Re: a modest proposal [was: Re: [asa] Phil Jones Stepping Down..]

From: William Hamilton <willeugenehamilton@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Dec 09 2009 - 22:57:42 EST

A few comments on what Rich wrote.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

> You don't have to take either Randy or my word for it since apparently
> Glenn has made a case to his satisfaction on his web site. Go to his web
> site and ask the following questions and decide for yourself.
>
>
> 1. Are graphs done in absolute temperatures or in anomalies? If you want to
> hide a trend you do it in absolute temperatures and make sure that the scale
> is sufficiently coarse. My second-grade daughter found this one out on the
> PBS show Cyber Chase.
>

Suppressed zeros irritate engineers. Burgy will attest to a graph I found in
one of the IPCC reports that appeared to be a deliberate attempt to scare
readers. Obviously one doesn't want to reference temperatures to absolute 0,
but some reasonable reference such as zero C would be appropriate.

>
> 2. Are the trends global or local?
>
> 3. Are things correctly labelled, such as labeling say the Northern
> Hemisphere as anything north of 60 degrees south latitude?
>

Why should anything north of 60 degrees south latitude be considered
northern hemisphere? Why not use the conventional definition? (i.e. 0
degrees)

>
> 4. Is the peer-reviewed literature cited? Are known problems referenced
> such as problems with using tree ring proxies mentioned? Are known
> corrections to the data in the literature used and referenced? Was the NAS
> 2006 review of paleoclimate literature that affirmed the "hockey stick"
> referenced?
>
> 5. Is the length of time for trends greater than know cyclical forcings
> such as the 11 year sunspot cycle?
>
> 6. Is the data anecdotal rather than systemic?
>
> 7. If anecdotal problems exist was a systemic approach taken? Were global
> anomalies recalculated with the problematic stations removed or corrected?
> Was the literature referenced where a systemic approach was done? Were the
> correction mention in said papers applied? Were alternative corrections
> proposed?
>
> 8. Was proxy data preferred over measured data?
>
> 9. Do the graphs have error bars in them?
>
> 10. When alternatives to AGW are proposed was a physical mechanism
> included? Was the physical mechanism plugged into a model? Did the model
> explain the temperature record better than the current ones?
>
> 11. Were problems acknowledged such as in order for solar irradiance to
> explain the current warming there needs to be at least a 2% increase while
> the measured variation is a 0.1% cyclical 11-year one?
>
This assumes the sensitivity of the earth's atmosphere to solar irradience
variations is constant. But in a nonlinear system sensitivity varies with
the operating point.

>
> This is what Randy means by interacting with the data. I leave the
> answering of these question as an excercise for the reader. Everyone can
> make up their own mind.
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
>
>
>
>

-- 
William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
Member American Scientific Affiliation
Austin, TX
248 821 8156
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 9 22:58:11 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 09 2009 - 22:58:11 EST