Extreme weather events

[a_unique_person]

One of the common complaints of Shanek and others is that every bit of extreme weather is associated with global warming. Here is an article on the CSIRO and it's explanation of extreme weather events in Melbourne, Australia.

I experienced the one in 1989. Here we were in hot, Australian Melbourne, (as opposed to winter Melbourne). And what did we get, hail, rain and flooding, totally out of character for Melbourne in summer. It looked like a "White Christmas", (I can dig out the photos if you want), in the middle of an Australian summer.

Fair enough, I thought, that is a one in 1/100 year weather event. Only 14 years later, we have another 1/100 year weather event. Looks like we will have to reconsider what we think is 1/100 year weather events.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/05/1070351790490.html?from=storyrhs



CSIRO has predicted that there will be an increase in extreme events in Australia, with coastal areas particularly vulnerable.

Tuesday night's storm wasn't Melbourne's first example of extreme weather. There were similar storms in the inner bayside in 1989 and in the CBD in 1972. And in 1891, two days of rain caused the Yarra to swell to 305 metres wide and rise 14 metres.

Natural climate variability has always been the main villain behind extreme weather, but now there is another - global warming. Tuesday's storm hit Melbourne on the day that the Kyoto treaty, designed to cut greenhouse gases, reached a new crisis point.

By 2100, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, greenhouse emissions will warm the earth by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees, melting some of the polar caps and increasing the sea level by nine to 88 centimetres.

CSIRO has modelled what effect this will have on Australia's weather by 2030 and 2070. For most parts of the country, annual rainfall is tipped to decrease - by 2070, for example, Victoria is predicted to have one-eighth less annual rainfall. But paradoxically, instances of extreme weather and rainfall are likely to increase.

"Even in areas where the rainfall does decrease slightly, we still find there's an increase in the frequency of extreme events," said Debbie Abbs, of CSIRO's atmospheric research division.

[Shane Costello]

Natural climate variability has always been the main villain behind extreme weather, but now there is another - global warming.

Mightn't global warming itself be symptomatic of natural climate variability?

[bug_girl]

The problem is, the only way to definitively answer that question is to let the experiment (increasing CO2 in atmosphere) run out to conclusion.

and if the predictions of the VAST MAJORITY of climate models are correct, then we will be really and truely screwed.

on the other hand, if we act prudently, and try to stop the use of fossil fuels and switch to more sustainable fuels (which is a good idea for a lot of other reasons than climate), we might not be screwed.

So, do you feel lucky?;)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by bug_girl
The problem is, the only way to definitively answer that question is to let the experiment (increasing CO2 in atmosphere) run out to conclusion.

and if the predictions of the VAST MAJORITY of climate models are correct, then we will be really and truely screwed.

on the other hand, if we act prudently, and try to stop the use of fossil fuels and switch to more sustainable fuels (which is a good idea for a lot of other reasons than climate), we might not be screwed.

So, do you feel lucky?;)
Oh my, it's Pascal's wager!

[BobK]

High-resolution images snapped by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor show that levels of frozen water and carbon dioxide at the Red Planet's poles have dwindled dramatically — by more than 10 feet — over a single Martian year (equivalent to 687 days or about two Earth years).
ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/mars011207.html)

I suppose Mars is suffering from athropogenic global warming too?

[BobK]

From AUP's link...
n NSW and Queensland, "we estimate that severe rainfall events may become up to 30 per cent more intense and occur more frequently". She said increases in extreme weather were likely for Victoria but this had not been modelled. Coastal areas will be particularly vulnerable to flooding - not so much from drains overwhelmed by rain, but by storm surges associated with a higher sea level. "On average a storm that would normally be expected every 100 years would hit every 40 years if sea levels rise by 40 centimetres," Dr Abbs said. Towns such as Cairns and Darwin would be hardest hit because cyclone speeds and rainfall were tipped to increase. "The community will be more vulnerable to these changes as increasing numbers of people move to the coast," she said. CSIRO's modelling assumes global warming will continue. Whether it does may depend on whether the Kyoto protocol is ratified.
Bold is mine.

