Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Over at Roy Spencer’s usually excellent blog, Roy has published what could be called a hatchet job on “citizen climate scientists” in general and me in particular. Now, Dr. Roy has long been a hero of mine, because of all his excellent scientific work … which is why his attack mystifies me. Maybe he simply had a bad day and I was the focus of frustration, we all have days like that. Anthony tells me he can’t answer half of the email he gets some days, Dr. Roy apparently gets quite a lot of mail too, asking for comment.
Dr. Roy posted a number of uncited and unreferenced claims in his essay. So, I thought I’d give him the chance to provide data and citations to back up those claims. He opens with this graphic:
Dr. Roy, the citizen climate scientists are the ones who have made the overwhelming majority of the gains in the struggle against rampant climate alarmism. It is people like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts and Donna LaFramboise and myself and Joanne Nova and Warwick Hughes and the late John Daly, citizen climate scientists all, who did the work that your fellow mainstream climate scientists either neglected or refused to do. You should be showering us with thanks for doing the work your peers didn’t get done, not speciously claiming that we are likeable idiots like Homer Simpson.
Dr. Roy begins his text by saying:
I’ve been asked to comment on Willis Eschenbach’s recent analysis of CERES radiative budget data (e.g., here). Willis likes to analyze data, which I applaud. But sometimes Willis gives the impression that his analysis of the data (or his climate regulation theory) is original, which is far from the case.
Hundreds of researchers have devoted their careers to understanding the climate system, including analyzing data from the ERBE and CERES satellite missions that measure the Earth’s radiative energy budget. Those data have been sliced and diced every which way, including being compared to surface temperatures (as Willis recently did).
So, Roy’s claim seems to be that my work couldn’t possibly be original, because all conceivable analyses of the data have already been done. Now that’s a curious claim in any case … but in this case, somehow, he seems to have omitted the links to the work he says antedates mine.
When someone starts making unreferenced, uncited, unsupported accusations about me like that, there’s only one thing to say … Where’s the beef? Where’s the study? Where’s the data?
In fact, I know of no one who has done a number of the things that I’ve done with the CERES data. If Dr. Roy thinks so, then he needs to provide evidence of that. He needs to show, for example, that someone has analyzed the data in this fashion:
Now, I’ve never seen any such graphic. I freely admit, as I have before, that maybe the analysis has been done some time in the past, and my research hasn’t turned it up. I did find two studies that were kind of similar, but nothing like that graph above. Dr. Roy certainly seems to think such an analysis leading to such a graphic exists … if so, I suggest that before he starts slamming me with accusations, he needs to cite the previous graphic that he claims that my graphic is merely repeating.
I say this for two reasons. In addition to it being regular scientific practice to cite your sources, it is common courtesy not to accuse a man of doing something without providing data to back it up.
And finally, if someone has done any of my analyses before, I want to know so I can save myself some time … if the work’s been done, I’m not interested in repeating it. So I ask Dr. Roy: which study have I missed out on that has shown what my graphic above shows?
Dr. Roy then goes on to claim that my ideas about thunderstorms regulating the global climate are not new because of the famous Ramanathan and Collins 1991 paper called “Thermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 El Niño”. Dr. Roy says:
I’ve previously commented on Willis’ thermostat hypothesis of climate system regulation, which Willis never mentioned was originally put forth by Ramanathan and Collins in a 1991 Nature article.
Well … no, it wasn’t “put forth” in R&C 1991, not even close. Since Dr. Roy didn’t provide a link to the article he accuses me of “never mentioning”, I’ll remedy that, it’s here.
Unfortunately, either Dr. Roy doesn’t fully understand what R&C 1991 said, or he doesn’t fully understand what I’ve said. This is the Ramanathan and Collins hypothesis as expressed in their abstract:
Observations made during the 1987 El Niño show that in the upper range of sea surface temperatures, the greenhouse effect increases with surface temperature at a rate which exceeds the rate at which radiation is being emitted from the surface. In response to this ‘super greenhouse effect’, highly reflective cirrus clouds are produced which act like a thermostat, shielding the ocean from solar radiation. The regulatory effect of these cirrus clouds may limit sea surface temperatures to less than 305K.
Why didn’t I mention R&C 1991 with respect to my hypothesis? Well … because it’s very different from my hypothesis, root and branch.
• Their hypothesis was that cirrus clouds act as a thermostat to regulate maximum temperatures in the “Pacific Warm Pool” via a highly localized “super greenhouse effect”.
• My hypothesis is that thunderstorms act all over the planet as natural emergent air conditioning units, which form over local surface hot spots and (along with other emergent phenomena) cool the surface and regulate the global temperature.
In addition, I fear that Dr. Roy hasn’t done his own research on this particular matter. A quick look on Google shows that I have commented on R&C 1991 before. Back in 2012, in response to Dr. Roy’s same claim (but made by someone else), I wrote:
I disagree that the analysis of thunderstorms as a governing mechanism has been “extensively examined in the literature”. It has scarcely been discussed in the literature at all. The thermostatic mechanism discussed by Ramanathan is quite different from the one I have proposed. In 1991, Ramanathan and Collins said that the albedos of deep convective clouds in the tropics limited the SST … but as far as I know, they didn’t discuss the idea of thunderstorms as a governing mechanism at all.
And regarding the Pacific Warm Pool, I also quoted the Abstract of R&C1991 in this my post on Argo and the Ocean Temperature Maximum. So somebody’s not searching here before making claims …
In any case, I leave it to the reader to decide whether my hypothesis, that emergent phenomena like thunderstorms regulate the climate, was “originally put forth” in the R&C 1991 Nature paper about cirrus clouds, or not …
Finally, Dr. Roy closes with this plea:
Anyway, I applaud Willis, who is a sharp guy, for trying. But now I am asking him (and others): read up on what has been done first, then add to it. Or, show why what was done previously came to the wrong conclusion, or analyzed the data wrong.
That’s what I work at doing.
But don’t assume you have anything new unless you first do some searching of the literature on the subject. True, some of the literature is paywalled. Sorry, I didn’t make the rules. And I agree, if research was public-funded, it should also be made publicly available.
First, let me say that I agree with all parts of that plea. I do my best to find out what’s been done before, among other reasons in order to save me time repeating past work.
However, many of my ideas are indeed novel, as are my methods of analysis. I’m the only person I know of, for example, to do graphic cluster analysis on temperature proxies (see “Kill It With Fire“). Now, has someone actually done that kind of analysis before? Not that I’ve seen, but if there is, I’m happy to find that out—it ups the odds that I’m on the right track when that happens. I have no problem with acknowledging past work—as I noted above, I have previously cited the very R&C 1991 study that Dr. Roy accuses me of ignoring.
Dr. Roy has not given me any examples of other people doing the kind of analysis of the CERES data that I’m doing. All he’s given are claims that someone somewhere did some unspecified thing that he claims I said I thought I’d done first. Oh, plus he’s pointed at, but not linked to, Ramanathan & Collins 1991, which doesn’t have anything to do with my hypothesis.
So all we have are his unsupported claims that my work is not novel.
And you know what? Dr. Roy may well be right. My work may not be novel. Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong … but without specific examples, he is just handwaving. All I ask is that he shows this with proper citations.
Dr. Roy goes on to say:
But cloud feedback is a hard enough subject without muddying the waters further. Yes, clouds cool the climate system on average (they raise the planetary albedo, so they reduce solar input into the climate system). But how clouds will change due to warming (cloud feedback) could be another matter entirely. Don’t conflate the two.
I ask Dr. Roy to please note the title of my graphic above. It shows how the the clouds actually change due to warming. I have not conflated the two in the slightest, and your accusation that I have done so is just like your other accusations—it lacks specifics. Exactly what did I say that makes you think I’m conflating the two? Dr. Roy, I ask of you the simple thing I ask of everyone—if you object to something that I say, please QUOTE MY WORDS, so we can all see what you are talking about.
Dr. Roy continues:
For instance, let’s say “global warming” occurs, which should then increase surface evaporation, leading to more convective overturning of the atmosphere and precipitation. But if you increase clouds in one area with more upward motion and precipitation, you tend to decrease clouds elsewhere with sinking motion. It’s called mass continuity…you can’t have rising air in one region without sinking air elsewhere to complete the circulation. “Nature abhors a vacuum”.
Not true. For example, if thunderstorms alone are not sufficient to stop an area-wide temperature rise, a new emergent phenomenon arises. The thunderstorms will self-assemble into “squall lines”. These are long lines of massed thunderstorms, with long canyons of rising air between them. In part this happens because it allows for a more dense packing of thunderstorms, due to increased circulation efficiency. So your claim above, that an increase of clouds in one area means a decrease in another area, is strongly falsified by the emergence of squall lines.
In addition, you’ve failed to consider the timing of onset of the phenomena. A change of ten minutes in the average formation time of tropical cumulus makes a very large difference in net downwelling radiation … so yes, contrary to your claim, I’ve just listed two ways the clouds can indeed increase in one area without a decrease in another area.
So, examining how clouds and temperatures vary together locally (as Willis has done) really doesn’t tell you anything about feedbacks. Feedbacks only make sense over entire atmospheric circulation systems, which are ill-defined (except in the global average).
Mmm … well, to start with, these are not simple “feedbacks”. I say that clouds are among the emergent thermoregulatory phenomena that keep the earth’s temperature within bounds. The system acts, not as a simple feedback, but as a governor. What’s the difference?
- A simple feedback moves the result in a certain direction (positive or negative) with a fixed feedback factor. It is the value of this feedback factor that people argue about, the cloud feedback factor … I say that is meaningless, because what we’re looking at is not a feedback like that at all.
- A governor, on the other hand, uses feedback to move the result towards some set-point, by utilizing a variable feedback factor.
In short, feedback acts in one direction by a fixed amount. A governor, on the other hand, acts to restore the result to the set-point by varying the feedback. The system of emergent phenomena on the planet is a governor. It does not resemble simple feedback in the slightest.
And the size of those emergent phenomena varies from very small to very large on both spatial and temporal scales. Dust devils arise when a small area of the land gets too hot, for example. They are not a feedback, but a special emergent form which acts as an independent entity with freedom of motion. Dust devils move preferentially to the warmest nearby location, and because they are so good at cooling the earth, like all such mechanisms they have to move and evolve in order to persist. Typically they live for some seconds to minutes and then disappear. That’s an emergent phenomenon cooling the surface at the small end of the time and distance scales.
From there, the scales increase from local (cumulus clouds and thunderstorms) to area-wide (cyclones, grouping of thunderstorms into “squall lines”) to regional and multiannual (El Nino/La Nina Equator-To-Poles warm water pump) to half the planet and tens of years (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
So I strongly dispute Dr. Roy’s idea that “feedbacks only make sense over entire atmospheric circulation systems”. To start with, they’re not feedbacks, they are emergent phenomena … and they have a huge effect on the regulation of the climate on all temporal and spatial scales.
And I also strongly dispute his claim that my hypothesis is not novel, the idea that thunderstorms and other emergent climate phenomena work in concert planet-wide to maintain the temperature of the earth within narrow bounds.
Like I said, Dr. Roy is one of my heroes, and I’m mystified by his attack on citizen scientists in general, and on me in particular. Yes, I’ve said that I thought that some of my research has been novel and original. Much of it is certainly original, in that I don’t know of anyone else who has done the work in that way, so the ideas are my own.
However, it just as certainly may not be novel. There’s nothing new under the sun. My point is that I don’t know of anyone advancing this hypothesis, the claim that emergent phenomena regulate the temperature and that forcing has little to do with it.
If Dr. Roy thinks my ideas are not new, I’m more than willing to look at any citations he brings to the table. As far as I’m concerned they would be support for my hypothesis, so I invite him to either back it up or back it off.
Best regards to all.
w.
Willis, as I noted on Dr. Roy’s blog, I like your work.
I read his article as commending you for your effort but look before you leap because it may have already been done. I didn’t see any personal attack on you whatsoever.
Your work is important Willis because it causes excellent dialog.
Well, the comments should be interesting…
Everyone breaks, but how they break is different case to case.
With you on this,W. Very well put.
Pity it entered the public arena whoever started it. May be best to have a private conversation with Roy asap, Willis.
Let’s try and keep it civil.
The one advantage that professional scientists have is access to the academic libraries that lets one be more assured of one’s originality. The internet has weakened that advantage.
But the change is not complete.
Both sides may have something of value to say here without falling into partisan flame fights.
Does it really take that many words to get the idea across?
You can tell something is going on because he used Homer the Citizen vs Homer the “Scientist”.
BBould says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:09 pm
It’s easier now than ever to “look before leaping” by searching the literature on line, to avoid reinventing the wheel or an analysis. Citizen scientists can & have done valuable original research & analysis, including those in the climate field cited by Willis above.
If the world’s ocean turns out to be too shallow to harbor Trenberth’s missing heat, it may very well next be asserted to be hiding in the unfathomable depths of Willis Eschenbach’s ego.
Willis, you’re way overreacting.
He sounds just like the rest now.
The problem with “The Science” is that it’s only just poor communication of the excellent work, you see – because they are not professional communicators.
I think Dr. Roy can qualify to be funded by Fenton now!
“Career scientists like myself have not done enough public outreach to describe what they have done. And when we do such outreach, it is usually too technical to understand. We are too busy publishing-or-perishing.”
Willis stuff may not all be entirely original but for most of us he is the one who got it out there onto the web. If Joe Schlubb thinks that it is all Willis’ original work then I don’t see any great harm done but given the amount of stuff referenced in Willis’ articles I am surprised that anyone would come to that conclusion.
Don’t quite know how, Willis, but it sure looks like you unintentionally stepped on someone’s toes. Maybe you’re getting too close to an area Dr. Roy or one of his grads is researching.
Gentlemen. We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
B. Franklin
Willis,
While I have not always agreed with everything you have written, I have never found you to be lazy or inept as Dr. Spencer seems to be implying. Since the good doctor felt it appropriate to criticize you in public, I have no problem with you defending yourself in kind; in fact I believe it is your right. Cheers to Anthony for allowing you to do so. To those out there that object, who never put their names and reputations on the line by publishing their thoughts and ideas online, I say: your words have no credibility until you walk that lonely road.
Dr Spencer appears to be calling Willis either unoriginal or a plagiarist. As Carl Sagan was wont to say “Extraordinary claims..”
Can we avoid picking sides in comments that are fewer than 7 paragraphs long?
This isn’t a simple “he is good and he is bad” issue.
This is about a fundamental change on the search for knowledge.
The opportunity for amateurs to have the same access to evidence as professionals (due to the internet) removes the barriers to entry into the science market.
And yet it also removes the institutional quality control standards.
Willis admits he is willing to be wrong in the haste to new ideas and understanding. Mistakes and Sesame Street are how we learn. He is not so arrogant as to be afraid to be publically wrong. Better mistaken once than never gaining any new knowledge – if you are willing to be corrected.
But that is a big rupture with the dignified and private establishment of science that has allowed scientists to gain such prestige in the modern world.
And the old guard aren’t necessarily wrong because they are the establishment, hippies.
Timely comment from straight thinking, Paul Penrose.
I’m fascinated by Roy’s us eof Homer the Scientist being led away in cuffs.
That was Homer the Activist!
What’s up with Dr. Roy?
Willis, we love you
This seems a real shame. Couldn’t you just settle it over a beer?
Joe Crawford says at October 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm
That has the ring of truth. There are commitments made in academia that cannot be ignored, rightly.
When it comes to the Thunderstorm Refrigerator Hypothesis I READ ABOUT IT HERE FIRST, and it was written by some guy called Willis Eschenbach. What is more it was very well explained, so I could understand it on the first read through, and also peppered with anecdotes about boats and the Pacific Islands, which made it interesting and kept me reading right through to the end.
““Career scientists like myself have not done enough public outreach to describe what they have done. And when we do such outreach, it is usually too technical to understand. We are too busy publishing-or-perishing.”
This sounds plagiarized. From RealClimate. Or Mrs Hot Whopper?
Given the choice of persons playing the roles of Homer the Scientist and Homer the Citizen, I give more credence to the latter.
Good on you, Willis. It’s important not to let such accusations slide. As Dr Roy raised the issue, he should most certainly cite references, or man up and apologize and then back off. It sounds to me like he did not read your work but dismissed it out of hand, which is shabby to say the least.
@ M Courtney, there is nothing uncivil here. Willis has done some amazing work that took a lot of time and effort. Roy has claimed Willis’s work is not new. This should be discussed, not ignored.
It’s always the “citizen climate scientist” who is told to compromise, always the skeptic who is told to “play fair” and go sit quietly in the corner and not to make a ruckus. Well, this side has always played fair, always listened to the other side and always weighed the evidence. Willis has a valid complaint here and he is right to voice his objection.
Dr Roy should pull out those references if he wants to be taken seriously in his claim. Otherwise, he is just attacking the man. This is not scientific. “Both sides have something to say here” doesn’t hold water. Dr Roy may have something of value to say in this issue, but so far he hasn’t said it, and Willis is correctly inviting him to do just that.
I like the cartoon of the Professional Climate Scientist.
Maybe he had his tongue in his cheek too! Just sayin’ (Though it’s hard to write with a tongue in your cheek…)
I believe that the internet has turned the orthodoxy, the keepers of the orthodoxy, and their funders on their heads, very much the way the printing press and books in the vernacular did. I suspect that at his point establishment researchers feel very threatened.
Willisi’s work would not have seen the light of day without the internet.
The internet has also shined a light into the goings on in the climate science / government complex.
I suspect there will be a lot of road kill on the information highway.
I’m sure that other people have done the work Willis has on the CERES data.
However having done the work is not the same as having published it. It’s quite possible they didn’t like the answer they got.
Climate science is full of people knowing information and then keeping it very quiet. If it wasn’t then WUWT and CA etc wouldn’t be needed.
“Since the good doctor felt it appropriate to criticize you in public, I have no problem with you defending yourself in kind; in fact I believe it is your right”
I agree with the above.. so keep up your reseach Willis, you are making a huge difference to the entire climate discussion.
I think there might be some academic egos being upset by your original work, and that is normal, but unfortunately painful.
I also enjoy and respect all your work Willis. I really like the emergent phenomena idea. It really makes sense to me.
I have to add that I respect Dr. Roy also, but think he crossed a line here.
Let’s try to keep this about trying to find the truth.
EJ
“Muir soon became convinced that glaciers had sculpted many of the features of the valley and surrounding area. This notion was in stark contradiction to the accepted contemporary theory, promulgated by Josiah Whitney (head of the California Geological Survey), which attributed the formation of the valley to a catastrophic earthquake.” From Wiki on John Muir.
One was a citizen geologist the other professional geologist. Guess which one was correct.
Both gents put forth valuable ideas and information for us to feast on.
I second Tom G(ologist).
Well, my two cents probably aren’t worth two cents. Here they are anyway.
I don’t know (or much care) if Willis’s ideas have been covered elsewhere in the literature; I haven’t read but a bare handful of climate related papers in my life. Willis asking Dr. Spencer to particularize seems reasonable to me, but still I don’t much care one way or the other. The point is, the ideas are new to me.
In virtually every other area of science (excepting my profession), I’m perfectly content to take career scientists at their word. For reasons well known to the folks here, climate science isn’t a good area to take this approach in. Too many scientivists out there, too much of an agenda, way too much spin.
Dr. Spencer seems to me to be suggesting, when I think it though, that I do the one of the following: go be a PhD, spend your time studying papers until you’ve become expert on what’s already out there, or sit down and shush. Well, sorry. I’m not doing that. I care enough about the issue to try to follow along, to try to grasp as much of the science as I can follow. Heck I’m even willing to crack my old math textbooks once in a while, or read and practice maths I don’t generally use from time to time. But between the evils, I’d rather stumble along, knowing perfectly well that people have studied this material in greater depth and sophistication than I can possibly appreciate, I’d rather stumble along and try to understand for myself than close my eyes and follow blindly. Nor do I have the slightest intention of devoting my life to the study of climate; I’ve got other priorities. I’m sure that means I’ll step on tons of well trod sopohmoric land mines along the way. I’ll live with that.
Obviously Dr. Spencer didn’t make the scientivist mess and political circus we suffer from in this field. Clearly he suffers due to this fact more than most, certainly more than I do. But, no, I’m not going to pursue a PhD in climate change, and no, I’m not going to sit down and shut up.
~shrug~
Willis, I am sure you will read all the comments, so I get to tell you that I tried breathing out after your post on that. It caused me to inhale deeply and I coughed up a storm. I have continued to do this a few minutes every day. I have mild (unmedicated) asthma, and I have been breathing a little better ever since. My stamina is a bit improved as well.
As for you, Dr. Roy Spencer, I have one of your books and you are one of my heroes, too. I bet you take this post to heart and become an even better scientist.
And as for you, Mister Anthony Watts, you have created a science blog that is more scientific in nature than many scientific journals–especially some of the “old gray mares” that “ain’t what they used ta be.” Those of us horrified at the trashing of science by the Church of Global Warming can take comfort here.
I used to enjoy Willis’ posts, but it’s getting too much. This blog is getting to be less of Watts Up With That? and too much of What’s up with Willis !…
Willis … you said:
“And you know what? Dr. Roy may well be right. My work may not be novel. Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong … but without specific examples, he is just handwaving. ”
I say it doesn’t matter if its been done in some fashion before. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing work that has been done before. Sometimes doing so may find something new, but its is just as valuable to have someone like you walk thru the process and attempt to explain it – in a way that many can follow, discuss and contribute to.
Roy is simply wrong. It doesn’t matter if the work has been discussed before. There are numerous positive benefits to a new look – especially with a “crowd sourced” discussion along with it.
I don’t always agree with you, but I always learn from and am both challenged by and benefit from
your work.
yeah right….like Spencer only posts “new” stuff on his blog….
New, old…don’t matter
Who’s got the time to dig all this crap out..
Thanks to bloggers like Willis, JTF, and on and on…
we are all exposed to material we wouldn’t even know about any other way
It’s a blog Spencer….get over it…sorry it picked a nerve with you
Not knowing either man, my impression is this conversation should have taken place one-on-one between Roy & Willis (i.e.: a phone call). Roy would appear to draw the foul here because he initiated the public rebuke and (according to Willis) failed to properly research & document his argument, which, ironically, is one of the faults he finds with Willis.
Roy (PhD) should be more supportive of “citizen climate scientists” who, like Willis (no PhD), invest hundreds of hours researching and analyzing the topic.
One absolute certainty learned from this whole CAGW cow pie is citizens should be leery of simply accepting pronouncements from (PhD) scientists. Willis may not have observed all the academic niceties, but he’s behave in a more rigorous and intellectually honest manner than Gore, Mann, Gleick and Hansen (among others).
My comments are not intended to denigrate Roy Spencer – the above is simply my opinion of the public rebuke.
I’m good with turning all climate scientists into “citizen climate scientists” by removing all funding.
What you talking about Willis –
Dr. Roy’s article is not a hatchet job, it is a cautionary tale and a reminder to cite precedent. All he is doing is advocating good science. Don’t be so thin skinned.
Willis,
I don’t think it was an attack. But it does look like he was too busy to do a proper look at what you have done and by dismissing your work in the way he did, he is doing us all a disservice. I am fairly good at research and your work tends to make me do a lot of reading and research. I have not found anything like this in the literature but anyone who has spent a significant amount of time at sea would understand exactly what you are talking about. Thanks Willis, keep up the good work!
v/r,
David Riser
Joe Crawford says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Don’t quite know how, Willis, but it sure looks like you unintentionally stepped on someone’s toes. Maybe you’re getting too close to an area Dr. Roy or one of his grads is researching.
——————————————————————————————————————-
Got to say, that was my first thought when reading Dr Spencer’s curious post.
Without speculating further on that, or on any merits of his argument, I’m not happy to see an otherwise respected scientist launch an ad hominem attack like this – and the cartoon at the start of Dr Spencer’s post alone qualifies it as that to me – for any reason whatsoever.
Well, there are several definitions for ‘original.’ There’s ‘original’ meaning novel and there’s ‘original’ meaning independently derived. And then there’s ‘original’ meaning “a person whose way of thinking is unusual or creative.” That last is you, Willis. The rest is not so important. Just keep on doing what you’ve been doing.
“Willis, you’re way overreacting.”
He always does. PLus, I don’t think this is the place. Willis, you’re just not as important as you obviously think you are.
So tiresome.
Willis, don’t over react to Dr. Spencer’s over reaction. There is an old saying that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Having researched a number of Climate, energy, and other deeply technical topics (usable nanosurface in Helmholtz double layer capacitors), I can say with certainty that any academic advantage (other than real labs to do new physical experiments, which I had to contract for) is now minimal compared to any citizen willing to learn and research. Everything is on line, and pay walls can be breached with a credit card and a maximum charge of $32 per.
I know for a fact this has a lot of the old science guard upset. Not just those behind the IPCC. In the case of my issued NanoCarbon patents, including the most famous researchers in the US and Europe in that obscure physics/electrochemistry subject, Gogotsi, Frackowiac, and Beguin, at a June 2013 Strasbourg conference where my experimental results scooped them. I caught the same flak about not having read the literature. Thier problem was, I had, it was wrong, and my experimental results proved same. This looks like a very similar case. You must be getting close to something Roy wishes he had thought of, and that is important.
BTW,the closest thing to your thunderstorm thermoregulation idea appears to be Lindzen’s adaptive iris hypothesis published in 2000. I am stunned Roy missed that- more evidence of a bad hair day on his part. But what you have done IMO is flesh out Lindzens idea and provide concrete observational support Lindzen didn’t. Further, IMO, what you are doing with Lindzen’s hypothesis is more important than you may yet realize (but already written up separately for the next book) because it also explains the GCM model overstatement of positive water vapor feedback, especially in the most important upper troposphere. By far the most important positive feedback, by itself explaining over 2/3 of climate model oversensitivity. You also have a concrete explanation for the absence of the tropical troposphere hot spot predicted by CMIP3 and CMIP5. TStorm rain washes out the humidity before it is sufficiently convected to the upper troposphere, and the latent heat from condensation is free to radiate away from TStorm tops. Thermoregulation of both heat and humidity.
Regards. Enjoy your ‘limelight’. Just means you are officially in the major leagues.
Friends:
I like and respect both Roy Spencer and Willis Eschenbach. Also, I have had direct interaction with each of them in the past, so I am saddened at this situation and I do not intend to take sides.
However, I write to make a point of fact.
Roy Spencer is mistaken when he thinks the work of Ramanathan and Collins (R&C, Nature, 1991) is similar to the work of Willis Eschenbach, and he is also mistaken in his misunderstanding that Willis was unaware of the work of R&C.
A few weeks ago I raised the subject of the R&C Effect in a WUWT thread discussing a Guest Essay from Willis. At September 22, 2013 at 10:40 am I cited, referenced, quoted the Abstract of that paper by R&C, and I explained it. The post is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/the-eruption-over-the-ipcc-ar5/#comment-1423700
In that post I wrote
Subsequently, and in response to Greg Goodman, I posted a more full explanation of the R&C Effect and its great difference from the Eschenbach Effect. That post was at September 22, 2013 at 11:30 am and this is a link to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/the-eruption-over-the-ipcc-ar5/#comment-1423748
In that post I wrote
As he normally does in threads discussing his essays, Willis interacted throughout that thread. He made no disagreement of any kind with my posts.
Hence, I am certain that Willis Eschenbach was fully aware both of the R&C Effect and its fundamental difference from his proposed Eschenbach Effect in his recent writings. Clearly, Roy Spencer was in error to have suggested otherwise. Being the gentleman I know him to be, I anticipate a retraction of that assertion.
Richard
mcourtney at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1442036 says
The opportunity for amateurs to have the same access to evidence as professionals (due to the internet) removes the barriers to entry into the science market.
And yet it also removes the institutional quality control standards.
i think the big problem most of us have is with those very same quality control standards.if those quality control “standards” in climate science were actually worth something i doubt this blog would have the readership and views it does. i have made a post over at dr roys blog, i sincerely hope this difference of opinion is resolved amicably,and dr roy can indeed provide the evidence willis asks for to support his conclusions.
i think dr roy has the support of many interested in the debate due to his apparent honesty ,and clarity of presentation,but so does willis . someone has mentioned the willis ego,show me a man without an ego,and in reality i will be looking at a eunuch.man would have achieved little without the ego and arrogance of supreme confidence in his ability.
in my opinion the regular beating many ego,s in the climate science world have received of late is partly responsible for dr roys post.
Willis,
==> how does a citizen scientist in the 21st century nail down the science so others can
stand on their shoulders
rather than
stomp on their toes?
Let me suggest a couple of things.
1) I view your work as “crowd sourcing”.
you haven’t necessarily done the academic article/research
to sort through the chaff to find the useful information or carry it
forward to provide substantiation.
=> and you aren’t being paid to do that!
2) There are a large number of folk who technically review the work on WUWT.
you might ask for (and have a good place to enter) relevant previous
research/technical article that they are aware of.
Bottom line:
a) folk who are paid and must dot i’s and cross t’s get frustrated with folk who aren’t but who are willing to stand up and publically hypothesize solutions.
=> the non i dotters may have interesting insight, but it isn’t going anywhere solid
b) you might take Dr. Spenser’s comments to heart: how does one solidify the ad-hoc conceptual approaches into a solidly supported (or disproved) theory or knowledge set?
For example: you hypothesize and give anecdotal insight into a possible mechanism for thermal feedback mechanisms in the tropics.
=> what would be the next step to “nail this down”: what experiment, what data, etc?
=> who else has investigated this and what have they found?
Key things:
=> you aren’t being paid to do this which tends to leave it “hanging”, and
=> you might want to take the approach of “crowd sourcing”
where you coordinate, organize, and articulate the result.
Unfortunately, WordPress would seem to be somewhat of a poor fit for such a research discussion and even the “collaborative work tools” out of IBM, Microsoft, and startups seems to be lacking; blogs are useful but not archival except for the author (until they crash).
Now wait Tom G(ologist)… B. Franklin was just a “citizen scientist”. Toss all he discovered and said, he wasn’t a “professional”.
This rings from one of Densel Washington’s great movies:
“I’m a professional, I’m a professional, I’m a professional … ”
No Dr. Spencer, you are really just a “citizen scientist” too, just one with an unfair, and to me, many times dishonest advantage harbored in the current science community cartel. We all went to much the same universities, took much the same courses, have read much the same science papers and books for decades, the only difference is you got a job getting income from the science monolith.
Willis, as an outsider you are encroaching on the academia’s hallow turf of ‘truth licensing’.
I was really put off when Roy engaged at the end of his testimony to give what seemd a pre- arranged message on his religious leanings.
I would be put off by that were I living in a country as different as Denmark is to Pakistan.
He was supposed to be talking about what Science knows.
Climatologists are predicting an increased chance of tempests due to heat hiding in a teapot.
Gotta say though, this is just caste-baiting nonsense from Mr. Spencer. His entire complaint is that Mr. Eschenbach is duplicating work. But the entire point of replication in science is? To duplicate work. Don’t want to say nasty things about Spencer, but it doesn’t seem to me more than fancy Argument to ‘Argument to Authority’.
Which is all that needs to be said on the matter, Willis. Don’t get sidetracked over clay feet.
I have learned a lot about science since I started reading WUWT and other blogs. I also learned a fair bit about academia
Seems to me that academics are like horse sh1t.
Spread them around thinly, and they do a power of good. Pile them into a heap and they just stink
Stay clear of the heap Willis
Rud Istvan,that is a fantastic post. the group think mentality is very evident in many areas of established science,well done done for beating it down with cold hard evidence.
Looking at these two:
Their hypothesis was that cirrus clouds act as a thermostat to regulate maximum temperatures in the “Pacific Warm Pool” via a highly localized “super greenhouse effect”.
My hypothesis is that thunderstorms act all over the planet as natural emergent air conditioning units, which form over local surface hot spots and (along with other emergent phenomena) cool the surface and regulate the global temperature.
it seems like the two hypotheses are tangentially related. A average guy like me would read yours as extending theirs to a larger, global scope, advancing (aka “adding to”) what others have done before. Isn’t that what Dr. Roy says he wants or am I being to Homer Simpsonish?
I’m not sure what is going on with Dr. Roy. I’m not sure why he is attacking Willis. He seems to hint that he does not want people to get off on the wrong science road (where, he implies, Willis is taking them), but then he hints that Willis “copied” (my wording, not Spencer’s) from peer-reviewed papers. The two ideas don’t equate.
And, why WIllis? Great garbled garbage, aren’t there literally 100’s of “establishment scientists” that Dr. Roy needs to be attacking, to clean up his profession?
If Dr. Roy has so much free time on his hands that he can attack Willis, maybe he should find a charity where he can donate some of his time–THAT would be constructive.
eternaloptimist,stunning analogy,i hope you do not mind if i use that in the future 🙂
Since Dr. Roy’s article is without references my guess is that his future funding is being threatened.
Could it be that Roy’s funding chain has changed recently ? Just asking.
it is a great pity to see two of the most prominent anti-Warmist figures fighting with each other in public view. This sort of thing is best worked out in private exchanges. There is enough work to be done in the struggle against the Warmists without the effort being weakened by this sort of wrangle.
IMHO, if Dr. Spencer is correct and Willis’ ideas have been extensively published before, then his criticism is much more profitiably directed to the IPCC, which has completely failed to recognize or cite any of it. Any failings ascribed to citizen scientists for lack of proper research should apply a thousandfold to an organization claiming to include hundreds of “top climate scientists” having just spend 4 years studying all the latest research.
“my ideas about thunderstorms regulating the global climate ”
That may well be original to Willis but is likely wrong as being insufficient.
“that emergent phenomena regulate the temperature”
That is a whole different scenario since it covers the entire global climate system including all aspects of the hydrological cycle.
It is likely correct but I would be surprised if it is original to Willis.
“the idea that thunderstorms and other emergent climate phenomena work in concert planet-wide to maintain the temperature of the earth within narrow bounds.”
There Willis combines the two but is that idea original ?
It was first published at WUWT on 14th June 2014 and described the behaviour of tropical weather systems as the regulating process.
The year before that I published several articles proposing the entire global air and ocean circulation as a regulating mechanism:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-hot-water-bottle-effect/
June 25, 2008
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/weather-is-the-key-after-all/
June 18, 2008
and:
“The Earth is well able to adjust it’s built in thermostat to neutralise all but the largest categories of
disruption (usually geological or astronomic) and humanity does not come anywhere near what would be required.”
from here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-unifying-theory-of-earths-climate/
January 8, 2009
I am sure all overlaps are inadvertent since it is often the case that different enquiring minds come to similar conclusions around the same time.
A.D. Everard Yes, Dr Spencer needs to be clear as to how Willis has been unoriginal.
And I would prefer such discussions to be made in private.
But that is not the way of internet citizens and Dr Roy chose to play on Willis’s turf; that is an admirable choice.
I maintain that we who are not in the firing line should not become partisan.
From my perspective both sides are honourable searchers for truth.
Sorry, Willis first published 14th June 2009. Please ignore my typo or could the Mods amend it for me.
Above should read “… having just spent …”
Wilis, I don’t read Dr. Roy’s comments as an attack on you at all – I am not sure why you took it that way. From a disinterested 3rd party, it all looked like constructive criticism to me. Your comments on the other hand, were defensive & much more of an attack on Dr. Roy.
It is always good to be deferential to those is power, such as Dr. Roy – look at his comments as constructive criticism & improve your product. I am guessing everyone will be pleased with the outcome, including yourself.
Roy is wrong to slander anyone not doing “novel” work. There’s plenty of scientists who never do an original piece of work in their lives, their work and expertise have great value.
@Willis,
In automation and system control, “regulator” or “controller” would be used instead of “governor”.
Excellent essay, Willis. You defended yourself in all the right ways and you questioned Spencer in all the right ways. You have shown a nasty side to Spencer. He writes:
“But if you increase clouds in one area with more upward motion and precipitation, you tend to decrease clouds elsewhere with sinking motion. It’s called mass continuity…you can’t have rising air in one region without sinking air elsewhere to complete the circulation.”
Here he is simply applying a rule of thumb from textbook climate science and failing to look at the details of your actual empirical hypothesis. When he made this comment the first time, here on WUWT, I pointed out then that the rising and sinking of air might tell us something about cloud formation but it does not determine cloud formation. There is need for empirical study on the latter.
Then the mainstream climate scientist in Spencer comes out:
“So, examining how clouds and temperatures vary together locally (as Willis has done) really doesn’t tell you anything about feedbacks. Feedbacks only make sense over entire atmospheric circulation systems, which are ill-defined (except in the global average).”
So, according to Dr. Spencer. all climate science will ever give us are global averages based on time series analysis? In that case, he has left science and joined the Alarmists. There has never been a science based on the results of time series analysis and there never will be. Does anyone use time series analysis outside of economics, political science, climate science, and corporate directors of budgeting?
Willis offers physical hypotheses about cause and effect in cloud formation that invites empirical investigation and Spencer dismisses it out of hand. Ridiculous. Trenberth has explained recently that he will be investigating the particular ocean mechanisms that transport heat from shallow water to deep waters. Trenberth needs to find mechanisms described by physical hypotheses. Will Spencer call him down and tell him to use time series analysis to provide global averages?
Finally, Willis should not be held to the standards of tenured professors of climate science. Those tenured professors work in buildings where someone in that building has ready memory of all the papers written on any topic you want. Willis works alone.
Willis is fortunate that he works alone. It is becoming apparent, through the opinions of people such as Spencer. that everyone who works in climate science is averse to formulating and testing physical hypotheses about cloud formation. Spencer wants to keep us in the doldrums of global average non-science and nonsense.
Citizen Science should be appreciated for what it achieves. It is not important if someone repeats work done by others even if ignorant of such previous research, in fact that should be one of it’s strengths, either providing an independent confirmation or providing an opportunity to view the subject from a different perspective.
With a mechanical engineering background, I always sought to surround myself with a team of people who rather than all having been trained to approach problem solving from a text book, were instead mainly independent thinkers who tended to think outside the box.
Sure, some weird solutions were often thrown up, but as problems progressed from the easily solved where the solution was readily arrived at with most of those addressing it locking onto it fairly quickly, the more difficult problems as they progressed upwards saw the solutions being suggested becoming more and more divergent until finally, with the most difficult to solve of all problems, often it came down to one person who happened to see or consider something that nobody had seen or considered, that is until that one person pointed it out, then everybody could see it.
Whenever I heard the words “Why didn’t we think of that” I took that as having been a success for the team as the last thing I wanted to here was “We all came up with the same idea at the same time”
Keep doing what you are doing Willis. Don’t worry about what criticism others might make, especially if it comes from them defending what they consider their territory. Even though they may try to profit from it, such knowledge ultimately belongs to all citizens.
There is a 100% certainty that whatever you do in public will upset some people and make others happy. Count me among the happy ones here; I just like seeing errors corrected. I would like it as much if it were Roy correcting an error made by Willis. In this case, I do appreciate Willis’s taking the time to show the less experienced among us here how to do it properly.
Overreacting? I don’t know, but I am 100% certain that whatever your reaction to something is, many will judge your reaction excessive, and perhaps just as many will find it insufficient.
But I have a slightly off-topic question about feedbacks.
Willis, I am sorry to be so thick, but I fail to understand the importance of your taxonomy of feedbacks. If I have a system with a negative feedback, I can use it as a regulator, or governor, whether its feedback factor is fixed or variable. For example, linear op amps are used in feedback circuits such as power regulators because their linearity and the constancy of the feedback factor make them easy to design. On the other hand, the fill valve in my lavatory cistern is controlled by a float through a variable (but consistently negative) feedback. What difference does it make if both systems succeed at keeping a quantity of something at a set level?
The only difference I can imagine will be in the dynamics of their response to perturbations, or the accuracy of their steady state.
So I wonder if you could perhaps explain us with more examples what makes the word “governor” more important to you than other synonymous terms, and why just “feedback” does not work. I grew up with the word “feedback” meaning any mechanism whereby part of the output is combined with the input, and the use of the word was not sensitive to the nature of that mechanism (or I failed to sense it).
I made a mistake….I should have read Dr. Spencer’s blog first..
…I withdraw my comment and sincerely apologize to Dr. Spencer
===========
Latitude says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:59 pm
After years of reading papers on climate science.
I am convinced that I have read the definitive answer.
Michelson and Morley
They proved that climate models do not depend on the real existence of CO2.
Hendrik Lorentz:
Proposes the existence of temporal dilation of heat in the ocean depths.
Meanwhile at the patent office, Bern, Switzerland ……..
========
Boys [W. and RS] back to the drawing board.
You two. Did not know how to do politics.
Jeff L says: October 9, 2013 at 2:27 pm
“Wilis,(sic) I don’t read Dr. Roy’s comments as an attack on you at all – I am not sure why you took it(sic) that way. From a disinterested 3rd party, it all looked like constructive criticism to me. Your comments on the other hand, were defensive & much more of an attack on Dr. Roy.
It is always good to be deferential to those is(sic) power, …”
Ah yes Deference to Power that’s what we need. A million dead here 50 million dead there, doesn’t matter as long as we have Deference to Power.
Maybe I missed your irony; yeah that’s it. Sorry, my mistake.
bit chilly says at October 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm…
The institutional quality control standards are very weak at the lower end of the market. The dumber journals accept any old rubbish. Nature Climate Change is a fine example of a journal that lives off exciting papers which are never cited again after 3 months.
The institutional quality control standards are very strong at the upper end of the market. Yet those journals don’t get anywhere near the readership of WUWT.
The as yet unanswered question is how important and skilful are the readership of WUWT.
Roy Spencer is a professional scientist and has worked in remote sensing for many years. He is likely to have a sophisticated understanding of his field.
Is Steven McIntyre a citizen scientist? He is a trained mathematician and has years of experience in the practical use of statistics. Because of this, he was able to dissect the mathematics used by Mann, publish his results, and show that it was incorrect. It is unlikely that someone who has not had mathematical training would have spotted Mann’s error.
What is the problem with citizen scientists (CS)? None, anyone is entitled to express their opinions and good luck to them. The difficulty is when the CS uses techniques that he/she doesn’t understand, produces slip-shod work, can’t perform experiments and then wants to convince the scientific community that he or she is correct and everone else is wrong.
The training of a scientist is directed at learning experimental and theoretical methods but, above all, to understand how to apply these methods in a sensible and critical way. A scientific training is a foundation to be able to apply critical thought in a scientific context. To say that the citizen scientist can, in general, perform in advanced science is to say that scientific training is superfluous and a deep understanding of experimental methods, mathematics, data analysis, statistics isn’t really necessary to achieve sensible results. In fact why have scientists at all when any CS can knock up antibiotics, design large bridges, discover atomic particles and so on?
There are of course notable examples of Citizen scientists. Einstein for example. The thing that makes these citizen scientists proper scientists is that they publish their results in mainstream journals, expose themselves to independent criticism and defend there theses with logic.
This is the critical distinction. Probably every scientist becomes obsessed by an attractive hypothesis, performs the wrong experiment, fails to calibrate a device properly and so on. The essential aspect of science is that one opens up one’s ideas to criticism so that one’s logic and methods can be attacked by knowledgeable critics. If they show you that you are wrong, then you are wrong, if you can defend your thesis you may be right.
Unfortunately, there are other types of CS, who do not understand data, its limitations, experimental methods, calibration or any relevent mathematics and produce absolute nonsense. In my experience these individuals are extremely sensitive to criticism and distinguish themselves by refusing to adhere to the normal disciplines of science. If their ideas are not tested they can’t tell if they are are correct. Unless their ideas are revolutionary, it’s unlikely that anyone is going to try and test them experimentally and so what they have to say is unlikely to be important. In this case what passes for citizen science isn’t science.
Roy should not be your hero Willis. All the great people who write for WUWT are being slandered. Stop giving your enemies a break.
don’t be polishing a turd.
Latitude says at October 9, 2013 at 2:41 pm…
I drafted a confrontational post to your earlier comment and then deleted it without posting. It would have been self-defeating to fight every partisan post.
Now I’m very glad I did.
Thank you and well done for such a courageous action as a retraction.
You are well worthy of my respect.
Please point it out next time I get over-emotional with you.
Hmmm ….I hope that Dr Roy has not been placed in the position of the “herd bull” (guard/protector) and notices that a possible predator is in view….and the herd has grazed a bit away from him…so he snorts,tosses his head/horns,paws a bit of dirt in the air…the herd notices,trots up behind him and now present a united front….feel safe…
Sure hope that this is not the case . Best wishes for both of you.
M Courtney says:
October 9, 2013 at 2:51 pm
===
well, you know, what can I say
…I was dead wrong and made a total ass of myself
thanks M!
I think Dr Spencer would never have accused a fellow ‘professional’ scientist, of having published something which basically copied someone else’s work, without quoting the references. Just not done!
I don’t see why he should do this therefore to a ‘citizen’ scientist frankly. It is discourteous at best..
What is a ‘citizen’ scientist and a ‘professional’ scientist anyway?
I studied maths and physics originally and my first job was as a scientist, helping to develop the RB211 jet engine.. I subsequently moved on in my career and took further degrees and took non science jobs. Did I hand in my ‘scientist’. brain along the way somewhere, I don’t recall?
At what stage did I become and cease to be a ‘scientist’?
Willis stands on falls on being a ‘scientist’ by reference to his ideas and his backing of them with written referenced work, not by the title of some current position he holds.
Alan
Bit Chilly, thanks. You might ‘enjoy’ my two ebooks even if you disagree with them. Real cheap.
In re scientific quality control, the real world does a very good job, albeit sometimes slowly. The AR5 hiatus handling is a topical example.
But that raises other issues where Willis and I have fundamentally disagreed on this blog and over at Judy Curry’s concerning energy. We disagree, probably because I have done a deeper dive, and possibly because I have less faith in being able to innovate out of the basic situation than he. No matter, he is a true seeker of truth that Roy should not have so backhandedly disparaged. And whom I would always defend as a truth seeker. Unlike many at the IPCC, or Mann, or Trenberth, or Dessler, or Marcott, or Feely, or …( it is a very long list, mostly posted over at Judith’s)
regards
Willis, I don’t understand all your posts (well above my educational level), but I try and I have learned a lot. I want to thank you for being such a great teacher. Your posts are always most clearly written and the graphics are well explained. But what I admire most is the respect and patience you show to people who question your posts. If questioners have the courtesy to do what you ask,
“if you object to something that I say,
please QUOTE MY WORDS, so we can all see what you are talking about.”
and to cite your references so that everyone knows PRECISELY what they are talking about.
Personally I enjoy the acerbity with which you occasionally respond to the trolls and the Climate Agnotologists.
Well ..Willis kicked the ball over to DrRoy now…rightly so. I think that DrRoy will answer in some way. Theres lots of room to boost boths egos and all the egos of us AGWsceptics…if the answer from DrRoy is made in the WUWT spirit…lets hope it is.
pokerguy says: Willis, you’re just not as important as you obviously think you are.
Willis is important to me.
Whether Willis is important scientifically can only be determined by hindsight after we know where his conjecture and rather splendid graphs led.
Willis – I think Roy’s statement should be seen as helpful not antagonistic. He’s positive about you (“I applaud Willis, who is a sharp guy, for trying“), and recognises the difficulties (“Sorry, I didn’t make the rules“). He points out that you need to give credit to the past work of others when yours overlaps, and I’m quite sure you will very willingly do that if you find any. But he also says neatly what I was trying to say in my comments on earlier threads: “examining how clouds and temperatures vary together locally really doesn’t tell you anything about feedbacks“. Naturally, I think this is an important point too!
Willis
I have to agree with the sentiment of your post. Although I think the Dr Roy Spencer’s article wasn’t as dismissive as you think.
I hope Dr Spencer hasn’t decided to join the great and good who think that science should only be done by a chosen few. That’s partly what got us in this mess in the first place. We have a young scientist called Brian Cox here in Britain and his arguments for public science seems to circle around the notion that scientists should be given due deference wherever and whenever. Furthermore his attitude toward citizen scientists is one of “it’s fine for them to play just so long as they don’t challenge real scientists”.
I have found squall lines to be far from specific to warmer temperatures. Meanwhile, I have noticed that when a squall line forms where otherwise only isolated thunderstorms form, there is much more uplifting of air by the thunderstorms. That air has to come back down somewhere, and it will generally be clear air.
Dr Roy saw fit to comment on Willis’ character: ” sometimes Willis gives the impression that his analysis of the data (or his climate regulation theory) is original, which is far from the case. ”
The comment appears snide or condescending. It is as close as it can get to calling his work plagiarised (the ultimate sin in academia) without explicitly doing so.
Willis reacted – at length:) and made a reasonable case.
Dr Roy seems to be suffering from ivory tower syndrome and cannot be taken too seriously on this subject. If he deigns to successfully back up his statements, he might regain some credibiity.
To those complaining continuously of Willis’ ego – you clearly have never dealt with egomaniacs and you would be better off addressing your own insecurities, rather than projecting on someone else.
Hi Willis,
I too am a citizen climate scientist. However I have only one guest post here at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/northern-sierra-trees-falsify-claim-of-unprecedented-global-warming/
Like your work, my Seat-of-the-Pants Dendroclimatology is original. But unlike you, I am ‘flying under the radar’.
My understanding is that academics are supposed to publish at least two articles in peer-reviewed (or pal-reviewed) journals per year. You’ve done far more than that. And yes, I’m sticking my neck out, and putting WUWT on a par with the very best academic climate science journals.
If it’s any consolation, a friend — who happens to be a leading mathematician — plus his institutionally afffiliated sponsor at Caltech, got some flack from American Mathematical Monthly. (If my ageing memory is correct, that’s the name of the prestigiuous journal in question.)
Anyway, they were getting TOO MANY articles accepted for publication there. Never underestimate the power of academic pettiness.
I’m sorry to hear that Dr Roy was having a Bad Hair Day. I hope that the two of you are able to reconcile soon. And by all means, keep up the good work — even if you inadvertently step on a few toes. Best wishes.
Why did WUWT even permit this essay??
As many others, above, have noted Spencer was emphasizing the need to avoid “re-creating the wheel” (to paraphrase). And Spencer gave a succinct & profound reason for why this is a broad problem — of which Eschenbach’s cited essay is just one example:
“In retrospect, it’s now clear that public interest in climate change has led to citizen-scientists like Willis taking matters into his/her own hands, since so little information is available in a form that is easily digested by the public. Career scientists like myself have not done enough public outreach to describe what they have done. And when we do such outreach, it is usually too technical to understand. We are too busy publishing-or-perishing.”
Going on Spencer says:
“Anyway, I applaud Willis, who is a sharp guy, for trying. But now I am asking him (and others): read up on what has been done first, then add to it. Or, show why what was done previously came to the wrong conclusion, or analyzed the data wrong.”
That’s hardly an insult at all. It is also a polite way of saying, “Great kid, you independently came up with something significant, you’ve got some smarts, but your independent findings are old news–now go back and come up with something new. Meantime, I’m really too busy to help you more as much as I’d like to. So please go away & try not to waste my, and others, time unnecessarily.”
More significantly, what Spencer is advocating is for anyone that’s not involved full-time in formal research and all that arena’s processes–the “citizen scientist”–to engage in the established systems and build from there consistent with established procedures.
What Eschenbach, and WUWT by extension, are expecting (demanding?) is typical of the du jour self-serving/self-centered approach that, if it were to have been permissible a century ago would have had an unknown patent clerk publish in 1901 (years before gaining his “PhD” academic credential in 1905) in some newspaper or pamphlet and then expect the then-experts to cow-tow to his findings in his way. Things didn’t work that way (A. Einstein worked within the system & got his work published in a prestigious/reputable physics journal on its merits). Things still don’t work that way. It remains incumbent on the outsider to work with the established system.
In other words, Eschenbach’s essay, and WUWT’s obvious willingness to publish it, reflects/conveys the rampant narcissism afflicting our society — where so many expect things should revolve around them in the particular manner they want … where ignorance of prior findings is an implicit virtue imbuing one with special needs the established authorities are expected to address as some sort of intellectual welfare entitlement (e.g. Eschenbach says: “If Dr. Roy thinks my ideas are not new, I’m more than willing to look at any citations he brings to the table. As far as I’m concerned they would be support for my hypothesis, so I invite him to either back it up or back it off.”). If one wants to get in the game they need to get on the right playing field & play by the rules, do not expect the pros to drop what they’re doing to come in play in your sandbox…or expect them to come & coach you in your private sandbox so you can get up to speed! Eeegads!!!
It’s time to stop whining & grow up.
Jean Demesure:
I am writing in hope of clarifying a side-issue and, thus, averting a side-track.
At October 9, 2013 at 2:33 pm you say
There is no definition of emergent effects such as the Eschenbach Effect, the R&C Effect, and any similar effects which may exist. So, for convenience, I will call them ‘Reversal Effects’.
Feedbacks and governors moderate the behaviour of a system. Reversal Effects establish a different system.
A positive feedback increases the magnitude of an effect.
A negative feedback reduces the magnitude of an effect.
A governor limits the magnitude of an effect.
A Reversal Effect arises in response to a direct effect, and it combines with the direct effect such that the combination has opposite sign to the direct effect (i.e. when the direct effect is +ve the combination is –ve).
So, for example, a surface warms as it is supplied with additional heat until a Reversal Effect initiates. After that any additional heat induces the surface to cool and the degree of cooling increases with increased heat input until the Reversal Effect ceases. This happens because the Reversal Effect removes heat from the surface, and it differs from a thermostat which reduces the heat being input to the surface.
Richard
Ramanathan and Collins 1991 ? Hummm ….. , published 23 years ago. Never heard of it or any discussion of its content. Was it buried for some reason? Either way the patent would have expired long before now. But then it seems to not even cover what Willis has been posting with regards to the “thermostat hypothesis” here on WUWT for quite some time and over numerous posts.
Thank you Willis for your enlightenment. I think the publicly paid-for scientists like your idea and want the patent. I think you have documented your ideas quite well in a public forum here @ WUWT. It must be quite a blow to the “establishment of peer reviewed journals and the voice of authority of the publicly funded academics” to be out done by you sitting in your den and possibly taking down CAGW as well as their claim of authority. To top it all off you have had a real and exciting life while they were sucking-up as would be required in their employment.
Keep up the good work Willis. Have a few cold beers with us little people while the academic establishment sips tea with two fingers.
Hope I didn’t step on any toes here 😉
The two men that have brought this topic to the fore in their posts both have written in a way that I have found to be good. I believe these gentlemen will take care of the issue between them and I’ll be surprised if they don’t do a good job of resolving it. That said, the issue they are shining a bright light on is important and that is the lack of respect for the nonscientists.
As nonscientists we can hold the scientists responsible for the quality of their research and public comments about the research. As scientist they need to respect all of us that are supplying their funding and who at the same time, share the world with them.
@Ken
I hope there are some senior establishment figures who can help me out. I am a ‘citizen w@nker’ but I have real aspirations to become a professional. Could you put me in touch with a true expert, possibly someone with tree ring expertise ?
The history of Electronics is comprised of contributions from all kinds of people. Many of those people would have been described as amateurs. One of my favorites was Oliver Heaviside.
Heaviside attracted lots of criticism and even animosity from the “professionals”. Most of those have faded into a richly deserved obscurity. On the other hand, if you want to make a circuit board that works in the GHz range, you had better master Heaviside’s Telegrapher’s Equations.
commieBob: Heaviside still guides some of us to new discoveries in telegraphy:
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
Science is settled, eh?
Ken says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:08 pm
…. If one wants to get in the game they need to get on the right playing field & play by the rules….
It’s time to stop whining & grow up.
============================
Ken,
Sounds like a claim of academic authority from you. When are you going to stop whining and grow up?
Congratulations Willis, someone really wants a patent on your idea.
We’re all quite busy. But few of us have taken the heat that Dr. Roy has put up with.
Dr. Roy was hounded into commenting on Willis and gave it the time he could. Might he have done better…sure. Do we all love and appreciate them both…sure.
Let’s move on!
I agree with Ken. Willis should take his spanking like an 8th grade boy instead of like an 8th grade girl, and move on. Get over it. It wasn’t a big deal.
Now now boys, let us not be like the Syrian rebels and fight each other. We are in this together.
1 – There’s nothing wrong with duplicating work in science – in fact, it’s vital. Someone completely independently replicating work that someone else has done adds considerably to our confidence that something is right. It may feel maddeningly repetitious. ALL proper deep science, examining fundamental principles, is like that. Striving for ‘novel’ findings is not the ONLY worthwhile thing to do.
2 – There is NO SUCH SPECIAL THING as a ‘scientist’. There is a ‘scientific method’ – a way of thinking. To paraphrase it, it’s hypothesis/theory/experiment. ALL humans think like this occasionally – for instance, when we drop another pin to indicate where the first one might have fallen. When you do, are you a ‘scientist’? Perhaps…
Some people are paid to use this thought process to investigate nature full-time. I tend to call these people ‘Researchers’. They use the scientific method a lot (or are meant to) but they have NO MONOPOLY on the process. You can easily see that an implication that people who aren’t researchers shouldn’t use the scientific method is stupid, if you frame it in the words I have just used.
Philosophers seem to have a much better appreciation of this. They have no difficulty at all in working with non-specialists in addressing philosophic issues. Perhaps it’s because philosophers, generally, aren’t paid a lot, and don’t feel that their livelihood is threated by people from outside their group. Medical doctors, by contrast, are usually VERY unhappy discussing any aspect of their knowledge with an outsider…
Dodgy Geezer: “There’s nothing wrong with duplicating work in science – in fact, it’s vital.”
+1
The only tiny nuance is that it has become impossible for a publicly funded scientist to replicate somebody else’s work on his employer’s dime. This vital means of validation is all but gone from modern science.
Jeff L says:
Wilis, I don’t read Dr. Roy’s comments as an attack on you at all – I am not sure why you took it that way.
Because the only thing bigger than Wilils’ ego is the chip on Willis’ shoulder for anyone who has even the slightest disagreement with Willis.
Roy went out of his way to sugar coat what was very constructive and very gentle criticism that was as much directed at the other people who fawn over Willis as it was at the Willis who fawns over Willis. Undoubtedly, Roy made those feather smoothing gestures because he understands what a jerk Willis can be when Willis’ opinion of Willis is confronted with the reality of Willis. Futile effort.
@CD.
Science can be done by anybody. But to be a scientist does mean defending your ideas against criticism and testing them.
kingdube says: October 9, 2013 at 3:29 pm
“Dr. Roy was hounded into commenting on Willis and gave it the time he could.”
Dr Spencer was not “hounded’ into publishing the disgraceful graphic. He has now lost all credibility with me(it was already very low due to his belief in fairies). I have never visited his website, due to the aforesaid belief, but take Willis’ word for the fact that it was published there.
Cooler heads on both sides should prevail. Maybe he is correct that your analysis is either incorrect or unoriginal- I don’t know. Citizen climate scientist are the result and not the cause of poor climate science. Possibly before your analysis you could ask him or another in the field if they can recommend some relevant papers. I’m sure this can be worked out.
I realize they may feel it is tedious to contribute outside of their own projects but I think many scientists like Dr. Spencer actually enjoy teaching what they know.
I’ve always enjoyed reading Willis’ theories and ideas, but I have to admit, even I assumed that others must have done work on this before, because so much of it just seems rather obvious. I find it very interesting that so far, no one can actually point to real work being done on this in the field or academia. That’s the really interesting part.
I kind of thought it was the most obvious thing in the world, that hot air rises, and hot water evaporates and forms rain and thunderclouds, and all that helps cool the planet. I’m no expert in climate science, so I assumed that it was the kind of thing climate science would have looked into first, and not last, when looking at how the earth’s climate works. That it hasn’t, and that it takes ordinary citizen-scientists like Willis to bring it up, is the real story here.
“There is a ‘scientific method’ – a way of thinking. To paraphrase it, it’s hypothesis/theory/experiment.”
Willis uses real data in his presentations. That to me is science. Some others, such as Steven Wilde, post hypothesis all the time, with no follow through with real data to prove/disprove the hypothesis. I gain nothing from his posts.
Thus I enjoy Willis’ posts immensely. They are easy to read and show imaginative thinking. That keeps me coming back to WUWT.
Spencer would be taken more seriously if he wasn’t a creationist. He doesn’t help the cause of skeptics when he falls in the stereotype that all skeptics lack scientific knowledge.
@commieBob.
I agree with you about Heaviside – what a genius. Recasting Maxwell’s equations, the D operator and a very practical knowledge of electricity.
I also agree that lots of “amateurs” have made contributions to electronics. The important thing is that they did experiments and compared them to theory – the essence of the scientific method.
The problem with citizen scientists is that they may not all be Heavisides but some think that they are!
RC Saumarez
I agree, but there is something quite insidious creeping through the UK at the moment; the emergence, via celebrity scientists, of a science-cult with in its culture, complete with priesthood and council of cardinals (Royal Society). This is worrying to me, they seem to feel entitled to tax-payers money (almost without justification) and their followers claim sophistication by showing blind obedience to prevailing scientific opinion and loyalty to the priesthood. Climate change is probably the most prominent writ but it’s not the only one.
Ronald Voisin says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Thanks, Ronald. I was accused without foundation, both in the title and in the body of Roy’s post. What makes it harder is, I like and respect Dr. Roy, and his scientific work has been important.
If you should ever have the misfortune to be wrongly accused in that manner and compared to Homer Simpson, and I hope you never are in that situation, well, I guess we’ll see then how calm and mellow you remain.
w.
The “consensus” loves to slam skeptics as being ignorant amateurs. I don’t see why Dr. Spencer would want to give the very same people who smear HIM for his religious beliefs, additional ammunition . Perhaps it is a time issue, as suggested. Scientists may not have the time to answer posts on other people’s blogs or even to keep their own going, for that matter. Dr. R. Pielke, Sr. shut down his climate blog due to that issue – busy writing a book on atmospheric models, I think. Maybe the pros need to assign a grad assistant to follow internet content? They’ve been assigned worse tasks no doubt, lol.
Willis, It has been years since I was a freshman engineering student, but when I read Dr. Spencer’s response to questions raised for him to comment on your exposition of your theory, I was quickly brought back into the classroom where the “teaching technique” was to publicly humiliate an as yet uneducated student who asks an innocent question in class that was directly answered in the text they should have read in the last reading assignment! Another technique used was to single out the student who has been doing well on the quizes and seems to have the respect of the others in the classroom and attempt to publicly humiliate them by quizing them until they fail to answer, just to elevate the authority of the professor and squelch student dissent about some disagreement the class might have raised.
The teaching technique is far more sensitively illustrated (because it does not involve public humiliation) in this classic:
” Do you hear your heart beat?”
“No”
“Do you hear the grasshopper which is at your feet?”
“Old man – how is it that you hear these things?”
“Young man – how is that you do not?”
I was never, and still am not, an advocate for public humiliation as a motivational teaching method because it rarely motivates anyone and instead just antagonizes students who now think of the professor as arrogant, impatient and one of those typical grey hairs who is always “looking down from his ivory tower of learning with disdain on the ignorant masses”.
In this case, you were never given the syllabus, so how could you expect to KNOW everything Dr. Spencer has read on the subject that is germaine to your postulate? He chides you for not googling “cloud radiative forcing”. I did. 306,000 results hardly narrows down the field to find the gems of truth. Still, Dr. Spencer did give you one really good review article which I have skimmed and am going to sit back and savor. He stated, “If you want to get some idea of what has been done on cloud feedback, then a good place to start is Graeme Stephens (2005) review of cloud feedback work performed over the years.” The link included goes to a pretty good review of literature.
In my humble opinion, Willis, Dr. Spencer’s criticism is something that you should take as a positive thing. He thinks you can take it and get better at what you do. Humility is a positive virtue. You have proven that in your writing in the past. If Dr. Spencer thinks you should read a little bit more, then perhaps that is a good thing. I certainly am going to read a little bit more.
At the same time, I too have not, in all my reading come across any other theory that so simply and logically states, in clear English, a theory about why thermaggeddon has not happened. Granted it does not answer the question about long term surface temperature meandering over decades and centuries, but it does completely squelch the Chicken Little, The Sky Is Falling alarmism. Why? Because it explains why 1 degree over a decade is nothing to worry about, when the daily temperature fluctuations of 10 – 20 – 30 degree variance are unfailingly regulated back to 298 K. It gets everyone to step back and look at the far more influential feedback – water – and stop the insane moaning about CO2.
This isn’t a very nice situation. Willis has reacted ‘strongly’ no doubt but Spencer is bang out of order and rubs salt into the wound by posting a dud link supposedly to back up his point. If Spencer is sloppy enough to muck up a blog what else does he not bother to check?
It seems that the nut of Spencer’s whine is that he gets asked to comment on the work of people who publish their own original (to them) research that they have funded themselves and via their tax dollars.
If Dr Spencer is too busy to comment then he doesn’t have to. It’s not like Willis will get pissed with him.
Spencer patronisingly asserts that ” And we already knew that clouds, on average, cool the climate system, as described almost 25 years ago from the first Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) data.” OK how come none of the proper scientists have got the stones to stand up and say that?
Maybe the proper pay check scientists have already done all the possible analyses on all of the data but they just don’t like to tell anyone the results.
It’s self evident that Mr Eschenbach has an ego easily large enough to power a medium sized city but unfortunately for Spencer et al he also has the brains and wedding tackle to match it.
I urge Mr Eschenbach to keep calm and carry on.
General P. Malaise says:
October 9, 2013 at 2:50 pm
Hey, people are complex. Roy has done very important work, and has been transparent and clear in his science. I respect that, even if he does attack me.
w.
What is the definition of a citizen scientist?
Really interesting Willis, thanks!
I think that you would be really interested in some recent research that I have come across about crowds and citizen science. In particular I feel you may find these two emerging pieces of research very relevant:
– The Theory of Crowd Capital
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2193115
– The Contours of Crowd Capability
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2324637
Powerful stuff!
Citizen Climate Scientist. Professional Climate Scientist. Both are Climate Scientists.
I always enjoy your posts Willis & think you are really onto something with your emergent phenomena thermostat idea. That being said, I think Joanne Simpson’s early work on clouds as heat pipes is quite similar to your thesis (& I think it supports it). I’d give you the link, but it was on a NASA site and that seems to be down currently.
Ken says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Ken, I would have had no problem with his accusations if they had been cited and referenced. They were neither. The accusation about Ramanathan was ludicrous, and other than that, he didn’t give one single example of the ignorance and plagiarism he accused me of.
In addition to it being good science to cite the previous work that he claims I either don’t know about or am stealing from, it’s downright nasty to accuse a man of malfeasance without giving one damn example to back up the accusation. How on earth can I defend myself against such vague nastiness?
w.
mcourtney at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1442136
i accept the the comment relating to the low quality journals vs the high quality journals. i believe this is down to the quality of the scientists that submit to them.this in turn leads me to believe the quality of the scientists in climate science is rather low.
i have a background in industrial ceramics and have worked with scientists in developing materials and processes.in every instance i had complete confidence in the ability of those scientists as they demonstrated not only correct knowledge,but also ability.
quite possibly the fact climate science is in its infancy and suffers from a real lack of solid evidence has lead to the debacle we face today, however, the level of confidence placed in its output by major world governments is far from justified,and i am mystified as to why members of the traditional science communities have not been more outspoken against what is going on.
as to your final comment : The as yet unanswered question is how important and skilful are the readership of WUWT.
only time will tell,but i will hazard a bet no less skilful than the climate science community 🙂
Rud Istvan ,i am sure i will enjoy your books. i will make a point of searching them out.
“C’mon, folks! Do you really think that of the billions of dollars spent on designing, launching, and keeping these satellite instruments going, that no one thought to analyze the data? Really? That’s why hundreds of scientists and engineers collaborated on such projects in the first place! ”
Roy Spencer
Then up pops Willis, who does it for fun on his own and offers an analysis and some conclusions into the public arena before they choose to, or are allowed to?
I am hoping it is just sour grapes from RS , anything else is quiet worrying.
Alan Millar says:
October 9, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Very well said. What really rankles me is that the most generous description of Spencer’s effort against the citizen scientist is that he is trying to pull rank. That is disgusting in itself. However, Spencer works in a field where quite some so-called scientists and quite a few others have tried to pull rank, tried to throw in the kitchen sink, and tried just about everything under the sun to ensure that no one does any empirical science, that all the science is top down from radiation theory, and that we are forever stuck with global averages and statistical magic.
Theo Goodwin: Your brilliantly expressed observation of the top-down science and statistical magic bloody well applies to all of modern physics. Just replace “radiation theory” with whatever it is that people were awarded Nobel prizes for during the last 70 years or so. Spot on.
Mardler says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm
“Pity it entered the public arena whoever started it. May be best to have a private conversation with Roy asap, Willis.”
The shoe is on the other foot. Read Willis’ post.
Hi Willis, whilst agreeing that Dr Roy’s choice of words left a great deal to be desired, I thought I’d share a personal observation on dust devils. You mentioned them in passing saying, “Typically they live for a (sic) some seconds to minutes, and then disappear.” I agree with you here as well. There are, however, some very atypical dust devils!
I grew up in Eastern Washington State, which, due to the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountains, is quite dry in the summer. Large portions of the state are, in fact, desert.
It was not atypical for dust devils to form during the day and last for several hours. They could be seen miles away as they pulled dust from the ground and ejected it from the top of the maelstrom. This resulted in a yellow-brown plume, situated well above ground, extending several miles downwind from the dust devil. They were largely stationary, perhaps moving so slowly that it was not apparent to the naked eye. They seemed to prefer plowed fields absent of vegetation. This made sense to me as vegetation would inhibit the localized ground heating necessary for their formation.
Thought you might enjoy a respite from the emotional maelstrom with a bit of observation on maelstroms….
Thanks for all your fine posts and keep up the good work!
Ronald Voisin says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Willis, you’re way overreacting.
Nope. Willis spelled out in great detail how Spencer could go about comparing Willis’ novel physical hypothesis to the “source” that Spencer alleges has priority of publication over Willis. Spencer has refused to do so. He should do so.
Come on guys. You both make scientific enquiry an honororable profession. I’d suggest you both get together for a beer and chow-chow.
BTW There is obviously not a positive feedback in the Earth’s so-called climate system. If there were, we would have frozen or shriveled long before now. I speak as an engineer who understand the math of feedback.
How. Often. Must. This. Be. repeated. Basic math, guys.
Willis Eschenbach said:
Like I said, Dr. Roy is one of my heroes, and I’m mystified by his attack on citizen scientists in general, and on me in particular.
————————————————————————————————–
It’s always nice to have heroes.
About two and half years ago, Dr. Spencer’s partner, Dr. Christy, told me he was working on making public the source code he and Dr. Spencer use for their climatology work. I don’t suppose Dr. Spencer has provided any updates on the status of this project in his conversations with you?
Ronald Voisin says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:21 pm
“Willis, you’re way overreacting.”
Did part of that comment get deleted?
kingdube says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Thanks, King. I would have loved to “move on”. Or as others have suggested, I’d have loved to settle it over a beer.
But now, I stand accused in public of either ignorance or plagiarism, by someone of some stature. Perhaps you’d just move on. Me, I’m not built that way. I’m not leaving that kind of accusation unanswered. If I do, people will assume that Dr. Roy’s bogus claims are true.
w.
Mark Bofill says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Brilliant! You have a talent for the essay. You have portrayed who and what Spencer’s criticisms of Willis tend to betray. What impels Spencer to these criticisms remains a mystery that he should explain.
So what if it’s duplication of effort. Replication is NEEDED to verify concepts, as is Publication, better yet open source publication.
Have at it Willis.
richardscourtney says:
October 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Once again, brilliant and definitive work from you, Richard. You have described the difference between Willis and Ramanathan that Spencer should address. Given your work, I can stop posting until something more occurs in the “exchange,” such as it is, between Willis and Spencer.
OldWeirdHarold says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Easy for you to say. You’re some anonymous humanoid, might be a 16-year-old Valley girl for all we know, who is totally safe from such untrue accusations because you never have to take responsibility for your words—you hide your identity behind an alias like some kid in a chat room.
