Pages

Jump to bottom

13 comments

1 RanchTooth  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 1:31:39pm
Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

So, he's saying that this is happening because of the disappearance of El Niño... I'm not sure what your point is. That there's no climate change? That because there is no worsening of overall hurricanes that climate change isn't real? So, tell me then, how did El Niño disappear? Oh wait... is it that there's a natural cycle between El Niño and La Niña. From that same paper:

The minimum number of 64 TCs [tropical cyclones] was recently tallied through May 2011, as a strong La Niña event waned. Conversely, the most recent peak of 108 observed during the 12-months ending February 1997 corresponded with the onset of the record El Niño event.

Those seem pretty "record" and "climate change-y" to me.

2 Interesting Times  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 1:41:15pm

re: #1 RanchTooth

Look up the person who wrote this so-called paper - Ryan Maue is a climate change denier in the mold of Roy Spencer. On his university page above, you see a quote from Limbaugh praising him. He also writes for the execrable wuwt blog. Quoting him on climate change is like quoting a doctor employed by the Tobacco industry on how wonderfully safe smoking is 9_9

And what he says re "accumulated cyclone energy" is a perfect example of baffle-with-bullshit misuse of scientific facts:

It’s possible that Bell is referencing a specific metric of hurricane activity (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), but that does not give a full story, nor does it show ‘record lows’. According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ended Dec 31, was one of the busiest on record. In the Atlantic Basin a total of 19 named storms formed – tied with 1887 and 1995 for third highest on record. Of those, 12 became hurricanes – tied with 1969 for second highest on record. Five of those reached major hurricane status of Category 3 or higher. 2010 was just behind 2004 and 2005 for earliest occurrence of a third category 4 hurricane.

3 Buck  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 1:49:54pm
Dr. Ryan N. Maue

Department of Meteorology, Florida State University
PhD (defense May 28, 2010, Summer 2010 graduation)

National Academy of Science Research Associate
(beginning June 2010)

Naval Research Laboratory Monterey

This is a peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published.

The link is to "The Florida State University".

Wow, talk about being anti science....

4 RanchTooth  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 1:59:42pm

re: #3 Buck

This is a peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published.

The link is to "The Florida State University".

Wow, talk about being anti science...

I don't think questioning a scientist's motives or background hardly makes one anti-science. As a matter of fact, it is required that scientists disclose any relationship that they may have with a private industry (if they hold stock, patents, etc) or a collaborator at the mere perception of poor intentions or bad integrity, so questioning his motives of why he published something or maybe used one method of quantifying storms versus another is plausible if he has this background. I'd do the same if he were a huge proponent of climate change and were arguing something else.

Challenging their assertions with fact is, on the other hand, is the nature of science. It's just a shame we can't hear the answer straight from the author, no?

5 b_sharp  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 2:09:20pm

re: #3 Buck

This is a peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published.

The link is to "The Florida State University".

Wow, talk about being anti science...

Where is it to be published? Not all journals are equal.

6 RanchTooth  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 2:11:30pm

re: #5 b_sharp

Where is it to be published? Not all journals are equal.

LOL. I wasn't going to get into that, but now that you bring it up, it's a Letters journal. "Geophysical Research Letters" to be exact. He's the sole author.

7 b_sharp  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 2:17:02pm

re: #6 RanchTooth

LOL. I wasn't going to get into that, but now that you bring it up, it's a Letters journal. "Geophysical Research Letters" to be exact. He's the sole author.

I suspected as much. There will be no peer review of any significance then.

8 Buck  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 2:23:52pm

re: #4 RanchTooth

Actually "questioning a scientist's motives or background" instead of discussing the science is anti-science.

When you see results from a peer reviewed scientific paper, and the criticizer says Limbaugh praises him so he must be a flake, you have a great example of anti science thinking.

Hey, no problem, put your head back in the sand. No reason to read anyone who might discover something that disagrees with your preconceived notions.

9 Buck  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 2:26:42pm

Geophysical Research Letters is a Letters journal;
GRL's mission is to disseminate concisely-written, high-impact research reports on major scientific advances in AGU disciplines.

Geophysical Research Letters has been in publication since 1974.

10 b_sharp  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 2:37:03pm

re: #9 Buck

Geophysical Research Letters is a Letters journal;
GRL's mission is to disseminate concisely-written, high-impact research reports on major scientific advances in AGU disciplines.

Geophysical Research Letters has been in publication since 1974.

With an impact factor of 3.2.

11 The Ghost of a Flea  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 3:10:09pm

re: #3 Buck

This is a peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published.

The link is to "The Florida State University".

Wow, talk about being anti science...

It's not anti-science to be skeptical. That something is published doesn't make it True...it only means that the article has displayed sufficient rigor of presentation to deemed presentable for further discussion. Credentials and publications can amount to Appeals to Authority in the fallacious sense. Before one ever enters into the question of climate denialism as intellectual malfeasance, there's simply the existence of vanity presses and "letters journals" with nominal peer review standards that exist to pad academic's vitae.

