Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment What's the point? (Score 1) 146

I don't know WHY Google is doing this. That description doesn't sound like it will do anything significantly better than an existing OS. QNX is a Realtime Operating System that also runs on a small hardware footprint, Android and Chromium already scale to mobile devices and desktops, what niche will this Fuschia run in?

Comment Re:This is what happens when you have (Score 1) 193

let me help. rate of sea level rise increasing. tinyurl.com/gqx9hgy [Peter Sinclair]

Nerem et al. 2011 [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-10]

Why did Lonny Eachus link to a graph showing a 3.1 mm/year global sea level trend? Since that's higher than Lonny's claimed "1.1 mm/year", doesn't that simple comparison show the rate of sea level rise is increasing (i.e. accelerating) over the long term? And since Lonny's accused scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year, why did Lonny cite a graph containing what he called a lie from a scientist he's previously called a "liar"?

Furthermore, that's not a peer-reviewed paper. It's a slide from a 2011 presentation which hasn't been turned into a peer-reviewed paper. A real skeptic might wonder why it hasn't. Hint: in 2011 Jane/Lonny briefly stopped denying satellite measurements of sea level because they showed a short term drop. Of course, scientists told Jane that this was because the 2011 La Nina caused such massive flooding that global sea level fell temporarily. See Boening et al. 2012 (PDF).

So is it really surprising that calculating sea level acceleration from 1993-2011 gave an unrepresentative answer? Especially because that's a short timespan, and detecting acceleration requires a longer timespan than just detecting a trend. Maybe we could learn why that 2011 presentation hasn't become a peer-reviewed paper by looking at that same data up to 2016.

Let's analyze that raw data (backup) from sealevel.colorado.edu (backup). Here are accelerations and uncertainties for timespans that all end at 2016.1 but start at 1993, 1994, etc. Notice the similarities between the satellite acceleration graph and the older global tide gauge acceleration graph I've shown Jane/Lonny. All the black best-fit accelerations are positive. More recent accelerations tend to be larger. (The most recent accelerations and even their red lower 95% confidence intervals are off the scale even though the upper vertical limit is twice as high as in the older graph.) This tends to suggest that not only is global sea level accelerating, it's even "jerking" up.

(Technical note: those 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a ARMA(1,1) noise model. I also tested AR(1), MA(1), ARMA(1,2), and ARMA(2,1), but ARMA(1,1) minimized both the AIC and BIC.)

let me help. rate of sea level rise increasing. tinyurl.com/gqx9hgy [Peter Sinclair]

And: kaltesonne.de/meeresspiegela... translation: translate.google.com/translate?sl=a... [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-10]

That's not a peer-reviewed paper, Lonny. It's yet another of your crackpot blog links. This time in German, so we're at the mercy of automated translation. Are you joking?

let me help. rate of sea level rise increasing. tinyurl.com/gqx9hgy [Peter Sinclair]

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/03/inc... and geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/... The studies I linked to (some indirectly) show SLR slightly DEcelerated. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-10]

Nonsense. Despite WUWT's and Lonny's distortions, Winnick and Caves 2015 doesn't even indirectly "show SLR slightly DEcelerated." Instead, Winnick and Caves 2015 directly shows that ~3 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 was roughly equivalent to today's concentration, global mean sea level was 9 - 13.5 meters higher than it is now.

2015 Updated NOAA Tide Gauge Data Shows No Coastal Sea Level Rise Acceleration wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/28/201... [WattsUpWithThat, retweeted by Lonny Eachus 2016-05-28]

Aside from other problems with that WUWT rant, it's hilarious that Lonny pretends that mainstream scientists are somehow only using "ONE beach" to study acceleration. Because that's exactly what Lonny's WUWT rant does! Lonny's WUWT rant doesn't analyze a global sea level timeseries for acceleration, instead it cherry-picks "ONE beach" at a time.

Hughes and Williams 2010 (PDF) confirms that local sealevel trends have lower signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) than global sealevel trends. This means that global trends (and accelerations) can be precisely estimated using less data than required for local trends and accelerations. They explain why: "...the global average is reducing variability by more than just statistical averaging of noise, it is genuinely reflecting the fact that much of the variability is due to redistribution of volume."

So the global ocean is sloshing around, which means that any scientist who's actually interested in sealevel rise wouldn't just cherry-pick ONE beach at a time. They'd take a global average. Why does WUWT refuse to do that?

