The RC open thread.
With a reminder that this is not a dumping ground for anything under the sun, but is rather for discussing climate science topics that don’t fit neatly into ongoing discussions.
from 348, I have tentatively pinpointed the single cloud with thousands of lightning, it was near by, within 12 km. Yet no sound. Absolutely captivating. Lightning subject appears to be highly specialized, I have yet to find cogent explanation of a single cloud being so active when others near by were not.
Scottsays
Given its criticism of current climate models, I suspect the following will soon become a favourite skeptic paper. Neither of the authors are climatologists (but that’s usually the case with skeptic papers). Does anyone have any comments?
R. Fildes and N. Kourentzes, Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change, Working Paper
[Response: Actually it isn’t that terrible. They clearly spent more time trying to understand the science than previous forecasting researchers and they do a reasonably constructive job of trying to see whether you can improve on climate model projections. They slip up a little in mixing up decadal intialized predictions with the wider climate model enterprise but it is a reasonable first effort. (Published version is here). – gavin]
1.Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sensing, 2011; 3 (8): 1603 DOI: 10.3390/rs3081603
Maybe he’s right, but he doesn’t have an oustanding track record. I’ll leave it to the more saavy to figure out.
> fildes
Scott, PielkeSr blogged about it a couple of months ago; Scholar doesn’t find anybody’s cited it; could they confuse climate models with forecasts?
Particularly good job of making the obvious obvious on the part of one commenter Wayne Kernochan.
These two articles are being hawked by triumphalist fake skeptics everywhere they can broadcast it.
Oh for reporters who could at least spot that the fix is in!
Susan Andersonsays
In addition, it appears that Dr. Monnett is one good scientist (those people we can ill spare) is being prevented from getting on with his job.
J Bowerssays
After reading the transcript of the interview between Monnett and the investigators it seems to me, because there was no log of dead polar bears prior to 2004, and the assertion that there were no dead polar bears prior to then is based on the recollections of observers rather than a data entry “We saw no dead polar bears” (the investigators keep on that issue for quite a while with words like “Stretching it a bit”), the allegations could be that any assertion of no dead bears prior to 2004 is scientific malfeasance because it is not based on computer entries. But it’s enough that they make the accusation, the investigation happens, and the opportunity is given to smear the scientists involved.
Robert Murphysays
After reading the transcript with Monnett, I’m reminded of the Abbot and Costello skit “Who’s On First?”. The interviewer had a tough time understanding the difference between 4 total dead bears sighted and the 3 used for the transects calculation. As far as not reporting not seeing drowned polar bears before 2004, why would they? Were they to report every animal they did *not* see drowned, along with the wind conditions at the time of each non-event? If there is a case against Monnett relating to scientific integrity, it sure wasn’t made in the interview. Maybe we should start calling him Charles M. in honor of the Kafkaesque character of this investigation os far.
“CHARLES M.: What’s that mean, just that it’s not criminal or something?
ERIC MAY: That’s correct
CHARLES M.: Right, and you’re going to, you’re going to investigate, uh, the details of our science…
ERIC MAY: Based on the allegations that we received. That’s correct.
CHARLES M.: Okay, and, and just so I know how to put my answers, do you have scientific credentials of any sort?
ERIC MAY: No, we’re criminal investigators.”
Montreal July 21 lightning cloud without sound is probably going viral on the internet. Due to that, there are many videos available. Some are very close to it. Again most exhibit no sound just thousands of bolts. There is highly likely a very cool explanation for the lack of sounds, but the UFO sites are picking up on it.
‘Non-scientific’ integrity issues? The political nonsense continues.
I find it very reassuring that government scientists are allowed and encouraged to speak and publish on whatever they want. For example, the nonsense that Spencer publishes is great confirmation that climate change science is strong and well-founded.
from 348, I have tentatively pinpointed the single cloud with thousands of lightning, it was near by, within 12 km. Yet no sound. Absolutely captivating. Lightning subject appears to be highly specialized, I have yet to find cogent explanation of a single cloud being so active when others near by were not.
Given its criticism of current climate models, I suspect the following will soon become a favourite skeptic paper. Neither of the authors are climatologists (but that’s usually the case with skeptic papers). Does anyone have any comments?
