Jeez, man, think you could link to less of McKintyre’s self-congractulatory spew, and more serious science?
One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor, and McIntyre has published more and better climate science than you or I.
But that’s not the point. wevets had claimed that people ignored the other “reconstructions”. I gave a long list of places where they were in fact discussed and dissected at great length. Now, you say they didn’t pass the famous “Dibble Serious Science Test (DSST)”, but so what? wevets made no claims about that well-known benchmark. He said sceptics were trying to “pretend the other reconstructions don’t exist.” My cites show that his claim is the usual crock-o-wevets, the other reconstructions have been discussed by sceptics at huge length in a host of places, any bozo with google can verify that.
Now, since you have claimed that my cites to ClimateAudit contain only “self-congratulatory spew” that doesn’t pass the DSST, I’m sure you’ll be willing to give us a few examples of where Steve McIntyre has been found to be factually incorrect in his scientific claims about any of the other reconstructions … just a few examples will suffice.
If you can’t provide them, of course, we’ll have to consider your post to be “self-congratulatory spew” that doesn’t even begin to pass the DSST …
w.
I’m ready to talk about all these things. 
There are no forum rules against it - why don’t you present an argument instead of just mentioning names? If you think I will leave because you dropped some names you are mistaken. Just dropping names like Abaneh’s without trying to use them to support a proposition leaves them like Capt. Hammer’s lacy curtains, gently wafting in the wind.
You may recall from earlier threads that I am more than happy to discuss your unusual interpretations of scientific evidence.
You have perhaps overlooked the fact that not all the studies cited on that page are tree ring studies. Huang’s borehole study that I mentioned above uses no tree rings (here’s a hint: it’s a borehole study) also supports the ‘Hockey Stick’ pattern for the last 500 years.
Intention if there’s nothing in those links you think is worthy of paraphrasing into your own words, or quoting, or even connecting to a specific statement you’ve made, why should I or anyone else look at them?
This is a debate forum. If you want to debate, don’t try to say “let’s you and these bunch of links argue.” I’m here to debate you, not a bunch of 19 links.
Oooh, I get my very own crock! I’m gonna cook a pigeonhole stew. 
If you just want to do ad hominems here, just Pit me. We have a forum for that, and you can take your vitriol there so we can actually debate here.
I’d like to discuss your cites, but I’m not going to look through 19 links at once. Let’s pick the one you like best and start discussing that one, then the next, and so on.
I wasn’t commentng on your links as regards their fitness as a reply to wevets, I was commenting on them in general - it’s telling that almost all your cites come from one blog, and that other than the papers he’s attacking, McIntyre doesn’t cite any PR literature to back himself up. And yes, McKintyre’s stuff is self-congratulatory - it’s all “I did this reconstruction” and “Look at this nice graph **I **made”. Real science shuldn’t be written in the first person singular.
And no, I’m not going to point out any errors in McKintyre’s facts. It isn’t my field of expertise or even real competence. I just have to take note of the fact that it’s published on a blog, and hasn’t been near a peer review process. That’s all the testing I need to do. Not much of a “serious science test”, really. Thousands of scientists pass it every year. Let’s see McIntyre do it - last legit thing I can find by him was the* GRL* hockey stick paper in 2005, but he’s written an awful lot of blog posts since then. You’d think there’d be several papers’ worth by now :dubious:
Thanks, I couldn’t have described your lack of competence better myself.
Five days and that’s the best you can do?
At least I know enough to know when I have no standing to evaluate a scientific matter.
You could, however, have resisted the urge to make a personal sleight.
[ /Modding ]
= = =
Is this thread going to go anywhere? I don’t mind it staying open as a repository for desultory bickering, (as long as it does not turn into a flame fest), but I am not sure what you folks think you’re getting out of it.