The sea levels are now reducing in the "hotspots of acceleration" of Washington and New York wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/29/the... [WattsUpWithThat, retweeted by Lonny Eachus 2016-05-29]

Again, same story. Why do Lonny's WUWT links keep cherry-picking individual beaches? Is it because WUWTians know that a global average would have such a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that they'd have to acknowledge accelerating sealevel?

Exactly as I've been saying... "Worldwide tide gauge comparisons show no acceleration in sea level rise" wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/19/wor... [Lonny Eachus, 2016-03-19]

Again, same story. That WUWT rant refuses to analyze a global sealevel timeseries, instead cherry-picking "ONE beach" at a time. Sadly, that sort of nonsense really IS exactly what Lonny Eachus has been saying. Ironically, even the first comment on that WUWT rant points out this blatant problem.

All alarmists cite Church & White, for example... never any papers with different results. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-05]

And yet strangely, Lonny hasn't linked a paper which provides a different global sea level timeseries. Even Houston and Dean 2011 (which Jane/Lonny cited) doesn't provide a global sea level timeseries. Instead, Houston and Dean 2011 mangled and cherry-picked the timeseries from Church and White 2006. If Lonny ever finds another paper which provides a global sea level timeseries, I'd gladly help Lonny analyze that timeseries for acceleration.

The reports of sea level rise accelerating have been refuted by more recent studies. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-07]

Really? Cod Satrusayang linked this NOAA article:

"Sea level is rising at an increasing rate ... There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting. Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900. This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years."

Once again, that's consistent with the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

That's also consistent with the US NAS's statement that "Sea level is rising faster in recent decades". But instead of acknowledging all that, Lonny links to WUWT:

You can check it yourself using their data. It's all right there. PMSL data: wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/19/wor... [Lonny Eachus, 2016-03-21]

Presumably Lonny means "PSMSL" data, which was already used to create a global sea level time series: "We use monthly sea-level data downloaded from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL; Woodworth and Player 2003) web site (http://www.psmsl.org) in August 2010."

Notice that Church and White did what WUWT refuses to do: calculate a global sea level time series from PSMSL data, rather than cherry-picking measurements from one beach at a time.

Sea levels have been rising for a long time. No acceleration according to recent papers. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-06]

I'm not denying that it's rising. But the latest studies I've seen say it's steady or DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-16]

Recent papers: SLR has not accelerated. Same rate for 100s of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-10]

Recent peer-reviewed paper says sea level rise NOT accelerating. Same rate for hundreds of years. Maybe even slowing. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-23]

Nonsense. Once again, Lonny just keeps insisting these papers exist without links. Ironically, the only paper Lonny's linked which studies acceleration is Kopp et al. 2016: "... A significant GSL [global sea-level] acceleration began in the 19th century and yielded a 20th century rise that is extremely likely (probability P >= 0.95) faster than during any of the previous 27 centuries. A semiempirical model calibrated against the GSL reconstruction indicates that, in the absence of anthropogenic climate change, it is extremely likely (P=0.95) that 20th century GSL would have risen by less than 51% of the observed 13.8 +/- 1.5 cm. ..."

That's right, Lonny. You've never been able to link to papers showing "deceleration" but you did link to a paper showing acceleration!

Several recent papers show DEceleration of sea level rise, compared to past centuries. [Lonny Eachus]

You keep saying that, but you've never been able to link to papers showing "deceleration". [Dumb Scientist]

(A) I have several times. Too bad you missed them.
(B) You're blocked. Stop tweeting at me. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-04-17]

Wrong again, Lonny. Several times, you have linked incoherent WUWT rants, papers which don't show deceleration, an out-of-date presentation, and a paper which actually shows accelerating sealevel! And you just told a mother who blocked you that there's a "special place in Hell" for people like her. Aren't you the person who said this?

I will rebut anybody if I have REASON and EVIDENCE to believe they are wrong. And not apologize. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-03-14]

I make evidence-based comments about climate science. No amount of harassment or attempted coercion from you will stop me. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-03-15]

I will not stop making evidence-based comments about climate science. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-03-15]

Does Jane/Lonny Eachus really not recognize his hypocrisy? Apparently not.

Comment Re:This is what happens when you have (Score 1) 193

Perhaps you would like to rebut the Royal Society paper, that shows a DECREASE in wildfires last decades/centuries [Les Johnson, 2016-06-13]

Wow. One of Lonny Eachus's fellow travellers completely ignores everything I wrote. What a complete surprise!

