NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 281 of 323 < 1 2 ... 279 280 281 282 283 ... 322 323 >
Topic Options
#1124847 - 05/09/2012 00:48 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654


Turn of the century drought worst in 800 years

A new scientific study indicates the turn-of-the-century drought in the North American West was the worst of the last millennium—with major impacts to the carbon cycle and hints of even drier times ahead.

The study, titled “Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America,” indicates that the major drought that struck western North America from 2000 to 2004 severely reduced carbon uptake and stressed the region's water resources, with significant declines in river flows and crop yields. It was published on July 29 in Nature-Geoscience. NSIDC scientist Kevin Schaefer is a co-author on the study, along with Christopher Williams of Clark University. The study was led by Christopher Schwalm of Northern Arizona University (NAU).

Researchers found that the turn-of-the-century drought was the most severe region-wide event of its kind since the last mega drought 800 years ago. “The turn-of-the-century drought may be the wetter end of a new climatology that would make the 21st century climate like mega-droughts of the last millennium,” said Schwalm.

Under normal climate conditions North America absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere due to plant growth, offsetting to anthropogenic carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. "Our study shows the turn-of-the-century drought reduced plant uptake by half in western North America," said Schaefer.

The current drought that has currently engulfed country is as intense in the western United States as the turn of the century drought, but also includes large portions of the Midwest and Eastern United States.

Climate models indicate drought conditions in the American West may be the new normal as the planet warms, expanding the region that is already chronically dry. “This will not only reduce carbon uptake,” says Schaefer, “but will also would trigger a whole host of significant water resource challenges in a region already subject to frequent water shortages.”

link
_________________________

Top
#1124850 - 05/09/2012 01:22 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654



Record Temperatures and Wildfires in Eastern Russia




Forests and bog land in far eastern Russia have been burning since the beginning of June 2012. Contributing to the record fires have been the record temperatures of this past summer. This summer in Siberia has been one of hottest on record. The average temperature ranged around 93 degrees Fahrenheit and there doesn't seem to be any break in the weather coming anytime soon.

The fires in eastern Russia have affected the districts of Krasnoyarsk, Tuva, Irkutsk, Kurgan, and the Republic of Khakassia. Especially hard hit is the city of Tomsk. According to official figures, over 24,000 acres of land had been burnt in Tomsk by early August. The city has been covered by heavy smog for weeks and the airport has been out of operation since the beginning of July.

Of course wildfires are devastating to any area, but ecologically this is catastrophic for this region with many rare animals living in Siberia's unique ecosystem.

So to the fires burning in Russia will have worldwide effects as the torched peat bogs whose layers consist of dead plant materials will end up releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide into the air accelerating the greenhouse effect and making the air nearly unbreathable. Record numbers of fires in the summer of 2010 drew attention to this damaging situation.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/fires/main/world/20120828-russia.html
_________________________

Top
#1124873 - 05/09/2012 08:56 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Arnost]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
"it might even prevent some overly trigger-happy and creative people from floating a conspiracy theory about how I just made up the fact of having contacted those blogs, similar to the way NASA faked the moon landing.)" This lewandowsky guy is obsessed with conspiricy theories and fake moon landings...perhaps he needs to come back down to earth with the real people!

Top
#1124903 - 05/09/2012 10:25 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003
Originally Posted By: CeeBee


Turn of the century drought worst in 800 years

A new scientific study indicates the turn-of-the-century drought in the North American West was the worst of the last millennium—with major impacts to the carbon cycle and hints of even drier times ahead.

The study, titled “Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America,” indicates that the major drought that struck western North America from 2000 to 2004 severely reduced carbon uptake and stressed the region's water resources, with significant declines in river flows and crop yields. It was published on July 29 in Nature-Geoscience. NSIDC scientist Kevin Schaefer is a co-author on the study, along with Christopher Williams of Clark University. The study was led by Christopher Schwalm of Northern Arizona University (NAU).

