paper where they suggest that fossil fuel burning staved off an ice age? Are they nutters, or what? Help me understand the point of that paper.
Waiting for someone to use creation of this thread as evidence that Steve censors comments.
Lorax is a total bore. I don’t think he makes any attempt to understand what Steve or anyone else writes. He is only on this site to frustrate & antagonise everybody.
What a cool idea…we should have a posthemus TCO thread over at Jeff’s…..
Or better still “Climatey Death Match Special” with the crowd from Jen M’s blog…I’d pay money for that one.
Re: mike f (#11),
funny you should suggest that. Check this out:
http://www.asimovs.com/aspnet_forum/messages.aspx?TopicID=84
Interesting tactic. Ooh, the insults continue, I’m devastated (read sarc). Really all, you are just discrediting yourselves and making yourselves to look juvenile, close-minded and vindictive. Here, a spade, keep on digging yourselves deeper into the hole.
No offense, but on another thread MikeN asked me what SAT stand for; and we are allegedly on a climate “science” blog. Google it MikeN. MikeN, based on correspondence with McIntyre, he has thus far only demonstrated the impact of YAD06 on the regional chronology, not the full global chronology. Nevermind actually adding his “correct” SAT reconstruction SAT to the spaghetti graph that he shows on the thread that you referred to.
Bender “Lorax – now I may ask you freely – what do you mnake of the Kaufman paper where they suggest that fossil fuel burning staved off an ice age? Are they nutters, or what? Help me understand the point of that paper.”
See my response on the other thread. And please do stop trying to bait me, it makes you look really desperate. I am not here to discuss Kaufman et al. Understand?
Now good night everyone,and try not critique SteveM and McKitrick too much now.
PS: Steve, does this mean that I can ONLY post here, nowhere else?
Re: Lorax (#12),
Lorax, If you want to question the modus operandi of the blog and of its readers – that sort of thing – please do so here.
if you want to discuss RCS standardization or Briffa, then please contribute on the technical threads. So far you haven’t shown much interest in that sort of thing.
For your information, I ask readers not to be angry, not to vent, not to “pile on”. REaders don’t always comply with these rules and these are by far the most frequent sort of comments that I snip or remove. I move a lot of comments to Unthreaded, not just yours. It annoys me every time I do it as the impatient intrusion in technical threads is very distracting.
Re: Steve McIntyre (#14),
It appears that your position is hidden by details and a declaration page would be nice, or I am having a hard time finding it.
Royal Society of Canada and Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society appears to disagree with you but I have no way to tell.
Do you take Patrick J. Michaels position that we are currently warming and humans are responsible (his presentation at 2008 International Conference on Climate Change)?
1) Are we warming?
2) Is there a conspiracy?
3) Is it a hoax?
4) GISS and HadCRUT are what?
5) And so on…
What are you really saying about Climate?
Thanks
I have asked Lorax twice to ask or make a scientific comment. So I formally make a complaint to Lorax.
For those that don’t know:
Lorax “speaks for the trees”.
Steve speaks for science.
Lorax, if the problem is that you don’t have access to a library, let us know and we’ll post the abstracts for you.
Positive and civil, Bender.
I liked lucia’s treatment of TCO best, calmly knitting a nice purse, dropping perls in his sow’s ears.
===============================
Re: kim (#18),
She turned out not to be the Cruel Mistress I was hoping for. So I keep searching. Say, what’s this:
=============================================
>but on another thread MikeN asked me what SAT stand for; and we are allegedly on a climate “science” blog.
And your contribution to the blog is to whine about it rather than answer.
I still don’t see a problem with the phrase ‘playing with data.’
I feel I am doing that while running my correlation analyses as well.
So how do you feel review should be done?
Right now, code and data is not available for evaluating the impact of YAD06 on every temperature reconstruction. Perhaps you can help to try and achieve that, or suggest someone who should be able to do a proper peer-review? You get them to provide the info needed to conduct a replication and robustness test, then you can decide how you want it done.
SteveM, “Reader Lorax has many things to say about Climate Audit, all bad as far as I can tell.”
That is it Mr. McIntyre, keep avoiding inconvenient thoughts. I have asked you some questions, made some critical assessments, and provided some constructive suggestions. All quite reasonable really– unless of course you frequent CA, then one is apparently “hysterical” for daring to do ask such things. But tactics as practiced by your following here (e.g.., character assassination) are commonplace on the net these days.
I find it hypocritical that you make a hobby of airing other’s “dirty-laundry”, questioning their choices, but don’t quite feel the same way (or feel the same urgency to be forthcoming with information) when it comes to someone enquiring about your doings and your choices.
Don’t you find it a wee bit worrying that CA chooses to demonize those who dare critique and ask questions of their illustrious and omniscient leader Mr. McIntyre? You are seemingly above reproach Mr. McIntyre, congratulations.
Feel free to post your responses for all to read here on this lovely little thread/rubber room that you created for “hysterical loonies” like me when you have some time to spare. And while we are waiting, maybe one of your resident psychologists could do a formal psych assessment on me.
MikeN, surface air temperature (SAT).
when I said hysterical rant I meant I had a good laugh…..if you honestly get this worked up over this blog I really do feel sorry for you
MikeN:
“Right now, code and data is not available for evaluating the impact of YAD06 on every temperature reconstruction. Perhaps you can help to try and achieve that, or suggest someone who should be able to do a proper peer-review?”
The onus is on McIntyre to do that. He started this, he needs to finish it, and then publish it. I have made suggestions about how to improve peer-review, as others here say “read the blog”.
Hi Lorax,
Just as an aside, here you will find a good number of people, I include myself, whose natural home was, and would still be RealClimate.
I stopped posting (or rather typing in ) comments on RealClimate because I was wasting my time as they mysteriously disappeared.
I cherish your postings, as they confirm to me, that I am posting in the right place.
Best Wishes
Alex
That’s funny Lorax, because I was questioning Mr. McIntyre’s doings and choices a month ago, and I didn’t have that same reaction. Steve has responded very generously, giving you your own thread for discussion. If Steve reacted the way RealClimate or other blogs did, your posts would have just been deleted, a priori. For that matter, RealClimate is actively deleting posts that ask challenging questions. TomP’s posts weren’t deleted here.
Now perhaps I’m just naive. I have no way of seeing what posts Steve has deleted, so maybe I’m comparing my own posts deleted by RC or the ones at http://rcrejects.wordpress.com, with TomP’s posts. It’s true RC will let thru posts that they can refute easily, so perhaps Steve is censoring all the tough questions, and letting TomP’s softballs through. However, that’s now how I see it. Perhaps you should try to read and understand the tougher critiques and ask about them at RealClimate, or Tamino, or any other blogs you think are relevant, or to the scientists themselves. See what they have to say about it, or if they just delete your posts.
The sum total of your recommendations appears to be ‘shut up, until you have permission from the relevant scientists to speak.’
>I have made suggestions about how to improve peer-review
Yes, I have seen them, but ultimately that is not what is happening as as been covered in detail. If your proposals were happening, the discussions would be different, and you’d have a point. So what are the alternative options?
You should realize that the progress so far has only happened because Steve McIntyre published his thoughts in a blog. The data that has been released to date would still not be public, except that a visitor to his blog pointed out the possibility of getting the data through another route.
Hi Lorax,
“That is it Mr. McIntyre, keep avoiding inconvenient thoughts.” Perhaps you can favour us with an opine on why RealClimate delete all opposing comments from their threads but a contrarian to the blog’s central theme gets his own dedicated thread here? Cheers.
Re: Mick (#28), Here here! Real climate has some good information at times, but the moderation is unbelievable if one doesn’t slavishly endorse what the “group” or its members have written. But Lorax, you’re free to vent your spleen here as much as you like. But please, answer Mick. It is a very reasonable request. You have not done so yet, as far as I can see.