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that Royal Society paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

So that paper explicitly includes "slash-and-burn cultivation" in the decreasing total area burned. Which is exactly what I told you earlier. That paper is examining all fires, both wildfires and intentional burns. Notice that they're examining charcoal records and isotope-ratio records in ice cores? Those records necessarily include intentional burns, like the "staggering amounts" of land clearing fires that occurred just in the USA over the last century. Ice core and charcoal records can't distinguish wildfires from intentional burns, but when Doerr and Santin use statistics that can tell the difference, the results aren't quite what Les Johnson is implying:

"... the widely reported increase in area burned for the USA [42] and particularly the western USA in recent decades [43–46]. ... according to national statistics for the USA, while area burned by prescribed fire has changed little overall since reporting began in 1998 (10 year average: 8853 km2), area burned by wildfires has seen an overall strong trend of increase by over 5%/yr over the period 1991–2015, with 2015 exceeding 40 000 km2 burned for the first time during the past 25 years (figure 3). This increase has been accompanied by an overall decline in the number of fires (figure 3). This suggests a general trend of fewer, but larger wildfires, which is also highlighted for forests in the western USA by Westerling for the period 1983–2012 [46]. ..."

So Doerr and Santin are actually saying that wildfires are burning more area in the western USA in recent decades. That's exactly what I said in 2012. And note that Doerr and Santin say "These statistics need to be viewed with some caution when examining trends as annual reporting methods and biases have undergone changes over time [47]."

Doerr and Santin reference 47 is Short 2015, which says:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which include intentional burns onto newer data that exclude intentional burns. So when Les Johnson repeatedly linked that graph to claim a "massive decline" in fires, what Les really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

Perhaps Les Johnson would like to rebut his own link, Pechony and Shindell 2010, when they project an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

And perhaps Les Johnson would also like to rebut his own Royal Society link, which says:

"... the observation of increasing fire season length in some areas [50], which is an important contributor to the increase in area burned during this century in the northwestern USA [43,46], boreal Canada and Alaska [51,52]. A future lengthening of the fire season is also anticipated for many other regions of the globe, with a potential associated increase of fire activity [19,53–56]. ... All else being equal, fire intensity can indeed be expected to increase with air temperature [67], and it can be deduced that areas that are experiencing higher atmospheric temperatures in the fire season associated with global warming would experience more intense fires. ... The warming climate, which is predicted to result in more severe fire weather in many regions of the globe in this century [53] will probably contribute further to both perceived and actual risks to lives, health and infrastructure. ..."

Or will Les Johnson acknowledge those statements? Since Les didn't acknowledge them the first time, it's highly unlikely. That would involve acknowledging that global warming is creating an "unprecedentedly fire-prone environment" so instead Lonny Eachus and Les Johnson simply deny their own cited sources by inventing a new "fact" that "warmer = wetter".

What's even more bizarre is that the paper Lonny cited as support actually debunks Lonny and Les's "fact"! Once again, look at Greve et al. 2014 Fig. 4c. Notice how the red, yellow and orange areas on the map represent areas that are getting drier? How could that reference possibly support Lonny and Les's "fact" that "warmer = wetter"? Perhaps Lonny and Les would like to rebut Lonny's own link?

It's almost like a warmer world has more water vapor in the atmosphere and has more rapid evapotranspiration, which exacerbates drought. But that can't be true, not if Lonny and Les's "fact" is actually a fact. Maybe Lonny Eachus and Les Johnson should read their own cited papers more carefully instead of just making up "facts".

Comment Re:Subject Change (Score 1) 499

I found the creationist tack amusing. From everything I've read about evolution you would think the 'random genetic variation' thing would be a slam dunk. Now here's Spencer saying that's not the case. Is it true? I don't know since I've never looked into it. (It's not high up on my list of interests...) But simply being open to Spencer's claim, being willing to listen and hear it out, makes me a creationist. Apparently because of the threat to science there is no room for debate. Sound familiar?

Nobody said you were a creationist. I asked if you agreed with Spencer's creationist claims. Once again, you still haven't been able to say "no". If you can eventually figure out why Spencer's creationism is anti-scientific and wrong, maybe you'll eventually be able to figure out why his similar arguments about AGW are also wrong.