Researchers found that the turn-of-the-century drought was the most severe region-wide event of its kind since the last mega drought 800 years ago. “The turn-of-the-century drought may be the wetter end of a new climatology that would make the 21st century climate like mega-droughts of the last millennium,” said Schwalm.

Under normal climate conditions North America absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere due to plant growth, offsetting to anthropogenic carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. "Our study shows the turn-of-the-century drought reduced plant uptake by half in western North America," said Schaefer.

The current drought that has currently engulfed country is as intense in the western United States as the turn of the century drought, but also includes large portions of the Midwest and Eastern United States.

Climate models indicate drought conditions in the American West may be the new normal as the planet warms, expanding the region that is already chronically dry. “This will not only reduce carbon uptake,” says Schaefer, “but will also would trigger a whole host of significant water resource challenges in a region already subject to frequent water shortages.”

link




As one can see with the actual numbers, Carbon uptake is slowing.

[Exponential might be a better description].

http://s17.postimage.org/9j3ef7vlb/Net_Natural_Absorp_Human_CO2_Emis_1750.png



Top
#1124935 - 05/09/2012 12:46 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Bill Illis]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/nat...9-1226465483229


Climate plan axed to patch budget: Abbott
10 May 2012
OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott says the government's ditching of its plan to close down the dirtiest coal-fired power stations is an attempt to patch up the budget.
Energy Minister Martin Ferguson on Wednesday announced the government would not go ahead with its contract for closure process, to close down 2000 megawatts of the nation's most polluting power generation.
Mr Abbott told reporters in Bendigo it was always going to be a bad policy.
"But what we are seeing now is a government that is making it up as it goes," he said.
"I think what we have seen today from the government is a desperate attempt to patch up the budget ... to preserve the microscopic budget surplus."
He said Prime Minister Julia Gillard was showing a "general inability to manage the economy", especially the mining and energy sector.
"She just can't be trusted to manage the resources sector properly, particularly now that it's clear that the easy money days are over when it comes to the resources boom," Mr Abbott said.
Mr Abbott said his direct action plan to achieve carbon emission cuts would not involve shutting down power stations.
"We've always wanted to clean them up, not shut them down," he said.
"We've never wanted to shut down perfectly good businesses that are employing hundreds, in some cases thousands, of people."
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1124939 - 05/09/2012 12:48 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Govt breached faith on power stns: Greens

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/nat...4#ixzz25YlXJpVt

AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Christine Milne says the federal government was never really committed to closing down the nation's dirtiest power stations.
Energy Minister Martin Ferguson on Wednesday announced Labor had abandoned plans to pay some coal-fired power generators to shut down, under its so-called contract for closure program.

Mr Ferguson said the government could not be satisfied that entering into such arrangements would give value for money.

Senator Milne told reporters in Hobart on Wednesday the decision was a "breach of faith".

"It's a breach of faith with the Australian community, a breach of faith with the multi-party climate committee and it really goes against the spirit of everything we have been trying to do," she said.

Labor had put the "fox in charge of the hen house" by getting the energy minister to lead the contract for closure process.

"Martin Ferguson, I don't believe, has tried very hard at all to achieve an outcome on contracts for closure and I don't believe that in terms of the coal companies that they have tried very hard either," Senator Milne said.

"They have been through the motions."

Senator Milne, who has led the Greens' talks with Labor on carbon pricing, said the government would face an electoral backlash.

"Labor can't be trusted on the environment - it's as simple as that," she said.

The Greens have called for the Productivity Commission to review compensation to coal-fired power generators, with a view to reducing it.

"The whole point of addressing global warming through an emissions trading scheme is to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel and to renewable energy," Senator Milne said.

"Shutting down some of the dirtiest coal-fired power stations was at the heart of what we are trying to do.

"(Mr Ferguson) is clearly the minister for fossil fuels."

