When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking. [Geoffrey Landis]
Indeed. I made this same point after Jane/Lonny baselessly accused Layzej of "cherry-picking" when Layzej loaded all the UAH data. Jane/Lonny then suggested cherry-picking at 1998, and keeps insisting that this somehow isn't "cherry-picking".
Ironically, I even gave Jane/Lonny R code which calculates trends and accelerations of global mean sea level (GMSL) data. That graph accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5. The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets.
Again, note that this approach avoids cherry-picking by using the entire dataset. Also note that all the best-fit accelerations are positive.
Once again, that's consistent with this NOAA article:
"Sea level is rising at an increasing rate
And 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".
There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]
You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.
... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4.
Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.
... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions.
... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".
Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".
Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): buoys, CCI (satellite), and all three Argo near-SST datasets. Figure 4 subtracts all those datasets from each composite SST record, then calculates the trend. If a differenced trend includes "zero" inside its 95% confidence interval, scientists say that particular instrument's trend agrees with that particular composite SST record's trend at the 95% confidence level.
For both examined timespans, buoys and CCI agree with ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level, and disagree with all the other composite SST records. The H2008 Argo dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because it shows more warming than all composite SST records, although ERSSTv4 is the closest match. The APDRC Argo dataset agrees with ERSSTv4 and COBE-SST. The RG2009 Argo dataset (which Lonny wrongly claims they "ignored") is in fact the last dataset shown in figure 4. RG2009 agrees with all four composite SST records at the 95% confidence level. That's what Hausfather et al. meant when they said RG2009 is "more ambiguous".
Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Presumably Lonny's "new contrived data set" is ERSSTv4, which Jane/Lonny has complained about ad nauseam. Look at figure 4 again. Buoys and CCI satellite datasets agree with ERSSTv4. The Argo APDRC and RG2009 datasets agree with ERSSTv4, but they also agree with other composite SST records so those results are more ambiguous. The Argo H2008 dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because H2008 shows more warming than all of them including ERSSTv4, though ERSSTv4 is the best match.
In other words, they didn't ignore any data, and most of the data matches ERSSTv4. In fact, the RG2009 dataset which Lonny wrongly claims they "simply don't use" is "more ambiguous" precisely because it does match ERSSTv4 (and all the other tested composite SST records). The Argo H2008 dataset is the only one which doesn't have a trend matching ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level (because H2008 shows more warming than ERSSTv4) and it also shows that ERSSTv4 is a closer match than any other tested composite SST record.
That really is what they did, though. As I described. They transformed data in ways that are not 100% clear. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
No, what Lonny described really isn't what Hausfather et al. 2017 did. In fact, it's hard to imagine how Lonny's description could have been more wrong. See above. Or just read the paper to see that they didn't ignore data and made their methodology 100% clear by making their code freely available.
I find it amusing that climate scientists are prone to argue "surface temp. records are better than satellite". But then claim that the satellite record is "better" than ARGO floats. Just as they did with satellites, climate scientists crowed about their new ARGO floats. "Best thing ever." Then, just like satellites, when the new data does not fit their preconceptions, they just omit it. That has been a very noticeable pattern in the field of climate science.
... a pattern of behavior is a pattern of behavior. Always excuses to omit inconvenient data. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Again, Lonny's delusional narrative where "scientists crowed" about satellite data before "omitting" them is completely baseless. And even though he probably won't ever admit it, deep down Lonny should realize that his new delusional narrative about Hausfather et al. "omitting" data was also just shown to be completely baseless.
Again, Lonny's just projecting. Jane/Lonny previously cited ocean heat content (OHC) measurements based on Argo and satellite data until I showed him that those data doesn't support his incorrect claims that there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years. For years, Lonny has shown a pattern of behavior where he ignores the "best measure" of global warming: OHC data from Argo which reveal ~90% of Earth's added heat. Maybe Lonny omits those data because they don't fit his preconceptions?
Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".
... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?
... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate.
... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]
Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.
Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming — zero — for 18 years! [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-06]
Nonsense. The Earth continues to warm. I'd already told Jane/Lonny Eachus that his very ironic accusation is wrong. I'd even shared code and data showing that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.
But more importantly, I'd also already told Jane/Lonny that ~90% of Earth's added heat goes into ocean heat content (OHC) measured by Argo, etc. Why are Lonny Eachus and "FriendsOScience" ignoring the fact that OHC keeps rising when they keep wrongly claiming that there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years? Are they ignoring Argo data because Argo data show that Earth continues to warm, which doesn't agree with their preconceptions?
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
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.
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].
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].
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".
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.
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:
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.
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?
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?
Avoid strange women and temporary variables.