Who is acting like an adult here? Me, or you, you who won’t stand behind what you say, you who are too ashamed to sign your own work? Unlike you, I have a reputation to uphold and defend, and defend it I will.
w.
JJ says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Aw, JJ, you’re just jealous because you didn’t get attacked by name in public … oh, wait, you hide behind an alias, you don’t take responsibility for your own words by signing them, so you can’t be attacked by name in public.
I love the random anonymous internet popups who snipe from the safety of their alias, nameless children who want to lecture adults on how to defend their good name. I suppose if you don’t have a name, just an alias, the whole concept of “a good name” must seem strange …
w.
PS—JJ, and Jeff L., perhaps for you guys, getting compared to Homer Simpson is not an attack. If so … well, I guess I can understand that …
Dr Roy breaking bad to regain lost lab cred? Let’s hope not.
Willis, stand your ground. Dr. Roy, stand and deliver. It’s the way of science. I particularly applaud your commitment to the way of, intent of, and spirit of the scientific method Willis with your exceptional essay above. You avoided any ad hominem personal attacks with professionalism and grace showing your commitment to the scientific method. You’ve gone from hero status to mega hero status, Batman, the Hulk and Thor had better watch out! [;-)]
Ashby Manson says:
October 9, 2013 at 4:22 pm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/MG/PDFs/mono03_houze.pdf
In formulating their “hot tower” hypothesis, Simpson & her colleagues relied upon actual experiment & observation rather than computer models, which is just one reason why she was a real scientist, ie a meteorologist, & not a bogus “climate scientist” designing computer models to support their baseless assumptions. Their work also led to further advances in understanding after satellites launched based upon it added to aircraft flights into tropical cyclones.
I thought what Willis was posting was amazing information.
I’ve read hundreds of climate science papers and, the vast, vast majority of them are obfuscation, containing no data, completely unfathomable charts and outright garbage. They are really a waste of time and effort, but because I want to KNOW, I read them anyway and waste my time and energy.
Willis’ posts were the opposite of that.
The Cloud Feedback is a make-or-break factor in climate science. We need to know what the real data says and not what Dessler and Ramanathan and the IPCC think we are supposed to believe.
If you are global warming skeptic, then you do not automatically “believe” something that is in a climate science paper abstract because most of it is bogus, exaggeration. If you are a global warming skeptic, it is because you have seen contradictory real data yourself. Give me the numbers because I want to know.
DonV says:
October 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm
I’m sorry, Don, but you don’t accuse a man of either being ignorant of or plagiarizing from previous work without specifying the exact study, page, and paragraph of previous work you’re talking about.
At that point, Dr. Roy waving his hand at a general review of the literature is not acceptable in the slightest. He’s accused me of not knowing something I should know … but what is it that he’s claiming I don’t know?
That’s the problem, Don. He’s attacked me without a shred of evidence, either of what I’m supposed to be ignorant of, or what study it was that I should have read to relieve my ignorance.
w.
@george Steiner: “What is the definition of a citizen scientist?”
In this context I think it means Forrest Mims III, rather than a government scientist.
@Willis Eschenbach: “Unlike you, I have a reputation to uphold and defend, and defend it I will.”
“Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? ” — Some Brit
Mr. Eschenbach ‘s charts indicate that sea surface temperature hardly ever exceeds 30C. There are precious few data points above that approximate value. Why is 30C so magic? Why not 25 or 35? Does the 30C “wall” imply that our average global surface temperature cannot go up very much because the ocean will evaporate the energy away to space – which is to say nothing about it going way down?
Mr Eschenbach?
Dr. Spencer?
As an engineer, i am confounded by the way learned scientists behave.
In engineering, I am happy to hear another’s opinion on how we intend to build something we designed – the last thing we want is an unforeseen design flaw that results in a less than best of breed product or something that does not do that for which we designed it.
In fact over many years building stuff, I can;t think of a single successful product or project we concluded that DIDN’T have critical input from others.
Still, in light of the cartoon lead-in to this excellent responsive article, I thought you good folk here might like to go to a 1935 movie that outlines just how manic two behavioural scientists can get in the pursuit of their theories – and their demented attack on opposing views,
OK it IS the Three Stooges in a colourised print of Hoi Polloi – Enjoy
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqlrot_three-stooges-010-hoi-polloi-colour_fun
Because of my background (I grew up in a socialist country) I always rebel when I hear references to an authority. Willis, who is not part of academia and probably draws no significant salary from his research, has introduced many of us, not the climate scientists, to a better understanding of what the issues were and how complex things can get in the climate science. And, I have to say the same about Roy’s many posts on his blog, which accomplished the same thing – gave me a better understanding of the complexity and unresolved issues; contrasting with the consensus seeking politicians and some cooperative scientists.
Kudos to Willis for continuously searching and prying into the realm considered by some as sacred by their education and societal status.
Unlike some on this blog, I am not disturbed by this argument and as much as I side with Willis in this case (sorry Roy) I think the debate is healthy and a whole lot better than blogs where sycophantic sheep just chant the same thing over and over again.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Change that to “either wilful ignorance or plagiarism.” Spencer spends a lot of time thinking about right and wrong. He knows what he implied.
I can see why Willis would take offence at being likened to Homer, but doesn’t the presentation of the “professional” climate scientist offset that? Good grief, that photo is of a complete disaster…of the two, I’d rather be likened to Homer
just sayin’
Dr. Roy:
‘nature abhors the vacuous’ (there, fixed that for you)
When I do think of the billions spent doing your research – I wonder if the vast scale of pillage required for it is not the distinguishing characteristic and the major achievement.
I’m no scientist but I am a human.
IMO this is an clear cut example of two very talented and decent guys simply being human.
Dr. Roy humanly misperceived some of Willis’ work and sounded off in public about it without first asking Willis about anything he had a problem with. In doing so he teed up Willis to get some unearned trashing in the comment section. That exacerbated Roy’s misstep in going off on Willis in public.
Willis, quite humanly responded in public and people have now waded in with all sorts of twists, embellishments and opportunistic slights at both.
Too bad it wasn’t a private discussion between Roy and Willis.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:16 pm
“At that point, Dr. Roy waving his hand at a general review of the literature is not acceptable in the slightest. He’s accused me of not knowing something I should know … but what is it that he’s claiming I don’t know?”
My take is that he referenced that article specifically as a means of teaching you all the platitudes of the field. What upsets him is that you have proposed an empirical, testable hypothesis. He wants you back in the fold of time series analysis, global average temperatures, and statistical magic. You may ignore my take.
I beg to differ, but it is of absolute truthness that whenever you have upward motion over a determined área you must have subsidence somewhere else….or the upper atmosphere would get “loaded”…this happens even in hurricanes namely in the eye and in between the convective banding features.
The second thing is that squall lines emerge upon certain synoptic contexts that don´t necessarily have to do with surface “overheating”, on the other hand, a hurricane or a MCS is indeed a convective mechanism more typical of areas that experience continued accumulation of low level energy.
Regarding the rest of your post, i find the idea you are expressing that cloud cover acts as a major thermodynamic balancing machanism is a valid premiss, and further testing of this should be done…my own opinion is that low clouds would have a bigger impact than convective clouds, precisely because of the idea that if you get strong lift in a region ( with cooling efect) you would have subsidence somewhere ( with heating effect thus balancing the cooling efect you had where there was lift), the point is that this doesent happen with low stratiform clouds because the gensis of low stratiform clouds doesent require major vertical motion.
Some time ago (years ago), I wrote to Roy Spencer on a number of occasions, pointing out that there was a major flaw in his repetitive claim that “clouds cool the climate system on average (they raise the planetary albedo, so they reduce solar input into the climate system)”.
My simple point is this – Clouds Do NOT cool the Earth when it is in darkness !
On average half of the Earth is in Darkness at any time, and the Clouds in that Half of the Earth will act as an insulator surely, so then it is important to include sunrise/sunset data in any calculations. So far as I am aware Spencer has never done so. Clouds do vary from night to daytime at any location, so this is important. On a cloudless night we are more likely to have a frost in the Fall. Every Farmer and Gardener knows this.
Spencer has never replied to me, or published any such data, and without it, his statements and hypotheses are meaningless clap-trap. I believe Spencer is panicking because he never considered this, and all his years of work and theories are now meaningless. I imagine he is hoping by ignoring it, it will be of little consequence.
This is not how science is done is it ?
I could be wrong, since I may be a “mere amateur” like Willis, but if I am mistaken, then no doubt some person in here will point me to the sunrise/sunset data in Spencer’s calculations, and hypotheses, or in some published paper of his.
Willis Eschenbach says:
Aw, JJ, you’re just jealous because you didn’t get attacked by name in public …
Neither did you.
Roy Spencer did not attack you. He offered some constructive criticism to you and (mostly) to the people who read you uncritically. ‘Hatchet job’ and ‘attacks’ and ‘slamming me with accusations’ are all inventions of your own mind, as it tries to rescue your overstuffed self-image from being confronted by the view from outside.
The persecution complex bit is one of the least attractive manifestations of your delusions of grandeur. Anthony does a disservice to himself and his other regular contributors when he allows you to throw these tantrums here. It devalues their work to be associated with your self-serving belligerence.
It doesn’t matter whether it is original. It is interesting and every different explanation of something is interesting. Keep up to good work Willis!
Most of the time you would find that if you could read Russian that the Russians already did it years ago anyway!
Chipotle says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:26 pm
I can see why Willis would take offence at being likened to Homer, but doesn’t the presentation of the “professional” climate scientist offset that? Good grief, that photo is of a complete disaster…of the two, I’d rather be likened to Homer
just sayin’
————————————————————————————–
It’s doubly ironic as Hansen is they guy who made the claim Venus is hot due to CO2, when in fact its temperature is due to atmospheric pressure.
Right on Willis. I have read many commentors stating that Willis should basically shut his yap and take his medicine, well screw that. Being a political person, I have been told on many occasions that I too needed to shut up and just let the “big boys” take care of everything by giving the opposition what it wants, but we’ll stand up next time. Except there is never a next time, just the same excuse. Willis is right to stand up to this accusation for if he doesn’t now, then when?
Willis,
I completely agree with your comments and the reasons for them. I hope Dr. Roy issues an appology or at least a statement that proves his accusations, because I also respect him and his science. Please keep sharing your science with us.
Keep up the good work Willis. I don’t always agree with your conclusions but have confidence in your integrity and honesty. The same cannot be said about the 97%.
FIG. 4. (a) The cloud longwave forcing as a function of SST.
5. Cloud feedbacks and the regulation of
tropical SSTs
house effect and that a negative feedback must operate
to limit the climatological SSTs to about 30°C. This
point was notably raised in the observational study of
Ramanathan and Collins (1991) who referred to this
runaway effect as the “supergreenhouse” effect and the
regulation of SSTs as the thermostat hypothesis. The
idea of a runaway greenhouse effect in the absence of a
regulatory negative feedback is also supported by
simple energy balance arguments (e.g., Pierrehumbert
1995; Kelly et al. 1999; among others).
tonsof good references
Tsushima, Y., and S. Manabe, 2001: Influence of cloud feedback
on annual variation of global mean surface temperature. J.
Geophys. Res., 106, 22 635–22 646.
a a few by peter webster and judith curry
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Stephens-review-of-cloud-feedback.pdf
actually a pretty good place to start.
I know when I started looking at UHI I started with the literature review, and then read the 100 or so papers. Its a good practice to read on your own first rather than force people to give you links
Rud Istvan (Oct 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm),
bit chilly has already said it but I can’t let it go without heartily seconding him. Yours was a SUPERB comment.
_______
On a separate note, I can’t stand the word ‘citizen‘ — in any context. I associate it with the forced totalitarian attitudes of that hideous French Revolution and for me it is the equivalent of the USSR’s komrade.
Citizens? NEVER!
People? ALWAYS.
Of course, some are lucky enough to be one’s fellow countrymen, but most aren’t — thank God. 🙂
Fcuk ‘citizenship’, and all who sail in her.
_______
Willis,
I don’t know if he is without sin or not, but Dr Roy has cast the first stone. In my book that gives you carte blanche. If you have to, I’d say start with a pebble. You can work your way up to the trebuchet and boulders later if needs be. But let’s hope it doesn’t come to that and that the affair is sorted out amicably, and soon. Either way, good luck. 🙂
We should not cede the IPCC the right to reinvent the wheel. Roy, Willis, keep up the good work.
Great essay Willis!
I completely agree with your criticisms of Dr. Roy’s blog post “from on high” of citizen scientists,, and you in particular.
After having read his blog post, I was left with the impression that the reason he didn’t support his claims with quotes and citations was because Roy doesn’t really view you as his intellectual equal in the first place (hence the Homer Simpson graphical reference) so why should he bother?.
I think that Roy has gotten too full of himself
Ken says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Why did WUWT even permit this essay??
As many others, above, have noted Spencer was emphasizing the need to avoid “re-creating the wheel” (to paraphrase)….
“Going on Spencer says:
“Anyway, I applaud Willis, who is a sharp guy, for trying.”
Ken, and you actually think this was a nice thing for Spencer to say? People must have fun saying things to you between the lines. No, Roy Spencer and other climate scientists are upset that Willis is onto something big here (with all his posts). With all the dreck that has come out of the noisiest professional climate scientists and the bickering and politicking, it is dawning on some of them that Willis is leading climate science out of the phlogiston while most of its practitioners are sidelined as spectators. The IPCC and the thousands of “top” scientist contributors have rewritten the 1990 (?) report five times with no essential changes and, with climate behaviour getting more uncertain, they are getting more certain that humans are causing a global warming that hasn’t been happening for 17 years (after only 17 years of warming!). You will see more of these attacks on Willis when many of the mainstream recover from the warming halt that sneaked up on them and virtually shut them down. The most prolific of the pre- Climategate authors’ publishing efforts of late have dropped to less than a trickle, except for scoriating op eds and twitter twaddle . It is dawning on many of them that they have been horribly wrong as evidenced by their desperation and public prayers for everything to melt, dry up and blow away in a hurry. It casts me back aways: I remember many times brewing up tea from swampy brown water on remote geological surveys and watching the bugs swim faster and faster looking for cooler water before they sank under a handful of tea.
Roy was a surprise. He has done a lot of heavy good work and taken a lot of flack for his criticism of the mainstream CAGW guys. If Willis had nothing to contribute with his stuff, a prominent climate scientist would not be moved to attack in this fashion. Willis this was an affirmation.
Ouch! A complete and unwelcome surprise.
Well, I’m glad that has been settled.
One less variable in the equation.
When Roy played the religion card after his testimony, he demonstrated that he is every bit a political animal first.
He’s doing bizarre behaviours.
Willis seems to be a very logical thinker, has that rare motivation to actually go and do something about his ideas, and has enough skills and energy to find, examine and analyze relevant data.
But above all he has the skill of clear, concise communication.
He is able to clearly express and illustrate his findings with words and graphics in a way which gets bite sized concepts and backing data to be read by the average citizen.
He has no need in communicating here to descend into chapters and pages of convoluted scientific obscurese, a craft where Michael Mann excels, and which is probably a bit of a necessity in work for scientific publication which will usually reference and discuss all prior work on the subject at hand.
The remarkable, and in retrospect, very obvious highlight of his articles (to me) is the clear illustration of a 30°C ceiling on SST. Whatever the mechanism, there is one helluva lot of buffering capacity right there between the equator and the poles – I’d guess that zone only has to extend by a few meters in each direction to get us through the next few hundred years.
Willis, I hear you. And I agree. Public castigation and humiliation must be answered. I empathize with how pissed off this must have made you. I applaud the restraint you showed in your blogged response.
In the review article I found this reference that shows some plots similar (but not quite), to the ones you came up with in both of your posts:
http://langley.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/Documents_1993/Stephens_Randall_Wittmeyer_Dazlich_Tjemkes_JGeo_1993.pdf
The lack of color that the journal forced on these authors leaves much to be desired in trying to figure out what is being conveyed. Yours made the information quite understandable.
My advice still is to “take the high road”. We will all respect you even more for it.
As a long-time (now retired) veteran of academe, I know that there is no magic in a degreed tenured connection with a university; the people are no smarter, and are often pettier, than people in the general public. If they are better informed, it is often in a narrow specialty; the Renaissance man of yore is rare in the modern university. There are, of course, many fine scholars and teachers in academe; however, advancement in their profession requires pursuit of publication and publicity, and it often involves a certain suspicion or jealousy of persons or ideas from outside their academic circle. Please believe me; I was in that milieu long enough to know.
In the present confrontation, Willis has my wholehearted support. He and his work have been attacked in an extremely unprofessional manner; and his reply, while a bit plain-spoken for most academics, laid out the issues properly and comprehensively.
Several commenters have remarked on the clarity and vividness of Willis’s writing. That attribute is one of the clearest possible distinctions between his work and so much of what passes for research writing in academe. For many, the working hypothesis seems to be: If the common man can understand it, I shouldn’t have written it. If it ceases being mysterious and jargonistic, I have failed in my effort to write a suitably opaque and obscure paper–thus, if someone can understand it, that someone might be able to falsify it. Not a favorable outcome. I am grateful to Willis for his clear and well-authenticated writing.
I this and I that and I am the best and I know better and I figured it all out when nobody else could!
This is the ugly side of the blogosphere, IMHO. Let’s park the egos please on all sides.
Strike that. The article DID have color images. I just didn’t scroll far enough!
Yes, this is all very strange. For what it’s worth I support you on this Willis. I would also want to see chapter and verse from those who choose to criticize. It is all very reminiscent of the occasional reviewer comments that I get on my own publications. I also think that you may have inadvertently stepped on someone’s toes as has already been suggested. I’ve done this before as well. Such unsupported speculation may be unworthy but there you go.
The resentment that you generate in others is staggering and the plain rudeness is almost beyond belief (I’m writing here of the comments and not Spencer), but I like your approach and I hope that I have your gumption when I am your age, which is only a couple of years from now. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. Who cares if it has been done before as it will all come out in the wash in the end. Use my approach and do the literature research afterwards. When you (I?) do weird and wonderful things the chances of duplication is slim in any case.
Although I rarely comment be assured that I read and enjoy everything that you write here.
Cheers,
WS
To paraphrase Clemenceau on war:
La science est une chose trop grave pour la confier aux “experts”.
And that goes double for “climate science”.
Seems to me that Willis, is the lightning rod. Whatever really set Dr. Spencer off, Willis got the brunt.
If I used a graphic of Homer, friendly like to represent a close friend, I’d better have the apology shortly after the picture or be prepared to apologize mightily in person.
If Hansen going to jail was supposed to be the counterpoint softening the Homer implication, it is not enough because Hansen’s picture is absolutely true. Many another professional climate leech’s name and picture could be in that picture and the simple citizen’s thought response would still be the same.
I, as a simple citizen take offense to being portrayed as Homer. A citizen scientist should really take offense. After all, the Dr. Spencer’s climate scientists get paid for their work; anything a citizen scientist does is on their own time, dime and effort. Dr. Spencer gets to bounce ideas off of co-workers, honest feedback and ideas without too much acrimony. Willis in this case posts his ideas open for criticism on the net, and when necessary retries and reposts with identified errors/oversights corrected.
Whether Dr. Spencer intended ill with his blog post is not the question. Dr. Spencer’s blog post caused ill and Roy is directly responsible. Hopefully a responsible scientist, citizen or professional, will own up to their mistakes and apologize.
I hope it’s OK that I invited folks to the show at Spencer’s blog. This should be good for a scientific process debate. Willis, I love your work and honesty here. You’ve been consistent wrt “show me the data, show me the sources”
A hundred years from now most scientists, amateur and professional, will be forgotten. We don’t know who will be remembered and who will be forgotten. When I was a student I worked with a fairly prominent scientist whose work was followed by many. Someone else came up with the proverbial game changer; and reduced my supervisor’s career to irrelevance.
A professional scientist has a small but non-zero chance of coming up with something important. An amateur has a smaller but still non-zero chance. That’s not why we do science though. It’s about the journey, not the destination. If the professionals get shirty about the amateurs, they are probably missing this important point.
Jeremy says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:42 pm
“…..Let’s park the egos please on all sides.”
=============
Well put.
I personally don’t care WHO does “something” that was done previously.
If someone can explain it to me to where I learn and I understand better, that is GOOD WORK. We need people like that — who make the knowledge accessible to many without formal training in a certain field.
AllI know is Willis makes me smarter and probably a great deal many others.
Willis
A key issue I got from Spencer’s post was the importance of doing a decent literature search before diving in, to better understand the field. That is drummed into graduate students before you ever dream of starting the research.
Willis’ theory of global climate homeostasis bears examination and discussion.
In mammals and other animals there are centres in the brain that regulate temperature heat flow and heat creation.
Clearly since the Earth lacks any form of central nervous system this mechanism cannot explain the robustness that the Earth achieves in dampening changes of incoming and exiting heat.
The heat engine mechanisms that transport heat to the upper atmosphere could be modeled and seen if predictive.
The use of the term ‘governor’ is apt in that it correlates with say the mechanism of a steam engine,a machine, more than a random collection of inputs and outputs,which runs smoothly and not chaotically.
The fact that the discussion years ago was of Cirrus cloud formations and not Storm fronts, in the Tropics especially, points to the evolution of the discussion,as every scientist stands on the shoulders of those who precede.
As such this site needs to be congratulated as it lets other Citizen Scientists have a look at what is going on in climate science.
ATheoK says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Very well said. Given that Spencer used the image of Homer, Spencer had a hissy fit. I am truly floored.
JJ says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Not a bit. He said:
Now, that is a clear accusation of plagiarism—he’s saying that I lifted the idea from R&C1991, and that I never mentioned that little detail. It’s total bullshit, of course, but nasty false accusations like that grow legs. I won’t stand to be lied about like that, JJ. R&C1991 was about an entirely different hypothsis.
That’s an attack, JJ.
It’s also a hatchet job to accuse me of not doing my homework without pointing out the prior studies that I’m supposed to be ignorant of. Roy’s all over my case … but he hasn’t yet pointed out either:
a) what I’m supposedly ignorant of, or
b) just what past study would have alleviated my ignorance if I’d only read it.
Accusing a man of that kind of thing, without a single scrap of evidence to back it up?
That’s an attack, JJ.
w.
Who cares who thought of it first. If the analysis is valid, even if it is incomplete, bring it on.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
He Mad!
Willis, I applaud your work. Specially since it is accessible by all. I find it ridiculous that someone would put you down because ‘it has been done before’. In this age of puplish or perish, one must sieve through 100 or 200 papers just to find one or two of any worth. And we are expected to pay $35 for each crappy 4 page paper? Ridiculous, when dover sell high quality scientific paperbacks for $10. I just cant afford to pay $3500 to $7000 just for a decent paper one a single subject. In my mind this is nothing more than censorship, keeping science within a ‘select’ group. I never thought of Mr. Spenser as a snob or elitist. I hope hes not
W
This brings to mind Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin who each independently formulted, through observation of the natural world, the theory of evolution by natural selection…unbeknownst to each other.
That others may have also reached the same conclusions in no way diminishes your own orriginal thinking.
A wise man once said “there is nothing new under the Sun”.
“Alfred Russel Wallace OM FRS (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist. He is best known for independently conceiving the theory of evolution through natural selection; his paper on the subject was jointly published with some of Charles Darwin’s writings in 1858.[1] This prompted Darwin to publish his own ideas in On the Origin of Species”. -Wiki
I agree that the thermostat was originally Roy’s hypothesis. If you’re posting on his website, then he has every right to comment and respond. Chill!
P.S. The resemblance between the two images is striking.
Well, I haven’t read Roy’s comments, but any commentary that starts with that graphic is not friendly. And on top of its cruel mockery and imposition of some kind of hierarchy of mental capability, he got it wrong. The second panel should show someone in prison stripes, because what passes for a “professional climate scientist” these days, in my eyes at least, is a crook or a crank or a totalitarian playing the system for every bit of money, power or both that our idiot political class will allow. Shame on Roy Spencer for that.
JJ says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:41 pm: PS. Screw you too. If you want to argue with Willis, be specific and factual. If you do that, he usually responds in the same tone. The cranks and misanthropes who sometimes surface here don’t deserve kind treatment.
I’m a geologist, and I love holistic solutions that call on the various real forces of earth to explain the earth’s behavior. Such as plate tectonics, an exercise in density contrasts, first and foremost, that overcame two centuries of sterile attempts to explain (and pigeonhole) “geosynclines” and all kinds of similar occurrences (rock types and fossils and metamorphic zones, etc.) on widely separated cratons that any child with a globe could piece back together. Willis has put out an holistic concept of a thermal regulator that I believe is true and important in climate. This earth has been pretty warm, and pretty cold off and on for four billion years, but it never incinerated itself nor became an eternal ice ball. Its climate is somehow regulated within boundaries fit for life as we know it, and CO2 is one tiny bit of that. There’s a lot of explanation waiting to be elucidated, and Willis at least is among those looking at what makes the earth tick.
Willis, I wish I could write as well as you do. I could care less whether or not some one n a cloistered dungeon speaking to the walls previously considered something that now draws your interest. You wish to share.it. To share it well. The spirit of the exercise is to peek the curiosity and improve the collective understanding. so that we can (“So it’s time to) abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.” – Michael Crichton …and rush into an era of enlightenment. The world has made a remarkable transition and the internet has demolished the barriers of distance, boarders and time in the aggregation of critical thought to challenges. It is absolutely inspiring.to be able to engage in a global conversation at the speed of light with individuals with facile minds. . There is a lot more to the process of advancing science than meets the eye. some times one has to rework already plowed ground to find the ring. Finally I am absolutely delighted with the gray beards who choose to share their perspective and expertise. IN our family we have a saying that one should never allow their schooling to get in the way of their education and you are well educated. Thank you for your efforts. .
I am very pleased with Willis Eschenbach’s post, his reply to Dr. Roy Spencer, and his reasonable support for the “citizen scientist”. Human hubris being what it is, we need everyone — from “inside and outside” science — to insist on the truth, on the scientific method. I also have critiques at times (from “outside”) of some of Willis’ position and any way Roy the academic scientist helps Willis the citizen scientist be more effective all the better. However, Roy did not do his thing well! Name calling? No citations? It suggests a need to be condescending (someone wrote interestingly about “public humiliation”) for whatever reason. Thanks Willis for responding. I hope you and Scientist Roy can enjoy a beer together. Thanks Anthony for supporting this kind of conversation. I, being an outsider, liked this comment, as of 7:47 pdt, among the many intelligent, cogent, pointed, and hilarious comments, the best:
MarkUK says:
October 9, 2013 at 4:27 pm
“C’mon, folks! Do you really think that of the billions of dollars spent on designing, launching, and keeping these satellite instruments going, that no one thought to analyze the data? Really? That’s why hundreds of scientists and engineers collaborated on such projects in the first place! ”
Roy Spencer
Then up pops Willis, who does it for fun on his own and offers an analysis and some conclusions into the public arena before they choose to, or are allowed to?
I am hoping it is just sour grapes from RS , anything else is quiet worrying.
” Dr. Spencer’s blog post caused ill and Roy is directly responsible. Hopefully a responsible scientist, citizen or professional, will own up to their mistakes and apologize”
I agree.
If Dr Spencer has any character, he will delete that post of his and apologize.
teven Mosher says:
October 9, 2013 at 6:01 pm
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Stephens-review-of-cloud-feedback.pdf
actually a pretty good place to start.
I know when I started looking at UHI I started with the literature review, and then read the 100 or so papers. Its a good practice to read on your own first rather than force people to give you links
S.M. Funny, I recall you recently “dissed” to use the modern teenaged vernacular, a certain Dr. Svensmark, visa vie his Cosmic Ray Hypothesis, saying there was NO EVIDENCE, based on a “fictitious understanding” of the ground weather observing stations.
I corrected you by pointing out Svensmark’s papers on the Forebush decreases and the correlation with a decrease in overall cloud cover. A case of the kettle calling the pot black? (Obviously YOU had not been reading Svensmark’s work.)
Perhaps making ANY presumption about someone’s background research is perhaps “poor form” at best, and just dangerous (in the long run for the critic) at worse.
I would like to comment, even though I said it before, on what is being said here is the “Eschenbach Effect”, as one of 2 mechanisms of “regulation” of temperature of the humid convective subset of tropical weather:
One is that W. Eschenbach has recently cited mentioned thunderstorms having negative feedbacks other than radiative / “cloud albedo” feedback. I continue to note that these specifics are not so much lumped into “cloud albedo feedback”, but the “lapse rate feedback”. Where I see paleohistory showing that feedback having nonlinear response – its negativity increases as greenhouse gases increase. I see that feedback as having paleohistory of capping global temperature at 24-25 C, even with 6,000 PPMV CO2, with stability dominating past of warming of the world decreasing coverage of year-to-year variable snow/ice cover.
However, I doubt his proposed “thermostat” is completely one, because I doubt Earth would maintain its current or paleo-past global surface temperature if Earth gets its orbit moved to perhaps, 1/3 of an orbit circumference ahead-of or behind Venus in its orbit. (Which I am hearing is a stable orbit for a small object, possibly not for a similar-mass object.)
Suppose the sun achieves TSI around 5-10-plus what it has now, as predicted for 4-5 billion years from now, when the sun’s “swan song” has 2 layers of 2 different fusion reactions. Certainly, I don’t expect thunderstorms to continue to continue to regulate earth’s surface temperature over the warmest of tropical waters to a 30 degree C cap.
What I see, is increased thunderstorm activity as a result of increased surface heating, especially if due to increasing greenhouse gases cooling the upper troposphere, as being a negative feedback that increases its negativity as greenhouse gases increase. I don’t see the regulation being strict on global surface temperature (assuming the sun does not brighten) until the global average surface temperatures gets to paleohistorically regulated levels of 24 to briefly 25 degrees C.
Also, even if this is a repeat, I see such regulation by thunderstorms as by being highly in a negative feedback class named by IPCC as “lapse rate feedback”, as opposed to “cloud albedo” or “cloud net radiation” feedback. Even though I see nonlinearity, of increased greenhouse gases increasing this negative feedback once the increase gets noticeable increasing thunderstorm activity – especially over tropical waters.
I would say 25 degrees C is what 6,000 PPMV CO2 would accomplish nowadays considering what I have seen in planetary paleohistory presented to me in such matters of debate, even considering a slight brightening trend in stellar evolution of main sequence stars.
And as for regulation to something that is a function of solar output – I ask for consideration that the negative feedbacks are probably less, and the positive feedbacks are probably greater, when global temperature is in-between the more-stable (historically only intermittently so) schemes of “snowball” and “ultimate greenhouse”.
The Church of Global Warming ?
….. and still Roy Spencer won’t say where his sunrise/sunset data is
I personally doubt if it even exists. see my #comment-1442376 @ 5:36 pm
As I browse the comments about “originality”, “reinventing the wheel”, blah blah blah, I am struck by the curious assumption that reinventing the wheel is a bad thing. How many iterations are required to get the “Right” answer anyway?
/Tangent. In a time and place far far away, I was taking data processed by an 8, yes 8 bit (predating personal computers) processor that had been running for years to another machine that operated differently. It was soon discovered that the data contained a rather large number of question marks in supposedly numeric fields. Not so good when working with the general ledger. Suffice it to say the number of iterations mean squat.
/end tangent
I sense a trend similar to that of amateur astronomy. Amateurs were all fine and dandy when they could supply observations as good or better than the professionals. But once the the big money meant big equipment the amateurs were not so welcome.
It appears the the size of the equipment (cough cough) means more then the size of the intellect that runs it. Even worse, it supposes that only guys with big equipment are able to correctly interpret the output. Not sure this is a good assumption.
Different folks, different strokes. The more the merrier I say.
Doug
Respectfully, Willis, I love you but this doesn’t mean that Roy doesn’t have a point. Ramanathan and Collins make some statements very similar to what your Thermostat hypothesis does. From Roy’s point of view asking him to comment on whether there is a thermostat that acts in the tropics is, he can legitimately answer that this question was answered 22 years ago.
It might be instructive to lay out precisely the way in which your hypothesis differs from R&C’s especially where and when the testable predictions between the two are different.
Personally, like you, I am very dubious about the mass balance idea but I don’t know that much about it. Personally, I don’t see how an increased cloudiness has to be balanced by decreased cloudiness in another area. I think increased cloudiness is balanced by increased
*rain*.
Cheers, 🙂
Willis, I understand your concern about Dr. Roy attacking you. He did so in a similar manner in WUWT about a year or so ago. You asked for references at that time but essentially brushed it off. Now he comes back again in a similar attack on his own blog. His excuse he did it because someone asked him to check out some of your work is unprofessional.
Roy makes mistakes too frequently for me to hold him in as good a light as you do. I think he is an okay guy but he may be jealous of your innate ability to lay out a problem, solve it and then tell it. If he is willing to offer you a apology, please accept it graciously but tell him privately that he needs to straighten up and fly right. Once was more than enough.
When someone has the “facts” on hand, they usually bring them to bear quickly in order to make their point.
Links, direct quotes, citations & etc.
When someone just says “your wrong” and doesn’t back it up with specifics, it’s most often because they don’t have anything more to offer.
Privided on David Appell’ssite, this video of the Spencer-Schmidt “empty chair” debate on the John Stossel show. It might give clue as to where Roy adopted his approach from.
http://davidappell.blogspot.ca/2013/03/spencerschmidt-not-debate-on-john.html
Dr. Spencer,
All here (I presume) will be interested in your considered response. You have leveled criticism. Willis has responded in depth. We await your rebuttal.
Sincerely,
William
Never a dull moment in the climate wars is there?
Dr. Spencer is correct, everything Willis is saying has been said a thousand times before and more to the point Willis is largely correct in what he is saying.
The problem isn’t plagiarism either, Willis is using data that is only now becoming robust enough to glean any useful conclusions from, so while his conclusions may be old his methodologies and data are new, much like Bell’s Theorom wasn’t ‘new’.
The problem is that the Climate Scientists have never learned or forgot everything they learned in Meteorology 101. Water vapor (clouds) are a negative feedback if for no other reason than water vapor lowers the lapse rate. Willis is simply providing modern data and methodology to old forgotten theories.
I’m reminded of the following from Roger Pielke, Sr.’s blog post on the Wagner-Spencer controversy, of which CACA spewers like the odious Gleick tried to make so much:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/hatchet-job-on-john-christy-and-roy-spencer-by-kevin-trenberth-john-abraham-and-peter-gleick/
Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick
There is an opinion article at Daily Climate that perpetuates serious misunderstandings regarding the research of Roy Spencer and John Christy. It also is an inappropriate (and unwarranted) person attack on their professional integrity. Since I have first hand information on this issue, I am using my weblog to document the lack of professional decorum by Keven Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick.
The inappropriate article I am referring to is
Opinion: The damaging impact of Roy Spencer’s science
published on the Daily Climate on September 2 2011. The article is by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick.
I’ve still never understood how, I might be accused of plagiarism for producing a theory from all this great info Anthony has/and let authors post, when I couldn’t possibly remember it all, or make citations of its origin.
Is that also my job ??, should it be ??
JJ says:
October 9, 2013 at 5:37 pm
“Roy Spencer did not attack you. He offered some constructive criticism to you and (mostly) to the people who read you uncritically.”
—————————————————————————
JJ hits the point exactly – Willis, you have recognize that many read these blog posts uncritically (primarily due to lack of scientific training) & accept everything that is stated as truth. And that is not a trivial point. It is a huge burden, even more so as a “citizen scientist” that doesn’t play within the rules of normal professional scientists (ie no peer review of prior to blog posting).
A large part of that burden is to accept constructive criticism from professionals , such as Dr. Roy. Not blow it off. Not to be so arrogant to assume you know more than an expert in the field. To be humble. To use the feedback to grow & learn & create better blog posts, so that information present in this non-traditional format (blog w/o peer review) has greater credibility & those who read posts uncritically can walk away with confidence that they have read good information.
This isn’t about who is right or wrong, Use this opportunity to sell your case to Dr. Roy. If you feel you are right, talk to Dr. Roy directly; ask him questions which you feel will lead him naturally to your point of view. Perhaps he will then see your point of view. Alternatively, if you listen to his answers, you may learn something that increases your knowledge & changes your point of view. It is potentially a great learning opportunity for you with an expert in the field. Responding defensively is no way to sell your deal. This rarely generates a good response from the other side of the argument.
Willis, my advise is don’t be defensive. This is an opportunity to learn & grow from an expert in the field. You should be honored that an expert in the field has even taken the time to read & analyze your work as a citizen scientist. That ,in & of itself, is quite an honor. One that few, if any, citizen scientists will reach.
I wished for some time now that (no offense) real scientist who post here and on other climate blogs would reference more papers, not behind a pay wall, that is. That pay wall stuff has to stop.
Unnecessary all the way around !
Why is the question?
@Willis — “Now, that is a clear accusation of plagiarism—he’s saying that I lifted the idea from R&C1991, and that I never mentioned that little detail. ”
Eh. That would be a lack of citation, not plagiarism. Which is, I assume, a big deal in the publish or perish world. But even then, to support the claim of not giving due credit requires accepting:
1) That it is not an obvious idea.
2) That people cannot come up with non-obvious ideas on their own.
3) That you knew about R&C 1991 at some point in that past.
4) That you remembered it in the present.
5) That you R&C 1991 says the same thing you are.
6) That you understand that R&C 1991 says the same thing you are.
There are 6 spots to fill out on a lottery ticket also. But the Spencer’s claim is the weakest of sauce in general and is hardly deserving of the sound and fury being raised.
That said, right now I would kill to see a photo here of Mr. Mims sporting a fedora.
Let’s see how long this takes for it to bounce around the blogs and come back as laughter at Spencer, Protector of Real Science.
Jquip says:
October 9, 2013 at 8:28 pm
Does this count?:
http://www.forrestmims.com/
Closer to the kind of cowboy hat my grandfather wore than a fedora, but not too far off.
Ellis,
I think mockery or rebuttal of Dr Roy’s fatuous post is absolutely called for! Pile on! Not because of his science (which as Willis says is OK), or his tone, but because he chose to be the establishment Read it as the 17th century French button makers guild complaint (except the government/King Louis cannot yet burn us at the stake). Established client scientist is aghast/perplexed and horrified that mere citizens have R, Mathematica, access to government (guild) datasets, terabytes and supercomputers (by 2000 standards) at home. And some of us even know how to use them. Oh my, whatever are they to do?
Opps, I’m not saying anyone was ever accused of plagiarism, but it came up the discussion.
It all comes across as a ridiculous clash of egos. Willis, if you followed the common professional practice of adding a list of relevant references relating to your work, at the end of your submissions, it might keep Dr Roy happy. You are both doing good work. Stop the in-fighting and get back to attacking the IPCC nonsense and scams.
Stop bleating, Roy is right and Watts is is more than indulgent.
This outburst by Roy Spencer in defence of a defunct climate establishment is puzzling. Establishment climate science is a curiosity-free dead zone with nothing to offer scientifically. Citizen climate science will bury establishment climate science.
Willis, get a degree and shot them up, lesser minds than you did it.
Dr. Roy, save your time and ammunition to shoot warmist points of view
We don’t have the time for this BS.
There are more of us than there are of you.
Conrad6: “Oh my, whatever are they to do?” (established client scientists)
Heh. If I had it in my power, send most home for a few-year break and on their own terabyte desktop super-computers research for free as many “citizen scientists” here already do so.
No really, wonder what they would do if locked out of “peer review”, have no chance of grants, face the pay walls. Would they still remain proper climate scientists simply for an interest and curiosity of the science during their spare time from another unrelated and boring job? Or just find something else, anything else, to sell to the government? Interesting question.
I agree with Dr. Spencer as the climate debate is tiring enough with credentialed skeptics (there are plenty). I believe there is a place for citizen scientists, especially with commentary but I never reference (and rarely read) any of Willis’s scientific blog posts but would have no problem citing his peer-reviewed papers. The reason is, once a paper is published, it’s scientific credibility is not questioned relating to the author’s credentials and citizen scientists are generally on equal footing.
The people who find this unfair have either not been debating this long enough or are fooling themselves.
If you look at what Dr. Spencer is complaining about is the comments from people on Willis’s posts who come away believing things to be “so obvious” when they may not be so. I saw this problem when people were wanting Willis to testify in front of Congress on climate change issues over credentialed scientists. Once a congressman asks Willis for his climate science credentials it would be game over. From then on, anyone not a Willis fan would disregard everything he has to say as coming from someone who does not know what they are talking about.
There is a way around this and that is for people who want to be taken serious on a subject to get a relevant graduate degree on the subject and or employed in the field of interest (which usually requires a graduate degree on the subject).
This is why I am not interested in Mosher’s (B.A. English Literature with a career in Marketing) “scientific” analysis of anything either.
There is some form of bizarre jealously with certain people against relevant credentials as “elitist” (see various comments to this post) when it simply demonstrates proficiency. So these people naturally attach themselves to an Everyman like Willis.
I have never ever seen a citizen scientist argument win anyone who was not already a fan of said citizen scientist over without them publishing a paper on it.
While I’ve convinced plenty of people (or significantly reduced their alarm) using arguments from Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Michaels, Dr. Pielke, Dr. Christy ect… so why make your life harder?
Willis, you published “The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis” in Energy Environment Vol 21 No4 2010. but it is strange that you have not mentioned the next paper in the same edition of the journal by Dr Noor Van Andel “Tropical rainstorm feedback” . I would imagine that Dr Roy Spencer has not read either paper or looked at the references cited. Have a look at his figure 2. Has it any relation to your graphs? The late Dr Van Andel was a chemical engineer who certainly knew more about heat transfer than Dr Roy and probably knew more than all the so-called climate scientists put together. His paper (p277) in the same edition “Note on the Miskolczi theory” shows that he is one of the few that understood what Miskolczi has proposed.
I’ve got 4 Higher degrees related to statistics: it does not give me the right to assume I know more about a certain subject especially statistics which most of Meteorology and “climate science” relies on, and even more so in today’s world of the internet with instant access to data. Dr Spencer has got a fail on this one.
Eliza, you do know more about statistics than someone without a statistics degree.
Roy Spencer’s post is hardly a hatchet job. It reads like a reasonable post to me.
Poptech says:
October 9, 2013 at 9:44 pm
“There is a way around this and that is for people who want to be taken serious on a subject to get a relevant graduate degree on the subject and or employed in the field of interest (which usually requires a graduate degree on the subject).”
==================
I read this deep into the thread cus I take it serious.
There might be more “degrees” commenting here than you assume.
You finish with:
“… so why make your life harder?”
——
In a word…….. citizen.
Although Willis can at times be a difficult and prickly fellow to deal with I think Dr Roy’s cartoon is totally unjustified if he meant to have an exchange of ideas or to present constructive criticism. It just seems he meant to denigrate. If he doesn’t have the time to explain issues in simple terms then he needs to to make time and provide an essay on this site not in journal gobbledygook but in more simple language that puts forward his views with references. Then there can be an exchange of ideas rather than a left field ambush. I am disappointed in Spencer’s approach, he goes down a couple of rungs in my opinion.
thunderstorms and cirrus clouds are entirely different animals….that said,an overly mathematical analysis of something like cloud cover…which varies constantly and cannot be measured accurately is a waste of time…similarly Dr Spencer’s most famous product…the UAH…’global average temperature’…purporting to measure something that constantly varies with time and place…is a nonsense term…as for citizen scientists… i recall that a certain third class clerk in the swiss patent office named Einstein made some important contributions.
I am reminded of the harsh thumping I got as I wrote, re-wrote, re-wrote, and again re-wrote my Masters Thesis. And then of the harsh thumping I got as I wrote, re-wrote, re-wrote, got rejected, and again re-wrote with SUBSTANTIAL help from a much smarter guy then I could ever hope to be, the journal article that eventually got published. Not one reviewer sugar coated their comments. It was harsh right up to the acceptance notification.
In the end, after I ate my fill of humble pie, I ended up with a pretty darn good piece of work, with credit not to myself but to all those folks who took the time to thump on me (not to mention the scientists I referenced in the much expanded literature review section). I came out too head-sore and bloodied to want more of that. But the work has since been duplicated by others and thus stood the test of time. So the trial by fire was good.
Boys, boys! The enemy is over there! 🙂
___________________________________
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day,
– Henry V
cementafriend says:
October 9, 2013 at 9:48 pm
Thanks for the reference to the papers by Willis & Dr. van Andel in:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf
I note that Willis cited a paper co-authored by Dr. Spencer among his references:
Spencer, R, et al., 2007, Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical
intraseasonal oscillations, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15707,
doi:10.1029/2007GL029698
Whether Willis’ contribution is original or not, it is IMO well argued, even if not couched in traditional scientific paper format & style.
I was also impressed by Dr. van Andel’s paper, which cites Willis’ preceding study. The abstract & conclusion of Dr. van Andel’s “Tropical Rainstorm Feedback” state:
“In the set of radiative feedbacks to global warming due to a doubling of the CO2
concentration, from all the models the increase in latent heat transfer as a
consequence of an increase of [sea] surface temperature is left out. Starting from
measurements of increased evaporation and increase of wind speed as a function of
sea surface temperature increase, I derive a large global feedback of −20 Wm−2K−1.
This negative feedback is much larger than the balance of feedbacks, range +0.8 to
+2 Wm−2K−1, included in the climate models. If the latent heat transfer feedback, i.e.
tropical rainstorms, would be included in the models, the local climate sensitivity
would decrease from 1.5 to 4 ºC for a doubling of CO2 to less than 0.2 ºC. This is
lower than the temperature variations due to solar magnetic, ocean current and
volcanic aerosol effects.”
“Modern ground based and satellite measurements, climate history data and geological
data all point to the fact that when it becomes warmer, the high latitudes rise much
more in temperature than the tropics. This can only be the result of increased heat
transfer from the tropics pole ward. Established physical transport phenomena science
lets us quantify this heat transfer and its dependence on surface temperature. The result
is a much larger negative feedback than the positive sum of feedbacks incorporated in
the known climate models. This large negative feedback should be incorporated into
these models. The result would be that the climate sensitivity is reduced tenfold. A
doubling of the CO2 concentration has such a small temperature effect, that this is
indiscernible from all other effects.”
His estimate of climate sensitivity of only 0.2 K is lower than I’d go, but is a defensible number. In effect, whether 0.2 or 2.0 K, ie net feedbacks negative or slightly positive, the effect of CO2 is negligible & swamped out by other factors. Either Lindzen & Choi’s (2011) 1.0 K, net feedbacks neatly balanced at 1.2 K or even the bottom of IPeCaC’s latest, new lower, narrower range of 1.5 K all work for me.
Earth’s Phanerozoic climate system indeed appears to be homeostatic within established temperature bounds, by whatever hydrological or other processes. In the Precambrian or in another 543 million years hence, maybe not so much.
In the end we all have to stand proud and defend ourselves, and Willis is doing just that.
In another age it would be pistols at 20 paces, and that would never do; we need both of them.
That depends on the definition but McIntyre’s credentials are relevant to the work he did and he did get it published thanks to Dr. McKitrick (but might not have if Ross did not push the issue). Jones and Mann only began to panic when his papers were getting published.
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto (1969), Graduate Scholarship, Mathematics, MIT (1970); Commonwealth Scholarship, Oxford University, UK (1970); PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics), Oxford University, UK (1971)
Choices in life have an effect and if Steve had chosen the graduate degree from MIT instead of a PPE from Oxford (if only he knew he would be devoting so much of his life in the future to climate science), it would likely have made some of his life now easier.
Spencer isn’t concerning himself with science per se or how it is done, rather he’s concerned over postiive reactions to Willis’ posts. He says so.
Yes and No, comments from those with science degrees are usually easier to separate from those without. More degrees than I assume? Possibly? Relevant degrees commenting attacking Dr. Spencer? Unlikely. People who follow Willis generally look down on relevant credentials as “elitist” or some other nonsense.
Poptech says:
October 9, 2013 at 10:29 pm
“…..it would likely have made some of his life now easier.”
===========
Someone told you it would be easy, or what ?
Then you did not read it clearly. He is concerned with what he believes is misinformation in Willis’s posts and commentators going, “Willis you are the best! …so obvious no one thought of this before” …when they did.
I have nothing against Willis personally but I recognized his long winded posts as more rambling than scientific. The problem with fanboys is they cannot see it.
I don’t see Dr. Spencer’s article as being an attack. It reads as an objective, cautionary article aimed at trying to set a demarcation between retrospective analysis built on existing knowledge and new research and contribution to the body of literature. I don’t intend to criticize Willis as his insight is valuable but I also fail to find fault in Dr. Spencer’s views on the issue.
Let me break it to all the Willis fanboys, outside of Watts up With That and some of his friends in the skeptic community, no one takes him or what he posts here seriously.
Poptech says:
October 9, 2013 at 10:45 pm
u.k.(us) says: Someone told you it would be easy, or what ?
I take it you either don’t actually debate this topic much or don’t win those debates?
============
Its not easy, but somebody has to do it.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“I’ve previously commented on Willis’ thermostat hypothesis of climate system regulation, which Willis never mentioned was originally put forth by Ramanathan and Collins in a 1991 Nature article.”
Now, that is a clear accusation of plagiarism—he’s saying that I lifted the idea from R&C1991, and that I never mentioned that little detail.
No. From your commentary on Ramanathan and Collins, it is clear to those that have read the paper that you have not. Roy undoubtedly understands that, and of course he also understands the corollary: that you cannot have plagiarized a paper that you have not read and do not comprehend.
He isn’t accusing you of plagiarism, he is attempting to get you to read the damn thing and acknowledge what is in it the next time you reinvent the wheel. Hint: A component of the R&C hypothesis is the assumption that the increased longwave (greenhouse) forcing under a warming environment gets exported by atmospheric dynamics. Sound familiar?
It’s also a hatchet job to accuse me of not doing my homework without pointing out the prior studies that I’m supposed to be ignorant of.
Among the papers that Roy has pointed out to you:
Ramanathan and Collins, 1991.
Manabe and Strickler, 1964
Graeme Stephens 2005
Hartmann and Michelsen 1993
Lau et al. 1994
You have not read more than the three-sentence abstract of the first. How far did you get with the rest?
And do understand the broader point that Roy is making: You are treading over very well worn ground, while giving the impression that you are breaking trail. He is giving you a “heads up” that a significant length of your neck is sticking out. That is a friendly thing for him to have done – yet again – and he was consciously gentle in how he went about it.
Swallow your pride and express gratitude for the gift.
re #poptech
“Willis fanboys… no one takes him or what he posts here seriously”
This forum IS peer review and debate, unlike whatever echo chamber your mind lives in.
I certainly take him seriously: as we thumped each other in a long thread about models, their meanings, reality, corruption and real world shadows. I think I won on points, but I had done the modeling stuff off and on for 40 years while Willis was off wrestling polar bears or something.
Willis is not the citizen theorist scientist (imho), he’s the citizen observer scientist. Like whoever found the dawn redwoods. And if they look too much like scrub pine, he’ll say so. No NSF grants are binding his tongue.
Fanboys to the rescue…
Hilarious laughter ensues. Distorting the implied meaning of a word is a strawman argument.
Dr. Spencer, I’m sure it’s tough getting out of bed some days, knowing you have to carry the heavy burden of being a “climate change denier”, but of all people, I would have thought you would know better and take the high road by contacting Willis directly and privately, rather than to go postal and vent your frustrations, airing your dirty laundry in public as you chose to do. Would you have us believe you have nothing better to do with your time than engage in a public pissing match with someone who’s on the same team? Willis, whom you derogatively referred to as a “citizen scientist” and insultingly depicted as Homer Simpson, has made enough of a contribution to the debate to deserve the courtesy of a private conversation about your issues, not to mention that he has a right to expect you to provide citations that defend your point and to not be depicted in such a manner. You really blew this and you owe Willis a long apology.
Poptech says:
October 9, 2013 at 10:43 pm
Remind me again who you are and why anyone would or should take you seriously?
Daryl, don’t take me seriously if you wish, I do however have extensive experience in debating this subject online, in hundreds of forums and websites for over seven years. So you may find my anecdotes helpful or you may not, I really don’t care.
milodonharlani says:
October 9, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Thanks for the amplification of my comment. I should have put a link to the papers -my lame excuse is that in the past links have caused my comments to go into cyberspace (or those pesky dimensions above four which the quantum mechanics people like to play with)
Poptech says:
‘ thisisnotgoodtogo says: “Spencer isn’t concerning himself with science per se or how it is done, rather he’s concerned over positive reactions to Willis’ posts. He says so.”
Then you did not read it clearly. He is concerned with what he believes is misinformation in Willis’s posts and commentators going, “Willis you are the best! …so obvious no one thought of this before” …when they did.”
Right! that’s what he’s conscerned about he says. Why be concerned about that? If it’s not science, then so what? He’s not concerned about junk science being put out ata ll. He’s concerned that someone admires Willis and Willis’ writings.
The irony is that R&C’s cirrus clouds are the consequence of convective thunderstorms moving tons of water vapor (and heat) into the stratosphere.
Typical cart-before-the-horse causality reversal by climate science.
Poptech says:
October 9, 2013 at 11:15 pm
Fanboys to the rescue…
farguard says: This forum IS peer review…
Hilarious laughter ensues. Distorting the implied meaning of a word is a strawman argument.
===================
Your cut-and-paste comment has devolved into name-calling, are you almost done ?
Don’t know where you go from here.
And that’s exactly what Gavin Schmidt was concerned about with Dr. Roy!
HIlarious stuff by Roy.
Poptech says (along with other babble not quoted
“Daryl, don’t take me seriously if you wish, I do however have extensive experience in debating this subject online, in hundreds of forums and websites for over seven years. So you may find my anecdotes helpful or you may not, I really don’t care”
Question – are you one of those machines trying to pass the Turing test? If so, you need another semester or 2.
JJ
On which page of IPCC AR5 is Ramanathan and Collins 1991 cited? Or Van Andel 2010? Or maybe Miskolczi?
So none of them can read either? I guess that’s your point.
Re: JJ @October 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm
“Hint: A component of the R&C hypothesis is the assumption that the increased longwave (greenhouse) forcing under a warming environment gets exported by atmospheric dynamics.”
But increased longwave forcing is not the mechanism that causes the clouds to form in the first place. It’s direct solar insolation of the sea surface.
Again, cart-before-horse. Climate science: Clouds cause localized longwave forcing which causes…clouds.
Roy just projected his inner defeat at at the hands of Dr.Schmidt.
I detect a shark being jumped.
Can someone direct me to examples of Dr. Roy putting up cartoons of real scientists who do what he considers substandard or biased work?
@milodonharlani: Absolutely made my day. Many thanks.
@conrad6 — “Question – are you one of those machines trying to pass the Turing test? If so, you need another semester or 2.”
I suspect he wears a fedora.
“As a result, just about every time someone posts an amateur analysis of data that becomes popular, I’m asked to read it, critique it, and respond. Well, I simply don’t have the time. But these things sometimes get legs, and when they do, I get even more e-mails.” Roy Spencer.
Wow, aren’t we a precious little scientist. He’s too busy with his, real science, to deal with the, common public.
The thing that remains curious to me is that Dr Roy chose to show the “real” scientist being cuffed for illegal activity.
Poptech said @ October 9, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Absolute balderdash! Eighty percent pf published papers die a natural death and are quickly forgotten. In a word, they are balderdash.
Keep up the good work Willis. I briefly perused SAR, TAR and AR4 and Oke’s Boundary Layer Climates but couldn’t find anything resembling your Thunderstorm Thermostat. I guess if 2,500 IPCC scientists missed the paper(s) you supposedly plagiarised I wouldn’t feel too bad about it.
Funny thing too, the guy on the right in Spencer’s blog believes in strong positive feedbacks that will fry us all to death RSN and Susan Solomon told us it would take thousands of years to reverse what we have already done to take us down that path. Ya gotta laff 🙂
Poptech says:
October 9, 2013 at 10:34 pm
” People who follow Willis generally look down on relevant credentials as “elitist” or some other nonsense.”
I find this comment uncharitable and unwarranted.
Willis, I appreciate your keen insight, enormous amount of work, and clear writing style. I guess I am one of those people.
Willis: “Dr. Roy, the citizen climate scientists are the ones who have made the overwhelming majority of the gains in the struggle against rampant climate alarmism. It is people like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts and Donna LaFramboise and myself and Joanne Nova and Warwick Hughes and the late John Daly, citizen climate scientists all, who did the work that your fellow mainstream climate scientists either neglected or refused to do. You should be showering us with thanks…”
Willis, on a technical point I have to disagree with you, dude.
WUWT and CA kept the world from being 100% stampeded by the Chicken Little falling sky, yes, and who knows if anything would have ever happened if Steve and Anthony had not been around.
But in point of fact, nothing they were doing was changing ANYTHING, other than raising Michael Mann’s blood pressure enough for Hide the Decline to happen. But even though Hide the Decline DID happen, the world didn’t know about it. It was between Mann, Briffa, and Jones, and a few others laughing their heads off. They still had 100% of the press and 100% of the governments getting wet at their every word.
Nope. The ONLY person who really made a difference was Mr Climategate himself. And we don’t know if he (she?) was a climatologist or a citizen climatologist. It seems virtually certain to ME that he/she could not have had access without being an inside climate person.
But WUWT and CA only were holding the fort – and making Mann do the stupidest thing he’s ever done, career-wise. He had the world by the gonads. And now half the world trusts him as much as they would have trusted Josef Goebbels. But it was Climategate that took him and them down, not Anthony and Steve.
. . . Take away Climategate and we are back in 2007. . .
I thought Willis’ idea was Al Gore’s: more AGW=more extreme thunderstorms.
I hope Willis will address these articles and other relevant literature (again?) in a future post.
In Graeme Stephens 2005, the most recent paper, they say this:
That’s exactly what Willis is doing. I doubt that anybody has ever shown the complex data in intelligently colored scatterplots the way Willis has done. Mostly they talk about averages, parameterization and feedbacks.
Willis’ approach of a minute by minute analysis of cloud development and thunderstorms in the tropics and the identification of a possible governor mechanism seems novel to me. And even if not, Willis’ clear and concise posts with their beautiful graphics move the discussion in the right direction. I’m glad Dr. Roy Spencer noticed.
Willis for Governor – stop the Feedbaggers! 🙂
Willis,
Whether your work is original or not it was clearly original to you. (There has been many examples of scientists working on the same theory, oblivious to the others work). The point is you thought of it, you developt it and you presented it in a manner that even I could understand. Science moves forward not by peer review, but by a study or an experiment being successfully being reproduced. If you have unwittingly reproduced an existing body of work then you have moved the science on. Why is this a problem to Dr Spencer?
Keep up the good work, I look forward to your next work.
All the best Steve
Oops, that should have read Spencer, my immediate and sincere apology to Dr Carter. 🙁
[Fixed. -w.]
It is of course feasible that Dr Roy has been leant on by the hierarchy that seek to control the destiny of mankind. Thus his apparent change of position by comparing Willis and those like him to Homer Simpson. Pretty offensive to put it mildly, but clearly calculated. Pity, but it is essential to recognise the determination of the said hierarchy to reduce most of us to penury and perhaps even starvation in pursuit of their ideology (religion). Keep up the honest work Willis, Antony et al, you do greater service than you know.
Dr. Spencer has apparently suffered a mischief to his logic circuits or possibly never had a course in the history of science. Science is a process for structured inquiry; anyone who uses that process is arguably a “scientist.” The sole important difference between a “professional” and a “citizen” scientist is a matter of attachment to an institution, funding source and access to publishing venues. Neither degree nor formal education is a guarantee of “scienciness.” Coming from a character who cannot explain and does not “believe” in a natural process that is far better documented than the conjectured effects of CO2 on climate, the response is remarkably – revoltingly – condescending.
Can I point out to anyone reading Dr Spencer’s original article that it is not me making remarks over there. Someone else has decided to use the name I have been using on blogs for many years and is causing confusion as his views are often completely contrary to mine and he often expresses himself in a much ruder way than I do.
Whilst Willis and I write articles on entirely different subjects nevertheless it is worth pointing out writing an article and expressing it clearly takes an enormous amount of research. With my own articles that can be as much as six months. I am sure that Willis would not claim that ALL his research is original but, like me, sufficiently novel to be able to put over a new perspective on a subject that might be obscure or not very well understood.
What many climate scientists are often guilty of is writing papers that are full of terminology and hard to understand dense prose. Sometimes I have to read a research article two or three times to understand the point they are making.
Willis has a knack of interpreting in every day language the more technical aspects of climate change that perhaps has not been very well expressed by regular scientist.
I consider my self as standing on the shoulders of giants from previous generations such as Hubert Lamb and reinterpreting and adding to their writings with the huge benefit of being able to access information from that vast storehouse of knowledge-the internet. Having said that in my own field I doubt if 1% of the useful material out there is available digitally. Willis is no doubt in a similar position as a lot of stuff resides in obscure places and it often costs money to get at the latest papers.
So Willis is doing a useful job in pointing out things that need examining and as has been noted already, a blog such as this is a useful place to express ideas such as his and get responses. It is NOT a peer reviewed journal.
Willis might like to see if more of his articles could go down that route but it is very time consuming and without grants or other resources is not an easy route to follow.
tonyb (the real one)
“Hansen, the professional scientist”. What a hoot!
Who is more dangerous to science? The citizen-scientist or the scientist-activist?
clouds actually change due to warming…. and warming actually changes due to clouds.
and all of this with a lot of inacurracies, inprecisions, and spatio-temporal averaging!
Chicken or egg?
Barry Sheridan says:
October 10, 2013 at 1:32 am
It is of course feasible that Dr Roy has been leant on by the hierarchy that seek to control the destiny of mankind. Thus his apparent change of position by comparing Willis and those like him to Homer Simpson. Pretty offensive to put it mildly, but clearly calculated.
That possibility crossed my mind also. We have no idea what pressure Dr. Spencer may be under, I’d guess that the powers that be are not too happy at the moment. Better stop the words short right there.
Willis,
We corresponded briefly about expanding investigation into that flat-topped data of SST in the tropics. Since then, you have pulled apart relevant data in much the way I’d hoped to see. It has been enlightening and I thank you for it. Here’s hoping you are able to develop it further. Geoff.
DHR:
At October 9, 2013 at 5:19 pm you ask
Your question was answered in this thread in my post at October 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm. This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1442089
I here add a clarification.
The 305K maximum to sea surface temperature (SST) exists in the tropical warm pool and not elsewhere; for example, the Gulf often has higher SST than 305K and the Indian Ocean sometimes has higher SST than 305K. This is probably an effect of geography and weather which I explain as follows.
Evapouration increases as temperature rises and this creates warm, moist air that rises to high altitude. The evapouration removes heat from the sea surface but this cooling is not sufficient to provide the 305K limit. Hence, R&C proposed that the limiting effect was induced by the warm, moist air rising to create high altitude cirrus clouds which shield the surface from solar radiation by reflecting it. This reduction to solar heating provides the 305K limit to SST.
Initially the R&C effect acts as a proportional controller (i.e. a thermostat) which moderates the thermal input to the sea surface. But it starts to act as a Reversal Effect at higher thermal inputs to the region of maxim SST (I define Reversal Effect in my post in this thread at October 9, 2013 at 3:09 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1442181 )
The amount of generated cirrus increases as the heat input is increased to the region at 305K. So, the area of cirrus increases and the shielding from solar radiation increases. This reduces the thermal input to ocean surface surrounding the region at 305K. Thus, the total area of shielded surface obtains a forced reduction to its average temperature: evapouration pumps heat from the region at 305K while heating of both that region and its surrounding region is reduced.
This Reversal Effect does not initiate if the sea is surrounded by land or is covered by high winds. This is because winds transport the warmed moist air from directly over the region at 305K and, therefore, the cirrus may not form over that region. Cirrus which forms over land shields the land and not the water. And cirrus which forms over water distant from the region of 305K does not inhibit that region from rising above 305K. In both these cases the 305K maximum limit to SST is not imposed. Importantly, in these cases the cirrus acts as a governor which reduces the heating of the Earth (by reflecting solar energy) but does not act as a Reversal Effect. This is because the cirrus does not induce the system to lose heat at an increased rate which is greater than the heat input so temperatures continue to rise – not fall – but temperatures do not rise as much as without the cirrus formation.
This R&C Effect is very different from the proposed Eschenbach Effect which is increased thermal transport from the sea surface to altitude by increased thunder storms.
Richard
Seeing this play out reminds me of what happened between writer Stephen Ambrose (Band of Brothers) and his critics in the academic historian community. Ambrose took facts and wrote a story around them in a way that brought history alive and made it interesting to common everyday folks. He had a real gift and was villified for it by historians.
In a way, Willis is doing the same thing. BUT… even Ambrose knew the actual facts before writing. I see nothing wrong with what Dr. Roy said other than he probably should have said it privately. Conducting research always starts with assessing what’s been done in the past… good or bad. That way the new research can build upon what’s already been done and avoid problems that were found.
The scientist-activist is dangerous to science, as anyone who has a good impression of what science is and what it ought to be can see through the activist prostituting it to his or her own ends. It puts lay people off as impressions of science derive from curiosity, hankering for insight and respect for those who work towards it.
Repelled thus from science, one encounters a self-described antithesis: an amateur, pursuing knowledge for its own sake, driven solely by curiosity and speaking the local dialect.
I hate to defend a man who cannot take a slightest criticism in stride, and insults with impunity anyone who disagrees with him about anything, but… there is no worse attitude than “I am a real official scientist, and you are not, therefore shut up.”
Many scientific breakthroughs have been achieved by “amateurs” and ridiculed by “professional scientists.” Anyone remotely familiar with the history of science knows that by heart. Anyone familiar with the human condition understands also that discoverers and pioneers, “amateurs” and “professionals” alike, can display execrable character flaws.
Three points.
1 – I don’t know about Willis, but I would be quite honoured to be compared to Homer Simpson rather than Hansen. First, because Homer probably knows more science than I do, and second because the child-like wonder with which Homer approaches the world has always been a marker of the best researchers in the business. Newton, Faraday, Feynman; they all used to say that they really didn’t know what was going on….
2 – I don’t think that Dr Spencer has accused Willis of plagiarism, so much as warned everyone that there was a lot of other work in this area which needed considering. The money quotes are these:
The reason I am picking on Willis a little bit here is that his posts sometimes lead to comments like this:
“Geez – if I was one of the hoard of IPCC enthusiastic fools, this would be downright embarrassing. I sure wouldn’t want my mom to know I was so ineffective that some guy named Willis sits in his den and does more and better work than my entire IPCC crowd of hundreds of scientists, economists, psychologists, train engineers, tree surgeons, etc does in 4-5 years.”
C’mon, folks! Do you really think that of the billions of dollars spent on designing, launching, and keeping these satellite instruments going, that no one thought to analyze the data? Really? That’s why hundreds of scientists and engineers collaborated on such projects in the first place!
Note that Dr Spencer is NOT saying that Willis is claiming that ‘all the IPCC are incompetent’. He is saying that some people respond to Willis by smearing ALL climate science. And that can create a difficult working atmosphere for the paid researchers who ARE trying to get it right. Note that he later says:
..Anyway, I applaud Willis, who is a sharp guy, for trying. But now I am asking him (and others): read up on what has been done first, then add to it. Or, show why what was done previously came to the wrong conclusion, or analyzed the data wrong.
This seems a reasonably polite request. I interpret it to be aimed, not solely at Willis, but also at the generality of WUWT, who, he believes, are in danger of thinking that all current climate science is wrong and that WUWT holds the only real truth.
To a large extent, of course, this is originally the fault of some researchers working in the IPCC. It was the ‘team’ who started to use politics to push their agenda, and many WUWT readers are happy to return the compliment. This is, of course, bad for science on both sides. It is an unfortunate necessity nowadays, and I depreciate it.
The third point? Oh, just that a much better author than I has said (I rely on memory):
“A little insolence is good for the Great Arts”…
JJ:
In your post at October 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm you say to Willis
That would make more sense if your writings demonstrated that you had read R&C 1991 and understood it. Clearly, you have not and you do not.
The Eschenbach hypothesis is very different from anything in R&C 1991. And it is very clear that Willis knows and understands the contents of R&C 1991: in my first post in this thread I explained that I know this for certain fact.
And before you redirect your daft assertion at me, I first read R&C 1991 on the day it came out, I still have my copy of Nature magazine in which I first read it, and I have referenced it in peer reviewed publication. Also, since you claim that Appeal to Authority is valid, I retain a copy of the email from Mike McCracken where he commends a summary I provided in the late 1990s of R&C 1991 and the series of papers which attempted to dispute that paper.
Your posts in this thread amount to misleading character assassination of Willis Eschenbach provided from behind a cowardly shield of anonymity. Whatever motivation you have for this behaviour, it is despicable.
Importantly, those – including me – who respect both Roy Spencer and Willis Eschenbach hope their disagreement can soon be resolved. Your series post in this thread inhibit that.
Richard
I stopped reading Willis’ posts a while back when it was apparent that his pursuit of climate science gold nuggets, while commendable for being dogged, lacked the substance and overall accuracy one sees in truly scientific papers. Too often have I seen Willis come back to a blog entry and correct a major underpinning of his original thoughts. If you wish to maintain credibility, that is something that cannot be done even once, let alone several times a year.
What Roy Spencer wrote was not derogatory toward Willis, but an acknowledgement that the casual layperson (such as Willis and myself) does not have the overall academic expertise and access that would allow for new ground to be covered in a paper. That is all that he is saying, and anything else that is being read into his statements is an attempt to push blame for being honest onto the messenger.
Dear Willis,
We all want a pat on the back from people we respect. I can see why you feel you got a slap on the face this time. When I read Dr, Spencers article i hoped you would not take it too personal as it was clearly not the feedback you hoped for. I’m not competent to judge between you but let it be clear nothing of the critique of your science has any bearing on how I regard you as person, writer or (amateur) scientist.
I still apreciate your article and admire how you with appearant ease retrieved data, analysed and presented your findings.
I still also apreciate Dr. Spencer who takes the time and trouble to educate the Public on climate physics and what he sees as errors in the mainstream Climate reserarch. Far to few scientists have the energy to be volontary educators in this time of publish or perish. Especially in the infectous area of climate science where a taking a public position like Dr. Spencers will cause him real harm.
I’m not asking you to grin and bear it but will remind you that a discussion on the interpretation of details in different articles takes time and energy that is better spent on new science. I for one woudl much prefer to read about that.
Amazing number of responses to this little spat. Both of you are wonderful. Can we all stop and go home now.
The greatest obstacle to progress is the illusion of knowledge
I have had dealings with both Roy and Willis and will not opine on this matter. I like them both.
They will probably make peace in due time and do not need our help or our criticism.
I suggest that his sort of forum (WUWT, Climate Audit, etc.) provides, with some modification, a better model for the peer review process than the formal peer (pal) review practised by the “eminent” scientific journals.
The obvious corruption of these scientific journals, through scientist-activist misbehaviour, is apparent from the ClimateGate emails, the utter screed that had been published on climate science in once-respected journals, and the alarmist nonsense that appears in the IPCC reports, particularly the SPM’s.
I suggest that the peer review process needs to be open to more (reasonably qualified) participants, much more transparent, and thus much less susceptible to corrupting influences.
I suggest that climate science has experienced a “New Dark Age” and is slowly emerging from the abyss, in no small part due to the activities of “citizen scientists”, enabled by the internet, publicly-available satellite data, and also by the exceptionally low standards of the “official“ climate science community, too many of whom produced and lauded the aforementioned screed.
The mainstream media, with a few notable exceptions, also deserve censure for their hysterical promotion of global warming mania, and their lack of competence and objectivity. Based on scientific principles, global warming hysteria was unbelievable when it appeared in the 1980’s, and is even more unbelievable today after about two decades of “lack of warming”, despite ever-increasing atmospheric CO2.
I finally suggest, as I have since 2002, that Earth is entering a natural cooling cycle that may or may not be severe, some energy systems, particularly in Europe, have been crippled by “green energy nonsense” related to global warming mania, and some societies are ill-prepared for imminent global cooling.