No definite science there.

Might not CSIRO be trying to promote a position that would get them further funding?

edit to add...
Similar words as my bold are in AUP's quoted portion of the article.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by BobK
High-resolution images snapped by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor show that levels of frozen water and carbon dioxide at the Red Planet's poles have dwindled dramatically — by more than 10 feet — over a single Martian year (equivalent to 687 days or about two Earth years).


ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/mars011207.html)

I suppose Mars is suffering from athropogenic global warming too?

For even beginning to suggest that there is any similarity between Mars and Earth, you receive the "Gun Lobby Apples and Oranges Award" for December. Congratulations, no one has ever won this award in the first week of a month ever.

When you've finished basking in the glory of acquiring your prize, you might want to brush up on your astronomy skills. Awards are nice, but they're no substitute for knowledge.

[bug_girl]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Oh my, it's Pascal's wager!

Yes, but in this case, there is also some actual evidence. Based on what i know of the biological evidence, and my readings in journals of reviews* of the geology/climatology research, i'm going with modifying human behavior. the chance that there is a nasty "afterlife" (i.e, change in Global climate) seems pretty high. most of the debate seems to center on how bad it will get, not whether it will happen.

But you are correct, it's not the best argument i could put forward.:D

(*note my disclaimer that i am relying on the Review of .... journal series, not reading the original papers. i have enough trouble keeping up with my journals! Biological, i do read the primary papers.)

[Supercharts]

Can someone explain this to me?

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/asiamwp.htm

"So why all the fuss about the Medieval Warm Period anyway? In a nutshell, if it can be shown that global temperatures were warmer than they are presently at a time when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were much lower than they are presently, then it is clear that something other than the historical rise in the air's CO2 content could be responsible for the global warming of the 20th century. In other words, if non-CO2-induced global warming has happened before, it can happen again.

In considering the results of the studies reviewed in this Summary, it is readily evident that a Medieval Warm Period existed throughout vast areas of Asia during the 9th through 14th centuries. Furthermore, and contrary to the climate-alarmist claim that the last decade of the 20th century was the warmest of the past millennium, it is clear that much of Asia was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it was during any decade of the last hundred years. Hence, it can be appreciated that the unprecedented warming of the past century, as climate alarmists like to describe it, does not even come close to meriting that appellation, especially in Asia."

[wollery]

Originally posted by BobK
High-resolution images snapped by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor show that levels of frozen water and carbon dioxide at the Red Planet's poles have dwindled dramatically - by more than 10 feet - over a single Martian year (equivalent to 687 days or about two Earth years).
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/mars011207.html)

I suppose Mars is suffering from athropogenic global warming too? [/B]
For even beginning to suggest that there is any similarity between Mars and Earth, you receive the "Gun Lobby Apples and Oranges Award" for December. Congratulations, no one has ever won this award in the first week of a month ever.

When you've finished basking in the glory of acquiring your prize, you might want to brush up on your astronomy skills. Awards are nice, but they're no substitute for knowledge. [/B]
Actually, it may not be so far fetched a suggestion that the two are connected. There is a definite correlation between solar sunspot activity and global temperatures. The best example of this is the coincedence of the Maunder minimum with the "mini ice age" which was characterised by a series of particularly harsh winters. Now the Earth is warming up and guess what, that's right sunspot activity is at it's highest ever recorded level.

Of course correlation doesn't mean there's any causality, but the fact that Mars also appears to be warming up should give us pause.

Not that I'm saying that we should continue polluting the planet and dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I still believe that that's a very bad thing to do, and I'm sure that it isn't helping the situation. These arguments always remind me of something that Ray Bradbury said;

"The human race likes to give itself airs. One good volcano can produce more greenhouse gases in a year than the human race has in its entire history."

[Nikk]

Originally posted by wollery



Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/mars011207.html)

I suppose Mars is suffering from athropogenic global warming too?
For even beginning to suggest that there is any similarity between Mars and Earth, you receive the "Gun Lobby Apples and Oranges Award" for December. Congratulations, no one has ever won this award in the first week of a month ever.