I have read this paper now. I also read the piece that Gavin Schmidt (yes, I know he’s your favorite guy) has done on this paper over at RealClimate…and I started browsing through Chapter 11 of the IPCC AR4 report on regional climate predictions. From what I can tell, Gavin’s take seems to be pretty much right on target. In particular, I don’t see anywhere in the IPCC report where they are suggesting that you can take individual runs of climate models and use them to predict future climate changes on a very local scale. In particular, they note (p. 852):
I really need to read more about how these sort of downscaling techniques are done, but I think I can give you some idea of my understanding of this from our local area here in upstate New York: For example, here the Great Lakes have very important effects on weather and even climate. In the winter, there are lake effect snows that can dump several inches to several feet of snow in short periods of time and are extremely localized and extremely sensitive to the exact wind direction and how it aligns with the shape of the lakes. For example, if the wind is from a little south of west (say, 250deg), Buffalo can get absolutely nailed from Lake Erie…and Watertown can get some pretty decent accumulations off of Lake Ontario, while 270deg puts the snows off of Erie in a more diffuse pattern over an area south of Buffalo known as the ski country while off of Lake Ontario, one gets extremely heavy bands in an area between Syracuse and Watertown known as the Tug Hill plateau. If the winds are more like 290deg, then the snows off Lake Ontario shift down toward Syracuse, and maybe 300 or 310deg puts more diffuse snows along much of the south shore of the lake, including Rochester.
The standard forecast models that they use to predict the weather (and which I imagine have at least as good resolution as the AOGCMs…and probably better) do not have sufficient resolution to resolve these lake effect snow bands. So, the forecasters either have to couple them to some “mesoscale” models that have higher resolution (which I believe is akin to “using high resolution in dynamical models”) or they have to use some rough “empirical statistical downscaling”, which in this case I believe is simply looking at the wind direction and other parameters predicted by the forecast models and coupling that to forecaster intuition based on physical understanding and past experience in order to predict where the bands of lake effect snow are likely to set up, how strong they will likely be, how much they will tend to move around, etc.
Note, however, that this doesn’t make the regular forecast models useless for predicting the weather here in upstate New York even though if you simply used the raw forecast model outputs of precipitation to make predictions, you would likely see pretty poor performance. Indeed, these models are absolutely vital for providing the basic predictions of temperature, wind direction, etc. that then go into forecasting the lake effect snows. And, overall, given the difficulty of the task, I think the forecasters do a pretty decent job with the lake effect snows.
And, by the way, the lakes cause more than just lake effect snows. In the summer, they can actually stabilize the atmosphere producing a lake “shadow” downwind that tends to inhibit cloudiness and convection. And, they can also produce an air conditioning effect…In fact, a wind from the southwest can keep Buffalo itself (including the airport weather station there) at, say, 80deg, while areas nearby get well above 90deg.
So, to summarize, what Koutsoyannis et al. do is test the models in ways that they are not actually used to make predictions. It is as if I took a weather forecast model and ran it out a month in time and used it to predict the weather in a particular place on a particular day. I would find that the models perform very poorly on such a task, which is a good reason why weather forecasts such as these are not issued. However, it would not show the models to be useless for the purpose for which they do use them.
Of course, in an ideal world, the climate models would have infinitely fine resolution, include an infinite number of processes in (infinitely-)full detail and so forth. However, that is not the world we live in. So, as Gavin points out, the ways in which the models must be tested are in the ways that they are actually going to be used, not in ways that one might want to use them but already know for a fact that they can’t be used.
My best to you as always.
What on earth is a “personal sleight”? It sounds like some kind of one-person Russian troika, but I doubt that’s what you meant, and google merely says:
Definitions of sleight on the Web:
* dexterity: adroitness in using the hands
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Sleight is a surname, and may refer to: * George Sleight (1853-1921), English trawler owner* Karl J. Sleight (born 1962), attorney
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleight
* Cunning; craft; artful practice; An artful trick; sly artifice; a feat so dexterous that the manner of performance escapes observation; Dexterous practice; dexterity; skill
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sleight
* skill and dexterity, as in: Magicians use sleight of hand to make illusions seem real.
www.business-words.com/dictionary/S.html
I doubt that you meant any of those either.
