citizenschallenge - HotWhopper Chat HotWhopper Chat
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

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

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.



Last Active
Member, Moderator
  • 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

    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 . . .

  • 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
    Okay I snuck in another 150 words below my signature.

  • Fyfe et al. 2016 elevator pitch to the co-authors.

    Okay, so my attempt to critique Fyfe 2016, was too long for any of the big boys.  Since I believe I do have something worth presenting to these experts, I've worked on coming up much a shorter crisper version.  (Victor, I sure hope you didn't misread our last exchange I certainly appreciated your comments.  I'm curious to know what you think of this version, should you take the time to look at it.)

    March 21, 2017

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

    Dear Fyfe 2016 Co-Authors,

    All of you by virtue of being experts of the highest caliber possess a nuanced understanding light-years beyond ordinary citizens, politicians and business leaders.  Belonging within that rarified world you risk being out of touch with how non-scientists, particularly those with hostile agendas, read your papers.  To us Fyfe et al. 2016 offered up a muddled Rorschach test rather than the promised clarifications.

    Please give this summary of my previous effort a moment to see if something resonates, or not.  I don’t need a response, all I'm hoping is for you to take it seriously, if only for a moment.
    ¶10  Understanding of the recent slowdown also built upon prior research into the causes of the so-called big hiatus from the 1950s to the 1970s. During this period, increased cooling from anthropogenic sulfate aerosols roughly offset the warming from increasing GHGs (which were markedly lower than today).  This offsetting contributed to an approximately constant global mean surface temperature (GMST). Ice-core sulfate data from Greenland support this interpretation of GMST behaviour in the 1950s to 1970s, and provide compelling evidence of large temporal increases in atmospheric loadings of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols. The IPO was another contributory factor to the big hiatus. 

    Clarify the process so people can 'appreciate' what you're talking about.

    Sulfate aerosols reflected the sun’s energy back into space 
    before it had the opportunity to be converted into the infrared energy 
    that fuels our climate system.  

    Thus a cooling trend in the GMST and the global system.
    ¶11  Research motivated by the warming slowdown has also led to a fuller understanding of ocean heat uptake. … In summary, research into the causes of the slowdown has been enabled by a large body of prior research, and represents an important and continuing scientific effort to quantify the climate signals associated with internal decadal variability, natural external forcing and anthropogenic factors.

    Clarify the process …

    The heat was moved into the oceans where ~90% of our climate system’s heat resides, thus it was absorbed into the global climate system - even if not registering in the GMST estimate.

    Help people viscerally visualize the dynamics.            
    Claims and Counterclaims 
    ¶13  Recent claims by Lewandowsky et al. that scientists “turned a routine fluctuation into a problem for science” and that “there is no evidence that identifies the recent period as unique or particularly unusual”26were made in the context of an examination of whether warming has ceased, stopped or paused. …

    What’s the point in picking this bone with the Lewandowsky paper?  

    Worst your paper doesn’t acknowledge, the massive disinformation campaign surrounding the recent faux hiatus and how the faux hiatus has been artificially hyper-inflated with a significance it does not warrant.  
    ¶15  … Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices …

    Why not demand your opponents truthfully reflect what scientists are explaining? 

    Why not a bit of moral indignation at the general acceptability of having your information constantly misrepresented and lied about? 
    ¶18    "Superimposed on this forced anthropogenic response are small signals of solar irradiance changes, cooling and recovery from volcanic eruptions and internal variability.”

    A standout sentence.  Build on to it.  Internal variability, that is various vectors of heat transport.  

    Come up with some illustrative paragraphs that convey the notion of our dynamic global heat/moisture distribution engine, rather than showing up with a list.
    ¶21  The big hiatus and warming slowdown periods correspond to times during which the dominant mode of decadal variability in the Pacific—the IPO—was in its negative phase. …

    No helpful narrative, instead you repeat and reinforce the “hiatus” dog-whistle 13 times and never draw a clean qualitative distinction between the “big hiatus” (reflection of sun’s rays) and the “faux hiatus” (heat moving away from the surface).

    Besides, even more important - Why not point out that no one knows precisely how these numbers relate to future impacts anywaysso why are leaders and the public sweating such trivial deviations?

    Bring the discuss back to the important issues, the well understood fundamentals dynamics that are in motion.


    This seems important and worth circulating among the educated crowd, a few of whom may be able to help.


    MEGAN MOLTENI. 02.13.17 -

    ON SATURDAY MORNING, the white stone buildings on UC Berkeley’s campus radiated with unfiltered sunshine. The sky was blue, the campanile was chiming. But instead of enjoying the beautiful day, 200 adults had willingly sardined themselves into a fluorescent-lit room in the bowels of Doe Library to rescue federal climate data.

    Like similar groups across the country—in more than 20 cities—they believe that the Trump administration might want to disappear this data down a memory hole. So these hackers, scientists, and students are collecting it to save outside government servers.

    But now they’re going even further. Groups like DataRefugeand the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, which organized the Berkeley hackathon to collect data from NASA’s earth sciences programs and the Department of Energy, are doing more than archiving. Diehard coders are building robust systems to monitor ongoing changes to government websites. And they’re keeping track of what’s already been removed—because yes, the pruning has already begun.

    Tag It, Bag It


    Future Farming

    Later that afternoon, two dozen or so of the most advanced software builders gathered around whiteboards, sketching out tools they’ll need. They worked out filters to separate mundane updates from major shake-ups, and explored blockchain-like systems to build auditable ledgers of alterations. Basically it’s an issue of what engineers call version control—how do you know if something has changed? How do you know if you have the latest? How do you keep track of the old stuff?


    There was still so much work to do. “Climate change data is just the tip of the iceberg,” says Eric Kansa, an anthropologist who manages archaeological data archiving for the non-profit group Open Context. “There are a huge number of other datasets being threatened with cultural, historical, sociological information.” A panicked friend at the National Parks Service had tipped him off to a huge data portal that contains everything from park visitation stats to GIS boundaries to inventories of species. While he sat at the bar, his computer ran scripts to pull out a list of everything in the portal. When it’s done, he’ll start working his way through each quirky dataset.
  • Trump Republicans and understanding their God thing.

    tadaaa said:
    It seems to me that in the U.S. the "religion thing" is a simple proxy for the "power thing"
    as in other parts of the world where fundamentalism takes a hold
    we saw in the fawning response from the religious right to Trump's sexual proclivities 
    That ultimately power trumps religion 

    Oh, yeah.  Here you can learn about some of the details.

    The Real Origins of the Religious Right
    They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
    By RANDALL BALMER May 27, 2014
    "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
    U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT, (New York Times 3/23/05)
    What is Dominionism? Palin, the Christian Right, & Theocracy
    by cberlet
    Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:13:19 AM PDT
    The Christian right’s shocking conquest: Why religious moderates have disappeared from America 
    While the number of religious Americans is in decline, evangelical membership is growing. Here's what it means 
    One Nation Under God”: The Rise of the Religious Right
    By Stephen J. Whitfield

HotWhopper Chat Close
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

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

Where Australia's electricity comes from

This widget is updated every couple of minutes and shows why Australia is such a huge GHG emitter.

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.