Lorax (#650 0n unthreaded),
I find it interesting that when someone calls your bluff with technical details (namely the necessary requirements for the correct application of ensemble theory and the lack of satisfaction of those requirements by climate modelers) that you don’t answer.
Anyone can hide behind an alias and say anything they want. But not everyone can address mathematical issues
with mathematically relevant answers. Until I see some indication that you have any inkling about the issues related to the continuum mathematics of partial differential equations, the new minimum scale estimates for turbulence, or numerical analysis theory, I have to assume that you are not willing to engage in true scientific discussion.
Jerry
Lorax,
BTW I am still waiting for your buddy Phil to tell me the appropriate thread on RC to post my mathematical questions about climate model issues (see Exponential Thread 3 last comment). These are mathematical issues never addressed by RC and have a direct bearing on their claims. Every time I try to post at RC the post is deleted
because they don’t know how to rsepond to someone who knows their tricks. Maybe you can make a suggestion or address the issues/
Jerry
Lorax said:
“I am no troll. Look up the definition, I have asked some relevant questions concerning this fiasco. Some stupid ones too apparently. But you don’t learn if you don’t ask. I have also made some constructive suggestions where and when possible. I did not come here to “preach the gospel of AGW” and derail the discussion. But if people keep attacking then I have every right to a rebuttal. I’m not going to be railroaded off this site.”
And now you have your own thread. What do you want to do with it? I realize you can’t control what other people post, but you do have free will. You don’t need to rebut everyone, you can ignore some and pay attention to others. You have received many constructive replies on unthreaded and you can copy those here and continue that topic. In short you can prove what you said above and that is entirely up to you.
Lorax or whoever needs to read Leon Festinger’s classic book on cognitive dissonance, “When Prophecy Fails.” This will enable his understanding of why people become more shrill and defensive as the evidence accumulates against their most deeply held paradigm. Festinger’s most famous study followed a flying saucer doomsday cult whose predictions were continually falsified.
Another element to add to the Lorax puzzle (from CBC Quirks and Quarks):
“The Lorax
Edmonton
Dan @September 23, 2009 12:37 PM, excellent post! Thank you.
The misrepresentation and distortion of the climate science by those in denial is troubling. Some of those in denial posting here (such as Antonio San) jump on every weather related story to “enlighten” not only us mortals, but NASA, NOAA etc. too, as to the real cause for global warming, and in the process embarrass themselves. The argument that the climate has changed before and so the changes now are nothing new is tiresome and insulting to climate scientists. The climate scientists know more than anyone that the climate changes with time, they also know that the climate responds to both internal (aerosols, GHGs, albedo) and external drivers (solar). Do not expect global warming to translate into a monotonic increase in temperatures, there is such as thing as decadal internal climate variability (example El Nino/La Nina), so the global temperature record is inherently noisy. Claims that the earth has been “cooling’ since 1998 are also incorrect– global temperatures in 2005 surpassed those of 1998, and the top 10 warmest years in 130 year record have occurred since 1997, 2009 is probably going to come in as the third or fourth warmest on record (source NOAA). There are so many myths to dismiss and I do not have time here. For those of you on the fence, please solicit your information from vetted and reputable agencies and not internet blogs.
Posted September 23, 2009 07:22 PM”
Lorax come on! This is your opportunity. I admit readers are piling on. You can cry foul or play on. I am interested in your objections/suggestions. Fill this space up, it’s yours; your name is highlighted.
You know how it works. Steve made a joke and gave you a thread (you have to admit, it’s kinda funny), Bender is caustic but entertaining and usually on track, kim breathes metaphor into an otherwise concrete environment and the majority of us watch to see what will happen next.
Give us your summary. Steve has done this on many occasions and it delights the readers. So try it out. Don’t let your thread be a dud…uh, Dude.
>why don’t you shut down the Briffa thread? Then keep working on the data analysis, and once the analysis is complete, write it up and submit it to a journal for peer-review. [You, Mr. McIntyre, and Dr. Briffa can converse in private (you could even insist on having an
From Steve McIntyre
To Keith Briffa
Could I get the core data and the methods of processing the data for your paper?
From Keith Briffa
To Steve McIntyre
No. Why should I give you my data when you are going to try and find something wrong with it?
>choose]. Either that, or get NAS to convene another expert panel to deal with your allegations against Dr. Briffa.
That took an act of Congress. If everyone acted as graciously as you imply, I think Steve would be operating in the way you suggest.
Re: MikeN (#36),
I realize that you didn’t use quotation marks, but the exchange you have re-produced was between Phil Jones and someone other than Steve whose name I can’t quite recall at the moment.
It’s important to be accurate on this blog. It’s something that Steve strives mightily for and the rest of us should also. And that includes Lorax, who has come on these threads with so many erroneous pre-conceived notions that I don’t know where to begin.
Well, I for one, am ever so glad that Lorax has joined the discussion in such a measured fashion.
He/She has never been guilty of exaggerating any claim, and has without fail, refrained from using any language that might, even remotely, inflame the situation.
His/Her incisive scientific commentary (which has never even looked like going off-topic) has been a positive boon for all concerned – creating new, interesting and exciting ways of thinking about the matters at hand.
I could go on but fear I may have rather over-extended myself..
Regards to all
Re: Tony Hansen (#37),
You are too kind.
You won’t be railroaded, but it seems that you will be corralled. For God’s sake man, if you have any pride, cease and desist. It pains me to watch someone take part in his own marginalization.
Lorax,
read Dr. Pielke’s and associates recent papers and comments on some problems with measuring surface air temperatures (SAT) and the radiative forcings??
rephelan 34
…OMG…..
I guess this is how it starts huh, the name crops up a bit here, a bit there…..next thing you know, wading through Tribbles thigh high.
Heh! Cheers Rephelan….been up all night here in Blighty, working between reading this stuff…so this did bring a smile.
Sorry OT, this is Lorax’s Thread after all.
Theduke, I thought it was to Steve, but yes that quote was from Phil Jones. Both e-mails are theoretical examples only.
I want to reiterate that I do like Lorax’s company (unlike Tom PP) and I do hope he will read the Kaufman paper. It is very interesting what they propose. On the one hand they’re saying the burning of fossil fuels has prevented an ice age. (And RC isn’t discussing this. Shhh!) On the other hand, they rely heavily on the Yamal data, plus a weirdly chosen computer run. If you’re an alarmist (and this is why I am asking Lorax), do you audit?
I realize this is a thread for Lorax, but I have an O/T comment. I just had a browse of Real Climate, I cannot believe that professional scientists can behave like that!
Read the below response by Gavin on the Ya mal thread to the term “denier”:
Response by Gavin
[Response: Terms like this are best reserved for people who repeatedly bring up long-debunked talking points not because they think they are valid, but because they think they can find some new people to fool. But this behavior is easy to see whatever name is applied. BS by any other name would smell as bad. – gavin]
“That is it Mr. McIntyre, keep avoiding inconvenient thoughts.”
How is giving someone their own thread “avoiding inconvenient thoughts”?
From Lorax:
To this, I have to agree with him. I used to frequent several different blogs (such as RC, Eli Rabbit’s, Open Mind, etc), only to be read the riot act, told to “do your own homework”, put up with repeated ad homs, or downright refusal to post relevent questions.
So if you look at their “following”, then character assassination IS common.