However, I do find it interesting and worthy of comment that, after calling Steve McIntyre’s writings “self-congratulatory spew,” MrDibble says “I’m not going to point out any errors in McKintyre’s facts. It isn’t my field of expertise or even real competence.” If he himself admits to a lack of competence and expertise in the field, what on earth is he doing judging it as “self-congratulatory spew”? He just told us he’s not competent to judge it, but he knows what it is? Sorrry, that doesn’t pass the straight-face test.
And I do find it interesting that when when I defer to his expertise regarding his own self-assessment of his lack of competence, suddenly you feel compelled to don your moderator’s strap-on and intervene, even if incoherently …
w.
It’s just a typo. It should read “personal slight”.
But it’s so much more entertaining to pretend otherwise.
.
That seems a rather silly statement unless you are competent to peer review and replicate McKintyre’s output. On what exactly are you basing your trust in this one person?
If you have an absolute need to make an issue of this, I am quite willing to turn my initial admonition into a formal Warning.
The easiest thing you could have done would have been to simply refrain from making any more snide remarks without even bothering to reply to me.
Since you have decided that a typo is worthy of a childish run to the dictionary followed by another snide attack on the other poster along with a personal insult to me, I am less likely to consider future transgressions as simply impassioned responses and more likely to consider them deliberate flouting of the rules.
Enjoy your stay, but behave yourself.
[ /Modding ]
I don’t need to evaluate the science of it to pick up the self-congratulatory nature of it (as I already illustrated), and it is that that makes it what I said.
tomndebb, you have proven yourself to be far, far from neutral in the climate question. You have a clear point of view about climate, and you are not shy about putting on your moderator’s hat to enforce that point of view. In some venues, you would be required by law to recuse yourself from your moderator’s role because you are personally vested in the question. In other venues, although not required by law, simple personal integrity would impel you to take the same course.
Here, however, you are free to indulge your prejudices, up to and including banning me entirely because you don’t like my point of view about climate. I’ve been abused by the best here, and you have not said a word.
But when I agree with another poster’s self-assessment, that he is not competent to judge the issues that he’s just said are “self-congratulatory spew”, ooooh, slap me down, Mr. Moderator, can’t let those evil skeptics flourish, the climate “consensus” might fall apart.
So do what you want, send me a formal Warning with a capital letter, heck, if you interfere enough, there won’t be a single person left on the board to threaten your worldview.
What, do you think MrDibble needs you to protect him from my vile machinations? Do you really believe he’s that weak? Because from my perspective, he’s a strong person who is quite capable of speaking for himself. Who are you protecting here? The Board, or your own personal views on climate? Grab a mirror, bro’, and spend some time looking into it and thinking about your own motives here.
If “personal sleight” was in fact a typo, then you have my apologies. However, I took it as some kind of cryptic comment saying that I was involved in some kind of personal “sleight of hand”, some trickery. If that’s not what you meant, fine. But don’t bust me because of your typos, get a typing lesson instead. You should pay the price for your lack of manual dexterity, not me. You clearly want to involve your personal prejudices in your moderation, and although I don’t like it, I can live with that … but the least you could do is learn to spell your prejudiced views correctly.
w.
Your accusation, of course, is utter bullshit. I have hardly even participated in AGW threads and have never staked out a strong position.
Piffle. If you have been insulted in one of these overlong and tedious threads, then you should have reported it. I will freely admit that after my eyes have glazed over from the interminable meta-arguments employed by boths sides of the discussion, I might have missed an occasional misstep. I happened to catch yours and called your attention to it. As to banning you, I would need to persuade two other staff members, including an administrator, that you had been sufficiently evil as to require banishment (which would require several Warnings when I have yet to issue you even one), and I would then have to wait out an initial suspension period, then persuade them that some future activity warranted banning. Aside from the paranoia, your claims are simply dumb.