When you've finished basking in the glory of acquiring your prize, you might want to brush up on your astronomy skills. Awards are nice, but they're no substitute for knowledge. [/B]

Actually, it may not be so far fetched a suggestion that the two are connected. There is a definite correlation between solar sunspot activity and global temperatures. The best example of this is the coincedence of the Maunder minimum with the "mini ice age" which was characterised by a series of particularly harsh winters. Now the Earth is warming up and guess what, that's right sunspot activity is at it's highest ever recorded level.

Of course correlation doesn't mean there's any causality, but the fact that Mars also appears to be warming up should give us pause.


" [/QUOTE]

Well with, among other things, no oceans, a 95% carbon dioxide atmosphere and mid latitude ground temperatures varying from -100c to 0c the idea that what is happening on Mars has any relevance to Earth is errm surprising to say the least.

Mr Manifesto's apples and oranges award may have some justification in this case.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Can someone explain this to me?

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/asiamwp.htm


Sure thing, its wrong.

The best current evidence is that the Medieval Warm period was not a global phenomenon. More detail here:

Medieval Climate Not So Hot (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031020055353.htm)

You won't find that research on co2science.org of course, as its nothing more than junk science propaganda from the petroleum industry. Try and get your data from quality sources in the future to avoid further confusion.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by wollery

Actually, it may not be so far fetched a suggestion that the two are connected. There is a definite correlation between solar sunspot activity and global temperatures. The best example of this is the coincedence of the Maunder minimum with the "mini ice age" which was characterised by a series of particularly harsh winters. Now the Earth is warming up and guess what, that's right sunspot activity is at it's highest ever recorded level.

Of course not, in fact much research has been on how much solar forcing effects climate change. The current estimates are around 1/3 of the climate variability of the 20th century. The problem is that the majority of the variability is in spectra that is absorbed by the stratosphere where it will have little effect on tropospheric warming. What matters is the radiation that makes it to the surface to be reflected as infrared.

Of course correlation doesn't mean there's any causality, but the fact that Mars also appears to be warming up should give us pause.

Yes it should, as that would be evidence that hight CO2 concentrations can amplify solar forcing!

Not that I'm saying that we should continue polluting the planet and dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I still believe that that's a very bad thing to do, and I'm sure that it isn't helping the situation. These arguments always remind me of something that Ray Bradbury said;

"The human race likes to give itself airs. One good volcano can produce more greenhouse gases in a year than the human race has in its entire history."

And Ray Bradbury was a science fiction author, not a vulcanologist. Human's release about 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere anually. Care to point out any recent that volcanic events that have ejected a few hundred billion tons of CO2? One would think scientists might notice something like that!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Oh my, it's Pascal's wager!

No, there is a scientific basis for believing in GW.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK
From AUP's link...

Bold is mine.

No definite science there.

Might not CSIRO be trying to promote a position that would get them further funding?

edit to add...
Similar words as my bold are in AUP's quoted portion of the article.

They could get twice as much funding if they were to say they were able to disprove GW.

Apart from that, it is an insult to them as scienctists to raise this as motivation for their research. Perhaps you would like to back up your assertion.

OTOH, for the likes of CATO, you seem to feel that they do all their GW debunking out of the goodness of their own hearts.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Sure thing, its wrong.

The best current evidence is that the Medieval Warm period was not a global phenomenon. More detail here:

Medieval Climate Not So Hot (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031020055353.htm)

You won't find that research on co2science.org of course, as its nothing more than junk science propaganda from the petroleum industry. Try and get your data from quality sources in the future to avoid further confusion.


Jolly Hockey sticks!!!!!

I looked at your link and what did I see:


The authors of the article, "Climate in Medieval Time," are Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, and Henry F. Diaz of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Atmospheric Research.


Best current evidence my proverbial.


This is just the defence of the hockey stick by two of the authors of the original paper!!!!

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


They could get twice as much funding if they were to say they were able to disprove GW.

Apart from that, it is an insult to them as scienctists to raise this as motivation for their research. Perhaps you would like to back up your assertion.

OTOH, for the likes of CATO, you seem to feel that they do all their GW debunking out of the goodness of their own hearts.