Senator Milne said there would also be now a "dislocation" in communities where the power stations were based.

As carbon pricing made the power stations less viable, rather than there being an "orderly transition" the communities were likely to get a shock as the plants faced commercial reality and suddenly closed.

"Instead you've got a minister who will be smiling all the way to the next coal pit," Senator Milne said.




_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1125010 - 05/09/2012 16:45 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
CoastalStorm22 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/07/2006
Posts: 2984
Loc: Lane Cove, Sydney, NSW
Arrrah, posted this in ENSO thread by mistake. Wow, i think this might be my first ever post in here!

This should get the global coolist’s and warmist’s going!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21....html?full=true
_________________________
My WX Stations

Lane Cove PWS - Dee Why PWS

Top
#1125019 - 05/09/2012 16:59 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CoastalStorm22]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
LOL CS! The tail gets burned quick smart...
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1125026 - 05/09/2012 17:24 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CoastalStorm22]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: CoastalStorm22
Arrrah, posted this in ENSO thread by mistake. Wow, i think this might be my first ever post in here!

This should get the global coolist’s and warmist’s going!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21....html?full=true


Good article and it backs up what I've been saying here all along...

Here's a graph with the average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed ( (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)



When removing these short-term effects, the warming trend has barely even slowed since 1998.
_________________________

Top
#1125027 - 05/09/2012 17:25 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CoastalStorm22]
Tom1234 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1709
Loc: Port Stephens
Originally Posted By: CoastalStorm22
Arrrah, posted this in ENSO thread by mistake. Wow, i think this might be my first ever post in here!

This should get the global coolist’s and warmist’s going!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21....html?full=true



Seems a little early to be talking of 2013 records. New Scientist from what i can see is not a great journal anyway.

Top
#1125028 - 05/09/2012 17:45 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Tom1234]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
OK all you 'experts' out there, (both sides) including the media.

1) What is your single most important piece of evidence for AGW?

2) Why did climate warm between 1910 and 1940?

3) Why did climate cool from 1940-1975? If the cause is assumed to be aerosols, also please explain the separate trends observed in the northern and southern hemispheres and compare with climate models. This asymmetry has been a puzzle for some time.

4) Why is there a step increase (temperature "jump") in 1976-77 -- and again in 2001-2002? Such jumps are not in accord with the slow, steady increase calculated by climate models.

5) Why is there no pronounced warming trend since 2002?

6) And finally, why no warming for night-time marine air temperatures, troposphere, and proxies in the last two decades of the 20th century -- in conflict with reported land-surface temperatures? Could one admit the possibility that there might be something wrong with the land-surface data used by IPCC as "evidence" for AGW?

h/t to S. Fred Singer
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1125031 - 05/09/2012 17:52 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
Tom1234 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1709
Loc: Port Stephens
http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

i recommend you read this snafu. The Australian academy of science destroys pretty much all of the deniers arguments in an easy to read format.

But they are paid to lie and you wont read it anyway......

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
Royal society also has a publication.


Edited by Enrique (05/09/2012 17:55)

Top
#1125032 - 05/09/2012 17:58 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: CeeBee]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4553
Loc: Brisbane
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: CoastalStorm22
Arrrah, posted this in ENSO thread by mistake. Wow, i think this might be my first ever post in here!

This should get the global coolist’s and warmist’s going!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21....html?full=true


Good article and it backs up what I've been saying here all along...

Here's a graph with the average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed ( (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)



When removing these short-term effects, the warming trend has barely even slowed since 1998.


I'd like to know on what basis Rhamstorf assigned values for ENSO and Solar influences. Were talking about a guy who is not even up to date on current ENSO conditions judging by his "new Scientist" effort.

That anyone could rely on him to somehow accurately isolate the solar signal in the global temperature record and account for it is laughable.

I suspect the method used by Rahmstorf was start with the global temperature trend he wanted for AGW then allocate the remaining values for the other factors to achieve the result he wanted for AGW.