At a minimum, “green energy” nonsense should stop now, energy systems should be shored up on an emergency basis, and serious efforts devoted to frost-resistant crops and other such low-cost, high impact mitigative measures. It has also been suggested that the storage of grains should be accelerated – this would seem to be a better alternative than the current practise of converting huge amounts of grain into fuel ethanol.
Regards to all, Allan
Willis has a refreshingly clean and engaging writing style. It is easier to learn from him than it is from some others.
I do not know who penned the following from the IPCC AR5 draft of WGII –
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Funny_talk.JPG
(It’s a jpg because I don’t have a key to unlock the Adobe stuff that IPCC used. It’s parked on my rudimentary web site that is used for passing on quotes).
I have no idea if this IPCC text is meaningful or not. It’s practically incomprehensible.
………………………………
It comes in a section containing astonishing new IPCC discoveries such as –
“Both male and female deaths are recorded after flooding …”
“Tropical cyclones (….) cause high winds, torrential rains, high waves and storm surge…….”
“The mean of the individual-realization mean and variability values are (sic) then calculated across the realizations of that model in each period, yielding model-mean mean and variability values derived from the timeseries of each realization (rather than from the mean of the timeseries).”
“Robust evidence demonstrates that low per capita incomes, economic contraction, and inconsistent state institutions, all of which are sensitive to climate change, are associated with the incidence of civil wars.”
………………………………
Really, what were they smoking?
Willis, please press on.
I dare you to read Chapter 7 from the IPCC AR5 Report that deals with Cloud Feedbacks (and water vapor, lapse rate, aerosols, etc.)
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter07.pdf
You will not come away with a better understanding of what is really going on, just the many vagaries of the assumptions used in climate models to simulate high cloud, low cloud, clouds, mid-latitude clouds, tropical clouds, more clouds, grade-school illustrations, stratiform convective interactions. No data or observations is presented but the cloud feedback is slightly positive, even though they are uncertain of its strength or even sign.
pokerguy says: Willis, you’re just not as important as you obviously think you are.
I have an enormous amount of respect for Willis, I HAD an enormous amount of respect for Dr. Spencer and I have NO respect for Pokerguy….
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 9, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Dodgy Geezer says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:45 am
Willis, it’s important to see both images, (linked by Fedoras). Then apply some positive spin. On the left is a folksy character loved by millions. The other is a tired scientist whose science is increasingly rejected who has to resort to public protest to attract the attention of thousands.
The colonial song “Yankee Doodle” was the rebels’ reaction to the derisive tag applied by the redcoats to what they saw as upstarts who would flee for their lives when facing a well disciplined British line.
You’d do better developing a kinship with Homer Simpson, or Yankee Doodle, or whatever a west coast analog is than obsessing over Roy’s attempt at cute humor.
So much of science as practiced in the “publish or perish” environment is the relentless climbing of ladders leaned up against the wrong wall. And climate science is a perfect illustration of this. Willis is more of an observational thinker and not blinded by the professional requirement that he engage in the everlasting searching for the next rung, without regard for where the ladder is actually stationed. He says in effect, “Hey guys, lets put this ladder over here and compare it to the real world. This is how it looks to me!” Sometimes he is inevitably wrong. But sometimes he may be right. But the crowd that just keeps climbing, rung by rung, up the wrong wall (C02 as the climate governor, ulcers, and tectonics for example) are always wrong.
Now a fellow who keeps wanting to move your ladder is a nuisance to the people climbing it. They have to keep climbing back down and and explaining to him and everyone else why the wall they are leaned against is the right one. Or they can just suggest that no on should pay attention to him because he’s failed to do the proper rung by rung exercises. That’s the easy way out and saves you the trouble of fundamental analysis or communication. And you could also loudly compare the ladder mover to the world’s most famous no nothing doofus. That would surely convince the world of the high regard you had for that “sharp” fellow and amateur ladder movers in general. /sarc
But more to the point. Spencer has made very specific criticisms of Willis’s work which appear to be flat out wrong. He needs to make his case or retract and apologize. It appears to the casual observer that he’s guilty of exactly the thing he accused Willis of. And what’s with that cartoon and the Hansen picture? It makes no sense. What is his point with that? Does he just detest everyone?
Isn’t it amazing how rapidly social mores are changing? How we are reverting, in our new virtual environment, to a truly egalitarian forum in which a functioning and natural meritocracy is arising? WUWT has to be one of the most important of many worthy examples of this process of change online. A process that is seeing the legacy establishment lose control of the narrative.
And that’s the nub of it, that’s what drives men (and women) on the inside of the bubble so crazy – apoplectic even. They, in their ivory towers above the line, cannot perceive that nobodies like me could possibly possess or even develop the ability to sift out the dross. To nurture discernment. Sure, I’ve stepped on many metaphorical mines in my search for truth. But every cognitive injury I have sustained has only strengthened my resolve to henceforth be more disciplined and focused in my studies. And surely that is the essence of learning. What’s more, it sure as hell develops the capacity for self-criticism. And it makes one increasingly anti-fragile, to boot (bring on the Black Swan!)…
Through this blog Anthony Watts is facilitating that process for many lurkers like me. And Willis Eschenbach and others here are creating a disciplined environment for challenging the received wisdom on a wide range of issues. Of course there are many good-hearted, hard-working men like Roy Spencer on the inside of the bubble, but their apparent monopoly on truth is being severely and swiftly eroded – ultimately to the benefit of all of us who inhabit the worlds outside of academic nerdsville.
But my appreciation of the Eschenbachs of this world does not make me a Willis groupie or ‘fanboy’. I know for sure that he and I would disagree vehemently on many important matters. It’s his intellectual discipline and irrepressible, almost childlike, inquiring mind that I respect and value. He’s earned my respect.
So sorry my dear Drs, PhDs, etc., but there are many men of my ilk and era who do not give a canine testicular appendage for the fancy abbreviations before or after your names. In my experience, they are quite frankly meaningless in the quest for wisdom. Often they in fact denote an arrogance and pride that stand in the way of wisdom. Fortunately there are many men and women of note – both with and without ‘credentials’ – that possess a humility and humanity that engenders respect in folk like me (I don’t feel I’m being treated like the idiot I quite probably am – ‘he is no friend that guides not, but ridicules, when one speaks from ignorance’).
So the argument that one must work within the system to be taken seriously, and if you refuse you’re being narcissistic, is specious in the extreme. What such people mean of course is that one must work within the system to be taken seriously by others in the system. Sure, there may be a place for that. Many are clearly happy with that particular dynamic. But as you might have guessed, I’m not one of them! And I’m not alone. And I’m not being narcissistic (and yes I have painful personal experience of what NPD really involves!). There’s a myriad nobodies ‘out there’ who fly under the system’s radar, learning on the go. Developing wisdom and understanding in the school of hard knocks, otherwise known as life.
We give no automatic deference to assumed or usurped authority. You have to earn our respect, and that is not easy. It means you have to act out of a different relational code. One that is based on seeing your interlocutor as your equal and not your inferior, regardless of his or her ‘credentials’, or lack thereof. Men and women who act in such a fashion are comparable in my eyes to the ‘prophet’ featured in Albert J. Nock’s ‘Isaiah’s Job’ (well worth a read, by the way).
So that’s my take on what’s really going on here behind the scenes. Take it leave it as you see fit…
The idea of thunderstorms as some kind of tropical thermostat precedes even Ramanathan and Collins in1991. I remember a talk by Walter Munk in the mid 70’s where he was discussing thunderstorms as tropical thermostats and the general research question of why is there a limit on tropical ocean surface temperatures. He also talked about the failure of models to appropriately capture mesoscale atmospheric properties, something still true today. Unfortunately I don’t have a reference. My memory is that he was referring to somebody else’s work not his own, but something from that period should exist – even if it’s only in the grey literature.
All this misses the big point which is that trying to investigate the exact mechanism by which thunderstorms operate in the tropics is both very important and appropriate. It’s also different than the general statement that they seem to somehow act in this way. Thunderstorms are nowhere near “settled science”. Kudos to you Willis for tackling this in an interesting and informative way.
Eschenbach, I said it once before and I’ll say it once again:
Less is more…
To W. Eschenbach RE: “I would have had no problem with his accusations if they had been cited and referenced. … The accusation about Ramanathan … he didn’t give one single example of the ignorance and PLAGARISM he accused me of.
“In addition to it being good science to cite the previous work that he claims I either don’t know about OR AM STEALING FROM, it’s downright nasty to ACCUSE OF MAN OF MALFEASANCE without giving one damn example to back up the accusation. How on earth can I defend myself against such vague nastiness?” [EMPHASIS added]
RESPONSE: Dr. Spencer made a consistent pattern of remarks–NONE OF WHICH ACCUSE YOU OF “STEALING” or “MALFEASANCE.” E.G.: “But don’t assume you have anything new unless you first do some searching of the literature on the subject. True, some of the literature is paywalled. Sorry, I didn’t make the rules. And I agree, if research was public-funded, it should also be made publicly available” … “…read up on what has been done first, then add to it…”
Dr. Spencer’s statement indicates suitable research was not done…NOT that such research was done and was being attributed as original (not that it was “stolen” or “plagiarized”). Obviously, one cannot plagiarize what one hasn’t researched (“read up on what has been done first” unmistakably indicates his observation you didn’t consult pre-existing findings, hence, you couldn’t have stolen or plagiarized them as you mis-perceive him of accusing you of having done).
At worst, he’s “accusing” you of INDEPENDENTLY DEVELOPING AN ANALYSIS & REACING FINDINGS OTHERS HAVE DONE PREVIOUSLY and thinking you’ve done something new. Spencer concedes that much of what you may be ignorant about might not be readily accessible to you even if you did look (i.e. that it’s not all your fault).
That sort of thing is very common. At some point or other almost everyone will do something really neat & innovative and later learn some else got there first; pretty much everybody takes it in stride & moves along.
There’s absolutely no need to get defensive about it — esp. to the point of working hard to extract insulting meanings that simply are not there.
You have been informed by an expert in the field that you’re duplicating old work & need to go back & do more research up front to come up with something new.
And there’s no reasonable expectation that he, or anyone else, has it incumbent upon him or them to provide you with the information you either didn’t look for or couldn’t find if you did look. Or to guide you regarding techniques for finding & accessing information. If you want it, you should ask. Politely. Or go look, or look again. Or take some courses…. Foundational research that is common knowledge in the community in which it applies need not be cited.
The fact you are expressing such an expectation as an entitlement, and doing so from a self-proclaimed position of unsupportable defensiveness, indicates other issues…. Publishing this attitude is doing yourself no favors. Perhaps you should consider that, by not pointing out the specific references that ought to have been known, Dr. Spencer did you a favor — identifying these would only highlight [to everybody] the extent to which due-diligence background research is both overdue and not diligent.
richardscourtney says:
Richard, don’t go all Courtney on me :). I respect what you do here immensely, and numerous times you and I have tagged-teamed on some of the usual suspects to good effect. Pay attention to those attempting to divide the house, and do not be led astray.
The Eschenbach hypothesis is very different from anything in R&C 1991.
R&C’s hypothesis depends on increased transport of large quantities of heat from the surface to the higher atmosphere by thunderstorms. R&C’s cirrus cloud effect is driven by the latent heat released by such deep convection, providing the diabatic forcing for the vertical velocity field, and it becomes (in their opinion) a hugely negative feedback in part because the LW forcing that would otherwise constitute a positive feedback greenhouse effect at the surface is exported in that manner. In an important way, R&C’s thermostat subsumes Willis’ thermostat. That is Roy’s point, and it is valid.
And it is very clear that Willis knows and understands the contents of R&C 1991: in my first post in this thread I explained that I know this for certain fact.
No. Willis thinks that R&C91 is only about cirrus cloud albedo. Because that is all that is mentioned in the three sentence abstract. Please read Willis’ comments on Roy’s blog page to divine Willis’ understanding.
Importantly, those – including me – who respect both Roy Spencer and Willis Eschenbach hope their disagreement can soon be resolved. Your series post in this thread inhibit that.
Those of us that see value in Willis’ work understand the extent to which his tantrums detract from it, and we certainly see the harm in Willis launching on Roy Spencer, who takes more than his share of crap from the warmists of the world and does not deserve it from any of us. Willis has grossly overreacted. Resolution will come from that starting place.
JJ
Thanks, Willis. Before you posted this, I too was puzzled by Dr Spencer’s comments.
For Dr. Spencer to picture James Hansen as a “Professional climate scientist” is an example of sarcasm par excellence.
Just consider the handcuffs.
I would suggest that if Willis wants to be taken seriously as a citizen scientist, he should start behaving like a proper scientist.
He should write up his thoughts into a proper scientific paper with the mathematics, data and processing clearly defined. This should then be presented for peer review at a respectable journal to see if they meet an acceptable intellectual level.
Writing folksy articles, with incorrect maths, which he claims to be of ground breaking quality and refusing to acknowledge criticisms does not cut the mustard as respectable science.
JJ says:
October 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm
You have not read more than the three-sentence abstract of the first. How far did you get with the rest?
JJ, do you really believe the crap that you write, or are you just trying to provoke? On which grounds do you assume that Willis only read an abstract of the first? Does he need to copy the whole scientific article for you to recognise that perhaps he has read it? Or will you then assume that Willis has copied it but didn’t really read it? Gosh…
I haven’t read through all 300 posts, so please forgive if someone has already mentioned this.
In my experience, a “governor” in a mechanical systems sense, prevents a system from exceeding a predetermined maximum. It does not “move the result towards some set-point”. Willis made this reference in another post that I don’t have time to find at the moment (literally about to run out the door for work), equating a governor to a “cruise control” in a car. The two aren’t the same. “Cruise Control” or “Speed Control” DOES “move the result towards some set-point”, but doesn’t prevent the vehicle from exceeding that set point. If I step on the gas, I’ll exceed that set point. A governor will prevent me from exceeding the max allowed speed no matter how much I step on the gas.
RC Saumarez says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:26 am
He should write up his thoughts into a proper scientific paper with the mathematics, data and processing clearly defined.
They are always there. I’ve never seen Willis not providing all the supporting material of whatever he publishes. I cannot say the same of some “respectable” scientists in “respectable” journals. What makes them more “proper”?
Writing folksy articles, with incorrect maths, which he claims to be of ground breaking quality and refusing to acknowledge criticisms does not cut the mustard as respectable science.
I’ve seen nobody critizise his maths so far. He is being accused of not having done his homework regarding previous research, not about anything wrong with his maths. And what the h*ll is “folksy”? Do you mean readable? Can you give an example of a “folksy” expression used by Willis?
Keep up the good work Willis. There is nothing better than the joy of finding things out. Those of Poptech’s ilk don’t understand how things get done in the real world. It’s not about debating on the internet, nor having degrees. It is often someone outside the box of conventionality that sees what those who live on the inside cannot or will not see.
For those criticizing Willis, it appears to me Dr. Roy in essence “called him out” so I think the OK Corral fight is called for. I like to follow the money. Dr. Spencer may have a different view if HE was a citizen scientist like Willis. Makes all the NSA news curious as to effect on many.
Interesting that Dr Spencer gets no more support on his own blog than here. Nor does he provide a reference with a graphic similar to Willis’.
Nylo:
re your post at October 10, 2013 at 7:26 am.
Yes. Thankyou.
I really do wish that people ‘stirring the pot’ were attempting to resolve the Spencer&Eschenbach disagreement which warmunists must be relishing.
Science is about seeking the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ and it is not about personal attacks. It is not about the demeaning of people: that is the business of politics.
Richard
Ken said:
“You have been informed by an expert in the field that you’re duplicating old work & need to go back & do more research up front to come up with something new.
And there’s no reasonable expectation that he, or anyone else, has it incumbent upon him or them to provide you with the information you either didn’t look for or couldn’t find if you did look. Or to guide you regarding techniques for finding & accessing information.”
Absolutely true that there is no reasonable expectation, but in kind there is no reasonable expectation that said expert make comments on said issues in the first place.
No reasonable expectation that said expert supply examples and facts, true – unless the expert makes comment on said issues!
Then, having commented but not shown expertize, said expert is shown to be not expert at all, but sham.
Dr. Roy Spencer admits academia limits the public’s access to science in a couple different ways:
”so little information is available in a form that is easily digested by the public. Career scientists like myself have not done enough public outreach to describe what they have done. And when we do such outreach, it is usually too technical to understand.”
”True, some of the literature is paywalled. Sorry, I didn’t make the rules. And I agree, if research was public-funded, it should also be made publicly available.”
But then assumes Willis (and others) hasn’t made an attempt to access the previous work and places a burden upon such science commentators to add something novel or to refute conclusions or data analysis:
”I am asking him (and others): read up on what has been done first, then add to it. Or, show why what was done previously came to the wrong conclusion, or analyzed the data wrong. “
”But don’t assume you have anything new unless you first do some searching of the literature on the subject.”
I respect Dr. Spencer a great deal and I’m trying hard to appreciate his position but I can’t help but wonder if his next post will “pick on” Lord Monckton for calling a shovel a spade instead of A one-person-operated, manually-controlled, foot-powered implement of simple and robust yet adequately efficacious ligno-metallic composition designated primarily though by no means exclusively for utilization on the part of hourly-paid operatives deployed in the agricultural, horticultural, or constructional trades or industries, as the case may be, for purposes of carrying out such excavational tasks or duties as may from time to time be designated by supervisory grades as being necessary, desirable, expedient, apposite, or germane with regard to the ongoing furtherance of the task or objective in hand or, on the other hand, underfoot
Willis presents his “research” more as learning together as we go as opposed to some academia elitist approved incomprehensibly written pronouncement from the ivory tower. He also comments on science in a way that makes it accessible to many, i.e. a commentator; not a scientist.
My very initial thought on reading this post, if Willis duplicated work based on newer CERES data & originally hypothesized by R&C in ’91 based on observations in ’87 was Great!. That is how science, i.e. knowledge, advances.
About 2 milliseconds later, AH HA popped up! Spencer is pissed (because Willis has scooped him or someone close to him) and he knows something that he can not talk about because Honor is at stake, thus the smoke screen.
This have already been discussed in other comments above but the quality of these comments, throughout, have been superb indicating to me that the commitments to the Truth here at WUWT far exceeds the ego’s of the commentator’s. This is 180° opposed to what I see at alarmist sites like SkS.
Poptech says:
October 9, 2013 at 11:27 pm
Sure, whatever you say. Not. Do you think I care that you really don’t care? Get a clue.
Jeff Alberts:
Your post at October 10, 2013 at 7:33 am says
I take your point, and I attempted to avoid the thread being side-tracked onto that point in my above posts which these links jump to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1442181
and with specific reference to the R&C Effect
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1442893
I hope those posts are helpful to your thought.
Richard
A sham and a shame, to be out-truthed by Gavin Schmidt
The EXPERTS have spoken, lo and behold ye mighty ones.
BOOOOOM!
BOOOOOM!
BOOOOOM!
BOOOOOM!
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
Richard Feynman
Wow! What heavy news.
Daryl M says:October 9, 2013 at 11:21 pm
“Let me break it to all the Willis fanboys, outside of Watts up With That and some of his friends in the skeptic community, no one takes him or what he posts here seriously.”
Alarmists don’t take skepticism seriously? Say it ain’t so.
What does “take seriously” mean though?
From my watching this global debate for many years it’s more like alarmist they don’t take anything skeptical, serious or otherwise.
That’s their problem.
Alarmists are so busy being purposefully mendacious they can’t recognize how seriously scurrilous they are.
Your dismissing the whole of their neglect and dishonesty as simply not taking skeptics seriously is just another added layer of the deceit.
It’s no surprise to the many honest contributors here that this Willis thread has piled up over 300 comments.
He’s been a respected, appreciated and admired contributor.
Dr. Roy’s misguided piece that teed up Willis the not surprising mud slinging that followed has not altered that one bit.
Willis towers above the lowly Joe Romm, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann who hide from being held accountable.
If Roy actually believes that the consensus is right why then is he an obstructionist?
@Nylo,
There have been many critics of Eschenbach’s maths, from myself included. These have been from people who have training in the subject who feel that his work lacks statistical, signal processing and mathematical skill.
If you attempt to point this out and dare to suggest that Mr Eschenbach’s conclusions may not be supported by his calculations, you are simply treated to an intellectually arrogant, ill-educated rant that is rather more extreme than the one in this post. Since you haven’t seen anyone critices Willis’ maths just go back a couple of posts. You will see the rational, well thought out responses to proper, serious criticisms made by professional commentators on his work.
Unfortunately Eschenbach’s background is so limited that he cannot even understand the problems with his work when it is presented to him by people with a serious background in the subjects of his posts.
The methodological details in his postings (so that one might want to reproduce his findings) are completely inadequate.
As regards “folksy” try this:
“Figuring that it was about time I did some more scientific shovel-work, I downloaded the full ten-year CERES monthly satellite 1° x 1° radiation dataset (link below). I also got the Reynolds monthly Sea Surface Temperature 1° x 1° dataset, and the GHCN monthly 1° x 1° land dataset …….”
it ends with
“Like I said … lots of surprises. All comment welcome, and please remember, this is a first cut at the data.”
Of course some comments are more welcome than others.
To even scratch the surface of the problem he claims to have cracked, would take an ordinary mortal (i.e.: a first year PhD student) months to begin to understand the problem. But oh no, Willis is such a genius that he can do it in a day!
I’m not surprised that Spencer doesn’t take his opinions very seriously.
We have multiple layers of opposing views between Spencer and WE.. Spencer claims previous work and identifies that work predates WE’s effort. WE disagrees that work is similar. They can’t both be right. Since all the source information for at least one of Spencer’s claim are on the table there is no room for opinion and fanboy response for or against either camp. Since demanding a consensus is not a legitimate position we are all left to form our own conclusion using readily available information and such additional research as desired. For those interested, go do that. For those who wish not to, thank you for your opinion.
I have no opinion on who is most accurate in their claims but I do have an opinion on the dispute itself and that is it is impossible to resolve it to an acceptable agreement of correctness. Both parties believe they have read and understand the facts and one or the other would have to see and admit to their error. I don’t entertain the thought that either party is going to do the exhaustive self analysis to find their own error, if it exists, and neither accepts the opinion of the other at this point. The participants will have to agree only to disagree and that happens all the time. Secondly, I don’t care who is more accurately presenting their ideas. In fact there is legitimate room for error here on both sides and to be wrong about something they are sure of. Without a deep dive into the available information to ferret out those possible errors, the complete truth can’t/won’t be found. And here is my problem with the dispute – it has no relevance to me. What matters is the science and not the personalities and this dispute has nothing to do with the science that generated the dispute. This belongs on Twitter under the tag of #SomebodyIsWrongOnTheInternet.
@ Tucker on Oct 10, 2013 at 4:19 am,
Exactly right, well-said.
I wish Mommy and Daddy would quit fighting!
“.In 1991, Ramanathan and Collins said that the albedos of deep convective clouds in the tropics limited the SST … but as far as I know, they didn’t discuss the idea of thunderstorms as a governing mechanism at all.”
Seems to me thurnderstorms are deep convective clouds Willis. You need a bit more than semantics to make the claim you appear to be trying to make.
JJ says:
October 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm
JJ, I truly don’t know how to answer this bizarre claim. Let me review the bidding:
The R&C 1991 paper hypothesized that in certain extreme conditions a “super-greenhouse effect” arises, and as a result, cirrus clouds form that prevent the sea temperature in the Pacific Warm Pool from going over 30°C.
I, on the other hand, hypothesized that under normal everyday conditions, thunderstorms and other emergent phenomena act in concert to keep the entire planetary surface within a narrow temperature range.
If you (or Dr. Roy) think those are the same hypothesis, I fear you need professional help—it’s beyond my poor abilities to add to or subtract from that kind of ignorance.
w.
PS—And yes, saying that I “never mentioned” that my hypothesis was “originally put forth by R&C” is indeed a false accusation of plagiarism.
Nylo:
At October 10, 2013 at 8:09 am RC Saumarez says to you:
In reality RC Saumarez has been mounting a bombastic and insulting campaign against Willis Eschenbach. Over four recent WUWT threads he has made assertions which he has failed to substantiate and Willis – not surprisingly – has refuted the campaign in less robust terms than RC Saumarez has directed at him.
This is a recent example of Willis’ response to his so-called “criticisms”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/06/evidence-that-clouds-actively-regulate-the-temperature/#comment-1440695
This is an example of what RC Saumarez calls “rational, well thought out responses to proper, serious criticisms made by professional commentators” (i.e. himself) in reply to that response from Willis
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/06/evidence-that-clouds-actively-regulate-the-temperature/#comment-1441541
I suggest you read the links I have provided then judge for yourself the degree of credibility which should be afforded to any comment on the subject of this thread provided by RC Saumarez.
Richard
Justin case it was not posted yet in the 300+ above.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/willisgate-take-2/
Roger Sowell says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:25 am
@ Tucker on Oct 10, 2013 at 4:19 am,
Exactly right, well-said.
IMO Tucker’s explanation for his no longer reading Willis is woefully insignificant and embellishes Willis’ occasional correcting himself into meaning what it does not.
Tucker and Roger may feel it represents a lack of credibility but their feelings are not a valid measure of Willis’ writing substance or his credibility.
RC Saumarez says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:26 am
I would suggest that if Willis wants to be taken seriously as a citizen scientist, he should start behaving like a proper scientist.
He should write up his thoughts into a proper scientific paper with the mathematics, data and processing clearly defined. This should then be presented for peer review at a respectable journal to see if they meet an acceptable intellectual level.
Writing folksy articles, with incorrect maths, which he claims to be of ground breaking quality and refusing to acknowledge criticisms does not cut the mustard as respectable science.
And I’d respectfully suggest it appears someone’s nose is out of joint here.
Willis makes no claims of ‘ground breaking quality’ … he is simply the guy yelling “Hey, look at what I have spotted! … Waddya reckon??!”
To many of us,it’s all fascinating stuff. If it has been done before, well and good. I’m sure Willis won’t weep for a second, rather he’d chew on it for a while, see if any interesting bits pop out, and if not, go onto the next thing.
If his maths is wrong, well and good too. Point out the problems, and someone will run the numbers again for sure. That is the beauty of human nature, we love to prove the other guy wrong! 😉
Folksy? = very readable.
If you don’t like it, rebut the work itself, not the fact he is doing it. That, or ignore it.
So where are you really coming from? Ban all citizen scientists? No-one can pronounce the ‘holy words’ or gaze upon the ‘sacred scriptures’ unless suitably consecrated? Hell, this is starting to sound like a religion. Again.
Poptech says:
October 9, 2013 at 10:43 pm
Goodness, yet another whiny random internet popup hater without the stones to sign his name to his laughable ideas … Let me break it to you gently, Poptech, I’ll use small words so you can follow my thoughts:
Nature magazine takes me seriously, they published my peer reviewed “Communications Arising” regarding climate … and Diversity and Distributions take me seriously, they published my paper on climate not causing extinctions … funny, that.
And my posts here on WUWT attract about a million page views per year … not only that, but given how much people disagree with what I say, the idea that they are “fanboys” is laughable.
And since your claims are so easily falsified … I guess we don’t need to take you seriously.
w.
Bill Hunter:
re your post at October 10, 2013 at 8:46 am.
Willis is NOT “making a claim”. He is refuting an untrue claim.
The R&C and Eschenbach Effects are very different. To say they are the same or similar is a false claim.
Richard
Consider the use of the Homer Simpson carton. From the show.
Homer \noun\ 1) American Bonehead. 2) Pull a Homer – To succeed despite idiocy.
I don’t think he’s accusing Willis of stealing the ideas. More that those ideas were already out there and Willis occasionally “Pulls a Homer” and “succeeds despite idiocy”. Moreover Spencer is upset because nobody listens when he says something but people think it is brilliant when Willis, the American bonehead, says it.
Dr. Spencer could have simply said your work replicates and validates paper xxxxx. Instead he scolds the bone head and his bone head followers for actually believing that there is anything worthwhile about this work. Too bad and I wouldn’t be surprised if the bulk of the review/attack was done by a graduate student on behalf of Dr. Spencer.
Willis, I found your posts informative. I don’t care whether or not they are original.or not. Dr. Spencer’s comments will change my opinion of you or your work one iota. I also find Dr. Spencer’s posts informative.
With that said I hope Dr. Spencer and you would write with more courtesy to about each other.
klee12
Dr. Roy Spencer PHD is aware about not repeating old work. He should have a word with a few folks. 🙂
BOOOOOM!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/duplicate-science-funding-agencies-may-have-awarded-millions-and-possibly-billions-of-dollars-to-scientists-for-duplicate-studies/
Willis, keep up the good work.
Thank you for the link to R&C.
I note here that Dr. Spencer did not respond to my request on the other thread to provide us with some specific information and links. At best, that’s being a poor sport. In my opinion, he ought to apologize to all of us.
JJ says:
October 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm
JJ, I do understand that that is Dr. Roy’s claim. And I’m quite happy to be schooled in this, by Dr. Roy or someone else.
But to establish it, he needs to show two things:
1. That I’ve claimed I’m breaking trail in some specific arena, and
2. That it was actually covered in some specific previous study.
He has done neither. Instead, he has made a false claim that I plagiarized my hypothesis that the climate is ruled by thunderstorms and other emergent phenomena.
But other than that, he hasn’t specified where I’m claiming that my work is original, nor where the claimed previous studies might be.
Look, JJ, the ugly truth is that a lot of my work actually is original. I don’t know if Dr. Roy is talking about that work or some other work.
Let me be perfectly clear. The problem is not with Dr. Roy’s claims. It is that he has not put forward a scrap of evidence to support them. As I said above:
Despite that invitation, which I repeated on another thread where Dr. Roy made a one-line drive-by posting to the same effect, Dr. Roy hasn’t come up with a single specific about what I’m supposed to have said, nor a single citation showing that my specific idea was anticipated by someone else.
w.
Skeptic: Dr. Spencer could have simply said your work replicates and validates paper
Actually, Willis’ work extends the R&C work, and Willis had cited it earlier. Dr Spencer was wrong on both counts.
Willis,
You need to read more than the abstract. There is more in there than cirrus cloud albedo.
Meanwhile, Roy has posted another gentle and kind remonstration to you on his blog. Read the totality of what he is saying. Recognize that he is not attacking you. Realize that he is not accusing you of plagiarism. Understand that he is being nicer and more conciliatory to you than at this point you deserve. Perhaps you will be motivated to respond with uncharacteristic humility and gratitude.
JJ
Willis: Dr. Roy hasn’t come up with a single specific about what I’m supposed to have said, nor a single citation showing that my specific idea was anticipated by someone else.
Exactly so.
Steve Garcia says:
October 10, 2013 at 12:31 am
Well, I’m the guy who filed the very first FOIA request to the UEA folks, an act that was the unwitting genesis of the actions described in the Climategate emails.
So while you are right that Mr. Climategate did a great thing by revealing how the UEA folks and the rest lied, cheated and broke the law in response to my FOIA request and others as well … you’re misunderstanding the causality here. Without Warwick Hughes and me and Steve McIntyre and all the others putting the pressure on Phil Jones and the rest of the un-indicted co-conspirators, there would have been nothing for Mr. Climategate to reveal.
Mr. Climategate was just the reporter, Steve. All he did was let people know how the UEA folks were responding to our FOIA requests, with lies and trickery.
You’re mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. The reporter that broke the story is important, sure … but the participants in the story, the actual actors, are the reason that the story exists to be revealed.
w.
Willis: To start with, they’re not feedbacks, they are emergent phenomena
They are feedbacks, and the whole concept of “emergent phenomena” has problems. You should stick with “feedbacks” and avoid “emergent phenomena”. “Phenomena” are the mental results of physical processes: when phenomena “emerge” it means that we think about the processes differently. That has no particular implication for how the system actually works, but expresses the idea that as we learn more we think differently. “Feedback”, by contrast, denotes a process in the system, not a process in the mentation. You are writing about “feedbacks”.
I don’t know whether Willis is onto something or not. But they say you get flak when you are over the target. Unless someone shows you that it’s already been covered then keep digging. This could be smoke, mirrors and misdirection at work.
Dave says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:10 am
What Dr. Roy said was totally without specifics. All he did was make vague accusations with nothing to back them up.
He didn’t say specifically what he thought I was claiming priority on (other than his farcical allegations about R&C1991), and he didn’t say what prior studies contradicted whatever claim of priority that he thinks I was making.
In other works, it was a baseless, uncited, unreferenced attack, in which among other things he accused me of plagiarism.
If you truly can see nothing wrong with that, Dave, then you desperately need new glasses.
w.
Tucker says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:19 am
Since you read this one, you’ve started out your rant with an obvious lie … sorry, didn’t read any further.
w.
JJ:
In your post addressed to Willis at October 10, 2013 at 9:17 am you say
In that “another gentle and kind remonstration” Roy Spencer writes
I fail to understand how that can be read as anything other than an accusation of plagiarism.
I have posted a refutation of it in the thread beneath that accusation which is at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/willisgate-take-2/
I had hoped the matter would have been resolved by now, and I am saddened that Roy Spencer has chosen to continue it.
Richard
Ric Werme says:
October 10, 2013 at 5:56 am
When a man uses that graphic as an introduction to a piece wherein he accuses me of plagiarism, and makes a number of uncited, unreferenced, and untrue accusations about me … sorry, that’s no longer “cute humor”.
w.
I propose a live discussion on WUWT TV to bring this to a fitting and cordial end.
Anthony???
RC Saumarez says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:26 am
Ah, yes, another comment from the professional carper, RC Saumarez. Folks, if you don’t know him, study his style. He manages to cram more insults and accusations into one paragraph than almost anyone I know … but he never, ever gives us specifics of what he’s accusing me of. Note that there is nothing in his rant that I could possibly answer or reply to … because just like Dr. Roy in his post, RC is just waving his hands and making accusations without any specifics, quotes, or citations.
RC, as I’ve said to you many times before, if you object to something I said, then QUOTE MY WORDS so we can all understand what it is you are raving about. Just claiming that my math is “incorrect” goes nowhere. If you think some of my math is incorrect, then point to the equations and show where it’s incorrect.
w.
Al Gore has called an Earth First/Greenpeace meeting for a cirlcle of jerks smirking.
Ego has its on way with any who do not see the background in the mirror.
May be the side story, story telling distracted the good Dr. Roy.
Willis, I am a supporter of yours. In this exchange, I found myself in the middle between you and Roy but when the dust settled, it’s clear that I agree with you much more than with Roy. See
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/10/roy-spencer-vs-citizen-scientists.html?m=1
This has some similarity to the legal profession here in the UK, split between barristers (providing specialist advice/advocacy services) on the one hand and solicitors (general practitioners working for the public, able to call on the entire pool of specialists as necessary) on the other. Each side generally values the system and the other branch, but spats can sometimes develop between the two – generally regretted (on both sides) after short reflection.
Gentlemen – the world needs and values you both: (a) the professional researchers/experts (of which I am sure Dr Spencer is a renowned member) operating at a scientific level far above the rest of us and (b) the “citizen scientists” such as Willis with the gift of explaining the principles clearly to us lesser mortals (along with his many interesting illustrations/examples) and always ready with some new hypothesis, accepting that it might come crashing down in the course of a single thread.
Now that each party has had his say, might I suggest a brief time-out for reflection?
Matthew R Marler:
In your post at October 10, 2013 at 9:27 am you mistakenly assert
No, they are NOT feedbacks. I have repeatedly explained this in the thread.
A feedback acts on the existing system. An emergent phenomenon adds to – thus changes – the system.
The difference can be shown by analogy.
A room is heated and may have a proportional thermostat. The thermostat has an effect on the system of the heated room; i.e. as the room temperature nears its set-point the thermostat adjusts the heat supplied to the room.
Then an air conditioner (ac) unit is switched on. The heating system still operates and the heat supply to the room stays at maximum but the room temperature falls because the ac extracts heat from the room faster than the heating unit supplies it.
The room temperature has two control systems; i.e. one with and the other without the ac.
In this analogy the ac unit is the analog of an emergent system. At issue is what switches the ac on and off because that determines which system is controlling the room temperature.
Richard
What Roy is trying to point out is what Willis and the rest of the world should have learned in Jr. High – attribution and understand the full set on information. Site and recongnize who originated the information. Dont’ write as if you’re the discoverer if, in fact, your not. And understand the ful set of info. As Roy’s example in his essay pointed out, some people claim clounds in the lower atmospherer cool – ergo – water vapor as clouds don’t warm. Except – when they are in the the upper atmosphere, they warm the atmosphere. Got to be irritating – and time consuming – being asked to comment/correct claims like this. If you can’t carry out these two basic steps, attribution and knowing the subject fully, you’re rude, are undermining the hard work of others, and not too bright and/or dishonets. Willis seems to be weak on attribution. He
Heres’ the thing – it’s common in my experienece for someone with limited knowledge & high egos (graduates with associates degrees from a community colleges, teenagers, tenured professors at universities, bosses, not-bosses, people for other countries, people from this country, i.e. – nearly everyone) to think they know and understand far more than they do. We should strenuously avoid acting that way.
Bill Hunter says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:46 am
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. R&C said that under certain extreme conditions that they called a “super-greenhouse”, cirrus from convective clouds (thunderstorms) limits the sea surface temperature in a very small localized part of the planet, the Pacific Warm Pool.
I said nothing about extreme conditions or super-greenhouses or local areas. I said that thunderstorms, not their cirrus clouds but the actions of the thunderstorms themselves as inter alia natural air conditioners, are a core part of the temperature governing mechanism that regulates the temperature of the whole world.
Those are very different propositions.
w.
All said and done and proved up as firm as the speed of light the fact that CO2 is a plant food and the climate changes notwithstanding if it is man or some other unknow species who are the top of the hill on the planet,,,Still yet the tax and spend of the CO2 fraud crowd will go on and on by this fraud or some other they cook up in the back rooms of the U.N. now and forever.
Intelligence is where you find it and sometimes the most profound come from unlikely sources. For example, years ago it was a production operator with an 8th grade education that came to me and said that the engineers had better soon design a method of electronically determining the quality of the integrated circuits she was inspecting with a microscope because each new generation ‘chip’ had smaller features. Specifically, she said “It will soon be like trying to find missing garbage cans while flying over Los Angles.” That comment directly led to the creation of whole product lines of circuit and board testers. Noteworthy was that none of the PhD (and the many more BS and MS degreed) scientists and engineers on staff saw it coming.
While the odds of the presence of increased intelligence is higher in degreed individuals, there is still a vast range in intelligence as typified by medical doctors. It also seems that ego comes with having ‘toughed out’ a demanding scientific education yet it is ego that can blind even the most competent. As we get older the exposure to the medical profession increases. It has become easy to see the need for a “second opinion” because doctors range from ‘how did that bozo get a degree’ to the truly brilliant. That range of intelligence (and ego) certainly exists in ‘Climate Scientists.
Willis’s work is not only insightful but he has the ability to clearly communicate in a way that gets the attention of the non-scientist which arms them with concise ‘talking points’ to counter the prevailing propaganda. This latter point is the true brilliance of Willis because climate debate has moved into the political arena and that is where the ultimate decisions will be made.
l problems. An early learning is that intelligence is where you find it and sometimes it comes from unlikely sources.
RE: Ken’s comments at 7:02 — Ken, Your comments give a picture of your character. Willis’ complaint really hinges on the utter disregard, nay disrespect, that Dr. Roy displayed in his post. And you pile on, waving your pompoms and cheering wildly, showing your support for the arrogant, ego driven put down that the post really was. I respect smart people. I loath smart people who want to tell me how smart they are and then try to pat me on the head as if I were ten years old. Your ‘I don’t pay attention to what it is, I just want to know who it is’ attitude is reminiscent of every status quo defending, snarky, put down artist that has ever inhabited academe. They aren’t teachers and they don’t care if the students learn. They just want to be enthroned with the aura of settled science glowing from their closed minds as they lord it over those beneath their recognition and beneath their self appointed station. The presumption to know without asking what another has read or understands is the height of hypocrisy. Pretending to be all knowing while knowing nothing at all about another individual (read citizen) is too lay your own ignorance bare. Why the arrogance? Why the snide? Why the supercilious? Why not join the rest of the mortals who slog through this life? We’d welcome your company once you stop sneering.
pbh
Well I have read Spencer’s Take Two and I don’t see that it has added anything new unless you count the CEPEX reference. Still no chapter and verse. Roy complains about doing other peoples’ homework (in comments) but I don’t see where this is done. There is a lot of bluster but little revelation.
“‘It’s called mass continuity…you can’t have rising air in one region without sinking air elsewhere to complete the circulation. “Nature abhors a vacuum”.
Not true. For example, if thunderstorms alone are not sufficient to stop an area-wide temperature rise, a new emergent phenomenon arises. The thunderstorms will self-assemble into “squall lines”. These are long lines of massed thunderstorms, with long canyons of rising air between them. In part this happens because it allows for a more dense packing of thunderstorms, due to increased circulation efficiency. So your claim above, that an increase of clouds in one area means a decrease in another area, is strongly falsified by the emergence of squall lines.”
The rule that for every place you have rising air someplace else you have falling air is hardly falsified by the existence of squall lines Willis. In fact the squalls being in a line provides evidence of what Roy states to be true. Thunderstorms would expand chaotically if there were no such rule. I suspect that when air starts rising everywhere then we will have a real problem.
Seriously though, I don’t see Roy taking swipes at your underlying hypothesis other than noting that the CEPEX experiment arose out of the Ramanathan and Collins paper and that the issue is more complex and has been on the climate radar for a considerable period of time.
But that appears to be the case with every hypothesis so far advanced purporting to have answers about our climate system so you should not take that personally either. Once we get past that then we can build climate models that actually predicts stuff.
In the meantime its probably more useful to note that a lot of alternatives have been overllooked in the rush to certainty so your article is in fact useful and I would take Roy’s comments in a positive way as it would become more useful to include as much on the topic as possible. I think Roy was understanding about your lack of education (studying history so as to not relive it) and your lack of access to existing science on the topic. . . .both major issues and obstacles for me also.
OssQss says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:59 am
The part I loved in Dr. Roy’s latest rant is this one:
Gosh … I’ve never published one single thing that Dr. Roy and professional climate scientists didn’t already know?
Really? Not anything?
My entire corpus of work, including the parts that were published by Nature magazine and other scientific journals, was completely and entirely derivative and already known to Dr. Roy? That’s his claim, that I’ve never done any original work at all?
I give up. When a man backs himself into a corner with fingers-in-the-ears stuff like that, it means he’s lost the plot and is desperately inventing things.
I do note that other than repeating his ridiculous claim that R&C1991 is the same as the ideas I’ve advanced about emergent phenomena regulating the temperature, Dr. Roy has not pointed out one single example of what he is accusing me of. He has not pointed to one of the ideas I’ve put forwards and shown where it was already published and known.
In short, he’s just slinging more mud at the wall and hoping that some sticks.
I’ve invited him, over and over, to specify what work I’ve done that I thought was new that actually wasn’t new.
Not to wave his hand and just repeat his puerile accusations, but to actually link to my claim(s) and show how they were anticipated in the literature.
He. Has. Not. Provided. One. Single. Example.
Not one.
When he gets around to doing that (if he ever does) I’m more than happy to discuss whatever his ideas might be.
But I can’t discuss vague accusations with no specifics … and that’s all that he’s provided to date.
w.
In Roy Spencer’s rebuttal (posted this morning ) he flatly claims that “…you will find Willis talking about the Thermostat Hypothesis as being ‘his’ theory. For scientists, this would be a major faux pas.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/willisgate-take-2/#comments
Yet, in Feb 2012, Willis said this:
…”Let me be clear that I am by no means the originator of the claim that there is a thermostat regulating the maximum ocean temperature. See among many others the Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment. I am merely looking at the Argo data with this thermostat in mind.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/
I would suggest that Roy is not completely familiar with what Willis has been doing.
The most regrettable thing about this whole affair is the publicizing of fights among skeptics. While everyone may have different views about exactly how much or how little man’s activities or CO2 affect climate, I think there is general agreement that the effect is nugatory, and it does not serve our “cause” (to borrow the alarmists’ term) to disagree in this manner. It gives the AGW crowd a stick to beat skeptics with, and it violates the rules of civility (amongst ourselves, as skeptics – no holds barred with respect to the alarmists, of course) that is one of the things that distinguishes our informed discourse from the claptrap emanating from the AGW crowd.
I would respectfully point out to Dr. Spencer two things: first of all, ordinary laymen can easily see the irrationality of the AGW position if they aren’t themselves blinded by ideology. It is so obvious that it just doesn’t add up. And if you’ve lived long enough (as I think I have, at age 66) you can see simply from your life experience that the AGW meme makes no sense. Second, you don’t have to have a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics to understand the basics of things like a greenhouse effect. What I am saying is that a great deal of citizen science is possible with respect to this issue that does not require advanced degrees in the field, but merely common sense (something altogether lacking in too many academics).
As a history Ph.D., I have read enough of the historical record to see that it provides compelling evidence of past climate change that does not fit the AGW meme. This evidence alone is sufficient to debunk the AGW hypothesis, even without the hard science. I’ve also researched extensively into radical and revolutionary ideologies, which gives me some perspective on how the AGW crowd thinks (and which, incidentally, shows an amazingly close parallel between the tactics of Hitler in Germany in 1933 and our own der Fuehrer today – and of th4e AGW crowd in their efforts to suppress contrary evidence).
Let’s not forget, also, the citizen science that has led to crucial discoveries. The name Milton Humason comes to mind – a high school dropout who revolutionized stellar observation techniques, as an amateur.
Finally, dissing “citizen science” is really only a form of the ad hominem fallacy. One could be a gorilla, and if the gorilla finds the right answer to a scientific question, that answer is still right despite the gorilla’s lack of credentials. (A bit hyperbolic, maybe, but I think it makes the point.) Even if a congenital liar like der Fuehrer says 2+2 = 4, it’s still true.
In his latest tirade against me, Dr. Roy says:
Dr. Roy, what part of “cirrus clouds” are you not understanding? They are the central part of the R&C hypothesis. Here’s the purpose of the CEPEX experiment (emphasis mine)
So the CEPEX experiment was to test the R&C1991 hypothesis, which was that very high and cold cirrus clouds act as a thermostat.
Dr. Roy, if you can’t see the difference between that hypothesis about high cirrus clouds putting a lid on SSTs in the Pacific Warm Pool, and my hypothesis that thunderstorms and other emergent phenomena regulate worldwide temperatures … well, I don’t know what to say.
w.
Tucker says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:19 am
I stopped reading Willis’ posts a while back …
___________________________
In contrast, I always read WIllis’ posts. I like to keep tabs on the fellow and this is a good way to find out if he’s eaten his Wheaties. I see he’s also had banana pancakes this morning…
Willis, please do not get discouraged in your work due to hateful remarks from Dr Spencer. I can see that you may well have pissed off many a scientist for your insightful work.(jealousy is the best word for it imo)
I truly think you have been one of the brightest lights in the climate analysis. I hope I can see more of your creative and original thoughts posted here in the future.
Why should not Willis have spoken about this quietly and privately, whatever the meritsof his complaint?
Dr. Spencer is a friend of honest ethical science, a true skeptic, someone I have had the great pleasure of meeting with in person, and incredibly accomplished. To the extent that skeptics are winning in the public square it is because people Dr. Spencer have held their ground. As brilliant as Willis is, and as important as citizen scientists and journlaists have been in exposing the (many) problems with the climate consensus, this article is too much and not constructive.
richardscourtney: Then an air conditioner (ac) unit is switched on.
The feedback mechanisms in Willis’ thermostat model do not turn on and turn off. The clouds, for example, vary continuously from relatively small coverage to relatively large coverage, and they reflect, correspondingly, less or more incoming radiation. Thus they are feedbacks in the Sun-Earth climate system. The thunderstorms are spiral waves like the spiral waves that arise in many observed and simulated nigh dimensional non-linear dissipative systems, like the rotational eddies in the sea currents and like dust-devils in deserts. They convey energy from the surface and lower troposphere to the upper troposphere: if in addition they result in increased net cloud cover, they are feedbacks.
“Emergent phenomena” arise from processes in the system studied that had not previously been observed, but they are within the system. That’s why they are called “emergent”. A mushroom, to pick another example, emerges from a complex fungal network, but it is within the system; it just was not at first known to be related, so mushrooms were though to be independent entities.
Those who are supporting Spencer in this debate are overlooking the elephant in the room. You can see that elephant in a quotation from Spencer that Willis provides above:
“So, examining how clouds and temperatures vary together locally (as Willis has done) really doesn’t tell you anything about feedbacks. Feedbacks only make sense over entire atmospheric circulation systems, which are ill-defined (except in the global average).”
Is it not plain as the nose on your face that Spencer is protecting his paradigm. Spencer’s claim is not about Willis’ work or Ramanathan’s work or a comparison of the two. Rather, Spencer is dismissing (‘dismissing’ is the right word) all work that creates physical, testable hypotheses about how temperatures and clouds vary together locally. Empirical science that creates physical hypotheses about local phenomena does not belong to Spencer’s paradigm. What is Spencer’s paradigm?
Read the second sentence in the quotation. According to Spencer, cloud feedback cannot be studied locally but must be studied over entire atmospheric circulation systems defined in global averages. What does that mean? It means that Spencer’s vision of the future of studies on feedbacks consists of time-series analysis on global averages; that is, it means that the status quo in mainstream climate science will always be the status quo.
Time-series analysis and computer models are wonderful analytical tools. They are used extensively in business. However, neither of them (nor both of them together) can substitute for genuine scientific theory. Neither provide predictions; that is, neither provides predictions that meet the standards for scientific predictions.
Spencer should stop playing games and explain why he is unwilling to countenance a theory of cloud feedback that does not depend on global averages that are products of time-series analysis or computer models.
If the study of cloud feedback must use time-series analysis or computer models alone then a pause of 30 or 300 years would not count as evidence against such a study. Neither method specifies some relationship to the data, unlike scientific theory, and some statistical analysis or computer model can be found that is consistent with whatever data.
lurker, passing through laughing says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:26 am
~
____________
Science isn’t performed in secret and applied by decree. Back rooms are for politics. This forum is for science.
I’m going to put this one in the “When the Elephants Dance, get off the dance floor” category.
RC Saumarez: The thing that makes these citizen scientists proper scientists is that they publish their results in mainstream journals, expose themselves to independent criticism and defend there theses with logic.
I occasionally wish that Willis Eschenbach would write up his work for publication and publish it. However, he does good work, and he chooses to publish very little of it. He does expose his work to independent criticism, and he defends his theses with evidence and with logic.
The problem here is that Dr. Spencer posted a diatribe that was wrong on its two main counts.
Willis’ proposals fit well within the mathematical analyses and empirical studies of other high-dimensional non-linear dissipative systems. Right or wrong with respect to the actual climate, his writings make perfect sense in light of other such systems. I dislike some of his language (“thermostat”, “emergent phenomena”), but the ideas of self-organizing systems include processes such as he has hypothesized and investigated. For an example of mathematical analysis and empirical study of other spiral waves, namely ocean eddies, read “Nonlinear Physical Oceanography”, by Henk Dijkstra, pp 245-254, where he includes discussion of the Gulf Stream.
richardscourtney says:
“In 1991, Ramanathan and Collins advanced in Nature their theory of surface temperature regulation by deep moist convection in the tropics. This became known as the “Thermostat Hypothesis”, which led to a field experiment (CEPEX, 1993). Yet, on WUWT, you will find Willis talking about the Thermostat Hypothesis as being ‘his’ theory. For scientists, this would be a major faux pas.”
I fail to understand how that can be read as anything other than an accusation of plagiarism.
That is certainly your failing.
There is no accusation of plagiarism in that statement. It is instead a very kind way of pointing out to Willis that much of what is attributed to him as original is in fact his own exploration of territory that has been well mapped by previous travelers of whom Willis is woefully ignorant. That is the plain reading of the situation, and Dr Spencer has confirmed explicitly that was his intent.
If a PhD is supposed to indicate a certain level of basic competence in a subject, then somehow the system failed in the case of Mann. But then maybe the statistical incompetence he exhibited in perpetrating the Hockey Stick was intentional, not out of ignorance of the discipline. For whatever reason, Mann failed & McIntyre, et al corrected him after publication. The pal review process also failed in allowing the HS travesty to see the light of day in the first place.
IMO competence can be tested, or at least should be, through a rigorous yet fair review process of papers submitted for publication, both from amateurs & professionals. The system worked in the case over a century ago of a Swiss patent clerk’s submission of a physics paper to a journal. In this century, the process has become corrupted by government & academic scientists who support a dubious at best orthodoxy.
Willis, most of your theories are quite original & interesting, being sincere attempt to discover the way nature work by observation & reasonable logic.
Me think this is similar to a “Black Swan” or “Egg of Columbus” effect…
Willis, would you be willing to discuss /debate this with Dr. Spencer on WUWT TV?
I have proposed the same to Dr. Spencer also.
It would be an opportunity to clear the air and clarify that of which can be far too easily misinterpreted in text.
All being subject to project support from Anthony in the end.
I think it would be much healthier than what we have at hand.
A cordial end to any disagreement is one with less chance of resentment.
Just my take folks!
I’m impressed that according to Dr. Spencer it is a well worn path that Willis is following. If this is such an old chestnut, why is it nowhere to be found in climate models or in the voluminous waste of paper that 5 iterations of the same theme by IPCC’s 5000 climate scientists? Something missing from Spencer’s prose is how he stands on the thermostat hypothesis? If he disagreed with the idea, no matter who he thinks came up with it, why didn’t he say so. No Spencer has been blown away with this simple, compelling idea or he would have cheerfully shown us how it was all wrong. I’m not a climate scientist (I am a geologist who did study paleoclimate almost 60 years ago and an engineer) but surely climate science starts with the idea that we have an unbroken chain of life extending back a billion years that in itself is near invincible proof that the climate system has negative feedbacks of enough effect to keep the planet within ~8C of variation or so throughout most of its history. There has to be a thermostat!!
I put this comment together a few hours age and the thread is moving quite rapidly. I’m posting now and follow up on previous comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ken says:
October 9, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Ken says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:02 am
=========================
Ken,
You seem to have much interest in this issue between Willis and Roy. Do you simply surf the net looking to try to be the arbitrating judge or do you have a vested interest here?
You wrote : “…. If one wants to get in the game they need to get on the right playing field & play by the rules….” —- You are clearly an advocate of the claim to “academic authority” by your own words in your first post on this thread. I responded in a comment.
You wrote : “It remains incumbent on the outsider to work with the established system.” — Same response as above.
You wrote : “Why did WUWT even permit this essay?” — Your sandbox?
You wrote : “It’s time to stop whining & grow up.“ — You wrote this. Can you digest it?
You seem like a smart kid (sophomore perhaps), so you get a “B” for trying. Now go back and come up with something worthwhile. Meantime, I’m really too busy to help you more as much as I’d like to.
P.S. With regards to the fanboy snipes on this thread, I’m just not one of yours.
P.S.S. Ken I welcome your contribution to this thread (unlike your questioning Anthony for allowing Willis’ reply). As you mature you will understand.
P.S.S. Are you walking the plank in your academic studies? Sucking-up is no longer cool.
—————-
Willis, you are receiving much flack so you must be over the target. Some clearly don’t want YOU there. Full speed ahead, there is an army of ‘ones’ supporting you all the way. Your mission, should you choose to continue, may well deliver the final blow to the sinking ship CAGW. Why the hell did I write “should you choose to continue”, you will not back off from the two fingered tea sipping wannabes, I retract that statement. Carry on.
Roger Sowell says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:25 am
@ Tucker on Oct 10, 2013 at 4:19 am,
Exactly right, well-said.
Guys, how is this anything but a disguised appeal to authority? You basically said “Spencer is a professional scientist, therefore he understands things better than nonprofessional scientists.” Besides from being logically inept, Spencer made specific criticisms—some of which could be fairly characterized as accusations—both personal (Willis allegedly did not know about R&C ’91) and scientific in nature. Given that a few of them appear to be false, instead of merely citing to Spencer’s status, or noting that Willis has been wrong on occasion about other subjects, can you respond to Willis’ rebuttal on this subject with examples of why he is wrong? This is not a rhetorical question. My specialty lays somewhat far afield from climate science, so I use sites like this one, including the many invaluable comments left by readers, to better inform myself. Merely telling us that Willis is wrong and Spencer is right because Real Scientist is logically laughable and does a disservice to the community. Of course, you are under no obligation to explain the facts of life to me or others, especially as you note that you are not an expert, but I don’t think asking for some sort of minimal intellectual exertion in composing a critical comment is all that unreasonable. Willis might very well be wrong, as he notes, but I’d like to know why.
This article is very strange approach if the desire was an amicable resolution with Dr. Spencer.
Willis Eschenbach……
A fellow climate change skeptic who has an Ego bigger than Michael Mann.
For some reason..Watts grants him special status. Friendship? Financial support? Really interested in his “Heroic Life Story?”
The greatest Skeptic site..A site that explains the questions of settled science and leads the scientific curious to examine the science. .. Is not skeptical of Willis. It posts his travel monologue.
It’s so stupid.
Bless you Spencer. It’s hard enough to be a honest broker .
Dear Willis,
I think it is great what you are doing.
Even in his response Roy takes a broad sweep without necessarily responding in detail. It is unfortunate but I think his rep suffers as a result.
Cheers
Ben
This argument is silly – let’s please stop it. Willis and Dr. Spencer, bury your respective hatchets and get together and dispassionately discuss the issues you talk about and disagree over.
Willis Eschenbach says: October 10, 2013 at 9:26 am
I now dub thee MR. FOIA (as an appreciative smile spreads across my face)!!! A presidential medal of freedom would be in order.
As to your antagonists: “illigitimi non carborundum est”.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:37 am
Tucker says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:19 am
I stopped reading Willis’ posts a while back …
Since you read this one, you’ve started out your rant with an obvious lie … sorry, didn’t read any further.
w.
Willis,
You act like a child with posts like this. And for the record, I didn’t read your rant, I went straight to comments. So again, you are letting your emotions run ahead of your intellect. I’ve learned to ignore what I consider to be blog posts that are meant mainly to make the author more important. That’s what this whole charade is all about. To make you feel loved after someone of greater importance gave you a dose of reality. You simply can’t accept that your work has less impact than you had hoped. Again, I commend your efforts, but they miss the mark more often than not. This you should know because I said it previously in your other blogs that had too many errors in it. No need to respond. You’ve already shown how mean-spirited you can be.
I am not sure what all this means but I don’t think it is good.
JJ:
re your post addressed to me at October 10, 2013 at 10:52 am.
NO, it is NOT my “failing”: it is your obfuscation. The accusation by Roy Spencer can only be understood as plagiarism which is either deliberate or inadvertent. But the R&C Effect and the proposed Eschenbach Effect are very different so the accusation cannot have any foundation.
I refer you to my conversation with Roy Spencer on his blog. He could only arm-wave in response to my repeated requests for citations which would show he was refuting a different point – which Willis actually claims – from the work of R&C. This link goes to the start of that conversation
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/willisgate-take-2/#comment-89244
I also I refer you to Willis Eschenbach’s post on the same quotation in this thread at October 10, 2013 at 10:20 am.
This link jumps to it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443291
Richard
You’re both acting like children. Like I said, cut the crap and sit down and talk it over. Neither of you has anything to lose by doing that.
More from Dr. Roy…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/willisgate-take-2/
I’m not gonna take sides in this.
Burt rather a lot to lose if you don’t do that.
Alen,
No back rooms needed. Just some manners and more reasonably sized egos.
Willis is conflating this completely out of proportion and seems to act as if he is seeking to inflate his own self importantce. I like his writing and hiw out-of-the-box thinking. I don’t care for the ego driven high maintenance behavior from anyone.
@ Blue Sky – completely agree! I have stopped reading WUWT blog after Willis Eschenbach posted a series of novels that were unrelated to the topic of the blog. At my remark questioning this literature exercise Mr. Watts commented that it is what it is and if I don’t like it I can leave the blog. And that’s what I did. Returned back after the IPCC Report just to check what’s up and discovered (not a surprise!) that quite a few people are fed up with WE “science”… It took though a “heavy weight” to finally point out obvious – low quality science. Nothing yet in regard to the “stories”…
Blue Sky, you ask what is the reason for WE special status at WUWT. It is interesting question. I am afraid that old mafia – Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, and Co – is on the way out and new mafia in on the way in; hence, the special status, literature excursions, and capitalizing words in the discussions. I hope I’m wrong.
@ WE – You write: My entire corpus of work, including the parts that were published by Nature magazine and other scientific journals, was completely and entirely derivative and already known to Dr. Roy? That’s his claim, that I’ve never done any original work at all?
This article in Nature you wrote is just data analysis and no any concept is proposed. Am I wrong? I also thought Nature is a journal, is it a magazine?
Chad,
Yeah, in one sense. In another it’s reassuring. I don’t want skeptics to start worrying about the “cause”; look what it did to the Team. So long as we squabble publicly, it’s easier to believe that when we don’t squabble it’s not a show for company.
I posted on Dr. Spencer’s site this reply to a telling comment by this blog’s esteemed owner:
It is certainly easier for academics to find relevant papers, & to obtain from recent printed journals those paywalled on the Net. Yet it’s not impossible, since public universities do let taxpayers use their facilities.
For older papers, Google Scholar presents an increasingly useful resource. Here for instance is the result of a search for the work of Joanne Simpson & citations of her contributions, to take but one early researcher in the field addressed by Mr. Eschenbach.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Joanne+Simpson&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C38&as_sdtp=
Given the time constraints on citizen scientists, however, maybe the convention of citing in a paper relevant prior work should not apply. I’m also sympathetic to the argument that even if the Eschenbach Effect be not original, then presenting it on a popular blog still has educational value & serves as a basis for discussion & possible elaboration, amendment, confirmation or falsification.
In the “Origin”, citizen scientist Darwin listed all the forebearers he could find for his hypotheses (& added to them as more emerged), but then he was a gentleman of leisure, if however a busy father.
Dr. Spence, maybe a photo of Forrest Mims or another respected amateur scientist to contrast with Dr. Hansen might have served better than Homer Simpson in a sharp fedora. Just sayin’…
For your blog & your own citizen scientific efforts, Mr. AW, thanks.
Haven’t read all the comments yet but enjoying all the public debate. As many above have mentioned, this is an excellent forum for the open discussion of scientific ideas and the fact that it is not controlled by the establishment must really get up their collective noses.
I think Willis has the right to defend himself and – as to the hypothesis – I read it here first as well. I read it at the time and have thought about it since. The response he has produced above explains it further for me actually. I think the hypothesis makes a lot of sense, has a lot of evidence supporting it and fits with the traditional knowledge idea that ‘nature finds a way to balance things out’. Certainly fits with the geological record, in a broader sense, i.e. the planet can look after itself (see George Carlin).
I’ve read Dr. Spencer’s posts on this website also, and thank him for his contributions and for Anthony for making all this possible. But when it comes to the self-regulating through emergent phenomena climate hypothesis, Willis is…. the gov’nor.
@milodonharlani
No, the system didn’t fail in case of M Mann. His PhD certifies his high level of competence in a subject. He used his competence to rig the data and make it look like he discovered something of super urgent importance. Peer review, although in general works well, failed. However, eventually, everything is being corrected – clever, competent, PhD, manipulator is exposed.
Walt The Physicist says:
October 10, 2013 at 12:52 pm
IMO a high level of competence in Mann’s subject should include a basic knowledge of statistical analysis. I tend to agree with you that he knew what he was doing in violating elementary statistical practice, just as he clearly knew he was trickily hiding the decline behind a mass of spaghetti in creating his bogus graph. However it’s also possible IMO that Mann really is that statistically incompetent.
In any case, we’re in agreement that peer review failed & Climategate shows why, if ever there were any doubt.
In response to your prior comment, I’m glad you returned to this blog. I was surprised when Willis attacked my mention of NASA scientists’ speculation about the remote possibility of strange life on Titan as unscientific, even though there were actual physical observations supporting the hypothesis. I found it ironic that he asserted that this is a science blog, with no place for such speculation, yet published his life story here. However, IMO the blog belongs to its owner & he is free to permit whatever material he wants. I find value in the blog & in Willis’ own hypotheses, so have remained a fairly regular reader & commenter.
@Mark Bofill –
I agree that disagreement is healthy – it’s the essence of skepticism and science. What I am objecting to is the manner in which it shows itself here, in this tiff between Willis and Dr. Spencer. I think that is unhealthy and gives alarmists grist for their mill – it lets them say, “See, they’re all a bunch of children who can’t have an orderly discussion on controversial issues.” Whereas, if we go about our disagreements in a civil and professionally courteous manner, without name calling, that is a strength we can use to compare ourselves favorably with the irrationality and chaotic mental processes (I wouldn’t say “thinking”) of the alarmists.
Hope this clarifies matters.
I am in support of Willis. Perhaps some of his explanations and data analysis may have been considered and presented before. However, even if they have been, they have NOT been circulated to a wide audience. Anything that doesn’t fit with the CAGW narrative is generally buried, never to see the light of day. So, for the vast majority of us, what Willis does is new and very important to the “citizen scientist” community.
Richard,
The accusation by Roy Spencer can only be understood as plagiarism which is either deliberate or inadvertent.
There is no accusation of plagiarism by Roy Spencer. There is a statement that is easily understood to be an admonition for Willis to learn more about the field that he is publically commenting on, to include subjects that have been thoroughly investigated long before they captured his attention.
I refer you to my conversation with Roy Spencer on his blog.
You mean the one where he says to you:
“It is you who suggested plagarism…I suggested he probably just thought it up on his own as an original thinker. So don’t put words in my mouth.”
That’s the conversation you’re talking about?
There is no accusation of plagiarism. Nor is there any plagiarism. There could not be. One cannot be said to have plagiarized that which he has not read.
@Mark Bofill again –
I would add further that while it certainly isn’t a “cause” in the sense that it is for the alarmists, I do believe we all have a common objective of putting a stop to the AGW nonsense.
JJ:
You conclude your nonsense to me at October 10, 2013 at 1:09 pm by repeating your daft assertion
Willis had read R&C 1991. I refuted that stupid allegation when you first made it and Willis refuted it at October 10, 2013 at 8:53 am. This link jumps to that
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443165
Your comments are progressing from bizarre to farcical.
Richard
Tucker says:
October 10, 2013 at 12:01 pm
===================
Oh Tucker, Tucker, Tucker. You’re such a childish little tucker. You act like a child with posts like this.
I initially thought that perhaps ken, jj, rs and apparently you were sophomore college. Perhaps I may have been wrong. High school children most likely.
Willis is so over reaching and always thinks he is correct and the rest of us are wrong.
Quick to be critical with those he does not agree with , but very reluctant to accept those that may be critical of him.
Look at the response today, ridiculous. Dr. Spencer was right to point out what he has pointed out.
Willis,and his volcanic study is another study that needs to be taken to task.
I HOPE DR .SPENCER WILL STRIKE AGAIN.
Poptech,
Here are a few facts.
1) WUWT is a blog and not a scientific journal.
2) Willis can write almost whatever he likes on this blog.
3) His articles / theories / hypothesis are hardly ever published in scientific journals.
4) His articles / theories / hypothesis here will not be considered by government policy makers.
5) His articles / theories / hypothesis here will not mean we get taxed more or less.
So I have to ask you, why the excitement? Why is there so much attention being paid to this amateur ‘climate scientist’? This is simply baffling for me. Think hard about what I have just pointed out.
Poptech,
You are using the same argument that many Warmists make: trust those climate scientists with the credentials. If you don’t have the credentials then shut up. Sorry Poptech but I for one will not shut up. These people want to make my energy more expensive. They want to restructure our energy infrastructure. As an amateur I have found many examples of laughable science (I’m sure you seen a few) and failed expert predictions. I WILL NOT REMAIN SILENT. If people don’t like what amateurs say then don’t come here!!!! No one forces anyone to click WUWT and read it. Sheeesh!
Why don’t you strike? Here is your chance, expose him here now.
Not quite. The temperature standstill got out because of blogs kept beating on about it until newspapers like the Daily Mail picked it up allowing the word to reach many more people. (Daily Mail is among the top 3 most read online newspapers on the Net). Other media outlets picked up on it. As a result the IPCC’s press conference was inundated with questions about the standstill which threw them off balance. Bringing down the Climate Change Zombie is a long and difficult process but the blogs are chipping away, bit by bit.
It’s like this so often. Tucker childishly rants against Willis, then after Willis points out his childish behavior, Tucker accuses Willis of being childish. It’s the… I’m rubber, you’re glue defense.
Tucker says:
October 10, 2013 at 12:01 pm
You act like a child with posts like this.
eyesonu says:
October 10, 2013 at 1:19 pm
How cute. The old ad hominem attack.
Jimbo says:
October 10, 2013 at 1:56 pm
New media beyond the control of the MSM priesthood have affected many areas of public policy, not least fighting CACA.
I wonder if the Met Office would have ‘fessed up about the 17-year plateau without a better informed public.
Willis, with folks such as “pop tech” and “Salvatore Del Prete” taking the side against you, how can you lose???
richardscourtney says:
Willis had read R&C 1991. I refuted that stupid allegation when you first made it and Willis refuted it …”
No, he did not.
In addition, Willis’ comments regarding his understanding of RC91 did not stray from the contents of the three sentence abstract.
You have a good head on your shoulders, Richard. Use it.
I’m trying to recall how many thermally-generated thunderstorms have big anvils of cirrus clouds at the top.
To my recollection, I can’t think of many at all.
Here are a few examples of what I see:
Cloud 1
Cloud 2
An exception might be this:
Cloud 3
Still, I don’t normally see cirrus clouds at the top of thunderstorms but then, I don’t live in the tropics—I live in Idaho.
Since Willis’ past write-up dealt with thunderstorms in the tropics, I researched “thunderstorms” thunderstorms in the tropics and found such thunderstorms occasionally produce their anvils of cirrus clouds. And these might be stretched downwind as much as several kilometers.
So somehow the occasional “shade bonnet” of cirrus clouds from a thunderstorm has as much impact as the more considerable action within the thunderstorm itself in redistributing heat, while formation of a cirrus cloud anvil certainly isn’t a given?
It sounds like someone’s stretching these flimsy clouds to the breaking point.
Note—it isn’t cirrus clouds that have given the name “thunderstorm” to the type of clouds Willis is talking about. And since I’m sure Willis has seen more tropical thunderstorms than any of us here, I’m wondering what Dr. Spencer might be looking at.
…I can’t wait to see the new WUWT blog internet ratings
JJ:
re your silly post at October 10, 2013 at 2:08 pm.
I refuse to engage in your childish ‘Yes he did, No he didn’t’ argument.
I again refer you to Willis explicit rebuttal of your assertion and will do see on each occasion you repeat it. His rebuttal is at October 10, 2013 at 8:53 am. This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443165
Richard
RockyRoad says:
October 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm
I’m trying to recall how many thermally-generated thunderstorms have big anvils of cirrus clouds at the top.
To my recollection, I can’t think of many at all.
_____________________________________
Come on out to Oklahoma next spring- anvil tops aplenty.
RockyRoad says:
> I’m trying to recall how many thermally-generated thunderstorms have big anvils of cirrus clouds at the top.
>
> To my recollection, I can’t think of many at all.
Am I the only one to have noticed that a couple of those can be seen right at the top of this page?
Chad Wozniack: ‘…it violates the rules of civility (amongst ourselves, as skeptics – no holds barred with respect to the alarmists, of course)…’
Which is a part of the problem. If your enemies are fair game, eventually the incivility will be turned on your friends when they oppose you.
In a movement headed by a charismatic personality, the greatest potential threat is the emergence of a Wondrous Personage, characterised by a driven ego, a highly polemical style and a tendency to view opposition as treason.
These attributes wouldn’t matter much if the Wondrous Personage remained a lone gunslinger. Problems develop when the Wondrous Personage generates not only a loyal and like-minded following, but also an opposition, and thus are born factionalism and polarisation.
The test of leadership is the resolution of this issue. Ultimately, there can be only one gunslinger in town.
