Bishop Hill writes:
Over at Climate Audit, Nic Lewis has outlined the latest developments in the saga of the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is low, but appeared to have a whole series of problems, not least of which that it had got its forcing data mucked up, leaving out land-use changes entirely.
In a typically erm…robust article at RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt ignored all the evidence Lewis had presented showing that land-use change had been overlooked, and said that Lewis’s critique was made…without evidence. However, it now seems that he has decided that this position is not tenable, at the journal at least,and a correction has been issued admitting that land-use was indeed missing.
The historical instantaneous radiative forcing time series was also updated to reflect land use change, which was inadvertently excluded from the forcing originally calculated from ref. 22.
Gavin has thanked Nic Lewis for pointing out the error. Unfortunately, he has chosen to ignore four other problems that Lewis has has pointed out.
But hey, one out of five ain’t bad.
Here’s the list of problems:
Lewis enumerates 6 supposedly fundamental problems in the paper. To paraphrase, they are as follows:
- MEA15 is working with the wrong definition of climate sensitivity.
- All previous papers using the historical records to constrain ECS are only constraining ‘effective’ climate sensitivity which is smaller than ECS.
- MEA15 used the wrong iRF and ERF values for F2xCO2.
- MEA15 shouldn’t have used ocean heat content data (or should have done so differently).
- The regressions in MEA15 in the iRF case should have been forced to go through zero.
- The linearity of the different forcings is only approximate.
It’s quite something, really, that time and again climate skeptics are the ones who find the problems at NASA GISS and the “experts” don’t. Maybe Gavin should spend less time bloviating about his background, doing PR outreach, or running from debate, and more time being a real climate scientist.
Impossible, how could a paper ever with 5 major flaws ever get past peer review? /SARC
Well, once you redefine “major”, you’re pretty much ok.
Its sorta like pointing out that someone’s car has a flat, two cylinders have failed, the steering wheel is broken, the brakes are about to go, and the fender is hanging on by a thread…
But the paint job is perfect!
Come now, leave Honest Bob’s Used Automobile’s out of this.
“But the paint job is perfect!”
Hey, isn’t that the standard most people use to buy a car. If it weren’t most American designed auto companies would have been out of business a long time ago (oh wait, I forgot about all the Gov. rescues).
Reminds me of the dead parrot. Norwegian blue – lovely plumage.
Awaa, come on you guys, all he really wants is a big knob to turn..
…and they decided to fix the fender.
Now if the car’s CO2 emissions were shown to be too high, they would have fixed it pronto!
Mr Wormwood could fix the bumper for them with Super Super Glue.
James Bull
Perhaps we can have a new process: “Peer² Reviewed”?
Good post.
..Gavin is truly pathetic as a scientist…..
you can leave out “as a scientist”
Thank you. He’s been a professional fraud all his life. Is this the place there’s the big list of words you can’t say? I need to go look on the help page I guess cause I’ve got no respect for frauds and the people who are involved in the green house gas fraud are just criminals. Have the readers caught on to that yet?
It never was real. I was programming way back when Hansen and Mann were running the table on congress by having their men go in and turn off the air conditioning when they were testifying.
I was also around when Hansen’s fellow employees hated his guts saying the programs he was running didn’t have the laws of physics for the atmophere. He took out the compression of the adiabat and put in green house gas as ”add X : raise temperature Y.
They had one program named M.A.G.I.C.C. they used early on and you could taunt them about their ”Magicc Gas stories.”
[Reply: If you write “fraud” your comment will be held until a moderator approves it. ~mod]
Unfortunately, Mr. Hill, your critique fails to mention Dr. Schmidt’s lack of qualifications to be declared a “Climate Scientist”. With degrees in MATHEMATICS, not PHYSICS or ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, Gavin is just another blow hard money grubbing Climate MODELER who cannot even use his “Mathematics” skills to determine practical error standards for his bogus Models. It is well documented that so called Climate Modelers have failed consistently to either provide, or in the most extreme cases, even UNDERSTAND the meaning of Error limits or Error calculations. You know, those Standards that are applied to EVERY other Scientific endeavor! So it comes as no surprise that Dr. Schmidt can’t even use NASA’s own data for his Model. Why is it that virtually none of these Climate Alarmists have degrees in fields actually related to Climate Science?