I would hope that Lorax and other AGW proponents would continue posting here since it brings a certain balance to the blog. Steve goes out of his way to allow those that disagree with him to post here and often gives them generous latitude to lay out their case. The free exchange of scientific ideas here is much more wide ranging and tolerant than over at the joke known as realclimate. People who want to learn allow dissenters to voice their opinions while those who have a vested interest in a subject tend to squelch, or censor if you will, contrasting ideas. It should be painfully obvious which blog is which and which location gets the most beneficial and spirited debate which allows all of us to learn. People like bender, Lucy Skywalker, Hu MuCulloch, Ross McKittrick, Anthony Watts, Ken Fritsch, Jeff ID, roman, Dave Dardinger, John A and the famous (in some quarters infamous?) Steven McIntyre and many others teach me something every day. All of those people are much smarter than I in this subject and they would be a worthy addition to any site that truly is interested in finding scientific answers to some complex issues. The “climate” (pun intended)is much more open, congenial, and thorough here than over at realclimate or any other AGW proponent site. For those who choose to continue posting differing opinions here, just ignore some occasional barbs directed at you and stick around to learn the way science should be done i.e. test the hypothesis by exchanging facts and thoughts on the subject. After all, everyone should practice science to find answers and not to merely accept meekly the consensus (if such a thing can even be quantified). So come on Lorax and others, don’t get angry and post invective (rather than science), nor just pack up your keyboard and go home because someone hurt your feelings, there is a lot to be learned here and we can all use that.
“You, Mr. McIntyre, and Dr. Briffa can converse in private”
That was amusing 🙂
Opps
4) GISS and HadCRUT are what?
should have said “GISS and HadCRUT are what to you (as in correct or not)?
Wow, 52 posts and counting and I have not even been posting. For those of you who still have not been issued a shovel, here. Now keep digging ever deeper.
ATHiker,
I’ll answer for Steve (to be immediately superceded by any response from him).
.
He isn’t saying ANYTHING about Climate.
.
He is saying A LOT about Climate Science.
Dang Lorax, you got your own thread on Climate Audit. What more do you want, man? Engage.
Cripes. Imagine if you wandered over to realclimate and encountered:
“A Thread for Steve McIntyre” beneath the masthead?
Pretty hard to imagine that, ain’t it.
Thanks. I’ll dig a little deeper. I just dug into my wallet and hit the tip jar.
Re: Stephen Parrish (#55), Lorax’s purpose is not to “engage”, but to disrupt and deflect.
This seems to be a free for all, but to to try and quickly address some of the, shall we say, intriguing comments regarding ensembles yesterday (e.g., them being a one-trick-pony), here is some food for thought, and this is not even a fraction of the tip of the ice berg of literature out there on this topic. Someone mentioned the problem of outliers, that is usually not a problem in NWP b/c one can specify the initial conditions well enough using a suite of observations platforms (surface-based and remotely-sensed). You’d have to speak to the pros in this field to find out what they do with outliers (e.g., a particular ensemble member is producing a snowball earth in 2080). Even then there is value because it forces one to investigate why the model was doing that, was it physically based or is there a serious problem with the dynamical or physical core of the model that needs addressing/correcting? Anyhow, there it has been established for some time now that there is added much value in using a probabilistic versus a deterministic approach, it is not only about addressing uncertainties, read the literature. And should you have issues, superior knowledge, then take it up with the Dr. Thomas Hamill’s of the world, I’m not the poster boy for ensemble forecasting (nor am I a poster boy for RC for that matter).
Airborne Volcanic Ash Forecast Area Reliability
Barbara J. B. Stunder, Jerome L. Heffter, and Roland R. Draxler
Weather and Forecasting
Volume 22, Issue 5 (October 2007) pp. 1132–1139
Revising the ensemble-based Kalman Filter covariance for the retrieval of deep-layer soil moisture
Shuwen Zhang, Xubin Zeng, Weidong Zhang, Michael Barlage
Journal of Hydrometeorology
2009 early online release, posted September 2009
A 1-10 day ensemble forecasting scheme for the major river basins of Bangladesh: forecasting severe floods of 2003–2007
Thomas M. Hopson, Peter J. Webster
Journal of Hydrometeorology
2009 early online release, posted September 2009
Efficient Parameterization of the Observation Error Covariance Matrix for Square Root or Ensemble Kalman Filters: Application to Ocean Altimetry
Jean-Michel Brankart, Clément Ubelmann, Charles-Emmanuel Testut, Emmanuel Cosme, Pierre Brasseur, and Jacques Verron
Monthly Weather Review
Volume 137, Issue 6 (June 2009) pp. 1908–1927
Quantifying Uncertainty in Projections of Regional Climate Change: A Bayesian Approach to the Analysis of Multimodel Ensembles
Claudia Tebaldi, Richard L. Smith, Doug Nychka, and Linda O. Mearns
Journal of Climate
Volume 18, Issue 10 (May 2005) pp. 1524–1540
Interpretation of Rank Histograms for Verifying Ensemble Forecasts
Thomas M. Hamill
Monthly Weather Review
Volume 129, Issue 3 (March 2001) pp. 550–560
Oh, and a thought for the day for you all here at CA:
Who overcomes by force hath overcome but half his foe. -John Milton, poet (1608-1674)
Mr. McIntyre,
You seem to be having issues responding to my questions. Perhaps if I numbered them for you it would help (read no sarc):
1) Did you have any role in drafting, editing McKitrick’s missive?
2) McKitrick also appears to have displayed data sourced here at CA. Can you confirm or deny that?
3) Do you agree with the statement made by the FP that “Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph of global warming “?
4) Do you agree with McKitrick’s statement, made when referring to Dr. Briffa’s work, that “Whatever is going on here, it is not science.”
5) Do you agree with McKitrick when he says “ I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. ” So according to McKitrick the core of global warming is “simply non-existent”?
Mr. McIntyre, this is important; clarifying your role in the McKitrick missive and clarifying whether or not you agree with the above statements is critical if you wish to maintain the integrity of CA. I’ll check back later to see if you have answered. In the mean time, keep shoveling CAers.
Re: Lorax (#59),
I haven’t followed the threads for a couple of days, but I see that Senator Lorax’s hearings are in full swing. In Lorax’s mind the integrity of CA seems to hinge on the outcome of his interrogation. It’s probably a dumb idea to feed such an ego, but I ought to weigh in at least once on these things.
I wrote my column and take responsibility for what it says.
What’s the point of this question? You think the data should have been sourced somewhere else?
You are still belabouring this point I see.
It is misleading to claim that the sentence “refers to Dr. Briffa’s work” as if in its entirety. It is referring to the specific problem that an extraordinary result emerges in a part of the data set where the quality of the sample collapses. If you think that is good science, fine. I do not.
Your last sentence paraphrases the quote so as to misrepresent the meaning. What I said was that the arguments for global warming that I have probed are either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. I have spelled out the reasons for this claim at great length in my writings.
Re: Lorax (#59),
I’m insulted that my comments on that exact question aren’t considered worthy of your attention.
.
If it is found that the Yamal hockey stick, which is make-no-mistake broken, can not be patched up, precisely how many multiproxy reconstructions remain intact and how many are invalidated? Or would you like me to give you the answer? [Hint: The correct answer, Larynx, consists of two scalars. Please: no wind vector.]
Hello Lorax… The soil moisture reference gave it up…
Lorax, #57:
Or why some models predict a fireball earth by 2050, right?
The fact that you consider the “snowball earth” result as the outlier speaks volumes. There have already been several ice ages. How many fire ages have there been?
Wow. Mr. Lorax can you explain what Mr. McIntyre’s involvement/opinion in/of Mr. McKitrick’s statements have on any damn thing related to Mr. McIntyre’s ongoing analysis of Yamal?
The hive emptied with the “most influential tree” post, and has been trying to kill the messenger since that day.
It’s most interesting. A lot rests on #06.
Re: Stephen Parrish (#62),
Actually that’s not really the case. Seeing how strong the HS force is in 06 it’s easy to come to that conclusion, but here’s where Tom P’s work is actually useful. Even after 06 was eliminated the HS remained. That’s when I got looking at the plate of all the graphs of the YAD series (see Steve’s YAD06 post). Even after Tom eliminated trees which included 06 I found that all the POR trees were still active and each of them rise 2 or more SD, meaning that the HSness of the Yamal series doesn’t rely on just one tree, albeit that it has more weight individually than any one of the others.