Comment Re:creationist? (Score 1) 795

The bit of video I saw showed Dr Spencer arguing against genetic randomness. Maybe he believes the only other possibility is Intelligent Design? I don't know. I haven't looked into it. [GiordyS]

Ironically, GiordyS says this in response to my pointing out that Dr. Spencer has been making his "intelligent design" views public for years... and in that bit of video Dr. Spencer was repeating classic "intelligent design" arguments. "Maybe?" You still "don't know"? Seriously?

But I know nothing about competing genetic randomness theories, so my lack of surprise has nothing to do with the actual science, in case you misunderstood. (I haven't looked into it.) [GiordyS]

They're not "competing genetic randomness theories. That's the entire point. "Intelligent Design" is a supernatural "explanation" which violates methodological naturalism and therefore would destroy science if it were confused with a scientific hypothesis. If the scientific process included a "supernatural" option, it would be used on a daily basis because people (including scientists) are lazy. As I've said before, I believe that science absolutely requires naturalism for two reasons. First, supernatural explanations are compatible with any and all eventualities, therefore they are not falsifiable and do not provide unique predictions.

Second, if science allowed supernatural explanations as a legitimate recourse, they would be used far too often because we can't distinguish poorly understood natural phenomena from genuinely supernatural phenomena:

  • Laplace never would've studied the stability of the solar system, so NASA wouldn't know to put the SOHO and WMAP satellites in their respective Lagrange points.
  • The question of why atoms are stable despite the predictions of classical electrodynamics would've been answered in the same way Newton explained the solar system's stability, so quantum mechanics (along with much of modern technology) wouldn't have been discovered.
  • The precession of Mercury's orbit would've been dismissed as "Allah pushing the planet around," so we never would have discovered Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, without which GPS devices can't function accurately.
  • The missing 2/3 of solar neutrinos would've been explained as "Ra's chariot soaking up the neutrinos on their way to earth," so neutrino oscillation would never have been proposed and proven, which would cause our cosmological models (if 'science' of this kind could even lead to such models) to be inaccurate because we wouldn't know that neutrinos have a non-zero rest mass.
  • Cosmic rays with energies above the GZK limit are currently unexplained. Should we bother looking for a naturalistic explanation, or just say they're "Jesus particles"?
  • Should we continue to try to quantize gravity, or announce that the obvious impossibility of such a feat is proof that the universe contains a message from its Intelligent Designer?

If you think that any of these examples are silly, exactly how are they different from Intelligent Design? I'd really like to know.

And I would absolutely not be surprised IF there was contradictory evidence to "genetic randomness" that is simply ignored or dismissed out of hand. Because that's how people behave, and how you are behaving when you ignore and dismiss all the evidence that shows Cooks paper is complete garbage, regardless of whether his results happen to be consistent with other papers. Integrity of method is more important than producing "correct" results. [GiordyS]

Again, your accusations about Cook's paper are completely baseless, and especially ironic given your repeated links to Tol 2014.

Do you really not understand how allowing contradictory "evidence" of Dr. Spencer's supernatural "explanation" into a scientific investigation would destroy science?

But I won't be surprised if that doesn't stop you from trying to paint me as a "neo-creationist" or whatever. Because that's how people behave. [GiordyS]

You dismissed the scientific consensus on AGW because of a few individuals' claims, so I'm asking if you think we should similarly dismiss the scientific consensus regarding evolution because of Dr. Spencer's creationist claims. You haven't answered "no" so far, which would be the easiest way to avoid being "painted" as a neo-creationist. It's important because answering this question might help you distinguish a fringe, unscientific view from the mainstream scientific consensus. If you can recognize the scientific consensus regarding evolution, maybe one day you'll also be able to recognize the scientific consensus regarding AGW.

As to the graph I posted by Spencer, what if it's accurate? What then?? Will you become a creationist? https://climateaudit.org/2016/... [GiordyS]

It's funny that you ask this ridiculous question in response to my once again explaining that intelligent design is certainly not scientific. It's also strange that Dr. Spencer and his fans keep ignoring ~90% of Earth's added heat by ignoring rising ocean heat content in favor of myopically cherry-picking a few percent of Earth's added heat as though that's somehow more important than the ~90%.

Furthermore, I've already explained that confusion regarding baselines makes me think that plotting the trends and error bars is better than plotting the timeseries with an "ideal" baseline. Since the trend is the time derivative of the original timeseries, the constant baseline is irrelevant. That removes at least one degree of freedom from (presumably) unintentional cherry pickers.

It seems much safer to plot the trends and uncertainties. This may help a real skeptic see that modeled and observed temperature trends are indistinguishable within uncertainties that account for auto-correlated noise.

