161–170 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The choice of landscaping materials and chemicals is ultimately up to the customer. Ideally, people would be aware and care that a landscaping company is needlessly pouring poison all over their property. The best plan would be to design spaces that don’t ‘need’ weedkiller or leaf blowing.
Anyone with 480 locations probably isn't making detailed selections on chemicals used by their landscaping contractors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As best as I can tell, the politicization of climate science is a deliberate action by those opposed to the actions which will result from accepting the validity of its conclusions. It's the same sort of propaganda effort which fought against the recognition of the link between cigarettes and lung cancer. It's the same sort of effort which tries to get creationism in its varied forms taught as part of a science educa…
It's the same sort of propaganda effort which fought against the recognition of the link between cigarettes and lung cancer. It's an interesting parallel, and worth noting that it wasn't just a matter of paid shills. R. A. Fisher (about as a big a name as one can find in mainstream statistics) was a true believer (and pipe smoker), and argued to his death that there was no proof that smoking caused cancer. Chapter 5…
The question is, is the criticism justified?
It's always possible to make a serious effort, put the paper together, get the rejections, then once that's failed a few times post the paper and rejections (at least honestly summarized) to a preprint server.
Where do you think the deep politicization that you complained about coming from?
"Scandal" is also a signaling term. There was no scandal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Followup since it was too late to edit. McIntyre's blog post starts "The PAGES (2017) North American network consists entirely of tree rings.". The 2017 article "A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era" by the PAGES2k Consortium at https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788 says: > While the M08 database contains 75% more records than this collection, these records are overwhel…
How am I supposed to reconcile McIntyre's statement "entirely of tree rings" with the publication? I haven't read PAGES 2017 before, but I think the issue is that all the non-tree-ring proxies have been "screened out" from the North American network prior to data analysis. This is detailed (with helpful maps) in the Supplementary Information: https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/sdata/2017/s... . As they a…
Could that imply that you have a bias error in your understanding of Eschenbach and McIntyre because your understanding is based more on the interpretations presented at ClimateAudit than from the primary literature?
As they apply successive layers of screening for factors such as "False Discovery Rate" and correlation with "Mean Annual Temperature", everything except the tree ring proxies drop out from North America (other than a single coral series in the Yucatan).
And yet the 'hockey stick' remains in all the analyzes. That is, figure 7 shows "Global composites for various binning intervals and screening criteria, as indicated in subplot titles". More specifically, "Screening options comprise: no screening (none), regional temperature screening (regional), or regional screening adjusted for the false discovery rate (regionalFDR)."
Once you start screening out sites after peeking at the data that is going to be used for your analysis, it's hard to know if you've biased your results towards a preordained conclusion.
The 'no screening' analysis is figure 7a, is it not? Which has a hockey stick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How am I supposed to reconcile McIntyre's statement "entirely of tree rings" with the publication? I haven't read PAGES 2017 before, but I think the issue is that all the non-tree-ring proxies have been "screened out" from the North American network prior to data analysis. This is detailed (with helpful maps) in the Supplementary Information: https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/sdata/2017/s... . As they a…
I haven't read PAGES 2017 before Could that imply that you have a bias error in your understanding of Eschenbach and McIntyre because your understanding is based more on the interpretations presented at ClimateAudit than from the primary literature? As they apply successive layers of screening for factors such as "False Discovery Rate" and correlation with "Mean Annual Temperature", everything except the tree ring pr…
Certainly. I actually started by reading MBH98 (after a friend interviewed Hughes) and I found it statistically very weak. I then discovered McIntyre's pre-ClimateAudit site at the time he was working on his rebuttal. Discovering someone else who was bothered by the same flaws (and was able to discuss them in a more rigorous form than I could) predisposed me to view him in a positive light. I'd like to think my continued positive impression of him has to do with the strength of his arguments since then, but probably at least some part is path dependent bias.
And yet the 'hockey stick' remains in all the analyzes.
The issues with post-hoc screening are separate from his initial criticisms, and are about statistical principles rather than the resulting graphs. McIntyre isn't saying that you only get a hockey stick if you screen out certain proxies. Rather, he thinks the analysis is overly sensitive to a small number of problematic "stripbark" series in the American West. If you include these series (or a small number of alternatives), you get a blade; if you leave them out, you don't. He believes that since most of the other proxies are only weakly tied to temperature, they average out to a mostly flat red noise that forms the historically flat "handle".