Not sure why you have a problem with his academic background. Climate science includes people from a wide array of math and science backgrounds. Many prominent “skeptics” don’t have degrees you consider related to climate science, either. Gavin’s PhD is in “applied mathematics,” which typically incorporates a broad spectrum of fields of application. I don’t know what his specific coursework or graduate research was.
Frankly, I shudder to think who/what is being produced in universities which now include “climate science” in department titles and coursework.
But yes, it is appalling when a math and applied math PhD fails relatively simple math concepts. That is exactly where his background should be superior to most climate scientists.
“Not sure why you have a problem with his academic background.”
I can’t disagree. It’s just that in Gavin’s case he doesn’t seem to know the very basic physics of what he is talking about.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/
Check out who chimes in on comment #2 to set Gavin straight.
DaveO-
This is the part I love more-right at the top where he has to openly admit that he is/was totally clueless about the topic he was posting about in the first place. LOL!
“This post is obsolete and wrong in many respects. Please see this more recent post for links to the answer.
14/Jan/05: This post was updated in the light of my further education in radiation physics.
25/Feb/05: Groan…and again.”
He doesn’t care and it just doesn’t matter so long as he can get grants and paychecks from gov. funding. Ethics and competence went out with most of these a long time ago.
The problem is he has put out several error strewn papers, even one on solar physics which has literally been mocked by solar physicists for the school boy errors within.
That’s when the lack of education plays a part. Many other people with no “climate” qualifications are experts with data analysis, climate statistical data is not outside of their field.
Same said people peer review the data analysis in papers and find errors, only to be told “it’s climate data you don’t understand” by someone who is not a data analysis expert, as in the climatologist.
Schmidt is a political appointment, yes man for the job not best man for the job
“The problem is he has put out several error strewn papers, even one on solar physics which has literally been mocked by solar physicists for the school boy errors within.”
See – this is what I can’t understand. If what you relate is true, then how could he possibly have ANY credibility in the scientific community? Yet, it seems he does.
And that is why I don’t have a lot of hope for this turning around.
As an environmental engineer, I am deeply offended by this comment. Do you think that because I do not possess a PHD in an extremely narrow subset of your “approved” degrees I am unable to create a simple mathematical model?
No one said anything about YOU ben. The point is that GAVIN Schmidt, who has a PhD in applied mathematics, cannot create a simple mathematical model. That Gavin Schmidt pontificates upon topics all the time in which he demonstrates that he is completely incompetent in that area (like stratospheric cooling, and how to talk to people from Texas). YOU may be perfectly capable of running NASA effectively and well…Good ol Gavin is NOT.
I hope this does not appear rude, but my 50+ years of engineering experience tells me that you cannot create a mathematical model unless to understand the physics, chemistry, or mechanical behavior of the materials or structure. I agree you don’t need a PhD to understand the behavior but a model without that understanding is questionable. I have seen so many develop finite element models of structures that are useless because they have the boundary conditions wrong or they miss other important parameters.
In my experience, that’s why you need a good interdisciplinary team.
PS, make sure to get someone who is a darn good programmer.
Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant was that the degree is pointless. I’ve read plenty of nonsense put out by PhDs in all sorts of fields, several of which were posted on this site and had insufficient rigor for an elementary school science fair. It is the work that is important. Claiming that Schmidt is unqualified because he’s a mathematician instead of a physicist is madness and beneath the dignity of any one of us.
I’ve been told I’m “just an engineer” too many times in my life, and I won’t stand for anyone else’s qualifications being dismissed with a handwave.
It’s not the degree that matters, but the work. Comment on the work or stay silent.
Thank you.
Well it is not just the degree but what you do with. Mathmatics eh?
Well now. “Figures lie, and liars figure.” Gavin sounds like the right man for the job.
“… I’ve been told I’m “just an engineer” too many times in my life, …”
I have taught many kids who went on to be engineers. I consider engineering to be the highest calling as it is applied science. Engineering is making things work in spite of all “theory”.
To all engineers who comment here — God bless you and yours.
Wow, you are offended, huh.?
Touched your sensitive environmentally engineering ego?
Alarmists without degrees in anything related to climate science ??. So what are nearly all the alarming climate scientists saying ?. You are really describing the typical sceptic here, Lewis and Monckton are also mathematicians, this is just cherry picking.
Neither Monckton or Lewis are directors at NASA, and as far as I am aware, neither has published papers in which the mathematics are so obviously flawed that even people WITHOUT degrees in mathematics can see it.
Judging from the comments below, perhaps some clarification is needed. My comments about Dr. Schmidt’s background, like virtually ALL of the Climate Alarmists, relates to their inability to UNDERSTAND the principles behind whatever they are pontificating about. Some of the most egregious Alarmists come from fields like Psychology, Economics, Nuclear Proliferation, etc. One would think that a Climate Scientist would have backgrounds including Physics (particularly IR Radiation), Atmospheric Sciences, Meteorology, and Chemistry. While Climate Modelers need to understand the Mathematics of Statistical Sampling, as well as Computer Programming, they are to a man, completely INCAPABLE of relating the results of such Models to the Real World since not one model has any relationship TO the REAL WORLD, as proven time and again on these pages. Experiments are run to TEST Ideas and unlike every other Science, Climate Modelers do not seem to be concerned when the results fail to match Reality. This is also why they routinely abandon the Scientific Method, including Peer Review with Data Exchange, analysis of Error probabilities, and a Simple Test to see if their results either match the Real World or if the Model can reproduce past results when using actual past data. It is one thing to predict the Future, but a true working Climate Model should be able to reproduce the Past with near 100% accuracy when using past climate data for the Input. The inability to explain Past Events with any of the Current Models is a damning statement on the current state of so called “Climate Modeling”.
Isn’t it true that one of the computer models is doing a reasonable job of predicting and following the Pause? Why don’t we emphasise the one reasonable model and the modellers behind it, and sop referring to the plethora that fail to do anything useless?
At least we can have some praise where it is due. How do those people ‘get it right’? Perhaps there is something to learn from modellers who can match reality. Their program has ‘skill’.
For a moment it has skill. What about the rest of the record? Unacceptable to the believers in any case because of its very low sensitivity assumptions, I gather.
Dr. Schmidt needs a quality control manager. He should hire a skeptic.
Some balanced perspective would be a terrific thing in a lot of fields now that peer review has apparently broken down pretty completely. If some of these “researchers” had any self respect they would be mortified by the prospect of their work being torn to shreds on basic failures and obvious bias.
sadly i think the climate debate has highlighted the fact the peer review process in many fields has never been fit for purpose.
When I was doing my undergraduate capstone project, I found the best students in the class to review my draft paper and told them to be brutal in their review so I could make sure it was right when I turned it in. I did the same for them in turn. We each presented our papers at the state conference and were very well received. I even had two professors come up to me in the break to ask if my technique could be applied to a problem they were working on. (it wouldn’t because my problem was a simplified case [6 degrees of freedom] and still took three weeks of processing time, theirs had 12 in the simplest case so would have taken more like 6 months for each initial condition set or a much more powerful computer than the I7-2700K that I was running it on.)
Every real scientist is by definition a sceptic or at least impartial. If all studies show the same thing then they are just conforming to a consensus imho
This is interesting in that it’s the first time I have seen a climate paper do falsely applied linear regression in this sense.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/09/on-inappropriate-use-of-least-squares-regression
Usually we see dRad vs dT which exaggerates CS because of regression dilution. Now this paper does it the other way around, as far as I know that a first. In this case the regression will give a low result.
Since it seems this was what they wanted to show in this case maybe this is proof that they are aware of the problem ( raised in Froster and Gregory 2006 ) and are using it to thier advantage, in whatever direction suits their argument.
In the CA article Nic Lewis reports :
Now the usual published values of TCR or ECS are probably done by regressing dRad against dT. They do the opposite and define the ratio as the “efficacy”. This is starting to look worse and worse.
This is what GISS-E2-R looks like in the tropics compared the infilled, gridded Hadley reanalysis of ocean SST:
Note how their *massive* Mt Pinatubo cooling never actually happened. They are grossly over-estimating the sensitivity of climate to volcanic forcing which allows them to exaggerate AGW to counter balance it.
Works fine on a global average until you don’t have any more volcanoes to play with or some inconvenient sceptic starts looking too closely at what the models are doing in the tropics, where all the climate action is.
” Maybe Gavin should spend less time bloviating about his background, doing PR outreach, or running from debate, and more time being a real climate scientist.”
Why should he? The President is pushing the CAGW agenda. And, if the socialists remain in power (Bernie or Hillary) Mr. Schmidt can continue to push the CAGW meme without fear.