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

More to the point, you also said (after listening to Dr. Roy Spencer endorse the "theory of creation" over evolution) "I wouldn't be surprised if there is contradictory evidence that is simply ignored or dismissed because it challenges orthodox views. Scientists are human beings after all."

You were responding to a video where Senator Whitehouse asked Roy Spencer "And do you still believe that the Theory of Creation actually has a much better scientific basis than the Theory of Evolution, to be specific?"

Dr. Spencer replied: "I think, I think I could be put into a debate with someone on the other side and I think I could give more science supporting that life is created than they could support, with evidence, that life evolved through natural random processes, so yes."

Dr. Spencer has been making his "intelligent design" views public for years before GiordyS cited him for his climate contrarian views.

And once GiordyS finds out about Dr. Spencer's creationist views, he says "I wouldn't be surprised if there is contradictory evidence that is simply ignored or dismissed because it challenges orthodox views. Scientists are human beings after all."

As I've explained, intelligent design is certainly not scientific. But to return to my original point with this analogy, should I ignore all that evidence just because GiordyS's source Dr. Spencer is a creationist?

Comment Re: 10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

Interesting that you are so quick to dismiss contradictory evidence. The AMS survey is evidence that does not support the notion of a vast scientific consensus. And it is better than Cooks work since it does not depend on activist raters who break anonymity and blindness. [GiordyS]

Again, that's complete nonsense. 57% of those AMS survey respondents don't consider themselves experts in climate science. Again, if you had a question about heart surgery, would you actually ignore a survey of 77 actively practicing heart surgeons in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents say they're not heart surgery experts?

What part of "the authors rated their own full papers" are you not understanding? How would all your supposed problems with "activist raters" affect the authors' self-ratings? And didn't you notice that your bizarre accusations were already addressed in error 5 here?

T14 uses as a basis for this argument an excerpt from stolen private forum discussions (Lacatena, 2014) which is quoted out of context. Discussion of the methodology of categorising abstract text formed part of the training period in the initial stages of the rating period. When presented to raters, abstracts were selected at random from a sample size of 12,464. Hence for all practical purposes, each rating session was independent from other rating sessions. While a few example abstracts were discussed for the purposes of rater training and clarification of category parameters, the ratings and raters were otherwise independent. This was discussed in C13;

"While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves."

Independence of the raters was important to identify uncertainties based on interpretation of the rating criteria, but had little bearing on the final conclusion. Indeed, the conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the vast majority of rater disagreements were between no position and endorsement categories; very few affected the rejection bin.

In Cooks paper, social sciences papers such as a public survey looking at "Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage" were considered climate science literature that endorsed consensus. [GiordyS]

Again, so you disagree with ratings given to some of the 11,944 abstracts. Given the large sample, that's almost inevitable. Here are all 11,944 abstract ratings. Change the ratings on whichever ones you think are wrong, then recalculate the consensus. If the new number is sufficiently different, and your re-ratings are reasonable, you might actually be able to publish your re-analysis. But I suspect that reasonable changes would only have minor effects on the consensus, because any of these supposed problems with the raters wouldn't affect the authors' ratings of their full papers. When you change the ratings, you should also email the authors to see if they agree with your new ratings, like Cook et al. 2013 did.

Knowing the above I'm not sure how anyone can defend that paper. Maybe they are so happy with the results they don't care how they got them? Is that how science is supposed to work? [GiordyS]

Again, it's astonishing that you keep baselessly accusing NASA and other scientists of being "so happy with the results they don't care how they got them" while at the same time citing Tol 2014, a paper which fails to list even a single example of the extra ~300 rejection abstracts Tol claims exists.

And again, it's clear that you're just interested in continually insinuating dishonesty on the part of Cook et al. Nobody will ever be able to convince you otherwise. So forget Cook et al. 2013. Why do you keep ignoring the similar conclusion of Anderegg et al. 2010? It's interesting that you are so quick to dismiss contradictory evidence.

It is worthless for determining what is relevant in this debate: whether there is a consensus that most warming is human caused and whether it is potentially dangerous. [GiordyS]

Again, since they show all their results in Fig. 1, and over 30% of the general public answered "no" to that question, it's not clear how Doran and Zimmerman 2009 was "worthless". Their survey revealed that even using such a broad definition, the general public has been grievously misled. Possibly by compulsive contrarians who don't have any real expertise, but who nevertheless have fun baselessly accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud.