I don't feel qualified to make his full argument, though. While I tried to keep up with the primary literature at one point, I haven't been reading much lately, and I've never been as deeply into it as McIntyre himself. My goal was simply to say that I think that both he and Eschenbach have some good points to make, that both are interested in finding the truth rather than spreading misinformation, and that they should be read and considered rather than being rejected out of hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't read PAGES 2017 before Could that imply that you have a bias error in your understanding of Eschenbach and McIntyre because your understanding is based more on the interpretations presented at ClimateAudit than from the primary literature? As they apply successive layers of screening for factors such as "False Discovery Rate" and correlation with "Mean Annual Temperature", everything except the tree ring pr…
Could that imply that you have a bias error in your understanding of Eschenbach and McIntyre because your understanding is based more on the interpretations presented at ClimateAudit than from the primary literature? Certainly. I actually started by reading MBH98 (after a friend interviewed Hughes) and I found it statistically very weak. I then discovered McIntyre's pre-ClimateAudit site at the time he was working on…
MBH98 was 20 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph goes into details about the various analyzes of MBH98 and later, including criticisms and counter-criticisms. The Moberg 2005 analysis I referenced above is one of them, which used wavelet transforms instead of PCA. It found similar conclusions as MBH99, the extension of MBH98.
> A 2010 opinion piece by David Frank, Jan Esper, Eduardo Zorita and Rob Wilson (Frank et al. 2010) noted that by then over two dozen large-scale climate reconstructions had been published, showing a broad consensus that there had been exceptional 20th century warming after earlier climatic phases, notably the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age
It then adds that more reconstructions have been done since then, again following the broad consensus.
they should be read and considered rather than being rejected out of hand.
This goes back to my original objection, which is that the g'g' etc. poster didn't point to something to read, other than "Willis Eschenbach's work over on https://wattsupwiththat.com/ ".
I can certainly reject out of hand the undirected suggestion to read hundreds if not thousands of blog posts without having some solid reason to believe it's worthwhile, especially given that several of the poster's other comments on the topic seemed to be wrong, and internally inconsistent.
Tangential: helping insects. I could obtain free wildflower seeds from a Dutch foundation aiming to protect the bees, and last Spring I did some 'guerilla sowing' on bare patches of land waiting for new building construction. Big success. The nutrition-poor soil apparently was ideal, and in places dense flower beds appeared. It gave me huge satisfaction to not only see bees and other insects, but tourists and inhabit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The general trend that goes upward in your graph isn't the number of butterflies, but the number of 'sites monitored', i.e., places where they searched for butterflies. With all due respect, I can read a graph. I was referring to the total amount of butterflies. There is no data on the site to permit one to draw any correlation between the number of monitoring sites and the number of butterflies. We could add 10,000…
The data doesn't matter — people are just looking for an excuse to say "chemicals are bad" or "I'm against global warming".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The general trend that goes upward in your graph isn't the number of butterflies, but the number of 'sites monitored', i.e., places where they searched for butterflies. With all due respect, I can read a graph. I was referring to the total amount of butterflies. There is no data on the site to permit one to draw any correlation between the number of monitoring sites and the number of butterflies. We could add 10,000…
The data doesn't matter — people are just looking for an excuse to say "chemicals are bad" or "I'm against global warming".
I hope I live long enough -- and I suspect I will -- to see the 'issue' become the damaging effects of 'climate stagnation'.
I bet within a few decades you'll read things like this: "The insects on this planet require a changing climate! The average temperatures haven't moved for decades! We're in a deadly stagnant cycle caused by [insert nuclear, fossil fuels, positronic brain emissions, or whatever is 'taboo' 50 years hence]. We're all going to die!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, not browsing through hundreds of articles about all sorts of things being found in permafrost. Any direct links to your particular doomsday scenario? Doesn't Methane burn? Maybe another energy source for the future...
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-...
Of course bad stuff can happen, no question.
From the article it sounds to me as if there is a lot of Methane to go around. Maybe we should use it up, and use the energy to power air conditioning and growing food in mines and wherever. That would already solve two of the scenarios in the article - unworkable climates and food shortages.
Diseases also seem treatable, and the article mentioning bubonic plague is rather reassuring. We have antibiotics now to treat that, and vaccines against many old scourges.
I thought CO2 is mainly an issue high up n the atmosphere. Presumably on the ground, it would also help plants grow, which would in turn use it up.
I'm just saying, things might turn out different than expected.
Maybe in general, it simply is impossible to prevent change in the world. A large fraction of the doomsday scenario addiction of mankind might simply be fear of change.