I have read all the comments to this point and I have to say that Willis was right to leap to defend himself, and that he did a good job of it. I am amazed that Dr. Roy Spencer stooped to such low-life, undocumented accuzations. I have lost much respect for that man.
In the long run, The work in question exists in black and white regardless of unsubstantiated opinion or data to the contrary. Perhaps Dr Spencer had a bad day, his words were personal and hurtful but really inconsequential without supporting information.
Now he did cite another work but the relevancy has been challenged. Maybe he confused it with a talk he attended or a paper he reviewed but if true, since I’m sure Dr Spencer is not in the habit of giving spurious links, it suggests he simply did not understand what Willis Eschenbach was claiming.
Again, its moot, the blog post stands on its own, anyone can bring data to refute it if it exists,
Richard,
I refuse to engage in your childish ‘Yes he did, No he didn’t’ argument.
Then you acknowledge that he did not claim to have read more than the abstract of RC91, and you will not make further unsupported assertions to the contrary. Good. That is progress.
I again refer you to Willis explicit rebuttal of your assertion …
I see your rebuttal, and I raise you its content … which does not stray from what is presented in the three-sentence abstract of RC91.
Use your head, Richard.
JJ:
re your post addressed to me at October 10, 2013 at 3:00 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443165
Richard
RockyRoad says:
October 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm
I’m your neighbor in NE Oregon, who does see anvil-shaped thunderheads quite often rising up against the Blue Mountains, but not with the regularity of the tropics.
Here’s a paper on water vapor transport by continental as opposed to marine tropical thunderstorms:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/252117256_The_connection_between_tropical_thunderstorms_upper_tropospheric_water_vapor_and_cirrus_clouds
Its consideration of lightning puts me in mind of Florida. The subtropics may contribute a lot to water & heat transport, too. In co-writing a chapter in the history book “NASA’s Contributions to Aeronautics”, I was struck by the remarkable height achieved by some energetic tropical storms.
I’ve found this exchange:
He should write up his thoughts into a proper scientific paper with the mathematics, data and processing clearly defined.
They are always there. I’ve never seen Willis not providing all the supporting material of whatever he publishes. I cannot say the same of some “respectable” scientists in “respectable” journals. What makes them more “proper”?
Writing folksy articles, with incorrect maths, which he claims to be of ground breaking quality and refusing to acknowledge criticisms does not cut the mustard as respectable science.
———————————————————————————————
OK, to the BOTH of you…have ANY of you actually taken a markedly technical paper and worked through it’s mathematics, equation by equation? That was one assignment, in my graduate Mechanical Heat Transfer/Conduction course. The professor gave everyone (all 8 of us) a choice of papers. I choose one on a “variational method” of solving transient heat conduction. It look clear enough. 7 pages long, about 25 equations and 5 or 6 graphs, starting data (initial conditions) transient response and steady state.
In that era (I’m dated, I’ll admit) you used an “overhead projector” to do your discussion. I came in with 38 overheads. Each FILLED with equations, and derivations. The author of the paper was a MASTER at “normalization” (i.e., putting everything in 0 to 1 ranges, making for easy graphing of results.) He also was extreme clever at using the fact that log(n)(1.0000000X) = X (essentially) and
likewise, when worked in radians, sin(.00000X) = X. Taking my full 45 minutes plus a bit, I PAINFULLY chewed through the paper, EXPANDING all the “simplifications” and showing whence the results. PROBLEM: Assignment was to APPLY IT TO A PROBLEM OF OUR OWN CREATION to complete the 3 week assignment. I did not do that. I didn’t come close. —– I was assigned an “A” by the professor (Thank you Dr. Lu!) He then gave a nice, impromptu speach about the necessary “compactness” of published papers, and that having 1 page be equivalent to 5 to 10 pages of derivation and expansion, was very common…depending on the level of the journal and the nature of the problem.
Now that brings us to the current connundrum. WITH the ABILITY to EXPOSIT COMPLETELY all details going into a “work”….is there an ETHICAL AND MORAL IMPERATIVE TO DO SO? Particularily with public financed work?
In many ways, I think so. So my comment to Willis is: Take advantage of hyperlinks, and provide (as you do “mostly”) all the threads from which you are making your tapestry.
My comment to Dr. Spencer is: “Ditto that…” and remember that I PAID FOR YOUR DATA AND YOUR WORK. Sorry, no sympathy. You get private funding? You can keep private information.
You get MY TAX DOLLARS… you live off a PUBLIC INSTITUTION… you have an OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ALL THE DATA.
If someone else uses YOUR data and extends your work, comes to different conclusions, finds flaws or even genius in your work….that’s the way it is. THE WORLD IS NOT A PERFECT PLACE.
Lubos Motl has given you his support Willis.
Fingers firmly in ears, eh Richard?
Next time you set up to fling that link at me, click it first.
Then read it.
@Jimbo
“These people want to make my energy more expensive. They want to restructure our energy infrastructure.”
sums up your motivation. And your reasoning starts from there.
JJ:
re your silly post addressed to me at October 10, 2013 at 3:54 pm.
I keep providing you with this link because I have read it repeatedly. Now, take your foot out of your mouth and you read it. Here it is again
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443165
Richard
Jimbo said @ October 10, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Jimbo, the reason for all the excitement revolves around originality. Roy claims that Willis was claiming originality for the TS Hypothesis when Willis specifically stated that he did not know whether it was original or not. So far, nobody has come up with a money quote demonstrating that Willis’s TS Hypothesis is not original. So far, I have failed to find anything resembling it in the lit. This leads me to conclude that Willis’s TS Hypothesis is original.
This causes excitement because despite having been published in several journals, Willis is not one of the anointed priests of scientism. I surmise that in thirty years’ time one will read of the Eschenbach Effect, rather than Herr Professor Doctor Doctor Schmidthead’s Hypothesis.
Please read Waliser and Graham, 1993:
http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_thermostat_Waliser1993.pdf
In the big picture of climate study this is really a waste of time to get aLl worked up over. it is good we have Willis and Dr. Spencer who are both trying their best to help solve the climate puzzle. Agree or not, at least they are giving a sincere effort, even though I get frustrated at times with Willis.
richardscourtney says:
I keep providing you with this link because I have read it repeatedly.
Excellent! Then you will have no trouble whatsoever quoting from it the part wherein Willis says “I have read R&C91”.
And you should also find it quite easy to follow up with a quote from that linked text wherein Willis refers to something from R&C91 that is not present in the three-sentence abstract.
Please do so, or kindly admit that I am correct about the content of that “rebuttal”.
JJ:
re your post at October 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm.
The link is a clear and unambiguous rejection of your assertions. Read it. Here it is again
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443165
Richard
A question for the children like Walt The Physicist – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443456
Does you mommy force you to read Willis’ topics? You don’t have the self control to just skip any topic where he is the author?
Anyone out there who doesn’t like what Willis writes, for any reason – you have the choice to not read it.
Willis, you’re doing a great job. Always an interesting read. (and Spencer really blew it here)
Don’t let the bozos get you down.
@ Eschenbach,
Quoting your words (as you demand):
“. . .thunderstorms, not their cirrus clouds but the actions of the thunderstorms themselves as inter alia natural air conditioners, are a core part of the temperature governing mechanism that regulates the temperature of the whole world.” Citation: above comment by Eschenbach at 9:55 am.
This is certainly not original. This fundamental fact was taught to millions of school children, including me, in fourth grade science class, in 1963 in my case. It remains part of the fourth grade curriculum to this day. It has been taught as basic science in elementary schools far earlier than 1963.
That, the claim of originality, is the core of Dr. Spencer’s complaint. The absence of this fundamental scientific fact in the published literature is not surprising. The literature typically contains new findings, or disputes older findings.
The fact that thunderstorms cool the atmosphere is well-known, and has been well-known for thousands of years. Agrarian societies certainly knew this. Ancient mariners certainly knew this.
Not new.
As an admirer of both Dr. Spencer and Mr. Eschenbach, both as people who explain things to me on a level and in terms I understand, I regret their dispute. Further, I don’t understand their dispute.
Apparently R&C was published in 1991. In 2008 Dr. Spencer published his most excellent book, Climate Confusion, and on pages 55-61 he describes “Heat Removed from the Earth’s Surface” in terms of evaporation, latent heat, ascending air currents, condensation, and high level radiation back to space. Is this what R&C described – I really don’t know or have access to their paper. If they instead talk about high level clouds reflecting more incoming sunlight, that’s indeed something quite different. In his book, Dr. Spencer does not reference R&C (in fact he has no references at all – so much for proper attribution – but possibly the whole book is “old hat”). So I’m lost.
I, like many readers at this blog, am concerned with learning. I value Roy Spencer, Willis Eschenback, and so many others. I don’t care about what the perceived level of expertise on the part of my teachers is or is not. Goodness – am I really about to quote Noam Chomsky:
“Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is concern for content. “
Where does your reasoning start? What is your motivation?
I would pay more for energy and concede to having our energy infrastructure restructured if I thought they had a case. They don’t. Show me the case. 16 years of a surface temperature standstill? FAIL. Ice free Arctic in 2013? FAIL. 50 million climate refugees by 2010? FAIL. Cheap alternative energy? FAIL. Do I need to go on? Come back when you have something serious to add to this discussion.
Hey cissy, sorry Sisi The Magnificent,
Here are more AGW FAILURES. Enjoy!
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
Cissy, are you off the grid? If not, then you MUST ACT NOW! Heh, heh. 🙂
Well, I’ve read the arguments from both sides now, and what I see is the underlying contempt that academics have for self-taught people, and as a self-taught person, I find that contemptible. This “leave it to the experts” crap is what got us into this mess in the first place.
It grieves me to say this, Dr Spencer is not, and never will be, a Feynman. He needs to lose this arrogant idea that he cannot learn something from someone he considers lower in the pecking order. Sad.
Maybe this all hints at some sort of ‘climate change’…it’s all relative,like the humidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderstorm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_capillatus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud
Thanks for all of the interesting articles and comments
Michael Cohen said @ October 10, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Thanks for that. Please note though that such a link is more likely to be followed if you also post the abstract. So many links don’t make the point that the poster claims and we are not all on the end of a gigabit internet connection. So:
However, this still leaves several interesting questions dangling:
1. Why did Roy not link to this paper?
2. Why is this paper not referenced in SAR, TAR, or AR4 or did I just fail to find them?
3. Why did Roy’s post include a photograph of a “real” climate scientist whose career has been largely devoted to denial of Earth’s self-regulating mechanisms?
Cissy wants to know about my motivation. You should not have asked because I have been asking the same question about Warmists taking fossil fuel funds and investing in fossil fuel companies. Does it have something to do with getting oil money?
Cissy, you are barking up the wrong tree. I will now be merciful but in future watch your step. 😉
Willis, I think that you are a rare and extremely excellent person of science plus have an uncanny ability to sort out problems by thinking them through then analyzing them using unusual techniques. You also have the ability to teach yourself tough stuff in a hurry. No one is a better writer than you. I have told you this before.
Roy is in the wrong on this one, you know it and he knows it as well, as do most of the posters in WUWT. However, it is apparent that he is not going to apologize because he would have done so by now. It is up to you to put a halt to this acrimony because you are a bigger man with more talent than he. Please call him and the two of you write a finishing post together saying you have compared notes and think that it is best to work together to rebut the falsehoods proffered by Mann & company.
There is a battle to be won and you and Roy feuding is not the right way to fight the battle. You have kicked his butt plumb up between his shoulder blades, enough is enough. Please refocus on the true enemy.
My motivation? Read the quotes from hypocritical environmentalists. Ask yourself how many houses they own? How many children? What is their co2 footprint? Do they have carbon investments? Are they making lots of money off this CAGW SCAM? Once you have answered these questions honestly, and checked the mote in your own eye, then we can talk.
http://www.green-agenda.com/
I keep going back to the issue of the cloud feedback process is one of the most important unanswered questions in climate science.
The net cloudy-sky radiation imbalance is the overall Earth’s net radiation imbalance. The clear-sky radiation balance is more-or-less just random up and downs that balance out to Zero over time.
So Clouds are where it is at.
If we could figure out what how cloud changes actually influence the climate, many other questions would be answered – how warm will the climate finally get, paleoclimate history would become more clear, what did clouds do during the ice ages (climate science actually has them increasing if you can believe that), the faint young sun paradox could be partially answered and we would find a benefit to offset the cost of all those satellites which have been put up to answer the cloud feedback question. So far, we have got nothing solid out of the hundreds of millions spent.
If anything, the data should be more widely available so that someone could do the number crunching in order to answer the question. Maybe some new way of looking at it will answer the question.
Willis’ charts of the CERES satellite data showed that there was a very, very strong negative cloud feedback as temperatures approached 30C. He wasn’t able to finish the calculations because of this side-tracking. It looks like it would have produced some type of non-linear equation which, in itself, would be new I believe.
Roger Sowell said @ October 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm
So crunching the numbers is a complete waste of the taxpayers’ dime?
I don’t think it’s fair to expect Roy to respond to everyone’s pet theories. He has a business to run and he’s probably just venting a little frustration at having to help out so many “citizen scientists” with their pet theories at the expense of his time. Normally he responds fairly, but everyone has his breaking point. Anthony has had the same problem from time to time as well.
I see some trying to pin the elite academic label on him. There is nothing further from the truth in Roy’s case.
Chad,
I take your point. Still, I don’t believe it much matters. We’re not on ‘their side’, so we’re right wing nut Koch brother big oil operative flat earth religious fanatic no good dirty gosh darn deniers regardless of all other considerations, in their eyes.
But thanks for your response.
Don Worley said @ October 10, 2013 at 6:17 pm
That has to be the most inane comment yet on this thread! I am quite sure that Willis did not expect Roy to publish a public comment on his “pet theory”. If you have any evidence that Willis solicited Roy’s comments, then please feel free to correct me.
Git,
The comment was not specific to Willis. There are lots of folks there vying for attention. It’s really quite distracting at times.
Your opinion is well taken. Hope this blog does not become another version of pal review.
Willis. IMO you’ll find a lot of material on squall lines on line, much of it by this scientist & his colleagues:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~houze/
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/MG/houze_publist.html
Houze worked with a 1950s pioneer of “hot tower” thought, the late Dr. Joanne Simpson:
Houze, R. A., Jr., 2003: From hot towers to TRMM: Joanne Simpson and advances in tropical convection. Cloud Systems, Hurricanes, and the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM): A Tribute to Dr. Joanne Simpson, Meteor. Monogr., No. 51, Amer. Meteor. Soc, 37-47.
Mann is not necessarily incompetent, he is ideologically biased and knew exactly what he was doing. Competence and ideology are two different things. Mann’s ego led him to believe he could get away with it.
I tried to explain that whether or not anyone is correct, it is important to make sure the argument is not based on an error somewhere.
The effects he mentions being discussed in his links are complementary to the cloud onset effect Willis is discussing.
The critical point I picked up from your posts, Willis, is the fact that a few minutes of delay between the onset of thunderstorm formation shifts the location at which said formation occurs by around 15 km to the west per minute (~277 meters per second to the east used for near equatorial rotation velocities here) with your proposal being that this difference in location affects the distribution of energy input and dispersal that day, and this then influences the location of thunderstorm formation onset the next day, and so on.
The ONLY paper I’ve seen which uses the term Thermostat in a similar fashion describing a similar effect as you discuss was this one linked in Roy’s thread on his site: http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_thermostat_Waliser1993.pdf
That, btw, I will link again and bold, as I am VERY sure you will want to go over it, Willis.
http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_thermostat_Waliser1993.pdf <~ Willis should look at this.
Steve Oregon says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:01 am
Wow! What heavy news.
Daryl M says:October 9, 2013 at 11:21 pm
“Let me break it to all the Willis fanboys, outside of Watts up With That and some of his friends in the skeptic community, no one takes him or what he posts here seriously.”
Steve, if you look further up, you will see that I did not make the statement that you are erroneously attributing to me. That statement was made by poptech.
Willis,
slow down man!!
” It’s called mass continuity…you can’t have rising air in one region without sinking air elsewhere to complete the circulation. “Nature abhors a vacuum”.
Not true. For example, if thunderstorms alone are not sufficient to stop an area-wide temperature rise, a new emergent phenomenon arises. The thunderstorms will self-assemble into “squall lines”. These are long lines of massed thunderstorms, with long canyons of rising air between them. In part this happens because it allows for a more dense packing of thunderstorms, due to increased circulation efficiency. So your claim above, that an increase of clouds in one area means a decrease in another area, is strongly falsified by the emergence of squall lines.”
How do squall lines disprove the basic physics of necessary circulation??? If air goes up, air somewhere else goes down, PERIOD. Circulation happens!! Your squall limes could not happen if the first one left a vacumn in its path.
In the area where the air is coming back down, will there be clouds Willis?? In our atmosphere does the air convected upwards by the thunderstorms generally come back down within, say, a 50 mile radius or does it generally move much further horizontally before returning to the surface?? I think the buzz word is Hadley Cell??
I would suggest the proper argument to refute Spencer’s statement would be to question whether the AREA of the air movement changes or primarily the SPEED!!! That is, the warming increases the speed of the convection over the same area. As you pointed out earlier, Spencer seems to be confusing the general Cloud Feedback theory with your theory of not only increased albedo, locally around the thunderstorm, but increased convection and evaporation.
@ Max
It is interesting that the Waliser paper appears to have been ignored until Willis independently came up with apparently independent confirmation. Also interesting that Willis has attracted opprobrium for it.
Roger Sowell says in part: ”It has been taught as basic science in elementary schools far earlier than 1963.” Clearly he does not suggest that the “It” here was the complete thesis of the rainstorm-cooling/thermostatting – at least not in the fourth grade (else I am very impressed).
Did his class discuss the 2nd Law, latent heat, convection, phase changing, radiation, density, etc.? Certainly the ancients noticed the correlation of rainfall and cooling. But causality or even the implications? But it is quite silly to suggest modern atmospheric science (relative to the ancients, or even to Roger’s 1963 4th-grade) does not involve at least several orders of magnitude increases in knowledge, with more people contributing than you can count. It is unwise to suppose that most accounts do not involve at least some new ideas.
A personal and very satisfying learning (or teaching) victory is achieved when we examine information, draw a correct conclusion, and then read the same conclusion (not as well described as we now understand it ourselves!) in the text book we were supposed to have already read. In such a case, we are unlikely to ascribe precedence to ourselves. But likely we will correctly “feel” that “I am as smart as the authors and in fact got it ‘before’ they did”. According to reports, this was Feynman’s SOP. It served him well.
The specific instances when we ourselves learn (or teach) something are what is most notable for us. But not unlikely, the notions were embarrassingly nearby, and perhaps well-known, all along.
The road to priority is full of bumps and almost always, at best nebulous. But even if supposedly just a retelling, something new and important may emerge. In engineering and many sciences, “Introductory” texts are ubiquitous and are largely copied (kind of plagiarized if you prefer). “Advanced” texts are newly written (often in a stilted and useless style). “Intermediate” level texts are hen’s-teeth rare, but it is from them that genuine progress in true understanding could be made. Many blog posts constitute, in fact, intermediate level texts. Let’s not discourage participation in them, or underestimate the contribution of citizen-scientists to them.
Poptech says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:31 pm
As I replied above, I grant you of course that Mann is ideologically biased, & financially motivated to boot, as shown by his childish “hide the decline” trick. What I’m not sure about is whether the statistical incompetence on shameful display in the Hockey Stick graph resulted from the same bias & self-interest or ignorance & stupidity.
I’m late to this forum, lots of comments to read.
The posts criticizing Willis and defending Spencer are for the most part breathtakingly condescending of Willis and of amateur science enthusiasts. I’ve avoided threads that get into a Willis vs ad hom. critics like the plague, but the tenor of Spencer’s article and some comments here are completely inappropriate. If Spencer thinks Willis is misleading people here, the place to offer criticisms is within the threads, rebutting specific points – or in a rebuttal article, not an ad hominem article that offers generalized condemnation, however mild and ‘well-intentioned’.
If the only misleading that is going on is a ‘re-invention’ of theories already buried in dry literature, inaccessible to amateur scientists and enthusiasts, then ABSOLUTELY no harm is being done. It is no sin, academic or otherwise, to think things through and write about your ideas, based on your personal and independent processing of data that is freely available. As others have pointed out, moreover, many great scientific discoveries were made by multiple scientists working independently of each other. Eg Newton’s fluxions vs. Leibniz’s calculus. Robert Merton, the great sociologist of science, had a lot to say about this, and I believe was the first to draw scholars’ attention to this phenomenon.
I have been appreciating Richard S. Courtney’s comments – glad he was not away from WUWT for long.
Conversely, Steve Garcia’s comment about the relative uselessness of WUWT and Climate Audit caused massive localized splenetic warming. He says the only thing that has altered the climate conversation was Climategate. I suppose we would all know about it in the absence of WUWT and Climate Audit? (sarc) Because these blogs did nothing at all to bring together a community of interested and largely skeptical thinkers, academic and amateur alike? (further sarc)
As I stated the first few times I dared to post here, after lurking for nearly a year – well before Climategate – WUWT was performing a valuable service, giving interested amateurs a chance to critique scholarly articles, or at the least abstracts and puff pieces. I was blown away by the adeptness of regular bloggers, including Willis — who in those days did not post articles nearly as frequently — in quickly finding gaping holes in the ‘scientific’ arguments of the highly speculative computer-model-driven rubbish and analysis that passes for science in the professional climate science community.
I want to reiterate something I said several times pre-Climategate: WUWT was doing and continues to perform a service that is beyond value. I predicted that it would become historically important, and what impressed me the most about WUWT, Climate Audit and a few other blogs was their opening up the forum of science to everybody who wanted to participate. For the first time in a hundred years, amateur scientists have a role to play – and it is not a trivial role.
Contrary to some of the condescending comments here from sheeple who revere men and women with science PhDs, the loss of respect for climate scientists did not come from a lack of ability to understand the turgid rubbish and jargon they often use to communicate, or the niceties of their ‘science’. No – our respect was lost over their inability to form arguments using basic logic, and their inability to see the logical inconsistencies in the ‘evidence’ and theory.
I am too familiar with the vanity and close-mindedness of some academics whose PhDs and well-funded work and comfy pal-reviewed papers turn them into complacent, arrogant and condescending jerks. These are people, folks, not heroes. In too many cases, they are blinded by their political ideologies, and unlike Willis, have no interest in the truth that they do not even believe exists.
I do not think Spencer falls into this category but am disappointed that he treated Willis like a well-funded academic sparring partner needing to be put down a notch.
Keep the wonderful posts coming, please, Willis.
Thank you, Anthony and dedicated moderators.
I urge Willis to take advantage of the literature search crowd sourced here on WUWT to work his hypothesis into traditional scientific paper format & submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. It should be possible to point out the similarities & differences between his conclusions & those of previous studies published on related topics, thereby highlighting precisely what is indeed original in his conception.
Nothing wrong with being a citizen scientist. Darwin was one such. However it does not absolve you from the need to study the literature to find out what has been done. To take an example:
ThePompousGit says ” It is interesting that the Waliser paper appears to have been ignored until Willis independently came up with apparently independent confirmation.”
The Waliser paper has been cited 118 times since its publication. This means it is regards as significant in its field, and so, far from being obscure, it is something that should be found by a proper literature study. It is can also be found through Google Scholar so excuses that it is “paywalled” would not be valid.
The Pompous Git says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm
This causes excitement because despite having been published in several journals, Willis is not one of the anointed priests of scientism. I surmise that in thirty years’ time one will read of the Eschenbach Effect, rather than Herr Professor Doctor Doctor Schmidthead’s Hypothesis.
——————–
Bingo! It’s the alliteration of “Eschenbach Effect”, which does rather have a ring to it, that probably excited “someone’s” interest in Willis’s work. I hope you are right.
RC Saumarez says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:09 am:
Wow, that is one hell of an inferiority complex you have there, dude. I haven’t seen any “mathematics, signal processing blah blah” out of you worth reading. Write something that is original and/or stimulative and other than an outright incoherent attack on another’s work, and get Anthony to publish it (after all, he publishes the “rubbish” that Willis writes.)* Otherwise you appear like a gnat on the withers of an ass, biting and bothering, but adding nothing to the process.
Likewise, to good old JJ and Poptech, the latter one of the more pitiful cynics I have seen in a while.
Note added at * : That was purely sarcastic, in case some of you brilliant minds missed it.
milodonharlani says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:21 pm (Edit)
I’ve already published it, three years ago, in Energy and Environment. It’s available here.
w.
Cross posted from Dr. Roy’s blog …
Dear Dr. Roy:
Let me start by expressing my surprise and my sadness at your words and graphic. It seems as if I’ve unknowingly done something that has deeply upset you, but I’m not clear what it is. If so, you have my apologies.
Regarding my thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis, back in 2010 I did what you and many other people have advised I do with my ideas. I published my thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It’s available here. Oh, it was published in the journal that alarmists love to hate, Energy & Environment, but to the alarmists’ dismay E&E publishes peer-reviewed science. Heck, Tom Wigley even advised his confidantes in the Climategate emails that E&E is peer-reviewed, quite funny actually.
And among the peer-reviewed papers they’ve published is my hypothesis. Heck, you’re even listed among the references … but not Ramanathan and Collins, because they were looking at an entirely different mechanism.
My paper starts, of course, with an abstract, which opens by stating my hypothesis:
I went on to detail how this happens, primarily through changes in the daily time of onset of the tropical cumulus threshold and thunderstorm threshold. When the earth is cool, those phenomena emerge later in the day or not at all. This allows the full power of the sun to heat the surface. And conversely, when the earth is warm they emerge earlier in the day.
So my hypothesis, as clearly laid out in that paper, is that variations in the daily times of onset of the tropical cumulus and cumulonimbus regimes regulate the tropical surface temperature with scant regard to changes in forcings. And thus eventually this regulates the global surface temperature, through a whole host of cloud-related mechanisms. The hypothesis contains the corollary stated in the abstract, that this keeps the temperature within fairly tight bounds (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the 20th century) without much regard to what the forcings do. Another way to say this is that the thresholds for the formation of cumulus and thunderstorms are temperature-based, not forcing-based.
Note that my hypothesis is radically different from the hypothesis put forwards in Ramanathan and Collins 1991. Their abstract says:
Their hypothesis is about the effect of cirrus clouds on the local maximum sea surface temperature from a “super greenhouse effect” that occurs in and around the Pacific Warm Pool … and my hypothesis isn’t about any of those things. Not one of them. My hypothesis is not about cirrus clouds. Not about a “super greenhouse effect”. Not about maximum sea surface temperatures. And not about the Pacific Warm Pool.
Now, perhaps as you say, someone before me advanced the same hypothesis I’ve put forward, which is that the time of the daily onset of the tropical thunderstorms and cumulus clouds regulates the global temperature with little regard for changes in forcings. But it certainly wasn’t Ramanathan and Collins …
So I still await your identification of the study which put forward that hypothesis prior to my own journal publication. Note that I’ve never said such a study doesn’t exist—to the contrary, here’s what I wrote in my post on the subject:
That’s all I’m asking—if not mine, then whose name should we put on the idea that the time of onset of the tropical cumulus and thunderstorm regimes regulates the global temperature?
Now to your other point, which is whether I give sufficient acknowledgement to prior art and studies. At any point in my life, I only know what I know. I do my best to acknowledge scientists and cite prior work. I think such acknowledgement is important. As I said, I cited your own work in my journal paper on thunderstorms. I acknowledge prior work when it is relevant.
R&C’s hypothesis about a “super greenhouse effect” in the Pacific Warm Pool was and is not relevant to my hypothesis about cumulus and thunderstorm regimes regulating the temperature. So I did not cite or mention it in that context. Instead, in 2012 I said the following:
At that time, no one provided any examples of prior analysis similar to mine … and if they were known, people would certainly have posted them. Lots of folks out there would like nothing better than to prove me wrong, and that’s wonderful. I’m serious. It is precisely that hostile audience, full of folks who love to hate on me, that is the essence of science. If those people can’t punch holes in my claims, if they can’t falsify my claims, I can sleep easy.
On the other hand, when I wrote in 2012 about maximum SSTs in the Pacific Warm Pool, R&C 1991 and the CEPEX experiment were definitely relevant … and so I said:
SOURCE
So yes, Dr. Roy, I definitely do acknowledge prior work as you advocate, like you I think it’s important … but only when it is relevant to my work.
I’m also uninterested in doing anything that someone has done before. I read voraciously, and could do so for another fifty years without being able to read all the studies. But I want to create new looks at things. So I am constantly inventing novel techniques and ideas and putting them in practice.
Now, it’s not unusual for me to later find out that some technique I invented was invented before me by someone else. I actually take a curious pride in finding that out, it means I’m on the right trail. And it’s also not unusual for me to find out that my ideas and methods and techniques and hypotheses are in fact new and novel. I take pride in that as well.
You seem to be interpreting what I say as somehow dissing the work of previous climate scientists. Not in the slightest. However, many of them have been seduced by the simple-but-wrong idea that changes in global temperature are a linear function of changes in forcings. This fundamental misconception has left vast areas of the climate realm relatively unexplored. That’s where I spend my time.
w.
PS—Since you have such distaste for citizen scientists, I’m curious. My hypothesis is published in a scientific journal. If you have objections, why are you making them on the web? Surely a professional scientist would write a letter to the editor of the journal, pointing out the prior work that shows my ideas about time of onset to be derivative.
At least that’s what people always advise me to do …
In any case, Dr. Roy, next time … could you give me a phone call first?
jimmi_the_dalek said @ October 10, 2013 at 8:47 pm
There’s no doubt that it’s an important and certainly interesting paper. However, Google Scholar returns on the search terms “thunderstorm thermostat”:
Waliser does not appear in the first five pages of 977 results. While I would agree that this is not a “proper” literary search, it does have the virtue of not costing a great deal. Does this mean you are volunteering to do literary searches for Willis gratis? I doubt that his family budget stretches to paid lit. searches.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:01 pm
I know. I read it & commented on it in this blog.
But in that version of your hypothesis, you explicitly state that you’re not following standard paper protocol. With the researches here, you could rework that piece & bring it up to date, citing it, & resubmit it to a more widely circulated journal.
PS: My prior comment on your published paper on this topic:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443985
Why people don’t take Willis seriously,
Willis Eschenbach, B.A. Psycology, Sonoma State University (1975); California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage (1974); Commercial Fisherman (1968, 1969, 1971, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1994, 1995); Auto Mechanic, People’s Garage (1969-1970); Cabinet Maker, A.D. Gibson Co. (1972); Office Manager, Honolulu Emergency Labor Pool (1972); Construction Manager, Autogenic Systems Inc. (1973); Assistant Driller, Mirror Mountain Enterprises (1975-1976); Tax Preparer, Beneficial Financial Company (1977); Accountant, Farallones Institute (1977-1978); Peace Corps and USAID (1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1993, 1994); Cabinet Maker, Richard Vacha Cabinets (1986); County Director, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1986-1988); General Manager, Liapari Limited (1989-1992); Regional Health Coordinator, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1994-1995); Project Manager, Eschenbach Construction Company (1995-2003); Construction Manager, Koro Sun Limited (1999); Construction Manager, Taunovo Bay Resort (2003-2006); Accounts/IT Senior Manager, South Pacific Oil (2007-2010)
Poptech, your pettiness is showing…
Wrong, he is concerned with people being misinformed by Willis.
Mr. Eschenbach is the pied-piper of the “dumb like me crowd” who think everyone is intellectually equal, despite obviously education and experience gaps.
His rambling stories attract fanboys who obviously do not understand what Dr. Spencer is saying so they knee-jerk attack him. I have long just ignored most of Willis’s posts but these people are like a virus and spread throughout the skeptic community wasting scientist’s like Dr. Spencer’s time. I highly doubt he is the first or the only one who shares that view of Willis but it needed to be said. So I am saying what they will not say.
Of course these same people who think credentials don’t matter have either never held a job or never applied for one. They conflate credentials with being scientifically right, instead of scientifically competent. They also look for conspiracies when things can be explained by ideologies.
Poptech says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Why people don’t take Willis seriously,
++++++++++++
Your personal and quite offensive immature attack tells us more about you than Willis. Think back to your childhood and grow.
Willis fanboys don’t know how to use Google Scholar? Why am I not surprised.
Why would Google Scholar return a result that does not include one of the words you used in your search query?
So listing a person’s credentials is now considered a personal attack? Is that some form of a joke?
Could Roy be tweaked because, as I have noted before, he wrote a very nice account himself of how the speed of the rain cycle acts as what he called “nature’s thermostat,” with section headings like: “precipitation systems: nature’s air conditioner?” For reasons I never understood Roy took this extended essay down in 2008, only to see Willis go on a tear with the same terminology and the same subject matter starting in 2009, with Willis’ own ever elaborating additions and understandings piling up.
When I saw that Roy had taken his Thermostat essay down I went and found it on the Wayback Machine and posted a copy on my own website. It was/is much to important to be out of the public eye:
http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/SpencerThermostat.htm
I always thought this essay was the best account I had seen of why the feedback effects of the hydrological cycle could well be negative, so that the warming effects of changes in forcing would be dampened rather than multiplied up. Roy said it was his attempt to flesh out Lindzen’s “iris effect,” which is very necessary, since Lindzen’s paper is practically unreadable, being written in energy balance terms that leaves the possible mechanisms poorly explained (at least to my untrained eye). According to Wayback Roy’s essay was first posted in March of 2007, two years before Willis’ Thermostat Hypothesis post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
Just as Willis says that his thermostat hypothesis is entirely different from the mechanism put forward by Ramanathan and Collins in 1991, so too Roy seemed to think that his Willis-like “thermostat” hypothesis was entirely different from R+C 91. At least, there is no mention of R+C in Roy’s essay. He only mentions Lindzen. So it is very strange to see Roy now criticizing Willis for not crediting R+C for an analysis similar to the one that Roy himself did not credit R+C for.
Maybe Roy took his Thermostat essay down because he decided that such a partial analysis would not illuminate feedbacks (his statement that clouds rising in one place means clouds descending in others, so you can’t resolve the effects of the whole by looking in one place). But maybe Willis’ idea of looking at precipitation systems as a governor, not a numeric feedback effect, gets around that objection. Could it be that Roy took his essay down prematurely and is miffed that Willis has grabbed his thunder?
Roy is one of my favorites just as he is one of Willis’ favorites. Hell, Roy is my number one favorite climate scientist, but he is off on a bender criticizing Willis for doing what he once did. And how can Roy write on and on about other researchers having previously written about the rain cycle as a thermostat without mentioning that he himself is one very prominent such person? Roy seems to be pretending that his earlier really super great essay never existed, as if he is ashamed of it or something. Hey Roy: that essay is the number one reason why I consider you the number one climate scientist in the world! Don’t be embarrassed about it, even if it is only a partial analysis, and good for Willis for taking up what Roy dropped, even if he did not know that Roy had ever held it or dropped it.
Poptech writes “They conflate credentials with being scientifically right, instead of scientifically competent.”
+++++++++
Your sentence makes no sense, or you don’t understand the words you’ve written. You suggest that that only a title of a specific degree or credential can be competent in that subject matter. You sound like the kind of person who jumps in when you feel it’s safe, but lack the courage to lead.
Use that argument when you apply for a job you have no credentials in, tell me how it goes. Tell them “I’m smart because I say so”.
Pied-pipers lead people very well, right off cliffs.
Poptech says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Mario Lento says: Your personal and quite offensive immature attack tells us more about you than Willis. Think back to your childhood and grow.
So listing a person’s credentials is now considered a personal attack? Is that some form of a joke?
++++++++++
Poptech, I expected you to not understand. There is nothing about Willis credentials that prevents him from being smarter than you. No reasonable person could take what I wrote to imply that listing Willis’ credentials was the attack. It’s everything in your post except Willis credentials that was offensive. Read that as YOU are offensive.
Mario, sorry if I hurt your “feelings”. Obviously when you reply by quoting a certain post of mine I am REALLY supposed to interpret that to what is only in your mind.
Forest vs. Trees.
The main problem here is that Dr. Spencer… and JJ (whoever the hell he or she is)… and Roger Sowell, and several others… the main problem is that they are looking at, discussing, arguing about, and focused on the trees. Willis is talking about the forest.
The fact that these individuals can’t see the difference between the two (forest vs. trees) simply drives home the difference between education and intelligence.
R&C 1991, and Dr. Spencer, and JJ, etc. are focused on the mechanism of thermal transport via thunderstorms in the tropics. Willis is discussing something more than that. Sure, the same (or rather a similar) mechanism exists in Willis’ work… but the original point that he has proposed is the holistic system that utilizes this mechanism, but does so in an unexpected, and prior to this, undocumented way.
In short, if you all go back and re-read Willis’ articles, he is showing why mainstream climate science is wrong and is showing what they are ignoring in their lousy models. I don’t see anyone in academia doing that.
Everyone understands that thunderstorms cool the local environment (at least anyone that lives around thunderstorms). But it IS a truly original work to take that small isolated fact, and build a nicely woven tapestry that pretty much entirely refutes the primary thrust of of mainstream climate science. He is refuting the entire notion of feedbacks… and is talking about emergent phenomena and governors.
The fact that he uses tropical thunderstorms as an example of these emergent phenomena (and just as one eample) does not constitute a rehashing of R&C-1991. Sheesh people… read with a clear mind, and leave the preconceptions at the door… and it’s easy to see that Willis and R&C-1991 are discussing entirely different things.
JJ, Sowell, Dr. Spencer. You all are wrong. And no… I don’t expect you to recognize that… let alone admit it.
Stop staring at the trees… and step back and look at the forest. It’s quite lovely.
Anton, are you saying Dr. Spencer does not understand Willis’s paper? Seriously?
Poptech says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Mario Lento says: Your sentence makes no sense, or you don’t understand the words you’ve written. You suggest that that only a title of a specific degree or credential can be competent in that subject matter. You sound like the kind of person who jumps in when you feel it’s safe, but lack the courage to lead.
Use that argument when you apply for a job you have no credentials in, tell me how it goes. Tell them “I’m smart because I say so”.
Pied-pipers lead people very well, right off cliffs.
+++++++++++
Poptech, it’s tiring trying to school an adult sized child. I actually use that argument in one of the fields I work in. I say straight off that I have zero welding experience or training and that I am not technically qualified to tell others what a good weld is. Yet, I design welding technology used in spent fuel canister welding and train welders on parameter development to make welds of meticulous quality. I’ve generated welding recipes that are used to make some of the best welds possible on critical applications. I’ve also been invited several times to give presentations to the American Welding Society members to discuss challenges with welding process control.
Poptech, drop the emotional tirades, and realize that you’re out of your league here.
Poptech says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:46 pm
Mario, sorry if I hurt your “feelings”. Obviously when you reply by quoting a certain post of mine I am REALLY supposed to interpret that to what is only in your mind.
+++++++++++
Your emotion tirade continues to lead you astray. I learned a long time ago, that my feelings can only be hurt if they point to some flaw I have no control over. I thrive on criticism when it’s constructive. However, people of your ilk have no power to hurt me.
Willis asks of Roy:
It would seem that the publication he has in mind is his own withdrawn “Nature’s Thermostat” essay, but he can’t say it, because in some fit of doubt withdrew from the public eye one of the best things he has ever written, and now nobody remembers (except for me it seems). No wonder Roy is upset in a degree that seems hard to fathom, as Willis notes:
I think the way to make this better is for WUWT to republish Roy’s 2007 essay in its final form as Roy withdrew it in 2008, so that everyone can see how much of Willis’ thermostat hypothesis had already been put forward by Roy. It’s Roy who is not getting the due credit, but he feels he can’t ask for it and it seems to be eating him up. We need to make Roy whole. It was crazy for him to withdraw something so good that he had put so much work into. He should get credit, as well as noogies for his lack of faith in his own work. And all credit to Willis as well.
Nice hatchet job of a misquote, here is the full quote,
“it’s scientific credibility is not questioned relating to the author’s credentials”
Because it has been peer-reviewed by scientists with credentials.
You need to do better than this. Mario, is this you? http://www.linkedin.com/in/mariolento
If this is you, your argument is ridiculous. It is like saying all Boeing engineers should be expert pilots.
Poptech said @ October 10, 2013 at 10:59 pm
Who would appear to have gotten it wrong 80% of the time. Now why doesn’t that inspire me with confidence in their pronouncements?
Poptech said @ October 10, 2013 at 10:31 pm
Let’s assume that Willis did his due diligence using Google Scholar and performed the search that I did. Let’s further assume that Willis actually checked each of the 977 found documents. Now tell us why he would want to widen the search term until it found Waliser 1993? Can you really not comprehend that Willis does this stuff because it’s fun, not to be original, not to climb the academic ladder, not to upset Roy etc etc…
BTW I am not a Willis fanboi. I do appreciate the learning opportunities Willis presents, but I suspect that often enough I irritate him. But that’s all part and parcel of being a Pompous Git 🙂
Poptech said @ October 10, 2013 at 11:10 pm
That’s a serious misinterpretation of what Mario wrote!
Just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean it is “right”, it means it has passed an additional level of scientific scrutiny. Peer-review is not designed to determine scientific “truth” but to weed out scientifically baseless claims. It like any other system can be abused (gatekeeping) but that does not mean it is not useful as a filter against scientific nonsense.
My argument again, is a citizen-scientist can be taken seriously if they get their work peer-reviewed and published. Relating to Willis, the only scientific arguments of his I do are the ones he has published in peer-reviewed journals.
If he performed the search you did and came to those conclusions, he would need to learn how to do better research. Just because a result does not come up for the key words you choose, does not mean results do not exist using similar but alternate wording. If you are doing scientific research like Willis, it is important to understand the proper scientific terminology for what it is you researching, instead of relying on your invented catch phrases (thunderstorm thermostat) for such a hypothesis.
Poptech said @ October 10, 2013 at 11:38 pm
So why don’t you take seriously this work of Willis’s that has been peer reviewed and published?
Poptech says…
Yes Poptech… that’s exactly what I am saying… seriously. His own words condemn him. He clearly doesn’t understand it. And apparently, neither do you.
And despite comments you have made to the contrary, an advanced degree is a demonstration of nothing other than that person really wanted an advanced degree… and had the time, resources, and drive to obtain one.
I do salute that drive.
And yes… I do have an advanced degree, so my statement is not a sign of degree-envy.
But that said, there is almost no correlation between an advanced degree and a person’s ability to be perceptive or insightful. Some of the stupidest people I have ever met had a PhD… in the hard sciences.
That’s not intended as a knock on those that have a PhD. But PhDs should be judged by their ability, their actions, and their words… not by the degree framed on the wall… just like everyone else.
Poptech said @ October 10, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Given that perusing 977 documents would be considerably more than the average scientist would undertake, you would appear to be expecting rather more of Willis than you do of the average scientist; even though you have no evidence that Willis has sufficient resources to undertake such an enterprise.
All of this talk of credentials is actually quite amusing. These many long years ago, The Git applied for a job teaching computer users. He failed in this “because you do not possess a degree in computer science”. Several years later, he was hired by the same company to do some specialised training (Pagemaker) and the sales manager suggested The Git apply for the position of manager/trainer that had just become vacant. This time round, he was successful “because you have the practical hands-on knowledge and managerial expertise that university graduates lack”. Ya gotta laff 🙂
While I have not read every comment here it clearly does cover a lot of turf, everything from pro to anti Willis and the space in between. Some of this input diverts entirely to gripe about the occasional forays provided by Willis that throw light on his past and recent safari’s, off topic but interesting enough, and anyway if there is no interest in these ramblings no one compels the reading.
The outcome of this healthy exchange of views is what debate is all about, what science should be about, argument to get at the truth, or as well as we can at any one time. Nonetheless it is shame that Dr Roy joined in the chorus, led by qualified scientists, that aim slurs at the ordinary who try to understand what is going on and, if they are not convinced, will say so. Science is not meant to be a tool of propagandists, its purpose is to employ the best of our intellectual capacities to further our understanding in whatever field of endeavour we seek to know.
Alas today, especially in the sciences related to human impact on the world, these honourable aims have been subverted. It is profoundly disappointing.
Not so. “Phenomena” are not mental results of physical processes, phenomena are physical events – before all judgment. Mental results of physical processes are called concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon#Scientific_phenomena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon#Modern_philosophical_usage
What I like about Willis’ approach is that he always stays close to the phenomena, to what can actually be observed, measured and described.
We got in this mess because way too many climate scientists – and politicians, activists and journalists – are discussing their mental representations of the phenomena, not the phenomena itself.
This is also true for this discussion. Dr. Roy Spencer’s mental representation of what Willis is doing seems to be wrong. He thinks Willis is just replicating deep moisture feedback observations. He does not look at the phenomenon that Willis might have identified a possible governor mechanism for global temperature control.
Further to my comment of October 10, 2013 at 6:21 am, and in light of subsequent comments, I’d just like to emphasize a very important fact about WUWT that is sadly lost in many of these discussions.
There are many lurkers out there like me who, for many different reasons, did not enter adulthood with a ‘thorough scientific grounding or academic background’ and therefore lack the ‘credentials’ necessary to garner ‘respect’ in the bubble.
For many of us this will have been through no specific fault of our own. Perhaps we were failed by the world around us, let down badly by those charged with our protection and education. Maybe we just didn’t ‘get it’ in the classroom, or we were struggling with ‘unresolved childhood traumas’ when we should have been listening to teacher…
Until the advent of the Internet and the meteoric rise of the blogosphere, we were often doomed to a life of terminal mediocrity and servitude, lacking the material and intellectual wherewithal to better ourselves significantly, despite a desire and an innate capacity to do so.
But now, thanks to the many dedicated but unpaid people in the wider blogosphere, such as Anthony Watts and Willis Eschenbach, disadvantaged people like me have access to an almost unthinkable pool of wisdom, understanding, knowledge and insight. Please enlighten me: in what way exactly is that not a good thing?
And I know that there are supremely arrogant men out there who hate that fact. They just can’t stand the idea that poorly educated ‘simpletons’ like me now have the opportunity to access the same intellectual fodder they feed on. They think that we do not have the cognitive capacity to engage with the material critically. To some degree of course they have a point – I was never taught to think critically.
But what really riles me is their cynical assumption that people like me are therefore unable to learn critical thinking, that I could never develop my critical faculties to the same degree they have. Well I’ve got news for you, you haughty ones: times they are a changing, and there are many good folk out there with vast but until now under-exercised intellectual potential who are educating themselves way beyond the confines of your pompous little construct and who will fly past you so fast you won’t know what hit you!
Yes, folks, at no time in history has humankind had such a golden opportunity to create a nebulous, unaffiliated and informal global wisdom community beyond the closed ranks of the gatekeepers and their paylords. Of course there’s danger. Of course it’s risky. Sure, there will be some who get burnt by it or who go off at wild tangents, barking up the wrong trees. And naturally there are those whose critical faculties are underdeveloped. But you know what? – treating them like idiots is not the way to help them develop those abilities!
So please alight from your vertiginous equine mounts, you sour creatures, and accept the fact that you no longer have control of the narrative. It’s the community that controls it now, just as it should be. Speak reason and wisdom to ordinary men’s hearts with respect and they will follow you. Talk down to them and, as sure as night follows day, they will tell you where to stick your ‘credentials’…
So I for one would like to say a massive thank you to Anthony in particular for the immeasurable contribution he has made to science education across this wonderful planet. And thank you to Willis, Viscount Monckton, Robert Brown, and the other regular contributors and commenters for engaging in this forum and rekindling our love of science in a disciplined but non-condescending way.
You never know who’s out there reading what you write and what an important difference you may already have made in their lives…
Poptech:
At October 10, 2013 at 10:32 pm you ask Mario Lento
No. Please try to not be an idiot.
Mario Lento was replying to your post at October 10, 2013 at 10:08 pm which said
Then listed what you claim are the credentials of Willis Eschenbach.
Your post was an egregious form of the Appeal to Authority fallacy; i.e.
Your post asserted that Willis Eschenbach is not – and, by implication, should not be – taken seriously because he does not have credentials which you assert as being important.
If you had a valid argument concerning the work of Willis Eschenbach then you would have stated it instead of attempting to demean him by use of a childish and egregious logical fallacy.
As Mario Lento wisely advised you
Your subsequent posts are a series of excuses which attempt to avoid facing the reality of that wise advice.
Richard
So many words (on both blogs) and so much bile. One might have expected someone to silence Willis the easy way, by providing references to the paper(s) that he has recognisably plagiarised.
Alec Rawls:
Thankyou for your superb post at October 10, 2013 at 10:59 pm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1444067
I write to support your suggestion; viz.
Perhaps Willis can ask Anth0ny to negotiate this possibility?
Indeed, the ideal solution to the present problem would seem to be a joint Spencer and Eschenbach WUWT Guest Essay on the ‘global thermostat’ which emphasises their argreements and differences concerning that subject.
Richard
Matthew R Marler says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:27 am
They are feedbacks, and the whole concept of “emergent phenomena” has problems. You should stick with “feedbacks” and avoid “emergent phenomena”. “Phenomena” are the mental results of physical processes: when phenomena “emerge” it means that we think about the processes differently. That has no particular implication for how the system actually works, but expresses the idea that as we learn more we think differently. “Feedback”, by contrast, denotes a process in the system, not a process in the mentation. You are writing about “feedbacks”.
————————
I also have difficulty following the attempts to distinguish these “emergent phenomena” from feedbacks. In the case of thunderstorms, for example, they may be seen simply as a subset of feedback phenomena. But they are still feedbacks inasmuch as they are part of all mechanisms that trigger evaporation/cooling as a result of heat buildup. The word “emergent” seems to have purchased its presence here from the observation that thunderstorms have a more sudden, seemingly spontaneous onset than other, more continuous feedbacks. But even this is misleading. The sudden onset is only at the individual thunderstorm level. Around the earth, thunderstorms as a whole form a permanent process which is harder to describe as “emergent”. They are simply part of the whole set of feedback processes.
The only way an emergent phenomenon would not be a feedback is if it’s caused by mechanisms totally outside the system under consideration. An area being heated by an eruption, an area being flooded and cooled by a tsunami… are not temperature feedbacks. But thunderstorms are. I don’t see why not.
Gee Whiz Willikers!
A fella’ like me can learn a lot reading this blog. I’m one of those lurkers.
My thanks to Anthony for this blog; for me personally, maybe the most important blog extant. Thanks to Willis for what he provides here, informative, entertaining, enjoyable. And thanks to the many others who contribute to making this blog what it is.
Oh ok, then please go over and “explain” it to Dr. Spencer. As for myself, I did not make a single comment on his paper.
So anyone can obtain an advanced degree? And by obtaining that degree you are no more educated in that field than someone who did not? I am learning amazing things here.
Please, stop digging the hole.
Your idiotic search using Willis’s catch phrase in Google Scholar (the problems with your apparently do not understand) has nothing to do with research the average scientist would do.
What you said is not an argument, it is a sign of computer illiteracy. I ask again,
Why would a paper show up in Google Scholar’s results for a query using a word that the paper does not include?
The word ‘Thunderstorm’ is not in the paper. <—— DO YOU COMPREHEND THIS?
May I politely suggest that Willis need not respond to Spencer at all? Spencer spells out the fundamental problem and surrenders in the same paragraph.
“In retrospect, it’s now clear that public interest in climate change has led to citizen-scientists like Willis taking matters into his/her own hands, since so little information is available in a form that is easily digested by the public. Career scientists like myself have not done enough public outreach to describe what they have done. And when we do such outreach, it is usually too technical to understand. We are too busy publishing-or-perishing.”
There it is. Spencer admits that:
1) There is intense public interest;
2) Useful (to the public) information is lacking;
3) Willis and other citizen-scientists are filling that void;
4) Spencer and other official scientists are well aware of the void; and
5) Spencer and whomever he thinks he speaks for are “too busy” and choose not to change their behavior.
What exactly is the substance of Spencer’s complaint? There IS no substance. His petulance and dog-in-the-manger antics don’t change the fact that Willis is providing a service that many members of the public find valuable. The service is one that Spencer refuses to do.
The whining about properly crediting previous work and originality are not the issue. Even if the allegations were true (and I largely accept Willis’s arguments that they are false) they don’t change the fundamental issue.
Change the venue to music rather than science. Willis is akin to Steeleye Span, who took old English ballads, rocked them up, and sold many records to a wide audience who had never heard this minor branch of music. Spencer is a college professor of musicology who has devoted a lifetime to study of old English ballads, published many papers that only other musicologist professors read, and couldn’t attract a large gathering of paying listeners to a concert to save his life. So he criticizes and insults Steeleye Span for not boring their audience with scholarly prose before and after each performance of each song.
Spencer is trying to boss someone who is successful and talented in an area (helpful explanations of complex topics) that Spencer is not. Spencer likes to think he could do what Willis does, but he offers no proof, he does not do it. He refuses to do it in so many words. If Spencer doesn’t like Willis work, he need not read it. If he feels compelled to read and disagree, he is free to do so. But his demands that Willis alter his work and style to suit Spencer’s peculiar tastes are silly to the point of being stupid. Ignore him.
Ok, tell me which credential I listed is inaccurate;
Willis Eschenbach, B.A. Psycology, Sonoma State University (1975); California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage (1974); Commercial Fisherman (1968, 1969, 1971, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1994, 1995); Auto Mechanic, People’s Garage (1969-1970); Cabinet Maker, A.D. Gibson Co. (1972); Office Manager, Honolulu Emergency Labor Pool (1972); Construction Manager, Autogenic Systems Inc. (1973); Assistant Driller, Mirror Mountain Enterprises (1975-1976); Tax Preparer, Beneficial Financial Company (1977); Accountant, Farallones Institute (1977-1978); Peace Corps and USAID (1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1993, 1994); Cabinet Maker, Richard Vacha Cabinets (1986); County Director, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1986-1988); General Manager, Liapari Limited (1989-1992); Regional Health Coordinator, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1994-1995); Project Manager, Eschenbach Construction Company (1995-2003); Construction Manager, Koro Sun Limited (1999); Construction Manager, Taunovo Bay Resort (2003-2006); Accounts/IT Senior Manager, South Pacific Oil (2007-2010)
I don’t “claim” anything, I copied them off his own CV!
No, I explained why no one but those at WUWT and some in the skeptic community, take him seriously. If people here don’t like reality I cannot help them. I personally do not consider Willis a “scientist” by any stretch of the imagination nor do I take his unpublished scientific arguments seriously. People can sit here and punch the wind hoping it will stop blowing, it is not going to change anything. For the record I don’t consider Lord Monckton a scientist either but rather an excellent communicator of skeptic arguments.
It appears that Dr. Spencer is a grain of sand in Willis’ oyster and Willis is a grain of sand in Dr. Spencer’s oyster.. from this mutual irritation I would expect both will develop pearls of research that will move our collective understanding of the climate forward. Isn’t mutual irritation a part of the scientific process to motivate more rigor in the research?
BTW I find both Willis and Dr. Spencer’s writings to have contributed a great deal to my understanding of Climate Science…
Poptech:
I have read all your posts including the daft post addressed to me October 11, 2013 at 6:27 am.
It quotes much of what I wrote to you but demonstrates you failed to understand a word of it. Importantly, it omits this part of my post at October 11, 2013 at 3:25 am which you claim to be answering
All your posts since then – including the post I am answering – show more of your inability to accept Lento’s wise advise, and they say nothing else.
Richard
The problem with the openness of blogs is that they get hijacked as a soap box for egoists. The main reason Anthony has been so successful is that he tends to keep his ego out and allow his blog to be varied and interesting. Big egos are generally the reason that “save the world” activists’ blogs are repulsive.
Anyway, just two cents, but I find the entire hoopla about who said what about who is boorish and distasteful. Why did this spat need to even be brought up on WUWT? Does a minor kerfuffle on Roy Spencer’s blog need to be brought here at all – what interest does it serve your readers? IMHO, the whole discussion is self-serving and of little interest.
Alec Rawls says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:59 pm
+1.
Is this the paper?
“Spencer, R, etal., 2007,
Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15707,doi:10.1029/2007GL029698”
Jeremy:
At October 11, 2013 at 6:41 am you say
But it was of sufficient interest for you to post to it. Hmmmm
Richard
Poptech, please understand, it’s not someone’s genuine abilities and hard-earned credentials that irritate so many of us less cognitively adept mortals. It’s the arrogance with which many of those intellectually so well endowed pronounce from on high Ex Cathedra. It’s the sense that so many highly educated individuals seem to assume a moral superiority by dint of their superior intellect. That they have, for instance, some intrinsic right to include or exclude from a privately owned open forum like WUWT in accordance with their own perception of their own importance. But there’s only one person who has the right to exclude here, and that’s Anthony.
And as far as many lurkers like me are concerned, Willis does not behave in this manner. He is a disciplined educator and gifted communicator. I have learned a great deal from his writings and the ensuing discussions, and I know that there are many others out there who would second that. Sure, he’s an irrascible type. So am I. So f******g what? Perhaps life has given us good reason to bark! The main thing is, does an argument hold water? And quite obviously this site is an excellent place to crowdsource criticism and test the soundness of a poster’s theory, irrespective of his establishment credentials or lack thereof.
As I do not have the capacity to judge for myself whether something Willis says is wrong or right in its technical details (a partly justified concern of people like yourself), I am always very careful to follow the intelligent criticisms among the many comments his posts invariably trigger. Sure, he could be leading me a merry dance, but that’s my responsibility, not yours or anybody else’s. So stop trying to mother me. If you have a valid criticism, it will stand. If not, we’ll all move on a little wiser anyway – bloody wonderful, and in my opinion exactly how popular science should work…
Richard, your implication is a strawman argument as I did not make any appeal to authority logical fallacy and clearly stated that “citizen scientists” are on equal footing once their work is published.
I believe people have the right to know what Willis’s scientific credentials (or lack there of) are, they are of course free to make up their own minds afterwards. How knowing this information “demeans” someone is a rather revealing statement.
If the topic was Commercial Fishing, Construction or the Peace Corps I would be interested in reading Willis’s analysis. Science? Not so much.
But I am a “crazy” person because I am not interested in medical advice from plumbers.
Jan Smit,
I liked your comment. Well done.
Poptech: I like your posts, too. Please try to avoid getting into a pissing match with folks on our side. You all have something valuable to contribute. I especially like your data base, which you regularly post and email.
We’re all on the same side here, we are skeptics regarding the manmade global warming narrative. Please, let us be on the same page, without attacing our teammates. A difference of opinion is fine, but don’t let it get out of hand. That only benefits the other side.
Thanks Richard. It seems like your points agree with mine, yours are just stated more succinctly.
p.s. To all, I wish folks would learn to use the blockquote tag. It’s not much more difficult that using the italics tag, just a few more characters, but makes a post with quotes eminently more easy to read. It’s easy. Just put <blockquote> at the beginning of a quote, and </blockquote> at the end of it.
Poptech says: October 11, 2013 at 6:58 am
“But I am a “crazy” person because I am not interested in medical advice from plumbers.”
I’m sorry Poptech, but that statement is just absurd in the context of WUWT. I for one am not here to purchase the services of Willis Eschenbach, medical or otherwise. I do not require him to be officially trained in the subject he is discussing. This is an open and free intellectual forum mainly focusing on climate science. Please try and give others credit for understanding the framework of what they’re reading and it’s relative merit in the wider context.
Sure, there will be those who think the sun shines out of Willis’s backside, but that’s their lookout. If you’re so concerned about it, engage with them and try to lead them to a greater appeciation of his undoubted human frailty, but please do it in all humility without sounding like an apparatchik.
And thanks dbstealey for you compliment. I too have often enjoyed Poptech’s contributions, so my comments are not born of any underlying grudge or hidden agenda. Just by a deep-seated personal revulsion at being made to feel stoopid, and by implication a lesser mortal. Call me hypersensitive if you will, but I have good reason to feel like that…
Dear Mr. Poptech,
Please list your academic credentials for us to peruse. It would make for some good reading, I’m sure. I must say, without credentials that would give credence to your incessant nattering, we are all left with the impression that you have not the cognitive ability to understand either Dr. Roy or Willis. You have not addressed their science in any of your posts.
Where did Willis go wrong? What mistakes has he made? Which equations are in error? But then that is the same error displayed in both of Dr. Roy’s posts. No quibble with the science, just the lame fallacy that ‘if you are not in my club you are wrong’. Perhaps coming down from your autoconstructed throne would help you to understand that there just might be some really smart people who don’t have a PhD and don’t mind at all. And perhaps, if you actually read some of Willis’ folksy stories, you might realize that a man who can buy a college textbook on refrigeration, design a shipboard system, and then redesign the system at the owner’s whim and make the whole thing work just might be smart enough to learn a little on his own. Maybe.
No handwaving now. Show us the credentials. Show us a little humility. And of course, show the proper respect for Willis’ CV. Fanboy? No. But highly respectful of man who has accomplished much in his life. Perhaps you could even post your CV. It might be interesting to put them side by side.
pbh
Poptech
If you can fault what Willis wrote in his article, do so and prove him wrong with proper citations, if you really want to talk science. Instead you start a slimejob attacking the man. If you’d care to do your homework, you could have searched this site and seen that Willis already made public his qualifications and background and what he does and never hid anything. So, what you state about his qualifications and experience is not anything new. It is a well known fact which Willis himself posted here and which you were too lazy to search for.
Willis has also said many times that anyone is welcome to attack is work and show with citations where he was wrong. And when shown wrong he has also admitted mistakes openly and corrected his articles.
So just quit sliming Willis the person and show what’s wrong with what he stated in this article. If you can’t do it, shut up.
Nobody forced you to read Willis’ articles just liken nobody forced you to take medical advice from plumbers. You piled on here at your own will and are doing a dirty slime job.
Poptech says:
October 11, 2013 at 6:58 am
But I am a “crazy” person because I am not interested in medical advice from plumbers.
====================
Slice your hand open and the plumber informs you to apply pressure and elevate to stop bleeding, are you fool enough not to heed the advice recommended by every first aid procedure there is just because the plumber doesn’t have a medical degree of high enough standing that would meet your standards? I have looked forward to your comments in the past but they have become bizarre on this thread.
—————
@ Jan Smit, well said in both of your comments.
McComberBoy, Sorry but I don’t post personal information online as I understand the dangers in doing so, see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files
I am simply a computer analyst who attended a technical university.
I do not post original climate science research but rather analyze and compile existing information.
Like all things that sound too good to be true, I am skeptical of some of Willis’s claims in his stories. He actually lists on his resume, “Refrigeration Engineer”… which he has no business claiming.
Pretty much any project he worked on he lists as a “job” but I only counted ones where he was actually employed by a company in that position. Using this logic I should also be an auto mechanic, electrician, TV repairman, bicycle repairman, landscaper, insulation installer, washer and dryer repairman, plumber… you name it.
Willis’s CV reads like someone who could not hold down a job (his choice or not it is still a valid point) and is as rambling as his posts.
The Willis Fanboys here can deny they are but demonstrate two characteristics,
1. Resent or argue against relevant credentials (likely because they do not possess any).
2. Knee-jerk defend Willis as if they are being personally attacked, yet do not understand the argument.
Some of us felt this ego preening in public was a peacock thing and not the best thing for dealing with the true fruad fact finding needed to over come the CO2 cargo cult of the tax and spend tribe.
Should be a lesson learned.
Stick to the subjet at hand on the main blog, if some pass time fun in the sun post are needed, put tthem aside in a place where that is clear to all.
The tactics being exposed by Willis are the standard tactics that have allowed AGW to thrive. Spencer’s tactic–a tactic employed by all AGW alarmists–is to simply address the issue/challenge. Make a dismissive comment about it, and move on. Their goal is to create confusion and leave their audience with impression that this is a subject better left to experts.
The only effective way to counter this tactic is by being extremely impolite and aggressive. If one is polite and helpful you will be perceived by the audience as weak and not credible.
Looks to me as if Poptech is using the usual ad hominem attack when the unarmed loose an argument. Seems to me Willis has a lot of interests and wears many hats. What’s the problem with that?
Ventor, I have been reading this site long before you were. I never claimed he has not stated some of his background here before. The problem is many people are unaware of these facts and read his posts, falsely believing he is some kind of a scientist.
Since when is posting someone’s “credentials” a slim job? Can’t handle the truth?
Willis Eschenbach, B.A. Psycology, Sonoma State University (1975); California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage (1974); Commercial Fisherman (1968, 1969, 1971, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1994, 1995); Auto Mechanic, People’s Garage (1969-1970); Cabinet Maker, A.D. Gibson Co. (1972); Office Manager, Honolulu Emergency Labor Pool (1972); Construction Manager, Autogenic Systems Inc. (1973); Assistant Driller, Mirror Mountain Enterprises (1975-1976); Tax Preparer, Beneficial Financial Company (1977); Accountant, Farallones Institute (1977-1978); Peace Corps and USAID (1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1993, 1994); Cabinet Maker, Richard Vacha Cabinets (1986); County Director, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1986-1988); General Manager, Liapari Limited (1989-1992); Regional Health Coordinator, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1994-1995); Project Manager, Eschenbach Construction Company (1995-2003); Construction Manager, Koro Sun Limited (1999); Construction Manager, Taunovo Bay Resort (2003-2006); Accounts/IT Senior Manager, South Pacific Oil (2007-2010)
So Poptech you are the plumber?
Well, that’s funny!
P.S: Have you ever published in peer reviewed journals like Willis has done? Even if you have, please change the tone and subject of your attacks. Thank you.
eyesonu, if that analogy does not make any sense, I cannot help you.
Um …yeah OK.. sure I am. I take it Willis fanboys do not comprehend what they read very well?
This thread may be all the scientific evidence I need to support my fanboy hypothesis.
Nope, Willis’s two peer-reviews papers beat me (one co-authored with Dr. Loehle). His comment in Nature was not a paper.
Lets take a poll on who knows more about science,
Willis Eschenbach, B.A. Psycology, Sonoma State University (1975); California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage (1974); Commercial Fisherman (1968, 1969, 1971, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1994, 1995); Auto Mechanic, People’s Garage (1969-1970); Cabinet Maker, A.D. Gibson Co. (1972); Office Manager, Honolulu Emergency Labor Pool (1972); Construction Manager, Autogenic Systems Inc. (1973); Assistant Driller, Mirror Mountain Enterprises (1975-1976); Tax Preparer, Beneficial Financial Company (1977); Accountant, Farallones Institute (1977-1978); Peace Corps and USAID (1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1993, 1994); Cabinet Maker, Richard Vacha Cabinets (1986); County Director, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1986-1988); General Manager, Liapari Limited (1989-1992); Regional Health Coordinator, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1994-1995); Project Manager, Eschenbach Construction Company (1995-2003); Construction Manager, Koro Sun Limited (1999); Construction Manager, Taunovo Bay Resort (2003-2006); Accounts/IT Senior Manager, South Pacific Oil (2007-2010)
or
Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology (Thesis: “A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit“), University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director’s Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)
Tough call.
Poptech, your analogy doesn’t make sense to me so I don’t want your help. Yes, you pulled me down to your level on this response. If my posted comment to your analogy doesn’t make any sense to you, you can’t be helped. Contact your medical professional and see if he/she would recommend Valium and rest to help alleviate your bizarre responses. Pardon me if I cop out on you now but I can’t provide any help to you at this point.
Scientists have often cared about who gets it first and proper credit, not just who got it out there so that the public can read about it.
From your earlier comment I read you would like to get professional medical advice.
I applaud that.
Poptech, I get your point about their resumes, but Albert Einstein’s resume would have read “Patent Clerk, Swiss Patent Office”.
Your appeal to authority argument is beneath you.
Sure, you can point out their resumes and what that implies, but you imply this is a slam dunk. It isn’t.
Poptech:
Your post at October 11, 2013 at 6:58 am begins saying
No! How dare you!?
I made no “implication” and I never – not ever – provide a “strawman argument”.
I make as statements, explanations and arguments of my views which are as clear as I can make them. If I think I am right then I stand my ground, if I don’t know then I admit it, and when shown to be wrong or mistaken I thank whomever showed me that. But I never pose straw men.
In this case we are referring to my post at October 11, 2013 at 3:25 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1444222
I there wrote saying to you
I made no “implication”. I posed no “straw man argument”.
I bluntly stated and I accurately explained that you had made “an egregious form of the Appeal to Authority fallacy”.
You have repeated that fallacy subsequently. It is offensive.
Richard
This fanboy disease is much worse than I thought. I wish Dr. Spencer had said something sooner, like a couple of years ago. Willis’s ego will likely derail any attempt at reconciliation and the fanboys will follow Willis off the cliff.
Richard, your implication was that I made an appeal to authority logical fallacy. This is a strawman argument because I never claimed Willis was wrong because of his lack of credentials. I stated why people do not take him seriously using his credentials as evidence, which is an observation on how people value expertise.
@max Hugoson
Have I ever gone through the mathematics of papers equation by equation. Yes frequently – I have to. Also, one has to go through statistics very carefully in my field.
@Poptech.
Willis’ CV is interesting. My problem with his maths is that it is extrordinarily naive. He uses concepts that I didn’t encounter until I was a postgraduate. His CV confirms that he hasn’t got the formal background in maths that allows him to understand the concepts that he attempts to use. It certainly explains why he is incapable of understanding any criticisms levelled at his “science”.
As regards all the comments along the line of PhDs are thick, scientists don’t know anything etc, etc… One has to distinguish between personality and expertise. I’ve encountered some pretty thick PhDs and many behave pretty badly. However, if one has stuidied a subject and used for many years, it is likely that one will have a better understanding of the subject than one who doesn’t. I can function in my field because I am trained and experienced in it. I cannot design computers, I know nothing about atomic particles or cosmology, I do not know how to fly an airliner. If I were to write lengthy articles on these subjects, I would rapidly be bowled out by professionals and made to look an idiot.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:47 pm
You might be interested in my discussion with Dr. Strangelove on Dr. Spencer’s site over whether Darwin counts as a citizen scientist:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/willisgate-take-2/#comment-89447
I maintain that as an amateur, no matter how well respected by his professional peers, he does qualify.
Poptech, I was with you and still am in one of your past arguments with Dana Nuccitelli, but you cannot possibly have said something this retarded:
@Poptech: you wrote “http://www.linkedin.com/in/mariolento
If this is you, your argument is ridiculous. It is like saying all Boeing engineers should be expert pilots.”
++++++++
Richardscourney and The Pompous Git tried to help you understand how to string words together to form cogent debate. Evidently my credentials are too complex for you to understand. You spout off like you’re the smartest guy in the room, but everyone here can see you’re incapable of comprehending the subject matter.
The process for getting a pilot’s certification is not in any way like passing pal review.
We have a good understanding of what gets a plane from A to B, less agreement on the cutting edges of science. The one who is making ridiculous arguments would be you.
Friends:
Let us be clear concerning this nonsense about credentials proving the worth of work. They don’t.
Credentials are evidence that a person has successfully achieved training which enables the person to conduct quality work. They are evidence of nothing more and nothing less.
Absence of credentials provides evidence of nothing. However, it is more likely that a credentialed person will provide quality work than an uncredentialed person. Which is NOT to say that every uncredentialed person is incapable of quality work.
This is demonstrated by the following one of countless examples.
Two brothers who sold bicycles were self-taught in engineering principles and scientific experimental study and methodology. They had no academic qualifications but used the expertise they had gained for themselves to make a seminal discovery which is the foundation of all aeronautics. They examined their ideas with experiments they devised and designed using wind tunnels they devised and designed. Then they demonstrated their findings with a full-scale working model. Finally, they published their work in a magazine about bee keeping.
The value, importance and quality of their work is not demonstrated by their lack of credentials, the lack of peer review for their work, and/or where they published that work.
The value, importance and quality of their work is demonstrated by, for example, the AirbusA310.
Richard
Highest marks to Jan Smit for four eloquent comments above on having a proper regard for credentials. Well said – very well said. I quoted Noam Chomsky above, but will repeat it here:
“Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is concern for content. “
Lowest marks for Poptech (whoever he/she is) for comments to the contrary that are borderline offensive. Thanks nonetheless to Poptech for posting Willis Eschenbach’s resume. Clearly Willis is a man with wide self-developed abilities. This in contrast to many more conventional academic types with an alphabet soup following their name, who in too many cases, while receiving Poptech’s admiration, have the “narrow worldview of the proctologist” to revisit the old joke.
