Why Reanalysis Data Isn’t

[mamooth]

Did you read the paper? It was pretty thoroughly explained. To prove your point all you have to do is provide a list extinctions that fall into that category.

Ivory-billed woodpecker. A forest animal now extinct due to habitat loss. (Despite recent searches, there's no actual evidence any of 'em survive.)

That was easy. I didn't even have to look anything up. I thus refute Eschenbach.

 

[IanC]

Did you read the paper? It was pretty thoroughly explained. To prove your point all you have to do is provide a list extinctions that fall into that category.

Ivory-billed woodpecker. A forest animal now extinct due to habitat loss. (Despite recent searches, there's no actual evidence any of 'em survive.)

That was easy. I didn't even have to look anything up. I thus refute Eschenbach.

Link us up. I'm not going to just take your word for it.

 

[IanC]

The graph is clearly labeled OHC. It is NOT labeled temperature. I'm surprised you didn't complain that someone might think it was a graph of magic.

No one said the graph wasn't labelled. What we are questioning is why there isn't a graph pointing out the very small rise in temps at the greater ocean depths. XBTs have a sensitivity that is an order of magnitude lower than the perceived changes. You posted a link to the specs for them and the QC seemed very limited.

 

[flacaltenn]

The graph is clearly labeled OHC. It is NOT labeled temperature. I'm surprised you didn't complain that someone might think it was a graph of magic.

No one said the graph wasn't labelled. What we are questioning is why there isn't a graph pointing out the very small rise in temps at the greater ocean depths. XBTs have a sensitivity that is an order of magnitude lower than the perceived changes. You posted a link to the specs for them and the QC seemed very limited.

Exactly. And the press releases and media discussion is all about heat traveling to the deep layers. When in reality, the ocean is just functioning as the homogenous heatsink that it is..

 

[Abraham3]

The QC on XBTs are extensive and ongoing. You can probably find a dozen different peer-reviewed papers on XBT calibration. And on top of that, the dataset is enormous.

 

[Abraham3]

Homogeneous heat sink? Are you kidding? Heating at the Equator, cooling at the poles, anachronous density profiles that cause basin-wide overturning, negative temperature layers, laminar salinity profiles and intrusions, turbidity currents. Where in god's name did you get the idea that the oceans were homogeneous?

 

[IanC]

Did you read the paper? It was pretty thoroughly explained. To prove your point all you have to do is provide a list extinctions that fall into that category.

Ivory-billed woodpecker. A forest animal now extinct due to habitat loss. (Despite recent searches, there's no actual evidence any of 'em survive.)

That was easy. I didn't even have to look anything up. I thus refute Eschenbach.

Link us up. I'm not going to just take your word for it.

still no link?

perhaps you did not actually read the paper. are you just regurgitating Foster or Connelly or Cook?

from the paper-

A few clarifications are in order.

This study is not about estimated, predicted, or calculated extinctions. It is an analysis of the actual historical record of extinctions, with the purpose of understanding the nature and size of extinctions from historical habitat reduction.

By extinction I never mean local extinction. I have analyzed total extinctions of species (not subspecies). Local extinction is a separate and valuable study, not covered by this work.

I am not referring to “almost extinct,” “on the brink of extinction,” or “reportedly extinct.” I am discussing the actual extinction of species as confirmed by the relevant authorities.

There are many different estimates of species loss, varying by orders of magnitude. I have seen extinction claims as high as “one species per minute” (over half a million extinctions per year, 10 million species extinct in 20 years) quoted in a number of places. However, I wanted facts, not estimates.

There are two main lists used by scientists to keep track of the facts of extinction. One is the “Red List”, maintained by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), which lists species which are either extinct or at risk of extinction. The Red List database can be searched online at redlist.org.

The other is the CREO list, from the Committee on Recently Extinct Organisms at the American Museum of Natural History. Their database is online at creo.amnh.org. The CREO has established very clear criteria for declaring a species extinct, not extinct, or unresolved. The criteria include precise definitions for such things as adequate taxonomy (including DNA comparisons if available), sufficient hypodigm (actual specimens of the species), and adequate surveying of the species’ habitat to verify extinction. Starting afresh, they have then uniformly applied these criteria to the historical record of purported extinctions of mammals and fish in the last 500 years.