Re: Dave Dardinger (#67),
Yep. That is what Steve said. It is not as dominant as bristlecone pine, but is the most significant in that bunch.
Re: Dave Dardinger (#67),
Tom P’s and some work by JeffId, if I understood it correctly speaks to the importance of #06, and I don’t disagree with the characterization. I buy the statistical conclusions as presented.
However, as a talking point in the media blabosphere it is pretty powerful and can travel fast.
BTW, Lorax, since you’re using quotes now, try this one:
The issue about ensembles isn’t that they can’t possibly work – only that they make a lot more sense after you’ve made a serious effort proving any individual model has the slightest shred of actual predictive power.
.
No, hindcasting doesn’t count. Nor does picking a point in history and running your model forward from there. Both approaches are fine for shaping, screening and enhancing understanding of one’s model. But that merely makes the model plausible.
.
The whole kerfuffle over Lucia examining the models that were “ensembled” by the IPCC is, at its roots, a test of their collective predictive power.
.
One can make plausible models – from purely empirical, through semi-empirical, into ab initio approaches all day long. Here’s an empirical one:
.
GMAT(t) = A*(GMAT0)*t + B*(GMAT0) + C*sin(D*t + E)
.
Where GMAT0 is just the global mean average temperature in 1850.
.
With just five parameters a straight-forward least-squares fit across 1850-2000 won’t be half-bad. Is it fundamentally correct? Heck no.
.
Should any such model be included in the ensemble? The answer to that question revolves around determining predictive power for an individual model.
Lorax: So only by Steve’s answering your questions (presumably the right answer) can CA maintain its integrity? Well aren’t you special? Many of us who browse here use the content of the posts and the ability to post dissenting views (as long as they can be supported) as a measure of the site. This is just one source of many I am using to form my own opinion of the AGW issue. Whether your questions are answered are inconsequential to me and, I suspect, to most others who read this blog.
Lorax (#53),
Is there a scientific statement here?
Jerry
Lorax, do you ever deal in facts?
If the McKitrick “missive” is so egregiously flawed, why don’t you refute it for us?
As far as I can tell, you haven’t provided a single fact or piece of evidence or reasoning of any sort that contradicts a word of what Ross wrote. Your demanding list of questions proves nothing and does not constitute any sort of valid argument against what Ross wrote.
So come on, Agent Lorax, thrill us with your acumen and refute the “missive”.
Re: Michael Smith (#71),
He’s already stated he’s not interested in the facts of that article and is only interested in motives, as revealed by the failure of Dr. McKitrick to successfully lobby Terrance Corcoran to change, or apologize for, the title. Has that got it right, Dr. Lorax?
.
Lorax is the only to my knowledge that’s ever been allowed at CA to speculate on motives. That’s why his speculations have been compartmentalized in this chamber. If I were him I’d launch off.
Re: bender (#72), Yes, it appears awaiting evidence to the contrary that Lorax is the only poster who is allowed and in fact encouraged to engage in the unscientific act of motive hunting. Imagine that, a scientific blog that affords a special place where a critic can engage in motive hunting the host. I think this should be a new standard for blogs. every blog should have a moshpit. Let’s se if we can get a FENTON thread over at RC. Anyways, I’ll await Lorax’s statement of issues and see if any of them can be addressed with scientific rigor.
Lorax (#57),
Well we can now see how naive you are about weather and climate models. I suggest you read Sylvie Gravel’s manuscript on this site as an introduction to NWP models. There is not sufficient observational data to accurately forecast even the large scale motions of the atmosphere for 12-24 hours. And if the NWP models did not update the upper air wind observations every 12 hours, the models would deviate from reality in 1-2 days.
The parameterizations are an unphysical gimmick to force the forecast to appear to be more accurate (see quantitative analysis of the boundary layer parameterization error propagating vertically and destroying the
forecast accuracy). And the only crucial observational data is the upper air wind data. The rest is superfluous.
Note that climate models cannot update the observational data so all that is left are the bogus inaccurate parameterizations that are tuned to adjust the inappropriate cascade of enstropy.
Did you fail to mention that the requirements for ensemble forecasting (weather or climate) are not met?
Re: Gerald Browning (#73),
Jerry,
I’m glad you bring this up, becasue I was just about to ask …
.
Lorax, one of the questions that gets asked sometimes at RC – and handled most unsatisfactorily – is the question of what is climate versus what is weather. I’d like your take on that question. I’ve heard it said that “climate is what you predict” based on past observations and “weather is what you get”. This is cute. It’s a starting point. But I want something more tangible and quantitative. I’m especially interested in this proposition that “weather is chaotic, but climate is not”. I saw a comment yesterday from some alarmist claiming that he was alarmed because “climate is chaotic; responses to GHGs are fundamentally unpredictable”. But so many alarmists claim it is not chaotic.
.
I’d like to hear your view on that question. I want to compare it to things I hear from Gerald Browning and Tom Vonk. Have you read their comments here at CA? Are they nutters, or what?
.
I know I am not alone in this curiosity. Weather versus cliamte. Can you help me? I am soooo confused.
Re: bender (#74),
bender,
I could imagine one saying this: the difference between weather and climate is time scale. Both are statistical summaries of observations of a subset of the atmosphere in time and space (and a subset of the possible set of such observations of the whole atmosphere). To me that is the only difference. Weather is that which has happened recently. Climate is that which has happened since an arbitrarily picked point or over an arbirarily picked interval in time and space. Climate is determined exactly by the previously realized weather. Weather processes are deterministically chaotic. Such processes are self-similar at all observable scales, not identical at all observable scales.
Personally, I’d like Lorax to touch on this and point me to the literature where I can analyze the statistical properties of chaotic time series in a manner similar to the properties of AR(1,1) processes or gaussian, aka iid random, walks. My background is chemistry and medicine. I see much here that recapitulates the history of the science of epidemiology, which has been noted at this site previously.
Don’t make vast conclusions from half vast data. Professor Jerry Atwood, 1975, advanced freshman chemistry (and I am sure someone emphasized this idea somewhere along the line in his training) at the University of Alabama.
Bender,
I’m driving a very slow boat south through North Carolina. That’s what I’m supposed to be doing.
Marveling at your very sudden, well focussed observations here, and their frequency, may I ask what you are supposed to be doing just now?
This sounds flippant, but I actually want to know. Same for JeffID, and Lucia.
So a thread for Lorax, isn’t to state one’s own views but to interrogate others. I think I’ll check one more time, and then drop this thread. That puts me down to 7 active threads.
Lorax,
Can you please see if I can get a thread dedicated to me over at RC. The topic would be data disclosure and code release in climate science. In any case, for everyone’s benefit could you please restate your isues with Climateaudit or steve. Please do so in numbered fashion. like issue 1, issue 2 etc. That way we can have a well ordered discussion.
Re: steven mosher (#78),
And I would like to see the Swanson thread re-opened. (It was only open for a week this summer.)
I’m supposed to be vacuuming steven mosher’s pool. I’ll be there in a sec, mosh.
Re: bender (#80), make it snappy.
Re: steven mosher (#134),
I’m caught in web traffic. I’ll be there in a sec.
Gerald, I and others in the field are very familiar with the limitations of the NWP models, the importance of data assimilation, issues with data assimilation et cetera. It is a topic that has, and continues to receive, much attention especially with countries/states cutting back on their UA programs.
Gerald “And if the NWP models did not update the upper air wind observations every 12 hours, the models would deviate from reality in 1-2 days.”
And you think that this is some kind of new and damning revelation? Wow!
Yes, Gravel is “correct”, the models are so flawed that we should not use them to help prepare for high impact weather events, your next sailing trip/cruise in the Gulf Stream, or your next flight to NYC. Well, no. They are very clearly of much value to society and business alike.
Gerald did you co-author this paper, or is this another Gerald?
