tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post5371435315052791325..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Klotzbach et alMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-40039693155410657532009-08-05T09:42:51.934-07:002009-08-05T09:42:51.934-07:00@MT:
if they are going to build the whole case fo...@MT:<br /><br /><i>if they are going to build the whole case for delay around the tropical troposphere</i><br /><br />Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Michaels, Singer, Douglass et al. have been banging that drum relentlessly. I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Pielkes joined in.<br /><br />I think that the proper perspective from which to read this paper is this:<br /><br />1). There are ostensible discrepancies* between certain observations relating to the tropical troposphere and anthropogenic warming. <br />2). Denialists of all stripes have seized upon this- from the out and out loons to the "serious" ones that still try to maintain a veneer of professional respectability. <br />3). The McLean, de Freitas, Carter paper was not unique in saying one thing and being ludicrously touted by its authors as saying another. Douglass et al. 2007 was similarly flogged by its authors as "disproving" anthropogenic warming (e.g. <a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908" rel="nofollow">here</a>). <br />4). Santer et al. 2008 received such attention from the denialosphere (even warranting an attack at CA) precisely because it attempted to put the issue to bed. This paper can be seen as yet another attack on Santer et al. 2008, and on the RSS record as well (used by the Santer paper).<br /><br />*However the data regarding tropical tropospheric trends are unclear, as the ostensible discrepancies may be artifacts rather than "real" obs (e.g. Allen & Sherwood 2008).<br /><br />@SB:<br /><br /><i>Just to clarify, things, RP Sr. very much was the inspiration for the Watts project, so the proprietary rhetoric is no coincidence.</i><br /><br />I'd completely forgotten that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-34907631909275913312009-08-05T09:15:47.101-07:002009-08-05T09:15:47.101-07:00Also, this work by Arthur Smith from a few months ...Also, this <a href="http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/hot_spot_redux_analysis_of_tropical_tropospheric_amplification" rel="nofollow">work</a> by Arthur Smith from a few months back may be helpful.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80617044953087823192009-08-05T09:04:38.058-07:002009-08-05T09:04:38.058-07:00Just to clarify, things, RP Sr. very much was the ...Just to clarify, things, RP Sr. very much was the inspiration for the Watts project, so the proprietary rhetoric is no coincidence.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7679728925869008522009-08-05T08:45:01.031-07:002009-08-05T08:45:01.031-07:00This certainly is the way they want the paper to b...This certainly is the way they want the paper to be taken, but it doesn't make a case that you'd bet the planet on; ultimately it is about the tropospheric middle troposphere and the land surface under it. <br /><br />Even if their speculation makes sense they are trying to make it carry a huge burden. <br /><br />But if they are going to build the whole case for delay around the tropical troposphere, it might make sense to understand what, if anything they are saying. I'm stopped at a point where I don't quite get what they are saying and trying to decide if it makes much sense.<br /><br />I am not expert in observations or aobservational statistics, so I am also trying to provide a realistic model of someone plowing through a paper in a tangentially related field.<br /><br />Scientists always try to pretend their understanding of what each other have written is easy. Consequently the good ones stay on safe turf and the bad ones just mess up constantly. It's a bad habit. I have little enough to lose that you can see my confusion spread out before you.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-52477109582111414522009-08-05T08:14:53.362-07:002009-08-05T08:14:53.362-07:00I've only just started reading, but at first g...I've only just started reading, but at first glance it looks like they're attempting at least three gambits:<br /><br />- assert the accuracy of the sat record over the instrumental, and the primacy of the UAH record in particular<br />- assert that one or more of the alleged "fingerprints" of enhanced greenhouse warming (increased nighttime (also wintertime?) temps) can be (at least partially) accounted for by UHI<br />- attempt to gray wash (did I just coin that? doubtful) Watts' surfacestations pet project<br /><br />As I'm sure you know, Pielke Sr. is a longtime backer of the "underestimated/unaccounted for UHI influence" claim. Senior has also been head over heels for Watts, especially of late. Christy's interest in promoting the UAH sat record is self-evident. The overall effect of the paper is to diminish the amount of warming that we've already "had", which will in turn be used to argue for lower warming to come, and thus ultimately against mitigation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com