Then get it pal reviewed by your closest friends in the climate science community and there you have it.
_________________________
This post and any other post by Locke is NOT an official forecast & should not be used as such. It's just my opinion & may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. For official information, refer to Australian Bureau of Meteorology products.

Top
#1125052 - 05/09/2012 19:58 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Tom1234]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Originally Posted By: Enrique
http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

i recommend you read this snafu. The Australian academy of science destroys pretty much all of the deniers arguments in an easy to read format.

But they are paid to lie and you wont read it anyway......

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
Royal society also has a publication.

Thanks for that link to a 2-year old study, (August, 2010).

According to your 'peer-reviewed paper', I can use a 10 year trend.

Why? Because it states:

Quote:
Has there been a global cooling trend since 1998?

No. 1998 was an extremely warm year but the overall warming trend has continued over the past decade. The temperature trend in any given 10-year interval (such as 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1999, or 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2007) can be determined by a standard statistical process called linear regression. Since the 1970's, decadal global temperature trends have consistently demonstrated warming in almost all such 10-year intervals, although the magnitude of the trend varies because of natural climate variability (see Box 1). The decadel temperature trends over recent 10-year intervals remain postive.


OK. Now according to The Australian Academy of Science, I can use use a 10-year trend on current temperature records, ie; 2001 - present....yes? Forget HadCRUT4, as it hasn't been updated since Dec 2010.....Why?....Who knows!

Wood for Trees - 2001 - present - (slightly more than 10 years)

In the mean time, you still haven't answered the 6 questions asked:

1) What is your single most important piece of evidence for AGW?

2) Why did climate warm between 1910 and 1940?

3) Why did climate cool from 1940-1975? If the cause is assumed to be aerosols, also please explain the separate trends observed in the northern and southern hemispheres and compare with climate models. This asymmetry has been a puzzle for some time.

4) Why is there a step increase (temperature "jump") in 1976-77 -- and again in 2001-2002? Such jumps are not in accord with the slow, steady increase calculated by climate models.

5) Why is there no pronounced warming trend since 2002?

6) And finally, why no warming for night-time marine air temperatures, troposphere, and proxies in the last two decades of the 20th century -- in conflict with reported land-surface temperatures? Could one admit the possibility that there might be something wrong with the land-surface data used by IPCC as "evidence" for AGW?


Edited by snafu (05/09/2012 20:03)
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1125059 - 05/09/2012 20:57 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: snafu]
Tom1234 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1709
Loc: Port Stephens
Nothing I or anyone else posts will change your opinion so why even bother ? This thread continues to be a snooze fest


Bury your head in the sand, it doesn't affect me one bit. Im guessing 2013/2014 IPCC report will be equally as gloomy as the last and the dreams of Liberal supporters will be shattered. It will be a fun time to view these forums grin

Top
#1125066 - 05/09/2012 21:24 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Tom1234]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics

Now not content to have had her backside ever so gently handed to her on national TV the Anna Rose thought she could change our minds is at it in again but now in print - pity is that it just sounds like so much of the same gruff she tried to pull on the show - I will be buying her book just to see how badly she does, but the following review isn't exactly a glowing recommendation and I'm not expecting too much.


A review of “Madlands: a journey to change the mind of a climate sceptic”


Anna Rose is the head of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. She visited us with Nick Minchin to film the doco “I can change your mind” and has produced a book called Madlands about the filming of the doco. Another author, David Mason Jones, has written a review and comes at this from a fairly neutral background. Anna’s approach, which is essentially an ad hom from beginning to end, punctuated with other fallacies, was evident when we met her, and sadly been amplified in her book. When they have no evidence, they attack the messenger. — Jo

Guest Post by David Mason-Jones

A review of ‘Madlands: a journey to change the mind of a climate sceptic’ by Anna Rose. Melbourne University Press. ISBN9780522861693

His site: www.journalist.com.au


Dare not peer into the forbidden room

…. and dare not speak to the unspeakable people. Dare not test the nasty taboos and dare not open the Pandora’s box labelled ‘the nature of the scientific process’. Above all, do not admit the integrity of the people on the other side of the debate in which you are involved. Instead, smear and ridicule your opponents remorselessly before looking at their arguments.