The Impact of Observational and Model Errors on Four-Dimensional Variational Data Assimilation
Chungu Lu and Gerald L. Browning
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 55, Issue 6 (March 1998) pp. 995–1011
and Svlvie was a co-author of this paper (the last time that she published in the AMS journals, 2002, it seems):
The CMC–MRB Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) Model. Part III: Nonhydrostatic Formulation
Kao-San Yeh, Jean Côté, Sylvie Gravel, André Méthot, Alaine Patoine, Michel Roch, and Andrew Staniforth
Monthly Weather Review
Volume 130, Issue 2 (February 2002) pp. 339–356
They concluded that “Although these results are encouraging, rigorous testing of the model’s performance for strongly nonhydrostatic flows still remains to be done.” That was 7 years ago, a very long time in the field of modelling.
Just to remind you, b/c you seem to have forgotten and are now going off on a tangent, the whole ensemble question came up in the context of accusing Gavin Schmidt of cherry picking output from deterministic runs.
Anyhow, read my post regarding the ensembles again, then read the literature carefully, and then go and take your concerns and ideas to fix the broken NWP models to Dr. Hamill et al. and ECMWF with your suggestions, I’m sure that they will be delighted to have your help.
Re: Lorax (#83),
No, no, no no. I asked if he would ever do such a thing.
Re: bender (#85),
Lorax has fabricated a statement. And it’s the worst kind of perfidity: accusing me of accusing someone of impropriety. I am EXTREMELY careful about that, Lorax. You will want to retract that remark and apologize. And you’re better to do it now than later.
I’ve posted two abstracts on “Exponential Growth in Physical Systems #3” for Lorax to review.
To make it extra-easy for Lorax, here is the RC thread on same topic
.
I have a question. But since Gavin isn’t interested, I’ll ask Lorax. Ready?
This is great! A Lorax thread! Perhaps it has been noted before (and I simply missed it), but Lorax, in posting his “questionaire” is using a classic tactic common on many blogs: Post relatively easily formulated questions that give the appearance that the questioner has a vast depth of expertise, and that anyone equally as qualified could easily answer same. These questions invariably require many times more effort to answer than they do to ask; this either buries the questionee in excess labor, or opens him/her up to accusations of evasion for “refusing” to respond.
This retorical trick is older than the internet. It works pretty well on the uneducated (used it myself a few times…) My guess is it won’t work here.
Lots of ad hom still going on here by CAers, but comment 15 did make me laugh:
“”Lorax “speaks for the trees”.
Steve speaks for science.”
Actually, that is wrong, McIntyre clearly speaks for the trees, or tree in this case. Remember he has said “YAD06—the most influential tree in the world”. In fact, some would argue that he seems to be posing as the tree’s agent.
As to your claim that “Steve speaks for the science”. Well, that is a whole different debate entirely. It seems that many, many people would disagree with that claim.
Re: Lorax (#89),
Retract your false accusation and apologize.
Bender,why would you ask that then?? The insinuation was there. Don’t take people for fools bender. You would not be asking that loaded question if you had not entertained the idea that is he is guilty of cherry picking. Moreover, the intent of you posing that question is obviously to cast doubt on his credibility and to defame. One of these days your juvenile quips are going to land you in hot water bender.
However, I am reasonable, and did not mean to misrepresent the purpose of your juvenile game. Sorry for the confusion, and I retract the statement in question.
Re: Lorax (#91),
There was no “insinuation”. Just your imagination. Retract the statement and apologize. If you are nice I may explain the statement’s purpose.
Re: Lorax (#91),
Thank you for the apology and retraction. My own apologies for the previous crosspost.
Can we number the different Loraxes to keep them straight?
As explained before, it is my surmise that Gavin Schmidt has employed a double-standard, suggesting it is ok for paleoclimatologists to substitute data series that bias the evidence in favor of their hypothesis, when I ASSUME he would NEVER himself do such a thing with model output.
Re: bender (#95),
What is your view, Lorax, on cherry-picking of observations to match expectations? Is it honest? Ethical? Does the end justify the means?
Re: bender (#95),
Is it plainly clear now why there was no “insinuation?”
Do you often find yourself in trouble over your words?
Now how about this issue of weather versus climate. Educate me.
Lorax will kindly lead us to his own publications…
Lorax, what is your native language? It clearly is not English. German, perhaps? The clue is the verb/object juxtaposition of your sentence structure.
Lorax tries to be witty:
I’m guessing you are missing a humorous reference:
“Stay thirsty my friends.”
To my Brit’s eyes (and with a working knowledge of German), Lorax’s word order is remarkably precise and can not be faulted. I see that as an indicator of clear thinking – thogh one could speculate that no native English speaker would be this careful. I suspect he’s playing with us
Before addressing Dr. McKitrick’s post. Those insinuating that I am here to interrogate and that I’ll happy when I hear what I want to hear, are wrong. I am hear to make some valid enquiries and seek only the truth. I have enquired as to McIntyre’s reasons for discussing the Briffa affair in public before he has completed his analysis, as well as his involvement in Dr. McKitrick’s missive in the NP, and what his stance is on some contentious, (some would argue defamatory statements) made by Dr. McKitrick against Dr. Briffa. Up until now McIntyre has refused to answer any questions pertaining to McKitrick’s missive. McIntyre, and I agree with him on this one, has done some analysis which raises (maybe) some important issues that need to be considered when making reconstructions using tree ring data. He has made his point. But that is not enough, this is clearly personal for McIntyre, because he insists on continuing to manipulate this situation to discredit and undermine Briffa’s work, rathe than first complete his analysis and then submit it to his peers for review in a reputable journal. Dr. Briffa made that effort to do so, and so should McIntyre.
Dr. McKitrick, as to you referring to my ego, please I take offense to that and to you referring to me as “Senator Lorax”. Please apologize. As someone of such alleged repute, such immature chides are not becoming. While I do appreciate you comments it is telling that McIntyre won’t speak for himself. Are we to understand then that you are his appointed spokes person?
1) Did you have any role in drafting, editing McKitrick’s missive?
RM: I wrote my column and take responsibility for what it says.
Lorax: Thanks. What about editing, was McIntyre involved there?
2) McKitrick also appears to have displayed data sourced here at CA. Can you confirm or deny that?
RM: What’s the point of this question? You think the data should have been sourced somewhere else?
Lorax: With respect, please do stop weaseling and answer the question. The point is that if you did source the data from CA it was in all likelihood from SteveM, which would mean that you are possibly taking advantage of his data to further your agenda and make inflammatory comments. It would also mean that you are connected with CA Dr. McKitrick, and that your comments fly in the face of comments by SteveM that his intentions are honorable. You, however, can say certain things that CA cannot b/c you as an academic with tenure have certain privileges…..
3) Do you agree with the statement made by the FP that “Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph of global warming “?
RM:You are still belabouring this point I see.
Lorax: Please, with respect, you are stalling. I directed this question at McIntyre. Instead of making snide remarks, McIntyre should just answer the question, or ask them to issue a correction.
4) Do you agree with McKitrick’s statement, made when referring to Dr. Briffa’s work, that “Whatever is going on here, it is not science.”
RM: It is misleading to claim that the sentence “refers to Dr. Briffa’s work” as if in its entirety. It is referring to the specific problem that an extraordinary result emerges in a part of the data set where the quality of the sample collapses. If you think that is good science, fine. I do not.
Lorax: Again I asked MrMcIntyre this question. Anyhow, sounds like more weaseling on your part to me. Sorry if I do not believe you. You should know better and should have made it painfully clear what you meant by that. I never said anything about the dendro analysis in question being an example of good or bad science Dr. McKitrick, you are deflecting.
5) Do you agree with McKitrick when he says “ I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. ” So according to McKitrick the core of global warming is “simply non-existent”?
