I've been spending the past couple days reviewing Jim Steele's third video in his series dedicated to attacking climate scientists. While listening to the video and transcribing his talk, (this time without the marginal aid of YouTube's transcriptions, since it appears he turned it off for this video), I've also been researching his claims - which offer up more puzzles than answers. So, I've been posting constructive questions to Jim Steele in the comments section, along with requests for citations - since most of the time he doesn't offer any information about the data and "official" claims he presents.
My review will follow, but for now I want to post the questions that Steele has cleansed from his one sided presentation.
Recovering Whales, Ocean Acidification, and Climate Horror Stories by JIm Steele
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooaZLoJXhu4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooaZLoJXhu4
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Regarding the Yosemite National Park temperature graph at (12:10) - Having no luck in trying to discover it's provenance through the internet I wrote an email to the Service Climatologist, Western Regional Climate Center. I share their response:
Cc: WRCC Data <wrcc@dri.edu> December 1,2014.
"Hello,
This is not one of our graphs and I’m not exactly sure where this data was recorded.
The official coop station Yosemite Park Headquarters began collecting temperature data in 1907 and this graph began in 1900. There are several issues with this graph - spelling for starters, we would also reference the WRCC so others could contact us if there was a question and these numbers are off. Looking at the data, these numbers and years are not correct. For example, the average annual max temperature occurred in 1926, not 1930-something as the graph displays..
I’m sorry, I cannot help you. I’ve tried to find this graph but no luck. I can tell you this is not our graph nor is the data correct."
signed by the,
Service Climatologist,
Western Regional Climate Center
Show less
Reply
For more on Steele's mystery map see: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/12/yosemite-np-mystery-temp-graph.html
7:20 A "climate horror story" - hmmm. I happen to have a copy of that (7:45) Nature article and have now reread it a couple times, I can't find the hysteria you imply is in there.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Nature, Vol 382, August 29, 1996 "Climate and species' range"
Next to the map (9:00) you show, she discusses her methodology, including:
"… I did not census sites that : (1) could not be unambiguously located from the records; or (2) were degraded by loss of host plants..."
2nd paragraph:
"... and excluded from the data set all sites where butterfly habitat was degraded and no longer usable by this species, including sites altered by human activities such a land-clearing, construction, overgrazing and introduction of exotic species."
Her closing paragraph ends with:
"... This result, in conjunction with earlier detailed studies of climate-caused population extinctions in this butterfly (14, 18-21), suggests climate change as the cause of the observed range shift. However, conclusive evidence for or against the existence of the predicted biological effects of climate change will come, not from attempts to analyse all possible confounding variables in single studies such as this one, but from replication of this type of study with additional taxa in other regions. Until this has been done, the evidence presented here provides the clearest indication to date that global climate warming is already influencing species distribution."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jim, Can you offer anything specific in her article that warrants your emotional claim?
Show less
Reply
Hide replies
Then again, in reality, what's being witnessed upon this, our one and only, Earth these days is a developing real life nonfiction horror story, isn't it.
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
Ecological responses to recent climate change - http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/ecol206/walther%20et%20al%20nature%202002.pdf ---
The Effects of Climate Change on Animal Species - http://kanat.jsc.vsc.edu/student/swift/mainpage.htm --- Climate Change as a Threat to Biodiversity - http://www.snre.umich.edu/~dallan/nre220/outline21.htm ---
Human-induced climate change may pose the greatest challenge - http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/pressure/PRESS9 ---
Sadly I could spend the next hour extending this list. But you get the idea. There's an incredible amount of information being gathered from throughout the world, all pointing in the same threatening direction - trying to make Parmesan some villain comes off as your personal one-sided feud more than any interest in gathering the best information available to learn from.
Show less
Reply ·
Things to consider when commenting. In honor of Carl Sagan’s 80th birthday, here is Sagan's “baloney detection kit” to fortify the mind against the penetration of falsehoods and pseudo-science
1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
Show less
Reply
Hide replies
6:00 - How pray tell does that Alfred Hitchcock poster of "The Birds" fit into a reasoned science focused discussion a la Carl Sagan?? PS http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
Sagan had more to say on the subject: "In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric." He admonishes against the 20 most common and perilous ones with examples of each in action: … It makes an interesting read.
Show less
Reply
+citizenschallengeYT Incidentally, why leave out the short story that inspired Hitchcock? See "The Birds by Daphne Du Maurier Summary" - http://www.enotes.com/topics/birds -
"“The Birds,” one of Daphne du Maurier’s most chilling short stories, is in the collection The Apple Tree. The shock lies in the idea of birds as destroyers. People usually associate birds with things like freedom and beauty and music. However, in this story, du Maurier drew on her own experience with vicious seagulls. She imagines once-innocent creatures suddenly mutated into merciless killers bent on destroying humanity."