These seem to be the guiding principles of Anna Rose’s somewhat less-than-intellectual approach in her book, ‘Madlands: a journey to change the mind of a climate sceptic.’ The approach Anna takes is to turn the sceptics we are about to meet into non-persons – or persons who are easy to hate, villains. The effect of doing this is to make it easy for the reader to dismiss their arguments with hardly a thought.

Anna carefully character assassinates all the sceptical people she is about to introduce. She then gives them a fairly cursory hearing, ignores their arguments, and responds with personal attack and ridicule, appealing to the twin arguments of authority and consensus all the way.

The adjectives Anna assigns to adherents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis are; eminent, highly respected, thorough, forward thinking, moderate and polite, intellectual, diplomatic, world-renowned, progressives and mainstream. Sceptics are described with derogatory words and terms like; attack dogs, more than a touch arrogant, fringe, wackiest, plays dirty, bizarre, contrarian, nutty, abrasive, notorious, bullying, dishonourable tactics, gang, cyber bullying, sexist, curious (in a derogatory context), petulant, bitter, web of denial, ideological warriors, generating hate towards climate scientists, and warped world vision. This sets the scene for the tone of her work.


“In the inquisitions the inquisitors had to climb up into every last village, high in the mountains of France and Spain, to track down every last heretic…”

After you are only part way through the book, the set-piece use of these descriptors starts to wear thin. If you have an honest desire to read Anna’s point of view, it becomes harder and harder to do so objectively as you become aware that the writer is endlessly outlining her ‘good-versus-evil’ view of the debate.

Special vilification is reserved by Anna to demolish the character of Professor Richard Lindzen who she implies is just a nutty professor. In her terms, he is a ‘used to be’. Anna tries to malign him as an old man with the evil habit of smoking, and makes out that she even struggled to breathe. I do not know Professor Lindzen, and I have never been to his house, but I understand that while he is a smoker, he doesn’t smoke in the area where Anna was. [Editors note: Anna's attack is a measure of Lindzens influence. This is all so irrelevant to anything that matters except to note how far some people will go to vilify their opponents. It tells us all something about Anna, that when I asked Nick Minchin if Lindzen was a smoker, Minchin said he didn't know, and couldn’t recall any clues from visiting his house. Nick Minchin is a non-smoker too, he'd notice. In an email, Lindzen remarked to me that Anna seemed to be perfectly comfortable while enjoying his hospitality and that the ABC tapes would show that. Message to skeptics: video everything. It means the activists have to stay closer to the truth -- Jo]. This shameless attempt to demonize Lindzen, based on his personal habits, has little to do with the question of whether or not he is raising valid scientific objections to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Why can’t the scientific issue be discussed without maligning his personal habits? Should we all, like Anna, feel free to dismantle the credibility of other people, with whom we disagree, based on their personal habits? How far should this license go? Would Anna approve if people on either side of the debate extended her technique to other personal aspects such as; gender, age, race, sexual orientation, body shape, disability, religious affiliation or any other irrelevant characteristic? What are the intellectual processes Anna is trying to set up here?

