tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post3155627518420790315..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: E&E caves inJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-89953336047582145382011-03-02T12:21:04.726+00:002011-03-02T12:21:04.726+00:00A lot depends on the time scales. Greenland isn...A lot depends on the time scales. Greenland isn't going anywhere in under 1000y - even if enough melts for a sea level rise problem, the bulk of it will stay white. Also, I suspect that the human interference of the biosphere may over-ride any hypothetical natural response. It must also be recognised that the data get dodgier the further back in time we look.<br /><br />But I do agree that it's worth thinking about, especially as it relates to warmer climates which may be more relevant to our future, than the more recent cold states.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-85893244845040080002011-03-02T12:05:19.428+00:002011-03-02T12:05:19.428+00:00Hi James.
Yes, but ESS is perhaps more realistic t...Hi James.<br />Yes, but ESS is perhaps more realistic than climate sensitivity given what we know about Quaternary ice sheet responses and potential carbon feedbacks. It seems to me that the policy implications of this haven't yet been worked out.montynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-76171024601573504292011-03-02T11:48:56.213+00:002011-03-02T11:48:56.213+00:00Well, they are talking about a longer-term "e...Well, they are talking about a longer-term "earth system sensitivity" including vegetation and ice sheet feedbacks. Having said that, the high figures are not exactly encouraging...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-29293101107288817702011-03-02T10:01:15.597+00:002011-03-02T10:01:15.597+00:00James. In your link to a discussion of sensitivity...James. In your link to a discussion of sensitivity back in July 2010, you said that you had little faith in high sensitivity. What do you make of the paleo record stuff from Lunt et al (2010) and Pagani et al (2010) who all use paleo estimates to suggest argue that sensitivity estimates are too low?montynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-667478177911023912011-03-01T17:31:05.081+00:002011-03-01T17:31:05.081+00:00re: Spam trap, I know how it is.
If only Monty Pyt...re: Spam trap, I know how it is.<br />If only Monty Pythong hadn't invented it in the first place.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-20188587580454910412011-03-01T08:31:48.985+00:002011-03-01T08:31:48.985+00:00Martin,
I think negative credibility would be uns...Martin,<br /><br />I think negative credibility would be unstable, as if we were all convinced to believed the opposite of what she said then we'd both get more shrill and extreme in opposite directions. I think the intertubes would snap under the strain.<br /><br />So I conclude she is better ignored than actively opposed :-)James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-19180627995650461242011-03-01T06:04:03.942+00:002011-03-01T06:04:03.942+00:00> my current (low) opinion of her credibility
...> my current (low) opinion of her credibility<br /><br />But still non-negative?<br /><br />/me ducks and runsMartin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-48131023275721468002011-03-01T05:21:10.706+00:002011-03-01T05:21:10.706+00:00Sorry John, it's the bloody spam trap again......Sorry John, it's the bloody spam trap again...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-46768093752309953112011-03-01T04:59:06.271+00:002011-03-01T04:59:06.271+00:00James:
"possibly worst journal in the world&q...James:<br />"possibly worst journal in the world" is certainly justifiable, but I'm unaware of a clear linear axis of quality. I do think it is rivaled and perhaps exceeded by <a href="javascript:void(0);" rel="nofollow">discussion @ Rabett</a>, especially about issue 19:2. <br /><br />Sometimes JSE intersects oddly with E&E favored authors:<br /><br />-In a 2005 talk, McKitrick quoted David Deming's JSE article in the issue (19:2) discussed above.<br /><br />- A few weeks later, McIntyre&McKtrick reused the material, but somehow converted the (correct) citation of JSE to one of Science, a journal of somewhat different repute.<br /><br />- Both were cited in the Wegman report, and the second was quite influential. Hence, the WR was in some sense based on a paper quoted from a dog astrology journal. Of course, it was also based on E&E.<br /><br />- Andrew Montford (He Who Quotes Doga Astology Journal) relied heavily on Deming in the Hockey Stick Illusion, but also managed falsification or fabrication in doing so. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&oldid=380146816#HSI_pp.23-30.2C_421_..._dog_astrology" rel="nofollow">since-archived discussion of Wikipedia page.</a><br /><br />So, I think JSE rivals E&E, although the former is probably more often amusing, and most of is articles are freely available.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-28935856460768971732011-03-01T01:44:02.815+00:002011-03-01T01:44:02.815+00:00Not wuite everyone. Some will impolitely ignore i...Not wuite everyone. Some will impolitely ignore it.