Comments on: A Little Testy at RealClimate http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Burkart http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8852 Burkart Wed, 02 May 2007 17:15:11 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8852 Schmidt / Mann do actually NOT misrepresent Emanuel 2005 (although their formulation was maybe unlucky). This is plain to see for everybody who has read the paper. Emanuel (2005) states that the increase in SSTs is actually well correlated to increasing tropical cyclone destructiveness, but not sufficient by itself to explain the EXTENT of the increase (as cyclone destructiveness has increased more than would be expected from the increase in SSTs). Therefore, he assumes that additional factors, which are INDIRECTLY influenced by changes in ocean temperatures, are involved as well. Roger’s quote from Emanuel (2005) is thus indeed misleading. Schmidt / Mann do actually NOT misrepresent Emanuel 2005 (although their formulation was maybe unlucky). This is plain to see for everybody who has read the paper. Emanuel (2005) states that the increase in SSTs is actually well correlated to increasing tropical cyclone destructiveness, but not sufficient by itself to explain the EXTENT of the increase (as cyclone destructiveness has increased more than would be expected from the increase in SSTs). Therefore, he assumes that additional factors, which are INDIRECTLY influenced by changes in ocean temperatures, are involved as well. Roger’s quote from Emanuel (2005) is thus indeed misleading.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8851 Roger Pielke, Jr. Tue, 01 May 2007 18:36:35 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8851 Ray S and Tim Lambert- You have both had your say, now please take that 3rd grade stuff to someplace else -- maybe exchange emails and yell at each other in private. It is absolutely not welcome here. (No offense meant to third graders;-) Ray S and Tim Lambert- You have both had your say, now please take that 3rd grade stuff to someplace else — maybe exchange emails and yell at each other in private. It is absolutely not welcome here. (No offense meant to third graders;-)

]]> By: Tim Lambert http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8850 Tim Lambert Tue, 01 May 2007 18:14:00 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8850 Ray Soper, you are lying. Ray Soper, you are lying.

]]> By: Ray S http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8849 Ray S Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:00:51 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8849 Mr Lambert. I am not a dissembler. The reason that I said what I did is that I know, for certain fact, that posts that I have put up to Deltoid under a pseudonym that I choose not to reveal, have been censored. Do not lie! Mr Lambert. I am not a dissembler. The reason that I said what I did is that I know, for certain fact, that posts that I have put up to Deltoid under a pseudonym that I choose not to reveal, have been censored. Do not lie!

]]> By: Richard Tol http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8848 Richard Tol Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:20:45 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8848 well well, I was allowed at last to restore Roger's full post at RealClimate -- Mike (presumable Michael Mann) said it was edited because it was "snarky" and because it was off-target (never mind that Mike himself went off-target first) well well, I was allowed at last to restore Roger’s full post at RealClimate — Mike (presumable Michael Mann) said it was edited because it was “snarky” and because it was off-target (never mind that Mike himself went off-target first)

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8847 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:32:55 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8847 Michael- Thanks, and no worries;-) Michael- Thanks, and no worries;-)

]]> By: Michael Tobis http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8846 Michael Tobis Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:18:50 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8846 I apologize for the laundry list comment, which resulted from a confusion between RP Sr. and RP Jr. I have amended my blog entry at http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-not-to-do-about-prometheus.html to withdraw that statement. I apologize for the laundry list comment, which resulted from a confusion between RP Sr. and RP Jr. I have amended my blog entry at

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-not-to-do-about-prometheus.html

to withdraw that statement.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8845 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:21:51 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8845 Steve Milesworthy- Thanks for your comment. I have no idea on the role of SST vs. wind shear, and my comment on RC was simply to point out that Mann was misrepresenting the Emanuel paper, which is quite clearly not about attribution, a point that we emphasize in this paper: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2458-2006.06.pdf Thanks. Steve Milesworthy- Thanks for your comment. I have no idea on the role of SST vs. wind shear, and my comment on RC was simply to point out that Mann was misrepresenting the Emanuel paper, which is quite clearly not about attribution, a point that we emphasize in this paper:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2458-2006.06.pdf

Thanks.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8844 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:10:56 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8844 Michael- Thanks much for the comment and link back, which got me here. Absolutely no worries about the blog roll thing, we don't even have one. I would be interested in any substantive examples of the following (I simply have no idea what you mean): "Roger Pielke is a post hoc arguer, choosing a position based on a political caclulation and then defending it, rather than proceeding from evidence to conclusions." Also, please do check your facts when you write about a: "half-baked laundry list Prometheus comes up with about what's wrong with the WGI report." I've always expressed support for and acceptance of the IPCC WGI report. WGs II and III, where I have expertise, I do have some differences which I discuss. Thanks again, and best wishes. Michael- Thanks much for the comment and link back, which got me here. Absolutely no worries about the blog roll thing, we don’t even have one.

I would be interested in any substantive examples of the following (I simply have no idea what you mean):

“Roger Pielke is a post hoc arguer, choosing a position based on a political caclulation and then defending it, rather than proceeding from evidence to conclusions.”

Also, please do check your facts when you write about a:

“half-baked laundry list Prometheus comes up with about what’s wrong with the WGI report.”

I’ve always expressed support for and acceptance of the IPCC WGI report. WGs II and III, where I have expertise, I do have some differences which I discuss.

Thanks again, and best wishes.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4182&cpage=1#comment-8843 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:09:51 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4182#comment-8843 I posted the below on Michael's blog: I posted the below on Michael’s blog:

]]>