the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Still Not Qualified for Real Climate

Posted by Jeff Id on February 4, 2011

No I’m not back blogging, still way too busy but I am going to let you guys know that although I am a coauthor of the critiqued paper at a recent RC post here, my comments are unworthy of the great and all seeing climatologists there.

I’ve had a nice conversation with Dr. Steig off-line and though he is the author of the critique and the primary author of the S09 paper, he is not the thin-skinned person responsible for snipping my polite yet apparently to poignant critique.  I do disagree with several of he points in the RC post but that will have to wait for another day.  Ryan is preparing a reply which I intend to at least post here – he says it will take some time though.

Jeff

30 Responses to “Still Not Qualified for Real Climate”

  1. stephen said

    still miss your stuff, dawg.

  2. SBVOR said

    As we all know, RealClimate.org is a purely political propaganda outlet which consistently engages in the most egregious censorship found anywhere on the net.

    My question is…
    Why pay any attention to these utterly despicable tyrannical buffoons at all? They are entirely unworthy.

  3. Mark T said

    Hell, we’re still battling it out in other threads! The warmist in the one thread is actually trying to improve his knowledge… progress.

    Brian H.: if you read this, I have come to the conclusion that entering text into web windows (ffrom a phone) such as this inherently creates the double letter issue at the start of a word… lag or something. Doesn’t do that wwhen I text.

    Mark

  4. Mark T said

    Sniff, still miss ya Jeff. Beer-thirty, i’ll raise a glass for ya.

    Mark

  5. RomanM said

    Glad to see that you can’t kick the blog habit cold turkey! ;)

    I noticed that your comment on RC ended up in the Bore Hole on RC with an inline comment:

    [edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on--understood?]

    Now, you should know better! You can’t go around criticizing real climate scientists just because they may not understand the mathematical methods they are using.

  6. Jeff Id said

    Roman,
    I didn’t even know they started a bucket.

    Here was the comment which was snipped and later entered after the above post:

    Some of the differences are real and correct. You took the example of a single station in your article. This is what I was referring to, you can’t really look at that small of a scale with 7 pc’s and expect a perfect match. The stations information may very easily be shifted nearby the point being examined and can also be reasonably well weighted. The number of PC’s determines the resolution.

    On larger regions the patterns will average out if the math is correct but an arbitrary boundary may or may not have perfect representation. I believe that the Ross issue is something that Ryan and Nic would have more expertise with than myself but again if you look at the area weighted and our reconstruction, the similarities are quite evident. We aren’t far off from the actual station data (I have confirmed this with several methods), but IMHO the station position is a more reliable indicator of where the information should be than correlation with noisy and highly spatially correlated sat data. Again, the simple methods are also is difficult to disagree with and if you check them out they may make your case better than you think.

    If you take a look at the area weighted link, you can see that some of the trends are more muted, but represent a very similar pattern to what our paper revealed – and IMO a very different one from your original. Just be careful when looking at a truncated least squares method when analysing patterns, especially when the sampling is not spatially even. [edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on--understood?]

    Honestly, I’m not sure what they edited at the end but it may have been some commentary on how the same effect occurs with bristlecones. hehe.

    They aren’t worth my time.

  7. Jeff Id said

    Here’s what I left:

    [edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on--understood?]

    The ‘snark’ is hardly off topic and only 1 in 3 of my comments makes moderation anyway so it isn’t much of a threat.

    If you can’t handle reasoned criticism, you aren’t much of a scientist – whomever you are. Eric wouldn’t have written this.

  8. Mark T said

    Based on Eric’s other comments… yes he would have. Either way, off-topic isn’t even close to correct, snark is just a bald-faced lie. These guys are worse than intellectual frauds, they are liars.

    Mark

  9. Carrick said

    Jeff, hope everything is going OK for you.

    Probably either Mann or Ray Pierre. Eric isn’t afraid of taking heat.

    I don’t post to, and generally don’t read, comments that appear on heavily moderated blogs.

  10. Jeff Id said

    #9 I do miss blogging, am having a great time with the extra hours now though. I wish that I would get a little wiser with age rather than letting people get to me. At 41 there isn’t much hope though ;)

    Their preferential snipping shows a certain amount of fear on their part. — Slow learners too.

  11. Layman Lurker said

    Hey Jeff. Damn I miss this blog.

    I have tried a few times to read Steig’s post but only get a few paragraphs in and start to doze off. I suppose I should hold off any negative comments until I get through it but I can’t convince myself that there is actually any use if it’s just more S09 politicking.

  12. Brian H said

    Layman;
    Doze-off often happens when words are misused or undefined. The context and the dictionary meaning (as you understand it, anyhow) clash, and the brain goes into fuzz mode! ;)

    Jeff;
    You’re much too Politically Unreliable; next stop, the Gulag.

  13. steven mosher said

    funny they moved the comments about curry to the open thread instead of the borehole.

  14. [...] the paper by O’Donnell et al. in the Journal of Climate, and the O’Donnell et al group are working on a rebuttal to that, this WUWT comment seemed appropos for discussion [...]

  15. colliemum said

    @ 10, Jeff Id:

    Patience, you young whippersnapper, at 41years!
    In five years or so you will have learned … and anyway, the ‘new old’ starts at 80. :-)

    Nice to see you back, even if it is for a short while only.

    (No, I’m not ‘new old’ as of yet …!)