OK, 3146 scientists were surveyed. To get their 97% figure they only used 77 of those respondents. We both understand that. So would you consider it dishonest if someone were to use the Doran study to assert that 97% of all scientists agree that warming is primarily human and dangerous? [GiordyS]

Who's saying this stuff? Are you absolutely sure that person is relying on the Doran study and only the Doran study? If so, that person needs to read the Doran study.

Are you back to objecting to Doran and Zimmerman taking an expert sub-sample of their data, or are you able to also simultaneously object to Cook not taking an expert sub-sample of their Web of Science results? Do you see that you're regurgitating "tails I win, heads you lose" style nonsense?

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

A poster above (arguing for the consensus position btw) posted a recent survey that indicates only 67% of AMS members believe that a majority of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. That's not a consensus. https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.... [GiordyS]

Answered here.

Hey, point me to a good study that shows that "published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role". I'll read it and get back to you. [GiordyS]

You failed to answer yes or no, but your response seems to suggest that you actually are arguing with the results of John Cook's paper. Despite the fact that you insisted you weren't. So let's try again. Do you agree with Richard Tol when he says this?

"The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not." [Richard Tol]

Note that Richard Tol explicitly states this is "something everyone knows." Do you agree with Richard Tol's statement? Yes or No?

Comment Re: 10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

67% is not a consensus. [GiordyS]

Are you referring to the same AMS survey where 57% of the respondents say on page 24 that they don't consider themselves experts in climate science?

A poster above (arguing for the consensus position btw) posted a recent survey that indicates only 67% of AMS members believe that a majority of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. That's not a consensus. https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.... [GiordyS]

That was me. Why do you seem to think that survey is a good way to estimate the scientific consensus on AGW among experts in the subject?

Estimating the scientific consensus on AGW can be performed repeatedly and independently by surveying peer-reviewed scientific abstracts which state a position about whether humans caused most of the global warming since 1950. Cook et al. 2013 (C13) did this.

Another method of estimating the scientific consensus is to email the scientists who write those peer-reviewed papers and ask if their paper(s) endorse AGW. C13 did this, but it can't be repeatedly indefinitely because the authors would eventually stop answering. One might also search for statements by those authors, to avoid self-selection bias caused by some authors not responding to emails. Anderegg et al. 2010 did this.

Why do you keep ignoring those estimates in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents explicitly don't consider themselves experts in climate science? If you had a question about heart surgery, would you actually ignore a survey of 77 actively practicing heart surgeons in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents say they're not heart surgery experts?

However, the evidence I've seen regarding consensus is mixed. I've seen some worthless studies - one "97%" survey only surveying~75 scientists and asking a near worthless question... [GiordyS]

Good grief. I've already explained that Doran and Zimmerman 2009 surveyed 3146 scientists, and reported all those results in their figure 1. I also already explained that their question wasn't "worthless". I also already explained that Doran and Zimmerman examined the most expert subset: 79 scientists "who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change".

Again, if you surveyed doctors about a topic involving heart surgery and only 77 out of 3145 of those doctors were actively practicing heart surgeons, wouldn't you be more interested in what those experts have to say?

But it's interesting that GiordyS doubles down on his objection to Doran and Zimmerman using an expert subset of their sample. Keep that in mind.

... I've recently seen a paper that only shows ~65% agreement among AMS members for example. [GiordyS]

Since only 37% of those AMS survey respondents consider themselves experts in climate science, that's consistent with figure 1 in Cook et al. 2016 which shows the AGW consensus is lower among samples having less expertise in climate science.

So yeah, I question the value of former cartoonist "I am not a scientist" John Cook's dubious paper claiming a vast scientific consensus, when clearly agreement among AMS members is only at ~65%. That's just one example of contradictory evidence. You respond to this contradictory evidence by immediately dismissing the views of AMS members as irrelevant. Don't let inconvenient facts get in your way! [GiordyS]

It might be interesting to see the subset of answers for the 37% of those AMS members who do consider themselves to be experts, but it would also be helpful to cross-check against an independent metric like the total number of climate-related publications and total citations for those papers, like Anderegg et al. 2010 did.