I sincerely feel that the mind-set of Poptech represents a very tiny minority of readers of this blog; the majority having a proper “concern for content”. Thanks to so many here.
Jan Smit says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:43 am
Brilliant essay, Jan Smit. As regards the “high and mighty” that you criticize very well, I am reminded of teaching students what fallacies are and how to avoid them. I begin by explaining why fallacies continue to exist. After all, we have known most of them for centuries and we have taught that they are mistakes in reasoning for centuries, so why haven’t they gone away? The answer is that fallacies enable unscrupulous people to use a facade of reasoning to gain control over people who are not practiced in reasoning. In other words, fallacies continue to exist for roughly the same reason that lies continue to exist.
What does this have to do with the “high and mighty?” Check out their reasoning. When they commit a fallacy, they know what they are doing. In their own minds, they probably think that committing a fallacy is like telling a “white lie.” If only that were true. It is not.
The legendary Michael Mann published an editorial in the NYT about two years ago. He argued that the work of climate scientists should be treated in the same way as the work of physicians to save the life of patients is treated. Mann is smart enough to know better. The goal of a physician is first and foremost to do no harm but secondly to relieve the suffering of his patient. Scientists do not have the same goals as physicians. The scientist’s primary goal when acting as scientist is to discover the truth and publicize the truth. So, Mann’s main error was to commit the fallacy of False Analogy. If Mann had been able to persuade the government and the public that climate scientists should be treated as physicians to the Earth, he would have found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Study the fallacies. There are good websites on fallacies. Buy a used copy of Irving Copi’s Introduction to Logic, edition 3 or later. (The latest edition is like 15.) To survive in public debate you must know “ad hominem,” “red herring,” Obama’s favorite “strawman,” “begging the question” which is the same as “arguing in a circle,” “false analogy,” and a few more.
Continue your efforts. You have clearly made great progress, you will make more, and you will find that progress greatly rewarding.
Poptech has made some good arguments before.
I’m not sure why he deems himself credible to argue with Dana Nuccitelli and then makes this argument today.
RC Saumarez says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:33 am
To date, despite my repeated invitations, RC has not posted any actual objections to either my math or my work.
Instead, he constantly claims things like that I’m “extraordinarily naive” and “incapable of understanding” and similar personal attacks. I guess he thinks if he repeats it enough it will make me look bad … but instead it only makes him look bad.
For example, RC complained bitterly (but again without content) about my analysis of the effect of the volcanoes on the temperature. However, when I asked him for his brilliant analysis, he said he’d have to think about the problem for two months before saying anything … and this is his pattern.
Whenever he is pressed for an actual answer, he comes up with some bogus excuse. Most recently, his excuse was that he couldn’t post equations on WUWT. I patiently explained that yes, Latex is available to all here on WUWT, including him … but of course, that didn’t get him to post anything with any substance either, it was just another in his endless whirl of reasons why he is prevented from demonstrating his true genius …
Read through what he says about me, and look for anything of substance … you’ll find nothing. Ad hominem attacks by the score, dozens and dozens of claims that I’m a fool, that I don’t understand … but never anything relating to the actual science. Never anything falsifiable. Never anything with numbers, or citations, or support, or observations.
So go ahead, RC, bring on more ad hominems … at this point people around here know who you are. They know that no matter how hard you flap your lips, your science never gets off the ground. At this point, you’ve basically cancelled your own vote due to your continuous string of personal attacks and other inanitites.
You might consider decamping to somewhere that you can fool people with your claims, because here, your word is worth nothing.
w.
Theo Goodwin says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:09 am
I regard a PhD as an academic union card or qualification to get a job in industry. That doesn’t mean that the scientific work done by a researcher with a doctorate will necessarily be better than that done by a citizen scientist with a BS or without any college degree at all. The proof is in the pudding, just as a journeyman union carpenter might not be able to make as fine a cabinet as a hobbyist wood-worker.
Now I do think there can be advantages to both an extensive formal education and a concentrated academic work history. Nothing I’m saying about Poptech’s appeal to authority argument is meant as a defence of Willis’s work. I thought Roy Spencer raised some good points, especially about researching the literature on what has come before and giving credit where credit is due.
Which, even if you intend to do that, isn’t possible if you don’t try to find out who did what first.
Anyway, I’m sure there could still be some inadvertent duplication, but what Spencer said was reasonable.
Well, maybe not, but I’d still say the odds are better of a PhD knowing more about the field than a long-haul trucker. Exceptions might occur.
Alec Rawls says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:59 pm
Alec, I must confess that I have no memory of anything like that from Roy. Where was it published and then withdrawn?
And although it does kinda make sense out of the intensity of Roy’s upset … if that’s the case, if he thinks I’m plagiarizing him, why wouldn’t he say so?
Look, the last thing I want to do is to not give credit when it’s due. But until and unless Dr. Roy himself tells me what study anticipated mine, I can’t give credit to anyone.
What I find online from Dr. Roy regarding a natural thermostat is actually an interesting claim … but it has little to do with my own hypothesis:
So Dr. Roy says that precipitation systems act as a thermostat. It’s a very interesting speculation, worthy of thought … but I don’t see any explanation of the mechanism or how it actually works, and he doesn’t go into it on that page. I don’t find any clear exposition of his precipitation theory anywhere on the web, but it certainly may be out there somewhere.
Still, though, my hypothesis is totally different. I’m not discussing his ideas, about how the key is precipitation, in any sense.
So I’m still in mystery about why he decided to abuse citizen scientists in general, and me in particular.
w.
Roy does good experimental work but does not want to hear suggestions on how to display it. I have suggested to him several times not to label the 1982/83 La Nina as Pinatubo cooling on his web site but he has never responded nor has he changed the label. It is simply an ordinary La Nina that accidentally happened to be in a location where the volcanic cooling paradigm says that cooling should appear. There is no such thing as volcanic cooling as I have pointed out and proved but he like other climate scientists do not want to be corrected. Nor do they bother to read the publications where the science is laid out. In this case, “What Warming?”
Christoph Dollis says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:30 am
Of course you’re right, but to write a single paper, a researcher doesn’t necessarily need to know as much about the subject as a PhD. Originality & new insight have historically often come from outside the scientific establishment, sometimes by PhDs & sometimes not.
Copernicus’ doctorate was in canon law & he worked as a church canon in remote Prussia. He didn’t teach astronomy at a university. Lavoisier had a law degree & became a tax-farmer. Faraday was an apprentice bookbinder. Darwin’s undergrad degree was in divinity & he lived as a country gentleman. Einstein was a patent clerk with an four-year teaching diploma, although he did earn a PhD in the same year in which his relativity papers were published.
Still, the way to bet is on the professional, but IMO the quality or lack thereof of the work should stand on its own, whether written by a rank amateur or the holder of an endowed chair.
PS: Cavendish, discoverer of hydrogen, went down from Cambridge without a degree. Other commenters here have cited more recent citizen scientists who have made important contributions to their fields.
Good grief Poptech, what is your problem? I’m beginning to detect a hard cynical edge to your comments. Your repeated references to Willis’s CV and to his ‘fanboys’ – whoever they are supposed to be – betrays something oddly bitter within you.
Firstly, I am perfectly aware of Willis’s background as he has been very open about it over the years (like many others, I arrived here when Climategate first broke and have read WUWT almost every day since). Consequently I understand perfectly that he’s neither a credentialed scientist nor an indentured scientist. That he is in fact very much the amateur citizen-scientist. In my eyes that is actually his greatest strength. He looks at things as it were from the same end of the telescope as most of us aspiring citizen-scientists. This means that he is far better able to take his readers on a journey and get them to enjoy science. This in contrast to so much of the dry, po-faced crud that emanates from the professional sinecured scientists who are obviously technically more qualified to pronounce on the subject.
Secondly, as regards my own lack of qualifications, I am quite open about this. I make no claim to comprehend the intricacies of quantum physics, though it’s one of my favorite subjects, or to be able to fathom the depths of Hofstadter’s GED and artificial intelligence. Such things are clearly beyond my intellectual capacity. But that’s why I come here. Here I find accessible science that sharpens my understanding yet does not patronize me. Here I find a fiercely intelligent environment that doesn’t suffer fools gladly – I like that! I’m not defending Willis. If he’s proven one thing beyond all doubt it’s that he is very capable of defending himself.
What’s more, I resent no man who has made the effort to study and become qualified in a specific field. What I resent is being told that because I do not fall into this category that I somehow have less right to comment on things that interest me on an open forum populated by a wide variety of interesting people with varying degrees of aptitude. Or that owing to my lack of credentials I am incapable of discerning nonsense when I see it. Please, though my lack of formal education and training may well be a handicap, it is not by definition a sign that I am stupid or lack insight, though that may also be true – only time will tell.
So I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror, have yourself a nice glass of single malt and put your feet up in front of the fire. Relax, and ponder just how silly your cries are becoming.
@ Theo Goodwin and Bernie Hutchins
Thanks for the feedback guys. Your kind suggestions are duly noted. That excellent book on logic will have to wait, but I have indeed come across some great websites on the logical fallacies (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com being my favorite). I too have discovered that the people who display the greatest humility regarding their credentials are the polymaths and the generalists, i.e. the ones with the broadest perspective. The ones who are acutely aware of the fact that the more you known, the more you know you don’t know – a quantum phenomenon if ever there was one…
One point in all this discussion is being overlooked by those that make a claim to “Academic Authority”. Here on WUWT there is a tremendous amount of info and detailed discussion covering and in depth the various elements primarily with regards to atmospheric science. It is PHYSICS. Now if one is capable of understanding basic physics then 40 hours, 200 hours, or like many of us, thousands of hours of reading the posts and comments would equal far more than the time spent in a classroom digesting that presented by a professor/textbook that was likely obsolete (especially the professor) by the time it was taught. Toss in the need/desire for funding and fame and the entire academic structure becomes bankrupt. WUWT is the premier university. I understand physics and have no financial dog in this game. I want the truth. It is offered here on almost a daily basis. The academic establishment is in shock.
@Willis Eschenbach
I have frequently told you why I think your maths is wrong. The more mathematically aware on this blog understand what I say, If your background was less limited, you would understand why as well. Perhaps if, instead of insulting everybody who disagrees with you and telling people who are much better trained that they are incompetent, you actually took some notice of what said and learnt some maths, you standard of citizen science might improve.
Arno Arrak says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:39 am
I agree with you that volcanic eruptions cannot adequately explain climatic phenomena such as the LIA, but IMO they can & do account for some weather observations, as those after Tambora in 1815 & the 1257 event:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/26/1307520110
The presumed consequences of this eruption are detailed in a study from GISS (I know, I know…):
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/climatepdfs02/ClimImpts1258VolcaClimChg00.pdf
RC Saumarez says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:55 am
Another vacant yet venom-filled comment from RC. Folks, please note that once again and true to form he’s just making empty, unsupported claims—as with almost every one of his comments, there’s not a number, a link, a citation, an observation, a reference, a quotation, or a fact in the lot.
He’s just treating us, once again, to his vitriolic opinions.
w.
vigilantfish says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:57 pm
The Pompous Git says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm
“This causes excitement because despite having been published in several journals, Willis is not one of the anointed priests of scientism. I surmise that in thirty years’ time one will read of the Eschenbach Effect, rather than Herr Professor Doctor Doctor Schmidthead’s Hypothesis.
——————–
Bingo! It’s the alliteration of “Eschenbach Effect”, which does rather have a ring to it, that probably excited “someone’s” interest in Willis’s work. I hope you are right.”
I am pleased that I coined the term “Eschenbach Effect” a while back and also differentiated it from the Ramanathan and Collins work, hoping that it would catch on before it is simply stolen as someone else’s effect which seems to be the central issue of this post. Here is my post from April:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/26/updates-to-and-enso-observations-from-the-wuwt-ocean-reference-page/
Gary Pearse says:
April 28, 2013 at 12:22 pm
richardscourtney says:
April 28, 2013 at 9:59 am
Your link to Ramanathan and Collins “possible” limit of 30C for SST is a good start, but I would have also added the link to the more recent work by Willis Eschenbach who actually illustrates the phenomenon using buoy data and connects it to the creation of cumulus (not cirrus), followed by thunderstorm heat engines that cool hot spots – published in E&E.
Volume 21, Number 4 / August 2010
A later work has unequivocal graphics of data showing that 30C is pretty much the limit. Scroll down to the blue “dotted graphics” to see these unequivocal illustrations
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/21/dehumidifying-the-tropics/.
Despite prior mention by Ramanathan and Collins, I propose that this phenomenon be named the “Eschenbach effect” for the full clear explanation for the phenomenon.
eyesonu says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:55 am
I made a misstatement in my earlier statement.
…. It is PHYSICS. Now if one is capable of understanding basic physics then 40 hours, 200 hours, or like many of us, thousands of hours of reading the posts and comments would equal far more than the time spent in a classroom digesting that presented by a professor/textbook that was likely obsolete (especially the professor) by the time it was taught. ….
Please strike; ” (especially the professor)”. In reality only those professors and textbooks created over the past 20 years would be obsolete.
Bair Polaire: Mental results of physical processes are called concepts.
You cite wikipedia? “Pnenomena” and “phenomenon” have more than one meaning. Mental results of physical processes include percepts as well as concepts. The part that “emerges” in an “emergent phenomenon” is merely something in a system studied that on initial viewing and study can’t be explained from what is already known. Once there as a lot of understanding, as with some of the recurring eddies at the edge of the Gulf Stream, it is clear that they are part of the process from which they arise. Thus, the “emergence” is purely mental. The other example was mushrooms that emerge from the fungal net: once there is enough study and understanding, it can be seen how the mushrooms emerge, and two mushrooms are no longer distinct physical process, but related and highly similar processes occurring simultaneously in different parts of the net. You can say the same for spiral waves that emerge and dissipate and emerge some more in dynamic systems: eddies and spiral waves on the surface of heart muscle are examples, and cyclonic storms may be (to my knowledge, mathematical analysis of cyclonic storms has not progressed to where they emerge in simulations, but they form continuously through time, and it makes more sense [to me, anyhow] to view them analogously to other physical spiral waves.
Gary Pearse:
re your comment at October 11, 2013 at 11:40 am.
I accept much that you say. However, as I have repeatedly said (and explained) in this thread, I consider the R&C Effect and the Eschenbach Effect to be very different. Importantly, Willis has also said in this thread that he thinks they are different effects.
Richard
RC Saumarez says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:55 am
@Willis Eschenbach
I have frequently told you why I think your maths is wrong. The more mathematically aware on this blog understand what I say, If your background was less limited, you would understand why as well.
+++++++++
I am getting caught in the fray here because I think the hateful attacks do not advance science, nor are the attacks constructive.
So what if I don’t understand why [or if] Willis’ “maths” is wrong? Would that have anything to do with my lack of credentials? I find lots of what Willis writes about well above my level of knowledge! BTW, my starting level of math in college was Calculus, then Calc2 and Calc3, Differential Equations, Complex Variables. I’ve also taken Statistics 1 and 2 and Statistical Process control.
When people of your ilk beat their chest with credentials instead of being able to have a cogent dialogue, it’s more telling of your own shortcomings. Look within yourself and wonder when you became so arrogant. You may feel a short term sense of elevated status by spewing irrational fodder, but everyone else sees you for what you are. Both you and Poptech suffer from both narcissism with an underlying dose of self loathing.
Tucker: I stopped reading Willis’ posts a while back …
You are as free to choose as anyone, but you are missing good stuff. At least, if that is a true statement. It’s appearance in a thread initiated by Willis is at least paradoxical.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:30 am
“That doesn’t mean that the scientific work done by a researcher with a doctorate will necessarily be better than that done by a citizen scientist with a BS or without any college degree at all.”
Well, maybe not, but I’d still say the odds are better of a PhD knowing more about the field than a long-haul trucker. Exceptions might occur.
++++++++++++++
Christoph: riddle me this: Which has better odds of being more honest, a PhD or a long-haul trucker?
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Cross posted from Dr. Roy’s blog …
Well done again.
Willis, thank you for taking the first step to get back together with Dr. Roy to fight the true enemy, not each other. As I said you are a bigger man than he and should be the one to take that first step. Roy, you screwed up royally, mon ami. Admit it to yourself and meet Willis half way. We have a war to win.
poptech: His rambling stories attract fanboys who obviously do not understand what Dr. Spencer is saying so they knee-jerk attack him.
A couple days ago when Dr. Spencer posted his short criticism I asked him to supply some details and references. Instead he posted a rant on his own web page that was wrong on its two main (decipherable) assertions. Your course of life post on Willis is totally irrelevant to the scientific and ad hominem points in this debate. Willis has a hypthesis that (stripped of the word “thermostat”) fits well within the field of mathematical and empirical dynamic systems analysis (e.g. “Nonlinear Climate Dynamics” by Henk A. Dijkstra. His data analysis is hypothesis-driven, and insightful.
Personally I skip Willis’ autobiographical stories (well, I read a couple paragraphs and skip the rest) but lots of denizens read them and praise them. Some people don’t like them, but they are incidental to the analyses he performs (though like a scientific biography of any scientist, they are part of the whole picture of the man — like, say Einstein’s first child.) It is a fact that in this debate, Dr Spenser made mistakes, so he was criticized. If there is a knee-jerk reaction here it is your disparagement of the person of Willis based on not reading enough of the writings here to be informed.
Richard S Courtney,
Since I sometimes spar with you, it’s only fair that I note an excellent post by you: Two brothers who sold bicycles were self-taught in engineering principles and scientific experimental study and methodology.
Matthew R Marler:
Thankyou for your comment addressed to me. I think a quid pro quo is in order.
I think your post at October 10, 2013 at 9:14 am was both excellent and timely. Willis is schooled in hard knocks but he must be feeling the need for encouragement.
Richard
The colors are showing in this thread. Dig past the so-called colors and view deep into the psych. It has been a revealing and informative thread. The truth will prevail.
RC Saumarez: I have frequently told you why I think your maths is wrong. The more mathematically aware on this blog understand what I say
Really? Whenever was that?
Richard S Courtney, thank you.
Phew! I have read the whole thread. If anybody responds to me, I’ll check back tomorrow.
Steve314 said @ October 11, 2013 at 6:18 am
Actually, this is untrue. Spencer has an interesting blog and has written a very accessible book:
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. Unlike many such, it is also rich in humour and therefore even entertaining as well as educational.
Your Steeleye Span comparison is very apt. I used to do security at a (sadly) now defunct annual folk festival. When we had Steeley Span, I was backstage after they performed. A local journalist asked Maddy why she sang. Maddy responded: “Because I like it.” The journalist rephrased the question and Maddy responded as she had previously. This happened a third time, whereupon Maddy said: “F**k off you stupid b***h!” and turned to me and said: “That will appear in tomorrow’s paper as my in-depth interview with Maddy Pryor”.
Richard Feynman: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”, 1966.
OK, maybe too often quoted, but the fact remains that even scientists with the best credentials have sometimes fallen victim to group think, defending orthodoxies against contrary claims by outsiders, even when the new ideas come from other credentialed professionals, such as Bretz & Wegener, rather than from amateurs.
I’m coming in a bit late here, but I don’t think that one need be any sort of climate expert to see that Dr. Spencer most assuredly did accuse Willis of plagiarism and a fair amount of ignorance. Whether you agree or not with Dr. Spencer’s assessment that Willis is putting forth someone else’s ideas as his own and without attribution, that’s what Dr. Spencer did. Willis might be the biggest blowhard on the face of the planet, suck at maths, only read abstracts, and be utterly ignorant of the way science works in the big leagues, but all that’s completely irrelevant to the fact that Dr. Spencer threw down the plagiarism card. He wasn’t being kind or gentle or good natured about it, either.
I’m not arguing whether Willis’s hypothesis is the same as that he purportedly plagiarized (but it doesn’t look to me as if it is), I’m just saying that if a man is challenged in a public forum that man has every right to respond in kind. A couple of years ago someone was angry with me and went on TV to air his complaints. I was not allowed by my employer to defend myself in any way at all, which caused me no end of frustration that my lack of a rebuttal would somehow give credence to that person’s whinge. Public accusations–particularly those unsupported by anything but opinions–require equally public responses, and debate such as I am reading here is always better than pistols at dawn.
richardscourtney said @ October 11, 2013 at 9:49 am
It’s worth noting that a year after the Wright brothers flew their aeroplane that Scientific American declared the event had not taken place. Had the Wright brothers actually achieved what they claimed, then surely a journalist would have written about it.
@Willis Eschenbach
I have frequently tried to point out that there are things wrong with your mathematical approach.
Take your climate model in which you model the thermal capacity of the climate system is the form
y(n)=(1-alpha)*x(n)+alpha*y(n-1)..
This autoregressive equation has huge physical implications. It implies that the climate “heat sink” is a single compartment linear system.. There is a large body of eveidence that this is not the case. I have tried to explain to you that this is very important be cause the climate system shows persistance, that is not encapsulated by the above equation. One of the important indicators of this is the temperature auto-correlation function. This is very important because it affects the trends in temperature created by random inputs. I referred you to Luck and Lederle, Tol, and McIntyre. I even referred you to a piece that I had written.
You write about dynamic systems but you do not understand the significance of the autocorrelation function, This is elementary and also central to understanding system behaviour.
On a more recent thread I introduced the possibility of aliasing. Another commentator on the thread who says that he does signal processing in Earth Sciences as his job agreed. This was met by blast from you in which you told us that we were incompetent.
I suggested that the problem could be seen through a simple model. When challenged to say what this model was I produced it. OK. it uses Laplace Transforms and I used the conventional symbol for feedback in this notation, which is B(s). You responded that this was all BS! I don’t think that is a very intelligent response.
Let me remind you that you are the person who is posting about dynamics of systems, feedback etc. Laplace transforms are quite useful in analysing linearisable systems, and yield considerable insight into their behaviour. You clearly do not know what a Laplace Transform is, but it might help you if you discovered what it is and what it means because it is very important technique.
[SNIP that last paragraph was not only rude and condescending toward me and Willis, but an over the top policy violation – discuss the science issues, but don’t try to play that role again or it will end up in the bit bucket – Anthony]
The Pompous Git:
Thanks for your post to me at October 11, 2013 at 1:05 pm. This thread needed an input of levity.
Richard
I need to say this about Willis. Seeing his resume helps me appreciate more what people are capable of. It’s incredibly rare for someone to be so thoroughly adroit in so many seemingly disparate areas. People that have been casting stones to quell their jealousy don’t get it.
Poptech, based on your credentials listed on your site, one such as you would ask what qualifies you to argue with Dana? After all, you are not a climate scientist, so you are not qualified for the debate.
So, although you are not, according to your stated primary qualification, able to understand, analyze or comment upon climate science – you chose to do so anyway? Surely, by the same strange law, Willis may also ‘pretend’ to understand or comment (publish even) upon matters climate science?
As to the non-thread related ‘machine gun’ posts (mostly concerning Poptech). There really should be some auto function that moves ‘local arguments’ here to “unthreaded”.
Anyhoo…
Had to laugh that some of the earliest posters on the Dr. Roy blog. Ned Nikolov for example. Now what possible grudge could he be holding? Oh, I remember, having his crap “theory of everything” pulled to pieces in minutes here. No grudge there then Ned?
Oh hum … Like Cockroaches, they wait around in the woodwork for the chance to attack. Afraid to venture out into the light unless they feel a bit numerous. Stoat, I understand. After all, once outed as the back room slime he is, he can say whatever he wants to – nobody listens or cares.
We have Stephen (Wilde), “[of Willis] His non scientific output reminds me of those occasional missives from ‘friends’ not seen for years that make every mundane event sound like a world shattering achievement” Ah, yes Stephen then again we have your own “proper new ‘scientifcal’ climate model wot I ‘ave tried for years to promote with no success”, No grudge there then eh Stephen?
And let’s not mock “Salvatore”. Poor bastard couldn’t drum up a coherent argument over a bar tab.
Anyhoo…
There should also, by now, be a link or two posted (see my earlier post (many hours ago)) demonstrating quite clearly that Willis simply stole his ‘Hypothesis’ from x,y and z (xxxx). I’m still waiting for a simple link to a ‘paper’ covering “The Thermostat Hypothesis” and if it can pre-date Willis then I will be even more impressed.
One paper?
Anyone?
No?
OK … moving on …
Mario Lento says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:54 am
There may not be much to chose between PhDs & truck drivers in terms of honesty. However, speaking not of ethics but the mental abilities of truck drivers, there’s this on Malcolm McLean from Harvard B-School:
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5026.html
milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 1:14 pm
+++++
But but… he was not qualified,… //sarc off.
Brilliant retort!
RC Saumarez says:
October 11, 2013 at 1:05 pm
@Willis Eschenbach
I have frequently tried to point out that there are things wrong with your mathematical approach.
Take your climate model in which you model the thermal capacity of the climate system is the form
y(n)=(1-alpha)*x(n)+alpha*y(n-1).
++++++++++
Is this what you meant when you said to Willis, “If your background was less limited, you would understand why as well”
Do you really think Willis’ background prevents him from understanding whether or not y(n)=(1-alpha)*x(n)+alpha*y(n-1) is valid or useful?
Admit it. You’re attempting to discredit someone with whom you do not like, so instead of challenging him on the technical merits of your view point, you say hateful and arguably inaccurate things.
Let’s keep this about the science.
RC Saumarez says :October 11, 2 013at 9:33 am
Why does it take a “formal background” to understand any particular “concept(s)”? Maybe he has an IQ of 175(although I personally doubt it, judging from his writings, it is possible).
A lot can be accomplished by those without formal training. I, for instance, taught both my daughters to read when they were babies. Not young children, but babies. I was able to do it because I didn’t know that it was impossible(was told that by a qualified, credentialed infant school teacher years later). I started as soon as they could speak, at eleven months, and stopped by their second birthdays. I stopped because no further teaching was necessary as they were teaching themselves so quickly at that stage. I did no phonetic training, they got that from Sesame Street. By age four and a half they could read like a TV news reader.
Another example of “credentials”: For decades, in New Zealand, the medical establishment and government insisted that nobody had need for dietary supplements. Now they admit that that is untrue. They never apologised to the hundreds of children born with unnecessary neural tube defects.
I think that’s called “poisoning the well”(I could be wrong with that name as I don’t have any formal training in logic). Either way I think that you are incorrect. I’ve read all the comments, down to the one to which I’m replying, and haven’t seen those claims at all let alone the multitude(“…all the comments…”) that you claim. What I have seen are claims that credentials are not needed to ascertain truth*. Could you please quote at least one comment where the claim along the line “PhDs are thick, scientists don’t know anything…” is made?
I thank you in advance for the cite, otherwise look forward to your retraction.
* With no training in psychology, in 1961, I detected the Burt fraud/error and I wasn’t even looking for such, as I was in broad agreement with his thesis. This was about ten years before the anointed noticed it. I am personally sure that it was fraud.
RC,
2+2=4, I hope I am not going too fast for you.
About the same. (What? You think they keep their drive time (and by inference, sleep time) logs by the book?)
That’s silly, Willis. Tucker said he stopped reading your posts because he doesn’t have confidence in what you’re saying. Obviously, he an anyone else in his position would — upon seeing your name in the headlines and realising that a prominent scientist is criticising you — probably read that particular post — or if not the post itself, as he’d lost confidence in you, the original criticism.
By way of analogy, if one had a business writer whose analysis one found lacking, one may stop reading their column. However, a column written by that person defending themself from criticism from another business writer who you greatly respected just might peak your interest. Anyone can understand this.
Yes, great examples. I brought up Einstein, but you provided more information about the timing of his doctorate, and more about the others, most of which I knew about, but not all.
Definitely a layperson, or more frequently an expert in a different field, can do groundbreaking work.
richardscourtney said @ October 11, 2013 at 1:11 pm
And thank you for your excellent input to this fascinating thread. If you liked that anecdote:
I am currently reading a lovely little book about Stephenson and the other railway pioneers published in the early 19th C. It tells me that a Frenchman had mooted the idea of a steam-powered locomotive, but the authorities had locked him away in a lunatic asylum for making the suggestion.
While I totally get this, it has to be pointed out that far too many scientists do this too little.
@ Christoph Dollis & milodonharlani
Regarding Einstein, few (outside of historians) know that of the 300 or so papers he wrote, only one was peer reviewed. Einstein took great exception to being reviewed and wrote to the editor of Physical Review that the reviewer’s criticism was invalid (it wasn’t) and that he would submit the paper he had co-written with Rosen elsewhere. Physical Review had introduced peer review only recently (mid 1930s) and was an early adopter of the concept. Also, towards the end of his life, Einstein said that none of his early papers would have been published had he been a reviewer. An interesting character as well as thinker.
The Pompous Git:
We are going off topic but I make this one post in response to your post addressed to me at October 11, 2013 at 1:48 pm. I make this off topic reply because the nature of this thread needs something for Willis to cheer him up.
In light of your and Willis’ interest in steam age technology, you may want to come here to Cornwall in April for Trevithick Day in Camborne to share in the annual celebration of the town’s ‘son’ who invented the steam locamotive. The police get frantic about the steam parade through the Camborne because the ancient vehicles lack proper brakes and their route is packed with onlookers. Anyway, this is a link to an indication of a grand day out
http://www.trevithick-day.org.uk/
Richard
@Mario Lento.
This is about science and mathematics. If you use mathematics, it should be used properly with a proper understanding of what it means.
Interesting, TPG.
So during the most innovative period in theoretical physics, papers weren’t peer reviewed much to speak of?
Makes sense to me. The idea that peer review, a form of politics and consensus, is the sine qua non of science is ludicrous.
Christoph Dollis said @ October 11, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Actually, I suspect that you do not. A fully credentialled scientist has no need to correct error; it’s not a requirement. Willis shows his amateur status by correcting his mistakes. It would be far more professional of him to emulate the M Manns of this world and tough things out.
Do I really need to put a sarc tag after this?
@ Christoph Dollis
If we take the period of late 19th C through to 1930 as the most innovative period in theoretical physics, then there was no peer review that I know of. Even after it was introduced, it was often enough not used. The famous Crick and Watson paper comes immediately to mind. John Maddox wrote of this in his autobiography.
You might enjoy Daniel Kennefick’s article about the contretemps between himself and John Tate (editor of Physical Review).
http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1
Matthew R Marler says:
Again, your understanding of an “emergent phenomenon” as something that can’t be explained from what is already known, and that is purely mental, is rather unusual. At least in the context of physics. Whereas Willis’ use of “emergent phenomenon” is exactly as defined in Wikipedia:
In Wikipedia they even use convection cells as an example for an emergent phenomenon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Non-living.2C_physical_systems
A more philosophical definition of “Emergent” in my own language is here. It also does not support your understanding. Maybe you can direct me to an english definition that supports your view?
Does it happen to you quite often that wikipedia is totally wrong and you are right? There are several possible reasons for that. If it is because you are much more knowledgeable than the wikipedia authors you might consider helping to improve Wikipedia. After all Wikipedia is quite a good example for what impact can be made when citizen scientists, career scientists and the interested public work together. Just like here on WUWT.
@ Richard Courtney
While I would very much like to visit Cornwall (it being 50 years since I was last there), my arthritis prevents me travelling very far. In any event, I used my ailment as an excuse to not accompany Mrs Git on her trip to Scotland this NH summer past where her team of over 60s lady rowers won a silver medal and personal congratulations from Princess Anne. I suspect that life would not be the same were my brother-in-law and I to pursue our enthusiasm to the other end of the Earth.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 11, 2013 at 1:48 pm
As you also may know, Einstein experienced priority disputes with Poincare & others similar to Newton’s clash with Leibniz & Hooke. In part these issues arose because, like Willis with the Eschenbach Effect, Einstein published his theories of Special & General Relativity without formal citation of previous literature, or with reference only to a few of the predecessors upon whose work he based his theories. Among the latter was Lorentz for special relativity, & Gauss, Riemann & Mach for general relativity.
Later, claims were made that both theories were formulated wholly or partly by others before Einstein.
This is why, IMO, with or without peer review, it’s a good idea for a publishing scientist, pro or am, to try to find out to what extent each portion of his or her hypothesis is original. There is a limit, to be sure, on how much such prior research a scientist can be expected to do, especially an amateur.
But as I’ve noted, Darwin added to the list of his predecessors as they became known to him, but did make an effort to find as many as he could from the outset before publishing “Origin”. He of course didn’t have a day job, but did have a big family, an estate to run & was often sickly. Nor did he have the Internet or a university-sized library. He was also working under a sudden deadline to write a book, after hanging fire for over 20 years until prodded by Wallace.
Yep.
The Pompous Git:
re your post addressed to me at October 11, 2013 at 2:55 pm.
I sincerely apologise if my post caused you distress. I was not aware of your ailment and from your post concerning early steam locomotion I wrongly assumed you were British.
Clearly, a reminder that your travel is inhibited by your condition was not kind, and I ask you to forgive my unkindness which was not intended. Sorry.
Richard
I would like to make a point about peer-review. The opiniom here seems to be that it is corrupt and useless. It may have been corrupted in climate science,, I wouldn’t know.
On the other hand, while I have wondered if some the reviewers were human, I have generally found that comments made were constructive, insightful, pointed our errors that needed correction and improved the final papers.
Baire Pollaire: Convection in a liquid or gas is another example of emergent macroscopic behaviour that makes sense only when considering differentials of temperature. Convection cells, particularly Bénard cells, are an example of a self-organizing system (more specifically, a dissipative system) whose structure is determined both by the constraints of the system and by random perturbations:
You are correct. This usage is definitely different from what I learned. So Willis uses the phrase “emergent properties” in line with contemporary usage.
I hate being wrong as much as anybody, but I appreciate your effort to show me in detail how I was wrong.
Ah, nuts!
Baire Polaire, I apologize for misspelling your name.
Rereading the post, now with greater context given by Dr. Spencer’s follow-up post, his comments there, Willis and others’ comments here, etc., I’m struck negatively by a few things:
So, Dr. Spencer doesn’t mean what he said, hasn’t thought about it in great detail; he’s just frustrated. That’s a reasonable hypothesis. /s
Also, the headline: Dr. Roy Spencer’s Ill Considered Comments on Citizen Science
This would almost make you think he went after citizen scientists, rather than named one in particular and went out of his way to say he supports citizen science done right.
It seems to me there’s an obvious effort to minimise and deflect, rather than address on its merits. Willis does get into the merits a little later, but not without first poisoning the well with these.
It is pretty corrupt in climate science, which has been so politicised. Probably less so in physics, astronomy, and the like. But in other fields, like medicine, where enormous profits are to be made by selling drugs, it’s pretty bad too.
Peer review is problematic. It seems that science worked fine in journals before peer review – the fact that there wasn’t any to speak of didn’t mean there wasn’t a heck of a lot of post-publication scrutiny.
That part is good. It’s the veto power that is problematic, plus how peer reviewers are selected.
Willis, you *do have* a very big ego, which is fine. But now be a grown-up, and just admit that you’ve been pushing this all a little bit too far. And for the record, I admire Roy Spencer’s constraint in pointing that out.
@JP: I’ve been watching this squabble rather patiently, I think, and I am not going to lose patience over your comment, but because it is exemplary of what makes this exchange very irritating, I’ll go a bit out of my way to point out that it is just silly to ask somebody (in this case, Willis) to admit something that is your personal opinion:
To a largely disinterested observer like myself, this looks like the epitome of presumptuousness. You put layers of it in one short sentence. So your logic is, if Willis does not heed your advice and does not accept your opinion as his own, he is not a grown-up, right?
I think the only appropriate response to it is, please kindly go away.
Christoph Dollis:
Your post at October 11, 2013 at 3:34 pm begins saying
I admire and like both Roy Spencer and Willis Eschenbach, but I respectfully suggest that your post is a result of too much reflection.
Please read the post in this thread from Jenn Oates at October 11, 2013 at 12:58 pm. This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1444701
Richard
RC Saumarez says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Don’t see how you couldn’t know that peer review has been corrupted into pal review & opponent exclusion in “climate science”, surely after Climategate, if not before. But glad you at least allow for that possibility, which prima facie appears incontrovertible, from the pals’ own emails.
RC Saumarez draws a false dichotemy in his/her comment at October 9, 2013 at 2:49 pm above.
Citizen scientist vs professional scientist has nothing to do with training. Many of us ‘citizen scientists’ have advanced degrees in scientific fields. Others of us have lesser degrees but have invested as much or more effort over the years extending our knowledge. (The uncomfortable truth is that after taking out the hours lost to teaching responsibilities, departmental infighting and everything else, the ‘learning time’ required for a PhD is barely a few thousand hours.) Citizen scientists have the same training and “deep understanding” of experimental methods, data analysis, statistics, etc.
The only difference between a citizen scientist and a professional scientist is who signs their paycheck. Professional scientists do their research in the hours left after teaching and administrative duties and get paid generally by a university. Citizen scientists get paid for doing something else and do their research for the love of it at night and on weekends (except the lucky few who are retired or independently wealthy) rather than for the paycheck. That is the only distinction.
Saumarez tries to draw a distinction about training and knowledge of experimental methods but what he/she is really describing is whether the scientist (citizen OR professional) is a good scientist or not. There are good and bad scientists in both realms. Both have ample examples of excellent and shoddy work. That is a problem of science in general. It is not unique to the unpaid researchers.
In later comments, Saumarez redefines “scientist” to mean someone who writes up papers in the “proper” way and gets them published “at a respectable journal”. There is absolutely nothing in the scientific method or in the definition of science generally to require that. Most of the world’s great scientists did their work before the current peer review process was developed. And having seen the corruption of so many journals and the laughably low quality of work that’s being published as “peer reviewed”, I now consider the publication step to be no gauge of science at all.
Based on the comments presented in this thread, Saumarez is demonstrating a remarkably poor understanding of what it means to be a scientist, regardless of who signs his/her check.
RC Saumarez says:
“I would like to make a point about peer-review. The opiniom here seems to be that it is corrupt and useless. It may have been corrupted in climate science, I wouldn’t know.”
Mr. Saumarez, I recommend this little story of the peer review process to you:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-1-2-3-Easy-Steps
Richard S Courtney, let’s say Jenn Oates has a good point and Roy Spencer, contra my claims, did not mildly rebuke Willis, he severely rebuked Willis by playing the plagiarism card (I think this is a little exaggerated since accusing someone of not spending sufficient time to research who published what in the past isn’t the same as intentionally stealing from their work without attribution, but let’s go with Jenn’s characterization).
That does nothing to change the fact that then Roy’s criticism would be all the more directed at Willis and not at citizen scientists generally.
JP:
Your post at October 11, 2013 at 3:46 pm says in total
I am assuming your post is sincere and is not ‘pot stirring’ so I write to request clarification.
Please explain in what way Willis has pushed his defense of himself “a bit too far” when Roy has yet to withdraw his accusations of plagiarism and incompetence, and please explain what “constraint” Roy has applied.
Also, please note that Willis has offered an ‘olive branch’. It is up to Roy to take it.
Richard
Christoph Dollis:
Thankyou for your reply to me at October 11, 2013 at 3:59 pm.
I have read it and I am not ignoring it, but I cannot respond to it because I don’t understand it.
Richard
mikerossander says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Good points with which I agree, except that IMO scientists pro or am should publish. Cavendish kept many of his great achievements secret, only to be found among his papers by Maxwell about a century later. Science would have been advanced had he bothered to publish, or even tell his colleagues about his secret work. But Cavendish was often happy simply to find things out for himself, as he had no need to publish or perish. He was one of the richest men in Britain, & largely an eccentric recluse, except on special occasions.
Richard, one of the two specific things I brought up in my comment was:
Jenn Oates said:
My point is that if Willis’s back was up because of being accused of plagiarism, then implying that Roy was going after citizen scientists instead of after him is a deflection at best, misleading at worst.
@ milodonharlani and mikerossander
One of Feynman’s colleagues remarked on his ability to do physics. He mentioned two examples of what happened when a colleague asked Feynman’s advice on a knotty problem. Feynman either immediately revealed the solution, or said “leave it with me”. The following day, Feynman would give the solution. Hardly ever did Feynman publish his solutions to these knotty problems, much preferring solving problems, the company of pretty young women and playing bongos to writing boring papers. He is a scientist I greatly admire.
Ha ha.
Me too!
@ Richard Courtney
I am not in the least bit upset by your kind invitation; how were you to know I was arthritic? I am, or rather was, British. I arrived in the Land of Under in 1965 at the age of 14 with my parents. A few years ago, I underwent dewogging by a pretty young girl of Japanese descent and now possess an Australian passport. However, this is for rather more localised travel. My daughter and grandsons live in New Zealand and I intend visiting them early next year.
Further to my second to last comment, Richard, I see Willis has posted this at Roy Spencer’s blog:
Willis was called out by Roy in a post whose title began: Citizen Scientist: Willis …
Now it looks like Willis very much wants to be part of a larger group as much as possible, rather than have much attention paid to Roy’s specific criticisms of Willis.
@Jimbo
“Sisi The Magnificent”
Thanks Jimbo!
Christoph Dollis:
Genuine thanks for your clarification for me in your post at October 11, 2013 at 4:12 pm.
OK, I now ‘get it’. You are suggesting that Roy was making a specific attack of Willis.
If your understanding were right then Willis would have even more reason for his righteous anger. In effect, your suggestion is that Roy Spencer made a deliberate and personal attack on Willis Eschenbach with malice aforethought.
But I do not think that was his intention. In my opinion Roy was making an attack on “citizen scientists” and he used Willis as a well-known example. That is how I read what he wrote and Willis’ headline suggests that his understanding of the matter was similar to mine.
If my understanding is right then Roy made a poor choice of example. He could have chosen e.g. Myrrh. But he did not, and my interpretation of information revealed to me in this thread by Alec Rawls at October 10, 2013 at 10:59 pm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1444067
leads me to suspect that his judgement was clouded by a personal perceived resentment.
We all make mistakes and poor choices on occasion. I think this kerfuffle has happened because Roy Spencer made a poor choice of example then compounded the error by using words which amounted to an accusation of plagiarism when – I suspect – the accusation was not intentional.
Of course, my assessment is only an opinion, but I am not willing to accept that a man with the integrity of Roy Spencer would deliberately and with malice aforethought mount a specific and personal attack on anyone.
Richard
JP says: October 11, 2013 at 3:46 pm
JP what does the word “constraint” mean in your above quoted passage? Maybe English is your second language?
Christoph Dollis:
Genuine thanks for your posts to me. I made a long reply to your clarification but it vanished when I posted it. The time is nearing 1 am here so I am now retiring for the night and will write it again tomorrow. Sorry. Anyway, I think you are being too harsh on Roy Spencer whom I think made a poor choice of example in his attack on “citizen scientists” in general and not Willis in particular (whom he used as example), then compounded that error by a poor choice of words which were an unintended accusation of plagiarism. My repeat of my vanished post will explain that.
Richard
acementhead, JP used the word constraint correctly. See definition 2: repression of natural feelings and impulses: to practice constraint. JP is saying Roy Spencer could have put it in stronger terms, but didn’t.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, Richard.
I’m not being harsh on Roy Spencer at all — I’m pointing out how his title referred to a citizen scientist, singular, and to Willis, specifically. Then, yes, Spencer also criticised other citizen scientists doing the same sorts of things he doesn’t like about what Willis does, but he never criticised all citizen scientists and made that crystal clear. He expressed admiration for them, in fact, and even complimented Willis to a point.
Uh, no. As Spencer made clear both in his post and subsequent comments, he didn’t accuse Willis of plagiarism; he accused him of not doing sufficient research on the origin of scientific ideas so that he can grant credit adequately. There is a subtle, important distinction there.
Jenn Oates, who you linked to, was someone who said Spencer accused Willis of plagiarism. Anyway, enjoy your rest.
Maybe Dr. Spencer chose the Homer Simpson image simply because of the headgear similarity with Bad Boy Hansen, not meaning to smear citizen scientists. But IMO a picture of Forrest Mims in a narrow-brimmed cowboy hat would have sufficed.
Sorry Cissy, I meant Cissy the translucent. 😛 Babang babang booooosh.
On the possibility of an amateur scientist performing a comprehensive lit. search:
David Mermin (co-author of the world’s funniest solid-state physics text), observed that, extrapolating from the current rate of growth, soon volumes of the Physical Review will be filling library shelves at a rate exceeding the speed of light. There is no violation of special relativity, however, as no information is being propagated.
And that’s just one journal!
Christoph Dollis says: October 11, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Christoph the attack also contained a graphic, the URL for which I reproduce below,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/roy-spencer-homer-simpson-climate-scientist.jpg?w=640
the only possible interpretation of which I can see is
“Amateur “scientists”(they aren’t really scientists) are idiots; professional climate scientists are in chains.”.
The graphic, to me, is a clear attack on all of us moron amateurs, it was not restricted to Willis.
In what way is your interpretation different?
I would like Willis to post his next article in the series on this topic.
I have a vested interest of course. Because I want to know. I want to see what the actual data says. I want it updated to include the newest data. I am only in this debate because I want to know.
I don’t really care who came up with “the theory” in the first place. I imagine even the first group of Homo Erectus 1.8 million years ago looked up at the thunderstorms and wondered how these storms affected the climate in the medium-term and the longer-term. That would only make about 9 billion souls thinking about this in the past and coming up with their own understanding.
Was Willis the first among 9 billion souls to come up with a theory about clouds and thunderstorms. NO. Someone figured it out long, long, ago – maybe even 1.8 million years ago. But no one has been able to PROVE it so that it is very clear, so that is passed on as fact to the next generation of persons. 1991 papers dealing with this issue have not been passed on as common knowledge.
Carry on because this is important. It is more important than anything else brought up in this limited debate. Maybe some don’t want to see the results. Maybe some are jealous of others putting together important information. The worst type of jealousy is being jealous of another person’s accomplishments.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:48 pm
acementhead, JP used the word constraint correctly. See definition 2: repression of natural feelings and impulses: to practice constraint. JP is saying Roy Spencer could have put it in stronger terms, but didn’t.
OK thanks. Restraint would be the normally expected English usage(hence the enquiry) but I can see that constraint can be constrained to fit. Nitpicking on my part anyway; the substance is much more important.
acementhead,
In the way that he mentioned Willis by name, pointed out what he feels are bad practices by Willis, said that he’s picking on Willis, and said that he means citizen climate scientists that do similar things.
In fact, it took 13 paragraphs, most of which mentioned Willis by name in addition to the aforementioned headline, before Roy mentioned other citizen climate scientists, and only then in parentheses:
I think you’re bothered in part because Roy implied that blog commenters themselves often don’t think things through:
Well I agree with him.
I admire both protagonists in this debate, but feel the visual imagery was incredibly nasty and utterly uncalled for. A phone call from Dr Spenser to Willis directing Willis to papers that Willis may have missed, if they exist, should have sufficed.
As a teacher, I have to acknowledge Willis’ incredibly rare gift for writing simple and clear explanations of complicated processes and phenomena and, having had to sort out juvenile fisticuffs in playgrounds over many years, the good doctors’ aspersions have a familiar flavour!
A lot of us have incomplete information in this matter. We need a scorecard! The information I have is probably typical of many at this blog.
We know there are three major “players” who are coming at the weather-as-thermostat issue from a scientific angle:
(1) Willis Eschenbach, known to all here through his postings, and from his 2010 Energy & Environment paper which is available at a click (linked by Willis above).
(2) Roy Spencer, probably known to everyone here and highly respected. Apparently, Dr. Spencer published a memo in about 2008 regarding weather-thermostatting, which he subsequently withdrew – so we don’t have that in direct consideration. Is that right? Is it related to Chapter 3 of his excellent 2008 book, Climate Confusion?
(3) Ramanathan and Collins, likely unknown to most of us until very recently, who wrote a 1991 paper in Nature which most of us have never seen and find difficult to obtain.
[ We note, regrettably, the appearance of one or more annoying, anonymous, embarrassing gadflies in the thread, but they are of no concern here as they contribute nothing to a discussion of science and facts – just of prejudice and opinion. ]
Now, to my understanding, here are the scientific issues – two theories of how weather (thunderstorms and the like) act to thermostatically cool the surface. Presumably, this is a theme addressed by the three scientific players.
(A) Surface heat causes evaporation of water resulting in surface cooling; and energy as latent heat is transported in rising air currents where it can release this heat and radiate it to space above any CO2 “blanket”; the cooled water falling back down to the surface.
(B) Extra water high in the atmosphere, regardless of how it got up there from the surface, produces more high level cloud cover. These clouds reflect back more incoming sunlight, preventing the surface from warming.
Both of these thermostatting mechanisms employ water to control energy flow. One removes heat that was AT the surface, the other prevents NEW heat from getting in. But as Richard Courtney has said many times, they are not the same. Either, or both simultaneously, are possible and perhaps likely. But any researcher suggesting only one does not get automatic credit for the other.
Can someone familiar with the large-scale picture here help me with the FACTS relating the three players to the two theories? Are there more players and/or more theories? If we can become clear on the facts here, perhaps we can better understand the personalities – or just ignore them.
Oh, come on.
Homer Simpson in a hat and Dr. Hanson in a hat getting arrested on purpose as a protest is not a big deal.
It’s not about global warming. It’s not about climate change. It’s about throttling economic growth and population.
Global warming is said to be a planetary emergency and one of the greatest challenges facing humans.
Why should people care what an activist group approves of or opposes? Who elected them to represent us? Is it because when you Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace? Naaaaahhhh.
Re: Alec Rawls
I knew I had seen that paper before, I remember searching for it over on his blog, having seen it in the past, and being baffled why I could not find it any longer.
I assumed I had been mistaken about it being there and didn’t check wayback at all.
RC Saumarez says:
October 11, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Indeed, you have tried to point that out frequently … and you have consistently made the same mistake. You’ve claimed that I have a
As I have told you, over and over ad nauseam, even shouting it in ALL CAPS in a prior thread, is that I have no such model of the climate system. I’ve said, time after time, that my model is not of the climate system in any way or shape. True to form, you have ignored this inconvenient reality completely each time I’ve explained it to you.
I have no such model, RC. What I have is a model OF THE CLIMATE MODELS THEMSELVES, the GCMs that the IPCC so depends on. And as a result, as I’ve told you before, your consistent claim that my model doesn’t match the climate system is ludicrous. Laughable. Doesn’t pass the smell test. Of course my model’s autocorrelation doesn’t match the autocorrelation of the climate system, Mr. Bigtime Signal Analyst—because it’s not a model of the climate system, duh … how many times do I have to tell you this? Are you really that dense?
Come back when you’ve wrapped your head around that arcane concept, and we can talk about my model OF THE OTHER MODELS. Until then, this is just another example of you standing on your rights by insisting that you have the right to remain ignorant, and that anything that I never actually said will be used against me …
w.
PS—You go on to claim:
Typical Saumarez—no quotes, no citation as to which thread, no link to the exchange. It’s here for those who might be interested … in any case, RC, you’re making things up here. I never challenged you to say what your model was, I couldn’t care less about your endless models and examples that allow you to avoid question after question. Here’s what I actually said:
I challenged you to show what you are claiming—that aliasing actually is a problem, not in your whizbang model, but in my analysis.
Faced with that challenge you scurried away, mumbling about your model … it was just another example where you want to spin the conversation off into an infinity of mirrors and models, rather than do some actual exposition regarding the question at hand. If you claim there is aliasing in my analysis, then you need to demonstrate that—not hammer on the possibility that it might exist in your model, but demonstrate that it does exist in my analysis.
And that, my friend, you’ve never done. Not in the slightest. Not even close. You haven’t even begun to demonstrate that it is a problem in my analysis. All we have in that regard is your claim that it might be a problem. Sure, it might be … but I don’t think that it is.
PPS—I never called RC “incompetent” in that thread, it’s just another one of his fantasies. You can see why he rarely links to what he’s discussing or quotes my words—in his mind, it frees him from the necessity of actually telling the truth about what went down. He hasn’t noticed yet that yes, people will check up on his claims.
Bill Illis says:
October 11, 2013 at 5:18 pm
At least ten times that many (9 billion) souls have wondered about clouds & weather:
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
The 107 billion estimate starts in 50,000 BC, so even at low numbers of H. erectus, H. ergastor, H. heidelbergensis, H. sapiens neandertalensis/denisovensis, etc, not to mention H. floresiensis, between 1.8 million & 52,000 years ago, there would be billions or tens of billions more of such cloud gazers.
Response to
Christoph Dollis October 11, 2013 at 5:31 pm
I am certain that it is clear to all intelligent people that my post referred to, and to only, the graphic at
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/roy-spencer-homer-simpson-climate-scientist.jpg?w=640
which depicts HS in a hat, yes, but labelled “Citizen Climate Scientist”. I was not referring to Dr Spencer’s 15 paragraph diatribe, which I had not read and have no intention of reading. The graphic speaks for itself. I’m sure that you are an intelligent person and I therefore consider your response disingenuous.
I presume that you realise that Dr Spenser is a “creationist”; what creationists have to say is of no interest to me.
JP says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:46 pm
So now I’m guilty of breaking a new vague statute, which says “Nobody shall be allowed to push this all too far”.
Push what all too far? How on earth am I supposed to respond to that vague accusation, JP?
And Roy’s constraint? The man accused me of plagiarism, compared me to Homer Simpson, and attempted to lecture me like I was stealing ideas and not giving credit … you’ll have to point out the “restraint” in those actions. Claiming that that is “restraint” is just more vague handwaving on your part.
And “be a grown-up”? Oh, you mean I should make vague nasty uncited and unclear accusations like you are doing?
Thanks, JP, but if in your world the attempted drive-by sliming that you just failed at qualifies as “grown-up”, I want none of it.
w.
1. I apologise for the misspelling of Dr Spencer’s name.
2 Thanks Willis for giving JP what he deserved, even though it was a bit restrained for my liking.
Qu’elle horreur! A photo of a climate scientist being arrested and a photo of a cartoon character wearing a similar hat with a caption by way of contrast, for humour’s sake. This totally justifies the reaction, “the visual imagery was incredibly nasty and utterly uncalled for.”
I think you’re being silly about it which is why I posted the, “Lighten up, Frances,” clip, but each to their own. You were outraged by it. OK then.
acementhead says:
October 11, 2013 at 6:49 pm
While I agreed with much of what you said, here I part company with you. I have defended Dr. Roy on this very point in the past, although he’s likely unaware of that. Look, lots of people believe that they have an invisible powerful companion who listens to their every single word, a being who will sometimes rearrange the world to give the person what they asked their invisible amigo to deliver for them. Heck, many people believe that their invisible friend has the power to suspend the ordinary laws of physics on that person’s behalf and to their advantage if asked in the right way.
We call these people “Christians”.
I see nothing in either their beliefs, or Dr. Roy’s Creationist beliefs, to render them unfit to be scientists. Both beliefs are bull goose looney in my eyes, but some variant of one, the other, or both of them have been fervently believed by some of the greatest scientists in history.
Didn’t seem to do them any harm, so I’m assuming the same about Dr. Roy and about all Christians.
w.
I notified the New York Times that Willis is not an engineer,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html
“I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian
…as this is how myths get spread,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22willis+eschenbach+an+engineer%22
Poptech,
I used to think better of you than that.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 11, 2013 at 6:58 pm
If you think that photo and those captions were chosen “for humour’s sake”, I fear you are seriously out of touch. In fact, it marks you as being so clueless that I propose that instead of “Christopher Dollis” we should all call you “Homer Doofus”.
But remember, Homer … in calling you “Homer Doofus”, there’s no intent to make you look like a clueless idiot. By comparing you to Homer Simpson, we’re not implying that you are so stupid that you can’t recognize an insult … we’re just making the comparison for humour’s sake …
What, you don’t see the humour, Mr. Doofus?
Qu’elle horreur!
w.
Christoph Dollis says: October 11, 2013 at 6:58 pm
You talkin’ t’ me? My post did not contain the expression “the visual imagery was incredibly nasty and utterly uncalled for.” nor anything similar. Maybe you are confusing me with somebody else.
I did not go to any link that you posted; I never go to a naked link; I go to links only if there is an excerpt or at least a brief description. Weird eh?
Cheers
PS No more responses from me to disingenuous comments.
There was no disengenuous comment, ace. You could have just done a control-f search for yourself and seen that someone else posted that, Alexander. Sorry about the mixup.
Backing up a bit, I see you said:
“which depicts HS in a hat, yes, but labelled ‘Citizen Climate Scientist'”, referring to the aforementioned comment by Alexander.
Willis adds something about Homer. I guess he’s really touchy about Homer Simpson references.
I actually do see the humour in Homer Simpson references.
But mostly, he chose it for the hat and because Homer is wildly known. Plus humour.
You really, actually think that Roy Spencer meant, with that image, to make you look like a clueless dolt?
Jeez Louise.
Thanks for your response Willis.
“..fervently believed by some of the greatest scientists in history.”
That was then, this is now. I believe that given what we now know, the vast majority, if not all, the believer scientists would be unbelievers.
It was only just over 400 years ago that Christians burnt to death Giordano Bruno(I’m sure that you knew that but others might not).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
They didn’t stop out of the goodness of their hearts; they lost the power. Long may that condition remain.
Thanks for your good work even if your do get some stuff wrong(ecat, hehehe).
Cheers
richardscourtney says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:50 am
Gary Pearse:
re your comment at October 11, 2013 at 11:40 am.
“I accept much that you say. However, as I have repeatedly said (and explained) in this thread, I consider the R&C Effect and the Eschenbach Effect to be very different. Importantly, Willis has also said in this thread that he thinks they are different effects.”
I agree they are different and said why in the comment. I do see, however, that I carelessly and unintentionally diluted my statement with the last sentence. Interestingly, as you will note, in my April comment, in which I coined the term “Eschenbach Effect”, I was responding to an earlier comment of yours. You supported the idea and revealed that you are on the E&E editorial board that accepted Willis’s paper.
Amusingly enough, that video linked about the number of people who have ever lived has a map in the background, on that map are a few other ways to project a globe onto flat surface.
The one directly to his side is sometimes called a Waterman Butterfly, Waterman himself likes to take part in citizen science… of a sort.
Mostly this involves doing things like arguing that SR and GR are both incorrect because Einstein references Galilean transformations of reference frames, and Steve goes to great lengths to insist they are wrong.
He does this by starting out with what looks like a proper definition of a coordinate system, except it is relabeled in his head in such a fashion that it does not function normally under coordinate transformations, and clearly this error is not his own, because he has built physical models with sticks and colored balls and endless series of manipulating them and taking pictures to post online in his attempts to disprove the work of Einstein.
My point here is that despite his often ridiculous behavior when Einstein is brought up, the man did a good job working out an interesting map projection, it is not my personal favorite as I am a fan of the Dymaxion, but it is still a worthy contribution which Steve has made.
Unfortunately it is not the one he wishes he had made, that being the falsification of Special Relativity, but whatever.
Even if I hated everything Willis wrote, even if I thought he was completely misguided about his reasoning regarding thunderstorms, I would have to give him credit for making it known that he has been wrong before, could be wrong now, and will be wrong in the future about various things.
Good on ya, man, I myself make a point to be wrong as little as possible, and take every time I discover I have been wrong as an excuse to learn more. Well, I say excuse, but I really love the process of accumulating obscure and often useless bits of information… maybe one of these days I’ll put it to use and go get on Jeopardy.
—
Off-topic, I always thought being Christian would necessitate trying to follow the example said term is named for, but there seems to be no such requirement sadly.
dbstealey, you are against correcting misinformation?
Careful acementhead, Bruno was burnt at the stake because he was a bloody nuisance according to the majority of citizens at the time. What we now call Europe was then called Christendom and for good reason. Jews and Muslims were quite rare, and while they too may have wanted to burn the idiot Bruno, it would have been foolhardy indeed to for them to have done so. Especially when the Christian majority were more than willing to do it for them. It’s a fine example of democracy in action.
But yes, you are correct; ordinary citizens have lost power, voting merely giving the illusion thereof.
I notified the Daily Telegraph that Willis is not an computer modeller,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html
“…published on the Watts Up With That website by Willis Eschenbach, a very experienced computer modeller”
…as this is how myths get spread,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Willis+Eschenbach+a+very+experienced+computer+modeller%22
I notified the Daily Telegraph that Willis is not an computer modeller,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8349545/Unscientific-hype-about-the-flooding-risks-from-climate-change-will-cost-us-all-dear.html (correct link)
“…published on the Watts Up With That website by Willis Eschenbach, a very experienced computer modeller”
…as this is how myths get spread,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Willis+Eschenbach+a+very+experienced+computer+modeller%22
I notified the Right Side News that Willis is not an engineer,
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010041722232/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/top-scientists-rush-to-defend-discredited-theory-of-runaway-global-warming.html
“They can be useful, but their results are not evidence of anything, writes engineer Willis Eschenbach.”
…as this is how myths get spread,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22engineer+Willis+Eschenbach%22
Poptech –
Horror of horrors, you found an error in a newspaper article. Two points:
Have you ever read an newspaper article about which you know the details – in detail – perhaps provided the details to the reporter, and found they still got a half dozen or so wrong? I have, and I assume it is routine. But wonder of wonders, the sun still came up the next morning!
As for calling someone an engineer, and claiming they are not an engineer, you have a lot to learn about engineering. I assume you are talking about having a degree, or a professional license. In engineering we tend to call someone an engineer if he/she does engineering in a competent fashion. No one cares, and many have degrees in one area of engineering (or other science), and work in a different area. I know physicists and even biologists who are first-rate electrical engineers. Nobody cares about credentials after the first year or so.
As for license, very few engineers have a license unless legally required (mostly civil engineers). I personally received inquiries from two former students who needed a professional EE license and had a “review book” for the exam. “Is this really the right answer?” they asked. “No” I had to reply, “but best answer it their nonsense way.”
It’s a good idea to not harp on labels and credentials. Nobody cares. And – someone might ask for yours – even your name.
Poptech wants to be burned at the stake :-)))))
Christoph Dollis says:
October 11, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Of course being depicted as Homer Simpson wasn’t meant to make me look clueless … clearly, he meant it as a compliment on my scientific abilities! Unfortunately, he couldn’t find a picture of Aristotle to express his scientific appreciation, so he used a picture of Homer instead …
You really, actually think that Roy Spencer meant that depiction as a compliment, or anything even slightly positive? Really?
w.
I notified James Delingpole that Willis is not an scientist,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019301/climategate-another-smoking-gun/
“…an expose at Watts Up With That, courtesy of scientist Willis Eschenbach.”
…as this is how myths get spread,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22scientist+Willis+Eschenbach%22
Poptech is envious and it shows whenever he types something in his own defense, it’s childish.
Bernie, when a newspaper uses the term as an occupation they refer to either education credentials or licenses not self appointed titles, unless of course they are discussing a railroad engineer.
Sorry but I have engineers in the family and they never call anyone an engineer unless they have a degree in engineering or are licensed. I am well aware people give themselves fantasy credentials they did not earn.
I think he was being humorous. If you’ll note, he also showed a climate scientist being arrested. What they had in common was the hat.
He chose the image as a light-hearted way of showing both citizen scientists and professional scientists can be subject to folly.
The first two paras. above should have been in blockquote.
[Fixed. -w.]
Mario the last thing I am is envious, I just have a problem with misinformation.
Apropos Roy’s likening Willis to Homer Simpson being “just humour”, I decided to see how Homer is described… on the Wiki-bloody-pedia.
Well, The Git is certainly crude and overweight, but would certainly take justifiable umbrage at being called incompetent, clumsy, lazy, a heavy drinker, and ignorant. OTOH, The Git has never minded being called an idiot:
http://www.sturmsoft.com/Writing/guide_to-gardening/frequently_asked_questions.htm
I am glad I started this as I can now give examples of how misleading this can be,
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/aug/14/how-hot-it-and-why/#c15297
“A final question, one asked on Judith Curry’s blog a year ago by a real scientist, Willis Eschenbach”
Poptech said @ October 11, 2013 at 8:49 pm
You most certainly have a problem and it’s not with misinformation. You are also becoming a problem for us readers. You might want to reign it in a little.
Willis: to my great surprise, the essay by Roy on”Natures’s Thermostat” is indeed NOT the essay that I remembered. When I went to look for the essay a couple of years ago my recollection was of an essay about how the efficiency of the rain cycle increased as evaporation increased, with the effect that heat was more rapidly pumped from the surface to the now especially dry air at the top of the clouds so that it could continue rise more rapidly than before. When I found Roy’s Nature’s Thermostat essay on Wayback I assumed it was the essay I was looking for, but you are right. The detailed discussion of how the rain cycle responds to increased evaporation is not in that essay.
So I don’t know what to think. Maybe I was wrong about Roy having been the one who wrote the essay I remembered. Could it have been John Daly? My recollection a few years ago was that it was Roy, but if it wasn’t Roy, I’m at a loss. There definitely was such an essay by some climate expert, published on a personal website, not in any journal, and written for experts and non experts alike.
This is great we have misinformation submitted to the EPA,
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume3.html
Comment (3-37):
“The Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation point to CRU scientists’ attempts to refuse an FOI request by scientist Willis Eschenbach”
Popteck says in part :
“Sorry but I have engineers in the family and they never call anyone an engineer unless they have a degree in engineering or are licensed.”
I’m not surprised that your family favors titles of royalty. But what do they call you? Popteck?
Poptech, Willis is a scientist. It isn’t a government certificate program like being a hairstylist or medical doctor. It’s a matter of what he does, looking at the world, sharing his results, and even correcting his posts after errors are spotted in them. He is, as you know, published too.
Is he a good scientist? Well. That’s for people to decide. But to call that misinformation is pretty petty of you.
Apropos engineering credentials, The Git spent several years verifying applications for accreditation of building practitioners, including engineers. Some of the latter were often surprised (and annoyed) that they had to either provide evidence of their qualifications and years of experience, or rather a lot of information supporting their claim to be practicing engineers. Not a huge number I hastily add, but enough to be annoying. One electrical engineer with one year of technical college even wanted to be accredited as a building surveyor when he didn’t even know what a building surveyor did! It requires a three year degree here. He even went so far as to have the issue brought up in State Parliament by a Green politician. The Labor member he approached had his p.a. phone me to ask why he hadn’t been accredited and understood why when I told him.
So it goes…
Bernie, titles are not royalty (at least not in the United States),
Christopher, Willis is vaguely published but is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
OK, one of my big problems is that Willis seems to be so offended by this public criticism, and rather than handle it in a calmer matter, mainly by addressing the points, he’s accusing (or implying) Dr. Spencer is doing this for emotional reasons, was probably offended by him; but at the same time really has it out for citizen scientists writ large and was as of 10 pm yesterday [Roy’s time] still making that claim on Roy’s blog,
even after Roy’s second post completely denying that was published at least 12 hours earlier.
So he’s basically calling Roy a liar. And yet, even after making these sorts of insinuations, he’s asking Roy for a courtesy phone call next time.
I don’t find any of this reasonable, professional, or what have you. It seems that if Willis is going to assume a prominent role writing prolifically for the most-viewed climate website in the world, and several of his posts are critical of others to boot, if he gets criticised he should look at the criticisms rather than poison the well in an effort to defend himself. Whether defending his rep or his ego is his priority, I have no clue, but it looks to me to be highly defensive right from the get-go.
Rather than demand a phone call, a prolific blogger should realise that others in the field may speak to him from their blog, and just deal with that fact. Roy didn’t do anything wrong by writing his post and expressing his opinion.
Poptech says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Poptech, you’re hilarious. It doesn’t matter whether I’m a computer modeler, whatever you think that means (as it happens, I’m damn good at it) or not. You still don’t seem to get it.
You keep focusing on my biography. But as I’ve said many times, it’s not about me. The only question worth asking is, are my scientific ideas true and valid?
In other words, will my scientific ideas stand the test of being examined, audited, and attacked by those who hold different scientific ideas? Are they backed by data and math and logic and observations and references and citations? Do they have hidden flaws and errors?
Those are the only questions worth entertaining, Poptech … not pathetic nonsense about whether I am a “computer modeler”, whatever that means.
For example: I’ve developed a model of the computer models themselves. Doesn’t that make me a “computer modeler” right there? Not only that, but I’ve used that model to develop some interesting conclusions about the computer models themselves.
Now, faced with that, you have two choices, Poptech. If you can find faults or flaws in my work, if you can falsify my science, if you can show that my model doesn’t work as advertised, then I have to admit I was wrong and science moves forwards.
The other choice is to not say a word about the science, just whine that I’m not a “computer modeler” … look, save yourself the trouble. Just assume I’m the janitor and have no computer skills at all, I don’t care. The only question still remains:
Can you, Poptech, falsify my science and my computer models?
I assure you, in all seriousness, that you will never get any traction here with your continual ad hominem attacks against me and what I’ve done or not done. This web site is about the science. For all I know, you could be a raving idiot, or the head of a major university, or a great scientist, or a grade school janitor … and it’s immaterial to us here on this site. We’re interested in the ideas, not the personalities.
Science is funny that way. If a scientific idea is good, it’s good, no matter if the person who came up with the idea is the head of Greenpeace, the head of Exxon, or a convicted criminal … all that matters is the science.
So let me ask you politely to stop making a fool of yourself by attacking me, and graduate to attacking my scientific ideas. I invite you to give up the ad hominems, and join in on what are interesting scientific discussions that go on here, discussions that take no notice of the certificates or qualifications or education level of the participants.
Or even whether they are computer modelers like me … I wrote my first computer program fifty years ago exactly, Poptech, and I’ve written plenty of models of various kinds of systems.
So while you are correct that I’m not an engineer, nor have I claimed to be, I am indeed a computer modeler of some small ability … and none of that makes the slightest difference. Come join the discussion.
w.
Poptech, if you do computer modelling you are a computer modeller. You don’t have to have first gone to the Computer Modelling School of Advanced Computer Modelling, Inc.
Poptech says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:08 pm
Poptech, what on earth does “vaguely published” mean when I have a peer-reviewed “Communications Arising” in Nature, a peer-reviewed piece in Diversity and Distributions, and two peer-reviewed pieces in Energy and Environment?
As to whether I’m a scientist, there is no official title or definition of a scientist. Instead, it means someone who follows the scientific method. This is to transparently put your ideas out there in the world with all supporting information, in scientific journals and elsewhere, and invite people to try to demolish the ideas. If they can, then the ideas fail and fall. But if no one can falsify the claims, then they are tentatively accepted as scientific facts (until such time as someone does falsify them.) That’s how science works.
So yes, I am indeed a scientist, of a type that used to be common but has become rarer in recent years, an “amateur scientist”. Literally, this means someone who practices science for the love of science rather than for money. I take pride in that description, it’s quite accurate.
Now, the journal Nature thought enough of my science to peer-review it and publish it. I’m one of very, very few amateur scientists who has achieved that distinction. They obviously think I’m a scientist … so who cares what a random internet popup who’s too spineless to sign his own name might think?
Re-read the comments, my friend … people are starting to point and laugh at you, and with good reason. Unless that’s the reaction you’re aiming for, you might reconsider your game plan …
w.
Willis, using CAD/CAM software is not what is inferred by Mr. Booker but rather, “climate models”. You were never employed as a “computer modeller” in the scientific sense. You just keep inventing new titles to apply to yourself and it misleadingly distorts your actual experience.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:18 pm
Christoph, I read Dr. Roy’s attempt to backpedal on what he’d said, and deny that he was dissing citizen scientists. I was not impressed in the slightest. Any man who uses a picture of Homer Simpson to personify citizen scientists is not praising them in any sense, he is disparaging them.
He used me as an example of a “citizen scientist”, and he is accusing me of plagiarism, and saying that I’m conflating the CRE and the change in CRE, and claiming that I’m “muddying the waters” regarding clouds … after being very careful to point out that I’m a citizen scientist, how on earth is that not an attack on citizen scientists?
As to my handling it in a calmer manner, by addressing the points, all I have asked Dr. Roy for is to back up his allegations. Back up his claim that I’m a plagiarist, falsely claiming credit for someone else’s ideas. Back up his nonsense that I didn’t distinguish between CRE and the change in CRE. Those are nasty allegations about what a “citizen scientist” does, Christoph.
That’s all I’ve asked—that if my name shouldn’t go on what I think is my own idea that the timing of the onset of tropical cumulus and thunderstorms is among the largest temperature control mechanisms, then bring up the study that shows that someone else’s name should be on that idea.
To date, neither Dr. Roy, nor you, nor anyone else, has brought up such a study …
So yes, Christoph, he held me up as an example of the citizen scientist, and then accused me of a variety of malfeasance. If you don’t see that as having a disdain for citizen scientists … well, not much I can say at that point.
If he truly held citizen scientists in high regard, he would have gone out of his way to distinguish me from them, or say I was a rogue, or an outlier. In fact, why did he mention them at all if (as you claim) he holds them in high regard? But he did none of that.
Instead, he takes me as the representative of the class called citizen scientists, and then abuses the class by falsely accusing me.
w.
Poptech says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:58 pm
Using CAD/CAM software? You’ve totally lost the plot. I made a computer model that emulated to high accuracy the output of the climate models … do you think I did that with CAD/CAM?
Poptech, you have no idea of the number and variety of computer models I’ve made … but as I said before, this is all meaningless personal attacks.
You still don’t get it, do you? You could prove I was a convicted murderer and it wouldn’t make any difference. People don’t listen to me because of titles like “computer modeler”. They don’t listen to me because I have published papers.
They listen to me because the computer model that I built, and that I published so people could find faults in it, is an interesting piece of work, one that reveals things previously unknown. They listen to me because my ideas are interesting and provocative, and because I put them out transparently with all supporting documentation. They listen to me because when I’m wrong, I say so, loud and clear.
But nobody cares in the slightest whether or not I’m described as a “computer modeler”. Truly, Poptech, your childish gyrations are embarrassing, I find myself wincing for you in sympathy every time you trot out some other new pathetic personal attack. People don’t do that here, Poptech, it makes you look like a clueless unpleasant noob.
Here, we do science, not character assassination. I invite you to give up on the latter, and join us in the former.
w.
Willis you “Communication Arising” is a COMMENT on an original research paper. “Climate change decreases aquatic ecosystem productivity of Lake Tanganyika, Africa”.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6950/abs/nature01833.html
It is not remotely the same as getting original research or a review paper published. Nature peer-reviews comments = yawn. Why do you wish to mislead people like this?
What are the two peer-reviewed papers in E&E?
No one but your WUWT fanboys remotely considers you a scientist.
Willis, I don’t agree with you that Dr. Spencer launched a blanket attack on citizen scientists or that he accused you of plagiarism, but if that’s what you believe, you’re entitled to express it. At least now I have clarity on your position.
Willis, where is your computer climate model so we can review the code? I would like to have my team review it.
Dr. Michaels has said he wrote a simple climate model but does not make the ridiculous claim to be a “computer modeller” like you have.
This is not character assassination but exposing your BS.
Well that can’t be true as I’m hardly one of his “fanboys”.
The OED gives but two definitions of scientist:
Neither would seem to require any sort of educational qualification. Willis is certainly the former, but as to whether Roy is of the latter I do not know, or care.
Christopher, you are if you consider him a scientist via declaring himself so (must be nice).
Git, this is a more relevant definition,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist
scientist (noun) “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”
Willis has none of these credentials.
Your reasoning skills are lacking tonight, Poptech. I miss the sharp guy who I joined in debating Dana Nuccitelli when he was both wrong and censorious.
Get some sleep.
@ Poptech
Your puerile invective adds nothing to this thread.
That would be one definition, that of a professional scientist. Like a lot of words, it has more than one definition. Willis is an amateur scientist, a citizen scientist, or whatever similar vernacular you want to use.
I think you’ll have better odds of success if you want to argue he is a bad scientist rather than argue a guy with published papers who devotes tens of hours per week to science is not, in any sense, a scientist.
Poptech said @ October 11, 2013 at 10:31 pm
Poptech, here’s what Amazon has to say regarding the OED:
I’m not denigrating Merriam-Webster, or any of the many other dictionaries I own. But when I go into Fullers Bookstore, the staff don’t whisper “that’s the guy whose wife bought him the Merriam-Webster Dictionary”. But they do whisper about her purchasing me the OED for my 60th birthday. I will always consult the OED first and any others necessary for my research afterward when necessary. It is without peer (so to speak).
Now do be a good little boy and take your medication.
Christopher, without the qualifier “amateur” or “citizen” before scientist, it is misleading and I do not think you want to mislead people.
Git, if we did a public poll which definition do you believe more people would imply first when the word is used as it is here?
So nice to have PopTech back for his third go around on this thread. Without PT as the gatekeeper us ignorant hillbilly fanboys just wouldn’t have no idea what to think. With this third round though, I’m beginning to wonder if PopTech isn’t really the name of some kind of sciency comic book and the team PopTech mentions that he is going to assemble needs to start drawing the next issue. Here is some proposed dialogue for your next issue of Poptech. Working title: Willis & the Fanboys.
“Garsh Willis, is rain really wet. I never woulda knowed if you hadn’t told us.” Gee whillikers, Willis. Kin I come in outa the rain now? It’s kinda cold you know” “Willis, I’m so glad you been teechin’ usins. We”d a never learnt nothin’ without ya.”
Give at a rest Pop. Your weak accusations are just repeats from two days ago. Let Dr. Roy answer Willis questions and propositions. The terrier yapping at the feet of the master adds nothing to the masters command of his intellect or his communication. But the terrier can certainly add to the irritation of those exposed to the constant yapping.
pbh
This thread has really pulled out the people who are insecure and intensely jealous of Willis.
Yes boys, spend more time getting wound up even further.
Willis smacks you down with ease.
If Willis does not post a link to his computer model code within one hour of this post, it will be determined it does not exist (excuses will be ignored).
The reason for this, is I know Willis and he will obsessively try to throw something together to save face at a later date since he has committed himself.
In the mean time, I am going to continue to correct his misleading credentials online as I find them. I want to thank Willis for giving me such a good reason to do so.
BTW, 1 hour is more than enough time for a computer expert like Willis to upload the code to any of the many freely available file servers online.
Interesting, Dr Roy seems to have issues with citizen scientists.
Amusing how many commenters are obsessing over Willis’s style but avoiding the science.
Odd how many insist on offering us their interpretation of Dr Spencer’s words, most of us can read and comprehend, strange you feel the need to help us out.
The Eschenbach Effect may come to apply to more than the timing of tropical thunder storms.
Poptech said @ October 11, 2013 at 10:57 pm
PopTech, if we did a public poll asking what was the leading dictionary of the English language which do you think they would name? Irrelevant I know, but hey, you seem to revel in irrelevance 😉
@ McComberBoy
When do we get to the part where PopTech takes his proton pill and starts to make some kind of sense? 😉
Git, actually that would probably be a very revealing poll as you would likely get results like “Google” or “Wikipedia”.
The Pompous Git says: October 11, 2013 at 10:52 pm
“Now do be a good little boy and take your medication.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Friends don’t encourage friends to mix meds with alcohol, snort 🙂
Willis continues to mislead people here and they still defend him, typical fanboy mentality.
1. He published a COMMENT in Nature not an original research paper.
2. I am waiting on what the TWO peer-reviewed papers he had published in E&E (I am aware of one).
[REPLY]
1. I published in Nature, as I said and have made no secret of, a piece of peer-reviewed original research as a “Communications Arising”. This is not a comment or a letter to the editor, but a separate section in Nature wherein a scientist can present original work that contradicts something which was published earlier. I’ve been quite clear that it was a “Communications Arising”.
2. Keep waiting … it’s gonna be a while …
w.
McComberBoy said in part:
“The terrier yapping at the feet of the master adds nothing to the masters command of his intellect or his communication. But the terrier can certainly add to the irritation of those exposed to the constant yapping.”
HEY – that is really REALLY good. Well-said. Did you make that up yourself. Are you licensed to write aphorisms?
john robertson said @ October 11, 2013 at 11:11 pm
I think the “effect” you may mean is what we call “tall poppy syndrome” here in UnderLand. All of our high achievers who receive high praise overseas must be brought to understand that they are not special, or talented, or even vaguely good at anything. They are merely lucky and especially so to have been born in God’s Own Country.
You are of course correct that this thread is not furthering science in any way whatsoever. It’s more like a tutorial for basket weavers, documentary film makers and telephone sanitisers. As I say when visiting strip clubs, I am only here to advance my sociological studies 😉
Richard D said @ October 11, 2013 at 11:15 pm
What makes you think PopTech is my friend? Hey, PopTech, why don’t you wash down your proton ills with a bottle of Stolichnaya?
McComberBoy says: October 11, 2013 at 10:59 pm
The terrier yapping at the feet of the master adds nothing to the masters command of his intellect or his communication. But the terrier can certainly add to the irritation of those exposed to the constant yapping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s defamation of terriers in comparing these noble animals to Poptech.
Popteck said to Git:
“Git, if we did a public poll which definition do you believe more people would imply first when the word is used as it is here?”
I can’t help but wonder if most of the people hearing the word would perhaps INFER what the word meant – not IMPLY what it meant.
Bernie Hutchins said @ October 11, 2013 at 11:32 pm
Oohah! That brings back memories. We had a Tasmanian federal politician, Bruce Goodluck by name. In the parliament he would frequently use the reverse confusion and use infer when he should have used imply. Anyhoo, whenever he said “infer” just about all the members would yell “imply”, but he never learnt.
Bernie Hutchins says October 11, 2013 at 11:32 pm
I can’t help but wonder if most of the people hearing the word would perhaps INFER what the word meant – not IMPLY what it meant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here’s a link to help Poptech infer what you implied, and finally learn those unfathomable, two syllable words….. http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/imply
acementhead said @ October 11, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Seems unlikely given this Pew Poll:
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Interestingly the result is not dissimilar to a poll conducted in 1914, or even other polls of a similar nature. I find it fascinating that Richard Dawkins’ (among other atheist scientists) misinformation on this issue fascinating.
Disclaimer: The Git is firmly agnostic. He is however fascinated by belief in God/gods/goddesses/Shiva/Brahma/Vishnu etc [delete whichever is inapplicable]
It’s worth noting that Newton wrote far more about his religious beliefs than his science. Galileo was almost as devout and was justifiably famous for his sermons in a era withoput television for entertainment. Kepler’s the standout in that era in having not written a book about God.
Poptech, please. Everyone else here is not wrong.
=============================
Git: I am fascinated by your particular belief. What do you think started it all? What was the prime mover? Or did the universe and everything just ‘happen’? ☺
Willis,
You are not a professional, with all the rights, privileges and duties thereof (and especially the perks).
You are an amateur / citizen, with all the rights, privileges and duties thereof.
All drama aside, the unsolicited public advice from the professional was yours to take or leave.
As to the HS & Handcuffed Hansen pics, I would have chosen differently, if I were Roy. I would have shown a frame from the cartoon ‘Hagar the Horrible’ showing both Hagar and Lucky Eddie. I would have labeled Hagar as the professional and Lucky Eddie as the amateur / citizen. : )
John
Christoph Dollis:
The post I wrote in reply to you in the early hour this morning and which vanished has now appeared. It is at October 11, 2013 at 4:40 pm and this link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1444936
Hence, there is no need for me to provide the replacement which I promised.
Also, the discussion seems to have ‘moved on’ over night. For example, I notice that Alec Rawls has withdrawn his suggestion of a 2008 blog post by Roy Spencer on a ‘global thermostat’. That suggestion was significant information in my considerations.
I really, really regret that this disagreement between Spencer and Eschenbach has arisen, and I am very saddened that it is still continuing. The disagreement is doing much harm despite the interesting examinations of ideas (including the mistaken ideas of Poptech) and issues it has generated in this thread.
Richard
dbstealey said @ October 12, 2013 at 12:47 am
I try as far as possible to minimise the number of my beliefs; it was untenable beliefs that led me astray in my early forays into philosophy. I am of course utterly familiar with Aristotle and Aquinas’ argument of the uncaused cause and it is indeed persuasive. It is not, as Aquinas recognised, sufficient. Therefore I remain agnostic on the issue; i.e. I do not know. What I do know is that there are at least two remarkably similar accounts and that the scientifically acceptable one is called Big Bang Theory. Sadly, it is a badly flawed theory that like current climatology, relies far too heavily on ad hoc parameters. This is seriously OT and I suggest that if you want to pursue this, you are free to comment at my (badly maintained) blog.
I agree. With friends like these who needs enemies?
I am for correcting ‘misinformation’ and it’s good to see that you corrected the ‘misinformation’ put printed by the New York Times. Here are TWO quotes from TWO people.
Cool it Poptech. In your eagerness to attack Willis you are falling into a trap. Williis is NOT Leonardo Da Vinci and perhaps not a genius. Old Leo was a trained artist. If little old Leo was around today would you attack his credentials? This is the kind of trap you are falling into.
Have you contacted Wiki?
Poptech,
Further to my last post please see the following irony. NASA where Dr. Roy Spencer is associated and Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci. Have you contacted NASA about these?
Not bad for a painter. 😉
Poptech
You have posted Willis’ CV and have ‘revealed’ some of his background. I hope you don’t imagine this to be some sort of scoop. For anyone who thinks Willis is trying to hide his background then you MUST have missed this. A fascinating read.
Poptech,
You are NOT a climate scientist. What makes you think that your are qualified to pass judgment on anyone else? Why do you think you are qualified to analyze Dana’s consensus paper? Or any other field for which you are not qualified. You see the very criticisms you dish out can be directed straight back at you. I appeal to you to tone it down, you are digging a hole.
Dr. Roy Spencer might approve of some of the following. 😉
“JUDGE not, that ye be not judged.”
“For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
“Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”
“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
—Matthew 7:1-5 KJV (Matthew 7:1-5 other versions)
If you are relying on your credentials to uphold your claim to being a “scientist”, you are probably in the wrong field.
Scientists bring it!
You see Poptech this was always going to be the danger with your angle of attack. People start to look into YOU. Please don’t complain, you started all this.
Yet the NON-CREDENTIALED Poptech has on his website some articles where he challenges the climate scientists and physicists with PHDs!!!!!! Clear the mote in your own eye.
Here is Poptech challenging NASA Giss, the folks with PHDs such as Dr. James Hansen back in 2010.
Now do you see the problem Poptech? You feel qualified to attack the credentialed scientists when you are not credentialed to do so. Calm down, look in the mirror and be honest with yourself. Let’s hope you have learned something today about humility.
Willis,
Please use very wisely and with careful circumspection this venue that is a precious gift from Anthony.
Roy’s unsolicited public advice may be a timely and fortunate message for you to shift strategy and weighting / focus of concepts.
To augment your strategy, have you considered extending your range to your own website?
John
Remember Bill Gates the Harvard drop out? You can either do it or you can’t. Credentials meant nothing in the end and he knew his stuff well. The UN-credentialed Gates scored 1590 out of 1600 on the SAT. Yet I have been informed that people like Bill Gates should not be taken seriously whatever he writes about computer programs and other IT stuff. I’m sure some people here would agree that Bill Gates should not be taken seriously on such matters. The same goes for the thousands of uncredentialled genius coders and hackers around the world.
Jimbo, Willis is no Leonardo Da Vinci and considering you name I would expect you to understand how Wikipedia works – FYI, you can edit it anytime you like.
Actually most of what I provided in Willis’s CV, the silent readers here were likely unaware of.
I see you helped me out and linked to a post by Willis who fails to correct the bogus claim that he is “computer modeller” in the Telegraph that I pointed out,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/its-not-about-me/
“One response to Christopher Booker graciously mentioning my work in the Telegraph”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8349545/Unscientific-hype-about-the-flooding-risks-from-climate-change-will-cost-us-all-dear.html
“…published on the Watts Up With That website by Willis Eschenbach, a very experienced computer modeller.”
A little misinformation never hurt anyone right Willis?
Thanks again, as I also forgot Willis was a drug addict – I have no respect for weak minded individuals like this.
Strawman, I never claimed to be a climate scientist and neither is Dana or John Cook. However, I am more than qualified for the criticisms I made. Since Cook et al. is not about actual climate science but a marketing campaign,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html
Regarding the perpetual defense of the undefensibel,it is expected to see the fanboys resulting to this behavior, when their king is revealed to have no clothes.
For the record, I can honestly say I don’t knowingly get my scientific information from people who have actually been in a mental institution like Willis.
BTW is it about time for Willis to retire his fantasy of being a real scientist? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/03/the-native-sun/
My previous post is in moderation.
Jimbo, you seem to be a master of strawman arguments,
You can’t look into to me because nothing exists about me online that I do not want to exist .
Incorrect my actual resume (which I will not be posting online) shows my credentials are very relevant to computer science and information technology but unfortunately you are going to have to take my word for it.
There is nothing special about generating a graph from a data set that requires a Ph.D., most people learned how to do such things in elementary school and the ocean acidification quote is based off Dr. Idso’ work cited later in the article.
I have learned a lot about fanboys today.
Very brave of you, Poptech.
Poptech:
At October 12, 2013 at 6:03 am you write
I am not aware of how you know that because Jimbo has not provided any “strawman” (sic) arguments in this thread. Also, in this thread you also falsely accused me of posting a “strawman” (n.b. the logical fallacy is known as ‘straw man’) in attempt to excuse your having posted an extremely egregious variant of ‘appeal to authority’.
I conclude from this that you are not aware of the basics of logic and of commonly experienced logical fallacies. Hence, I provide you with this link in hope that reading it – and links from it – will reduce your extreme ignorance of these matters
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
Richard
If Poptech does not post a link to his full biography within one hour of this post, it will be determined he is not a computer analyst.
[To slightly adapt your own challenge to Willis] See how silly you look. You go on to say:
LOL. You really do have balls my friend to attack credentials while hiding yours which may not exist! I still give you only one hour, the dlock is ticking. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that. PS I have ZERO credentials. So there.
Then you go on to try and defend your challenges made to credentialed climate scientists. There are many, many other examples from your website where you (an uncredentialed person) dispute climate scientists findings. Come on maaaaaan!!!! Can’t you see how silly you look? Have you been taking substances recently?
Clear the mote in your own eye first Poptech. Sheeeesh!!!
Give it a rest poptech. You’re becoming the party bore. You know, the guy that people keep sliding away from because his behaviour is boorish. People are sick of it.
Food for thought – Leonard Susskind worked as a plumber, yet made great contributions to theoretical physics, and now works full time on string theory. I suppose there was some dumbass then who reported him to the New York times for impersonating a scientist. *The eyeballs roll*.
Poptech doesn’t realise that he makes an appeal to authority, the last refuge of the rogue.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Poptech joins the authoritative IPCC as an allegedly ‘credentialed computer analyst’. 45 minutes to go Poptech. 🙂
PS stop trying to be nasty, we can all play these silly games. Nothing you have said here has shown any of Willis’ assertions to be wrong. They maybe wrong but YOU haven’t shown it. You look bad Poptech, they say when you are in a hole stop digging.
Jimbo:
I agree with you that there is a disconnect between Poptech’s claiming that only credentialed scientists can assess science but the uncredentialed Poptech can challenge scientists.
However, that does not mean only experts in an activity can discern failings in a performance of that activity. This is true for all activities (including science). For example, the only form of golf I have ever played is on putting greens and Crazy Golf, but I can see when a professional golfer takes a swing, hits the ball, and misses the green.
Richard
Times up Poptech, you have had your one hour. You have failed to post a link to your resume within the hour so I will assume you are not a computer analyst.
Poptech, never come to a gunfight with a penknife. Don’t be over confident in your mental abilities and cunning, even some of the great unwashed can catch you off guard. Try to be humble and don’t do unto others as you would not like to be done to you. And finally avoid hypocrisy. It’s clear for all to see you have been a hypocrite and thought you could get away with it. Some of us have also spent a long time on climate blogs.
I doubt many will read this far down an old thread. At least I hope not. You see I don’t make many comments here as by the time I read the comments someone else has already said it much better than I would. Today I feel compelled to say something.
I should be polite and just say that Poptech is a juvenile troll, but I just can’t help myself and I want to put it more plainly. In my humble opinion Poptech is a first class attention seeking jerk.
If that last is snipped, I’ll understand the action completely.
Albert Einstein, teaching diploma by ETH school in Zurich, unemployed teacher, Physics tutor, High School teacher, provisional Technical Assistant Bern patent Office, Technical Assistant – level III Bern patent office
This argument is getting very silly. Rather than interpret the meaning of cartoons(which I thought was pretty innocuous), why not resolve this with statements of fact. A very cursory search on Google scholar for “thunderstorm cooling” and “climate thermostat” yields what seems to be my eye of half a dozen papers that advance ideas somewhat similar to Willis’. Roy is being perfectly reasonable in expecting people involved in debating these issues to have read those sorts of papers and in expecting new ideas to refer to what has previously been done.
Willis, you’re a smart guy, why don’t you just take a gander at those papers and then come back with specifics on how your ideas are different? Not only will this resolve the issue Roy has with you but it will most likely improve your own ideas as well.
Cheers, 🙂
Shawnhet:
re your post at October 12, 2013 at 8:41 am.
The issue is much more than “the meaning of cartoons” and the differences between Willis’ ideas and others have been fully – and factually – explored in the thread.
To use your word, your post is “silly” and its only addition to the thread is that it demonstrates you have not read the discussed writings of Spencer and Eschenbach and the comments in this thread.
I had hoped the problem would have been resolved days ago. Comments such as yours do not help to resolve it.
Richard
– – – – – – –
Christoph Dollis & Poptech,
You, Poptech, are a very respected long term veteran commenter here. For you to be sharply critical of Willis is not done lightly by you, I am sure. It is bizarrely ironic that someone on this thread calls you a troll.
Christopher Dollis, yes I think Poptech is something like brave, but I think it is more like his brow is unbowed by the wave of fervent populism here.
Poptech, you have asked if Willis has generated a misimpression; in other words, has he over egged his pudding. I do not know, but we are in the process of finding out now that you ventured into the populist minefield here with questions. I think you will not be detoured. I will follow with high interest.
John
Just a couple of observations and thoughts with regards to poptech’s bizarre behavior on this thread.
Popteck opens up in this thread on Wed. eve @ ~10:08 pm with a volley of 10 comments in about 1 ½ hrs. He/she takes a 6 hr break and begins again @ ~ 6:00 am with 11 comments over the next 3 ½ hrs. Then takes a 9 ½ hr break and charges ahead with a volley of 19 comments over the next 4 hrs.
So over the course of 25 hrs poptech posted 40 increasingly bizarre comments. There seems to be some kind of obsessive compulsion involved. Perhaps he/she should heed his/her own advice and seek help from an “officially titled” medical professional and not from me “the plumber” if you would call a piping engineer/designer a plumber.
Is it possible that some kid has hijacked the handle of the poptech that has commented on WUWT in the past?
Is poptech suffering some sort of mental breakdown perhaps related to his/her personal life and is projecting that issue here on WUWT?
Poptech says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:17 pm
Another of Willis’ peer-reviewed papers of which I’m aware was a co-authored study of species extinction, a contribution toward debunking the misbegotten concept of an ongoing sixth mass extinction event (since the Ordovician/Silurian) in the “Anthropocene”, which is CACA-Speak for the Holocene:
Loehle, C. and W. Eschenbach. 2011. Historical Continental Bird and Mammal Extinction Rates. Diversity & Distributions DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00856.x
This thought had crossed my mind. If anyone knows Poptech can they contact him / her to confirm. It’s happened to me once when someone just took over my handle.
[Reply: Poptech’s computer addresses are all the same. — mod.]
It’s unlikely that “some kid” would have the knowledge about Willis and other topics referenced in those posts, an adult perhaps.
^I like this guy, I share a similar position regarding the act of holding something to be true whether or not one has reason or evidence to do so.
My favorite response to the “initial cause” question, though, is to point out that it is a broken question.
Time is not a process, and the universe didn’t happen. Time is a direction, one way you observe a reduction of entropy, and the other way you find it increase towards a maximum.
Both periods are just as real and exist in exactly the same fashion the moment we call the present does.
I can say this with confidence because I wrote those words a few seconds ago from my point of view, that moment is no less real simply because I am unable to observe it from the point I write these words, nor is it less real at the point when you read it.
The point in time which you are reading these words is in the future from my position, yet you would also claim your local present to be real, so clearly the only explanation is that all points in time exist, and the only thing which changes is the direction we point our flashbulb of awareness as we update our mental state to include the information from one direction which may prove useful as we pan our view along the other one.
You can see what is to your left, and are aware that there are things to your right, updating your mental model as you turn your head, you are able to see what is to your right, and maintain awareness of what you last saw to your left, yes?
You can see what is in your local past, and are aware that there are things in your local future.
As you turn your point of view towards the future, you maintain awareness of what you last saw in the past.
tl;dr, if anyone can formulate in a sensible manner, and then answer a question along the lines of “why did left begin” I will do my best to answer any questions they may pose regarding the lines of “why did time begin” but for now it is not answerable in a satisfying fashion.
@ Jimbo
OTOH he could just be very ill. My little brother exhibited strange behaviours in the months prior to his death from throat cancer. I’m told that this restricts the flow of blood to the brain.
Shawnhet said in part:
“Willis, you’re a smart guy, why don’t you just take a gander at those papers and then come back with specifics on how your ideas are different?”
I don’t think it’s that simple. In an issue of weather-as-thermostat, one can utter “It’s just the Second Law” and be assured of being correct, or one can propose details of a complex mechanism as “invented” by the Second Law, almost certainly only a PARALLEL part of a fuller explanation, likely differing subtlety from other components, very likely incomplete, and having elements in common with the rational scientific explanations of others. It’s all very rough – you don’t just “take a gander”. We are all in the process of gandering most of the time.
Max™ says:
October 12, 2013 at 9:41 am
For most people, “Why not?” is not an acceptable answer to the question, “Why should anything exist at all?”. Nor is the answer that matter & energy may just be properties of space-time, because to them that’s not a satisfactory response, as not explanatory.
When I taught biology at an originally Baptist college, students would ask me where God fits into evolution. My answer was that He could be inserted into it at any point, but that it works without his direct intervention. However militant atheists insist on what can’t be known, just as do theists who claim that God must exist. From a purely scientific standpoint in the present state of knowledge, His existence cannot be either decisively ruled out or in. God remains a defensible hypothesis, although the advancing frontiers of apparently valid knowledge keep limiting the need to posit His existence, if not the potential scope.
IMO one attraction of the multiverse hypothesis is to drive God farther back, so that there is no natural reason even for the universe to have been designed, let alone the galaxy, solar system, Earth & the life upon it. Yet a number of respected scientists still advocate the Anthropic Principle, which atheists find dangerously theistic-sounding. In fact, it’s no more metaphysical than atheism, IMO.
Nor IMO should theists want to try to “prove” the existence of God, as did the Scholastics, unsuccessfully, since if humans could be sure of it based upon reason & evidence, then religious faith would have no value.
As Luther said, “Whoever would be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason” (“Wer ein Christ sein will, der steche seiner Vernunft die Augen aus”, Gesamtausgabe in 25 Bänden, herausgegeben von Johann G. Walch).
The point was criticising others’ credentials while keeping his identity and credentials secret. So even if Poptech is correct, that isn’t “brave”.
John Whitman: Poptech, you have asked if Willis has generated a misimpression; in other words, has he over egged his pudding. I do not know, but we are in the process of finding out now that you ventured into the populist minefield here with questions. I think you will not be detoured. I will follow with high interest.
poptech has written on and on without addressing either of the two accusations made against Willis by Dr. Spencer, against which Willis defended himself. poptech’s problem is not that he ventured into a “populist minefield”, but that he is trying to defend Dr. Spencer without reference to the particular accusations that Dr Spencer made or any of the evidence produced in support of or against those accusations. Everybody already knows that Dr. Spencer and Mr Eschenbach have different life histories, publication records, etc. That’s incidental to the question of whether Dr Spencer made particular unsubstantiated accusations against Mr Eschenbach in this episode. And worse, this defense of Dr Spencer includes errors by newspaper writers and such about Mr Eschenbach, and a bunch of other irrelevant junk.
If you follow with “high interest”, could you focus on content that is on point? And if you find some in poptech’s posts, could you alert the rest of us to what you think it is, and how it matters?
Christoph Dollis says:
October 12, 2013 at 6:14 am
Very brave of you, Poptech.
=================
Dollis, are you the one who may have hijacked poptech’s handle? Your comments are somewhat should I say “bizarre” in line with those of poptech. I will now try to find time to analyze your posting history on this thread. Please don’t try to call me an analysist. I’m just looking at the data.
Somehow “put that in your pipe and smoke it” comes to mind.
eyesonu:
At October 12, 2013 at 10:37 am you say to Christoph Dollis
I commend that because the contributions of Christoph Dollis have been among the best in this thread.
To save you time, I commend using the ctrl-f function to tab through his posts in sequence.
Richard
The Pompous Git says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Einstein’s indignant letter is included in this enlightening, sometimes amusing history of the peer review process:
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
What Roy Spencer wrote was not a hatchet job.
I know of a guy that thought he would win a bear wrestling contest. He was the strongest guy in town. He could knock out a horse with one punch. He could pick up the front end of a car. In the ring with the bear he got knocked around like a rag doll.
richardscourtney says:October 12, 2013 at 9:01 am
“I had hoped the problem would have been resolved days ago. Comments such as yours do not help to resolve it.”
I find it comical that you make your comment to me bemoans the fact that the issue is still ongoing when my post was all about how it can be resolved. I was saying that to resolve it one needs to focus on facts.
I think JJ hit the issue on the head earlier in a point to you that I believe was never responded to:
JJ says:October 10, 2013 at 7:05 am”R&C’s hypothesis depends on increased transport of large quantities of heat from the surface to the higher atmosphere by thunderstorms. R&C’s cirrus cloud effect is driven by the latent heat released by such deep convection, providing the diabatic forcing for the vertical velocity field, and it becomes (in their opinion) a hugely negative feedback in part because the LW forcing that would otherwise constitute a positive feedback greenhouse effect at the surface is exported in that manner. In an important way, R&C’s thermostat subsumes Willis’ thermostat. That is Roy’s point, and it is valid.”
This is the factual issue underlying the whole thread: Is Willis’ thermostat subsumed in R&C’s thermostat or not? This is a question that can be resolved but unfortunately it will take work (in the form of math). If no one wants to talk about the issue raised by JJ above, that’s fine but they shouldn’t complain when the discussion spins its wheels.
Bernie Hutchins says:
October 12, 2013 at 10:03 am
“It’s all very rough – you don’t just “take a gander”. We are all in the process of gandering most of the time.”
I must admit Bernie I don’t really grasp the point you are making here. The issue in this thread is whether Willis’ Thermostat is derivative of previously done work. If work on an issue has been done (it has been made less “rough”) then it makes sense to take a look at what has been done before so you can try and fit new ideas into the pre-existing context. I can’t really find anything to disagree with here but if you can please give me some details.
Cheers, 🙂
Ugh. An awful lot of ad homs (from both sides) flying around here. It doesn’t matter whether Willis has ever done anything but change bed pans, the question is whether his ideas and analyses are supported by the evidence. It’s also irrelevant whether Dr. Spencer believes in God or the tooth fairy. I’ve been an atheist my entire thinking life, but whether someone is a believer or not is irrelevant to the quality of their science. That should speak for itself. (I am glad to see WE made the same point.)
I also don’t see any point in getting all riled up by the picture of Homer Simpson. After all, he frequently saves the day at the end of the episode. Also, many of my friends who are professional scientists are big Simpsons fans, so Homer may well be a somewhat affectionate reference on Dr. Spencer’s part.
People need to have thicker skins and stick to the science. Yeesh.
Shawnhet:
In your post at October 12, 2013 at 11:30 am you ask me
NO! It is not.
This was covered in the thread by me repeatedly; e.g. at
October 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1442089
and at
October 10, 2013 at 3:08 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1442893
and etc.
Willis also addressed it at October 10, 2013 at 9:55 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443249
You also suggest that a point by JJ was not answered. That point merely displayed that JJ had not read R&C1991 and it was answered by me and, importantly, by Willis at October 10, 2013 at 8:53 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1443165
In light of your post I am answering, I can only iterate what I said in reply to your first post; i.e.
Richard
Poptech says:
October 12, 2013 at 5:47 am
============
Wow, you really went all in with that comment, hope you held back some reserves.
richardscourtney says:
October 12, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Frankly, I’m not going to go into each of your posts. I will note that on the bottom left hand side of page 4 of the R&C paper that they talk about the formation of *cumulonimbus* clouds. At least some of your posts have claimed that it only talks about cirrus clouds. If you have talked about R&C such that you have included their discussion of the formation of *cumulonimbus* clouds. I would appreciate it if you could point it out to me.
To my eye, that discussion of latent energy and cumulonimbus formation seems pretty much in keeping with Willis’ thermostat. If you continue to talk about R&C just in terms of what is in the abstract, you will be making Roy’s point for him.
Cheers, 🙂
@ Dollis
I reviewed some data on your posting history on this thread. Seems you made your debut at 9:23 am yesterday morning. Apparantly you had lunch (my assumption on lunch) from ~10:30 am until 1:48 pm whence you continued to be quite engaged on this thread through 10:35 pm. WOW, 34 comments in only 13 hrs, that time including your lunch break of 3 ¼ hrs. Pardon me if I assumed you were eating lunch. I was impressed that you began again today as early as 6:14 am. You and poptech don’t sleep much and start blogging at about the same time. You seem to have much in common.
Just wanted to give you a heads up as I will try to find time to check your multiple comments on Roy’s blog. I can only stand in awe at your passion with regards to all this. Stay tuned for more.
I await with great anticipation the analysis of someone on a climate blog who doesn’t grasp the temporal implications of the fact that the Earth is round.
[snip – too many over the top accusations without citation/basis -mod]
Ahhh, Poptech’s comment finally appears, now let’s see what Poptech has to say.
You must have missed my comment when I said: “Williis is NOT Leonardo Da Vinci and perhaps not a genius. ”
I know ‘anyone’ can edit Wikipedia and I also know that some sections are locked. Anyway go there and correct it to meet your credentials standards. We know Leo was just an artist, so go correct it my friend because he is described as an engineer, mathematician, geologist among other things. Anyone can edit Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
!
How do you know he can’t do computer modeling? How do I know YOU are “simply a computer analyst who attended a technical university”? You failed to put up YOUR CV. I gave you 1 hour to put it up and you failed. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Boy you have testicles I must say. Do you want to blame Willis for how others wish to describe him?
What’s he addicted to? For all I know YOU could be a crack dealer and cocaine snorter extraordiaire.
Poptech the ALLEGED COMPUTER ANALYST is now the authority on who is qualified to make criticisms of other people’s work in polls or climate science which you do on your IT website. You really are out of your mind my friend. Have you read the bullshit you just wrote. Can’t you see your problem? Who do you think you are? If you can judge their work then why can’t Willis??? Are you insanely jealous? Are you bipolar? Are you in fact MAD?
I can’t tell whether you have ever gone into a mental institution because you don’t give us your CV or bio. You are FULL OF CRAP Poptech.
Shawnhet:
Are you JJ under another name?
I ask because you are adopting similar tactics.
In your post at October 12, 2013 at 12:43 pm you say to me
Bollocks! None of my posts claimed that!
My posts described the effect of cirrus because that was what R&C claimed set the 305K limit. I explained how and why they do. I gave a true account of the R&C Effect. Yes, R&C mention thunderstorms and much else but it is irrelevant to the R&C Effect which I accurately explained.
I (and Willis) also explained why the R&C Effect is fundamentally different from the Eschenbach Effect. You say
OK. Then I see no purpose in my referencing them for you, and stop posting nonsense which has already been refuted in the thread.
Frankly, I think you are trying to be a nuisance.
Richard
Hmmm, still more cases of posters ignoring the main difference between what Willis was saying and what R&C did.
R&C were discussing a process that is only really interesting in terms of vertical distribution changes.
Willis was discussing a process that is only really interesting in terms of horizontal distribution changes.
If you’re looking at it from the reference frame of a cloud, there probably isn’t much reason to think they weren’t talking about the same thing.
I’m looking at it from the reference frame of the sun, and considering what the planet looks like as it whirls around against a dark background.
The actual clouds themselves are going to appear much the same.
The only thing that would look different from the position of the sun is the distribution of the landmasses.
Willis is proposing that, because the planet is rotating, this happens…
Day 1, same location as it passes under the sun:
______________ clouds _ land
Day 2, same location as it passes under the sun:
__________ clouds _____ land
Day 3, same location as it passes under the sun:
______ clo ____ ud _ s __ land
Day 4, same location as it passes under the sun:
___ c _ lo __ u __ d __ s _ land
Day 5, same location as it passes under the sun:
______________ clouds _ land
Just as one illustration, where the regions of open water ( _____ ) are warmed by direct sunlight, and undergo heat transfer accordingly. This leads to cloud production, while the regions shaded by clouds ( cloud ) wind up cooler, the clouds begin to dissipate and break up as they encounter less evenly warmed patches of water. The cloud cover over different locations at a given local noon is variable, and this leads to different patterns of energy absorption and dissipation.
Assuming the land above ( land ) to be say, the pacific coast of south america, the varying distribution of clouds over the ocean to the west at local noon would be the key phenomena I think Willis is discussing.
Not that the clouds themselves limit the SST by a given amount, which is involved, but not the topic he is examining.
Not that the clouds themselves reflect a given amount of incoming radiation, which is involved, but not the topic he is examining.
This seems to be missed repeatedly in these comments, and I’m not sure why.
Poptech, I also forgot to add that you are the biggest hypocrite on this entire thread. You really are.
richardscourtney says:
October 12, 2013 at 1:07 pm
“Bollocks! None of my posts claimed that!”
Well, inj your first post on this thread you claimed:”I point out that the Ramanathan & Collins (R&C) effect induces cirrus not thunderstorms. ”
In fact, the effects R&C talks about *include* thunderstorms so you were in error. Now can you explain why they ruled them out as being the primary cause of the effects they are looking at?
BTW, I am not JJ.
Shawnhet:
re your post at October 12, 2013 at 1:25 pm.
OK. It is possible to (deliberately?) misinterpret my choice of words such as to misrepresent what I said in the manner you have. But for the purpose of clarity in outlining the essential difference between the two effects I think my words were appropriate.
And your implication that R&C was about thunderstorms is plain wrong. If you can read that into their paper then you must be dyslexic.
Richard
Max™ says:
October 12, 2013 at 1:13 pm
============
This thread has been invaded by a bunch of kids. Hopefully you will respond in (as I anticipate) a later thread more closely moderated. But for now the kids need a spanking and are getting it.
This thread has deteriorated a bit and much intellectual discussion is due.
Now the paddle will meet the children yet again. Now Dollis, is shawnut here to try to save you?
richardscourtney says:
October 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm
I didn’t say it was about thunderstorms I said it included thunderstorms. Then they ruled them out as the cause of the effects they are looking at. I then asked you if you can explain why they did this. So how about it? Can you explain why they ruled out the kinds of things Willis talks about as being the primary causative factor?
I wonder why almost no one cites his work or has tried to promote his work other than within the confines of this blog. If his research and ideas have merit, you would think that at least one of the experts in the field would find value in his work.
Shawnhet:
At October 12, 2013 at 1:50 pm you ask me
Yes, and I did in a post which I have already linked for you, although I included thunderstorms in all evapourative effects. I wrote there
Willis argues that the formation of thunderstorms is a major surface cooling effect which raises heat to high altitude. In his effect it is the rate of thunderstorm formation which is the main cooling effect on the sea surface and not cirrus. The two effects are not mutually exclusive but they are very different for several reasons. For example, as Max™ says at October 12, 2013 at 1:13 pm
I disagree with both of his uses of the word “only” but excepting that quibble I agree his point.
But you have got me to pick nits. The idea that the R&C Effect in some way incorporates the Eschenbach Effect is plain wrong.
The R&C and Eschenbach Effects are different but complimentary although not mutually exclusive effects. For example, R&C postulate a “super greenhouse effect” to drive the evapouration which leads to the cirrus, but the Eschenbach effect involves no such “super greenhouse effect”. If you think the R&C and Eschenbach Effects are the same or that one includes the other then argue your case because I have stated the reality as I understand it.
Richard
Joe:
Congratulations on your post at October 12, 2013 at 2:14 pm. If there were an award for the best ‘red herring’ in the thread your post would surely be a contender for it.
Richard
Richard:” If you think the R&C and Eschenbach Effects are the same or that one includes the other then argue your case because I have stated the reality as I understand it.”
First off, I never claimed that they were the same – I said that R&C *includes* what Willis talks about(this is not that hard). R&C talks about a lot more stuff than Willis does.
I don’t need to argue that point because I have already pointed you back to the paper where they say as much in black and white.
Really, I am trying to help you out here: If you can explain why R&C rule out Willis-type effects as being significant, you will understand what this whole discussion has been about *and* you will understand what needs to happen to move this debate forward.
Cheers, 🙂
BTW, just make it clear your last post does not present the reasoning used by R&C to focus on cirrus type clouds. Their reasoning is right after the section I previously pointed you to.
Cheers, 🙂
Dollis you made 14 comments on Dr. Roys blog on 10-11-2013 between 3:22 pm (whatever time standard his logging is). Then 4 more today (as per current time of this post).
WOW you are engaged!
Shawnhet:
I repeat, if you think the R&C and Eschenbach Effects are the same or that one includes the other then argue your case because I have stated the reality as I understand it.
Your assertion saying
is an evasion.
Richard
Geez, man, can you please drop the part about my supposedly claiming that they are the same. I said that one includes the other.
I fail to see how my pointing to a passage in a paper that says X is an evasion about whether a paper actually says X. Do you dispute that the paper talks about the vertical transport of latent energy or that this can form a cumulonimbus cloud?
Some here can help out Dollis by entering his/her/their comments as well as poptech into a spreadsheet and find out it they/he/she ever sleeps. I’m ready to call TROLL.
TRO….. L… Let me out of this low abyss of the low clas…. I’ll stop now.
Shawnhet:
At October 12, 2013 at 2:56 pm you ask me
No, I don’t.
In my reply to you at October 12, 2013 at 2:17 pm (i.e. less than an hour ago) I wrote
But so what?
Richard
Richard,
It is a red herring to say that no one in the professional climate science community takes his theory seriously? And it is a red herring to say that the ONLY ones who do take his work seriously know far less about the relevant science than he does? And how can those who do take him seriously adequately evaluate his ideas?
Joe:
Your post at October 12, 2013 at 3:34 pm asks me a series of questions.
I address each in turn.
Q1.
It is a red herring to say that no one in the professional climate science community takes his theory seriously?
A1.
Yes, because that is a not relevant distraction from the issues under discussion which are
(a) the assertion by Spencer that Eschenbach plagiarised from Ramanathan&Collins
and
(b) the conflation by Spencer of Eschenbach with Homer Simpson
and
(c) the claim by Spencer that Eschenbach has not done any original work.
Q2.
And it is a red herring to say that the ONLY ones who do take his work seriously know far less about the relevant science than he does?
A2.
No, that is not a red herring. It is a lie. For example, Judith Curry takes his work seriously.
Q3.
And how can those who do take him seriously adequately evaluate his ideas?
A3.
By thinking. (And thinking is something you would be benefit from doing before making your silly posts.)
Richard
– – – – – – –
Matthew R Marler,
Thanks for your comment.
I find of high interest the point that, although reasonably articulated and sound professional advice by a well thought of and senior skeptical professional was given to an amateur about reasonable due diligence on prior published work and although the amateur acted amateurish in response, the amateur may be misrepresenting himself as more than an amateur. My thinking is that Poptech is checking if the amateur is over egging his status (misrepresenting) beyond amateur ranking.
I find it of high interest to follow the checking because it is about the most basic integrity.
NOTE to Poptech => that is entirely my view of your focus, I apologize if I am incorrectly interpreting you or emphasizing the wrong aspects of your comments.
Finally, Matthew R Marler, as to what you consider the main points, you should go where you intellectually wish without any prejudice from me.
John
Richard,
You also suggest that a point by JJ was not answered. That point merely displayed that JJ had not read R&C1991 and it was answered by me and, importantly, by Willis at October 10, 2013 at 8:53 am
Un, no. Unlike Willis, I had read R&C91. My synopsis of relevant portions of that paper, quoted by Shawnhet above, is accurate.
You and Willis have not addressed the content of that commentary. Instead, you have talked around it, using bluff and bluster to imply what you know you cannot say outright for its untruthfulness. You wave your hands over lessor distinctions between R&C91 and Willis, hoping to distract from the fundamental overlap that was the subject of Roy’s gentle and measured constructive criticism. In doing so, you both say some things that are simply not true. For example, this bit from you:
That attempt at creating the appearance of a fundamental difference between R&C91 and Willis is completely false in its statements and its construction.
Despite your false claim, the R&C91 effect includes the induction of both cirrus and thunderstorms. More precisely, it posits the induction of cirrus anvils by thunderstorms induced by SST increase. Your assertion that thunderstorms are not in R&C91’s hypothesis is asinine. Thunderstorms are central to the R&C91 hypothesis. They call their effect “the thermostat hypothesis” and they name “thunderstorm anvils” as that thermostat.
BTW, the false distinction you attempt to draw using cirrus and thunderstorms also fails the other way around. Not only does R&C91 depend on thunderstorms, but it is also the case that Willis’ paper includes among its enumerated effects an increase in cirrus cloud albedo. Driven by thunderstorms. Just like R&C91. Huh. Maybe Roy was on to something.
Despite your false implication, and just like the later effort by Willis, R&C91 also depends on export of heat from the surface to high altitude. And despite your false claim, and just like your claim for Willis’ hypothesis, the R&C effect also starts to operate at temperatures below 305K.
Unlike Willis, you claim to have read more than the three sentence abstract of R&C91. The above suggests that you need to read it again. You should also spend some time with Willis’ paper, and pay careful attention to what is in it, and what is not, and what is concluded, and on what basis. If you use your head, you will find that Roy was spot on in his kindly recommendations to Willis.
Now, if you want to look at an actual glaring difference between Willis’ ideas and published atmospheric science, then pay attention to the other issue that Roy gently prodded Willis to educate himself about: what goes up, forces something else down. It is now generally held (e.g. Hartmann and Michelsen 1993) that the convection driven increase in cloud albedo over one area (as with thunderstorms) is more or less cancelled out by an opposing decrease in cloud cover on the subsiding limb of the induced circulation. Conversely, Willis holds that the dry descending air mass enhances the effect of his hypothesis.
Cancels vs enhances. That is a difference. Now, there is no problem disagreeing with established theory, provided that you address that disagreement with facts and reasoning. That’s science. It is another thing entirely to find oneself firmly at odds with established science out of ones own ignorance. That’s just embarrassing.
If Willis is ever able to pocket his ego, he will notice that he owes Roy a great debt of gratitude, for his kind and gentle efforts in attempting to help Willis to avoid that sort of embarrassment. To date, Willis would rather rant about imaginary offenses and made up accusations. You are not helping.
– – – – – – – –
Christoph Dollis,
What you say is the point that an anonymous commenter not being brave is, in all practical reality, a moot point on this thread where the number of anonymous antagonists and number of anonymous protagonists and number of anonymous neutrals all are on the same order of magnitude as the number of non-anonymous in each group. N’est ce pas? Brave isn’t, in that context, very applicable.
My point about bravery is more pertinent to Poptech, given his opposition to the overwhelming dominance of the fervent populism on this thread. I am impressed.
John
I come back after over 3 hours and Poptech is nowhere to be seen. Where are you Poptech, I miss you? Maybe he’s busy or maybe he’s learned a lesson about humility and non-hypocrisy. Or maybe Poptech is in re-hab or his local metal asylum. All are credible.
I’ll come back tomorrow Sunday morning 9ish GMT to check up on my beloved friend and confidant Poptech. This is just to see whether he is a sucker for punishment or whether he has learned something. I very much doubt the latter.
@ Max
The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics by theoretical physicist Julian Barbour is an excellent, though tough for some, read on this topic. Be aware though that there are different causalities. Most think in terms of billiard balls and time series, but for example, copper sulphate in water solution causes that water to appear blue. There’s a lot more to this, but this is not the place for that discussion. Aristotle and Aquinas both had much to say about causes.
As it happens, the philosopher who taught me in first year, Phil Dowe took over Wesley Salmon’s cloak of being the leading thinker on causality. Amazon currently have a very short book on the subject by Phil on special for $95.24. Given how many hours I have attempted to fully understand this book, that’s only a few cents per hour 🙂
@ milodonharlani
Thanks for the link. I look forward to rereading that essay. Nielsen writes well. A couple of days ago, I learnt of a researcher voluntarily telling all and sundry of an error in a paper she wrote several years ago after discovering she was incorrect. All is not yet lost in some areas of science.
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/37843/title/Mislabeled-Microbes-Cause-Two-Retractions/
The Pompous Git says:
October 12, 2013 at 5:48 pm
Maybe there is hope. Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Ronald
The time is more than up (17+ hours). Willis failed to produce his imaginary computer climate model code and we can irrefutably call BS on his claims to being a “computer modeller” (not to mention he has never been employed as such).
Time to review the rest of his BS claims…
Poptech says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Well, it’s now 6 PM, some seven hours after you wrote that, Poptech. I’ve been doing actual science today, looking at the TAO dataset. It’s actually interesting work, I’ll publish it soon. In any case, this is the first I’ve heard of your attempted extortion.
And I gotta say, that’s the most funniest demand I’ve heard in a while. Really? I have to answer you, and I have to do it prior to a deadline that expired six hours before I received your ludicrous note?
Dude, that’s hilarious! Did you write notes like that in grade school? My advice is, don’t go into the kidnapping business … people won’t know what to do with your kind of ransom note, “Pay me the $50,000 by day before yesterday or you’ll never see your poodle Fifi again …”
In any case, I have no intention of bowing to ultimatums from random internet popups without the stones to sign their own name to their words. Make of that what you wish.
Again, your endless ad hominem attacks are the sure sign of a man who is unable to falsify my science.
Do your thing, Poptech. I’m done with your nonsense.
w.
Ashby Manson said @ October 12, 2013 at 11:33 am
As it happens, some of us would rather read interesting books and paers than watch TV, especially commercial. So, rather than rely upon my memory of what happened on the few episodes I saw of the Tracy Ullman Show decades ago, I consulted the wikipedia. Homer Simpson is described as “crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, lazy, a heavy drinker, and ignorant” which you say is “affectionate”.
The Git is mildly autistic and so has difficulty with such things as affection and used this new found expression of affection on Mrs Git. He called her crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, lazy, a heavy drinker, and ignorant. They tell me I will be able to speak again in several months 😉
@JJ, your reasoning that:
“It is now generally held (e.g. Hartmann and Michelsen 1993) that the convection driven increase in cloud albedo over one area (as with thunderstorms) is more or less cancelled out by an opposing decrease in cloud cover on the subsiding limb of the induced circulation.”
How can an “emergent phenomena” such as clouds that form for whatever reason be cancelled out by subsiding air anywhere else? You seem to be saying that the reflected sunlight from one area (a cloud of any form) and the shaded area of surface (which could be under the desending air or offset to it) is equal to some other area (area of desending air) with, i guess, no cloud cover? something doesn’t seem right with that. i also guess that we’re starting off with clear skies?
P.S.-Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.
Yep, Willis can’t back up his BS about pretending to be a computer modeller. Lets continue…
John Whitman says:
October 12, 2013 at 12:56 am
John, it was an unsolicited public attack, and I fear such an attack comes with its own inherent drama.
As a result, I challenged him to back up the attack with facts.
He has not done so. You have not done so. He’s gone away and is not answering, either here or on his website. Instead, you are acting as his lapdog and attempting to do his biting for him. Bad news, John … it’s not working.
As a result, I choose not to take either his or your unsolicited advice.
w.
PS—Just what are the “rights, privileges, and duties” of a “professional scientist”? A list of the privileges alone should provide some humor … but please, present any of the lists of rights, privileges, and duties that you find relevant. This should be good.
Poptech says:
“Yep, Willis can’t back up his BS about pretending to be a computer modeller. Lets continue…”
Poptech, I really don’t think you understand how badly you’re coming off here. At least to those of us watching from the sidelines.
My well-meaning advice is…
…oh, forget it. I don’t think you’d take any advice. I wish you the best of luck anyway.
Shawnhet says:
October 12, 2013 at 8:41 am
Thanks, Shawnhet. There are a variety of climate papers with “thermostat” in them somewhere. I have not found a single one that has advanced my hypothesis, which is that the time of onset of tropical cumulus and thunderstorms is the major mechanism regulating the temperature of the planet.
Dr. Roy hasn’t come up with such a study. No one else has come up with such a study. Now you want to join the party, because you haven’t come up with one either. You’ve just waved your hands and in essence said Go search, my son …
If you find such a study, let me know. I’ve looked and haven’t found one.
w.
PS—As an aside, Shawnhet, some free advice that’s worth every penny—don’t ever tell a man “you’re a smart guy, why don’t you just …”. That’s just an ostensibly polite way of calling me dumb if I don’t do what you advise. I don’t take well to that. I may not do what you advise, and that may just prove how smart I am …
Or, as in this case, I may have already done what you advise. You think I don’t read the literature? And of course, by saying that you are assuming that I’m too dumb to have read the literature or googled the subject … you see why you want to avoid telling someone “you’re a smart guy, why don’t you …”?
John Whitman: reasonably articulated and sound professional advice
I challenge you to quote some of that. What I read were inaccurate charges clearly refuted by Willis: namely, the claim that he had not acknowledged predecessors, and that he had contributed nothing new. Willis proposed an extension of the idea of self-regulation including thunderstorms, and a series of data analyses to test his hypotheses. The only substance of Dr Spencer’s complaint, if it be substance, is that Willis didn’t write a masters thesis or journal article, or some such. That form is irrelevant to the content of Willis’s writing.
If you have found something of merit in poptech’s ad homs, quote it so that we know what you mean. I do not disdain people who write anonymously (some people do), but to call her or him “brave” is absurd.
Questions Willis cannot answer,
1. Why are you misleadingly implying your published COMMENT on another paper in Nature is on equal footing with an original research paper?
2. What are the TWO “peer-reviewed” papers you had published in E&E (I am aware of one).
3. Why did you not correct Mr.Booker in The Daily Telegraph that you are not a computer modeller (context implied is climate computer modeller) when you had the chance?
4. Why did you not correct The New York Times that you are not an engineer when you had a chance to do so?
It seems Mr. Eschenbach has a documented history of misleading people.
My last comment is in moderation.
dbstealey.
1. Does Willis claim to be a computer modeller?
2. Has Willis ever been employed as a computer modeller?
3. Does Willis have any credentials as a computer modeller?
I’ve already posted my thoughts on this farrago here. I stand by what I said.
I’ve re-read the comments on Dr. Spencer’s blog and I see no update from Dr Spencer himself. I think that that is a cowardly way to conduct one’s business. I don’t see any post on the rape (and that’s as strong as I can say on a family-friendly blog) that the IPCC has perpetrated on the rest of us. We haven’t even reached the end of the beginning and yet Dr Spencer feels he can preach to the rest of us skeptics how we should think?!!
Anytime Willis posts an article about something that he has discovered, he always posts his code and the underlying data that he uses. It is quite obvious from the code, the data, and the way he writes his articles that his observations are original to him. He shares that with us, and asks us to tear down his thesis, with two conditions. One, that we quote what he said, and Two, that we show mathematically that he’s in error. I think these are reasonable conditions.
I’ve tried to follow all his posts, and I cannot find one where when he has been shown to be in error or his reasoning is lacking (which is not often, to be fair), he has not either owned up and retracted what he said, or re-worked his thinking to encompass the new information and then posted on that and given attribution to the person who corrected him. It should be expected of original thinking that this will happen, and I can’t think of anything else that could be reasonably asked of any person to do.
But here’s the thing that jumps out at me. When someone has an original thought, does that automatically obligate that person to look in the deepest, darkest crevices of the Internet and make sure that nobody else may have had a similar thought? At which point what, don’t post? I think that’s an UNreasonable expectation.
With regards to credentialed vs un-credentialed, I think that going the credentialed route gives people a short cut to the body of thinking regarding a subject (they don’t have to re-create the wheel), but it also restricts them to think within the bounds of what they have already learnt, whereas no such restrictions are placed on the self taught (which leads to more misses than hits, we become the sum of our mistakes). So go the credentialed route if you have that choice, but think for yourself :-).
Poptech said @ October 12, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Where long may it remain. I suspect, sadly, that it is not your “last comment” as this comment demonstrates. [sigh]
John, you are correct I am correcting his misrepresentations and informing those that are unaware (likely many) of his actual credentials (or lack there of).
Willis is not taken seriously by most credentialed skeptics and is generally ignored because like me, it was wrongly assumed his ramblings were not a serious problem. However the “dumb like me” crowd has latched on to him and are now wasting the time of scientists like Dr. Spencer (who is just saying what many others are thinking and needed to be said).
Anthony has a site to run and it is a phenomenal amount of work but it is hard to find people willing to commit to content for free. I highly respect Anthony and never conflate any guest commentator (especially Willis) with a position he holds.
I avoid embarrassing people like Willis until they get out of hand, but he did it to himself. These misrepresentations can be directly applied to Willis,
1. He is misleadingly implying his published COMMENT on another paper in Nature is on equal footing with an original research paper.
2. He is claiming to have TWO “peer-reviewed” papers published in E&E (I am aware of one).
3. He misleadingly failed to correct Mr. Booker in The Daily Telegraph that he is not a computer modeller (context implied is climate computer modeller) when he had the chance.
4. He misleadingly failed to correct The New York Times that he is not an engineer when he had the chance.
It seems Mr. Eschenbach has a documented history of misleading people.
Poptech said @ October 12, 2013 at 7:09 pm
You really need to learn some elementary logic. Let’s substitute The Git and his favouritist occupation in that list:
1. Does The Git claim to be a gardener? Yes.
2. Has The Git ever been employed as a gardener? No. [Unless you take working on one’s own account to equate with being an employee]
3. Does The Git have any credentials [formal qualifications] to be a gardener? No. But he has been offered the opportunity to undertake a PhD in the closely related discipline of sustainable agriculture.
Yet The Git is the author of a best-selling book on gardening and been interviewed any number of times on ABC Radio National. He was even interviewed on the implications of global warming for farmers and gardeners back in the late 1980s and he has no formal qualification in global warming either.
paulhan,
Good comment, I am in agreement.
===========================
Poptech says:
1. Does Willis claim to be a computer modeller?
2. Has Willis ever been employed as a computer modeller?
3. Does Willis have any credentials as a computer modeller?
1. I don’t know, and I don’t care. Facts matter, not the persona.
2. See #1 above
3. See #2 above
I’m sorry I ever made a comment here. I appreciate Poptech’s contributions [click on his name], but this attack on Willis is inexplicable from my observer’s point of view.
It matters not what a person’s credentials are. I think there is far, far too much emphasis on credentials anyway. They have become a ‘good ol’ boy’, back-scratching tool — witness Michael Mann’s Climategate email, strategizing about how to falsely jack up Phil Jones’ publication numbers.
Willis provides a unique point of view that is attractive to a lot of readers, myself included. Were I advising Poptech, I would say, “stick with what you are good at.” Poptech has made valuable contributions. But his attacks on Willis make no sense. They amount to nitpicking. Either falsify what Willis hypothesizes, or politely back off. The personal attacks are not warranted.
Poptech took the first shot, and now if he has any objectivity at all, he is regretting it. Getting a leg up on Willis is very tough. Willis writes very carefully, a trait I much admire. He leaves no easy, low-hanging fruit for opponents to pluck. He is also popular here, so attacking him is foolhardy at best. It is fighting on his home turf. Why do it?
Good luck to Poptech, he will need it. I don’t think he will prevail in this battle — which he should have chosen more carefully. Choose your battles, or you will eventually be in an uphill fight like this one.
Over and out.
@ dbstealey
It was Roy who took the first shot. As others have pointed out, PopTick is merely his bird-dog/lapdog/poodle/bulldog/terrierist, or whatever.
It’s also notable that Roy has not responded here to Willis in any form whatsoever. I find that telling.
[snip – cool down, take a time out – Anthony]
Richard,
“No, that is not a red herring. It is a lie. For example, Judith Curry takes his work seriously.”
Really? When has she commented on his published theory? When I searched, I found no mention of it. Only one reference to his value as a communicator. Who again takes his scientific work seriously? I think that is relevant to the credibility of his theory and not a red herring,
Git, I have never spoken with Dr. Spencer but he knows better than to try to argue with someone who has been in a mental institution. I am more interested in informing those who read the comments here.
Poptech said @ October 12, 2013 at 8:20 pm
I cannot recall having written that you spoke with Dr Spencer, but if what you say is true, how do you know that “Spencer knows better than to argue with someone who has been in a mental institution”? Are you clairvoyant?
Actually, Willis’ account of being hospitalised in a mental institution rather increased my regard for him. So many feel stigmatised by such and live in fear of being “found out”.
The Git has been in a mental institution (outside of his split-level head) on any number of occasions. Mostly to play billiards when he should have been studying in his later years of high school. The lunatic asylum in Sunbury is no longer used for such — it’s now a campus of the university. Hey wait! Maybe it still is a lunatic asylum 😉
Git, I have always held this position on Willis but for the sake of diplomacy and out of respect for Anthony I have stayed away from this argument. With Dr. Spencer’s post and the clear damage Willis is doing by misleading people I felt this was a good a reason as ever to have this debate. Others like Dr. Spencer will placate him by saying he is very smart, I will not massage his ego with things I do not feel are warranted.
The Pompous Git says:
October 12, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Correct me if wrong, but IMO Willis probably wouldn’t have been hospitalized if it weren’t for the draft. Also IMO, the problem isn’t with people who have spend time in mental institutions, but those who should have, but haven’t.
Two more posts in moderation.
Popteck wrote in part:
“Git, I have never spoken with Dr. Spencer but he knows better than to try to argue with someone who has been in a mental institution. ”
Popteck – sometimes you should consider slowing down in your response, like adding a few words or phrases to avoid ambiguity. Not a comfortable subject, but then again, that WAS side-splitting funny at first blush.
Bernie, I notice that too after I posted it. 🙂
Poptech, I’m still waiting for Dr. Spencer to back up his attacks on my scientific ideas. He hasn’t done so. He has provided nothing to back up his untrue claims.
You, on the other hand, ignore my scientific ideas entirely … and I suspect that may reflect an accurate self-assessment of your abilities.
However, you substitute personal attacks and ankle-biting, which reflects poor judgement on your part.
If it were up to me, I’d ban you for consistent personal attacks. I would never ban anyone for their scientific ideas … and since you have none, it’s not even an issue in your case.
But your insistent, childish, nit-picking, nagging, nasty, puerile personal attacks are derailing this entire discussion. The question at hand has nothing to do with me, or what I’ve done. I have been perfectly open and honest about who I am and what I’ve done. I see you think my history disqualifies my scientific views from consideration … sorry, my friend. That’s just more of your endless ad hominem argument.
My ideas stand or fall on their own.
The question at hand is, can Dr. Roy, or you, or anyone, show that Dr. Roy’s accusation of plagiarism is true? I’m happy to put someone else’s name on what I think of as my hypothesis … but whose name are you and Dr. Roy proposing? Because to do that, someone has to come up with the study that lays it out.
And you, you’d like nothing more than for everyone to forget that, to forget that neither you nor Dr. Roy nor anyone else has come up with a scrap of evidence to back up Dr. Roy’s false allegations. So you yammer endlessly about anything but that, the real issue.
You seem to think that you’re going to announce to the world that I’m some strange person, break the news that I’ve done very unusual things? Sorry … I beat you to it. There’s nothing that you can “reveal” about me, I’ve put it all out there, and people have read it, and despite them knowing all those things about me … I still abide, and every year I get a million page views of my work or so …
Like I said, Poptech, if I ran the zoo I’d ban you in an instant for your unending personal attacks. So it’s a good thing that that decision is never up to me, nor would I want that power.
I do see that Anthony has already snipped one of your posts, however … so you might dial it back a little. Just sayin’ …
w.
Deflecting perfectly valid questions is not an argument.
Now, the REAL Willis comes out, who cannot have his misleading claims challenged and resorts to censorship when he cannot answer simple questions,
1. Why are you misleadingly implying your published COMMENT on another paper in Nature is on equal footing with an original research paper?
2. What are the TWO “peer-reviewed” papers you had published in E&E (I am aware of one).
3. Why did you not correct Mr.Booker in The Daily Telegraph that you are not a computer modeller (context implied is climate computer modeller) when you had the chance?
4. Why did you not correct The New York Times that you are not an engineer when you had a chance to do so?
Everyone can see you cannot answer them.
Willis, why do you keep falsely stating that Dr. Spencer accused you of plagiarism?
Please quote exactly what he said and his response to your ridiculous allegation. I am not doing your homework for you either.
You wouldn’t like when I am banned …just a hint.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 12, 2013 at 6:44 pm
“Or, as in this case, I may have already done what you advise. You think I don’t read the literature? And of course, by saying that you are assuming that I’m too dumb to have read the literature or googled the subject … you see why you want to avoid telling someone “you’re a smart guy, why don’t you …”?”
Unfortunately, while you may have looked at some other papers out there, you have not done the second part of what I asked which is to come back with some *specifics* about how your ideas are different.
Not to put too fine a point on it, bit you opening post compares your theory to R&C’s by saying essentially R&C’s is about the formation of cirrus clouds and yours is about “air conditioning” the surface. Unfortunately, this is *not* a valid distinction to draw. R&C does not have a problem with thunderstorms being air conditioning units (see the bottom of page 4 on the left side). They just have a different view of the importance of this effect than you do. In this context, it is perfectly reasonable for others to have some doubt whether you have read the paper. Your descriptions of the paper are inaccurate or incomplete.
Now perhaps you have a perfect understanding of R&C and you were just having a bad day or whatever. If this is the case, it should be no problem coming back with a list of *specifics* about how your theory differs from R&C’s (or another paper).
Cheers, 🙂
milodonharlani said @ October 12, 2013 at 8:43 pm
I attempt to never contradict what is manifest truth. Even when that truth is that I have made an utter twat of myself 🙂
@ Shawnhet
Willis has explained the difference between his and the R&C paper a long way upthread and at least once. Either you haven’t bothered to read Willis’s comments, or your comprehension skills are lacking.
“you’re a smart guy, why don’t you …”
To repeat myself, when a person has the facts on hand they use them like a sledgehammer and just beat the person they disagree with over the head. When a person uses a phrase like the one above it is clear they don’t have them and are attempting to create a false narrative.
It’s such a transparent and lazy tactic one can only wonder why they bother.
Incorrect his actions got him there, he tried to overdose on sleeping pills because he could not handle his commitment to enlist in the Army that he made.
The Pompous Git says:
October 12, 2013 at 9:52 pm
The problem with your post is that WIllis’ description of R&C in the OP was wrong. The distinction between them is not what he says there. If you have a theory about apples and pears, and I have a theory about apples and I say that the different between our theories is that I talk about apples and you talk about pears, you would not be correct no matter the number of times you explained what the difference between our theories are.
Cheers, 🙂
Poptech: wrote (many times)
“No one but your WUWT fanboys ”
+++++++
Every time you us the above term “Willis’ Fanboy”, you prove again to everyone exactly how void of substance you are. Grow up and take Willis’ challenge and debate the science. You’re so confused over the notion of labels that you’re seriously stunted.
Poptech says: October 12, 2013 at 9:33 pm
You wouldn’t like when I am banned …just a hint.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Now your threatening the man. Please seek medical advice/treatment.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms
Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, which is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders. You may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don't receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. But underneath all this behavior often lies a fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better. When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may not want to think that anything could be wrong — doing so wouldn't fit with your self-image of power and perfection.
Mario, you seem confused like many fanboys here about what I am discussing. Fanboys are easy to spot because they do not actually address what I am talking about as they are too bust knee-jerk defending their cult leader.
Willis. I agree with several of the commenters here who said the problem may be that you are stepping on toes of someone or some group who hope(s) to take advantage of your ideas and get a large grant funded.
Now my thoughts are that after they are funded they will then have one of those 5 or 10 or 15 author series of papers talking about a “Thermostat effect of thunderstorms, etc., etc.”. They will claim that they searched the major journals and no peer reviewed paper has ever been published on precisely what they concluded, thus it is original work.
But never mind, you have done the original thinking to develop the hypothesis and the original work to test it. Don’t give up, press forward and continue the good work that so many admire. It is your work that qualifies you, not formal degrees. Thanks for all your wonderful work and my very best wishes to you.
Richard D, please stop diagnosing Willis.
@ Shawnhet
Willis wrote:
and quoted the R&C abstract:
Some commenters, quite correctly, have pointed out that the content of the R&C is different to the abstract. It would want to be 😉 Nevertheless, nobody has pointed out where R&C make the same claim that Willis does: “that variations in the daily times of onset of the tropical cumulus and cumulonimbus regimes regulate the tropical surface temperature with scant regard to changes in forcings. And thus eventually this regulates the global surface temperature, through a whole host of cloud-related mechanisms.”
I think it’s also important to note in this context that the dataset used by Willis was much later than that available to R&C and thus constitutes at the very least a fresh look at tropical thunderstorm formation.
Poptech says:
October 12, 2013 at 10:21 pm
Mario, you seem confused like many fanboys here about what I am discussing. Fanboys are easy to spot because they do not actually address what I am talking about as they are too bust knee-jerk defending their cult leader.
++++++++++++
No Poptech: It’s that you’re too ignorant and unable to see what a foolish waste of time you are. Calling people names based on how you were treated as a child have nothing to do with reality nor science. You lack the basic intellect to address science topics, so instead you resort to insults that are ironically telling of who you are Poptech. It is document here for all to see. I suggest you read what you have written and try to grow bit. Else you will continue on with what must be a miserable life.
Sorry to break it to you Leonard but only two people have cited his paper in three years,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14537309061889036487
He can’t even get skeptical scientists to cite it (which speaks volumes) and alarmists do not even consider it worth their time to attack it!
While a paper from Dr. Spencer has been cited 44 times over a similar time period,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&cites=12320362983293932245
Poptech, you are a nasty, snide, little (well, I’m not going to insult those people who happen to be born out of wedlock) excuse for a human being.
In your post at 7.04 you posit four questions. Here are the answers
1. Believe it or not, when a comment to a paper is accepted, it is considered to have the same merit as the original paper. It even elicited a response from the authors. See 2
2. I did a google search for Willis Eschenbach E&E. The first link was to WUWT, the second link was to a site that I will not link to. However, they acknowledge that Willis did indeed have two papers accepted by E&E, one about rising sea levels at Tuvalu, and the other about the Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis. This same site links to both the Nature comment, and the reply from the authors. Direct quote from the site
3 & 4. Are you seriously suggesting that Willis go to every site that mentions his name (there were 9,950,000 hits for the above search term) every day, parse through the article and any comments arising from it, and correct anything that may have been said about him? Have you completely lost the plot?
I have to ask, what are you hoping to achieve from the line that you are taking? The shredding of Willis’s reputation?
Not going to happen. Indeed, I looked at Dr Spencer’s blog a little bit more and came across this posting. On that posting, Willis twice asks, very politely (and even references R & C in his own comment) for clarification, but the coward, and that’s the only thing I can call him in light of his recent post, cannot deign to answer the simple questions that Willis poses. The coward even references that post as his attempt to tell Willis gently that this has been done before, yet cannot answer Willis’ honestly put questions in that very posting. You are backing the wrong horse here entirely.
Or maybe you’re trying to belittle Willis by posting his resume. Except Willis has already told us, in excruciating detail, all the things he’s done in his life, good and bad. Years ago.
You’ve polluted this thread with your nonsense, completely shredded any reputation you may have had (I know I just want to defecate any time I see your name), and achieved the exact opposite of what you set out to do. Way to go, loser.