The “bloviating” link is disgusting, with Schmidt suggesting that skeptics in Texas disagree with him on climate change partly out of anti-semitism.
Hadn’t picked up that line of attack before, thanks Michael.
Here you go Richard Drake-
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/06/watch-nasas-chief-climate-scientist-need-less-science-to-message-in-texas-more-cultural-understanding-on-youtube/
Certainly the wrong guys are getting the pay packets.
It’s shameful what the ‘experts’ miss. This whole thing must be getting ever more embarrassing for them. I wonder when they’ll notice.
“…which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is low…”
I was under the impression that it claimed that estimates of climate sensitivity were biased low, which presumably implies that actual sensitivity is high, and it’s “worse than we thought”.
You are correct. That is what they were trying to show, via an ‘effective sensitivity’ argument based on just the GISS GCM. Nic has the whole saga in a series of three posts at Climate Audit.
+ a bunch.
TRUST Gavin not to produce any thought that “Climate Change” is unworthy of reducing US citizens to subsistence poverty.
It is politics folks, not science.
” biased low” Thank you for explaining this. I just could not believe that this crew would publish a paper that showed a low climate sensitivity, and if they had done so it would be attacked so enthusiastically here.
All is again right in my world.
You seem to have some chip on your shoulder about mathematicians. Mathematicians are generalists and quite capable of doing this kind of work. Blame Gavin for Gavin, not the fact that he has a degree in mathematics.
Maybe we should blame the university where he got his degree, it looks like they failed to teach him math and yet he ended up with a degree. I lowly electronic technician and yet the school I attended they flunked out half the class before the beginning of the second year, little chance of that happen in today world.
Yes it is astounding how even those with advanced degrees in mathematics seem unaware of how to apply linear regression properly:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/09/on-inappropriate-use-of-least-squares-regression
I’ve got nothing against mathematicians but I’m suddenly reminded of the old joke about an engineer, a physicist and a mathematician. An engineer wakes up in the middle of the night and realises that his waste-paper basket is on fire. He rushes to the kitchen, fills a tub with water and throws it on the fire to extinguish it. A physicist wakes up and realises that there’s a fire, so he calculates the precise amount of water needed to put it out and then throws it on the flames. A mathematician wakes up and notices a fire so he calculates the exact amount of water required to extinguish it and then goes back to bed, satisfied that a solution is possible.
Michael Mann also started his education in physics and applied mathematics. He sucks at climate modeling too.
It is the physicists who have let the skeptics down so far. Comparing atmospheric properties of varying planets demonstrates the non-existent impact of CO2.
Where is the runaway greenhouse on 95% CO2 Mars?
Why, when adjusted for distance from the sun, does Venus exhibit the same temperature profile as Earth at equivalent atmospheric pressures? (As do most other planets with atmospheres regardless of CO2 composition — see Harry Huffman and Robinson & Catling)
How does an atmosphere with 1/1000th the heat capacity of the ocean and always colder increase SST?
How can IR forcing be absorbed in the first few microns of water, and yet warm the ocean at depth when the only mixing process (wind) is proven to increase evaporation and cool the ocean?
CO2 concentration, as seen across other planets, seems to have no discernible impact on temperature. Additionally, our water world makes it unlikely CO2 can have any effect on SST.
It is time for the physicists to aggressively contest the “greenhouse gas theory” and work diligently on the null hypothesis for CO2. That said, I still believe in them!!
The original comment seemed to me to be parodying the line that so many alarmists use about “not being a real climate scientist, but only a mathematician/physicist/weatherman,” etc., as though only those whose degrees read “Climate Science” or something like that are allowed to comment on the subject.
In his book “Rocketship Galileo”, Robert Heinlein says “No mathematics has any reality of its own, not even common arithmetic. All mathematics is purely an invention of the mind, with no connection with the world around us, except that we find some mathematics convenient in describing things.”
In plain language, mathematics isn’t at fault. It’s the people making models that haven’t got any relationship to the way the Earth works.
lovely simple way of explaining the problem with attempting to model the climate.
Ear worm for the day.
Sorry to be a pedant, but the recognition should actually go to Mr Bernie Taupin, not Elton John.
Apology accepted.
My recognition went to Ned Braden. Who got off the bus early to avoid Lily.