I simply posed a couple of questions.

Why didn't you include my assertions in your quote of my post?

Why so many modifying words in the article? If the science is well settled, then it would be reflected in the article. I don't see any insult to scientists, just a careful look at the way the article is worded.

You assert that they could get more funding by disproving global warming.

"Perhaps you would like to back up your assertion?"

I don't remember ever saying anything about CATO. Maybe you would provide a link to where I did?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper

Jolly Hockey sticks!!!!!

I looked at your link and what did I see:

Best current evidence my proverbial.

This is just the defence of the hockey stick by two of the authors of the original paper!!!!

And the "hockey stick" has been refuted by whom? John Daly? Theodor Landscheidt and his tarot cards? McIntyre and McKitrick? The fact that none of those people are climatologists or even have any scientific background doesn't bother you in the least? Of you sourse not, silly me, you are a dogmatic creduloid. As long as it reinforces your belief system, truth, science and knowledge be damned!!!!

Here's a link with more detailed information

Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”? (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm)

Why don't you debunk that? I'm sure the climatological community would appreciate the input of a brilliant researcher such as yourself to remedy the errors they've made.

[bug_girl]

Don't forget, a lot of OTHER things besides CO2 are causes of anthropogenic global warming.
Methane, in particular, is of great concern, since there are known past warming events related to it, and this molecule traps much more heat than CO2. Nitrous Oxide is also a greenhouse gas, and a common combustion product.
These two molecules, plus CFCs, are also increasing linearly in atmosperic concentration like CO2.

General Methane info:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-10/agu-com100902.php

[jj]

Originally posted by BobK
From AUP's link...

Bold is mine.

No definite science there.

Might not CSIRO be trying to promote a position that would get them further funding?

edit to add...
Similar words as my bold are in AUP's quoted portion of the article.

Don't understand much about probabilistic events, I can tell.

Yes, probabilty is like that, and there is nothing certain, but you can still make testable and verifiable predictions.

So they are still science.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nikk
Well with, among other things, no oceans, a 95% carbon dioxide atmosphere and mid latitude ground temperatures varying from -100c to 0c the idea that what is happening on Mars has any relevance to Earth is errm surprising to say the least.

Mr Manifesto's apples and oranges award may have some justification in this case.

Come now, Nikk, an increase in solar output would explain both quite handily.

That doesn't mean that's what is going on, but is an exact example of something that would connect the two.

[fishbob]

High-resolution images snapped by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor show that levels of frozen water and carbon dioxide at the Red Planet's poles have dwindled dramatically — by more than 10 feet — over a single Martian year (equivalent to 687 days or about two Earth years). One Martian year of data, when we know nothing about normal climate variation or long term cycles on Mars, pretty much means that this data is not relevant to annual and long term cycles on Earth.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


And the "hockey stick" has been refuted by whom? John Daly? Theodor Landscheidt and his tarot cards? McIntyre and McKitrick? The fact that none of those people are climatologists or even have any scientific background doesn't bother you in the least? Of you sourse not, silly me, you are a dogmatic creduloid. As long as it reinforces your belief system, truth, science and knowledge be damned!!!!

Here's a link with more detailed information

Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”? (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm)

Why don't you debunk that? I'm sure the climatological community would appreciate the input of a brilliant researcher such as yourself to remedy the errors they've made.


Let's first get one thing straight. The hockey stick made the novel claim; that the medieval warm period did not occur. It is not the other way around. It was the hockey stick that made a new claim that understanding of climatic history up to that point was wrong.


Regarding your link, this is the same as the other one.


First, this is an IPCC Working Group 1 report. Hence it is Mann's (the lead author of the hockey stick) work (or reponsibility).

Second, it cites as evidence Bradley, Hughes and Mann, the authors of the hockey stick.

just one example:
The timing, however, of these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically over the globe in a considerable way (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000).


So your evidence effectively amounts to Mann, Bradley and Hughes deefending their own work. This is a circular argument:

"the hockey stick proves that there was no medeival warm period. This is confirmed by evidence from the authors of the hockey stick."

