[Newsbot]

Title: RealClimate: Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half
Category: Environmental
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2013-11-15 08:17:09
Canadian

[N_Fiddledog]

Well, seeing as you're using a warmist blog to reference that, I think it's fair to use a blog from the other side in reply.

$1:

The green side of the climate debate is getting terribly excited about a paper by Kevin Cowtan, a chemist from the university of York, and Robert G. Way, a geographer from the university of Ottawa. They claim to have discovered that the pause is illusory and due to incorrect estimates of temperatures at the poles. With their new whizz-bang method of making up data they claim to have magicked the missing data into existence and, surprise suprise, actually the poles are warming very quickly and the pause doesn't exist.

Judith Curry is having fun with the paper,

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncer ... data-sets/

noting that the methods they use to estimate the missing data are not exactly suited in the particular circumstances of polar temperatures:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/11 ... magic.html

[DrCaleb]

The Royal Meteorological Society is a "Warmist Blog"?

Who knew?

Sometimes I post stuff like this just to recall that denial isn't just a river in Egypt anymore.

[Public_Domain]

[commanderkai]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The Royal Meteorological Society is a "Warmist Blog"?

Um, no, what you linked to is a blog.

http://www.rmets.org/news

That link is the Royal Meteorological Society's website.

[DrCaleb]

commanderkai commanderkai:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The Royal Meteorological Society is a "Warmist Blog"?

Um, no, what you linked to is a blog.

http://www.rmets.org/news

That link is the Royal Meteorological Society's website.

The story, and similar ones posted in places like 'The Guardian' are all based on a new study by the RMS. It's actually the first sentence in the article... "A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows " which links to the study at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract

[BartSimpson]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

"Warmist" is now going to be added to the list of made-up words that I believe should get a person viciously laughed out of the room for, up there with "Prog", "-tard", and "Feminazi".

You inadvertently created a new word: Progtard.

Congratulations!

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Well, seeing as you're using a warmist blog to reference that, I think it's fair to use a blog from the other side in reply.

$1:

The green side of the climate debate is getting terribly excited about a paper by Kevin Cowtan, a chemist from the university of York, and Robert G. Way, a geographer from the university of Ottawa. They claim to have discovered that the pause is illusory and due to incorrect estimates of temperatures at the poles. With their new whizz-bang method of making up data they claim to have magicked the missing data into existence and, surprise suprise, actually the poles are warming very quickly and the pause doesn't exist.

Judith Curry is having fun with the paper,

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncer ... data-sets/

noting that the methods they use to estimate the missing data are not exactly suited in the particular circumstances of polar temperatures:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/11 ... magic.html

It's not a blog, it's a peer-reviewed paper.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract

So no, it's not equitable to respond by snarky blog posts.

I read the paper, but it's all statistics that's out of my league. While I can see the reasoning for a bias due to incomplete temperature coverage, I also know that application of statistical interpolation and other techniques can multiply existing uncertainties, until the noise swamps the signal.

That said, certainly the sea ice extent hasn't shown the same pause as the global annual temperature.

[N_Fiddledog]

RealClimate is a blog, and Zip you above all people know this.

It's a blog put out by activist scientists like James Hansen, William O Donnel and Gavin Shmidt to push the warmist cause. Warmist, btw is at least as old a term as Denier, and older than definition changes like the new warmist definition for the word Pollution which now means whatever the new faith of Warmism decides it means. Take the odorless, invisible, benign, essential for life on earth, natural plant fertilizer we all exhale called Carbon dioxide for instance. The new warmist definition for that one is pollution.

Real Climate is a blog, but it will consider certain studies that help propagandize its cause. So if we are accepting such stories as news, you guys on the other side will of course not complain when I post a story on the front page news from the ten times as popular climate blog WattsUpWithThat on a study supporting climate skepticism, will you. Feel free to step right up and agree to that one, or tell me again why RealClimate is not a blog, when without Googling it I can tell you the search term RealClimate Blog will return you thousands of pages.

The fact it covers scientific studies is nothing WUWT does not do.

[DrCaleb]

RealClimate didn't publish the study.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

RealClimate didn't publish the study.

If the very same study were noted on World Net Daily it would be instantly discredited and denounced as propaganda because of the source.

RealClimate has as much gravitas with skeptics as WND has with leftists.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

RealClimate didn't publish the study.

If the very same study were noted on World Net Daily it would be instantly discredited and denounced as propaganda because of the source.

RealClimate has as much gravitas with skeptics as WND has with leftists.

It would never make WND. Not enough aliens.

How about the exact same story, republished by The Guardian? Is that better?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ed-by-half

Why does it always take 1 page of ad Hominem arguments to get people to focus on the message and not the messenger?

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

RealClimate didn't publish the study.

You did not link to the study. You linked to a blog post from Stefan at Real Climate.

Here is the link to the WuWT story on the same study.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/c ... ful-in-it/

One likes the study, the other does not, but which blog is news.

[DrCaleb]

TG Daily?

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences ... al-warming

The Weather Channel?

http://www.weather.com/news/science/env ... t-20131114

Global News?

http://globalnews.ca/news/967058/resear ... ing-pause/

ARS Techinca?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/ ... estimated/

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

RealClimate didn't publish the study.

You did not link to the study. You linked to a blog post from Stefan at Real Climate.

Here is the link to the WuWT story on the same study.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/c ... ful-in-it/

One likes the study, the other does not, but which blog is news.

They linked to the study. Studies can be boring and technical for most people, and if a dozen other news sites publish the exact same thing, is it not news?

Can we stop attacking the messenger now?