I have been away from this web site for a while. To come back today and find a post, and commenters, negative toward Roy Spencer is surreal.
Mario, what I see is that all the fanboys like you are getting very upset because they cannot address my questions, just like Willis that he is incapable of.
Your comments are very bizarre as I had an uneventful childhood, you should stop projecting.
Maybe you can address these,
1. He is misleadingly implying his published COMMENT on another paper in Nature is on equal footing with an original research paper.
2. He is claiming to have TWO “peer-reviewed” papers published in E&E (I am aware of one).
3. He failed to correct Mr. Booker in The Daily Telegraph that he is not a computer modeller (context implied is climate computer modeller) when he had the chance.
4. He failed to correct The New York Times that he is not an engineer when he had the chance.
These are verifiable facts that go to the base of his integrity. If someone from an alarmist site pulled these stunts he would be ridiculed here without end and not be taken seriously.
Willis, in view of Dr Spencer’s comments I would like to encourage you by recording that I see you as one of the most insightful analysts of real world climate data. Your coupling of a unique background of life experiences with novel points of view and an unusually potent intellect and grasp of physics and computing etc mean that your posts are always a high point of my visits to WUWT. I really like your “governor by emergent phenomena” theory, and intuitively I think it is highly likely to be the one to win out in the end. By the way, I am a retired Senior Research Scientist who worked in the fields of fluid dynamics and aeroelasticity, and held a Commercial Pilot Licence requiring knowledge of meteorology.
@ Pompous Git:
I actually agree with you that the onset of time of thunderstorms might be the difference btw Willis and R&C(it is possible that no one has thought of this before Willis). However, I’m quite sure that R&C would claim that by demonstrating(in their opinion) the major cooling effect is cirrus clouds not cumulonimbus ones, they have demonstrated that Willis’ time of day issue is not as important as Willis claims. Unfortunately, I would expect the debate to die there as I don’t think Willis’ theory is developped enough to answer the question.
This is why I have asked Willis for specifics on the differences between his theory and others out there. These sorts of specifics will allow us to *test* the two hypotheses and see which one is right. AFAIK, there are no such tests that we could do that might demonstrate Willis is correct and R&C are not which is supposed to be the whole ball game. (ie theories are tested by drawing out testable specifics about them). We should not be satisfied (as you seem to be) with differences being untested generalities.
Cheers, 🙂
Poptech said @ October 12, 2013 at 11:00 pm
PopTick, the only person around here who appears to be upset is you. Understandably since we aren’t swallowing your BS.
Poptech says:
October 12, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Mario, what I see is that all the fanboys like you are getting very upset because they cannot address my questions, just like Willis that he is incapable of.
Your comments are very bizarre as I had an uneventful childhood, you should stop projecting.
Maybe you can address these,
1. He is misleadingly implying his published COMMENT on another paper in Nature is on equal footing with an original research paper.
2. He is claiming to have TWO “peer-reviewed” papers published in E&E (I am aware of one).
3. He failed to correct Mr. Booker in The Daily Telegraph that he is not a computer modeller (context implied is climate computer modeller) when he had the chance.
4. He failed to correct The New York Times that he is not an engineer when he had the chance.
These are verifiable facts that go to the base of his integrity. If someone from an alarmist site pulled these stunts he would be ridiculed here without end and not be taken seriously.
Poptech: Nothing you point out (is valid). Howe your response to me has nothing do with a single one of my comments to you. My comments to you stand perfectly. That you do not understand this proves that my comments to you should be studied and understood. I’m not going to waste my time going through your points which have already been refuted.
– – – – – – – –
Matthew R Marler,
I appreciate your comment engagement.
I accept your challenge. Roy Spencer’s two posts on his blog advising Willis are the very source of my statement. Quoted. Parse them at your pleasure.
They remain so. Again they offer pretty obvious elementary professional advice to an amateur. They are civil. They are offered with an even toned humility.
I see the mentoring of an amateur toward being professional as what is being done. And Spencer looks like an accomplished mentor. N’est ce pas?
John
Please stop repeating things I already said (October 11, 2013 at 10:17 pm), I am well aware they peer-review comments that does not change the implication.
COMMENTS are NOT considered the same thing as an original research paper let alone equal to the original paper.
*Nice, I see Willis is now going back and inline editing my comments so I am unaware he did since I do not get notified when this happens. (October 11, 2013 at 11:17 pm) *
Incorrect, his Tuvalu article was not peer-reviewed,
“A fascinating story by a local resident, engineer and private scholar, Eschenbach offers a convincing and well documented explanation of the problems facing many Pacific islands. As we could not find any reviewer for his paper, we hope that it will attract responses from those who still believe that the compensation demanded by Tuvalu (with the help of Greenpeace and environmental lawyers) for damage caused by “global warming”, is indeed unjustified.” – Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
He has another non-peer-reviewed article in E&E.
Click on my links (October 12, 2013 at 7:04 pm), he was well aware of these articles and did not have to go search them out.
Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy and use quotes when doing Google searches. A computer expert like Willis should know how to automate these things, I do.
Do you think if the NYT said Anthony Watts, “engineer” or “computer modeller” Anthony would not try to correct that?
It is very easy to contact newspapers for corrections as they have editors dedicated to handling these.
How Poptech sees himself.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061223050621/starwars/images/6/61/AnakinSkywalker.jpg
How everyone else sees Poptech.
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs47/f/2009/225/a/4/Keyboard_Commando_by_Plognark.jpg
@ Shawnhet
First, I will not be satisfied until we fully understand the Earth climate system. Unfortunately, that’s unlikely to occur in my lifetime [sigh] Even the rather smaller subset that fascinate me: paeleoclimatology.
I think it unlikely that Willis is going to spend any great amount of time giving out specifics on the differences between his theory and that of others. As noted incessantly in this thread, he is an amateur. This means he does not have enslaved grad students to do the grunt work required. It also means he is under no obligation whatsoever to do so; he is not a grant-seeker. If I read him aright (and I do acknowledge having problems with reading underlying subtexts) he is already pursuing other game so to speak.
I do agree with you the testing and comparison needs to be done, but it will more than likely not w. doing that unless he suddenly decides that’s an compelling idea. It’s possible, but not a sufficient reason for holding one’s breath.
Really, w. is under no obligation to do what his admirers, or detractors demand of him. Tough for the control freaks out there, but WYSIWYG. In the meantime, I find w. far more entertaining than, let’s say, watching some silly cartoon on the TV set.
Live long and prosper…
Not a single one of my claims have been refuted,
1. He is misleadingly implying his published COMMENT on another paper in Nature is on equal footing with an original research paper.
2. He is claiming to have TWO “peer-reviewed” papers published in E&E (I am aware of one).
3. He failed to correct Mr. Booker in The Daily Telegraph that he is not a computer modeler (context implied is climate computer modeler) when he had the chance.
4. He failed to correct The New York Times that he is not an engineer when he had the chance.
Please stop being a fanboy and address these. Also, does Willis claim to be a computer modeler?
Surely you are intellectually honest?
Poptech says:
October 12, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Were you a young adult American male in 1966, Poptech? If not, then I can understand how you might not understand the difference between volunteering for a different Army MOS to avoid being drafted as 11 Bravo, ie Rifleman.
Don’t criticize another man’s life choices until you have been in the same situation. My choices & opportunities were different from Willis’, since I was not in his shoes, being a little younger. The draft became a lottery in Dec 1969, when I was a Stanford freshman. The number chosen for my birthday (120) put me on the cusp of being drafted (first third) or not (second third). By that time, it was clear we weren’t in it to win it, so my enthusiasm was somewhat dampened. I later volunteered to see combat in another war, but as a combat correspondent for a month, not as 11 B for a year, ie as a visitor, not a full participant.
Some may have earned the right to suggest that Willis still suffers from whatever demons then possessed him, & some may deserve to question his choices then, who made other choices, but among them are not you. Unless I’m mistaken & you are an American subject to the draft in the 1960s, in which case, never mind. But I’m pretty sure I’m not wrong.
dbstealey, jan smith, and others. I appreciate your gentle efforts of intervention on P[snip] behalf, but surely there comes a point where one can freely call a spade a spade as markstoval did this morning.
P[snip], you’re being a [snip], and this comes from someone who has used and linked to your invaluable lists and/or their sources for years. I am certainly not a Willis fanboy though I think he is a talented writer/communicator and do appreciate his many contributions here. I see no issue with legitimately attacking his claims and, while I am not a fan of how Willis often handles push back, I do enjoy the interesting discussions that often ensue and in this case, I too would like to hear more from Dr. Spencer. This is also coming from someone who admits he is “often a douche” but most of my venom is directed at the other team, and if you are now suddenly under the impression that there are not sides here, that this isn’t a battle between good and evil, then you are sorely mistaken.
That is one of the perplexing issues here with your rabid thrusts. Some of us here know very well and agree with your assessment of the totalitarian aims of the anti-human green agenda, but here you employ the same techniques that watermelons use to advance they’re arguments. In your case of propaganda, even if you feel ground has been gained in your cause, you have also succeeded in making an ass of yourself and advancing the emerging theory that publicly nipping at Willis’ ankles in hope of his collapse is of utmost importance to you. You act as though this was an opening you had long and desperately awaited and that is speaking to to us loudly and clearly. Now I’m all for hitting a Mann when he’s down if he represents the Sustainable Development nightmare, but when you walk with someone for years, even if not together in any way other than your final important destination, and you turn to him, smile, and then sucker punch him multiple times, the other people who had been walking along with you will respond and will most definitely never look at you the same way again. If that was your goal, to flex your “superior” muscles and change public opinion of you here, you’re a winner.
But you’re not. Call it circling the wagons if you’d like, but the stakes are too high to excuse your treachery as I see it. I am a freedom-loving person and feel you have the right to present yourself however you see fit, but that freedom extends to me as well and I use it to report the fact that your shallow and transparent attempts to discredit one of the main contributors to WUWT are abominable. It isn’t Willis’ reputation I am concerned with. My eye is on an infinitely larger prize than one man’s ego. I have two young children who will either live free of or under the thumb of these zealots. It is no inconsequential matter, so fragging your superior (despite your feelings about his credentials, he is your superior here) doesn’t exactly endear you to the audience. This battle is far from over and seeing someone whose work I respected put on as ignorant a display as you have here is, to borrow a phrase, a travesty.
I equate your behavior here with the third-string QB who anonymously attacks and tries to tear down the starting QB who, unfairly in your eyes, gets all the attention and credit and cheerleader. In the end, whatever “success” you have achieved in knocking down the first-stringer a notch comes at the cost of having inflicted damage to the unity, effectiveness, and morale of your own team and that is what makes what you are doing so egregious. Personally you may get a rise out of the endeavor and are thrilled with finally getting your chance to take a swing, but instead of having elevated yourself, you have attempted to bring everyone else down, yourself especially as many who may have respected your previous efforts will now consider you a douche. The race to the bottom doesn’t work out so well, a lesson I would have thought you had learned given your anti-watermelon stance.
So what’s at work here Pop? Why your sudden betrayal? You may claim that “the last thing [you are] is envious” and attest that the impetus for your misguided crusade is your “problem with misinformation,” but your actions on this thread expose what is really driving this, and it is in my opinion primarily envy. Being envious is not a problem, really. Hopefully you can use it for self-motivation rather than vengeance going forward, but disguising envy behind some self-invented higher calling to right a wrong is a problem, for you that is, because in doing so you expose more about your personality than you intend. On this thread you have offended on many fronts and somehow fail to see how you have come across to those who have read through. Perhaps not though, considering you seem to be relishing your newly-invented role. Either way, it appears self-awareness is not one of your strong suits and that speaks more to your personal failings than it does to any valid point you may have been trying to make.
Worse than that, your primary goal here Poptech, whether you care to admit it or not, isn’t achieved, because like all efforts that seek to tear people down rather than build them up, e.g., the control-based AGW cultist movement you have been assisting for days now, the extra attention and credit you so obviously seek will fail to materialize, and what does will surely be of a negative stripe. In the end I’m afraid you have done more to damage your own reputation than you have to Willis’ reputation.
His popularity here obviously doesn’t sit well with you and probably hasn’t for years now. This is deep-seated hatred that has finally broken the surface against better judgment, but you should give it a rest at this point. I actually don’t think you get the credit or attention you deserve and, irony of ironies, I personally feel that your work has contributed more to tempering the notion of an AGW consensus and helping to knock the AGW juggernaut to its knees than has Willis’ work (though in terms of reach I’m sure that can be debated—in my view most of Willis’ impact has been in keeping the ball rolling and gathering momentum post-Climategate). But here you are, occupying the same ivory tower of cards you helped to demolish. If you hadn’t noticed, they are doing their best to rebuild it and I’m sure they welcome your help Benedict. Good for you…I love acronyms.
Willis, keep doing what you’re doing, not that I would have expected you to do otherwise. I personally prefer your posts that draw attention to the plight of the poor and the soon-to-be poor if these human-haters have their way. To me this is and has always been more a political issue than a scientific issue so using this excellent forum to shed light on the motives and outcomes proposed by these extremists is paramount in my eyes. The fact that one of your own teammates attempts repeatedly to tear you down and thus tries to minimize your impact is quite sad. There has never been a more important time than now for unity in advertising the realities offered by these control freaks. Why Poop feels the compulsion to “expose” you is inexplicable and inexcusable.
Moderator, if my use or douche and ass is unacceptable (though accurate), please replace them with jerk, cuz that shoe certainly fits as well.
@ Robert in Calgary
Luckily I had already swallowed my first mouthful of chardonnay for the day, it being beer o’clock in these parts. Here’s my take on this thread:
http://www.sturmsoft.com/Writing/Images/leunig_no_understanding.jpg
It is very bizarre why all of a sudden my comments keep going into moderation. * Ah, wait it probably has to do with mentioning the owner of this site’s name.
Test: [snip . . post to test . .mod]
Confirmed.
Anyway the comment held up is a complete rebuttal to paulhan.
@ Pompous GIt: I don’t really have a problem with your post above, i would just mention that I don’t think it should take a staff to come up with the testable differences btw Willis and R&C. If someone understands both theories and both theories are sufficiently developed so distinctions between them are possible(practical ones anyway), then it shouldn’t be too difficult to point out what the testable differences between them are.
Cheers, 🙂
@ Robert in Calgary
If not present then future Poptech:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CYgIj-anvxw/UBD0ZXwE5dI/AAAAAAAAJxg/ESiXeCFy7cI/s1600/fat-man-at-computer.jpg
@ Shawnhet
I was thinking more of testing w. versus the supposed other “killer” papers finding all of which would require a lit. search. It seems pretty clear to me that R&C is quite different in many respects to w. Thunderstorm Thermostat, but I do stand to be corrected. Others seem to think that R&C’s emphasis on the TS anvils is key here and I know from my own brief experience of the tropics they are far from being invariant occurrence. I don’t know if you saw my earlier (denigrated) Google Scholar search turned up over 900 papers using “thunderstorm thermostat” as the search criteria. Widening the search term to include other possible synonyms would presumably blow that by at least an order of magnitude.
I am being mindful here of an episode I had with a warmist scientist about a decade ago regarding the mental state of James Clark Ross (the Antarctic Explorer). My antagonist claimed that while in Hobart Ross had been depressed and an alcoholic. I had the ever so friendly archivists in Hobart find any evidence they could in this regard. They failed to find any. When presented with this the antagonist said the evidence was “in a library in the UK” and refused to divulge which one. You can only achieve so much when you do not have a great amount of resources… And even though UKLand is my place of birth, I have never bothered returning.
Poptech, your time is also up (17+ hours) since I requested that you publish your bio / cv online and you failed. Therefore it has been determined that YOU ARE NOT A COMPUTER ANALYST as you allege. You can still put this right by publishing your full CV online today along with any biographical information. If you fail to do then it will be determined that you are in fact a fake. You asked Willis to publish his code within 1 hour and I ask your to publish your credentials.
Poptech, THE HYPOCRITE, asks others to provide evidence of their capabilities and yet openly says that he won’t publish his and we just have to take his world for it. He also says that he is qualified to analyze what climate scientists say yet attacks Willis for doing so.
Here is Poptech THE HYPOCRITE, in action. Judge for yourselves whether we are dealing with an honest person.
and
WOW!!!!! Yet Poptech feels his ALLEGED CREDENTIALS allows him to analyse what climate scientists publish. WOW, WOW, WOW!!!!!!
Duh. Look whose late to the party. I figured that out some time ago despite not being a ‘computer analyst’ unlike (cough, cough) yourself. :-p Where is your CV Poptech, produce it today and all will be forgiven. Failure to do so will mean you are making stuff up as you normally do.
Poptech has also failed to correct Leonardo Da Vinci’s bio on Wiki which he said anyone can do. According to Poptech’s ‘Credentials Standards’™ Leonardo Da Vinci was only an artist and was not competent enough to be called a “architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist…”
Poptech is the ultimate hypocrite. I thought Al Gore was bad but boy, I never knew the worst one was on the sceptics side. Poptech has achieved something I never thought was possible in my lifetime. You have outdone yourself, congratulations.
You are a puny sparrow who thinks he’s a peacock. Clear out the mote in your own eye.
Thank you Richard D. You have encapsulated the ALLEGED COMPUTER ANALYST called Poptech. He seems to also suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder. He also seems to suffer from a style of hypocrisy revealing itself in double standards. I hope Poptech is banned. Then what you sniveling piece of #$$%%@?
[my bolding]
Richard D, your link to the Mayo Clinic also says:
I am being very serious Poptech, get help before its too late. You may not recognise your symptoms but most ‘non credentialed’ people here are beginning to see you for what you are. Alcoholism can only be treated properly when you admit they are alcoholics. Can you say: “I am suffering from narcissistic personality disorder”? Only when you admit this can you be properly treated for your problems. Please seek help!
Jimbo, you are not that bright as I already stated I would never post it online (try learning how to read). The problem for you here is my argument does not hinge on whether you believe me or not.
Willis is mentioned in one of the top newspapers in the UK with credentials he does not hold and doubles down on his BS,
Mr. Booker clearly was implying that Willis had relevant credentials relating to the models he was discussing in his article,
Would the article read the same if it said Willis Eschenbach, House Carpenter? (his profession at the time)
Willis was very aware of Booker’s article as he cited it at WUWT but made no attempt to correct this misinformation since it gives him credibility he does not deserve. This is dishonest, deceptive and it is unethical.
So all the fanboys here apparently approve of unethical behavior?
Jimbo, please explain to everyone how you permanently “correct” something on Wikipedia.
If I can banned for calling out Willis, the nuclear option goes into play.
@ Lewis P Buckingham
I had no idea that the frequency was so high, though I have regular battles with the black dog myself. My “out” is gardening and we have had several weeks of almost incessant rain here in southern Tasmania; also it has been very cold, so I am suffering a little from cabin fever. I think we should probably lay off PopTech and say “there but for the grace of Krishna/St. Keating de Paul/Mrs God/Lilith/Homer Simpson [delete whichever is inapplicable] go I”. I know, I have piled on too…
Poptech said @ October 13, 2013 at 2:11 am
Being a carpenter (if you believe that) does not seem to have harmed Jesus Christ’s career in the slightest. Why don’t you get a grip and please stop embarrassing yourself?
I will say exactly the same for you Poptech.
The time is more than up (17+ hours). Poptech failed to produce his imaginary CV and we can irrefutably call BS on his claims to being a “computer analyst” (not to mention he has never been employed as such).
You can still put this right Poptech. I have extended your time for the whole of today. Publish your full CV on your website so we can all ‘analyse’ your ALLEGED CREDENTIALS. Failure to do so today means we can call BS on your claim of being a ‘computer analyst’.
I note that you have failed time and again to meet my challenge to you. Why? Yet you ask others to publish their stuff. What a bloody hypocrite!
milodonharlani, I have no respect for someone who enlisted, choose the MOS of “weather observer” and then overdoses to get out. That is not the sign of an intelligent or responsible person. I have more respect for those who went to Canada to dodge the draft.
Lewis, yes you can question someone’s intellect by them having been in a mental institution.
If the people reading this do not understand the problem with getting their scientific information from someone who has no scientific credentials, was literally in a mental institution and was a drug addict, I cannot help you.
Jimbo, you seem pretty upset Willis cannot back up his BS.
Why do you support unethical behavior like this?
Simply to to Wiki and edit Leonardo’s page. You said anyone can do it. If someone changes what you type you can appeal to those in charge and defend your arguments as to why Leonardo Da Vinci should only be called an artist. and why he should not be called a “architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist”.
As for your “nuclear option goes into play” I must say you have balls. The quickest way to rub people up the wrong way is to pretend to be threatening. You are suffering from a mental disorder, go and seek help Poptech before its too late. See this Mayo Clinic page on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Read up on the psychological symptoms and seek urgent psychological attention and possible medicated treatments for your problems.
You don’t seem pretty upset that you cannot back up you BS claim of being an ALLEGED COMPUTER ANALYST. You talk of “unethical behavior” yet you say:
I have called you a HYPOCRITE many times on this thread because that is exactly what you are. I analysed you statements and realised that you apply double standards left, right and centre. I repeat, go get mental help now before it’s too late.
Jimbo, learn how to read,
Please explain to everyone how you permanently “correct” something on Wikipedia.
Now you are comparing Willis to Jesus? Wow this fanboy virus is very bad.
You are a hypocrite. If I were Willis I wouldn’t publish any code for you since you insist that you won’t publish your CV online. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Look up that wise old saying, you might learn something.
Jimbo, where have I falsely claimed to be an engineer or scientist like Willis?
Jimbo, Willis cannot publish any code because he does not have any. It is all hot air, just like his scientific credentials.
Just correct is. Then let me know. It does not have to be permanent, I just want to see that you show consistency. After that I will forever claim that you don’t think that Leonardo Da Vinci was an “architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist”. I will also know that you think very little of one of the world’s greatest polymaths and geniuses, unlike your high and mighty self who is widely credentialed as an ALLEGED COMPUTER ANALYST.
Jimbo, I added it to my title. I can do ALL CAPS if you prefer. I am not wasting my time editing Wikipedia or anything else off this topic.
Jimbo, I added your ALL CAPS credentials to my title but it put the post in moderation. I am not wasting my time editing Wikipedia or anything else off this topic.
I’m still waiting on this full rebuttal to my post at 10.53. Despite the fact that you have been comprehensively answered, you still insist on making the same allegations. So I’m sorry, you have brought what follows on yourself.
Tracking PopTech, or should I say Andrew Khan was not as hard as he imagines it to be. He has left a lot of enemies in his wake, and judging by his efforts here, I am not surprised. Here’s one website that has taken the time and trouble to post links about Poptech’s bizarre behaviour. I followed those links and one of them (the last one) shows his liberal use of sock puppets, something that he canot get away with here. He has even been known to argue with himself. Another shows where he mistakenly uses his full name. His CV, such that it is
So that should give us all a better idea of where he’s coming from. It took all of about ten minutes to find him and confirm he was one and the same person, and another hour to read about his various antics on the net. I could go further, but my intention is not to assassinate his character, just to establish who we are dealing with.
Thank you paulhan. Should I say none of these new findings is surprising?
Poptech struggled hard for to paint a high-resolution image of his persona. So when I see this summary by i.p.k.a.:
… I immediately recognise the character revealed in our earlier altercation about the Dvorak keyboard.
Hey Poptech! I am typing this using the uncredentialed Dvorak keyboard, on a linux machine, in firefox. Catch me if you can!
Can’t wait until we’re gone off the cliff envisioned by Poptech. I hope that will end the pollution.
You cannot publish your credentials because you don’t have any. It is all hot air, just like your comments. 🙂
Since you admit that YOU don’t have any climate science credentials will you stop challenging climate scientists on your computer technology website?
I am now done with you Poptech. I hope you learn something here today about your own honesty and character. If you haven’t then I feel sorry for you. I really do. Good luck in your life.
PS
Did you enroll in either the Vietnam, Iraq, Afghan or any war? If yes then please put a link on your website giving us the full details of your patriotic service.
Have you ever suffered from mental illness? Ooooops! No need to answer that question.
Have you ever inhaled? Yes or no won’t matter as you have lost all credibility.
Oh, I see something has been said about Andrew Khan. Let me check it out. 🙂
@ paulhan
Thanks. At least that settles one thing — it’s not Professor Stinkjet haunting me again 🙂
Hi Poptech, can you confirm or deny that you are Andrew Khan?
Poptech, was your first job in computer support?
Is that your CV above? If yest did you go to a technical university as you claim?
Back in September 25, 2012 on WUWT someone pointed out an Andrew Khan and said they ran Popular Technology.
To which Poptech replied
Then I find this:
Curiouser and curiouser. Poptech brought all this on himself by insisting people out themselves while he hides. Therefore I insist that Poptech is outed too. You see I didn’t challenge anyone to out themselves until Poptech began his nonsense.
I am still investigating Poptech.
paulhan, my rebuttal has been in moderation for hours. I will post it again without the owner of this website’s name.
Actually tracking me is impossible since I do not exist online.
Ah, I love fanboys they always fall for the epic troll about my last name. How does it feel to know just how good I am at this that this has been going now for years now and you suckers still took the bait AGAIN! I love it. 🙂
I’ve never used sockpuppets and if you do, you don’t use the same IP address. You will never find ANY verifiable claim of my screen name of Poptech and the IP address being used under another name. I challenge anyone to find it. I’ve used variations like “PT”, depending on what is available.
I see you found my Internet stalker,
IPKA is a blog for an admitted Internet stalker and drug user that was started after he was banned from the Ron Paul forums for being, “a useless, annoying troll”.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110126070016/http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/poptechs-800-papers-preclusion/
“Andrew can shut up if he wishes not to be …followed or stalked.” – Bud
“I’m a real life stalker too, you just think I’m an internet stalker because you only see my online.” – Bud
“…can’t stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, you’ll be followed.” – Bud
“Bud” is a sockpuppet for “WaltM” and his blog IPKA. “WaltM” was so much of a lunatic he was banned from the Ron Paul forums.
His blog IPKA was started soon after his ban in October of 2010. The second post immediately attacked me and he ironically states, “[H]ere’s just one exchange he’s had on a political message board none other than RonPaulForums.com”. He likely got upset because I suggested he get a lobotomy.
“The guy [WaltM] is a useless, annoying troll, whether he realizes it or not.” – Ron Paul Forums
Reprint (so it cannot be claimed I was unable to respond)
Poptech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 12, 2013 at 11:25 pm
Please stop repeating things I already said (October 11, 2013 at 10:17 pm), I am well aware they peer-review comments that does not change the implication.
COMMENTS are NOT considered the same thing as an original research paper let alone equal to the original paper.
*Nice, I see Willis is now going back and inline editing my comments so I am unaware he did since I do not get notified when this happens. (October 11, 2013 at 11:17 pm) *
Incorrect, his Tuvalu article was not peer-reviewed,
“A fascinating story by a local resident, engineer and private scholar, Eschenbach offers a convincing and well documented explanation of the problems facing many Pacific islands. As we could not find any reviewer for his paper, we hope that it will attract responses from those who still believe that the compensation demanded by Tuvalu (with the help of Greenpeace and environmental lawyers) for damage caused by “global warming”, is indeed unjustified.” – Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
He has another non-peer-reviewed article in E&E.
Click on my links (October 12, 2013 at 7:04 pm), he was well aware of these articles and did not have to go search them out.
Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy and use quotes when doing Google searches. A computer expert like Willis should know how to automate these things, I do.
Do you think if the NYT said Anthony Watts, “engineer” or “computer modeller” Anthony would not try to correct that?
It is very easy to contact newspapers for corrections as they have editors dedicated to handling these.
Reprint (so it cannot be claimed I was unable to respond)
Poptech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 12, 2013 at 11:25 pm
Please stop repeating things I already said (October 11, 2013 at 10:17 pm), I am well aware they peer-review comments that does not change the implication.
COMMENTS are NOT considered the same thing as an original research paper let alone equal to the original paper.
*Nice, I see Willis is now going back and inline editing my comments so I am unaware he did since I do not get notified when this happens. (October 11, 2013 at 11:17 pm) *
Incorrect, his Tuvalu article was not peer-reviewed,
“A fascinating story by a local resident, engineer and private scholar, Eschenbach offers a convincing and well documented explanation of the problems facing many Pacific islands. As we could not find any reviewer for his paper, we hope that it will attract responses from those who still believe that the compensation demanded by Tuvalu (with the help of Greenpeace and environmental lawyers) for damage caused by “global warming”, is indeed unjustified.” – Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
He has another non-peer-reviewed article in E&E.
Click on my links (October 12, 2013 at 7:04 pm), he was well aware of these articles and did not have to go search them out.
Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy and use quotes when doing Google searches. A computer expert like Willis should know how to automate these things, I do.
Do you think if the NYT said the owner of this website was an “engineer” or “computer modeler” He would not try to correct that?
It is very easy to contact newspapers for corrections as they have editors dedicated to handling these.
Here are some more thoughts on Poptech.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120903164637AAW3dxi
Where are you Poptech? You’ve gone a little silent.
Gene, do I recommend Open Source software?
I don’t have access to the what filters are setup here so this is going to be trial and error,
Please stop repeating things I already said (October 11, 2013 at 10:17 pm), I am well aware they peer-review comments that does not change the implication.
COMMENTS are NOT considered the same thing as an original research paper let alone equal to the original paper.
*Nice, I see Willis is now going back and inline editing my comments so I am unaware he did since I do not get notified when this happens. (October 11, 2013 at 11:17 pm) *
Piece-meal then,
Click on my links (October 12, 2013 at 7:04 pm), he was well aware of these articles and did not have to go search them out.
Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy and use quotes when doing Google searches. A computer expert like Willis should know how to automate these things, I do.
Do you think if the NYT said the owner of this website was an “engineer” or “computer modeler” He would not try to correct that?
It is very easy to contact newspapers for corrections as they have editors dedicated to handling these.
Ok, that makes no sense it went through in three separate parts unedited. There is something really wrong with the filter here for moderating comments.
There’s nothing wrong with the filter “poptech” it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, and no you aren’t on premoderation.
Did you see my post upstream where I suggested you take a time out? Let me repeat that. Take a time out.
That was redundant, one of them finally went through above (maybe a moderator woke up).
Why do fanboys always believe everything they read online? I was never Anti-Firefox, I was anti-Firefox myths,
Firefox – A New Religion?
I was never anti-open-source as I recommend all sorts of open-source software like Open Office.
Finally I was never anti-Linux, I simply believed it was not ready for prime time as a desktop replacement (Linus Torvalds agrees with me) and still is not. However I think it’s use as a server OS and on mobile device (Android) are very good.
All you guys do it live up to the low standards of all fanboys when it comes to research.
Anthony, if you want you can delete comments,
October 13, 2013 at 4:24 am
October 13, 2013 at 4:27 am
October 13, 2013 at 4:29 am
October 13, 2013 at 4:30 am
As you put the other comments through so these are now redundant.
No, I’ll leave them as a record of your inane theadjacking.
Now take a time out.
When someone attacks you in a public forum like a blog, you’re entitled to reply and in a public forum as well. How you shape that reply is of course your call and the onlookers will make up their own minds.
On balance, I’m disappointed by Dr. Spencer.
Pointman
Did poptech forgett to take his meds?
Can’t stop laughing.
Do you admit that the other posts were held up in moderation and I was not trying to spam those comments but simply get it past the filter?
[Reply: Anthony told you that you are not on premoderation. Sometimes words or links will hold up comments until they are manually approved. — mod.]
Sure, but you wrote long comments with multiple links, and they get flagged as potential spam. Comments with “Anthony” or “Moderator” also get flagged for attention, since they address these people.
Now, take a time out. This is the last time I will ask. – Anthony
I had to filter a great deal of diversion to begin to understand the differences between the two papers, and to see how the scientific literature quantifies the energy moved by thunderstorms. (I really wish moderatos could make separate threads for the non scientific issues)
Most helpful posts here…
here, richardscourtney says:
October 12, 2013 at 12:04 pm
and here…JJ says:
October 12, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Those are some of the most helpful, and am looking forward to Richard responding. It appears to me that Willis is attempting to quantify the energy movement, and more importantly, the movement to high altitude and the radiant release of energy to space from that altitude. (I think this is quite separate from the hypothesis of rising moist air perhaps requiring descending dry air elsewhere, and it counter that negative affect, as net energy is released.)
Now Roy adds this puzzler, which is novel to me…
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
October 10, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Richard, “mid-day thunderstorm effect” hardly describes anything new.
Besides, over the tropical oceans, the peak in convective activity is before dawn (not mid-day)…as observed by satellite, and explained by modeling studies as daytime stabilization of the tropical upper troposphere by solar absorption.
======================================================
??The peak in convective activity at what altitude?? Further clarification on the science is helpful. Further discussion on other issues is not.
Thanks in advance.
Poptech aka Andrew Khan aka Andrew K aka [insert numerous other handles]
Let me home in a little, you might have missed it first time. I have added bolding for emphasis Mr. Khan.
You replied:
So I can only assume that you acknowledge your first name is ANDREW.
On the subject of last names I see something a little curious on another website.
Are we still playing hidey hide Andrew Khan or is that Andrew K? Ah shit as you say.
i have been reading this site on and off for some time … i find the debates here are interesting … this one even more so … poptechs personality reminds me exactly of someone i met at a hacker/security conference a couple of years ago 2010 or 11 … i think was named andrew too … sorry my memory is not what it used to be … the post of the name andrew jarred that free … what i do remember is his ability to respond with sources in debates … there was a session on ethical hacking and one of the topics that was brought up was climategate and wikileaks … i remember him shutting down quite a few people who clearly did not do their homework challenging them with sources … after that session i spoke to him in the hall and he convinced me and a few others to look into this more … sure enough i got turned on to climate audit and the rest as they say is history … anyway that is my two cents … carry on
Andrew Khan aka Poptech
The top of this page has 1 link to PopularTechnology.net.
Author: Andrew K – Modified: 3-17-2008
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/About.html
—————————————————————-
On the Wayback Machine the top of the page has all the links point PopularTechnology.net.
Global Warming Videos | Global Warming Books | No Consensus on Global Warming | Global Warming Resource| Optimize Guides| Popular Technology
Author: Andrew K – Modified: 3-17-2008
http://web.archive.org/web/20080726134132/http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/About.html
Poptech has said that he is a ‘computer analyst‘ in this WUWT thread.
Andrew K., author of the above linked pages, also says he is a ‘Computer Analyst‘
Andrew K’s CV does not mention any university.
Is Poptech in fact Andrew Khan? You decide based on the evidence I have provided so far. I have made my decision.
I apologise for my part in the diversion of this thread. I’ll leave it with two quotes, and two links. People can form their own opinions from that. I will not be posting any further on this thread.
Wise words, which I am going to heed. PopTech was also known as MasterTech, among a lot of other sock-puppets. His CV is here, which also has a link to one of his postings. If anyone is a member of that forum, they should be able to look up his profile and confirm this. In that posting, there are links to websites he runs, and in other articles, these are also tied to Andrew K, Andrew Khan, and Poptech, so his assertion that he does not use sock-puppets is an outright lie. He was banned from Digg for spamming his sites using different usernames. What links his sock-puppets is a similar writing style, and the use of the word “fanboys” a lot.
The second link is a Forbes article where we see PopTech’s standard operating procedure, which is to thread-bomb the post and come up with ever more fanciful machinations when pressed. You see his story unraveling as he escalates the lies to cover up the original lies. Death threats from Firefox “fanboys”? Is that really the best you can do?
Blast, first link should be http://forum.avast.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=10q7a6dbm2fvk73qho0pgg6837&topic=30720.msg254287#msg254287
After reading your parting words I too have decided to leave this thread. Thank your great lead which led me onto some more stuff on Poptech. I think we have now established that Poptech is Andrew Khan aka Andrew K. no matter how much he says it ain’t so.
Poptech, go and get help and stop your lies.
David A:
re your post at October 13, 2013 at 5:08 am.
I am pressed for time so this is abrupt. But I thought a quick answer was better than seeming to ignore your post which you say you “hope” I will respond.
You say
Yes.
However, you omit the cirrus effect which R&C argue reduces solar heating at the surface. Indeed, their primary conclusion is that the “rising moist air” generates cirrus with resulting shielding of sea surface from solar heating and this establishes the maximum limit of 305K to surface temperature.
The essential difference is that
(a)
R&C claim evapourative effects (including those of thunderstorms) create cirrus clouds which shield sea surface from solar heating in the tropical warm pool
but
(b)
Eschenbach claims evapourative effects generate thunderstorms which rapidly transport heat from sea surface to altitude where it can more easily radiate to space thus extracting heat from sea surface in the tropics, and this occurs when sea surface temperature reaches some ‘set point’.
Hence, my frustration at Shawnhet and JJ who – as I understand them – seem to have been claiming that R&C 1991 includes the Eschenbach Effect merely because R&C mentions thunderstorms. And my repeated demand of Shawnhet – which he evaded but has yet to answer – which said
Richard
The Pompous Git says:
October 13, 2013 at 12:05 am
Hi again GIt,
I don’t think anyone is asking that Willis familiarize himself with all 900+ papers – but asking someone to be familiar with 3 or 4 is not particularily onerous IMO. Really, at this point, all he would need to do would is familiarize himself(if he isn’t already) with R&C. Then he would be able to say either:
My hypothesis and R&C differ and here is how I would test to see which one was accurate. or,
I am not yet able to devise a test that would allow us to distinguish the two.
Cheers, 🙂
richardscourtney says:
October 13, 2013 at 6:34 am
“And my repeated demand of Shawnhet – which he evaded but has yet to answer – If you think the R&C and Eschenbach Effects are the same or that one includes the other then argue your case because I have stated the reality as I understand it.”
I have not evaded your request I have *repeatedly* pointed you back to the section of R&C that includes discussion of what you refer to as the Eschenbach effect.
If you claim that R&C does not include the Eschenbach effect and I reference the part of the paper where they include it (as you describe it) – then I have not evaded your request – I have answered it. I’m not sure what you think the relevant section of R&C is talking about but it is precisely the type of stuff you attribute to Willis above.
Cheers, 🙂
[snip – I asked you to take a time out – now I’m not asking anymore – Anthony]
Shawnhet:
For reason of lack of time, I am making a blunt reply to your post at October 13, 2013 at 6:46 am.
We are disputing what the paper by R&C 1991 says and does not say.
You are claiming it says something I do not agree it says. It is an evasion for you to repeatedly refer me to the paper: I HAVE READ IT AND I KNOW WHAT IT SAYS.
If your interpretation of it is true then you can quote the statements you think substantiate your view and explain that view. You are persistently refusing to do that.
Richard
Richard,
If you understand the paper why don’t you just explain in your own words what the passage starting with :”The latent energy of a parcel of air…” on the bottom left hand side of page four of the paper.
Once you’ve done that I’m sure you’ll be able to explain how this mechanism does not imply the Eschenbach effect.
Once you’ve done *both* of the above *then* you can start talking about who is evading what.
This is incorrect, I have only ever used Poptech (some obvious variation of) or Andrew.
Prove me wrong, find a single verifiable instance of a sockpuppet being used where the IP was identical to Poptech.
Let me educate you on the Internet, not everything is true.
I have never spammed my site, you are seriously delusional I am not banned from Digg,
http://blog.digg.com/post/63567584866/new-digg-reader-extension-for-chrome-half-the-clicks#comment-1080860134
Prove me wrong, find a single verifiable instance of a sockpuppet being used where the IP was identical to Poptech.
You can’t because it doesn’t exist. I am all over the Internet surely you can find one example fanboy.
What? The truth is not fanciful. I did receive deaths threats, one was to burn my house down.
[Reply: No name other than ‘Poptech’ has been posted here using Poptech’s computer address. — mod.]
So what happens when you learn you are being my puppet?
While I agree with some of Poptech’s criticisms, others were mean-spirited and illogical. Having an episode of depression or suicidality does not automatically invalidate anything that person does from then on. If we accepted that it does, then what possible grounds could we have to argue with that person that they *shouldn’t* immediately commit suicide? Under that scenario, we’d probably lose a third to half of the human population in an afternoon. It, Poptech’s criticism of Willis along those grounds, is essentially insane.
His asking why Willis insists that Roy accused him of plagiarism is a legitimate question as are other points he’s making I’m sure. But way to obfuscate those matters.
Willis has effectively called Roy a liar, and insinuated that Roy is being mean-spirited by putting up a Simpson cartoon slide side-by-side with another of James Hansen wearing a hat and getting arrested. This seems way too touchy and unreasonable of an interpretation on Willis’s part to me, but at the end of the day, maybe.
Maybe Roy is a liar who simultaneously has distaste for citizen scientists writ large, as Willis flatly states. Maybe Roy is offended by something Willis has recently done and is having an emotional snit as Willis alludes to, and Roy is being disingenuous by pointing to years of scientific behaviour on Willis’s part that he doesn’t approve of, such as not making a larger effort to research work that has gone before and properly give credit.
Maybe Roy’s really a d-ck. I don’t know.
But that certainly isn’t how I’d bet. I’d bet on oversensitivity on Willis’s part, and he really ought to have spent less time poisoning the well about Roy and just addressed the points Roy was making — which I basically agree with.
Believe me, I have nothing against citizen scientist contributions nor laypeople weighing in on issues. I do think, however, that an extensive formal education, particularly in areas such as mathematics and statistics, can be a real advantage.
Intelligent laypeople — or experts from outside fields — often have a breadth of knowledge which can help them see things the cloistered and hyper-focused experts don’t. And let’s be real here: the intellect of an average “climate scientist” is not, to my mind, of the same degree or quality of those drawn into physics, mathematics, chemistry, and perhaps some aspects of business. That is my own bias.
So getting someone like McIntyre double-check their work is awesome. Willis is welcome to make his own contributions.
But since he’s chosen such a prominent role for himself prolifically writing on such a well-read website, perhaps when he’s criticised he ought to approach his reply with more of a “these things will happen” mindset, look at the critical post itself, and not take it personally.
He should trebly take this charitable interpretation of the criticism if it is from someone he says he greatly respects.
Poptech – thank you for your service against the idiocy that is cAGW and, more particularly its useful morons. from the vested sly foxes to the dumb headless chickens who attempt to drown out any and all debate.
You do not get thanked enough for the amount of time and energy you expend outside the skeptosphere fighting these freaks.
Shawnhet:
I am very short of time but your post at October 13, 2013 at 7:12 am only requires the obvious reply that it is another evasion.
I have explained my view and justified it. The responsibility for justification of your assertion is yours and not mine.
Richard
Looks like my posts are now getting censored here.
@Poptech No, you have been asked to take a “time out” and you’ve ignored the request for some reason. So it is being enforced for 24 hours to give you a chance to cool down. Walk away.
It looks like I am unable to properly respond anymore. I have detailed responses completely disappear.
richardscourtney says:
October 13, 2013 at 7:45 am
And my very short reply to you is that you are the one who is evading me. You have never described in this thread what the *specific* passage I referenced. Until you do so, you have no basis for claiming that I am evading you.
Poptech wants everyone to know that he is unable to respond and some of detailed responses have been removed.
[Reply: Nothing has been ‘removed’. — mod.]
Shall I engage the nuclear option?
If the nuclear option means shutting your gob, please do.
Pointman
To be fair to Poptech, since I’m asking him to take a 24 hour time out, I’m asking the same of “Jimbo”. for his part in this threadjacking.
@Poptech and Jimbo – check your email.
No response, eh Poptech? A nothing to see here moment? Well, we’ve seen plenty already. Hope that was worth it Benedict. If so, good for you.
galileonardo, Poptech can’t respond now — he’s on a 24-hour suspension.
@galileonardo what Dollis said, Jimbo is too. Everybody just needs to take a deep breath. Everyone has made positive contribution here, Poptech has, Jimbo has, many others in this thread have. Independent of this thread Poptech has made some very important contributions, citing over 1100 peer reviewed papers that question the severity of AGW.
Jimbo has made some excellent contributions here on comment lists making citation of like minded papers/articless that support or debunk a position.
Quite honestly this sniping does nobody any good. I don’t like putting people on time-outs, but its getting out of hand and off topic. It also takes up a lot of my time when I have to get involved.
Henry Galt says:
I second that.
Poptech, don’t ruin all the good work you do with this fixation on Willis. It has turned into a nitpicking argument that benefits no one. Like most here, I don’t care about credentials. If his hypothesis stands on its merits, that is all that matters.
For the record, I also had a good experience with Poptech over a debate with Dana Nuccitelli over Cook et al., 2013, both at his site and at The Guardian website.
And I agree with some of his criticisms of Willis. Regardless, talking about a depressive episode Willis had years ago that he’s been very upfront about and using that to dismiss what Willis says, or saying that is why Roy is/should dismiss what Willis says, is pure ad hominem, and a really awful and dangerous kind as well. Are we really going to go down the path of telling people they are essentially valueless because they went through an existential crisis? (Which is a pretty common phenomena.)
Aside from the fact it wouldn’t be hard to find people who contributed a lot who have had emotional difficulties, it is also possibly throwing gasoline on a fire by undermining them. That is mean spirited.
Poptech should leave that out and make whatever relevant points he has in the future. I’m going to find it hard to respect him if he continues down that path.
@Dollis Good points. Years ago, I suffered through a bout of depression after some serious personal losses in my family. Making an issue of it today would not even relate to the person I am today. I don’t see how Poptech can justify it against Willis. It’s a cheap move.
Poptech says:
October 12, 2013 at 9:24 pm
I’m happy to have any scientific claims challenged, Poptech. I answer scientific questions all day long here, and I encourage you to ask real questions. Unfortunately, it seems you’d rather deal in innuendo and vituperation than in science …
In that regard, let me point out to you the following from the WUWT policy (emphasis mine):
Your attacks, over and over, are on things like my “credentials”, e.g. am I a “scientist”? Am I a “computer modeler”? Am I too crazy to argue with? The list is long.
Those are all personal attacks, Poptech. They have nothing to do with the scientific questions at issue here. I’ve asked you in a variety of ways to cease the personal attacks. There’s a reason they are against site policy. They add nothing to a scientific discussion, they only breed dissension and lead to thread-jacking … which, to judge by your actions, appears to be your aim.
However, despite requests from myself and a number of others, you continue with the unending nasty personal vendetta.
That’s why I’d ban you, Poptech. It has nothing to do with my demonstrated willingness to have my scientific claims and ideas challenged, and everything to do with your unending attacks on my character, my history, and even my sanity.
w.
Poptech wrote in part October 13, 2013 at 2:41 am”
“…… I have no respect for someone who enlisted, choose the MOS of “weather observer” and then overdoses to get out. …..”
Popteck’s ever-increasing list of those to whom he owes an apology should probably now include those in their 60 who had to deal with difficult choices (or no choice at all), with regard to the military. Some thrived; some, such as myself, did my three years; some had a more difficult time; and some did not come home. [Perhaps (although I doubt it), Popteck is one of our group, or did his/her service at a different time.] What we all had in common was it was not an easy time. Happily it was a long time ago. What we now hold is a preference for remembering the commonality of our difficulties, and a respect for those whose circumstances were different from ours in the details. Brothers and Sisters all.
” Poptech says:
October 12, 2013 at 11:46 pm
It is very bizarre why all of a sudden my comments keep going into moderation. * Ah, wait it probably has to do with mentioning the owner of this site’s name.”
Bizarre? What I find bizarre is that your posts are showing up at all. I agree with Robert in Calgary:
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs47/f/2009/225/a/4/Keyboard_Commando_by_Plognark.jpg
Christoph Dollis says:
October 13, 2013 at 7:30 am
Christoph, Roy said that I had “never mentioned” the R&C1991 study. This is an accusation of plagiarism. He didn’t say I didn’t know about the R&C study. He said I never mentioned it, which means I knew about it but kept it to myself. That’s an accusation of plagiarism, as many people on this thread have noted.
No, I haven’t. You’ll need a quotation from me to establish that. I think that he is mistaken in his accusations, and that he didn’t read either my hypothesis or R&C1991’s hypothesis closely enough.
I also think that he is unaware that he attacked “citizen scientists” by holding me up as some kind of uber-example of citizen scientists and then attacking me. He also attacked citizen scientists by choosing Homer Simpson, who according to Wikipedia “embodies several American working class stereotypes: he is crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, lazy, a heavy drinker, and ignorant” to represent all of us citizen scientists. Dr. Roy clearly doesn’t realize that comparing citizen scientists to someone who is “incompetent, clumsy, lazy, a heavy drinker, and ignorant” is not a neutral act, nor is it “funny” ha ha—it is a slur on whoever is thus represented.
But I’ve never to my knowledge accused him of lying. You’ll have to come up with a quote from me on that one.
Finally, please note, all you folks like Christoph that are defending Dr. Roy … Dr. Roy has never come back to provide even the slightest scrap of support, evidence, or citations for his nasty claims and insinuations. Think about that before jumping on his bandwagon. He’s accused a man of plagiarism, and then refused to either back up or retract his accusation. Are you sure you want to take his side in this discussion?
You can pick your own name for what Dr. Roy’s done, but it’s not pretty.
w.
I establish it here, Willis. Not only are you saying Dr. Spencer accused you of plagiarism and he’s saying he didn’t, you are also saying (as if it’s an established fact) that Dr. Spencer has a distaste for citizen scientists and he’s saying he doesn’t.
So you’re effectively calling him a liar.
Or perhaps you’re effectively calling him self-delusional.
Take your pick.
But he says he didn’t:
Anthony (& moderators),
I always will respect your decisions in your WUWT home where I am a guest.
I am suggesting now a total 24 hrs time out of all commenters on this thread and please definitely include Willis. I suggest you re-open this thread to comments 24 hrs from now.
Just an idea.
Your place is wonderful.
John
@John, yes we could all use a time out. This thread will re-open at 8AM PDT tomorrow.
Dr Spencer could resolve this dispute by citing a specific reference that he thinks invalidates Mr Eschenbach’s claim to originality, just one. The very thing Mr Eschenbach, quite reasonably, has asked him to do. Dr Spencer has not done so. I don’t think he will do so. Dr Spencer’s responses to date are simply non-specific generalities.
I think Dr Spencer shot off his mouth without confirming his facts first. This is the very thing he apparently accuses Mr Eschenbach of doing. It’s easy to shoot off your mouth, but takes a bit more courage to admit you made a mistake doing it. My advice to Dr Spencer and his acolytes: put up, or apologize and shut up.
I happen to have great respect for the work Dr Spencer has done. However, until he cites something specific to back up his assertion in this dispute, he is blowing smoke and doing a disservice to himself and the respect he otherwise deserves as a climate scientist.
Comments are enabled again
Some people like details, and make comments on point. Some people like generalities and stray all over. Whatever my actual achievement, I aim to focus on details and stay on point. I apologize for my errors. I hope not to exaggerate my importance by saying that I think Dr Spencer would better to have heeded my request a few days ago to make specific points and provide links to back them up. Instead he wrote an inaccurate diatribe.
Matthew R Marler:
In light of our severe disagreements in the past, it gives me great pleasure to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your post at October 14, 2013 at 8:09 am.
But I am saddened by the truth of it. Roy Spencer is a good guy. We all make mistakes sometimes, and I regret that Roy Spencer has not acted to correct his on this occasion.
Richard
In lectures on DVD, Alex Filippenko (UCLA, Astronomy) acknowledged the many backyard astronomers, one being a minister, who have made important contributions over the years. If he had serious problems with the writings of a backyarder he knew, he might just pick up the phone.
As some have previously stated, I think Willis stepped on some academic toes. And I doubt Willis is going to put away his telescope anytime soon.
Complex systems in weather exhibiting emergent properties have positive feedbacks to sustain them, and negative feedbacks that provide dampening, and are self terminating as they break down their own start conditions.
http://www.evolutionofcomputing.org/Multicellular/Emergence.html
A quick look on google scholar on the effects of tropical storms/cyclones on surface temperatures came up with this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7144/abs/nature05785.html
An interesting study of human nature, these 957 comments.
I get bogged down reading the comments at Judith Currie’s site as she has a group of commenters who play at flaming each other, hence veering horribly/deliberately off topic.
This evasion of the topic under discussion and attempts at threadjacking, seem to be the major weakness of public science blogs.
Anthony I admire your patience and forbearance.
The temptation to “inform” us gentle readers, as to Dr Spencer’s intent, on the part of some commentors is mostly unnecessary, if he felt misunderstood he has complete freedom to say so, requiring no help, friendly interpreters or justifiers.
As a reader who leans more political than scientific, can I make a plea for more science, more stick to the facts and less politics and personalities?
The very thing Willis Eschenbach keeps repeating, if he is wrong or repeating the work of others, please provide evidence to support your comment.This would up the quality of argument, allow me to follow your line of reasoning and reach my own conclusions.
Willis is a superb communicator, I read his tales whenever I have time, but I truly admire his ability to demonstrate his line of reasoning, right wrong or indifferent that is a talent that shines here.
Science is dead if it cannot be explained to the average person, science is not argument from authority, there are no high priests of science.
Seems to me we invented the evidence based, sceptism of our own beliefs and measurement orientated methods we called science to avoid the worst excesses of ideology and conviction from our recent past.
Tried to put into a dispassionate perspective the response to an apparent outreach effort by Roy at mentoring an amateur. I took advantage of the 24 hr hiatus in commenting to slowly go through all comments at Roy’s blog and here. I did so several times in chronological order.
Roy, a bridge to far. Please outreach to a different amateur here at WUWT. But please do not give up your outreach to an WUWT amateur. [hey, Tisdale, here is an opportunity]
Willis, you may perceive being victimized / attacked. Many thought you were circumspectly invited to take a vital step toward publishing your thesis and obtain professional respect; I thought so and was glad you were being encouraged. I still am glad you were the one who was being encouraged.
Poptech, I think your independent auditing will not be deflected . . . it never has been. I hope it never stops. I am sure you already understand that opposing any kind of apparent populism should best be done coldly . . . very very coldly. Stay extremely cold . . . then I can call you ‘Frosty the Poptech’. I offer intellectual dry ice anytime your commenting cooling system needs it.
John
john robertson, you definitely lead me to think there’s something to the “fanboy” hypothesis – and yes, it is an interesting aspect of human nature.
This is my delayed response (my apologies if too delayed to be relevant) to the mention of Leonardo da Vinci as an exemplary scientist. I feel that today’s public perception of his character is rather incomplete and distorted by second-hand accounts — very much like that of Wright Brothers’, who are often characterised as “tinkerers” by people who are not aware of their tools and notes exhibited at the National Museum of the USAF at Dayton. The idea that if you bumble around enough you will eventually fly does not survive for more a few seconds at the Dayton museum.
Having read all of Leonardo’s published notes that I could find, I can state the following:
* He was not familiar with the scientific method as it was taught at universities up until about mid-twentieth century (I don’t think it is widely taught anymore). I cannot discern any particular method in his exposition of his thought process. All I can see is that he was an astute observer and he had a good grasp of logic. Some of his explanations of the processes he observed were stunningly insightful and logically sound, while others were extremely naïve. So his science was hit and miss. I’ll refrain from giving examples because it is difficult to really appreciate the man’s greatness without learning about the multitude of his hits and misses from himself. Just in case anybody is interested:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5000
* You will need to look hard to find Leonardo acknowledge prior art in any way. He largely kept his thoughts to himself, at least the written ones we now have access to.
So when I see somebody say “X is not Leonardo”, the first thought that comes to my mind is whether the author of this statement knows enough about Leonardo to properly compare him to anybody. “X is not Leonardo” is guaranteed to be true in the strict sense, but if you relax the rather useless notion of identity to that of relative likeness, you might come to realise that the X in question is the most Leonardo-like character among all of us here that we know enough about to judge.
Give me high-intellect combined with honesty over simply an understanding the scientific method any day of the week.
Mods – please expunge the dupe if one appears. I experienced an HTTP protocol error on my previous post.
I’m just back from my road trip (waved again symbolically to Anthony as I passed through Chico again) and see my post fell to the moderator’s axe. I don’t see this coaching reply as encouragement to battle the poor indexing at this site to produce cites to support my claims, but if you assure me you will post my response with cites, entirely from this blog, and which support my claims (which I have archived), I will make the effort. Let me know. I will add though that Willis himself should be held to this same stricture when he pens his acerbic replies to your readership. We all like and prefer a level playing field. Willis has repeatedly gotten a free pass on uncited opinion even in this thread. Look again before you expunge this post as I can now add another flaw of his to the previous list now cluttering the WUWT dust bin.
That said, I am also quite happy I wrote what I did, I believe what I wrote, and I will cheerfully defend it come good or ill. Shall I? What say you Mr. Mod?
And to take matters into my own hands I will blog my responses including this one on one of my own sites so that I don’t fall under the moderator’s axe here for doing what Willis does with impunity (I can provide cites for that, too, and from this very blog). I won’t identify that blog but google finds all.
I will repeat part of what I wrote in that expunged comment – it honestly did give me pleasure to be publicly honest about my thoughts. They may be wrong or not, but they are mine and I believe them – there is at present no opportunity to discuss further what I claim except that Willis is someone I will not read again save for his tales from his personal past lives as they mirror many of my own and they are enjoyable triggers for my own memories. Willis is no scientist but he is a delightful yarn spinner of a rare and special talent.
[Reply: There are several moderators. This moderator will not delete anything. Cannot speak for the others. ~ mod.]
Willis,
You may be interested in this….http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24459279
It’s about the maths behind the Simpson’s and Futurama.
And this…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24344912
Good News! Progress,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8349545/Unscientific-hype-about-the-flooding-risks-from-climate-change-will-cost-us-all-dear.html
Still working on correcting the rest of the misinformation.
Poptech:
re your post at October 15, 2013 at 12:18 pm.
You call that
Sad, so very sad.
You are petty little man and I pity you.
Richard
Richard, you do not seem like a person that would not like to see misinformation like this corrected. If Willis wishes to have his scientific arguments stand on their own, they should do so without made up credentials.
Poptech,
You have it backward. Scientific arguments stand on their own without credentials. The arguments are what matter. Credentials only open doors.
dbstealey, that is not an excuse to not correct inaccurate credentials.
Poptech:
re your post at October 15, 2013 at 12:46 pm.
You achieve nothing and benefit nobody by spending your time attacking people.
That you want to spend your time attacking people says you are a sad little man whose self esteem is very low.
I pity you.
Richard
dbstealey and richardscourtney: Poptech thinks everyone is flawed except him. That is, that everyone is motivated by feelings about subjects rather than facts. He believes people who disagree with him, do so for irrational reasons (e.g. he calls them fan boys because he cannot discuss the logic). If someone who had a modicum of control of my life, processed information like Poptech, I would be as miserable as he is. Think Shawshank Redemption’s Warden Norton and you get the idea.
I notice no one is arguing that the information corrected should not have been, instead more inaccurate comments about my character.
What the hey, we can extend this out to 1000 comments if we try, Fanboys?
Credentials? Or is it all about Willis?
We find ourselves discussing science, climatology and politics on WUWT because of the failure of modern experts, the corrupt arrogance of the IPCC named experts is what set this mess in motion, being told repeatedly, to ignore the man behind the curtain, never mind the falsehoods,the failure to provide data,just trust us, the experts.
And for the icing, Willis Eschenbach’s arguments must be incorrect as he has no standing,credentials or status???
And if I read C.Dollis right, the scientific method is less useful than a clever story from an honestly deluded man?
Poptech:
At October 15, 2013 at 1:29 pm you say
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE SUCH A PETTY AND MEAN-MINDED ACT!
Is that clear now?
Let me explain what you say you do not understand.
1.
The information only needed to be “corrected” in your mind.
Eschenbach IS a computer modeler because he constructs computer models.
2.
You chose to spend time and effort to “correct” a minor detail that was – at best – a matter of opinion about a definition and was in a newspaper article from 2 years ago.
3.
You expended that time and effort to demean a person.
4.
That tells much about you and nothing about the person you demeaned.
I suggest that you read, consider and inwardly digest the post from Mario Lento at October 15, 2013 at 1:20 pm because it clearly and succinctly expresses what your behaviour has told everybody about you. This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1448970
Richard
Richard, it is now mean and petty to correct misinformation?
What was the context Mr. Booker was claiming Willis was a “computer modeler”?
Where was Willis employed as a computer modeler?
Willis, only has experience using CAD/CAM software and has never been employed as a computer modeler. He claims some custom programs of which he will not show the code (a clear sign someone is BSing).
This is not a matter of opinion but a clear misrepresentation of his credentials to give weight to his arguments that he does not deserve. The editor of the Telegraph clearly agreed with me.
Richard, I work in information technology for a living and know very well when someone is making up computer related credentials.
I have no interest in Mario’s misrepresentations of my character and motives.
Poptech:
I write this to show that I have read your post at October 15, 2013 at 2:08 pm.
You have failed to read what I wrote and failed to consider the helpful (for you) comment from Mario Lento and that is your loss. You could have learned from the responses to your mistake, but – instead – you have chosen to try to justify it.
Sad.
Richard
Poptech,
You write:
“Where was Willis employed as a computer modeler?”
No one brought up the employment issue except you. Really, what could that possibly matter?
Regarding credentials, you steadfastly refuse to post your own CV, while vilifying that of Willis — who is, in fact, a published, peer reviewed author.
Until you post your own CV, we should disregard all of your con-Willis arguments, no?
Yes.
Richard, why would I be interested in Mario’s fictitious strawmen? I ask again,
1. What was the context Mr. Booker was claiming Willis was a “computer modeler”?
2. Where was Willis employed as a computer modeler?
I do not understand why you wish to keep defending the indefensible.
Willis has at least admitted he is not an engineer but I am at a loss as to how the NYT would have gotten that misinformation, yet he keeps pretending to be a computer modeler which is an insult to everyone’s intelligence here.
Climate Scientist for instance can falsely believe they are computer programmers because they wrote some crappy program at sometime in their career, this does not make it so nor does it make Willis a computer modeler because he declares himself one.
Poptech says:
October 15, 2013 at 4:31 pm
You more or less work in journalism, don’t you?
Have you ever been interviewed by a reporter, only to find out how preposterously you were misunderstood or misquoted? In my experience, it happens more often than not, & as a reporter myself have sometimes made mistakes. It’s even worse when bias gets thrown in.
IMO it’s far from certain that Willis characterized himself as an engineer or computer modeler. Unless he admits that’s what happened, it’s IMO at least as likely that the reporter got it wrong. When he describes himself, in my experience, it has been as a polymath & citizen scientist, which are accurate characterizations.
Poptech:
At October 15, 2013 at 4:31 pm you ask me
I am NOT defending you. And I do not know how you gained so mistaken an idea.
I and others are trying to explain to you WHY your behaviour is indefensible and how it is perceived by others.
Please read my post at October 15, 2013 at 1:51 pm which explains that I am not defending your indefensible behaviour. This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1449000
Please do not foist on me any more of your excuses for your indefensible behaviour until you have understood that post.
Richard
Christoph Dollis says:
October 14, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Give me high-intellect combined with honesty over simply an understanding the scientific method any day of the week.
———————————
Not me. Galileo’s inquisitors were highly intelligent, honest men. Yet they condemned a practitioner of the scientific method to house arrest.
Even the most obnoxious person practicing the scientific method, such as Newton, IMO does more to improve life for humans than an army of intelligent, honest but benighted people. A lot of SS & NKVD officers were highly intelligent & honest, rooting out all those dishonest, capitalist black marketeers.
milodonharlani, no I work in Information Technology.
Especially with major newspapers, they will attempt to fact check these things before posting and usually get the credentials from the person they are quoting. Willis has not admitted he did not. Even if he did not, he was clearly aware they used those credentials and made no attempt to correct them.
Poptech:
I am not a welder by my college education, nor do I have degrees in welding, but I make welds, design welding parameters and do what most welders cannot do with regard to welding spent fuel canisters. People consider me a welding expert.
I am not a programmer by my college education, and do not have a computer programming desgree. Yet, I program process control systems for semiconductor and other applications. People call me a programmer.
I have no robotics education, yet I am considered a robotics engineer by many because of the work that I do in designing and programming robotics systems. I’ve written technical articles on robotics in semiconductor wafer handling systems.
You on the other hand are caught up in some weird views of how the world works. There are no versions of the truth Poptech – and so you use the word incorrectly in your comments here on WUWT in my opinion. Perhaps you think in otherworldly fashions.
Poptech says:
October 15, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Had you ever worked in journalism, you’d know that even major papers & press services not only don’t fact-check adequately, but frequently their reporters make stuff up. When I wrote for the LA Times, editors did ask me to justify at greater length my conclusions, but generally accepted my statements of fact, some of which would have been hard to check in any case.
IMO it’s possible that Willis was misquoted or the reporters just assumed or made up his work history. A colleague too famous to be named used to use me as a source & ask me to say what he needed for his articles in one of the most respected MSM papers.
Poptech, please state if you think that these two citizen scientists had or have adequate credentials to be considered scientists in your book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Mims
OTOH, were credentialed professionals at respected institutions who faked data real scientists or not? Is Michael Mann?
Thanks.
They weren’t that smart. Also, honest? No they weren’t! They were afraid of the truth and actively trying to suppress it. They were cowards who wanted to socially fit-in and/or rise to the top of the social hierarchy and benefit from it.
They weren’t very intelligent people motivated primarily by truth.
But he says he didn’t:
So, Willis, are you effectively accusing Roy Spencer of lying, as I have suggested? I could accept him lying as a possibility, but you deny that you’ve accused him of lying.
Since you’re saying the you are not effectively accusing him of lying, and since he is expressing in unambiguous terms that he did not accuse you of plagiarism — that he thinks you probably just thought it on your own as an original thinker, no less — and further, you still maintain that he’s accused you of plagiarism … is not there not a stronger argument to be made that you are lying than that he is?
Because looking at the above, one of you would have to be.
Now, I will add, that there’s one other thing that appears to match this pattern — your insisting that he has distaste for citizen scientists and him insisting that he meant no such thing. You could pretty much substitute that into the above and get the same result, but is it not clear to any reasonable person that:
and:
don’t line up?
Now I never read his first post as him accusing you of plagiarism, but since that time, you cannot deny that he has made himself unambiguously clear that he did not.
Typo correction:
*is not there
notChristoph Dollis says:
October 15, 2013 at 5:28 pm
You didn’t get to the top of the Vatican Inquisition by being dumb or dishonest. On the Protestant side, Luther & Calvin also honestly didn’t buy into Copernicus.
One of Galileo’s inquisitors, for instance, Cardinal Bellarmine, now a Catholic saint, was not only highly intelligent but abstemious & pious, not extravagant & corrupt as were so many Renaissance princes of the Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bellarmine
He was personally open to heliocentrism, agreeing with his fellow Cardinal Baronius that, “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”. But that doesn’t mean he was dishonest in ruling as he did. His job required informing Galileo of the decree by the Congregation of the Index condemning the Copernican hypothesis that the Earth moves.
I strongly suspect dishonest is a great boon to getting to the top of the Inquisition.
I can’t believe you’re defending Galileo’s Inquisitors for their honesty.
I mean, it’s funny.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 15, 2013 at 6:07 pm
They were demonstrably honest men. In the early 17th century, “consensus science” remained that the Sun goes around the Earth, even after Galileo & Kepler. But more relevantly, they applied canon law as it then was. There is no contemporary basis for assuming that they were dishonest in doing so. Today we still want judges to rule based upon the law rather than their personal biases.
Besides which, even the work of Galileo didn’t necessarily confirm Copernicus. He did falsify the Ptolemaic model, by observing the phases of Venus, but that didn’t “prove” the heliocentric model objectively “true”. There were other alternatives, such as Tycho’s mixed model.
Condemning Galileo isn’t proof of either stupidity or dishonesty. It’s anachronistic to imagine so.
There seem to be two major issues that we have above: credentials and priority. Neither is as interesting as the science itself. Credentials do not matter. Poptech (is it revealed above that it is a he and his name is Andrew? – not sure) is irrelevant.
We can however perhaps look at priority to see how the scientific thinking has evolved. I see the thunderstorm/thermostat as stemming from the 2nd Law and branching to many different but parallel feedback mechanisms (being as I am an EE – well working as an EE or teaching it at least!). It surprises me not in the least that many “opportunity mechanisms” get to contribute to form one climate system effect (heat removal). It is much like natural selection in biology (which I see as negative feedback) using many genes (not just one) to determine something like eye color, etc.
The notion of the 2nd Law demanding natural thermostatting mechanisms (let’s say thunderstorms), came to me first via Roy Spencer’s wonderful book, Climate Confusion (2008), which has been open on my desk to page 56 for several days now. I understood this to be a mechanism whereby energy (as latent heat due of evaporation) could get above any greenhouse blanket. I also understood that no “one” had to have invented this mechanism, something had to arise because of the 2nd Law. If not this – than that, or most likely a smattering of contributors. Since Spencer gives no references, I understood this to mean that this was his own invention, OR that it was “old hat” and everyone knew its origins. I do not remember any memo by Spencer on the same subject, nor do I know anything about his withdrawing said memo.
Next I saw Willis’ blog postings, and saw them as additional DETAILS and evidence of the thunderstorm cooling mechanism. Also, it was separately clear that high cloud tops were involved with reflecting new energy away so that it never reached the surface. This was obviously not the same thing as removing energy, that had already reached the surface, back out to space.
The R&C (1991) paper which I first learned of here (and have found in Willis’ original post – I missed it trying to reach Nature through Google) seems to be concerned with cloud top reflection. One can, I guess, argue any extension of the R&C text that involves even a peripheral thunderstorm cooling mechanisms, to be “covered” (like a patent lawyer would!). Apparently Spencer now wants to argue R&C broadly, but he did not cite R&C (or anyone) in his 2008 book.
Who can give the details of the disappeared Spencer’s 2008 memo, the memo itself, and any published particulars associated with its supposed withdrawal? This would be very useful to a person such as myself in pining down the full details of this most important thermostatting issue. Sincere question and sincere thanks to anyone who can help.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 15, 2013 at 6:09 pm
It’s not all that funny to me. Your claim regarded intelligence & honesty. My reply was that the inquisitors were both. I’m not defending their actions from the perspective of science history, but as people doing their jobs. They were smart & honest men, however wrong history may now brand their actions, with the benefit of hindsight. Galileo, Kepler & Copernicus were themselves, while intelligent & honest, also wrong in some instances, as for example GG in the case of tides & NC re. circular orbits. Come to think of it, JK’s honesty can be questioned in re. his use of Tycho’s data to discover the elliptical orbit of Mars, much as I honor his memory.
Mario, you act like your background is not relevant to your arguments.
Welding is a trade skill that can be acquired through apprenticeship or work experience. Still, having been trained at a trade school, getting a welding degree or becoming certified makes this more certain.
Since welding processes can use electricity, your electrical engineering degree becomes very relevant.
Only by people who do not know any better. No one that knows what they are talking about would hire you for a programming job. You do not even list it as a skill in your profile,
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mariolento
Many people “program” something at some point but either follow bad practices or do not fully understand what they are doing. Getting code to compile (non-programmers will say it works) does not a programmer one makes. Nature exposed this in an article about scientists,
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/467775a.html
Except you have an electrical engineering degree so this is not much of a stretch. In certain degree programs robotics is an option.
I am well aware people manufacture credentials they do not have.
Please provide the definition of the word as I used it here, I am interested in your mind reading abilities.
Poptech,
Really, you keep digging and digging.
I, for one, love your references. They are awesome. I have linked to them many times. You are one of the best at providing sources.
But please, disengage from this issue. Attacking Willis —who is a very popular contributor — does you no good.
I say this as a friend and supporter. Just back off. You will be better off if you do.
Trust me on this.
milodonharlani, I am well aware certain publications may not always fact check properly, that has nothing to do with the ones that do. I have friends in the journalism field for some time and they are relentless fact checkers. They do not even like receiving editorials from me because they prefer fact checked hard news and make a point of it. I may disagree with the slant of the NYT and they have had their incidents (Blair) but on a whole they do fact check their stories and make corrections if necessary.
I would not consider either a scientist, Mims is explicitly listed as an amateur. Willis is not Galileo, he is not Heaviside and he is not Mims.