In order to validate the conlusions of the hockey stick, you just keep recycling the papers own authors.


My turn now, you debunk this:

Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes: A Reappraisal (http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/EnEpreprintFeb03.pdf)

Many records reveal that the 20th century is likely not the warmest nor a uniqely extreme climatic period of the last millenium...

[BobK]

I've combined AUP's linked quote and my quote from his link into one, in order to more easily show my thought process when reading the article.

CSIRO has predicted that there will be an increase in extreme events in Australia, with coastal areas particularly vulnerable.
They made a prediction but gave no confidence level.

Tuesday night's storm wasn't Melbourne's first example of extreme weather. There were similar storms in the inner bayside in 1989 and in the CBD in 1972. And in 1891, two days of rain caused the Yarra to swell to 305 metres wide and rise 14 metres.
Went back to 1891 to get three previous storms equal to the current one. On average that's one every 28 years and the 1972 one was, I believe, when global cooling was a big concern.

At least we now have a rough scale to judge when an event might be considered extreme. Evidently the severity occurs on average about every 25-30 years. Now I'm curious as to how many different types of events they have in the classification system. Put enough types and subtypes of events in the system and you could have an extreme event every year in your neighborhood.

Natural climate variability has always been the main villain behind extreme weather, but now there is another - global warming.
Here they say unequivocally, that global warming is not part of natural climate variability. Then what's their definition of natural climate? I always thought temperature was one aspect of natural climate and it varies. Those darn schools must have taught me wrong, some 40 odd years ago. Or maybe they're trying to take natural warming out of the climate, lump it in with anthropogenic in a separate category under a common name, and hope we don't notice.

Tuesday's storm hit Melbourne on the day that the Kyoto treaty, designed to cut greenhouse gases, reached a new crisis point.
Crisis with Kyoto, boy that's scary.

By 2100, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, greenhouse emissions will warm the earth by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees, melting some of the polar caps and increasing the sea level by nine to 88 centimetres.
I notice that CSIRO doesn't take credit for the above prediction. Probably because of the use of the word "will". Maybe they aren't as sure about it as IPCC?

CSIRO has modelled what effect this will have on Australia's weather by 2030 and 2070. For most parts of the country, annual rainfall is tipped to decrease - by 2070, for example, Victoria is predicted to have one-eighth less annual rainfall. But paradoxically, instances of extreme weather and rainfall are likely to increase.
They only use results from 2030-2070, but I've seen elsewhere that this was part of a 100 year computer simulation. I wonder if they're cherry picking from the simulation.

"Even in areas where the rainfall does decrease slightly, we still find there's an increase in the frequency of extreme events," said Debbie Abbs, of CSIRO's atmospheric research division.
Since the quote starts with the word "even", they seem to be surprised that low rainfall areas will have extreme events. The use of the word "still' seems to imply that it is a given that areas with normal and above normal rainfall will experience an increase in the frequency of extreme events.

In NSW and Queensland, "we estimate that severe rainfall events may become up to 30 percent more intense and occur more frequently".
They say "up to 30 percent more". That sounds to me like the sales they have at the department stores that say "up to 30 percent off." You go in and find only a couple items at that price, but mostly it's zero percent off. They didn't even set a range of percentages as IPCC did with temperature. Could it be because the lower bound might even be negative?

She said increases in extreme weather were likely for Victoria but this had not been modelled.
Hold it. What's this? They modeled Australia's weather, couldn't find extreme events for Victoria, but they still say extreme weather is likely. What's wrong here? It wasn't reflected in the computer model? How come? Victoria's data from the model wasn't acceptable to them? This makes me question the computer model. They wouldn't be basing this prediction on psychic powers would they? Or maybe they're just trying to reinforce the strength of their position?

Coastal areas will be particularly vulnerable to flooding - not so much from drains overwhelmed by rain, but by storm surges associated with a higher sea level. "On average a storm that would normally be expected every 100 years would hit every 40 years if sea levels rise by 40 centimetres," Dr Abbs said.
What's the validity of the 40cm rise? Is it based on the computer model I questioned above? On what sounds like a scary enough figure? On something else?