[Editors note: Richard Lindzen is one of the top meteorologists in the world, with over 200 publications to his name, as well as awards, medals, prizes and is a member of the NAS, AAAS, AGU, AMS. He is The Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his work includes major contributions to our understanding of the Hadley Circulation, small scale gravity waves on the mesosphere, as well as atmospheric tides and oscillations in the tropical stratosphere. That he should face this kind of petty and personal attack is disgraceful. What kind of message does this send to younger, less secure scientists who doubt the IPCC dictat? There is more science, insight and good manners in one article of Richard Lindzen's than in Anna Rose's life's work. - Jo]

Some pages after that she moves on to again to demolish another character. Before we even meet Marc in the book she is already maligning him. Maybe I’m not very widely read but I have not before heard of Marc Morano. I have never visited his blog and, at the time of writing this, still haven’t. So I had no preconceived ideas about him before I read what Anna had to say. After Anna’s onslaught, however, the attitude I had to Marc was that he must be a pretty bad person. This was irrational, I know, especially given the fact that I was already suspicious of her technique of character demolition. But it shows that character assassination works! It works even with the sceptical reader. It seems to be human nature to be swayed – at least in the first instance – by the rumors and insinuations made by others about someone you don’t even know.


Originally Posted By: Jo Nova
][Editors note: I do know Marc Morano, who runs the excellent Climate Depot blog. He is ever the gentleman, polite, staunchly patriotic (without being over-the-top), has a wide grin and a warm optimistic nature. He’s a riot to be around, the life of the party, and genuinely considerate, always diplomatic, and not domineering in ways that smooth talking effusive people can sometimes be. In short, — I’d work with him any day, he’s a delight to be around, and inspiring to watch in action. A hero in his relentless quest to get the true story told. -- Jo]


The article continues and can be found here - http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/a-revie...tic/#more-23505
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1125087 - 05/09/2012 22:24 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (correcting for select temperature influences).





Foster's data sources included this other known temperature influence but they did not incorporate it into the results. I wonder why.




Edited by Bill Illis (05/09/2012 22:24)

Top
#1125148 - 06/09/2012 09:04 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Bill Illis]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Stephan Lewandowsky’s slow motion Psychological Science train wreck

Posted on September 5, 2012by Anthony Watts

(1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/st...eck/#more-70456

I’m a bit of a latecomer to this affair, as Lucia and Jo Nova took an early lead on pointing out the many problems with the survey methodology (or lack thereof) with the paper:

Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science.

“Motivated” is the key word here, as it appears there were hidden motivations for this paper. It seems though, once you scratch the surface of Lewandowsky’s paper, that it is nothing more than a journal sanctioned smear of climate skeptics based on not only faulty data, but data gathered with a built in bias.

Besides what we already know about the flawed sampling method, the lack of follow up with skeptic blogs to make sure they got communications inviting them to post the survey, and the early release of results before the survey was complete, the most troubling new revelation appears to be that some climate skeptic blogs got different questionaires than their counterpart AGW advocate blogs. If true (and it appears to be based on the survey numbering system) this negates the study on the basis of inconsistent sampling, and I think it is time to ask Psychological Science editor Robert V. Kail to investigate this paper, and if he finds what the skeptics have, start a retraction. I’ve sent him a courtesy note advising him of this issues with this paper.

Here’s a summary of what has been going on the last couple of days.

Jo Nova has a great summary here, and writes about one Australian investigator who was invited to take the survey questions two years ago, kept screen shots of it, and did an analysis. She wrote:

Graham from OnlineOpinion was so struck by the study he’s written a post titled: Fish rot from the head Part 1.
LINK - Fish rot from the head

Read it to get familiar with the survey questions.


Next there’s the who got what version of what survey problem, Jo notes this:

Leopard on the Bishop Hill thread has noted that Steve McIntyre is asking Lewandowsky why there are two or even three different forms of the survey? Why indeed?

Paul follows them up:

The Deltoid, Tamino, Mandia and Hot-Topic blogs were sent the survey number surveyID=HKMKNF_991e2415 on about August 29th. That survey is on the archive, and starts with 6 questions about free markets.

Bickmore and Few Things had the survey number surveyID=HKMKNG_ee191483 also about Aug 29, but this one doesn’t seem to be on the archive.

Steve Mc was sent survey number surveyID=HKMKNI_9a13984 on Sept 6th. This survey is on the archive, and it starts with 5 completely different questions! About how happy you are with life.