R. Fildes and N. Kourentzes, Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change, Working Paper
http://nikolaos.kourentzes.com/papers/Climate_Fildes_Kourentzes.pdf
[Response: Actually it isn’t that terrible. They clearly spent more time trying to understand the science than previous forecasting researchers and they do a reasonably constructive job of trying to see whether you can improve on climate model projections. They slip up a little in mixing up decadal intialized predictions with the wider climate model enterprise but it is a reasonable first effort. (Published version is here). – gavin]
Spencer is at it again: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110729031754.htm
Journal Reference:
1.Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sensing, 2011; 3 (8): 1603 DOI: 10.3390/rs3081603
Maybe he’s right, but he doesn’t have an oustanding track record. I’ll leave it to the more saavy to figure out.
> fildes
Scott, PielkeSr blogged about it a couple of months ago; Scholar doesn’t find anybody’s cited it; could they confuse climate models with forecasts?
Scientist toast, bears to roast? h/t Neven
Sadly, in addition to the Spencer distractionalist fakery (fakiry) mentioned above, this:
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/07/arctic-scientist-suspended.html
Particularly good job of making the obvious obvious on the part of one commenter Wayne Kernochan.
These two articles are being hawked by triumphalist fake skeptics everywhere they can broadcast it.
Oh for reporters who could at least spot that the fix is in!
In addition, it appears that Dr. Monnett is one good scientist (those people we can ill spare) is being prevented from getting on with his job.
After reading the transcript of the interview between Monnett and the investigators it seems to me, because there was no log of dead polar bears prior to 2004, and the assertion that there were no dead polar bears prior to then is based on the recollections of observers rather than a data entry “We saw no dead polar bears” (the investigators keep on that issue for quite a while with words like “Stretching it a bit”), the allegations could be that any assertion of no dead bears prior to 2004 is scientific malfeasance because it is not based on computer entries. But it’s enough that they make the accusation, the investigation happens, and the opportunity is given to smear the scientists involved.
After reading the transcript with Monnett, I’m reminded of the Abbot and Costello skit “Who’s On First?”. The interviewer had a tough time understanding the difference between 4 total dead bears sighted and the 3 used for the transects calculation. As far as not reporting not seeing drowned polar bears before 2004, why would they? Were they to report every animal they did *not* see drowned, along with the wind conditions at the time of each non-event? If there is a case against Monnett relating to scientific integrity, it sure wasn’t made in the interview. Maybe we should start calling him Charles M. in honor of the Kafkaesque character of this investigation os far.
“CHARLES M.: What’s that mean, just that it’s not criminal or something?
ERIC MAY: That’s correct
CHARLES M.: Right, and you’re going to, you’re going to investigate, uh, the details of our science…
ERIC MAY: Based on the allegations that we received. That’s correct.
CHARLES M.: Okay, and, and just so I know how to put my answers, do you have scientific credentials of any sort?
ERIC MAY: No, we’re criminal investigators.”
Scienceblogger Greg Laden has a couple of recent posts on AGW, e.g. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Deniers are spewing familiar nonsense in the comments, and the realists can use some help.
BTW, I love the instant preview of my comment!
re Monnet suspension: Appears it’s not to do with “scientific misconduct” [political misconduct?] See this and links within
> 360 Mal Adapted says: 30 Jul 2011 at 11:13 AM
> Scienceblogger Greg Laden
You should read Gavin’s comment about Laden’s blog post rather than encouraging people to pile on:
https://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=8353#comment-211772
Montreal July 21 lightning cloud without sound is probably going viral on the internet. Due to that, there are many videos available. Some are very close to it. Again most exhibit no sound just thousands of bolts. There is highly likely a very cool explanation for the lack of sounds, but the UFO sites are picking up on it.
Ya I post the most interesting links, those with identifiable locations…. More to come…
http://eh2r.blogspot.com/
‘Non-scientific’ integrity issues? The political nonsense continues.
I find it very reassuring that government scientists are allowed and encouraged to speak and publish on whatever they want. For example, the nonsense that Spencer publishes is great confirmation that climate change science is strong and well-founded.
I don’t find this link posted previously at RC, though I think it’s been mentioned — current state of the oceans:
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf
Hat tip to: https://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/requiem-for-the-sea-state-of-the-seas-report-concludes-negative-changes-to-the-oceans-exceed-ipccs-worst-case-scenarios/