Meanwhile a paper studying "United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change" and a survey looking at "Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage" are considered climate science literature that endorses consensus. You don't need expert domain knowledge to see that a) Cook stated that social science research and surveys were not to be included and b) they included social science research and public surveys anyway. Please show me respected climatologists defending such actions. [GiordyS]

So you disagree with ratings given to some of the 11,944 abstracts. Given the large sample, that's almost inevitable. Here are all 11,944 abstract ratings. Change the ratings on whichever ones you think are wrong, then recalculate the consensus. If the new number is sufficiently different, and your re-ratings are reasonable, you might actually be able to publish your re-analysis. But I suspect that reasonable changes would only have minor effects on the consensus, because any of these supposed problems with the raters wouldn't affect the authors' ratings of their full papers. When you change the ratings, you should also email the authors to see if they agree with your new ratings, like Cook et al. 2013 did.

since when are social scientists (who are included in Cook's 97% figure) climatologists? Since when are public surveys considered climate science literature? AMS members are a lot closer to 'climatologists' than many of the scientists he includes in Cook's 'consensus' paper. [GiordyS]

Remember that GiordyS just doubled down on his objection to Doran and Zimmerman using an expert subset of their sample? This time, GiordyS is objecting because Cook et al. didn't take an expert subset of the full sample of papers returned by their Web of Science search. It's "tails I win, heads you lose" once again.

Furthermore, given that 57% of those surveyed AMS members don't consider themselves experts in climate science, wouldn't GiordyS only have a point if 57% of the scientists and papers included in Cook's 'consensus' paper were social scientists and public surveys? Since 57% of 11,944 abstracts is 6808, GiordyS only has to find 6,808 public surveys in the abstract ratings.

The little graph you keep posting from their activist blog shows their paper got it wrong 62% of the time?? Is that supposed to be a defense?? [GiordyS]

The authors were rating their full papers, while the Cook et al. raters were only rating the abstracts. Since the two ratings are actually measuring different things, they're not expected to be exactly the same because an abstract contains less information than the full paper. As I've explained, most scientists don't see the need to include obvious information in the abstract, but many try to include background information in their papers' introductory sections.

More importantly, the fact that more authors gave their full papers higher endorsements of AGW than the Cook et al. abstract ratings really should make you reconsider all your bizarre accusations. Again, isn't it strange that all your supposedly "atrocious" and "misleading" rater problems actually caused the Cook et al. raters to underestimate the consensus rate compared to the authors' self-ratings?

Read error 5:

T14 uses as a basis for this argument an excerpt from stolen private forum discussions (Lacatena, 2014) which is quoted out of context. Discussion of the methodology of categorising abstract text formed part of the training period in the initial stages of the rating period. When presented to raters, abstracts were selected at random from a sample size of 12,464. Hence for all practical purposes, each rating session was independent from other rating sessions. While a few example abstracts were discussed for the purposes of rater training and clarification of category parameters, the ratings and raters were otherwise independent. This was discussed in C13;

"While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves."

Independence of the raters was important to identify uncertainties based on interpretation of the rating criteria, but had little bearing on the final conclusion. Indeed, the conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the vast majority of rater disagreements were between no position and endorsement categories; very few affected the rejection bin.

Here's a peer reviewed critique from Richard Tol: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... [GiordyS]

That's the one where Richard Tol says: "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."

I gave you a peer reviewed critique by an IPCC author and that wasn't good enough to raise any doubts or questions. Peer review is apparently only useful when it produces 'correct' results. [GiordyS]

I raised my doubts and questions about Tol's peer reviewed critique after he claimed the existence of ~300 extra rejection abstracts. Richard Tol simply refused to list the extra ~300 rejection abstracts his paper claimed exist.

And of course Richard Tol is not to be trusted, even though he apparently agrees with the *result* and is criticizing the method... http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... [GiordyS]

Richard Tol is not to be trusted until and unless he either lists the extra ~300 rejection abstracts he claims exists, or he retracts that claim. (To the extent that scientists trust anyone, that is.)

Here is Richard Tol's response to that: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.en... [GiordyS]

Note that Richard Tol's response still doesn't include a single example of his ~300 gremlin-conjured rejection abstracts.

Someone dismissed Judith Curry's views because she wrote about it in her blog. Imagine that: dismissing Judith Curry as a mere 'blogger' when defending a paper written by... a mere blogger. Unbelievable. [GiordyS]

When Judith Curry publishes these views in a peer-reviewed journal (like Cook et al. did) then scientists will be more inclined to read those peer-reviewed views. Curry's blog, however, is a cesspool of ignorance. For example, after years of arguing that scientists don't agree closely about the causes of Earth's warming, Curry just wrote on her blog that:

"I think the Brumbergs are correct to conclude: 'In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the [causes of the] earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for [human caused] global warming.'"