Towns such as Cairns and Darwin would be hardest hit because cyclone speeds and rainfall were tipped to increase.
Rather odd use of the word "were", as if it was in the past. Why not use the word "are"? They couldn't be talking about having intentionally forced the computer model in some manner, could they?

"The community will be more vulnerable to these changes as increasing numbers of people move to the coast," she said.
If these changes even happen she may be right, or society may adapt and not be any more vulnerable.

CSIRO's modelling assumes global warming will continue.
I notice they assume global warming will continue, but they won't say for sure. Probably due to the fact that they realize they don't know enough about the climate system, and the fact there have been warm and cold periods thoughout the history of this planet.

Whether it does may depend on whether the Kyoto protocol is ratified.
They probably could have said "may not" just as accurately as saying "may".
The rest of the article is politics.

Since I am only a layman when it comes to this, I'm curious to see what others think of my reasoning process. To me, it sort of reads like a promotional item rather than anything of substance.

Comments and criticism welcome, but please try to avoid ad hominems. They do nothing to aid in the discourse.:):

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BobK
I've combined AUP's linked quote and my quote from his link into one, in order to more easily show my thought process when reading the article.


The rest of the article is politics.

Since I am only a layman when it comes to this, I'm curious to see what others think of my reasoning process. To me, it sort of reads like a promotional item rather than anything of substance.

Comments and criticism welcome, but please try to avoid ad hominems. They do nothing to aid in the discourse.:):

I think your apraisal is logical and well founded.

There is the issue, as often in this field that this is a press report of a scientific report. However, the weaknesses are glaring.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Oh my, it's Pascal's wager!

Not really. Pascal's wager is centered about the concept of an infinite reward - the whole idea is that if there's an infinite (or practically infinite) reward such as everlasting bliss, then it is worth to pay a finite cost to "enter the draw" even if you don't know the probability that your cost actually will win you the reward.

In the question of global warming, there are no infinite rewards, and it's a (relatively) straight forward matter of decision under uncertanity.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Not really. Pascal's wager is centered about the concept of an infinite reward - the whole idea is that if there's an infinite (or practically infinite) reward such as everlasting bliss, then it is worth to pay a finite cost to "enter the draw" even if you don't know the probability that your cost actually will win you the reward.

In the question of global warming, there are no infinite rewards, and it's a (relatively) straight forward matter of decision under uncertanity.


Pascal's wager is more like trivial outlay to secure uncertain infinite payout.

Regarding the choice under uncertainty, the AGW debate is made far more complex by strategic game behaviour and a lack of binding cost constraints.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper

In order to validate the conlusions of the hockey stick, you just keep recycling the papers own authors.

Really now? What about the other temperature reconstructions that came to similar conclusions?

http://hfh.com/~coop/fig1.png

Are they all bogus as well?

My turn now, you debunk this:

Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes: A Reappraisal (http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/EnEpreprintFeb03.pdf)


Sure thing, lets see what one of the editors of the journal that published it has to say about it now:


After a conflict with the publisher Otto Kinne of Inter-Research I stepped down on 28. July 2003 as Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research; the reason was that I as newly appointed Editor-in-Chief wanted to make public that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas article was an error, and that the review process at Climate Research would be changed in order to avoid similar failures. The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked, as was documented by a comment in EOS by Mann and several coauthors. (The problem is not whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, or if Mann's hockey stick is realistic; the problem is that the methodological basis for such a conclusion was simply not given.) It was not the first time that the process had failed, but it was the most severe case. However, my authority as Editor-in-Chief did obviously not cover the publication of an editorial spelling out the problem. The publisher declined the publication, and I cancelled my task as Editor-in-Chief immediately on 28 July 2003.

I withdrew also als editor because I learned during the conflict that CR editors used different scales for judging the validity of an article. Some editors considered the problem of the Soon & Baliunas paper as merely a problem of "opinion", while it was really a problem of severe methodological flaws. Thus, I decided that I had to disconnect from that journal, which I had served proudly for about 10 years.

