Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2015 - 11:09am PT
|
WUWT does a good job exposing the BS propaganda served up AGW advocates.
Or in an alternative characterization by And Then There's Physics, WUWT is an "anti-science hate site." Which explains why its cluster (and judging from the comments there, most of its readers) are so isolated from real science. However WUWT does feed its ideological base the arguments they want to hear.
The Jarreau "analysis" is good example.
Nope that's not right either. Here's the big picture:
https://155a2078255626663e33566e796f12caf0e22ee8.googledrive.com/host/0B5FtkJ8LVwqhTFNOQ0xwOTFxUHM/network/
I'll stick with my assessment of the Jarreau analysis(JA) being about the cool kids.
WUWT sees more traffic than nearly all of the other sites shown. Based on Alexa.com, WUWT is ranked 21,043 (globally). Real Climate is ranked 218,672 (globally). Yet, the JA shows Real Climate as the dominant blog among climate science blogs and WUWT is shown as an irrelevant outlier.
WUWT - ranked 21K. RC - ranked 218K.
WUWT consistently wins the Bloggie Award for Science. Granted, traffic and Bloggies are about interest from the general public, it's not much of a stretch to infer climate science bloggers are checking out WUWT, too. With WUWT being the most prominent denier/skeptic site (and possibly the most popular climate change site), it's hard to believe the science bloggers are not reading it.
Looking at site specific data, Hot Whopper does not list WUWT as a read blog. A quick check of Hot Whopper's blog entries indicate it's primary goal is to bash WUWT. Over 80% of the blog entries in 2015 are criticisms of WUWT. Yet, Hot Whopper doesn't read WUWT.
Lastly, Anthony Watts stated he has no recollection of being asked to participate in the survey. Yet, JA shows he participated.
What's wrong with this picture?
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2015 - 06:29pm PT
|
That is cold.......LOL.[DMT's post]
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2015 - 11:42pm PT
|
WUWT - ranked 21K. RC - ranked 218K.
a clear demonstration of moron bias.
|
|
roadkillphil
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2015 - 06:56am PT
|
After watching this am's news about the teenage crime spree couple, I achieved total enlightenment. The way to solve all of our planetery problems can be summed up in 3 words: Spay and Neuter. No, 5 words: Your children.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2015 - 07:30am PT
|
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 04:46am PT
|
from the daily mail:
"the NASA press release failed to mention…that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree—or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C—several times as much."
"As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted NASA thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond."
"The real issue that is of concern to me is the growing divergence between the observed global temperature anomalies and what was predicted by climate models. Even if 2014 is somehow unambiguously the warmest year on record, this won’t do much to alleviate the growing discrepancy between climate model predictions and the observations."
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 06:20am PT
|
4 strait years of minimal sierra snow , melting ice caps , water shortages , shorter winters and hotter summers...Who you gonna believe , Fox News , or what's going on outside in the real world....?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 09:10am PT
|
The Chief asks (his punctuation is imperfect):
ED HARTOUNI or CHILOE, you care to elaborate on what that statement really means.
the elaboration requires an elementary familiarity with statistics which you have time-and-again demonstrated inability to comprehend.
From a teacher's perspective, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" is an aphorism that applies. There are some students who just cannot be taught; and I'm referring to The Chief.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 09:32am PT
|
The truth be told, the west coast of north america has been much warmer than usual because of a thick layer of warm air either coming off of a huge pool of warm pacific water and/or blocking cooler air masses, for the better part of a year. Cloud masses are either not condensing or because of a significant isothermic depth falling as rain in the lower part of the near coastal ranges. This mass of warm air seems to be the result of a huge pool of warm water that has been released from its traditional buildup location in the equatorial western pacific to concentrate in locations not consistent with the traditional locales of El Nino. The thing to remember though, is this near coastal strip of the continent is a tiny percentage of the globe, far less than 1%. The much larger area of warm water in the north pacific that is releasing heat into the atmosphere is what has caused 2014 to be a relatively warm year. The hottest ever? B.S., the margins of error in the various political oriented purveyors of global temp hysteria far exceed the claimed .001 to .004 increase of global average temp they are breathleesly trumpetting as the record hottest year ever on earth. Complete crap to anyone taking the time to read the deeply buried and unmentioned details of their estimate.
It's been entertaining watching the usual suspects fully reveal themselves as the radical kooks they are over the last several days. Sometimes the best response is silence, especially when the opponents are doing a damn fine job of marginalizing themselves
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 09:58am PT
|
Complete crap to anyone taking the time to read the deeply buried and unmentioned details of their estimate.
