Pielke Debate Online

Maurizio Morabito’s twitter notes here. Audio here.

I’ve been trying for about 10 days to get a digital version of Muir-Wood’s data, sending three requests so far without an acknowledgement (Pielke Jr doesn’t have a copy of the Muir-Wood data.)


20 Comments

  1. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 4:28 PM | Permalink

    Pielke Jr mentions in his presentation that the increase in Atlantic hurricanes occurred in the east Atlantic, referring to an analysis that divided the Atlantic into longitudinal quintiles, originally presented at Climate Audit. Pielke and I submitted an article to GRL that was viciously rejected.

    One reviewer said that the results were already widely reported in the literature. The other reviewer said that the results were wrong and the statistical analysis was “fraudulent”.

    The editor said that there was a consensus and rejected the paper.

    • Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

      This was essentially presented and published by S. Camargo and J. Kossin in a paper that appeared in Climatic Change.

      Kossin, J.P., and S.J. Camargo, 2009: Hurricane track variability and secular potential intensity trends, Climatic Change, 97, 329-337.

      Link

  2. mrjthomas
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

    I went to the RI last night. It was all very civil, not much disagreement. All 3 speakers were good communicators, the moderator did well also, particularly after being thrown by the definition questions around the motion. Ward said that if the disaster section had been handled by the IPCC in the way Pielke said then that was wrong and needed to be investigated. But a lot of the questions were just rambles – moderator had to intervene too often to ask if the ramble was leading somewhere. Ward seemed to practise the new line: if there is a chance that the consensus is right and we are heading for doom can YOU take the risk of inaction?

    The hurricane in east Atlantic thing was very interesting, I hadn’t heard it before and didn’t know the history.

  3. Will Hawkes
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 4:56 PM | Permalink

    snip – nothing to do with Pielke. It is really annoying for me when people post OT topics on unrelated threads. It is a huge waste of time.

    • Will Hawkes
      Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

      Apologies. I can just imagine how much of your precious time that I must have wasted. I will not do it again, I promise.

      Steve: any individual OT comment doesn’t take much time, but cumulatively it’s a drain. I don’t think that the mild snark is merited in this case.

  4. Ray Girouard
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

    I haven’t bothered to find the settings to turn off the ads that Google inserts into the window when I open Climate Audit. The following is the one that came up when I opened climateaudit.org in my firefow browser this afternoon:

    Ads by Google
    What Is Global Warming?
    Is It All A Hoax? Find Out At National Geographic
    NationalGeographic.com

    I don’t know whether to laugh or get angry after looking at wht Nat’l. Geographic has to say. This my force me to poke around in my settings to get rid of this feature.

  5. Ray Girouard
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

    I haven’t bothered to find the settings to turn off the ads that Google inserts into the window when I open Climate Audit. The following is the one that came up when I opened climateaudit.org in my firefox browser this afternoon:

    Ads by Google
    What Is Global Warming?
    Is It All A Hoax? Find Out At National Geographic
    NationalGeographic.com

    I don’t know whether to laugh or get angry after looking at wht Nat’l. Geographic has to say. This my force me to poke around in my settings to get rid of this feature.

    • Charles DrPH
      Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

      I actually clicked on that link and had a good chuckle! It is a tad bit ironic, isn’t it?

      You may recall that Google blocked early links to climategate news and emails when the story first broke. Delingpole published a story about it, calling it “Googlegate.” I try to avoid Google, but old habits die hard.

      • Ray Girouard
        Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

        Google seems to pop the ads in automatically based on some sort of affinity algorithm, similar to Amazon, I suppose. The one that came up this time was for something called http://www.concern.net which proposes to eliminate world hunger and poverty. Oh well.

        • Charles DrPH
          Posted Feb 7, 2010 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

          Yeah, that’s the Google business model! Very crafty actually, except when they adjust the algorithms to conveniently direct your search away from the very results you are seeking!

          This is a good read on that event: http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/google-gate/

          Google must have a dog in the climate change fight!

  6. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    Here are the slides from our presentation at AGU. Ryan Maue came to it.
    http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/agu07_hurricane.pdf

    • EdeF
      Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 6:32 PM | Permalink

      Steve,
      The facts you and Roger present in this slide show are so intuitive, I can’t believe it wasn’t accepted in a more favorable light. The first thing I thought was, ok, when do they start using large aircraft for hurricane research, late 1940s? Ok,
      satellites come on board sometime in the sixties. We have a much better capabiltity to detect storms out in the eastern Atlantic now, seems like a slam-dunk to me.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

        Landsea had already argued the detection point. Our point was a little different: we quantified the east-ness of the measurements in an intuitively accessible way that had not been done before, which made it possible to analyse things quantitatively.

        And we didn’t restrict ourselves to the detection argument which was disputed (however absurd that may seem.) If the eastward trend of hurricane location was a climatological rather than detection effect – maybe higher SSTs cause hurricanes to form earlier and veer north earlier – this would be consistent with the lack of damage trend.

        If it was a climatological effect rather than a detection effect , then it was something that people ought to be paying attention to and replicating in their GCMs.

    • Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

      Do you have the review comments to that paper somewhere linked online?

    • Craig Loehle
      Posted Feb 7, 2010 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

      When you get really nasty comments, you have clearly stepped on a nerve. This is quite different than submitting a paper that really is not novel or is poorly done–then you usually get lots of citations and detailed comments about what you missed or did wrong. Nasty == PC

  7. Ian
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 5:36 PM | Permalink

    I thought Pielke did very well. Ward’s approach was subdued compared to his written pontifications (which Mr. Pielke pulled apart quite thoroughly in analyses on his blog).

    Someone should have asked Robert Muir-Wood how he, as a contributing author, allowed his work to be misused in AR4 WG2. Ah well, maybe next time.

    In the meanwhile – slightly OT – check out the EU Referendum (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/) post on another AR4 slip up – this time on rainfall in Africa. Also covered in a story in the Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece – reported on WUWT)

  8. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

    I stop listening to the audio when I heard the moderator have problems even framing the question to be asked pre-debate of the audience. It would appear to me that his questions were simplistic and wrongly posed.

    I did note the background grumbling from someone attempting to get the question right and that perhaps is a good sign.

  9. Ron H.
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 7:18 PM | Permalink

    If I understand it correctly, Steve gets paid for clickthroughs on ads that appear here. We should probably all be clicking frequently. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

  10. Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM | Permalink

    thank you Steve also for linking to my twitter notes.

    I still have to get my head around extracting an analysis of what happened at the RI with Pielke, Muir-Wood and Ward but…my next-day impression is that another point they all somewhat agreed on, is that the IPCC as it stands has become a hindrance to the understanding (and therefore, managing) of climate-change-related risks.

  11. jo
    Posted Feb 6, 2010 at 8:25 PM | Permalink

    Google’s advertisements are based on an automated computer algorithm. Keywords from this page’s content are matched with keywords that advertisers have bid on for their ad to be displayed when that keyword comes up on a site. So if national geographic bids on the keyword “global warming’ then their ad will show up, whether on climateaudit or realclimate (though I don’t think they do ads). Also, it is a severe violation of Google’s terms of service to promote clicking on ads. If you like the ad, of course, click on it… But be extremely careful advocating anything else.

2 Trackbacks

  1. […] 2: thanks to Steven McIntyre for pointing to the MP3 of the debate (there’s even me asking a question between 55:08 and […]

  2. […] 2: thanks to Steven McIntyre for pointing to the MP3 of the debate (there’s even me asking a question between 55:08 and […]

%d bloggers like this: