I’ve been reading the comments about my press release at WUWT, Bishop Hill, and at Dr. Judith Curry’s place and most have been positive. There is the usual sniping, but these aren’t getting much traction as one would expect, mainly due to the fact that there’s really not much to snipe about other than Steve Mosher’s usual whining that he wants the data, and he wants it now.
Sorry Mosh, no can do until publication. After trusting people with our data prior to publication and being usurped, not once but twice, I’m just not going to make that mistake a third time.
Some of the sniping in comments has to do with defending existing methodology for using all of the data in the surface temperature record, with warts, bumps, abscesses, and all that and expecting to be able to apply blanket algorithms to fix all those widely varied problems. The insistence that methods can fix even the most sickly data reminds me of this kind of a cure-all:
Well to be fair, it isn’t THAT bad, they design their methods with good intent, but I have always puzzled why climate science prefers to try to “cure” the data, rather than just find data that hasn’t been affected by various ills and use it. That’s basically all we have done with our new study, and yet the tendency seems to be with some, that all they need is a better miracle data tonic.
This comment at Judith Curry’s place pretty well sums up my thinking:
Yep.
I’m not sure there is much of anything said about Anthony Watts that wasn’t also said about Marie Curie. She had no recognized credentials. http://fee.org/freeman/woman-of-science/ Credentials don’t matter. Accurately describing nature matters. All humans and all human institutions can be fooled. Nature will not be fooled. Nature will prove out.
Hear, hear about credentials. An accurate, logical, factual description of what we see does not require a funny hat. Just a clear point of view and the ability to describe it. Anyone can be right or wrong, Credentials MAY indicate that the person who is talking knows that about which (s)he talks. They MAY also indicate a load of other things as well.
I suppose I should have said she initially had no recognized credentials. Regardless, the proof is in the pudding.
Anthony – Steven Mosher claims:
I wanted to post this at Judith’s blog but can’t for some reason:
A poster session presentation prior to refereed journal publication with data made available after journal publication is SOP. My research decades ago followed such a path. No sniping. No whining. Maybe because Mosher was still in diapers? This we did even in an impolite competitive atmosphere that resulted in our first submission attempt being rejected because the editor of that journal was investigating the same thing and we had a paper ready earlier than he did. So we submitted to another journal which accepted it rather eagerly. As an aging has-been one-hit-wonder researcher, the thread over at Judith’s discussing (or rather Mosher’s wanting cheese with that whine) Anthony’s poster session reminds me of toddlers arguing over a toy.
Bore repeating with emphasis. Glad you had to post it here! (for I have missed you and hoped all was well in general with you and was also eager to ask…. ?? (smile)….)
The previous one did not turn out (good thing too). However, a very nice one turned up out of the blue and has captured my heart.
HOORAY! #(:))
I wish you all the joy in the world, dear Pamela. Keep me (er, us, heh) posted! He is blessed (and, being a great guy (and intelligent enough to attract YOU), he no doubt knows that).
“Out of the blue… .” So cool. We just “never know what a day will bring forth… “.
#(:))
hmmmm.
Question. Might this be a data set that could be used to UN-adjust outlying “over-adjusted” data sets in much the same way the overly adjusted sunspot data sets were UN-adjusted?
hmmmm.
Re: requests from over-privileged coat-tail riders to get the data before it is published: Mosher should not get more gate-preference entry than any other climate scientist wanting into the party. Once the study is published, along with the requisite methods and data, I say he gets to compete with all the other scientists who want to take a crack at it and publish.
To those who are critical of “Watts et. al.” for not releasing the data before publication, (They said they would after.) can you please provide a link to Mann’s data? He published a few tree-rings ago but still seems to be hiding it.
This year’s AGU Fall Meeting seem to have been much better than the years from 2007 to 2014.
This year we hear, at least I did not nor read it, that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free next summer, or 2016, or 2018 or even any number. Looks like the Marc Serrezze, Zwally (saw them at the meeting), Mann, Jones and Hansen crowd are piping down about the oncoming, yet never to be here, climate catastrophe.
However, there was the return of the “Angry China Man on the corner” telling everyone in broken China-lish that Scientists are wrong and going to hell. The accent seemed too put on to me so I suspect he is actually an actor, or just a crazy, getting his jollies and maybe a spot on the local news.
“Swientisfts … BAD, … All wfhrong. U Go To Hell.”
But in a sense of it, Serrezze, Zwally, Mann, Jones and Hansen (shall I throw in Gore, He did appear, yes Gore lumped in too) are all wrong. Since I’m an Atheists it does not matter to me if they can find Hell or just a bar down the street.
Ha ha
WOW.
Had to Google this out:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/agu-2015-scientists-offer-latest-update-on-worsening-state-of-arctic
“The next generation may see an ice-free summer, but hopefully their descendents will see a return of more sea ice later in the century.”
GENERATION! That is about 25 years; 25 FU*KING YEARS.
Critical words: “may see”. That’s like, “If a dog wont do it, you wont see it!”
That’s a “not in hell” in a handbag!
While the Arctic, the real Arctic is doing fine and well, the AGU Cryosphere Section is burning AGU cash on the short and does not have a plan for the long. Ergo, AGU CRYOSPHERE SECTION dead in the water and when the 50-incher lobs in to the magazines at mid-ships, its all over baby! The Cryosphere Section Bismarck goes down beneath the waves of the North Atlantic and taking all of its misanthropes (Serrezze, Zwally, Jones, Mann and Gore) with it. GOOD RIDDANCE [trimmed].
Ha ha
Anthony – I am continually amazed by the arguments about the slight warming that has been happening recently.
I believe the ENSO cycles are natural cycles that have been happening millions of years. I believe the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing over the last 50 years at least partially due to man burning fossil fuels. I believe global temperatures reached a local (in time) peak in 1998 due to the natural variability from a massive El Nino. Then temperatures were pretty flat despite increasing levels of manmade CO2. Now, we are experiencing a slight run up in temperatures associated with another naturally occurring El Nino.
It seems obvious that the temperature rises we have seen in recent times are associated with naturally occurring events. The temperatures seem uncorrelated with levels of manmade CO2 levels. How can you say that manmade CO2 levels are the primary driver of changes in global temperatures?