I was going to explain how Curry's self-contradictory "tails I win, heads you lose" nonsense was wrong, but then I realized that anyone who seriously cites Curry's blog probably wouldn't be able to understand why Curry is wrong here anyway. If Curry ever tried to publish this nonsense, it wouldn't get through peer review. That's why I ignore Curry's blog, but I would read her response if it were actually peer-reviewed.

Cooks paper is atrocious but people want to push this idea of consensus so I guess it gets a free pass. It seems warmists are blinded by bias: they can't pick out a horribly rotten apple sitting right on top. So how can we trust them to get anything right? They can't see clearly. [GiordyS]

But I'm more interested in the quality of the paper making this 97% claim. Unfortunately it seems global warming activists, scientists, and even NASA (!) will endorse really, really bad papers as long as they produce the 'correct' results. It's a travesty. [GiordyS]

It's tragicomedy to see people line up to support horrendously bad studies simply because they reach the 'correct' conclusions. This sort of uncritical acceptance of anything which supports your 'side' while rejecting anything critical, no matter how well thought out, is actually helping climate deniers gain support and momentum. [GiordyS]

You on the other hand are giving a free pass to an atrociously bad paper because you agree with the results. And so are many scientists. [GiordyS]

So the question is: how can you keep defending such a paper? [GiordyS]

Apparently alarmists will defend crap science as long as it produces 'correct' results. [GiordyS]

How ironic. GiordyS repeatedly accuses NASA and other scientists of endorsing "really, really bad papers as long as they produce the 'correct' results" while GiordyS simultaneously cites Tol 2014, a paper which fails to list even a single example of the extra ~300 rejection abstracts Tol claims exists.

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

In other words: I picked the numbers that most strongly weaken my argument, and still came out with a strong argument.

No, I already told you that your "strong argument" simply doesn't make sense. For instance:

No mention of how many rejected, how many expressed uncertainty, and how many expressed that their paper was not about AGW. There's also the fact that 34.9% of RESPONDENTS claimed no position themselves on AGW, which is really hard to do if you're a climate scientist unless you're uncertain.

Your argument isn't "strong". It's based on a fundamental misconception. The "RESPONDENTS" didn't claim "no position themselves on AGW". They rated the position stated by their paper, not their own position. Your supposedly "strong arguments" are filled with simplistic "mistakes" like this.

You're trying to use a fallacy of equivocation: I said "bias" to indicate that one method of analysis favors a position more than another, and you're repeating "bias" to say "lies and damned lies to support a pre-conceived outcome." Maybe learn not to be a deceptive, dishonest asshole?

Charming. It's fascinating that you baselessly accuse me of saying "lies and damned lies to support a pre-conceived outcome" when I never said that, then baselessly call me a deceptive, dishonest asshole. You're almost as charming as Jane/Lonny Eachus.

You completely ignored my rebuttal, and simply flung a new set of accusations.

Your rebuttle was to claim those papers weren't relevant. I responded by pointing out that Cooke excluded them because they didn't take a direct position, even though they were relevant. In other words: you said, "They weren't about that!", and I said, "Yes they were; they just didn't have a yes/no conclusion." Again: you're lying to try to dodge the argument, and you're trying to poison the well by making false claims about the context of the debate.

Once again, you're baselessly accusing me of lying. How charming. You've also failed once again to quote anything I actually said, while putting quotation marks around words I never said. Here's what I actually said:

Really? Are you absolutely sure that those peer-reviewed papers didn't just have "global climate change" or "global warming" as keywords? Because that's how C13 actually selected their sample.

You seem to be incorrectly saying that every single paper which includes those keywords is an attribution study. If you were correct, you'd be able to provide 7,930 abstract quotes saying "we don't know whether global warming is caused primarily by human activities". Is it even remotely possible that those 7,930 papers just weren't attribution studies?

Try to use your approach to estimate the consensus on plate tectonics or evolution. Are abstracts which don't explicitly state that they agree with those theories actually saying "we don't know"? If that's really your position, you must also not think there's a scientific consensus about plate tectonics or evolution.

Note that I actually asked if it was even remotely possible that those 7,930 papers just weren't attribution studies. Perhaps you can't quote my actual words because you'd have to explain why you can't provide 7,930 abstract quotes saying "we don't know whether global warming is caused primarily by human activities".

Maybe if you spent a little less time complaining about women, you'd have more time to provide those 7,930 abstract quotes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

Working...