Taking a statement of self-deprecation and turning it into an admission of incompetence is stepping into the realm of personal attack. It is hardly serious enough to garner a Warning, but all it originally garnered was a mild instruction to stay away from such insults. Claiming that you were “agreeing” with the other poster with no intent to insult stretches disingenuity to the breaking point.
You have now made this [sotto voce] A SERIOUS ISSUE [/sotto voce] and are complaining about it (and insulting me and making false claims against me) all out of proportion to the original incident. Just let it go.
Since I have not accused you of dishonest posting, you seem to have leaped to a fairly silly conclusion.
Again: Let it go before you do step over the line.
[ /Modding ]
Fine, Tom, whatever you say, after all, you are the moderator and are just and evenhanded. Which I’m sure is why you are a regular subject in the Pit, with the topic always (and boringly) being your just and evenhanded moderation.
I, on the other hand, said very clearly upthread that I thought it was ad hominem for jshore to attack me as follows:
To this scurrilous accusation of jshore’s, you responded, showing your even-handedness and how you, what was it, “never staked out a strong position” about climate science, that everything I had said was a “straw man” … which I guess must be a “weak position”, since you haven’t taken a strong one …
And you said nothing to jshore at all.
Now I didn’t mind you not saying anything to jshore. jshore is a grown man and so am I, and if I can’t take the heat of him calling me a “self-appointed expert”, then I should get out of the kitchen.
But now you want to bust me for a much lesser offense … however, that’s fine, after all it must be fine, it must be just and even-handed because you are, when all is said and done, the Moderator with a capital M, who gives only just and even-handed Warnings with a capital W, in this best of all possible worlds.
But I have seen the error of my ways, I will go forth and sin no more. MrDibble, I am truly sorry that I agreed with you that you were lacking competence in climate science, it was callous and unthinking of me to actually agree with you. Tom, I’m sorry that I called you just and even-handed. jshore, I’m sorry I called you a physicist. And finally, anyone else that I ever said “X” about, I now say “not X” …
You happy now, Tom? 'Cause, you being the Moderator and all, your happiness is important to me.
Look, Tom, you’re obviously overworked here, considering how you completely missed jshore’s attack on me. Why don’t you just retire and lick your wounds until somebody here actually asks for you to don your Moderator’s strap-on and come out here to tell me to bend over? You know, jump on things that people here actually think are a problem, rather than whatever you decide to jump on? Because MrDibble, as far as I can see, is perfectly equipped and willing to defend himself against my agreeing with him.
You see, then we could get back to discussing climate science, which is what this thread is about, and which is what your ham-fisted attempts at Moderating with a capital M have totally pulled the thread away from.
w.
jshore’s comment was an observation about the actions of a group that included yoiu. It was not a personal attack on you. If you cannot see the difference, I doubt that I could explain it to you.
At any rate, this discussion is a hijack to this thread.
You may open up a Pit thread to excoriate me or open an ATMB thread to challenge my moderating, but this subject is now closed in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
This sort of shit stops now.
[ /Modding ]
I keep telling you folks that in climate science, trust is for fools and little children, but I guess I’m not getting through. I don’t trust anyone’s claims in the field of climate science. I do the shovel work myself to replicate and verify the claims.
I agree with what Steve McIntyre says because
a) unlike Mann, and Briffa, and Osborn, and Thompson, and Phil Jones (all of whom hide their work as though it were a shameful secret, which it may be), Steve posts the data and the code, so anyone can (and I do) replicate his results, and
b) I understand and agree with the math, which I generally rework myself to make sure he hasn’t done something foolish, and
c) his work has been examined in excruciating detail by his opponents, who have found nothing wrong with it, and
d) his work has been examined by neutral parties such as the NAS Panel and the Wegman panel, who also found nothing wrong with it.
What do base your “trust” on?
w.