LOL, the irony with this is that everyone with some basic understanding of statistics and the temperature record already know this and I am also pretty sure that it is not difficult to find the confidence intervals.
It is interesting what "arguments" the main "skeptics" come up with and is thus circulation by people like the chief and rick. The statistics is sometimes very important to them, other times the statistics means nothing.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 10:44am PT
|
Sorry Bruce
But you're insane.
You need a vacation .....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 10:49am PT
|
See
Your post just proves you're insane.
Take a vacation .....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 10:52am PT
|
Thus you even admit you're insane.
Go take that vacation ....
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 07:44pm PT
|
May Frosty the Snowman suffer a total meltdoen amidst catastrophic global warming localized to his keyboard
Long live the Chief
I stand In solidarity with the Duck. Quack quack.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 07:49pm PT
|
The Chief
Statics can indeed be fudged and manipulated to make things appear as one that putting them out wishes them to. Fact is, neither NASA/GISS nor NOAA have never been audited by outside independent sources to verify their processes and numbers.
let me not assume anything here...
I don't know what "Statics" are, I could assume you meant "Statistics." If you did mean statistics, then you would also know that there is a great deal of scrutiny of the methods. In fact, the whole idea of the BEST team was that they wanted to scrutinize the statistical analysis of the climate science field. Having done that, they came away with agreement.
It is perhaps possible to "fudge and manipulate" statistics, especially to people who have little knowledge or understanding of them, But the "fudging" and "manipulating" have actually been more prominent in the blog sphere, not in the science.
On your second sentence, it is probably correct as written, depending on how the "nor" is interpreted, since it is a double negative...
I don't want to assume you meant something else, so we can parse your sentence carefully:
"Fact is, neither NASA/GISS nor NOAA have never been audited by outside independent sources to verify their processes and numbers"
the part that catches my attention is: "neither NASA/GISS nor NOAA have never" which is a double negative (you do know what that is?) but the non-negative phrase would be: "either NASA/GISS or NOAA have ever"
and putting that into the sentence makes it a bit of a mash:
"Fact is, either NASA/GISS or NOAA have ever been audited by outside independent sources to verify their processes and numbers"
But the sense is correct, both NASA/GISS and NOAA have outside independent sources not only checking them, but also reproducing their results by independent means. And they do it to the other sources too... BEST is an already referred to example. This is done through publications, where the publication describes in detail how the various analyses are performed. Someone else can reproduce those results and check that NASA, NOAA or any other scientist publishing, has done their work correctly.
If this wasn't what you meant to say, perhaps you should take a bit more time and write what you mean... so we don't have to assume what that was.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 08:28pm PT
|
His whole persona centered around that manatra? Spelling check, dummy.
You loony idiot Frosty. The "stupid americans" schtick is but a single element of his humor. Though I can understand why depthless dunces like you and Crank can't see otherwise.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 08:55pm PT
|
What's the dodge?
NOAA and NASA are checked, there are external reviews of their programs from independent people who report to the NASA or NOAA administrator (or a designee of the administrator) explicitly on how the programs are operating.
You don't know that. But it isn't the only thing you don't know.
The quote you provided was from the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
What did Gavin Schmidt actually say? There is, of course, no link provided in the Daily Mail article.
Here's the NASA new release link:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/
A briefing is provided here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf
Which has Schmidt and Thomas Karl (of NOAA) as the authors.
Slide 5 has the two tables:
If you take the sum of the probabilities that 2005, 2010 and 2014 were among the warmest years, then that probability is 79% for NOAA and 78% for NASA analyses. So there is a strong agreement that one of those three years was the warmest.
Note that NOAA assigns a higher probability to the warmest year being 2014, somehow the Daily Mail's article didn't mention that...
...nor did it attempt to explain just what that probability means.
What do you think it means The Chief?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 08:57pm PT
|
You're misinformed again Frosty. I've only met Bridwell a couple of times , that was in Tahoe, and i can assure you there was no bootlicking involved. WB, I've never met, but since the purpose of this whole forum seems to be centered on entertainment I appreciate his humorous contributions.
You and your cohorts here take your lives far too seriously, seemingly to the point that you think that your cookie cutter contributions here will be met with actual earth altering success. Completely delusional.
EDIT: Independent reviews by people that report to Nasa/NOAA. Surely you jest Ed? Independent, means hired by seperate entities and reporting to seperate entities. Pretty much has to be external to the government that funds them and chosen by congress.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 08:57pm PT
|
And here are the rankings with odds.
Hardly a statistical tie.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!