LINK Survey version 1

This right here should be enough for a retraction from the Journal. If different surveys were sent to different bloggers, and no mention of it was made in the paper or justified in the methodology, then this amounts to purposely biased data from the beginning. UWA may also find grounds for academic misconduct if Lewandowsky purposefully sent different sets of questions based on the type of blog he was inviting.

And then we have the fact that Lewandowsky was discussing preliminary results at a seminar, while the surveys were still open and he had not heard back from the skeptic blogs yet, such as the follow up invitation to Steve McIntyre. Having an open discussion of the survey is highly irregular, because attendees/viewers are free to take the survey, possibly biasing the results.

And it seems they are still at it, here’s a recent WUWT comment:

Daniel H says:

September 1, 2012 at 6:03 am

Anthony, there was recently another survey (longer, and with a 1-5 scale) put out by Lewandowsky’s research assistant, Charles Hanich, on June 4, 2012. It seems that the link for this survey was only posted on two blogs: Watching the Deniers and Skeptical Science. Charles Hanich was also responsible for creating Lewandowsky’s 2010 survey, as mentioned in the comments here.
Unfortunately, the link to the June 2012 survey is also unavailable. However, a skeptic called the “Manic Bean Counter” captured all the survey questions and dissected them on his/her blog, here.

LINK Survey version2

The following is Manic Bean Counter’s breakdown of the types of questions asked in the survey:

1. Climate Change – 5 questions
2. Genetically Modified Foods – 5 questions
3. Vaccines – Benefits and harms – 5 questions
4. Position of the Conservative / Liberal perspective (US definitions) – 7 questions
5. Select neutral (check of the software, or check for spam?) – 1 questions
6. Free market system v social justice / environment / sustainability – 5 questions
7. Conspiracy theories (political) – 6 questions
8. Conspiracy theories (scientific) – 6 questions
9. Personal Spirituality & Religion – 8 questions
10. Evolution – views upon – 7 questions
11. Corporations – 13 questions
12. Personal emotional outlook – 6 questions

The striking thing is that we have John Cook’s Skeptical Science blog listed as presenting both the original as well as the most recent survey. It as been discovered that Cook is a co-author with Levandowsky on a similar paper:


Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. (in press). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
pdf of survey

One wonders how much Cook contributed to the questions, based on his understanding of his readers likely responses. It is strange irony indeed that the paper discusses “debiasing”, when so many potential biases in Lewandowsky’s methods are clearly obvious to even the casual reader. Wikipedia even cites them for this paper in a section on “debunker“

Australian Professorial Fellow Stephan Lewandowsky[5] and John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (and author at SkepticalScience.com)[6] both warn about “backfire effects” in their Debunking Handbook.[2] Backfire effects occur when science communicators accidentally reinforce false beliefs by trying to correct them. For instance, a speaker about global warming may end up reinforcing the crowd’s beliefs that global warming is not happening.

Backfire indeed, this Lewandowsky “moon landing” paper is a full force backfire now.

Based on what I’ve seen so far, it is my opinion that Lewandowsky set out to create the survey data he wanted by manipulation of the survey system through multiple undocumented surveys, incomplete and non-representative sampling, biased survey questions, and essentially no quality control. There weren’t even significant safeguards in place to prevent individuals from taking the survey multiple times, appearing as other identities. There are so many things wrong with this paper that I can’t see it surviving intact.

I think what we have witenessed here is yet another example of noble cause corruption, where the end justifies the means in the minds of the players.

In reviewing Lewandowsky’s writings (here at The Conversation) [/i] LINK The conversation over the past couple of years, it because painfully obvious that he sees climate skeptics as a scourge to be dealt with and that even crime can be justified:

Revealing to the public the active, vicious, and well-funded campaign of denial that seeks to delay action against climate change likely constitutes a classic public good.

