MJO climate experts apply correction following Mike Wallace post
It hasn’t been easy to get direct responses from mainstream climate scientists when I find their errors. That’s one reason why I put time into this blog. If in response to my concerns those scientists and their allies elect to disregard me, or threaten me, or suspend me (and all have been done), I still can exercise free speech through this website.
This is helpful to get the attention of those other researchers when I share a concern. Some appear to recognize that if a concern I share with them, initially privately, is released through other avenues, it cannot be bottled up. There could be a type of accountability to which they eventually must attend to.
I have a responsibility to be truthful and non-inflammatory when raising any concern. And if any concerns are raised with my work, so long as I hear of them, I am more than willing to attend to that. For now, as I share selected climate concerns with other subject matter experts, I also share that this blog is a type of journalism. I inform that party that I plan to explore this concern further at this site.
I appear to be one of the few scientists who work this way, at least within the climate community. I hope that as others read my posts, it helps to answer questions, and/or raise even more questions. For those who wonder what are the things that draw my interest in reaching out to specific scientists and related parties, I recommend a post I wrote last year summarizing my own tally of ten fundamentals of climate change irreproducibility.
In my previous post, I shared concerns about the Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO) notion with some subject matter experts. Initially these were disregarded, in my view. But I persisted and the more I looked, the more concerns I identified to share. And as noted, I disclosed that I intend to be public about the concern and the identity of subject matter experts with whom I am asking questions of. That is again a legitimate and appropriate scope of journalism.
That may be paying off. The author of the focus of my concern:
is Dr. Rebecca Lindsey. She has finally responded to one of those issues and applied a correction to their page. Here is a snapshot of one of my comments and their first correction:
It’s a start, but that concern was the low-hanging fruit. I have also requested supporting data for their main image which I reproduce below
As I noted before the phases are not defined and there is no apparent north and south migration of the equatorial rain regime. This doesn’t add up to me and likely will never add up, until Lindsey can provide clarification and the supporting data. I’ve indicated that she should consider my request to fall under the scope of a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request.
Until that happens, I’m free to responsibly speculate on what exactly that image set is. I think that whatever it is, it doesn’t cover the presumed seasonal pattern from November through March that they appear to claim. Because seasonally, there SHOULD BE A SOUTH AND NORTH movement of the Equatorial Trough (where the rain masses are shown). For those rain features to simply migrate due west, over a five month period, without the seasonal and driving orbital motion that all meteorologists are highly tuned to.. well it would raise many eyebrows. On the other hand, it never has, and that’s a concern of mine as well.
Lindsey also appeared to me to suggest in her response that they are busy and this is a low priority to them, and beside, the post is years old. I don’t expect to be able to quibble from the peanut gallery (comment section) they provide, but perhaps she is reading my posts now. So if she is paying attention or any others who share her view, I want to emphasize my overriding concern, which is:
THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN TO ADDRESS SCIENTIFIC DEFICIENCIES/ERRORS IN A TIMELY AND CANDID MANNER.
This should be especially true of taxpayer funded scientists because we have intrinsically trusted them, and they work for us. I hope that Lindsey will provide the additional information I have requested. I also hope that she will reach out to all of those who have viewed her NOAA site so that they can be informed of the correction that I have already motivated her to make. That and the newer corrections I hope to see, may change some perceptions of the supposedly infallible climate change meme.
1352total visits,4visits today