Reageerder Guido plaatste in een commentaar op een eerder bericht een link naar bovenstaande grafiek. Die grafiek is interessant genoeg om even apart te vermelden. Zoals te zien is er wel degelijk nog een stijgende trend sinds 1997 ook al is de stijging wel minimaal (noot: Guido gebruikte de jaargemiddelden)
Ik heb even teruggekeken wat David Whitehouse precies schreef in zijn bericht vorige week. Hij liet daarin geen trendlijnen zien maar alleen dit plaatje:
Begin- en eindpunt zijn gelijk en op het oog is er geen trend. De trendanalyse van Guido is dus een nuttige aanvulling. Whitehouse verwoordde het slim door op te merken: “The recent temperature standstill is very evident. There is no statistical case to be made for a global temperature increase in the past 15 years.” Lees verder…
A blog post earlier this week about an EGU presentation of Eva Steirou (a researcher in the group of Demetris Koutsoyiannis) on temperature data homogenisation created some stir in the blogosphere after Watts Up With That? and Climate Audit paid attention to it. Koutsoyiannis has now written a guest blog to give some first reactions.
Guest post by Demetris Koutsoyiannis
I believe that science blogs have offered a very powerful means in scientific dialogue, which is a prerequisite of scientific progress. I have very positive personal experiences. In 2008, a poster paper in EGU, “Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series”, was widely discussed at blogs and this was very useful to improve it and produce a peer-reviewed paper, “On the credibility of climate predictions” , which again was widely discussed at blogs. In the follow up paper, “A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data” we incorporated replies to the critiques we have seen in lots of blog comments.
In comparison, the formal peer reviewed system, while in principle encourages post-publication discussion through formal Commentaries and Replies, was able to offer us a single Commentary for the second paper (none for the former), which also gave us the opportunity to clarify our methodology (and feel safer about it) in our reply, “Scientific dialogue on climate: is it giving black eyes or opening closed eyes? Reply to “A black eye for the Hydrological Sciences Journal” by D. Huard”.
One of the basic principles of blogging is to give credit when credit is due. I always try to mention the source of my information and most blogs do this using an acronym like h/t (hat tip). This week one of my own blog articles was not referred to as the source for another blog article on The Hockey Schtick. This blog then alerted WUWT? who brought the same news quite loudly and then also Steve McIntyre picked it up and Bishop Hill.
Now this is all fine, being given the credit for my blog post is not the most important thing in the world. However, a lot of noise in the blogosphere could have been saved if WUWT? had seen my original post. Hockey Schtick namely is writing about a “paper” presented at the EGU, which then became a “peer reviewed paper” on WUWT? (later corrected) which then irritated fellow Dutchman Victor Venema who happens to work on the same topic as the topic of my blog post, the homogenisation of temperature data. Lees verder…