  16. j ferguson said

    Colliemum said

    February 5, 2011 at 8:53 am

    “..the ‘new old’ starts at 80.”

    Let’s make that mid-80s. not necessarily then either. At 68 and winding through an extended middle-age, there are a lot out here on the water in their mid-80s who don’t seem any less capable than we (us?) “kids.”

  17. TimTheToolMan said

    Haha…in that same thread I complained about having our stuff censored and mine was reinstated from their borehole.

    My post was edited to remove the complaint of course. Its as if nothing ever happened in censorship land.

  18. Jim said

    Yep, Mann seems really too sensitive. Makes you wonder if some arrows found their mark.

  19. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    RC is an environmental advocacy site; always was, always will be.

    Honest discussion of technical issues is not the point, so I never try to comment there any more, and almost never read the comments. I seldom bother to read even the posts, since most of the time the content is selected to exclude contradicting evidence and present only supporting evidence. Mostly half-truths and rubbish.

    Hope all is going well for you Jeff.

  20. nobody said

    > Some of the differences are real and correct. You took
    > the example of a single station in your article. This
    > is what I was referring to, you can’t really look at
    > that small of a scale with 7 pc’s and expect a perfect
    > match.

    Wasn’t there a prominent RC’er who did a PC analysis on some climate proxies, where one of the proxies was used in an “upside down” or opposite fashion with respect to its physically expected influence on overall climate, and when this was pointed out in a critique by S. McIntyre and others, the response from the RC’er was that PC analysis was “insensitive to the sign” of the proxy inputs?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that a far worse, but tangentially related observation to the one that is being made here?

  21. rcrejects said

    The Bore Hole is actually very interesting. Some intelligent and perceptive comments. One wonders whether they are putting all rejected comments there, or just those that they are happy to see in The Bore Hole.

    If you suspect that your comment will be censored/rejected, keep a copy and if it doesn’t get posted, you can put it up at rcrejects.

  22. [...] Jeff Id, een blogger die onlangs gestopt is omdat de schoorsteen ook moet roken, geeft nog een mooi staaltje van recente censuur in zijn post Stil not qualified for realclimate [...]

  23. Robert E. Phelan said

    Jeff: I’m glad you’ve been able to maintain a cordial relationship with Dr. Steig – I imagine that must make his RC colleagues a bit uneasy…. especially considering that Gavin Schmidt’s views on engaging skeptics is that the only thing left to discuss is policy formulation and implementation. Ah, well….

    Glad, too, to see that I’m not the only one who stops by on occasion to see if maybe you’d gotten the itch…. but take your time. The time spent with your family is time well spent.

  24. Yarmy said

    “Gavin Schmidt’s views on engaging skeptics is that the only thing left to discuss is policy formulation and implementation.”

    Gavin has participated on this very blog.

  25. Robert E. Phelan said

    Yarmy #23

    Yes, there may have been a touch of snark in my comment, but it was referencing the current “Gavingate” controversy that seems to be occupying the energies of a surprising number of bloggers and commenters this weekend. The fact that Dr. Schmidt has posted comments here on a few occassions (I think calling them “participation” is a tad bit generous: he came, he pontificated, he left… but that’s just my snarky perspective)does not negate what I wrote. Dr. Schmidt’s own words:

    I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.

    You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’.

    There has been a great deal of spin on this issue, not least by Dr. Schmidt himself, but either he wrote what he meant or he is now subscribing to the Red Queen theory of symantics: words mean exactly what he wants them to mean, no more and no less.

  26. Lady in Red said

    I just stumbled across Eric Steig’s latest piece on RC and quickly scanned the comments for something from
    one of you…. Nada.

    So, I tried Climate Audit. (Steve seems tired. …sigh.)

    Last resort, I came here. ….like coming home. …smile.

    It might be interesting to offer Eric an opportunity here, where the discussion could be more honest, direct,
    and useful.

    Give you a bit more time to recoup, Jeff?

    Yes: you are missed. ….Lady in Red

  27. boballab said

    Lady In Red said

    February 7, 2011 at 10:01 am
    I just stumbled across Eric Steig’s latest piece on RC and quickly scanned the comments for something from
    one of you…. Nada.

    So, I tried Climate Audit. (Steve seems tired. …sigh.)

    Lady I advise you go back to CA and look again, Ryan O has just posted a lengthy post about this topic and he has taken the gloves off. ie he confirms that Reviewer A is in fact Dr. Eric Steig.

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-duplicity/

    After first read of his post IMHO he has metaphorically disemboweled Dr. Steig with a rusty Spork.

  28. Lady in Red said

    Oh, my God!

    Oh my! ….lLady in Red

  29. Espen said

    It was interesting (but not surprising) to find your highly relevant comments in “the borehole”, Jeff. They may have created their borehole to increase traffic, but at least now we get to see what they delete. Now if only Tamino could copy that, I might start reading his “borehole”, too :-)

  30. opastun said

    @ 22
    Thanks for the link, perhaps not easy to understand for everyone:
    It refers to a Dutch Blog and is a posting from Hans Erren over there. From (just starting to) reading “HSI – AndrMont, BisHil” I’ve just learned, he is actually the one who initiated McIntyre’s…….etc…….,,, anyway, he points to the “Bore Hole” and the “RC Rejects” already on the 6th Feb”.
    So Hans Erren is still alive!
    @JeffId, hope you be alive for a long, long time

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: