Best Recent Content - HotWhopper Chat HotWhopper Chat
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.

Best Recent Content

  • Why was Karl targeted by Bates - Karl et al. 2015 wasn't producing a CDR?


    I've just read Bates 2016 - One of the things that has me most confused, and that this reading has reinforced - is why Karl 2016 became a target in the first place?

    It is clearly not for scientific reasons, even Bates said the data is okay.

    It is clearly not for administrative reasons, it was clear to every reader that the paper was about a dataset produced for the paper, not a climate data record.

    That leaves personal and political reasons. The news articles on the "scandal" provide evidence for problems working with others and Bates being transferred to a position without personnel to supervise. Thus personal reasons would be the best guess. It very often is.
    SouPG_Antioch
  • Why was Karl targeted by Bates - Karl et al. 2015 wasn't producing a CDR?


    I'm going to take it in small digestible chunks.

    ¶1 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair
    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/03/1-behind-curtain-of-bates-facade.html

    This is a citizen's examination of the article at the heart of this season’s faux climate scandal.  For more background you can start here.

    Climate scientists versus climate data
    by John Bates, posted on February 4, 2017 | ClimateEtc.- Curry's blog
    “A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.”
    __________________________
    I’ve borrowed John’s subtitle since I intend to explore his wordsmithing and ponder his motivations.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Bates writes in ¶1   “I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016)." 
    __________________________
    Red flag right out of the gate.

    It’s telling that Bates makes light of what the Trump Administration had already done to climate science information.  Given such an intro we must consider the possibility John Bates’ is motivated by politics and opportunism rather than any concern over data records.

    (... links to a some articles about Trump actions.)
    __________________________________________________________
    >>>>> Bates: “As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data.” 
    __________________________
    Makes it sound pretty bad.   

    But when Scott Waldman asked Bates about it, the story changed: 

    >>> Bates: "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.” 

    As for “disclosed everything it was” - In an article by Warren Cornwall and Paul Voosen, Bates tells a way less dramatic story:

    >>> Bates: “The Science paper would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures”

    Read those first two sentences together, Bates creates an equivalence between Trump literally purging climate data from the public record and a citation protocol issue.

    >>> In reality, the entire methodology was spelled out in the paper, and the ship data correction Karl et al selected had previously been published
    (H/T Snopes). 
    _________________________________________________________

    >>>>>Bates: “I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets.” 
    __________________________

    “Cajoling” is known as a “word trick” in this case used to imply scientists were not archiving or properly documenting their datasets.  But such a message would be misleading.

    Sou at HotWhopper put it into perspective. 
    "His incredibly complex archiving system may have been suitable for some purposes, but it clearly was a thorn in the side of users. The diagrams in his paper show it as a very complex, long process involving umpteen steps and a multitude of different work groups at NOAA. I imagine the procedures manual could run to hundreds of pages. 
    To what extent did he even involve or listen to users? Good data archiving procedures are important, particularly for climate data. I doubt anyone would dispute that. But what's the point of a system if it doesn't meet user needs? And why try to stop research being published when it's based on solid and well-tested data, just because it hasn't been through the full seven year archiving process?
    Even David Rose admits that the formal process takes a very long time."  { I include images of Figs 1,2,3}

    and so on . . .

    PG_Antioch
  • Bob Tisdale missing in action?

    [That's Dec 2016, not 2017... maybe I've snapped too!]
    PG_Antioch
  • Bob Tisdale missing in action?

    Well, global warming isn't so fake when it gets you 'someplace where it's warm and sunny', perhaps? Most likely wishful thinking though, convictions like this are very rare to change.
    PG_Antioch
  • Bob Tisdale missing in action?

    Hello all,

    Hope this hasn't been covered before here, but it looks like Bob Tisdale, Anthony Watts's former go-to science guy, has gone AWOL.  Let's hope it's not health related, but the way he signed off on his website doesn't suggest so:-

    "I’m having too much fun someplace where it’s warm and sunny… I’m not sure when I’ll be back [where my spreadsheets are], if ever."

    That's dated Feb 15, 2017!  Bob's posted no new monthly global temperature updates since December 2017, which is one blessing.  Is it possible that the record temperatures being set around the world at that time, both surface and satellite, effectively broke poor Bob's old 'sceptical' heart?

    Did he snap?  Does anyone know? Sue??

    Thanks,

    David


    PG_Antioch
  • Bob Tisdale missing in action?

    I noticed he was missing in action. (I didn't want to say anything on the blog, because he could have been ill or worse.)

    The last I saw mentioned at WUWT was something about him taking a holiday. I almost never go to his website so I missed that part about him heading off elsewhere permanently. I do recall him saying some time ago he was going back to work, implying he was having trouble with the cost of living. I'm guessing he's sold up and moved somewhere cheaper and warmer.

    If he's on the coast, I wonder if he's keeping track of the sea level rise?
    PG_Antioch
  • Roy Spencer

    And who's to tell him differently?
    PG_Antioch
  • Roy Spencer

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:

    I don’t care if we are a laughingstock to a bunch of countries whose claim to fame is artists and musicians who died hundreds of years ago. Some of us laugh at you, too. Your countries are slowly dying, culturally and economically.

    Good luck

    PG_Antioch
  • Why was Karl targeted by Bates - Karl et al. 2015 wasn't producing a CDR?


    I've just read Bates 2016 - One of the things that has me most confused, and that this reading has reinforced - is why Karl 2016 became a target in the first place?

    It is clearly not for scientific reasons, even Bates said the data is okay.

    It is clearly not for administrative reasons, it was clear to every reader that the paper was about a dataset produced for the paper, not a climate data record.

    That leaves personal and political reasons. The news articles on the "scandal" provide evidence for problems working with others and Bates being transferred to a position without personnel to supervise. Thus personal reasons would be the best guess. It very often is.
    SouPG_Antioch
  • Okay, what's the deal with the Global Surface Temperature

    Victor, okay all caps does distract, even as it's supposed to drive home a point.  I just hope you also noticed that I very much appreciated you taking the time for your thoughtful comment and in fact chewed on it for awhile.

    I'll admit between the reality of this Trump Presidency and a still very sleepy USA citizenry, Lamar Smith and his science bashing Congressional committee, Bates' malicious bull poop, Fyfe took me for an emotional spin.  The failure of my first attempt drove me to try to come up with a short (I managed to keep it <500 words*, not including quotes from the study I used.) elevator pitch.  I posted it at my blog yesterday and I've sent it out to the authors today, I imagine that's the last I'll hear of it.  

    What I'm left with is that I gave it my best effort considering the 
    constrains I'm stuck with.  

    Elevator pitch to co-authors of Fyfe et al. 2016 - need for clarification

    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/03/elevator-pitch-to-coauthors-fyfe2016.html
    ______________________________________
    Okay I snuck in another 150 words below my signature.


    PG_Antioch
HotWhopper Chat Close
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.