RM: Your last sentence paraphrases the quote so as to misrepresent the meaning. What I said was that the arguments for global warming that I have probed are either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. I have spelled out the reasons for this claim at great length in my writings.
Lorax: This was a question directed at McIntyre which you have not answered fro him. I’m curious which argument of AGW theory that you have probed is “simply non-existent”? Such unsubstantiated and unquantified statements do not help educate/inform anyone, never mind lay people. Yes, “your writings”, with respect, anyone can write a book Anyhow, sorry if I misrepresented the meaning of your unclear statement.
So Dr. McKitrick shed some light on a couple of issues, but really, he only partly answered question 1. So one can’t conclude that we have heard the truth about this fiasco yet, because McIntyre refuses to speak for himself and set the record straight. Anyone who posts here and supports CA should be asking these legitimate questions. CA is after all about questioning, enquiring, transparency, accountability, the science. CAers though seem to think that those concepts do not apply to McIntyre and McKitrick and that paints CA as being nothing more than a partisan site with an anything but honourable agenda.
Re: Lorax (#100),
Before you even start I think we need to establish if your inquiries are in fact valid. One thing that matters in this is your identity. For my own part I have always used my real name here, on RC, on openmind. So, I would judge that none of your inquiries are valid or that you are a truth seeker without first getting confirmation of who you are.
With that said I can give you a little insight into Steve’s reasoning at least based on the personal conversations I have had with him and long threads we have had here on the same issue. Steve Views this blog as many of us do as a work in progress, or seminar, or “reasoning together” or his lab notebook. That’s one reason why he would publish before finishing. And further as you should know analysis is never really finished. I understand this approach because it mirrors perfectly the approach we use in Open Software development, where code is published early and often so that many eyes can review it. You don’t even need to ask steve what his motivation is in publishing early and often. It’s clear that it has been his practice sometime. It’s a practice that is independent of the Briffa affair.
I don’t think it is so clearly personal. Since I too seek the truth could you please tell me why you think its personal. Obviously it’s personal in the trivially true sense of the phrase. But what evidence do you have that it is something more than that? Here is where the truth of your identity matters. Second, I see nothing manipulative in what Steve is doing. He is just plowing through data and posting his thoughts. WRT to discrediting briffa’s work, the facts speak for themselves. Briffa withheld the data. Now that it is released others are free to analyze it as they see fit. The discussion that goes on here is far more capable of reaching the truth than any publication in a scientific journal. For the record, I support the elimination of all scientific journals that don’t demand the production of data and code. This is a matter of principle for me. Simply, I see no moral or epistemic requirement for steve or anyone to “finish” work before publishing it. ON THE CONTRARY, I believe that science is better served by sharing data and analysis throughout the entire process. You are stuck on an old way of working, old way of reviewing, and old way of publishing. More damage is done by briffa like actions ( holding data for 10 years) than by publishing early and often.
personally, I think SteveM should never submit his work to world of page limited journals, the world of anonymous reviwers, the world of journals with “paywalls.”
Re: Lorax (#100),
Ha truth seeker! With no personal axe to grind against steveM? It is all now perfectly clear to me. (Bender you are off with your guess. ) I won’t out him, but once you know who it is the motivation becomes crystal clear. You see when you hide behind a false front and claim to be only interested in the truth while at the same time you try to divine other peoples motives THAT is a sure sign that your motives are impure.
Re: steven mosher (#155),
I was being ironic. Note the JEG-like arrogance and the telling valuation of “productivity” over wisdom.
Re: steven mosher (#155), I am not sure I understand your post. Are you communicating to the crazy person who sent Lorax the threat?
Re: bernie (#164),
I don’t think so. I think he figured out who “Lorax” is, how he himself might be motivated. And his sympathy waned somewhat. If Lorax was targeted by a climate alarmist kook (and who wouldn’t like some proof?) that would be pretty ironic.
From the CBC post I reported (#33), the “Lorax” hails from Edmonton (Alberta)… and as per his own post (#57), he seems an avid reader of the Journal of Hydrometeorology…
Bender, please, I’ve stated my position on cherry-picking several times now. Now give it up already
Re: Lorax (#105),
Have you? I missed it. Where?
I guess Lorax just doesn’t like educating the ignorant. He refuses to teach me anything.
Lorax (#83),
Let us compare this statement with the one you made in #57.
Well we see that the latter statement is hubris. Most of the data is useless (especially the satellite data unless it has a ground measurement to help in the attempt to invert the ill posed integral). When technically called on a point, you suddenly state that “we knew that”. Boy have I seen that BS in reviews before.
Sylvie Gravel works for tha Canadian Met Center and she was a little more than a bit surprised when she ran the quantitative tests on their global model. And her boss didn’t want her to publish the result about the satellite data being useless without a ground reading. If all of this is so well known, why would that be?
And given that climate models use even cruder resolution and parameterizations, what does that say about your “one trick pony” result after result from these bogus climate models? Could it be because your models are a publication crutch?
I worked at NOAA long enough to see that the forecasters only looked at the global model results for the next day and then made a best guess at the forecast. The real improvement in forecasting has come from being able to see what is coming by use of satellite pictures, not models.
It is one of many manuscripts I coauthored with Heinz Kreiss and others. Notice I don’t hide behind an alias
because I am proud of my work. Also note that Heinz and I wrote the manuscript about the ill posedness of the hydrostatic system that is used in all climate models. Would you like to quote any of your manuscripts?
Nothing has changed in the “one trick pony” climate model results but the number of junk manuscripts that have been published, e.g. can you provide a mathematical or numerical analytic justification for convective adjustment?
You might want to look at the multiscale results that are appearing in many other fields
that have arisen from the work by Heinz and his students. And Andy Majda has used our reduced system to describe the evolution of hurricanes. You need to catch up with the literature outside of a stagnant field.
Jerry
All,
He/she/they are having ‘fun’.No answers to any questions, frequent accusations of ad homs (which are difficult to find if you look back over the posts), constant changes of tack.
Ignore Lorax and eventually whoever it is will whither on the vine
Jeez, over the 100 mark already. I was expecting one post from McIntyre answering my questions. Folks, this is the last comment I’m going to answer to– like Steve I don’t have mignons to fight off the questions. As I have said ad nauseam, I’m only interested in what Steve McIntyre’s comments on this.
Henry, “People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. – George Bernard Shaw”
I did not say it cannot be done. I have an issue of how it is being done.
And here is another quote for CAers:
Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength. -Eric Hoffer, philosopher and author (1902-1983)
Re: Lorax (#110),
You can’t have a platform from which to shout your proclamations of bad intent and not expect questions in return. You think you know something about NWP. Educate us. Tell me where weather stops and climate starts. I’m all ears.
Re: Lorax (#110),
It is rude for a teacher to turn a student away. Teach me.
Aw darn, Steve didn’t answer the questions so Lorax took his ball and went home. Boo hoo.
OK, that was meant to be my last post, but Gerald posted something while I was drafting another message. Gerald “Most of the data is useless (especially the satellite data unless it has a ground measurement to help in the attempt to invert the ill posed integral). ”
Really? Tell that to Dr. Roy Spencer. He uses satellite-derived air temperatures all the time, he even uses them in his skeptical discussions of why AGW won’t be as bade as the IPCC and others say it will.
Gerald: “I worked at NOAA long enough to see that the forecasters only looked at the global model results for the next day and then made a best guess at the forecast. The real improvement in forecasting has come from being able to see what is coming by use of satellite pictures, not models.”
I’m sorry but this statement is just wrong. But I am not going to argue this with you here. Search the literature for what has been determined to be the maximum integration time one can expect to derive reliable forecasts. Satellite imagery data are only helpful for nowcasting. You are also seem to be getting confused between the differences between nowcasting, short-term forecasting, medium-term forecasting, seasonal forecasting, decadal forecasting and climate forecasting.