Today I am not longer related to the journal Climate Research in any way. Only the review process of those manuscripts, for which I initiated the review process, will be completed by me. After that I will be completely detached.

Three more editors withdrew namely Clare Goodess, Mitsuru Ando and Shardul Argawala. In mid September 2003 Andrew Comrie resigned as well.


Wow, FIVE whole editors have resigned over the publishing of this paper! Citing, amongst other things, the absence of any methodological basis for their conclusion? Sounds pretty bogus to me!

Here is the formal debunking of the paper, for anyone interested.

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/Soon.EosForum20032.pdf

[Drooper]

What, you bring another another Mann paper as evidence that Mann is correct?

And how many of those lovely squiggly lines on that chart bear the legend "Mann"


Keep on diggin.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper
What, you bring another another Mann paper as evidence that Mann is correct?

And how many of those lovely squiggly lines on that chart bear the legend "Mann"

Keep on diggin.

Is this malice or just rank stupidity on your part? I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but its becoming very difficult at this point.

Here is the full author list from the cited paper

Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M.,
Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L.

So anything Mann touches is now invalid? He has corrupted all the other authors as well? What evidence do you have that any of his work is fraudulent?

Are you suggesting the author of a paper is not allowed to respond to criticism of his OWN WORK? Pretty inane reasoning if you ask me.

What about the squiggles that say Jones, Crowley and Lowery, Esper and Briffa? Do they say "Mann" as well?

Do you have anything, at all? Or just more denials, dogma and junk science?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
So anything Mann touches is now invalid? He has corrupted all the other authors as well? What evidence do you have that any of his work is fraudulent?

Are you suggesting the author of a paper is not allowed to respond to criticism of his OWN WORK? Pretty inane reasoning if you ask me.

There you go with more logical fallacies. This time building a little straw man.


I am casting no personal aspersions on Mann, just questioning his work.

There are some legitimate concerns about the efficacy of the Hockey Stick and I am looking for something a bit more substantial to make me believe it.

To do that I need more than the original author of the work providing his defence. I want something independent. You provide article after article led by Mann. That is just more of the original assertion form the original author.

ANd that list of authors you quoted. They were in fact just signatories to that article, which was prepared by Mann as briefing for "others who support his view":

The Eos article started as a memorandum that Michael Oppenheimer and Mann drafted to help inform colleagues who were being contacted by members of the media

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html


SO in effect, this is what MAnn has said they should say.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


They could get twice as much funding if they were to say they were able to disprove GW.

Apart from that, it is an insult to them as scienctists to raise this as motivation for their research. Perhaps you would like to back up your assertion.


Something about CSIRO climate research that you don't seem to have picked up elsewhere Unique:


The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) administers the Australian Greenhouse Science Program. Part of CSIRO’s Climate Change Research Program is supported by AGO funding. From July 1999 to June 2000, the AGO-supported research led to a total of 143 publications. This was comprised of 58 peer-reviewed journal papers (mostly in early 2000), 48 papers in conference proceedings (mostly in late 1999), and 37 general interest / contract reports. Additional papers were published from related research not supported by the AGO.

The Australian Greenhouse Office (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/agsp/csiro-research.html)


So no more about this "pure" CSIRO research please.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


Something about CSIRO climate research that you don't seem to have picked up elsewhere Unique:




The Australian Greenhouse Office (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/agsp/csiro-research.html)


So no more about this "pure" CSIRO research please.

And if they put out papers that said that there was no GW, they would get double the grants. I have asked my friend who works at the CSIRO on GW if there has ever been any threat to their funding from the current conservative government, that has no interest in signing Kyoto. His answer was that each time they get a new minister, and have to justify their funding, they always cough it up. When these conservative politicians get a proper presentation from real scientists, they invariably take the attitude that they would be better off not cutting off funding, and continue the research. There is plenty of other work to do in general atmospheric research. These scientists would be celebrities in the league of Lomborg if they came up with research that debunked GW. They would be jetting all around the world to the conservative think tanks and getting plenty of perks along the way. They are just going with what the research is telling them.

CATO, on the other hand, is only interested in funding research that is anti GW.