As it just so happens, I'm familiar with the FSU Meteorology department, as my cousin got his Phd there with Srinavasan as his dissertation advisor. He now teaches in the undergraduate and graduate programs.

Admittedly this is borrowed light, but...from my understanding of modeling (speaking to my cousin), these data points are much less significant than they initially seem. Cause-effect in climatic systems is incredible complex, and even the best ones currently used don't have a lot of predictive value. Seven years ago my cousin was uncomfortable with Al Gore's certainty regarding what would happen because of global warming, because he and his Cray computers couldn't back up the assertions; now he's stressed because CC-deniers are "refuting" popular and loose speculation about CC's meteorological effects and acting like it's a victory and a close of the discussion.

Here's the scary thing: we know ther'es more carbon in the upper atmosphere than ever before, and that it's probably not a good thing, but the global climate system is so complex that it resists a clean predictive model of what will change when because of that CO2 change. The best we've got to go on is to compare the current context to previous atmospheric changes of a similar nature, which don't paint a pleasant picture. Picking a small data point and extrapolating it to close a scientific discussion is always academically dishonest.

Regarding the specific abstract:

1. I see no conclusions drawn relative to the trend described; regardless of Dr. Maue's affiliations, his abstract is making no direct claims regarding climate change. If his discussion in an informal setting--such as his blog or a webpage--does, it's still here nor there. Only the peer-reviewed assertions have weight.

2. What is presented contains only a sketchy analysis of the variables incorporated into the 40-year analyzed trend of oceanic storms. Basically, causal factors are given a slight nod in the abstract (I hope the full article would articulate more): it's hard to extrapolate what the graphed data "means" beyond demonstration that we're at the low point of an oscillation.

12 The Ghost of a Flea  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 3:28:53pm

re: #8 Buck

Actually "questioning a scientist's motives or background" instead of discussing the science is anti-science.

When you see results from a peer reviewed scientific paper, and the criticizer says Limbaugh praises him so he must be a flake, you have a great example of anti science thinking.

Hey, no problem, put your head back in the sand. No reason to read anyone who might discover something that disagrees with your preconceived notions.

One: peer review is the minimum standard for publication, kind of like how building amounts to the minimum to ensure a house won't kill its occupants. When Dr. Maue's publication makes the rounds of the meteorological community, answers questions, rebuffs alternate analysis, and is confirmed by indepedent testing of his model...then his work will be telling of something.

Two: Source absolutely matters in academic discourse, as there is always the ethical question of profiteering from manipulation of data, or of forcing an agenda by alteration of data. Hence the importance of independent confirmation and re-testing.

re: #9 Buck

Geophysical Research Letters is a Letters journal;
GRL's mission is to disseminate concisely-written, high-impact research reports on major scientific advances in AGU disciplines.

Geophysical Research Letters has been in publication since 1974.

The fact there's "Letters" in the name suggests the informality of the articles...letters in academics publication are places for open speculation, calls for discussion, and a looser argumentation style meant to provoke thought. They have a different peer review standard than a formal article.

What you're doing is Appealing to Authority, but publication--no matter how good or bad a jounral AGL is--grants no nimbus of veracity. You can call everyone else anti-science all you want, but you're relying on an argument that ignores empiricist discipline in favor of recourse to authority. A PhD hood isn't is a vestment, a journal isn't a scripture.

13 RanchTooth  Mon, Jun 27, 2011 4:43:37pm

re: #8 Buck

Actually "questioning a scientist's motives or background" instead of discussing the science is anti-science.

When you see results from a peer reviewed scientific paper, and the criticizer says Limbaugh praises him so he must be a flake, you have a great example of anti science thinking.

Hey, no problem, put your head back in the sand. No reason to read anyone who might discover something that disagrees with your preconceived notions.

Wait a minute... did I not discuss science in my first or second? I'm actually a scientist, you know. I work for NIH, so please Buck, do not try and educate me about sciences. Like I was trying to say in the post you quoted me in (#4), if this guy was a huge proponent of AGW and he used a different metric instead of the one he chose to prove his claim, this post would be completely in the reverse (with most of LGF going RA! RA! RA!; and you going STFU!!!!), and we both know it. I wasn't advocating for or against the author, mostly because I know almost nothing about geophysics, but I did read the paper and understood what I could. What I'm trying to say, is that not all scientists are good. They are only human after all. There are plenty of malicious people out there who have their own agenda, and if he has this history, it questions his integrity. Again, I know nothing about geophysics, so I can't really challenge the basis of his claims, but from my first post, I can already see a pretty staggering flaw in what he's proposing, and what you're agreeing with. So, read the paper next time before trying to get into a scientific debate, mmmkay?

Oh, and is the "putting my head in the sand" a geophysics joke? I liked it. A lot.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 33 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 87 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1