Michael Mann is a very real scientist who is ideologically biased.
He has certain technical skills and training. But if his biases get in the way of him applying them properly, he doesn’t meet my definition of a scientist.
Oh, by profession he is — but not by his activities nor thought processes.
As I said above, give me a very-high intellect individual who is honest any day of the week.
As a rule of thumb, I class most climate scientists with social workers: they’re after a social policy result, not the pursuit of truth per se. Plus, in most cases, these aren’t great intellects in the same way that physicists or mathematicians with similar training are.
*b
ySigh. *by
Typos are my nemesis. 😛
What did I state about Willis that was factually untrue?
Actually my integrity on this issue does me more good than being dishonest and not correcting the misinformation.
Popteck said in part:
“Since welding processes can use electricity, your electrical engineering degree becomes very relevant.”
Yea – RIGHT. Wow – that’s funny. I know a lot about electronics but it didn’t help with welding in the least.
Up on the farm we had a cattle watering tank with a hole about 1/8 inch in it. I thought that would be easy enough to spot-weld over – about a 30 second job. (I had welded re-rod structures with good success). After about 30 minutes, the hole that was originally 1/8 inch was “down to” a full inch! It didn’t get any better. Should have stuck with chewing gum.
I have no problem with questioning Willis — who is a very popular contributor.
But rather than worrying about his credentials, I’d wonder about a thought process that can claim Roy Spencer accused him of various things that Roy Spencer denies accusing him of in no uncertain terms — all the while while denying he’s effectively accusing Roy Spencer of lying.
That doesn’t even pass very simple logic, much less advanced scientific thought.
Do you consider Willis honest? From the New York Times,
His response to the article,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/03/willis-makes-the-nyt-gavin-to-stop-persuading-the-public/#comment-334468
His response here,
“I’m not an engineer” – Willis Eschenbach (October 11, 2013 at 9:22 pm)
Was it OK he was claimed to be an engineer in 2010 but made no effort to correct this when fully aware of this misinformation?
Bernie, why do you keep misspelling my screen name?
I don’t know. I’m trying to reconcile things and square them in such a way that I can maintain the thought that he is if it all possible. Have you even bothered reading any of my last few comments?
That said, I’m not sure jumping up and correcting every misstatement in a news article is as important. That happens a lot. It’s the norm rather than the exception.
I agree he ought to have pointed out that he’s not an engineer when first writing about that article. However, as you point out, he did later state that he’s not an engineer.
You’re caught up on credentials. OK, it is a fair thing to ask about — although I value them less than you do. I’m more caught up in how do you say someone (that you respect) accused you of something they totally deny accusing you of, and then go on to say that they meant the opposite, without effectively calling them a liar or lying yourself?
One of the reasons I created my list was to give exposure to lesser known theories such as those by Willis. However after 3 years only 2 people have cited his paper, which makes it clear no one, not even skeptical scientists take him seriously.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14537309061889036487
Why is this? Is it all just a conspiracy?
Christoph, yes I read your comments which is why I asked. I agree with your argument you are seeking an answer for.
Willis only stated he was not an engineer in these comments here (3 years later when pressed) but still insisted (without evidence) that he is a “computer modeler” and failed to answer what Mr. Booker had implied by that term in his article. My argument however has to do with his failure to correct him being an engineer in the NYT at the time that article was published (2010).
In this case I believe correcting this misinformation is important so readers of his articles can know the whole truth.
Poptech said in part:
“Bernie, why do you keep misspelling my screen name?”
Sorry – 68 year old eyes I guess. Not Intentional.
Perhaps I would have more luck using your real name. The guy from the Telegraph who you quoted called you Andrew. Is that correct?
Poptech: You said “Mario, you act like your background is not relevant ”
+++++
You’re getting closer to getting it. I am NOT acting like my background is not relevant. In fact, all of the work I have done in process and servo control (which I never learned in college) helped me understand how to do things. The jobs taught me that stuff. I knew nothing about metallurgy until I worked in production and then moved into engineered at a foundry on the East Coast. I learned about stuff that I had no clue about in college.
Now – You don’t think that Willis’ work in studying, building and analysing models and writing code, and using physics principles can make him more than worthy of people with a degree in said fields? Really? I’ve interviewed people for hire at all levels and am confident that I can deduce where people’s skills are. And it’s true that I can usually see the difference between smart people who havedegrees and average people who do not. But, there are some people who never went to college who are smarter than most anyone I’d ever met with degrees.
Getting a degree does not raise someone’s IQ… and anyone who has drive and access to knowledge can do anything –except where there is severe prejudice as you display.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 15, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Lying? Man, you are suspicious. I’ve never accused Dr. Roy of lying. I do think he is mistaken in his claim above. He said:
and
Now, he’s claiming that a) my idea isn’t unique, and b) Ramanathan and Collins thought it up in 1991, and c) I knew that and never mentioned it.
You do understand the meaning of “never mentioned”? It assumes that I knew it, and didn’t mention it. That’s an accusation of plagiarism, whether Dr. Roy knows it or not.
Dr. Roy thinks he understands R&C1991. He thinks he understands my hypothesis. He thinks I neglected to mention something I should have mentioned. He thinks my hypothesis is related to that of R&C1991. He also thinks comparing citizen scientists to Homer Simpson is not an insult.
He is wrong, in my opinion, in all of those assumptions.
However, that doesn’t make him a liar. You may make that accusation. I never have, and have absolutely no reason to accuse him of that.
w.
Willis just left this comment at Roy Spencer’s blog, and to be fair to Willis, Dr. Spencer should respond to Willis’s last comment and clarify what he meant by “never mentioned”. Dr. Spencer has since been unambiguous that he believes Willis probably thought up his model as an independent thinker.
Does Dr. Spencer really believe that or not?
Cardinal Robert Bellarmino (occasionally Bellarmine) and Pope Urban VIII were both friends of Galileo. The Pope was an ex-student of Galileo. Galileo’s book, A Dialogue About the Two Chief World Systems, presented the views of Copernicus and Ptolemy, remembering that the Ptolemaic view was that of Galileo’s enemies, the academic establishment. Three characters appear: Salviati, the Copernican (a thinly disguised Galileo), Sagredo, representing the undecided, though intelligent person and Simplicio, the academic rival. Galileo almost certainly used the name Simplicio because of the resemblance to sempliciotto meaning simpleton. Simplicio’s utterances (except for one) throughout the book are clearly those of Galileo’s enemies aka The Pigeon League.
Galileo had several audiences with his old friend Pope Urban VIII during which they discussed the pros and cons of Copernicus’ and Galileo’s ideas. Urban was far from being an intellectual slouch. He was a competent mathematician and patron of the sciences. Urban however remained unconvinced by Galileo’s “proof” that the tides in the sea could only be explained if the earth both rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun. Galileo’s reasoning is long-winded and complicated, as well as clearly incorrect. (Galileo was of course perfectly aware of Galilean Relativity having published on the issue decades before). The entire final day of the Dialogue is devoted to the tidal discussion. Galileo also wrote a note in his personal copy of the book that he knew the argument was utter tosh, but he wanted to get one over the Pigeon League.
Urban’s response to Galileo’s “proof” was an order to insert in the Dialogue: “I maintain that your explanation of the tides is neither true nor conclusive, and that if you were asked whether God by his infinite power and wisdom might confer the reciprocal motion of the oceans in some other way than by making the contained vessel to move, you would say that he could, and in many ways, some beyond the reach of our intellect”. Urban either understood the tides better than Galileo, or he had made a lucky guess. The true cause of tides was in fact “beyond the reach of Galileo’s intellect”.
Next Galileo made a mistake almost beyond belief. Galileo had Simplicio utter Urban’s words about the tides, or at least Galileo’s enemies told Urban he did. An exasperated Urban removed Galileo’s Papal protection from his enemies. He was in any event far too busy with his ambitious program of self-aggrandisement, his ongoing battle against the Protestants and the ambitions of the Spaniards at the Papal Court to be going into battle on behalf of Galileo merely because his friend was overfond of making enemies.
The machinery of the Church was now free to bring forward the trial so eagerly desired by Galileo’s university rivals and the Jesuits he had been busily insulting for several years. In 1633 Galileo was asked whether he had obeyed the admonitions of 1615 (by Bellarmino) to only present the Copernican theory as a mathematical hypothesis? Galileo defended himself by pointing out that the Dialogue had passed not just one censor, but censorship at both Rome and Florence. Several peripheral charges laid against him were dismissed without argument from the three (not the dozens of the myth) judges, but they nevertheless found Galileo vehemently suspected of heresy and banned his book.
Galileo had never shown the slightest sign of rebellion against his beloved Church. The myth has Galileo defiantly declaring: “Yet it does move!” as he is carried away in chains to some deep, dark dungeon, but there is no evidence for this whatsoever. The Git would find it more believable that he had written apologies to Kepler, Brahe, Scheiner, Grassi and the host of others he had spent his life so gratuitously insulting!
The lack of severity of Galileo’s punishment is more than a little surprising. Had Urban been as furious as is claimed? The usual procedure with heretics was to torture them to extract as many lurid confessions as possible, then burn them at the stake as happened to Giordiano Bruno in 1600. The printer of the book would have received the same treatment. Galileo, on the other hand, was ordered to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for three years, which would have occupied him for all of fifteen minutes had his daughter not offered to recite them on his behalf. His piety would have had him spending far longer than that praying to his beloved God.
Galileo spent his final decade under house arrest in Tuscany, where he continued his experiments and his writings. Considering how bitterly he had complained about being summoned to Rome decades before because travel aggravated his arthritis, this was not a particularly onerous punishment. He published his best scientific work Discourses on Two New Sciences on statics and dynamics in 1638. Were he the complete atheistic opponent of the Church claimed by The Myth, he would never have been allowed the intellectual freedom to complete this final, though uncharacteristically subdued for Galileo, work. He died in 1642 aged 77.
It seems I can once more post to this website. Up until a few hours ago I received a message sternly informing me that I could not post…
Lewis P Buckingham said @ October 15, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Back in the late 60s a friend came across a question in an IQ test that seemed to confuse those of us with well above average intelligence. People of average intelligence saw the solution pretty much immediately. It made us laugh at the time.
No, nobody knows what IQ testing tests, but the results are a reasonable predictor for future academic performance.
One of my points, The Pompous Git, is there’s a big difference between “no slouch” and “Galileo”. The greatest scientific advances are made by exceedingly rare people like Newton or Darwin – not by your average 130 IQ PhD-type. I’m talking, for the most part, a standard deviation or two above that.
The Pompous Git says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:32 pm [ … ]
Whoa.
I mean, Newton was a religious loon, as far as I can figure. But his intelligence allowed him to accomplish great things. It wasn’t because he had some kind of dogmatic adherence to the scientific method. It’s because he was very smart and made connections others didn’t.
Christoph Dollis said @ October 15, 2013 at 6:09 pm
and @ October 15, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Your second point is taken. The first needed a response. And yes, Newton was a religious loon if you want to see him that way. His colleagues certainly did. He believed that both the Roman Catholics and the protestants were in error and wrote more than a million words telling them so. Far more words than he expended on what he thought of far lesser importance: physics. So it goes 🙂
Poptech says:
October 15, 2013 at 8:27 pm
No one claims that Willis is Galileo, Newton or Darwin. Commenters here do however claim that his status resembles that of other citizen scientists. I don’t understand why this simple distinction is so hard for you to grasp.
The practice of “journalism” is such that there are few publications the “fact checking” of which is objective. The MSM are totally in the tank for Obama & CACA.
Your reply to my question about Heaviside & Mims shows that you don’t grasp the meaning of scientist, professional & amateur. In your universe, no matter how great the contributions of a scientist, if he or she wasn’t a credentialed pro, then he or she wasn’t a scientist. That you don’t consider either of these great scientists scientists renders anything else you might say unworthy of comment. Because Mims was an amateur doesn’t mean he’s not a scientist. That fact is the whole point. I agree that Willis is not Galileo, Heaviside or Mims, but he is a scientist.
Michael Mann is not a very real scientist, although obviously ideologically biased. The latter fact means that he is not a scientist, despite his PhD. You’re a scientist if you practice the scientific method. If you don’t you’re not. Hence, Mann isn’t a scientist but Willis is.
dbstealey said @ October 15, 2013 at 10:48 pm
Ya don’t hafta read it ya know 🙂 And don’t worry, I didn’t write it for the occasion; it’s an edited version of something I wrote about ten years ago.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Darwin’s IQ, not that we know exactly what it was, was probably not in Newton’s league. Chuckie was however a much nicer & more normal person than Zack. Your IQ & mine probably are not that much different from Darwin’s, while Newton’s might have been off the charts. They were two very different kinds of scientists & humans.
Milo, I think you are wasting your “breath”. I am quite sure that PopTick would claim The Git is not a builder since he has never been employed as a builder, nor does he possess a Certificate IV in Building and Construction. Yet The Git built the world-famous House of Steel and lives there still. Thus in PopTick’s world view, The Git is simultaneously a builder and not a builder, a clear case of contradiction. Ever hear of Post-Modernism? 🙂
Probably not — he was a biologist who had studied medicine and divinity, not mathematics and physics.
But. And this is huge.
He was exceptionally intellectually honest and fearless (they go together), and that was the other side of my equation. Not many people were willing to say that we are primates! Even if they were otherwise smart enough to think the thought.
milodonharlani said @ October 15, 2013 at 11:15 pm
Now that went straight over my head!
Christoph Dollis said @ October 15, 2013 at 11:21 pm
He was also dogged and hardworking.
Full story:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Richmond_cirripedia.html
What work in studying, building and analyzing models? Where has he done this?
Willis fails to list any relevant computer science credentials. He fails to list the names of any of the programs he claimed to have written and he fails to list the computer skills he holds. I have never seen a real programmer fail to mentions these. His CV is full of things like training people on a Mac (training people how to use a Mac is an oxymoron) or using CAD/CAM software. I can’t find a single program he alleged to write anywhere on the Internet. I asked him to upload his “computer model code” so my team can examine it and like someone who is bluffing he fails to do so.
Look, I don’t know the extent of Willis’s computer modelling work, but if you’re going to write this:
you’re overlooking Poptech’s contention, right or wrong, which is that Willis has not done work. So if you’re aware of the work in question, can you point us to it and shut Poptech up or, if that’s impossible, embarrass him with reason and evidence?
If not, can you reevaluate your position and understand what Poptech is saying? He’s saying Willis is making untrue claims. If he’s wrong, show us that, but don’t just restate what Willis says without any evidence for it and think that is an argument, because it isn’t.
Maybe Willis has written such code, but do you know this for a fact, Mario Lento? If not, don’t use it as the basis for your argument.
*not done such work
Mario, when I say maybe Willis has done that work and Poptech is wrong, I’m serious. But if you just take it for granted and if Poptech says that he didn’t, you’ll never get anywhere. So tell us how you know that Poptech is wrong.
If you do.
Poptech said @ October 15, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Odd thing… I was hired to finish off the transition of a Filemaker 3 database to Filemaker 4; i.e. from flat file to full relational. This was for Australia’s largest broadcaster.
I arrived one morning to discover that the database had been completely corrupted by one of the workers installing Norton Antivirus on the server while Filemaker Server was running. “Simples”, says The Git, “Just restore the database from the backup”.
“What’s a backup?”.
“Put me onto your tech support”.
Tech Support: “Ah yes, those idiots using Macs. We told them: You use Macs and you’re on your own”. Click.
The Git contacted the dude who had started the job. Backups? No, I didn’t see the need! Click!
Mac users don’t need training. No. No way José. They might just need a brain! [sigh]…
Nothing odd about that!
And yeah, Macs can break too. You surely need backups. I don’t personally find them as easy to use as a Windows machine either, but then I’m used to it. Still, I don’t like how Apple organises things (and I positively detest Apple software).
But … they do seem to freeze up less, and this is good. Norton blows chunks. That’s the official term, I believe.
Poptech says:
“Willis’… CV is full of things like…” &etc.
Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?
Really, Poptech, criticizing someone who posts his CV, while you refuse to post your own credentials or any verifiable accomplishments is extremely hypocritical. I couldn’t do something like that, myself.
But then, I couldn’t be a combination busybody/tattltale, either. Running to the newspaper over such a minor nitpick smacks of being a snitch. And then to actually brag about it…
I see and commented on Poptech’s hypocrisy, dbstealey, but that doesn’t alter Poptech’s points.
Merely pointing out that Willis doesn’t have a PhD in a climate science field or a computer science field or isn’t a bona fide engineer or what have you doesn’t interest me that much — it is of importance whether he produced computer-model code if he calls himself a computer modeller — things like that — possibly even whether he noticed The Times called him an engineer and knowingly didn’t correct the record, preferring to accrue to himself the aura of unearned expertise and authority. Not every attack against the man is logically invalid. E.g., those that go to credibility.
To expound, credibility would have to be important for that to be a valid point of argument. Einstein being a liar wouldn’t undermine E = MC^2.
But this post is pretty much all about credibility as Willis has, ill-advisedly in my opinion, taken to the belief that Roy called him a plagiarist.
I’ll add this.
In claiming that Roy called him a plagiarist — something Roy expressly denies, saying that he thinks Willis came to his Thermostat model independently — Willis hangs his hat on the words “never mentions”.
I can see why Willis would bristle at those words initially, and possibly not even believe Roy’s denial. But another way of reading “never mentions” is it could be because Willis didn’t know or genuinely believes his model is quite different, not only knew, believes his model is essentially the same, and didn’t say so.
Roy has no way of knowing with an absolute certainty what Willis knew and thought about it. Willis has jumped to the (paraphrasing), “He’s calling me a plagiarist!” interpretation, and I don’t think that’s the most reasonable one in light of Roy’s subsequent denials. But it is possible, I suppose. That would mean Roy is lying though.
So either Willis is wrong in his interpretation or Roy is lying in his denial. There’s no possible way that Roy could not be lying if he did allege that Willis is a plagiarist and then deny it.
But I think Willis is mistaken (at least). I can’t see any other way that he could have maintained Roy both accused him of being a plagiarist and of being an independent thinker who came up with the idea on his own. The fact that Willis tried to maintain that Roy made both the allegation and the flat-out denial without lying strikes me as … well, disingenuous unless Willis really didn’t see Roy’s denial until last night. Which you’d have to ask him about.
A wonderful thing groupthink.
The scientific method does not require or allow for argument from authority.
Yet these 1000+ comments are mostly about what authority Willis might have to explore the possibilities of weather/climatic effects.
Empty arguments over authority.
Does the possibility that someone else discussed the development of equatorial thunderstorm before or that there are a number of different descriptors that media types can apply to the likes of W.E, change anything in the thesis offered by Willis?
I am also amused by the reading comprehension, or lack there of by those who wish to act as interpreters for others.
Honesty trumps the scientific method?
How does that work?
1 I must trust you, because you honestly believe?
2 Or your reasoning makes sense to me, because I can replicate your work?
Choice 1 would suggest you were a “fanboy” of authority, AKA a sycophant.
See snark and dismissive spouting is so much easier than attempting rational thought.
Did you post a comment that had rational thought, john? I missed it.
Also, speaking of honesty, are you always this intellectually disingenuous (while simultaneously being thick)?
To start with, at its core the scientific method is essentially about honesty — putting observations and reason above biases and mysticism. However, you left out the part where I said, “Give me high-intellect combined with [honesty]….”
That part was kind of important.
The Pompous Git says:
October 15, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Charles & Isaac. I didn’t want to keep writing Darwin & Newton. Apologies for being obscure.
john robertson:
Thankyou for your fine post at October 16, 2013 at 9:06 am. Sadly, several contributors to this this thread have demonstrated that they are too logically challenged to understand it.
Richard
Christoph Dollis says:
October 15, 2013 at 11:21 pm
Darwin didn’t consider himself all that brave. Had he been so, he would have published his theory sooner. Instead, he waited over 20 years. Some of that time was spent gathering supporting evidence, but he had enough after at most ten years.
When “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation” came out anonymously in 1844, Darwin took reaction to it as an indication that his reputation could survive publishing his theory, but still he waited another 14 years, until his hand was forced by Wallace.
Richard, when you commented in support of john robert’s dishonest and moronic post, I noticed that you have a different definition of “several contributors” than is standard.
milodonharlani, fair enough, he did take 20 years to publish and at urging. However, I would argue that in the face of the god-tyranny children are indoctrinated in literally at threat of never-ending torture in hellfire, it took courage merely to think the thought.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 16, 2013 at 8:43 am
Christoph, if you were in San Francisco on Wednesday, and I said “You never mentioned you were in San Francisco, I’d have come to visit you” … doesn’t the “never mentioned” contain a clear assumption that the person knows about what was never mentioned?
That is the common meaning. “You never mentioned you lived in Paris in the 1980’s” has exactly the same assumptions, as does “You never mentioned you could play the piano.”
In none of those cases does it mean “you didn’t know”, as you are claiming. If someone means “didn’t know”, they say that. Consider the sentence:
“You never mentioned you were adopted.”
That has a very different meaning from what you claim it might mean. You claim the person saying it might mean
“You didn’t know you were adopted.”
I say your interpretation is nonsense, no one means the second and says the first. As another example, “You never mentioned you were a MacArthur Fellow” means something totally different from “You didn’t know you were a MacArthur Fellow”.
Finally, none of this is an accusation that Roy is lying. I’ve made that clear, and now you are repeating that false claim. As I said upstream, I think Roy is wrong, but that he truly believes what he says. I never called Roy a liar, or implied that—that’s all on you.
Regards,
w.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 16, 2013 at 9:53 am
To have published in 1837 instead of 1858 (or ’59 if you go by the book rather than the paper) might well have made him a pariah, but others had previously recognized that humans are apes, even including Linnaeus, who would have put people & chimps in the same genus if he thought he could have gotten away with it. A number of scientists & thinkers had envisioned evolution & common descent before Charles Darwin, including his own grandfather Erasmus, but, like Lamarck, lacked a good explanation for the observation.
Willis, it’s possible to not mention something because you’re not aware of it.
“Did so and so do X?”
“He didn’t mention it.”
Anyway, were you right, then Roy would necessarily have had to have lied when he said he believes you probably thought it on your own as an original thinker. It logically follows from that you weren’t telling the truth when you say Roy didn’t necessarily lie because there’s no way he could have both accused you of plagiarism and not accused you of plagiarism without lying.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 16, 2013 at 9:51 am
Who is “john roberts”? Which posts were “dishonest” and “moronic”? Where does richard define “several contributors”?
I say again, friends, if you disagree with someone, please quote their exact words. That way, we can all be clear what you are objecting to. Christoph, I have no clue what you are referring to in your comment. This kind of vagueness leads to misunderstanding and bad feelings.
w.
Willis:”He thinks I neglected to mention something I should have mentioned. He thinks my hypothesis is related to that of R&C1991.”
Respectfully, Willis, whether or not your other criticisms of Roy are valid, these two statements are true as evidenced by your description of the paper in the OP as compared to the paper itself. It does talk about a lot of stuff that is very similar to your (IOW it is related) and you didn’t mention that above. I’ve suggested it before but you really need to lay out the specific differences between your theory and R&C’s. This action will demonstrate that you understand R&C, will give them appropriate credit for their work and will show everyone *precisely* how your theory is different,
Cheers, 🙂
OK, I’ll buy that. But he was very bright and at least honest with himself, even if he wasn’t willing to be savaged by society.
Which I can understand. Some scientists find themselves in that position now, particularly in the social sciences where political pressure (and sometimes physical intimidation) are fierce.
All I’m saying with regards to that is being really smart and honest is more important than simply [I used that word in my original statement] understanding/following the scientific method dogmatically. I don’t know why that’s controversial.
The scientific method is cool, but when used by someone of average intelligence it’s not likely to trump 153 IQ the majority of the time.
Christoph says:
“The scientific method is cool, but when used by someone of average intelligence it’s not likely to trump 153 IQ the majority of the time.”
Two different issues.
Christoph Dollis:
Your post to me at October 16, 2013 at 9:51 am says in total
I don’t know what “definition” you think I have, but if that is your view of what I said about the logical and thoughtful comment from John Roberts then – to use a phrase understood by Brits – you need to go to Specsavers.
Richard
Super glue could not bond more permanently than this argumentative topic still playing on this blog. It appears to me that agreeing to disagree is your only way out. I wonder which side will turn first in that direction because sometimes, only one side agrees to disagree. Fortunately, it only takes one side to come to that decision to end the argument. As for Roy, he seems no longer a participant, and probably by his own choosing. So the ball is wholly being played between the sides of this present court.
Yeah. I know that, dbstealey. And I’m saying high-intellect combined with honesty trumps the other issue.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 16, 2013 at 10:14 am
Nowhere today is groupthink enforced more viciously than in so-called “climate science”.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 16, 2013 at 10:19 am
A researcher with an IQ of 123 practicing the scientific method is more likely to achieve a valid result than an advocate with an IQ of 153 not using the scientific method. That said, it’s clear that most consensus “climate scientists” are not highly intelligent, nor do they use the scientific method. That’s the really bad combo.
Christoph, the scientific method is based on honesty. IQ has nothing to do with it.
Wow, that’s amazing. Really?
Yep.
Well thanks for pointing that out. I went back in time and made several comments with the same point above.
milodonharlani said @ October 16, 2013 at 9:43 am
The penny drops. No sweat. Sometimes we are divided by our common language. Chucky and Zack are no doubt common contractions in the US.
Christoph,
You are most welcome. ☺
Christoph Dollis, thankyou for reinforcing my comment of 9.06am.
Sorry if you felt misquoted.
So an honest thinker of high IQ, may not require the scientific method to advance science?
What precludes this thinker from being very honestly and cleverly mistaken?
And how would one test the “discoveries” of said thinker, without such methodology?
As for honesty, would a person lacking self honesty recognize it in others?
Now as snark and dismissive spouting seems to be your speciality, please quote the dishonest and moronic aspect of my post that you refer to in your comment of 9:53.
The Pompous Git says:
October 16, 2013 at 11:52 am
The nicknames Chuck & Zack have even become popular given names in their own right here.
But still was bad form. Sorry.
Milo, please desist from apologising. I learnt something and for that I am ever grateful 🙂 I was aware of the use as given names, but not that they were contractions. My friends and acquaintances called Charles and Isaac here in the Land of Under prefer to be called by their full names.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 16, 2013 at 12:31 am
Mario, when I say maybe Willis has done that work and Poptech is wrong, I’m serious. But if you just take it for granted and if Poptech says that he didn’t, you’ll never get anywhere. So tell us how you know that Poptech is wrong.
+++++++++++
You raise a fair question. I do not know for a fact if Willis writes code. However, that was not the point I was trying to make. The point is: If someone writes code for a living, based on Popteh’s arguments, that the person cannot be truthfully called a programmer because said person does not have a degree in programming –or Poptech has not deemed that person to be a programmer according to his version of the facts. Hopefully that is cleared up now.
And PS – I am not a genius because the IQ test I took for a job interview about 25 years ago scored me at 137. So I was a good several points under the bar :(. So Poptech, even though my beloved wife calls me a genius, please don’t burst her bubble OK? I’ve already told her that I am absolutely not a genious.
And for the record – I would rate Willis as much smarter than average old me.
Mario Lento, I understand what you’re getting at, and if Poptech was only referring to credentials, this would be a great argument. However, if Poptech is saying,
then the question, “Well, what computer modelling work has Willis done and where is there something other than his word that he’s done it?” is more than legitimate. And if his 137 IQ fans are making arguments taking for fact all the computer modelling work he’s done — none of which they can point to — then it begs the question of are they just regurgitating claims for psychological reasons?
You understand that, I am sure, and I say that without sarcasm.
The Pompous Git says:
October 16, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Speaking of contractions, I was told in the Merrie Olde Muvver Country by Antipodean immigrants there that in the Land Down Under, “chunder” derives from “watch out under”, but I have my doubts about this etymology.
No apologies if wrong.
milodonharlani said @ October 16, 2013 at 6:20 pm
The truth is, nobody knows what the correct explanation is. I suspect the following is more likely:
Nicknames here tend to be quite colourful and have little if anything to do with given names: Pull-through, Blue, Porky, Davros, Figjam, Chopper, Rat, Kanga, Chook, Dog, Matchfist, Tank are just a few that come to mind. Usually they refer to some characteristic of the person, imagined or otherwise. Matchfist (my friend who wrote Heading in the Right Direction is so tight-fisted that there’s supposedly insufficient room for a matchstick in his clenched fist. Kanga was a bloke from Sunbury who had a bad stammer. Chopper cut his ears off when he was in jail.
The Pompous Git says:
October 16, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Am I correct to assume that “Bluey” refers to a person in the US who be called a carrot top?
An explanation I’ve heard for “Pom”, as in “Pom poofter”, is a contraction derived by rhyming slang from “pomegranate” for “immigrant”.
PS: Re possibly objectionable “poofter”, not that there’s anything wrong with that, as we say here.
Thank you for being intellectually honest.
Willis has failed to establish he has done anything remotely related to computer modeling in the scientific sense let alone programmed anything at all.
No one who has actually programmed anything would let this go unchallenged, except of course those who are bluffing.
Poptech: writes “No one who has actually programmed anything would let this go unchallenged, except of course those who are bluffing.”
+++++++++
This blog is not here to be sidetracked by your constant insults, opinions and no one needs to enable you to be judge and jury over every one of your attempts to distract. You are so way off topic here, that I have to commend you for being the troll of the month.
And – no, someone not indulging you does not presume the binary result you stated. Is this what you call science? My points stand in my comments without the need to indulge futher. If Poptech cannot learn from his schooling here, then you can understand how people have been responding to the incorrigible Poptech.
Mario, not a single person here in this discussion has proved me wrong on any of my actual arguments.
Prove me wrong and show irrefutable evidence that Willis is a computer modeler.
Potech: You proved yourself incapable of having cogent opinions. I will not respond to your whims and therefore feeding the toll who seeks answers to questions off topic in this thread. You’ve wasted my and others’ time enough. Do you have a degree in journalism? If you do not answer my question with irrefutable evidence that you have journalism degree, then you are not a journalist.
As a point of logic, it should be noted that you’re not required to prove a negative — it’s usually impossible. There is no way that Poptech could know if Willis has secretly built a ton of climate mode code or has undisclosed degrees.
The burden of proof in establishing that you’ve done x, for example on a CV, falls to the person making a claim.
This isn’t personal to Willis. It’s the same for everybody.
Christoph Dollis says :”The burden of proof in establishing that you’ve done x, for example on a CV, falls to the person making a claim.”
+++++++++++++
Not answering questions asked by Poptech does not mean Poptech’s conclusions are valid. It does mean that no one values Poptech’s opinion enough to indulge him. What do I get for helping to prove anything to Poptech? Nothing. Poptech claims vis-a-vis who he considers is a (fill in the blank and name a title) have been systematically debunked by valid arguments and real life examples. That he stubbornly believes his opinions are of significance despite the fact that he has been shown to not understand how the world works, shows him to have a narrow view of the subject matter. He focuses on what seem to be his pet Peeves instead of science… and has so distracted the direction of this blog post, that it is now Poptech’s meaningless circus.
There’s nothing worse than realizing that I have spent too much energy into a void –a vacuous mind.
Poptech says:
October 16, 2013 at 8:01 pm
“Mario, not a single person here in this discussion has proved me wrong on any of my actual arguments.”
At the risk of feeding the trolls, let me say that perhaps your actual arguments are completely irrelevant to everyone here. You think that credentials are important and that people who think they aren’t are (irrationally) anti-elitist, fine. Most people on this thread (myself included) think credentials are pretty much irrelevant(see the previously mentioned Feynman quote on experts).
Your harping on about Willis’ credentials will never impress anyone who doesn’t already share your opinion that credentials are super-important. For the people who don’t share that opinion, your arguments are a complete and utter waste of our time(. Who really care what “irrefutable evidence” that someone is a computer modeller is anyways?
My advice to you is to take a breath and re-assess whether you really want to be spending the amount of time you are tilting at this particular windmill. Respectfully, I submit that the only opinions you have affected here is that the number of people who think that “Poptech is a goofball” has soared. You should pick your battles better at least IMVHO.
Cheers, 🙂
milodonharlani said @ October 16, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Usually redheads are called Blue; a bluey is a woolen jacket worn by outdoor workers, esp. farmers. I was introduced to philosophy, specifically that of Spinoza, by a very large outback policeman called Blue.
There are several purported etymologies for pom/pommie, many of which are absurd. The pomegranite explanation is certainly the most popular and likely. My favourite though is that it’s a contraction of pompous 🙂
Apropos the use of poofter, when I first arrived at the village of Franklin, I went to the local pub for a beer. I was confronted by a local hard man who stuck his face in mine and said: “Bob Brown’s a poofter!” So I said: “Do you know that for a fact, or did your best friend tell you?” That brought the house down as they say, and Donnie was never a problem after that:-)
Poptech says:
“Willis has failed to establish he has done anything remotely related to computer modeling… No one who has actually programmed anything would let this go unchallenged, except of course those who are bluffing.”
That reminds me of a trollish commenter [sorry, I don’t recall the screen name] who repeatedly told Richard Courtney that he, Courtney, had no claim to be a published, peer reviewed author.
Richard Courtney never disputed him, and always went back to arguing science. Naturally, the other commenter kept ratcheting up his accusations, until he was practically ballistic.
That got me interested enough to do a search, where I found [IIRC] two peer reviewed papers authored by Richard Courtney. I posted the link to one, and heard no more from Courtney’s attacker.
Willis seems to be doing the same thing. Poptech is becoming increasingly agitated that Willis does not snap to, and provide whatever Poptech demands. Poptech is fixated on Willis. But given the nature of Poptech’s attitude toward Willis, I probably wouldn’t give him the satisfaction of a response, either.
If Willis has never modeled anything, then he has been doing an excellent job of faking it over the years I have been following him. It never would have occurred to me that Willis has been fabricating his scientific studies. Further, Willis is an asset to WUWT. His explanations are clear, and written in a very entertaining manner. He also posts comments on several other blogs, and to the best of my knowledge he has never been accused of faking it by anyone else.
Poptech is unfortunately being a bad sport. He is trying to sell the idea that Willis is a fake. He wants us to buy into his narrative. But I do not see it that way. In fact, when Willis has answered Poptech, he has done an excellent job defending his position. Certainly better than Poptech, who lost much credibility when he refused to defend his own CV — or his lack of one. Really, Poptech is the one who needs to answer some questions, not Willis.
The Pompous Git says:
October 16, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Quick thinking in a tight spot re the pub encounter. Bob Browne may have been the first openly homosexual member of Australia’s Parliament, but his successor as head of the Greens, Peter Whish-Wilson, IMO has a a gayer name. Drifting far afield here now.
I like the derivation for an abbreviation of pompous, too. Although some of my best friends used to be Poms.
You guys leave me no choice, when you insist upon defending the indefensible you have forced my hand. I want to thank Christopher Dollis for being intellectually honest and he is a witness that I attempted to get these answers before moving on to phase 2.
You’re welcome, Poptech.
You were being stonewalled with a lot of circling the wagons thrown in on phase 1. I don’t imagine phase 2 will work out much better for you.
We’ll see what you mean by it. I’m envisioning you writing a standalone blog post as phase 2, but maybe you have something else in mind — hopefully not crazy.
Poptech said @ October 16, 2013 at 10:25 pm
What utter tripe! The only person responsible for your posts is you. Nobody here is forcing you to do anything whatsoever.
milodonharlani said @ October 16, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Peter may have a gayer name, but given his offspring I very much doubt that he is a shirt-lifter. He’s certainly making some excellent wine 🙂
Bob and I have known each other for time out of mind (and it’s Brown without an “e”). Some years ago, my sister sat with me at Tullamarine airport waiting for my flight back to Tasmania. Bob walked into the boarding lounge and said “Hello Jonathan”. Once he was out of earshot, my sister said “Do you know him?” in a slightly awestruck voice. “No,” I replied, “but he knows me.”
Sadly, the poor bugger’s lost it and is now almost as nutty as PopTech. Bob’s a neighbour of close friends of mine.
I suspect that should you wish to continue this excellent conversation that we ought to do it someplace else. My website is http://www.sturmsoft.com/ and contact details are contained therein.
@ dbstealey
I have known Willis and Richard (virtually) for a very long time now. They are both very well respected in that virtual community. Nothing that PopTick says can tarnish what they have built up over the years. He’s just p!ssing in the wind as we say in these parts 🙂
The Pompous Git says:
October 16, 2013 at 11:28 pm
Right you are, then.
Hope your sister was properly more impressed by your snappy comeback than your knowing a pol of whatever persuasion.
I know & appreciate Australian wine, but can’t say the same for Tasmanian. I might be missing out on something. I’m willing to learn, even if the product is produced by a Green Meanie.
Poptech:
Your behaviour and comments in this thread have been irrational, but I admit to being concerned by your post at October 16, 2013 at 10:25 pm. It says
and
Clearly, nobody here is constricting your “choice”. Indeed, nobody here could. Your claim of “no choice” is so divorced from reality that I wonder what you mean by “phase 2”.
If “phase 2” involves any form of self-harm or any attempt to hurt others then I strongly urge you to seek immediate medical help.
Please be assured that this is written in genuine concern. I recognise you think refusal to accept your views is giving you “no choice”. OK. But you have a choice about seeking help and nobody here can constrict it. So, please use that choice.
Richard
Richard, that is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen you write.
@ milodonharlani
Tasmania used to be considered too cold to grow grapes. Then an Italian, Claudio Alcorso, started making some quite reasonable wines about 30 years ago, or so. Others took it up and started making truly excellent wines. The cool climate intensifies the flavour. Nowadays there’s cool climate wines coming out of the Adelaide Hills and the Macedon Ranges in Victoria. Tasmanian only produces boutique wines that sell for a very healthy premium. They need to; the grapes are all harvested by hand rather than machines.
My friends who are neighbours of Bob Brown make an extraordinary pinot and sell to me at mates’ rates. Otherwise I mainly drink New Zealand sauvignon blanc (Marlborough district). The chap I usually purchase from markets via the Internet. The other week he sold 40,000+ bottles in a day. You can buy Grange for up to $850/bottle and Tony sells the same for $600. Not that I drink much Grange 🙂
You might find some Ninth Island wines in the US. When I’m at my favourite pub I drink their chardonnay. It’s unwooded. I had my first glass at the vineyard before it went on the market about twenty years ago. I don’t know which impressed me more, the wine or the beauty of the vineyard owner’s wife 🙂
dbstealey:
At October 16, 2013 at 9:00 pm you say
I cannot speak for Willis, but ignoring the attack is more than ‘not giving satisfaction’. Ignoring the attack is Willis’ only practical option.
Poptech’s assertions do not relate to the subject of this thread. Clearly, those assertions against Willis have no relevance whether or not they are true. If the assertions were relevant then Willis would have an obligation to address them because he raised the subject of the thread. But his answering irrelevant assertions can only encourage provision of additional irrelevant assertions and discussion of such irrelevant assertions.
This need to avoid encouraging the irrelevance exists whether or not the irrelevance is true. Indeed, the need increases if the irrelevance is false. This is because the provider of irrelevant assertions against a person is fixated on the target of the assertions. Indeed, the fixation is why the irrelevant assertions are provided. Any response to the irrelevance from the target ‘rewards’ the fixation. Thus, a response encourages – almost demands – another irrelevant assertion from the provider. And dispute of the irrelevance is an excuse for further irrelevant assertion.
All Willis can hope is that the provider of the irrelevant assertions tires of his activity or, alternatively, the provider is ‘put down’ by a third party (which would not ‘reward’ the fixation).
Richard
Poptech:
I read your reply at October 17, 2013 at 12:55 am in response to my expression of concern for you. It increases my concern.
Please, if you cannot bring yourself to seek help then discuss things with a trusted friend.
Richard
The argument about credentials is important, but in a round about way. Being an engineer or physicist or whatever, by way of a degree, is not important to your ideas. But having published papers, while is only an form of rudimentary affirmation of the ideas in the paper, also serves as a credential. Credentials and credibility are therefore important and not irrelevant, even for the amateur who decries them. Willis exemplifies the above as he has, at various junctures, pointed to his published papers and comments as substantiating his credibility. You can’t keep switching between “But my ideas are what that matter” and “I do have affirmation of my abilities and I am a published individual”.
If journalists prop up their sources by calling them engineers and computer modellers, Willis cannot defend himself by saying ‘forget the fact that I am not an engineer, it is my ideas that are important’. The defense properly begins by saying ‘No, I am not a engineer, but a fisherman’.
Look at Donna’s new website: fakenobellaureates. Do you believe any of the IPCC scientists are worthy of being Nobel prize winners, or that they are indeed winners of the prize? That is what they’ve been passing themselves off as.
Willis should be saying “I am a fisherman but I kicked scientist butt” instead of letting him being designated as an engineer or computer modeler just pass. There is a great story of how Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR reaction and a real Nobel Prize Winner, was called a ‘doctor’ in Nature magazine and how he woke up from that point. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1950292
– – – – – – –
Shub Niggurath,
Well written and even toned. So now please discuss if is important or not to have a ‘bend over backwards’ kind of Feynmanian integrity wrt to misrepresentations of oneself from whatever source; which is Poptech’s thrust about Willis, as I understand it.
Which makes it interesting you brought up Donna Laframboise. Is Poptech serving the same hard nosed investigative role that Donna is now famous for? I personally think he is and it is not inappropriate.
In fact, if Poptech were to emulate Donna’s extremely hard nosed professional investigative reporting methods then maybe that is the kind ‘help***’ he needs for his phase two.
*** richardscourtney said @Poptech=> Please, if you cannot bring yourself to seek help then discuss things with a trusted friend. Richard
John
Ah, a blog post. That is what I thought most likely.
Poptech:
re your post at October 17, 2013 at 6:53 am.
Who is Poptech?
According to you everything you write should be disregarded until we know.
Richard
Well we know I am not a computer modeler, engineer or scientist.
While your comment is funny, Richard, there’s a problem with it.
There’s a difference between not giving any credentials and just saying something, rather than leaving claims in major media articles that you are an engineer, a computer modeller, etc., uncorrected (the former was definitely not true and the latter possibly untrue) while referencing those sources and thus bolstering your credibility (in terms of expertise) and social status.
So Poptech is right to point that out.
Nonetheless, you are right that one has to not give Poptech the benefit of the doubt regarding his claimed extensive IT background if he’s unwilling to prove it.
Poptech:
re your post at October 17, 2013 at 8:18 am.
No, we don’t know that. We only know that some anonymous poster on a blog – possibly a bot – says that.
Please apply your own ‘logic’ to yourself. At very least, apply some self-reflection about the matter.
Richard
Am I a bot or a botnet?
Christoph Dollis:
Contrary to your post at October 17, 2013 at 8:23 am, there is nothing “right” in what Poptech is doing.
For no benefit to anybody, in addition to maliciously attempting to demean Willis from behind a cowardly shield of anonymity, he/she is harming him/herself and possibly his/her own reputation if his/her identity becomes known.
Richard
My reputation would only be harmed if something I said was factually untrue.
Poptech:
It would not be possible to more clearly demonstrate your lack of awareness than your post at October 17, 2013 at 8:41 am which says in total
No, your reputation would be harmed even more if something you said were shown to be factually untrue.
What remains of your reputation is being harmed by your posting malicious malicious gossip from behind a cowardly shield of anonymity. Whether or not your attacks of Willis are true, they are malicious gossip which nobody has reason to believe.
I have repeatedly offered you advice that would benefit you, but you refuse to listen. I can only guess at why you are conducting your self-harm by your attacks of Willis.
Richard
Richard,
Show where Poptech has posted “gossip” regarding Willis?
You’re part of stonewalling, circling the wagons, and deflecting, in my opinion. If you want to argue Poptech’s making a mountain out of a molehill, that’s one point of view. Others might think that leaving uncorrected for three years that The New York Times calls you an engineer when you aren’t, yet referencing that article, is troubling. Likewise claiming to be a computer modeller but the work you’ve actually done plugging data into off-the-shelf software with some macros perhaps doesn’t fall into into that realm. People can disagree about how important that is or what is a computer modeller, precisely.
But gossip? I haven’t seen that. Why don’t you explain it, pointing to where Poptech has posted gossip.
Christoph Dollis:
At October 17, 2013 at 9:13 am you ask me
Sat what!? You want me to list every mention of Willis by Poptech in this thread!
Perhaps you are ignorant of what gossip is. This is how the Oxford Dictionary defines it.
“gossip
noun
casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true:
he became the subject of much local gossip
• chiefly derogatory a person who likes talking about other people’s private lives.”
Richard
I can start off by saying something I disagree with: that Willis isn’t a scientist.
He meets my definition. I don’t think you need a PhD or society’s approval to do science. Where he’s an important scientist is a totally different question, but I disagree with Poptech there.
But on the engineer thing, Poptech was right. What is Willis going to say about that? ‘I didn’t notice that they called me an engineer?’ ‘Didn’t think it was worth pointing out back then while I was drawing your attention to the article?’ Whatever he says about it, it’s a legit thing to criticise.
As for the computer modeller claim, well, “What computer models?” is a proper question, as is saying, “That doesn’t support a claim of being a computer modeller,” if you genuinely believe the answer is inadequate.
By the way, a thought just occurred to me. By gossip, you may mean Poptech’s pointing out Willis’s prior hospitalisation and related matters.
If that’s what you’re talking about, then I see what you’re trying to get at. I’m not sure talking about what Willis himself mentioned qualifies as gossip, but it appears malicious.
I actually think pointing it out as partial evidence that, when combined with other evidence, paints a picture of a person’s unstable and ego-protecting and aggrandising nature, or something like that if that’s what you think is going on, may possibly be legitimate … but saying that it means a person is unqualified to do scientific work is daft.
Well, what are those?
Christoph Dollis:
At October 17, 2013 at 9:28 am you say to me concerning the gossip by Poptech
It does not matter what you, me or anybody else thinks is “legitimate” gossip. All of it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread.
And it is nasty. It intends to demean Willis and self-harms Poptech.
Richard
I think that at least here in the US the term “gossip” can and often does refers to small bits and pieces of information that may or may not be true, but which are of no real significance, in whole or in part. In his “Phase 2” post, Poptech (Andrew?) has conglomerated his previous “offerings” and nothing new, illustrating that the whole can be LESS than the sum of the parts.
This is my metric. Take it for what it’s worth.
I was at one time a Research Audiologist in the VA medical system. There was a rather large debate about around that same time regarding who could call themselves an Audiologist and who could not. Hearing aid dealers wanted to call themselves Audiologists. Why? They test hearing, I test hearing. It was eventually decided (if my memory serves me) that in Oregon, only licensed Audiologists with certification from the American Hearing and Speech Association could call themselves “Audiologist CCC-A” while hearing aid dealers could call themselves Audiometricians and/or Licensed Hearing Aid Dealers, depending on their licenses.
Regarding the current debate here. If the common person thinks of “scientist” as a practicing appropriately schooled professional then the moniker fits. But even that needs a grain of salt. Although I have worked in a lab with the title and grant money of a Research Audiologist, generated sound, measured it, collected data, entered data, did statistical analysis on data, published it, and have had it duplicated by others, I call myself an armchair student scientist in climate debate. Why? I am currently not practicing and was only narrowly involved in one field of lab work not related to climate science. If someone were to call me a scientist, I would correct them. I was at one time, but am not currently. Likewise a computer programmer, something I have also done in a lab setting. And the case can also be made for engineer. I diagrammed the face schematics for a series of gated signal generators. None of these flash in the pan endeavors make me a current scientist, computer programmer, or engineer to my way of thinking.
But I do think I am a fair to middling third string armchair climate science student.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 17, 2013 at 9:28 am
“I actually think pointing it out as partial evidence that, when combined with other evidence, paints a picture of a person’s unstable and ego-protecting and aggrandising nature, or something like that if that’s what you think is going on, may possibly be legitimate … but saying that it means a person is unqualified to do scientific work is daft.”
Frankly, this kind of thing is a pet peeve of mine – diagnosing psychological problems cannot be done on the basis of internet postings. We can’t know why someone does what they do based on what they post online. By your own standards, you accept that it is possible that two people can disagree about what makes a scientist and it perfectly possible that people can disagree about whether a certain set of skills or achievements qualify as an engineer or computer modeller or internet psychologist or whatever.
Lots of people “pad” their resumes (if that’s what happened here) and they are not generally viewed as on the verge of a major psychological illness and there is no reason why someone who pads their resume can’t also do good science (unless you have to be a credentialed scientist to do good science).
In any case, you and Poptech have had your say on this thread (to the extent of ~ a third of all the postings on this thread discussing your issue). Maybe there is an anti-padding forum out there you can go to or something but this is a *science* forum. Give the rest of us a break, respect the forum’s purpose and go somewhere else to talk about Willis’ credentials, if you have to. I am bored to tears with it,
Cheers, 🙂
Not very accurately and I’m doubtful that it can be done well in a psychiatrist’s office. However, people’s behaviour forms impressions and sometimes things tie in together. It isn’t really diagnosis as such.
Willis claims to have designed and built a refrigeration unit. I know people who do such for a living and are called variously engineers, or mechanics. Assuming the claim is true, the question then arises: was Willis an engineer while he was… engineering? A secondary question: did Willis cease to be an engineer once the refrigeration unit was completed?
I remember a similar discourse back in the early days of John Daly’s Still Waiting for Greenhouse where John discussed Thomas Lempriere’s measurements of sea level and the eventual striking of a mark at “the mean level of the sea” by Lempriere at Dead Man’s Isle here in southern Tasmania. Dr John Hunter went to considerable lengths to denigrate Lempriere’s work and his aider and abbettor, James Clark Ross.
In Lempriere’s case, Hunter declared Lempriere incapable of performing the work ascribed to him by Daly. After all, Lempriere was a mere stores clerk. He couldn’t have been a competent surveyor, meteorologist, artist, author etc because he wasn’t qualified. The only evidence of his surveying abilities is one excellent, well-drawn map of the Port Arthur penal settlement. The only evidence for his meteorology is the log book he left. The only evidence for his writing abilities are his published books etc.
Hunter went to considerable lengths to destroy the reputations of Lempriere, Ross, Daly and even The Git. In my particular case, he claimed that everything I wrote was a lie. I ended up getting into a p!ssing contest with him and we both came out very much the worse for wear. Hunter demanded I delete the whole discourse from my website. I was tempted because some of what I had written was personally embarrassing, but I declined. I did not wish to pretend that what had been written had not. It was only later that I discovered the Wayback Machine, so erasing the history was in any event impossible.
Hunter eventually found himself banned from a variety of online fora after wearing everyone out with his incessant personal attacks. So it goes…
Oh, and also this is special pleading. People are doing that about Poptech, even going so far as to slyly say he’s at risk of self-harm, which is unsubstantiated nonsense.
Most people here haven’t pressed Willis on the few legitimate points Poptech raised — they circled the wagons.
OK, but how did The New York Times get it in to their heads to call Willis an engineer? Did Willis use building a refrigeration unit to pass himself off an engineer, or did The Times just muck it up, and Willis not correct the record when referring to that article? Or did he not notice, which seems hard to believe?
Whatever the answer to that, it’s obvious his fans are giving him a pass in a way that there’s no chance in hell they would if a pro-AGW scientist had done.
– – – – – – – – –
Poptech,
Hey, thanks for some PR*** for me on one of my all time favorite topics, anonymity. I will make a comment on anonymity on this thread shortly.
I was wondering in your phase 2 if you were going to include Willis’ climate science related blog history outside of WUWT. I see you did not.
I see you kept phase 2 pretty cold. Good.
*** in your phase 2 linked post you linked to a Willis post where he quoted me on anonymity. { http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/its-not-about-me/ }.
John
Forgot to mention the point of contention between Hunter and myself. Hunter claimed everything on Waiting for Greenhouse was written by Daly. I disputed this and did a count of the number of “papers” written by others (including some by Richard Courtney). We both miscounted. Funnily enough, Hunter had not performed his own count himself; he had one of his underlings create a Python script to do it. My count missed a whole bunch of Daly’s material because his website was a bit of a mess. So it goes…
Christoph Dollis says:
October 17, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“Not very accurately and I’m doubtful that it can be done well in a psychiatrist’s office. However, people’s behaviour forms impressions and sometimes things tie in together. It isn’t really diagnosis as such.”
Which is exactly why people should keep their impressions to themselves IMO, If a trained professional directly observing someone can’t tell if someone has the same sorts of problems as you suggest for Willis above – what possible value do you think *your* impressions add to this discussion?
Cheers, 🙂
The goal isn’t to find an accurate diagnosis in the ever-changing DSM-variants or similar manuals used by other countries. The goal is to note patterns of behaviour in a more practical way.
Christoph Dollis said @ October 17, 2013 at 12:24 pm
You need to improve your comprehension skills. Whether w. is a refrigeration-mechanic/refrigeration-engineer/fisherman/reformed cowboy/all-of-the-above is devoid of interest.
The Git imagines himself yelling to Dollis and PopTick: “There’s a grand piano about to fall on you!”, but they yell back: “What are your credentials?”
Poptech says:
October 16, 2013 at 10:25 pm
You guys leave me no choice, when you insist upon defending the indefensible you have forced my hand. I want to thank Christopher Dollis for being intellectually honest and he is a witness that I attempted to get these answers before moving on to phase 2.
+++++++
This post above is the epitome of how a narcissist thinks. Some people talk so loudly that they start to believe in their own rants. His writings about others are in fact a misuse of words, altering the substance and therefore the value of other he could learn from. From Potech’s perspective, the world is a confusing place full of windmills and not even a dozen Sancho’s can save Poptech.
The entirety of Poptech’s posts can be accurately described by the following prose:
Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”
“What giants?” asked Sancho Panza.
“Those you see over there,” replied his master, “with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length.”
“Take care, sir,” cried Sancho. “Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone.”
The Pompous Git said in part (October 17, 2013 at 12:23 pm):
“An engineer is a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or structures.
synonyms: designer, planner, builder, architect, producer, fabricator, developer, creator;”
Thank you – Quite close to reality in my mind.
Well above I suggested that a person could call himself/herself an engineer (or not) according to whether (or not) he/she DID engineering. Poptech responded that I was wrong because HE had engineers in HIS family and THEY never called a person an engineer unless that person had a degree or license. Poptech is certainly an authority on his own family, but he has not a clue about how engineers (of whom I know hundreds) actually relate to each other.
I myself have an engineering degree from a top rank engineering school, and I have taught (as a Lecturer) at a top rank engineering school. Neither fact, to my mind, allows me to call myself an engineer. Only the fact that I can argue that I DO real engineering in an enterprise of my own allows me to do this.
I have no PhD, nor was I a Professor, but a student coming to my always-open door often addressed me as mister, doctor, professor, or as I encouraged, by my first name. I never corrected anyone who was factually incorrect. I never really paid any attention at all. Certainly news media make similar erroneous assumptions. No one should care. Correcting someone for giving you a “promotion” seems to me just as rude as correcting them, as some do, for NOT calling them doctor or professor. The one title that is easily earned is “jerk”.
Bernie Hutchins said @ October 17, 2013 at 1:01 pm
I wouldn’t be too certain of that [insert long, boring, repetitive, pointless tirade of your choice here]
Christoph Dollis says:
October 17, 2013 at 12:37 pm
“The goal isn’t to find an accurate diagnosis in the ever-changing DSM-variants or similar manuals used by other countries. The goal is to note patterns of behaviour in a more practical way.”
Yeah, in other words to diagnose people’s psychology without having any credentials or training and despite the fact that people who do know what they are doing (according to their credentials) don’t do such a good job at it.
Shawnhet, observing behaviour patterns is something our species and our forbears have had millions of years of experience with — it isn’t something restricted to psychologists.
Again, it’s special pleading — you’re not criticising those doing similar to Poptech.
Christoph Dollis:
I take severe exception to your post at October 17, 2013 at 12:24 pm. It says in total
I do NOT do “slyly”. Please desist from directing your psychological projection at me.
In reply to you, at October 17, 2013 at 9:36 am I said of Poptech’s behaviour
Previously, at October 17, 2013 at 8:56 am, I had stated specific self-harm in reply to Poptech when I wrote
And Poptech has not made any “legitimate points”. He has only made off-topic smears which – as I said to you – are not legitemate if only because they are not relevant to the subject of the thread.
Your claim of “circled the wagons” is completely without foundation and not related to any reality.
Richard
I thought the word “slyly” might prompt a response.
What’s sly about it is not how you put it — you were blatant and repetitious about it — the sly part was, without any foundation, trying to undermine him by accusing him of self-harm, being a danger to himself, etc. — as opposed to he has a different focus, concerned about the honesty and consistency of WUWT‘s most prolific coblogger.
The thread is about, among other thing, the contributions of citizen scientists vs. more-credentialed scientists and Willis specifically, and if Willis is trying to make it appear that he is more qualified than he is, then it’s relevant. Poptech isn’t alone in that view:
Christoph, our forebears have had millions of years reading *body language* not in interpreting people’s psychology from writings on the internet.
I’m quite sure that people have done similar to Poptech but the fact that I haven’t criticised people who may have done so is not special pleading – I have tried my damnedest to pay as little attention as possible to any posts relating to him. For the record, though, people are still wrong to do claim to understand Poptech’s psychology based on his writings.
Now, do you have anything relevant to the topic to say? Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of circling the wagons or special pleading or of psychological problems is intensely dull for the rest of us.
Cristoph:”What’s sly about it is not how you put it — you were blatant and repetitious about it — the sly part was, without any foundation, trying to undermine him by accusing him of self-harm, being a danger to himself, etc. — as opposed to he has a different focus, concerned about the honesty and consistency of WUWT‘s most prolific coblogger.”
IOW, according to you, Richard’s problem was that he was psychologically diagnosing Poptech over the internet (remember Richard’s forebears also had the same millions of years of experience that yours did). Now, who’s using special pleading? 😉
Well yes, that’s a good point.
It’s not that he was doing so — I’m not criticising those who said maybe Poptech is narcissistic, because maybe — but I find it very hard to see the suggestion that Poptech is a danger to himself as more than tit-for-tat that he made an issue out of Wllis’s past overdose rather than follow through on his commitment to the military episode.
And I’m actually sympathetic to Willis about that and think in effect breaking that agreement may have been the lesser of two evils, the other being fighting in a war against people he had no good reason to have anything against. I don’t know if that was the real reason or if it was simple fear, but either way.
However, while Poptech’s been persistent, there’s no good reason to allege he is engaging in self-harm. He just looks at this differently.
Christoph Dollis:
At October 17, 2013 at 2:28 pm you say to me
OK. That is an honest admission that you lied with a view to obtaining a response.
Nothing else needs to be known about your posts.
Richard
No, but that was a dishonest response from you, just as I suspect your repeated assertions that Poptech is in danger of self-harm.
As I said clearly, the sly part was you on the surface appearing to be concerned about Poptech self-harming, while in reality you were using that to undermine him. While I disagree with Poptech’s contention that Willis’s past episode countermands Willis’s fitness to engage in science, at least Poptech did not say that while feigning concern over something not in any way likely.
Christoph Dollis:
At October 17, 2013 at 2:48 pm you try to justify having made one offensive lie by presenting another and more offensive lie; viz
Only somebody with a nasty mind could think such an offensive lie. And only somebody with malign intent would state it.
If you had such a nasty suspicion then you could have asked but – as has been your want throughout this thread – you assumed your misunderstanding was reality.
Richard
Richard, your comments about Poptech self-harming were malign.
Or really, really baseless.
Cristoph:”It’s not that he was doing so — I’m not criticising those who said maybe Poptech is narcissistic, because maybe — but I find it very hard to see the suggestion that Poptech is a danger to himself as more than tit-for-tat that he made an issue out of Wllis’s past overdose rather than follow through on his commitment to the military episode.”
My response to this is that this whole line of argument is pernicious, no matter who does it. Nobody knows (for sure) anything about what goes on in anyone’s head and arguing about it one way or another doesn’t change any of the observable facts. When people start arguing over each other’s psychology, the debate is essentially over.
Cheers, 🙂
Christoph Dollis:
Your post at October 17, 2013 at 2:57 pm says
How dare you!
At October 17, 2013 at 2:07 pm I asked you
“Please desist from directing your psychological projection at me.”
And you have done it again!
It seems you have anything to contribute other than lies and psychological projection.
I will not answer any more of your abusive, untrue and offensive posts.
Richard
nothing not anything. Sorry, I should not type when very angry. Richard
richardscourtney said @ October 17, 2013 at 3:15 pm
This is all too true. Be aware that Christoph and PopTick are manipulating you. Successfully. Please take a break and regain control of yourself. You deserve better than being dragged down into their slime.
– – – – – – – –
dbstealey,
Anonymous commenting is endemic to climate science blogs. I have a strong preference to know who I am commenting with, but am willing to engage with totally anonymous commenters.
Look at this thread. At least several dozen commenters are nominally anonymous, probably a lot more than that.
Is it hypocritical of totally anonymous Poptech to be critical of non-anonymous Willis in the area of Willis’ public record? I think that Poptech is not hypocritical. Just like it is not hypocritical, per se, of the many anonymous commenters on this thread when they criticize Roy or when they criticize non-anonymous commenters who support Roy.
We need to consider the hypocrisy question broadly and not just selectively wrt anonymous commenters (and non-anonymous commenters too).
NOTE=>There are potential issues with purposely avoiding identity on blogs that are to me very interesting to discuss, but that is another topic.
John
It stuck in my craw someone going on about self-harm because they disagree with you and are criticising someone you like.
John Whitman,
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear: it is hypocritical when one person repeatedly demands that another person must post whatever is demanded, but then repeatedly refuses requests to do likewise.
We can likely understand why some persons leaving blog opinions on a SUBJECT can be easily excused for hiding behind a screen name. No one wants to end up on the street – tin cup in hand – because a boss doesn’t like their view.
But I think when you are ATTACKING (not praising) an actual person, and with some obvious venom, you really DO need to step up considerably higher and identify yourself. OR you can make your particular case for your need for anonymity, emphatically, and in close proximity to the attacking comments. One or the other, or refrain from your attack.
That is only Phase 2, page rank has not been optimized yet so this information can be quickly obtained.
You would believe that. Nothing is impossible to erase least of all information off the Wayback Machine.
PopTick, I’m not going to engage in a p!ssing competition with you.
Traffic trumps pagerank, Poptech, although I did notice that your site has a higher pagerank than WattsUpWithThat. Which is odd on its face. Your site is a respectable 5, but WUWT only a dismal 3.
I wonder what is keeping WUWT from a higher score? I almost wonder if this is Google finagling the results to keep the site down a bit as it is skeptical on CAGW, or if it’s just not optimised. The webmaster of this site should look in to that.
Maybe you can consult.
Christoph, that depends on the goal. You can have a large volume of traffic from the same people or you can make sure anyone new is made aware of the information when they search for it.
Poptech says:
“My reputation would only be harmed if something I said was factually untrue.”
Make no mistake, your reputation has been greatly harmed here, and it has nothing to do with anything being ‘factually untrue’.
Andrew K said…
“Ah shit that is not my full name, it was a typo.”
September 29, 2007 at 4:04 PM
http://blog.matthewmiller.net/2007/09/debunking-firefox-myths-page.html?showComment=1191099780000#c5404806598880480514
Andrew Khan said:
“You guys are bigger fools then I thought if you do not think people can lie about where they live online or use proxy accounts to fake their IP. Freewheelinfrank has been exposed for the pot head delusional loser he is. Pot Heads always cover their tracks. Why does Frank not give us his full name and address in the UK? I thought so, fools.”
http://blog.matthewmiller.net/2007/09/debunking-firefox-myths-page.html?showComment=1191099780000#c5404806598880480514
Christoph Dollis said @ October 17, 2013 at 5:16 pm
That’s interesting. IIRC when we had the Great Debate on WUWT’s PageRank, WUWT was ranked at 5 (same as DSE, a major electronics retailer here in Australia). My web was rated at 4 and still is, although it hasn’t been updated in a coon’s age.
One thing that downgrades PageRank is linking to other websites and WUWT does that in spades. OTOH, links from other websites lifts PageRank and there are certainly many of those at my website. Who knows everything that happens at the Chocolate Factory?
Poptech says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:32 am
McComberBoy, Sorry but I don’t post personal information online as I understand the dangers in doing so, see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files
I am simply a computer analyst who attended a technical university.
PopularTechnology.net.
Global Warming Videos | Global Warming Books | No Consensus on Global Warming | Global Warming Resource| Optimize Guides| Popular Technology
Author: Andrew K – Modified: 3-17-2008
http://web.archive.org/web/20080726134132/http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/About.html
…………..
Andrew K., author of the above linked pages, also says he is a ‘Computer Analyst‘
Jimbo, how does it feel to be my puppet?
Poptech says:
“My reputation would only be harmed if something I said was factually untrue.”
Incredible! So a peron’s reputation goes down in your mind if they ever say something that is untrue? You seem very shallow on that. To me that has a half chance to just be a mistake and I’m human and make many. Myself, his or her reputation only would drop in my eyes if that person insists the untrue statement is correct without further discussion or proof or if they then insist on attacking *me* for even questioning their “facts”.
Poptech = Andrew Khan
The only benefit of reading these 1150+ posts, is the future time saving gleaned .
Two poster(possibly same person) I won’t bother reading past the name.
Vile and pernicious, attack the man, ignore the idea.
We must be discussing climatology,TM IPCC.
: ) Love it.
Poptech, how does it feel to be Andrew Khan?
Goodnight and sleep tight. Use plenty of blankets as exposure is not so good. 😉 Night.
It is good to be the puppet master.
It feels great to be the puppet master.
Jimbo, when you learn that is not my last name I suggest you retire from using the Internet.
Computer Analyst
http://www.cartoonresource.com/umbraco/ImageGen.ashx?image=/327528/cnt109ts.jpg&class=full
– – – – – – – –
Christoph Dollis,
Over the last ~6 days there are maybe a half dozen different commenters @Poptech suggesting lacking medication or taking substances or mental illness or syndromes or concern for his wellness and now very recently self-harm.
It is starting to vaguely smell of the infamous Lewandowsky / Cook tactics where skeptical critics of their cherished consensus scientists are labeled as mentally ill or abnormal or pathological.
John
John, this behavior is expected because they cannot hand wave my factual arguments away. However, I usually experience this type of behavior when arguing with alarmists but I now have to add Willis fanboys to the list. It is disappointing to see this at WUWT.
As I said:
Mario Lento, I understand what you’re getting at, and if Poptech was only referring to credentials, this would be a great argument. However, if Poptech is saying,
then the question, “Well, what computer modelling work has Willis done and where is there something other than his word that he’s done it?” is more than legitimate. And if his 137 IQ fans are making arguments taking for fact all the computer modelling work he’s done — none of which they can point to — then it begs the question of are they just regurgitating claims for psychological reasons?
You understand that, I am sure, and I say that without sarcasm.
I’m growing tired of this drawn out minutiae about who’s what, why, and why not.
It’s like this:
1. There isn’t a degree in computer climate modeling.
2. There isn’t a certification or test you can take to become a computer climate modeler. You can’t even get one off a matchbook cover or diploma mill.
3. Everyone who has done computer climate modeling is self taught or followed the lead of others who are self taught, this includes Hansen, Gavin, and many other climate luminaries. Computer Climate Modeling is a cottage industry unto itself. I know of at least 90 separate models, all done independently by different researchers, some sharing common black box code.
4. Some computer climate modeling code is freely available to run on your own computer, for example GISS Model E. Some other researchers have borrowed bits of it.
5. Willis has run GISS Model E and other models that have code available that don’t require supercomputers. So have I. We’ve both tweaked inputs and outputs and code. Willis has published some essays on models. I actually created a climate model once using analog circuitry, since I thought it would do a better job of simulating non-linear processes. I ran the ciruit on a circuit simulator, another kind of model. That was years ago.
6. Willis and I have both worked with computer models just like Hansen and Gavin. The only difference is how much time we’ve spent doing it. Willis and I aren’t career climate modelers, and I’m not sure many climate researchers would fit that label. Most use models for a particular purpose and then move on to other things.
7. Because there’s no certification available, there’s also no time requirement for application of the label, there’s no requirement of any kind beyond actually having worked with computer climate models.
8. Ergo, since we’ve both worked with them, Willis and I are both computer climate modelers.
Argue if you want, but it won’t make any difference.
Christoph Dollis says:
October 17, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Mario Lento, I understand what you’re getting at, and if Poptech was only referring to credentials, this would be a great argument. However, if Poptech is saying,
Look, where is the evidence he either has training in computer modelling or has actually done any significant computer modelling work? …. then the question, “Well, what computer modelling work has Willis done and where is there something other than his word that he’s done it?” is more than legitimate. And if his 137 IQ fans are making arguments taking for fact all the computer modelling work he’s done — none of which they can point to — then it begs the question of are they just regurgitating claims for psychological reasons?
+++++++
Christoph: You need to refrain from making statements so as to lead people to believe that I am arguing about Willis’ work. You’ve completely missed the points I’ve made and then tried to reinterpret my words into something completely false.
My claims are about Poptech’s sophomoric notion that he can determine whether something is true based on whether people entertain his questions.
It is up to you and others to do your own research, rather than act like children proclaiming to know the outcome of argument by absence of response. Perhaps this is too complex an issue for you and Poptech.
Thanks for weighing in with that, Anthony. That was a better answer than any so far and on the computer modelling thing, I for one can accept that as reasonable.
Christoph,
You don’t seem to understand the ‘begs the question’ fallacy.
This whole thread is preposterous. We have an anonymous screen name playing the ‘gotcha’ game on nitpicking issues like who is a modeler, and who isn’t. But who elected anyone here to be the arbiter of who is a modeler? Or to decide who is a ‘scientist’? That seems to be a self-promoted Appeal to Authority.
Another ‘gotcha’: being a self-appointed snitch to a newspaper. A tattle-tale. What could that possibly matter? Really? The science is what matters, not putative credentials given or withheld by Mr Anonymous. Who elected him?
The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife: “I demand to know your credentials — but when someone asks me about mine, I am exempt.” Total hypocrisy! To the same extent that Poptech is demanding that Willis must answer questions, I am demanding that Poptech must answer questions. But he hides out instead. Does that help put this crybaby complaint into perspective?
And criticizing someone for openly admitting that they had a temporary mental crisis — more than forty years ago! Could the accuser stoop any lower? Not IMHO. I used to think Michael Mann’s comments were the lowest of the low. Now he has some serious competition.
The only good thing about this juvenile series of ‘gotchas’ is that it has raised WUWT’s traffic by more than a thousand reader comments. But it does so at the expense of any scientific argument. At this point everything is ad hominem. That means everything is a fallacy.
I think Willis is sitting there laughing at Poptech’s impotent frustration. If I were Willis, at this point I would not give anyone the satisfaction of a response after attacks like that. The whole episode is disgusting, immature, and indefensible.
I would say, “Stop it!” But Poptech has apparently wired around his On/Off switch. He is fixated on Willis like Ahab on the White Whale. How did that end, anyway?
Anthony’s and Mario Lento’s comments were posted as I was writing, so I didn’t see them. It appears we were making pretty much the same points.
If my comments were strong, keep in mind the endlessly repeated ‘fanboy’ pejorative.
I’m pretty close to declaring this thread over.
Please do, Anthony. It has no redeeming value left.
Mr. Watts,
I believe that would be a good idea as there is nothing to gain leaving it open. What has already been said says plenty.
Pop,
Good luck with your one-man mission of character annihilation, your own character of course. Your most of the way there. A shame for sure. As I had warned, this failed attempt at garnering (deserved) attention and veiled attempts at disguising hatred and jealousy have exposed your superficiality. It has backfired terribly.
Thanks for your comments above; they were very much needed. It’s interesting that it doesn’t take much to be a climatologist as I pointed out several weeks ago. Live long and prosper 🙂
dbstealey said @ October 17, 2013 at 7:44 pm
“Now small fowls flew screaming over the yet yawning gulf; a sullen white surf beat against its steep sides; then all collapsed, and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago.”
And, we end on a high note, with quoted poetry.