It is a matter of personal moral judgment whether that public good justifies Gleick’s sting operation to obtain those revelations.

I believe that Dr. Lewandowsky set out to show the world that through a faulty, perhaps even fraudulent, smear campaign disguised as peer reviewed science, that climate skeptics were, as Jo Nova puts it, “nutters”. Worse, peer review failed to catch any of the problems now in the open thanks to the work of climate skeptics.

My best advice to Dr. Lewandowsky right now is: withdraw the paper. It has become a lighting rod for everything that is wrong with team climate science today, and multiple lines of investigation are now in progress including FOI requests and demands for academic misconduct reviews at your University of Western Australia.

I can’t see any of it ending well for you given your reticence to offer supporting data or explanations.


Click the links above to go to the blogs referenced in the article.

Another 'shot myself in the mouth" attempt at discreditting sceptics. He is just as badly organised as the mob who post here under one name and I am looking forward to their take on this. My bet is that they won't/can't comment because anything they say will make the situation much worse.

I wonder when my first cheque from Big Oil will turn up?
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1125160 - 06/09/2012 10:02 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Grahame Readfearn writes about The conspiracy theories about a paper concerning conspiracy theories
Quote:

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Western Australia (UWA), is about to publish research which shows that a strong indicator of the rejection of climate science is a willingness to accept conspiracy theories.

[R]ather fittingly, no sooner had Lewandowsky's paper begun to make headlines than the world's loose, nimble and definitely-not-conspiring network of climate skeptic blogs began to construct their own conspiracies about Lewandowsky's research.

Lewandowsky's researchers also emailed five popular skeptic blogs, but none of those approached posted the link to the questionnaire.

Steve McIntyre, a long-time mining industry consultant and active climate sceptic, even encouraged blog readers to email the ethics department at Lewandowsky's university.

Once McIntyre had come down from the conclusion he had just jumped to, he later admitted that actually, he had been emailed by one of Lewandowsky's researchers after all but offered a "dog ate my homework" excuse.

Australian skeptic blogger Simon Turnill has sent a Freedom of Information request to UWA asking for Lewandowsky's emails.

Lewandowsky told DeSmogBlog:

"So now there's a conspiracy theory going around that I didn't contact them. It's a perfect, perfect illustration of conspiratorial thinking. It's illustrative of exactly the process I was analysing. People jump to conclusions on the basis of no evidence. I would love to be able to release those emails if given permission, because it means four more people will have egg on their faces. I'm anxiously waiting the permission to release this crucial information because it helps to identify people who engage in conspiratorial thinking rather than just searching their inboxes."

Lewandowsky revealed that two of the five skeptic blogs approached even replied to the email they were sent.

One stated "Thanks. I will take a look” and another asked "Can you tell me a bit more about the study and the research design?"

Perhaps an inbox search for these phrases might help some bloggers to move on from their latest conspiracy theory.

Or maybe, just maybe, the real story is that the New World Order hacked their email accounts or a CIA operative secretly dropped a memory-lapse drug into their fake moon juice?

Another example of truth being stranger than fiction.

Top
#1125163 - 06/09/2012 10:11 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: SBT]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Originally Posted By: Mike (SBT) Busby

I believe that Dr. Lewandowsky set out to show the world that through a faulty, perhaps even fraudulent, smear campaign disguised as peer reviewed science, that climate skeptics were, as Jo Nova puts it, “nutters”. Worse, peer review failed to catch any of the problems now in the open thanks to the work of climate skeptics.

You don't need peer reviewed science to see that Jo Nova is a nutter. It's plain for all the world to see...

..unless you think the Rothschilds rule the world, killed a couple of US Presidents, and control the global media and every national scientific institution on the planet.

Do you?

Top
Page 281 of 323 < 1 2 ... 279 280 281 282 283 ... 322 323 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 42 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
aussie_thunder, Davem29, Joidy, kymm, Pinhead, Steveo1, tramar
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529247 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image