I only cited your paper because you seem to work with models. I’m sure that you are an excellent scientist, I am not questioning that for a second (read no sarcasm). I just found it odd that you seem to think that the models are hopeless, but yet you are involved in research which uses models.
“can you provide a mathematical or numerical analytic justification for convective adjustment?”
Not sure what you point or question is. Are you talking about invoking the CP scheme at certain grid points where radar/lightning or other remotely sensed data indicate convection is occurring?
Gerald, if you think ensembles are a “stagnant field” then you are being misleading. That would seemt o suggest that the NAEFS is a waste of time and money. Many people would argue that it is not. Ensembles are not the silver bullet. I am not denying that advances are being made in other areas pertaining to models. Anyhow, ensembles have and will be an important tool for some time to come I imagine. I think that we have laboured this point enough.
Re: Lorax (#114),
Yes, Jerry’s “confused” about time-scales. Educate him.
Sigh, bender I do not endorse cherry picking, search “THE BLOG”. It is hard to not draw parallels between “THE BLOG” and certain scripts that people tend to get worked up about.
Re: Lorax (#115),
Good idea. I searched the thread and saw nothing. If you disagree with cherry-picking (phew!), then you can’t be too happy about the possible IPCC cover-up on the bizarre substitution that was done with the Yamal data?
Bender, you distort again, I said that “seem to be getting confused”. Did you see that “seem”. He probably is not, but the way he worded his sentence made it look that way. Gerald is obviously very smart. Please stop baiting and good night.
Re: Lorax (#117),
Night? Where are you? UK?
Re: Lorax (#117),
What I saw was an insinuation that he was confused. My fault.
Re: Lorax (#116),
Before you go to bed read Swanson and Tsonis and dream chaotic dreams.
Search “THE BLOG” and find my discussion with Hu. He set me right. If the IPCC covered something up as you allege, then no, I would not endorse that. There are two sides to every story though bender, and here I am hearing only going to read one biased side of that story. This is like one of those painful fair wells at the airport. Good night and good luck bender.
Re: Lorax (#118),
The other side of the story, Steve’s, is here: Yamal and IPCC AR4 Reviewer Comments. Apparently Steve was an IPCC reviewer. Do you believe this?
Lorax, since you don’t believe in cherry-picking (phew!), how would you like an all-expense paid trip to Washington DC? I have an idea …
Similarities are indeed troubling:
In the CBC post Lorax writes:
Streamwise Vorticity writes in a 9/24/2009 3:30:25 PM post in the Globe and Mail:
Lorax in his #102 post:
Streamwise Vorticity in a 9/25/2009 3:22:54 AM Globe and Mail post
How about a teleconnection between the two?
Re: Antonio San (#123),
I want Lorax to educate me on NWP, and how it might relate to the chaotic climate dynamics referred to by Swanson and Tsonis. All these alarmists – guys like Lorax – told me that weather was unpredictable but assured me that this unpredictable variability did not scale up to climatic time scales. The alarmists told us that internal climate variability was trivial compared to GHG forcing. A bit of ENSO, PDO here and there, but nothing multidecadal. They called us “deniers” for suggesting Koutsoyiannis might have something to offer. They were WRONG.
.
Maybe Gavin should just plot error bars on his simulation model ensembles? That would help put these periods of “divergence” – both warm and cold – in some perspective. And let’s stop publishing alarmist climate papers – like MBH98 – every bloody time there’s an El Nino.
Re: bender (#127),
TLAs are a bitch! I suppose I can search around here and figure what NWP means in a Loraxian context, but maybe I’ll guess first.
NWP = North West Passage?
NWP = Non-Warming Present?
NWP = Notably Wonky Poster?
Re: Dave Dardinger (#130),
Numerical Weather Prediction
I’ve been a long time reader of this site. I’ve taken statistics courses to about a beginner graduate university level, and always been welcomed and responded to kindly with comments, questions and explanations on this site.
One of the reasons I’ve fell so strongly on this side of the argument is similar to what many have brought here. Attitude and transparency. Just the fact that CA even links to people with opposing viewpoints is something AGW proponents won’t do. Their forums are dripping with condescension, censoring of opposing viewpoints, and an arrogance I can’t see any serious scientists having. The politics of it all is sickening at times.
Here, anyone with any level of knowledge can find and verify all the data that’s provided. From the elementary tutorials of R to the widely available code and ability to duplicate any of what is posted, this blog strives to a much higher level of transparency and accountability to it’s methods than “peer reviewed” AGW scientists ever have.
When you consider the implications of what is going on politically, how this bad science is being used to justify intrusions into your life, wallet, future, etc., I highly commend Steve and others for taking their time to still actually apply transparent, reproducible scientific method and for going all out and calling out others who refuse to do the same. It’s the people highly invested in certain points of view and outcomes financially, emotionally and professional that gloss over basic scientific principles who you should be more concerned about.
Thanks guys.
Oh and that one too:
Lorax post #89:
And Streamwise Vorticity in a 9/25/2009 12:08:28 PM Globe and Mail post:
Lorax,
#12 PS: Steve, does this mean that I can ONLY post here, nowhere else?
#21 Repeats that he has asked Steve questions and other complaints
#22 —-
#24 —-
#53 —-
#57 Rambling off GCM post
#58 —-
#59 Requesting Steve’s status of agreement with RossM’s post at WUWT.
#66 RossM responds to Lorax
#83 More modeling
#89 —-
#91 —-
#102 looking for motives replies to RossM
#105 —-
#110 —-
Since SteveM gave you this thread, and you originally seemed to have come here to look into the Yamal audit, I find it interesting that you have directly asked Steve NOTHING about the actual work on the thread SteveM gave you!!!!
If you want your questions about the audit answered, wouldn’t it be a good idea to post about the actual AUDIT????
If you think SteveM is wrong, wouldn’t it be a good idea to post alternatives or objections or points about the actual AUDIT???
Could this be why SteveM pushed you off into your own thread?? You are continuously OFF TOPIC on his thread?!?!?!?!?!
Maybe you can tell us what you really would like to accomplish so you can be ON TOPIC on your OWN thread, or, do you just like wide open, no topic, free-for-alls???????
I think it is a mistake for Lorax to judge the value of Jerry’s commentary based on his research productivity at the tail end of his career. I often like what the older guys have to say. Sometimes they are very wise. Sometimes they’ve seen it all. Sometimes they are free to speak their minds where the young ones are too heavily invested in a particular paradigm or business arrangement. As Lorax is unwilling to list his publications, he is going to have to earn his credibility quatloos the hard way – by engaging.
>Those insinuating that I am here to interrogate and that I’ll happy when I hear what I want to hear, are wrong. I am hear to make some valid enquiries and seek only the truth.
Well that’s the same. And I was complaining about the lack of saying something yourself.
You’ve been given your own thread. There are a dozen threads now, so for people who are new(I hear site hits looks like a hockey stick) or just haven’t seen all of them, why don’t you start by repeating your previous points in some posts. I can think of three categories. Behavior of commenters, Behavior of Steve McIntyre/correcting other bloggers, which is derived from ‘What Steve should have done differently/how peer-review should operate’.
A month ago, I was arguing with Steve about his ‘doings and choices’ as well.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7027, yet somehow I wasn’t demanding Steve answer all my questions.
If I had my own thread at RealClimate, I’d do quite a bit more with that, than what you are doing here. This site is worth over $10000, and you have been given your own thread. Put some thought into what you want to say, and say it. If all you have is questions for others, that’s not very interesting.
Re: MikeN (#133),
He’s running a quatloo deficit already.
Lorax (#112),
Please prove that the algorithm used to turn satellite radiances into temperatures will converge without a ground based temperature in an area of cloudiness. Just because someone uses satellite derived temperatures, that does not mean the method is reliable.