Show less
Reply
18:15 - Steele says: "Places were you have a species in drier low lands and expand all the way up to a cool highlands. The hot lowlands are doing better than ever. The higher cooler places, that's were they were dying." ~~~
Yo, Jim, try as I may I'm not finding studies supporting this claim about hot lowlands frogs doing better than those in cool highlands - can you please share the sources that you rely to make this claim?
Reply
15:52 - Jim - specifically where did that 1949 map come from? There is no citation here, nor at your website. {For all your criticism of others - you don't seem to follow any of the basic rules of a serious scientific discussion. What's up with that? }
Please give us a citation to that 1949 UK map and the study it came from.
Reply
9:00 -Steele says: "Jim Hansen at NASA funded her to do this study" ~~~
I emailed Dr. Singer asking him for details; here's his reply:
"This was the Clinton administration, which was not opposed to the idea of anthropogenic climate change. And NASA had a small program in which they offered pre-doctoral fellowships to grad students for projects connected with climate change. So, yes, this was a NASA predoctoral fellowship. Presumably the recipients would have been chosen by a committee at NASA, but the committee were anonymous to the recipients and there would be no way to know whether Jim Hansen was a committee member."
---
Worth noting, at the time Hansen was quite busy with research projects of his own. I don't think Carl Sagan would approve of the way you transmogrify facts. Seems more like you're appealing to prejudices and political emotions - than any pursuit of better understanding.
Show less
Reply
16:50 - Jim says "...When they first discovered it, it was very limited in its location, and they created the Monteverde Preserve to help protect it (Golden Toad)."
~~~
nonsense - whatever happened to Sagan's rule #5? ~ For those curious about why Monteverde Reserve was created see: http://www.monteverdeinfo.com/monteverde.htm
~~~
regarding Amphibian declines: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/declines.html - "III. Why Are amphibian Population Declining? - Clearly, the most important factor leading to amphibian population declines is habitat destruction. When forests are cleared it is no surprise that species that once lived there disappear. What is alarming is that there are many cases where the habitat is protected and amphibians are still disappearing. The causes for recent amphibian declines are many, but an emerging disease called chytridiomycosis and global climate change are thought the be the biggest threats to amphibians. Chytridiomycosis is a disease caused by the fungal chytrid pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. This pathogen is associated with the global loss of hundreds of species of amphibians and represents a spectacular loss of biodiversity, some say the worst in recorded history.
In the table below, we break down all of the hypothesized factors and the links provide more detailed information for each one. ..."
Show less
Reply
13:58 - But, the caption says: ""Fig. 1 - Map of Rabbit site, showing adjacent portions of clearing (left) and outcrop (right) used for the 1981 census. Contour lines are 10m apart, circles show Euphydryas edith eggs laid on Pedicularis (each circle shows several clusters), crosses show eggs laid on Collinsia."
~~~
Why are you saying X=extinct and O=thriving?
Reply ·
Jim, regarding Parmesan's Nature article you say (9:35) 9:55 "and I was pretty sure it was all landscape change, well there was no method section. …"
~ ~ ~
But, looking at that Nature article, Vol 382, August 29, 1996 page 765, within the box containing the map (that you displayed) it sure looks like she described her method, including where she got her historic population records, how she controlled for time elapsed since the original studies, the criteria she used for eliminating sites, when she visited those sites and the steps she took when conducting her census. ~
Can you please explain why you found that information inadequate?
Reply
8:40 - Steele says - "So all the conservation, we gotta protect land, we gotta protect habitat, but all the evidence still says this, it was all local landscape changes, plus a little fluctuation with natural cycles. But that doesn't mean you can't make a good climate horror story"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
No doubt development took an incredible toll on the butterfly, but why are you ignoring this other 'thing' going on in Southern California? http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5445379.pdf
"… Southern California has shown the greatest warming trends in California over the last century, with accelerated warming in the last 35 years (Cordero et al. 2011). The PRISM data suggest that the ANF/BDF area has experienced temperature increases of about 1.8° to 3.6°F (1° to 2°C) over the last 3/4 century. …"
~ ~ ~
That's not "a little fluctuation…"
Show less
Reply
Are you familiar with Craig Welch of the Seattle Times and his April 2014 series on the current state of knowledge regarding ocean acidification?
~ ~ ~
"As effects of ocean acidification continue to surface in the Pacific Northwest,
Seattle Times environmental reporter Craig Welch and photographer Steve Ringman
wanted to take a closer look at the phenomenon that may be as critical as climate change."
Reply
Why do you not supply the sources when you use others charts and scientific data?
Why have you turned off the "transcription" option?
Reply
No comments:
Post a Comment