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-59855209156235407132011-02-28T21:34:42.017+00:002011-02-28T21:34:42.017+00:00I predict that Roger's plaintive plea that the...I predict that Roger's plaintive plea that the term should be redefined will be politely ignored by everyone else :-)James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-89416919080858692612011-02-28T15:02:42.100+00:002011-02-28T15:02:42.100+00:00Speaking of climate sensitivity, Big Roger has thi...Speaking of climate sensitivity, Big Roger has this rather curious post on the subject. <br /><br />http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/missing-the-major-point-of-what-is-climate-sensitivity/SteveFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-78556940240986160812011-02-28T11:41:28.635+00:002011-02-28T11:41:28.635+00:00I won't say I never look at it, but there'...I won't say I never look at it, but there's far too much dross to make it worth reading carefully. And I don't just mean the comments, about the iron sun and otherwise :-)<br /><br />A completely unsupported assertion of a 5% chance of negative sensitivity is...interesting. And 5% chance of exceeding 10C exceeds the most alarmist of the 14 experts surveyed <a href="http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/06/oh-noes-were-all-going-dieby-2200.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I see no reason to revise my current (low) opinion of her credibility.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-82882797883652955052011-02-28T11:13:26.210+00:002011-02-28T11:13:26.210+00:00Hi James
Have you kept up with the latest Judith C...Hi James<br />Have you kept up with the latest Judith Curry debate? A few days ago I got fed up with her seeming acceptance of sceptic rubbish and asked her to disagree with a number of (seemingly uncontentious) points re AGW. She accepted most but refused to answer the one abour sensitivity. Eventually, after much pushing, she said that she thought it lay in the range 0-10C! She now has a big post up about this....still can't see where she thinks sensitivity might lie, nor have I heard her views on how low sensitivity can be squared with the paleo record. <br /><br />However, if she does accept somewhere around 3C she will upset a lot of her new-found sceptic friends.montynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-3887526071971251182011-02-28T07:55:12.182+00:002011-02-28T07:55:12.182+00:00Hughes indicated in his second letter that he is &...Hughes indicated in his second letter that he is 'well accustomed in respect of EE' to people straying 'across the line from insult'. In other words, Hughes knows that Gavin is far from the only person who doesn't think highly of EE.<br /><br />Hughes apologised multiple times to Gavin in his short email, and it looks as if EE is not taking it any further.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-13271159715961086952011-02-28T05:07:25.944+00:002011-02-28T05:07:25.944+00:00James:
"possibly worst journal in the world&q...James:<br />"possibly worst journal in the world" is certainly justifiable, but I'm not aware of a clear linear axis of quality. I do think it is rivaled and perhaps exceeded by <a href="javascript:void(0);" rel="nofollow">discussion @ Rabett</a>, especially around issue 19:2. <br /><br />Sometimes JSE intersects oddly with E&E favored authors:<br /><br />-In a 2005 talk, McKitrick quoted David Deming's JSE article in the issue (19:2) discussed above.<br /><br />- A few weeks later, McIntyre&McKtrick reused the material, but somehow converted the (correct) citation of JSE to one of Science, a journal of somewhat different repute.<br /><br />- Both were cited in the Wegman report, and the second was quite influential. Hence, the WR was in some sense based on a paper quoted from a dog astrology journal. Of course, it was also based on E&E.<br /><br />- Andrew Montford relied heavily on Deming in the Hockey Stick Illusion, but also managed falsification or fabrication in doing so. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&oldid=380146816#HSI_pp.23-30.2C_421_..._dog_astrology" rel="nofollow">since-archived discussion of Wikipedia page.</a><br /><br />So, I think JSE rivals E&E, although the former is probably more often amusing, and most of its articles are freely available.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-68583867546740146252011-02-28T00:11:09.881+00:002011-02-28T00:11:09.881+00:00Waste of perfectly good trees.Waste of perfectly good trees.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-22428305641394273162011-02-27T13:50:45.805+00:002011-02-27T13:50:45.805+00:00Hughes actually created E&E himself, so i gues...Hughes actually created E&E himself, so i guess he should be aware of the general standing of the journal.<br /><br />p.Captain Pithartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-26636801269380256872011-02-27T11:46:39.134+00:002011-02-27T11:46:39.134+00:00Yes, I think on reflection you are right. I hadn&#...Yes, I think on reflection you are right. I hadn't actually bothered looking very hard, and didn't think the annual review of golf coaching was particularly controversial, but I see there is a lot of crap in there too!James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-76344816685382267762011-02-27T11:32:06.270+00:002011-02-27T11:32:06.270+00:00> but perhaps that's too naive of me.
Yes,...> but perhaps that's too naive of me.<br /><br />Yes, obviously you haven't looked at the list of books and authors at Multi-Science's web site.<br /><br />Martin (google login crashes on an error)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com