Mother Nature does not do politics and doesn’t care about any individual’s pedigree. What to expect, based on what has happened (97% match since before 1900), is at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
All this business of calculating the CO2 sensitivity is no more than ‘trashing empty bale of straw’.
North Atlantic tells us that the variability in temperature is caused by natural causes
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAM.pdf
It is hard enough to fully understand or explain the above relationships.
I doubt that either Nic Lewis or Gavin Schmidt would do any better.
Would it possible for one of you braniacs to translate these 5 issues into something layidiots – err.. laypeople like me can comprehend. ie, “model misused ocean data that falsely showed more heat” or whatever… Sorry in advance, but I’d like to write this for larger audiences on social media and alternative press.
Simple. Go reread Nic’s Climate Audit posts. This paper is completely hosed up. One GCM when about 136 model runs from about 34 different ones do NOT get the ‘average’ result right. (Average in this sense, as RGB@Duke points out, is itself nonsense.) Major mistakes, only a couple admitted in the correction. Go study KNMI archive for details, if you do not believe Christy/Spencer/Curry et. al. charts of same.
Bottom political line is simple. All the last few years rigorous energy budget observational calcs are coming in ~ECS 1.7 (1.5 if you agree with the new Bjorn Smith aerosol estimates). Warmunist dogma insists 3.0 or greater. So this completely hosed up warmunist GISS paper attempted to assert those estimates were biased low, in order to defend their ‘religion’s’ 3+ ‘true’ value.
And Nic Lewis exposed the hose up. Which no less than Gavin Schmidt, second author, head of GISS, was thereby forced to admit (only partly) in the now published correction.
This is how guerrilla warfare works. This is a good blogosphere example. Join our skeptical cause.
THANK YOU so much.
‘inadvertently excluded’
I just love that ‘marvelous’ use of language. I can understand ‘inadvertently omitted’, or ‘inadvertently missing’ but how does one ‘inadvertently’ exclude something from an analysis? To exclude is to deliberately leave out, to deliberately set aside. It is by definition a deliberate action just like the subsequent bullshit to try and cover up what you have done also deliberate use of deceitful language. No 97% about it. I think the deliberate illiteracy says all you need to know about the entire body of work being peddled by these turkeys.
Plus many. Subtle very nice catch.
deliberate illiteracy you say , how about “The authors thank Nic Lewis for his careful reading of the original manuscript that resulted in the identification of these errors.”
deceitful language indeed.
Reminds me of an old joke, paraphrasing: “…the victim swerved several times before “inadvertently” hitting the tree…”
Reminds me of one those math “Brain Teasers”.
The start is usually something like “x=1” then the step get complex concluding with the result that “1=0” or 2 or something like that. Pay attention rather being distracted by the smoke and mirrors of complexity and you’ll find that somewhere they divided by “(x-1)” or the equivalent.
Yup, have collected a large sample of same.
Plus collected for fun a large sample of valid Pythagorean theorem proofs. They all boil down to either a version of the simple geometric or the simple algebraic (which came later). Fascinating how the human mind usually works. (Usually, cause Einstein does not fit the usual framework. Special relativity, you can get there from his simple thought experiments about elevators and trains. General relativity space time curvature,no way. Well, no way I have been able to figure out.)
I would suspect that Mr. Schmidt does not think that the other references cited by Mr. Lewis “matter.” I believe that is Mannian approach.
Please don’t shoot me, I am not even a scientist, but you see, as a lay person I have a problem with the terms like CS, ECS, TCS or CR and TCR.
Further more, how can Climate and weather be considered as functions or systems, when actually as far as I can see from the lay man angle, Atmosphere itself is the system and the function and weather and climate are only it’s configurations in short and long term and when one seems to be a dynamic one the other seems to be a static one.
So when actually the effect of RF is directly to the Atmosphere, how can we rely blindly in a CS or ECS as per the scientific definition to really be as helpful in the understanding of the climate and climate change and assisting as we think and believe it does.
Relying so strongly and blindly in the given definition of the CS, is as silly as when claiming that climate change or AGW cause extreme or volatile weather.
When considering RF or even the ARF, yes it is feasible to claim that it’s variation (a significant and sharp one) could AT TIMES cause extreme and volatile weather by effecting the Atmosphere.
RF is not Climate and ARF is not AGW, ,,,,,,,,Climate- AGW and weather are no forcing(s), therefore can not force each other in any way possible.
