1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Climate change news

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by tochatihu, Jun 16, 2014.

Page 6 of 6
  1. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,995
    3,507
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    May get into trouble for posting this...

    Rasmus E. Benestad et al. (2015). Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theor Appl Climatol
    DOI 10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

    It is open access, and also get the supplemental.
    As always, you are advised to examine the product as desired, and form your own conclusions. My summary:

    Authors chose 38 publications from the 'non-mainstream' literature. Examined designs, data selection, and analyses. They conclude all studies failed in some way, and placed them into groups. Worth noting that authors' selection of 38 was a matter of convenience. Maybe there are others that could have been examined, or could have been better to examine.

    It is not the first time that such auditing has been done. Last time here (I'd have to search for the thread) I opined that it would be just as fruitful to examine 'mainstream' literature in the same manner. That has apparently not been done.

    All I might do is to (where possible) put T predictions on a graph to see how they perform in general, later. I have done this in the 2050 thread and perhaps more predictions could be added to that.

    So, load your weapons and fire :unsure:

    BTW, should you every publish a paper with a supplemental, both are supposed to have the same title and authorship list. TAC journal editor should have corrected that even if the authors could not be bothered.

    PS: in another place where this is being discussed, the question is raised whether 'indicted' authors should be considered as manuscript reviewers. For me this is an absolute 'yes'. If I name and shame earlier authors (and do so in at least 2 manuscripts), I fully expect the journal editor to seek and consider their responses. Journal editors sit in the chairs (and get paid the small bucks) to sort out such disagreements.
     
    #101 tochatihu, Aug 26, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2015
  2. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,123
    15,389
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    I had downloaded it but found the 5 pages a little thin on the details. In particular, I was expecting to see a table of all 38 papers and some sort of matrix of the problems per paper. It may be in the list of cites but a table showing the issues would have been more helpful. Too often this paper seems to paint with a broad brush and cite specific papers instead of treating them as a population. But there was one take-away.

    They pointed out that of the alternate hypothesis proposals are all over the map on root causes. It strikes me they should have had a matrix or table of the alternates and count of papers citing them. However, I am printing a copy of the original paper and will see if in hard copy it is easier to noodle out the 38 samples.

    Now it is unfair to use local denier claims as the population of alternate hypothesis. I would observe paleo-record claims are one set and a smaller one associated with orbital mechanics. Fortunately, no one has stood up for the "irreducibly simple model", the CO{2} only claim, yet.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #102 bwilson4web, Aug 27, 2015
  3. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,995
    3,507
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I think the supplementary file answers some of those questions.
     
    #103 tochatihu, Aug 27, 2015
  4. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,123
    15,389
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Yes and no. Table S3, horribly formatted, does list the 38 papers and the errors. But what I noticed is how few authors were in these 38 papers. About a dozen authors account for the 38 papers. This means we are actually seeing not 38 independent papers but rather the multiplication of a small but vocal group.

    I will try to load this table into excel and map the authors into the flaws. I don't see the papers as being independent points of view but rather echoing the author biases.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #104 bwilson4web, Aug 31, 2015
    austingreen likes this.
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,123
    15,389
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    <GERRRRRRRRR> PDF!

    None of my usual tricks were able to export the table as any sort of excel compatible text. PDF apparently stores the text in some order different than the rendered page. This leaves manual entry or printing the page and using a scanner to try and 'read' the text.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #105 bwilson4web, Sep 1, 2015
  6. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,995
    3,507
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Yale Forestry School publishes in Nature, earths' forest have 3 trillion trees. This is aboout 10X earlier estimates.

    I think it basically means trees are smaller and more numerous than we thought, Maybe just grumpy this AM. Anyway, be nice you your share (500 ish)
     
    #106 tochatihu, Sep 5, 2015
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 6 of 6