Most of the error statistics that weather modelers use are not standard relative error mathematical norms, but some trick to make things look better than they really are, e.g. by including persistence error in the denominator instead of the norm of the actual observatins. That is exactly why I had Sylvie use a relative L_2 norm on each vertical level so that we could watch the forecast error from the boundary layer approximation grow in height and destroy the forecast. Also note that the boundary layer approximation was the main contributor to the “improved” forecast, i.e. an unphysical drag term slowed the wind down at the surface, but did not improve the accuracy relative to reality.
Clearly you have not read anything that Heinz and I have done on systems with multiple timescales,
No numerical model can be trusted unless it uses a well posed system of equations (the climate models do not),
use sufficient numerical resolution to accurately approximate the nonlinear cascade of enstropy (the climate models do not), and accuratelt describe the real forcing (physics) terms (the climate models do not).
The convergent models used in our manuscripts were to demonstrate the mathematical theory.
When a vertical column of a hydrostatic model (e.g.read climate model) becomes hydrostatically unstable because of the physically inaccurate heating parameterizations, the column is adjusted in an ad hoc manner to be hydrostatically stable. There is no mathematical or numerical analytic rationale for this gimmick that projects a small scale feature onto the large scale. This alone makes a climate model suspect.
I think that atmospheric science is stagnant. Charney developed quasi-geostrophic theory and IMHO nothing of substance has been done until we extended that theory to include smaller scales of motion in the midlatitudes and all scales of motion near the equator. Now it is quite clear that the accuracy of the parameterizations completely determines the accuracy of any numerical model for those motions. (Note that the hydrostatic system was a step backward in progress).
OK, now I am seriously p$$ed off!
Someone just sent me an ever so nice and threatening email from a Yahoo account. I’ll save you the details but it starts:
“Lorax you little snot nosed shithead stop asking questions or else…..”
I’m done, McIntyre you win, I DO NOT NEED THIS KIND OF CRAP IN MY LIFE, I HAVE A FAMILY!!!
“Here, anyone with any level of knowledge can find and verify all the data that’s provided. From the elementary tutorials of R to the widely available code and ability to duplicate any of what is posted…”
sssssh! If my wife finds out where I’ve been learning R, Mr. McIntyre will no longer be safe within this country!
BTW; Fine form bender! Better than any of the most lop sided boxing matches I have ever seen!
Cry havoc! And let slip the bender of war!!!
kuhnkat: with all due respect, it is his thread.
Lorax: a note on style. While I may not agree with your replies, #100 reply to McK and #112 reply to Gerald are relatively on point and easy to follow. You give complete quotes and respond. This will probably never be an award-winning thread, but you clearly have the potential to keep it readable.
Lorax – slow down. It’s likely to be some idiot. If you think it has any relevance to CA I suggest you contact Steve offline to discuss:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=778
(I had an odd incident some time ago and Steve acted quickly)
Mr. McIntyre, I’m pretty rattled. Yes, I guess no body wins in this situation. Please such down this thread in its entirety. Please also remove all questions that I asked of you and McKitrick. In fact, delete all my posts on this site (I honesty don’t care, they are not important now). Also, think that it would be best if you deleted all the posts made by AntonioSan on this thread. They found their information in his posts made here. Thank you for being professional about this.
Re: Lorax (#146),
Lorax, what you have reported is very distressing to all of us. If you have received a threat of violence take the email to the police. If it does not end up being a criminal matter you can still fight back, and I’m sure the internet whizzes here will gladly help. A while ago I received some abusive and threatening contact. It was not of a criminal nature, but I was able to show that it originated from a Cdn university, and the university took action against the perpetrator. Don’t let the bullies win.
Now, in reply to #100. You were insulted by my use of the term “Senator,” so I apologize. I, however, am insulted by your inquiry about Steve’s involvement with my op-ed. You keep digging at the connection between Steve and my op-ed as if the discovery of a connection would be, in and of itself, some kind of scandal. As the author of the op-ed, I find that premise insulting. Suppose I go around demanding of people, “Are now or have you ever been in any way affiliated with Joe Bloggs”? Regardless of how they answer, it is understandable if Joe Bloggs is offended by the suggestion that there is some disgrace attached to knowing him.
You asked me about the title and the blurb on the Unthreaded thread, and I told you what I thought. The reply includes the advice that you can write a letter to the editor about it if you think a correction is needed, but within the context of the column, referring to both hockey stick episodes, in my view the blurb represents a reasonable opinion. To see this issue pop up yet again in your questions to Steve strikes me as belabouring.
Two other points: First, anyone can write a book, perhaps, but not anyone can get it published, not every book goes on to be a bestseller, not every book is a finalist for major prizes both from scientific and policy organizations, etc. Also, my corpus includes a lot of academic journal articles.
Second, you have said my column was defamatory. This concerns me. Having been on the receiving end of some occasional invective I hope not to be guilty of this kind of thing. It is my intention to criticize the work in question, and the process by which the work gained what I believe to be more influence than it should have. I have reported facts that raise doubts about the work of some people. I’m afraid that happens in the world of academia, and a researcher being criticized can’t help but feel embarrassment. Heaven knows I have had to deal with embarrassment of this kind too. But if you think that my column went a further mile into defamation then quote the section to me and I will consider whether a correction, retraction or clarification is needed.
So rattled that I can’t type in fact, please shut down this thread in its entirety. Sorry for the work.
Re: Lorax (#147),
I vote to keep the open inquiry alive,
Hmm, can anyone figure out how anyone got lorax’s email? hey lorax post the email you got complete with headers.
ASan, before this gets shut down. I read your posts. It is OK, I believe you. You will not be hearing from me in any way, shape or form. You have my word on that.
I just showed moshpit how it was done. It is better not to enumerate further.
Lorax, there is so much science, good science to do. Good luck with your work.
A little late for me to show up, but I have to wonder how some one got a member’s Email address. I’m not familiar with this type of forum and don’t know if there is any means for members to directly contact each other or if the site was hacked.
Lorax,
Before this disappears, I’d like to say I’ve enjoyed your participation. There’s been more heat than light, but hopefully you will find a way to stay around (maybe looking at different questions).
One reason I like this site is that scientists in the field or other non-sceptics who engage are treated respectfully here (e.g. Judith Curry and others) so long as they are prepared to discuss the main points rather than drop in, criticise and disappear (numerous).
Lorax,
I appreciate that you stayed here and tried to be sensible and tried to get McIntyre and McKitrick to answer what I believe to be pretty straightforward questions. It is quite apparent that these two gentleman are not really interested in “the truth” so much as trying to make the establishment look bad.
These two men want to have science credibility but they have never played by the rules to establish that credibility. The Yamal controversy is a perfect example of how science is NOT done. Certainly, if there is a flaw found in a study, the proper procedure is to correct the flaw and publish the paper in a reputable journal. One should NEVER attempt to discredit the author of the flawed paper. I have heard all of the reasons why SM won’t publish in journals, but if one wishes to play the game, one must play by the rules.
Here is the deal:
If in fact, down the road, Briffa is shown to have somehow cheated, I will come here and personally apologize for ever questioning the Great McIntyre.
In turn, if down the road Briffa is shown to be innocent of any wrongdoings, you all (SM also) must go to RC and publically apologize to Dr. Briffa and to The Team.
Deal?
“The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, it’s that they know so many things that just aren’t so.”
— Mark Twain
Re: Scott A. Mandia (#160),
Did you read the thread on IPCC AR4 reviwer comments? Do you consider biased data substitutions “cheating” when it favors your hypothesis?
Re: Scott A. Mandia (#160),
And what is your standard of “proof”? Do we need yet another Barton inquiry? C’mon, there’s a pattern here.
Re: Scott A. Mandia (#160),
The Yamal controversy is a perfect example of how science is NOT done.
I think what gets your goat is the obvious fact that science can indeed be done just as it is done here — completely open and transparent for all to see and judge and even comment on.
and to Lorax.
TomPP might be next. He ain’t doing Gavin any favors, that’s for dang sure.