A Cool Question, Answered?

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 1, 2014 at 2:00 pm
…………..
Ended in a wrong blog, Robert the Bruce & Eric Bloodaxe
[??? .mod]

Margaret Hardman:
At July 1, 2014 at 2:53 pm you say

Nope, let’s discuss Lord Monckton’s missed chance. No need to get side tracked.

I agree that there is “No need to get side tracked”. Indeed, only egregious trolls deliberately attempt to sidetrack threads.
The subject of this thread is the climate model of David Evans. So, I assume you will desist from promoting what you call “Lord Monckton’s missed chance” and any other side track.
Richard

I heartily DISAGREE with sweeping this issue aside.
Skeptics rightly question the speculation that anthropogenic CO2 has driven the 20th and 21st century warming trend based on the anomaly data, but as a consequence we leave a void. All voids want to be filled and this one is no exception. Trouble is, all manner of speculation will try to fill that void. Therefore we, as a skeptical community, MUST be even MORE skeptical of OUR speculations than those posited by the AGW crowd. Why? We run the risk of bias among ourselves than we do looking across to the other side.
To that end, we must seek out the best actual data available and seriously vet the presentations of those here that speculate on other-than-CO2 drivers. We cannot run the risk of taking each other for their word and must vet what we propose against actual data. Leif is a source and expert of actual Solar data. Bob Tisdale is an excellent resource in terms of oceanic data. Roy Spencer provides close to the ground and up in the air information on global temperatures. Anth*** provides expert opinions on the reliability and validity of ground sensors. It is very interesting that at least the first two, Leif and Bob, have given notice that they make NO predictions or scenarios and have provided no models of future global temperatures. I haven’t seen a prediction from either Anth*** or Roy so they may also be reluctant to provide such predictions. It is wise to ponder this reluctance.
So, both David A. and David E., along with a host of others must present their speculations and graphs to a hopefully well trained down and dirty skeptical crowd who will wisely and diligently check everything that is proposed, IE will do the CORRECT job of peer review that we so often pan as “pal review” on the other side.
That this is a spirited conversation that is very much a blood sport is the way IT SHOULD BE! I’ve been there and done that in another area of research. I’ve experienced the political side (which I hated and which made me leave research) and the side that matters (vetted reproducibility). The fact that my work was vetted, torn apart, and eventually put back together and is now part of the growing “here is what we know” pool of understanding about my area of research is most satisfying and not the least bit upsetting from beginning to end. The political pal review side (in my case, who should publish first, etc) is what we want to avoid at ALL costs! And especially AMONG OURSELVES! We should NEVER give ourselves a pass. EVER!
Sorry about the shouting, but ya’ll got me feathers ruffled with this notion of playing nice with each other.

Steve Keohane says:
July 1, 2014 at 4:28 am
Plants can’t use UV as an energy source for photosynthesis, but some pigments (cryptochromes & other receptors) can detect it.
For photosynthesis plants use wavelengths that chlorophyll molecules can absorb, ie blue (410-460 nm) & red (630-670 nm) light. Maximum absorption for chlorophyll-a is at 430 & 662 nm, while for -b it occurs at 453 & 642 nm. As noted above, plants appear green because green light is not absorbed by any pigment, neither by chlorophylls nor by phytochrome, carrotenoids, xanthophylls or others.
In coccolithophores, UV actually hampers photosynthesis.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098847209001580
Coccolithophores are exposed to solar UV radiation (UVR, 280–400 nm) in their natural habitats. However, little has been documented on their physiological responses to UVR. We investigated the UV impacts on the photosynthesis, calcification, photochemical efficiency and growth of Emiliania huxleyi while culturing the cells under solar radiation. Presence of UVR significantly decreased the rates of photosynthesis and calcification. Shorter wavelengths of UV-B led to more damages to photosynthetic apparatus than to calcifying machinery, while longer wavelengths of UV-A resulted more harms to the calcification. As the cells were grown during long-term exposures to solar radiation, the ratios of repair to UV-related damage increased, indicating their acclimation to UV. The specific growth rate of the acclimated cells was inhibited by natural levels of UVR by about 25%, and the cells became bigger with more coccoliths, reflecting a slower cell division and enhanced calcification per cell, a trade off to counteract the UV-induced harms. The absorptivity of UV-absorbing compounds (peaked at 280 nm) increased tremendously in response to the exposure of UVR. UV-induced stress led to a protective strategy of E. huxleyi, sacrificing the growth by allocating energy for accumulation of these compounds and calcification.

Mr Eschenbach, who has lost all reason, is yet again saying I have “threatened legal action”. I have not, and have no standing to do so. I have suggested that, if Dr Evans sustains damage from the disgraceful allegations on this site, the kindest course is to seek from the courts a declaration that he has not fabricated anything. Stop shouting and read.
And it is not for Mr Eschenbach to decide whether Dr Evans has been damaged. It is for Dr Evans (and, if necessary, the courts) to decide. The likely effect of the libel, if Dr Evans’ work turns out to be as important as the snappers and snarlers apprehend that it may be, for otherwise there would be no point in their snapping and snarling, would be that the climate communists would gleefully spread it everywhere. That has happened to me before, because I was not firm enough quickly enough.
As to the libel law, truth has always been at the core of the standard defence against libel in the law of England of Wales; of Scotland; and in all Australian states. And the purpose of the libel law is to prevent damage to the reputation of the innocent by malicious falsehoods. The wider the circulation, the greater the libel; and this blog has the widest circulation of all the climate blogs. I have now had some preliminary advice; and, subject to one or two details, it is that, as I had suspected, the attack on Dr Evans is a grave, unjustifiable libel and that damages, were he to decide to go down that route, would be substantial.
And Dr Evans is working hard to update all the datasets, make sure the model is working as it should, take account of legitimate comments as opposed to petulant screeching, and to release his code and his data, in the most accessible and most comprehensive manner, just as soon as it is ready. He has admirably disclosed an outline of his work in advance, though he had no obligation to do so. And he will release the detail just as soon as he can. He is rightly not prepared to be bullied into releasing half-finished work.
And those who think I should have “corrected” a graph published without my knowledge alongside an article of mine would assist me if they were to let me know, after looking at the page in question, what corrections they would have made. The graphs did not purport to be the IPCC’s graphs and were not labeled as such: they were plainly schematics (as was the 1990 IPCC graph); and they seem to have been drawn with the intention of demonstrating that the 1990 graph showed the medieval warm period and the little ice age and no 20th-century uptick, while the 2001 graph showed no MWP or LIA but did show a 20th-century uptick (which the squidging of the graph to make it fit the page had the effect of minimizing).
I did get the date of the 1990 graph wrong by five years because the graph was sent to me by an eminent professor who had inadvertently misdated it, and I was not able to verify it directly because the IPCC reports in question were not then online and I was a very sick man, confined to barracks and quite unable even to travel to the nearest village, let alone to the nearest university library 150 miles away. It was not until two years later that I was cured, and by then the world had moved on.
The fuss over these graphs seems to have been circulated by a particular individual with the intention of doing harm to my reputation, and not with the intention of making any legitimate or serious scientific point. But, if there is some scientific significance to whatever is thought to be wrong with the two graphs in the form in which they appeared in the Telegraph, then I should be interested to be let in on the secret of what the significance is.

Good Lord I don’t care a flying fig about your graph or chart or legal issues (or that others have brought it up – don’t care about their opinion on that topic either). I care about alternate proposals, such as Evan’s ill-prepared pre-print speculation to CO2 AGW. He is the one who put it out there for public inspection so it should be sternly critiqued and thoroughly vetted. If he can’t stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen and good riddance. In fact I dare say the same thing about myself. That I could not stand the political nature of research was a good sign I was not cut out for such a career.
As for the topic of this thread. We should be FAR more diligent on our side. If a proposal has even the scent of hiding something, or cherry picking, or guesses, or whatever, the author should be brought to task immediately and with unfettered firmness. Why? To cut through our own bias crap as oppositional voices to CO2 proposals. And you dear sir, appear to be loaded with such bias crap. Thank God for the enema immediately provided by true friends. As for a fan club pal review environment, that should be soley the love child of CO2 AGW.

Travis, it’s been way more than a week.