When considering CO2 concentration and it’s variation in Atmosphere (and not in climate or weather) as in regard to the RF variation the main effect seems to be in the TOA energy imbalance by driving it’s variation (A in TOA stands for Atmosphere and not for climate or weather).
So the Atmosphere is the one that actually is sensitive and will respond to RF variation or the CO2 concentration variation in regard and connection to all it’s functioning and couplings with other systems.
Of course, even after all this said, I still do not consider the terms and concepts like CS and CR in principle as not helpful or irrelevant in regard to understanding climate change.
These are coined concepts to serve as a kind of metric in climate and climate change analysis, but as far as I can tell these are simply coined concepts not representing or measuring directly any real natural property or forcing impact, so to speak.
But especially when it comes to the definition, it is really bollocks as far as I can tell.
Considering that definition of CS as correct and really representative in nature, then the Earth and it’s Atmosphere would have boiled a very long time ago………
So no matter how refined the metric is, the value of CS, for as long as the definition stands in the way it is, the AGW way, then there is more and more confusion and chaos introduced in the struggle to try and understand Climate and climate change.
cheers
“still consider”
its (it’s=it is)
I have a degree in railway engineering, but I do a lot of reading.
the very fundamental statistical flaw in climate science is that the empirical evidence of a relationship between emissions and warming consists of a correlation between cumulative emissions and cumulative values and this correlation can be shown to be spurious.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
The issue of land use change, I discussed elaborately in my book “Climate Change: Myths & Realities” [2008] — earlier to this, the issue was discussed in my articles published before 2008 — http://www.scribd.com/Google Books in Chapter 7 ‘Ecological Changes’.
The second issue is, all the time we are looking at linear increase in sensitivity factor bt it is not correct approach as in nature, most weather related issues tend to follow non-linear path. As long as we stick to linear path, we rarely achieve the right solution.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“Unfortunately, he has chosen to ignore four other problems that Lewis has has pointed out.” Schmidt addressed all the issues. Maybe you were not satisfied, but “ignored” is incorrect.
Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
(most sorry Kiki Dee)
I got no troubles at NASA
I’m a rocket nothing can stop
Survival’s always the first law
And I’m in with those at the top
I heat up
I cool down
A site I don’t like I discard it
The high and the mighty can frown
So say what they want they reward it
Man is the measure
Of all things that be
The Progressive Alliance
And Post Normal Science
Say I got the data in me
I work in the mists and the fogs
By methods that none can review
To hide like a fox from the dogs
The premise of all that I do
The thermometers all want skilling
If their readings are not alarming
As the early ones all need chilling
So the later ones all need warming
Man is the measure
Of all things that be
What Protagoras said
Onto Nietzsche led
So I got the data in me
The truth’s a consensus of thought
We agree to agree about
A joy for so long we have sought
Our minds ever free of all doubt
We are born uncertain of heart
And live in fear of things unknown
Consensus is truly the start
Of our souls becoming our own
Man is the measure
Of all things that be
To Progressive drums
The Superman comes!
And I got the data in me
I heat up
I cool down
A site I don’t like I discard it
The high and the mighty can frown
So say what they want they reward it
Eugene WR Gallun
Sorry — everything i write is a work in progress — the next to last verse should read —
Man is the measure
Of all things that be
To Socialist drums
The Superman comes!
And I got the data in me
Eugene WR Gallun
The metric for a paper getting through is just how perfect the lipstick is applied to the pig. Gavin’s paper had a minor lipstick application error is all. Besides, these kinds of papers are meant to be read by pigs wanting advice on how to apply lipstick. So it’s all good.
Your assessment, it seems to me, is being overly generous as to there being ANY kind of perfection in the metric. I thought the metric for a paper getting through was simply how many times you can write “it’s worse than we thought”
…oops, forgot the little smiley face thing and a sarc tag. 😉 /sarc
Do people not know the green house gas story is fraud by now? Uhm…. LoL !
Did people around here not get the message when Phil Jones admitted he had been faking warming since 1998? That’s hilarious !
When Michael Mann was caught inverting data and claiming he had a Nobel prize?
If you know after all that has gone on, and you mention the word fraud, you’re reviewing peoples’ posts?
For what? What can someone say that offends the people that own this place? Didn’t you see the ethics director of that university break into the Institute?
I guess that explains a lot about what I’ll be seeing here. Knowing the climate fraud is fraud makes you want to check what I’ve got to say? Who are you? Do you have some kind of axe to grind with people who know about all the fraud going on in the field of climate?
The only thing honest people say about modern climate is that it’s fraud.
Wayne
It is possible for people to make an actionable claim of fraud on a publicly accessible blog. If you make such a claim it has to be demonstrably true.
Mann v.s. Steyn is an example. Steyn claimed Mann’s work was fraudulent. Mann claimed by inference it isn’t and sued Steyn and the publisher. Steyn then claimed Mann sued only to block and silence his truthful public utterance and counter-sued. On the face of it, both Steyn’s claims are true, there being ample published and, so far unchallenged, evidence supporting them.
Fraud is a crime, libel is real, and the auto-review of posts for the word ‘fraud’ is reasonable if Anthony would be named (in the same way Mann, Jones, Schmidt et al should be on a few charge sheets) as a co-conspirator in causing the statement to be published in public.
Consider: I just wrote ‘on a few charge sheets’. I did not write ‘criminal charge sheets’. Scientifically they are on some shaky ground. Is that a crime?
In the article we are discussing ‘omissions’ which some have, without sufficient evidence, attributed to intent, meanwhile they could easily and plausibly be attributed to incompetence. We cannot attribute to malfeasance and intent to defraud that which is most easily explained by incompetence.
At least one of Gavin’s apologists showed up to write that he did address the other four fatal flaws in the paper. Readers should judge for themselves if the claim is supported by Gavin’s published response. Whether it is or not doesn’t change the fact that Gavin may not even understand the flaws identified in the review. Before prosecuting a claim of fraud one may have to provide evidence that the author of a paper understood what he was doing and is therefore responsible for its content. Never assume anything.
In the case of Mann v.s. Steyn, Mann is in difficulty because there is so much evidence his actions to mislead were knowing and deliberate, and he has (with the assistance of others) taken extraordinary measures to conceal his methods and the data that underlies his remarkable, public claims. He would not have done that if he was merely incompetent.
“…the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is low, …”
Shouldn’t this read ‘…the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is high, …’?
“Wow”, they say over there at Real Climate, about the latest El Nino temperature spike, where I linked to from this article, and for the first time too.
The glorification of Schmidt and Mann right out in the open in the comments section, as was the holy concern about the creeping rise in CO2, with frightened reports of the recent change in numbers, the irrational fear of a slightly higher temperature if it happens, I mean, it’s sickening, really – those idiots actually believe their own BS!
yo, ‘Real Climate’ – here’s a reality check, and don’t panic either, cause facts can hurt the uninformed-
it’s already cooling…….
HadSST3 Global
2015/12 0.717
2016/01 0.732
2016/02 0.604
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.3.14.2016.gif
Equatorial Ocean Heat Content is back to pre-2015 ESNO levels:
2014 12 0.50 0.48 0.54
2015 1 0.28 0.22 0.15
2015 2 0.54 0.65 0.83
2015 3 0.85 1.17 1.52
2015 4 1.05 1.42 1.74
2015 5 1.03 1.42 1.53
2015 6 0.87 1.27 1.51
2015 7 0.92 1.36 1.69
2015 8 0.99 1.43 1.97
2015 9 1.04 1.48 1.80
2015 10 1.04 1.51 1.91
2015 11 0.92 1.41 1.78
2015 12 0.58 1.04 1.20
2016 1 0.44 0.88 1.25
2016 2 -0.03 0.32 0.58
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt
Mother Nature is just starting to put her chill on Schmidt’s and Mann’s phony-baloney ‘glory’ days.
They don’t believe it either. The first thing the prophet Al did was buy a beach house in an area than that he knew was suppose to be under 4 feet of water by now.
I wonder who is buying up the coal stocks. Somebody is going to make a fortune on this.
Soros, etal
“Marvelous!” Should a change be made to turn the exclamation mark into a ‘Y’ ?
I don’t believe a word they say any more. I don’t deny climate changes, but I do deny they know anything about why it does so. There are too many variables. Anyone’s guess is as good as or better than a climate model. Based on my last 60 years or so of observations along with the historical climate record (not weather), I predict we will have more of the same (and that of course is qualified with “unless something drastic happens – like the planet going off course or being struck by a meteor, or global thermonuclear war, etc.)
If climate is current weather, it changes. If it’s the pattern of weather behaviour, it does so only rarely, if ever.