The conclusions of the CREO list are noted in the Red List, and vice versa. Although the two lists are very similar, I find the CREO list to be more thoroughly investigated and more uniformly and scientifically based than the Red List, so I have used it for mammal extinctions (it does not yet cover birds).

and your example comes from where?

 

[Abraham3]

You're not familiar with that woodpecker? FCT? You neither? You two should get out and read a little more.

From it's Wikipedia article

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) is one of the largest woodpeckers in the world, at roughly 20 inches in length and 30 inches in wingspan. It was native to the virgin forests of the southeastern United States (along with a separate subspecies native to Cuba). Due to habitat destruction, and to a lesser extent hunting, its numbers have dwindled to the point where it is uncertain whether any remain, though there have been reports that it has been seen again. Almost no forests today can maintain an Ivory-billed Woodpecker population.

The species is listed as critically endangered and possibly extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).[1] The American Birding Association (ABA) lists the Ivory-billed Woodpecker as a Class 6 species, a category the ABA defines as "definitely or probably extinct."[2]
Reports of at least one male Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas in 2004 were investigated and subsequently published in April 2005 by a team led by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005). No definitive confirmation of those reports emerged, despite intensive searching over five years following the initial sightings.
A $10,000 reward was offered in June 2006 for information leading to the discovery of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker nest, roost or feeding site.[3] In December 2008, the Nature Conservancy announced a reward of $50,000 to the person who can lead a project biologist to a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
In late September 2006, a team of ornithologists from Auburn University and the University of Windsor published reports of their own sightings of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers along the Choctawhatchee River in northwest Florida, beginning in 2005 (Hill et al., 2006). These reports were accompanied by evidence that the authors themselves considered suggestive for the existence of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Searches in this area of Florida through 2009 failed to produce definitive confirmation.
Despite these high-profile reports from Arkansas and Florida and sporadic reports elsewhere in the historic range of the species since the 1940s, there is no conclusive evidence for the continued existence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; i.e., there are no unambiguous photographs, videos, specimens or DNA samples from feathers or feces of the Ivory-billed. Land acquisition and habitat restoration efforts have been initiated in certain areas where there is a relatively high probability that the species may have survived to protect any possible surviving individuals.

Willis Eschenbach talks the good talk, but he has not walked the walk. The man is NOT qualified to be considered an authority on much of anything.

 

[IanC]

You're not familiar with that woodpecker? FCT? You neither? You two should get out and read a little more.

From it's Wikipedia article

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) is one of the largest woodpeckers in the world, at roughly 20 inches in length and 30 inches in wingspan. It was native to the virgin forests of the southeastern United States (along with a separate subspecies native to Cuba). Due to habitat destruction, and to a lesser extent hunting, its numbers have dwindled to the point where it is uncertain whether any remain, though there have been reports that it has been seen again. Almost no forests today can maintain an Ivory-billed Woodpecker population.

The species is listed as critically endangered and possibly extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).[1] The American Birding Association (ABA) lists the Ivory-billed Woodpecker as a Class 6 species, a category the ABA defines as "definitely or probably extinct."[2]
Reports of at least one male Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas in 2004 were investigated and subsequently published in April 2005 by a team led by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005). No definitive confirmation of those reports emerged, despite intensive searching over five years following the initial sightings.
A $10,000 reward was offered in June 2006 for information leading to the discovery of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker nest, roost or feeding site.[3] In December 2008, the Nature Conservancy announced a reward of $50,000 to the person who can lead a project biologist to a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
In late September 2006, a team of ornithologists from Auburn University and the University of Windsor published reports of their own sightings of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers along the Choctawhatchee River in northwest Florida, beginning in 2005 (Hill et al., 2006). These reports were accompanied by evidence that the authors themselves considered suggestive for the existence of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Searches in this area of Florida through 2009 failed to produce definitive confirmation.
Despite these high-profile reports from Arkansas and Florida and sporadic reports elsewhere in the historic range of the species since the 1940s, there is no conclusive evidence for the continued existence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker; i.e., there are no unambiguous photographs, videos, specimens or DNA samples from feathers or feces of the Ivory-billed. Land acquisition and habitat restoration efforts have been initiated in certain areas where there is a relatively high probability that the species may have survived to protect any possible surviving individuals.

Willis Eschenbach talks the good talk, but he has not walked the walk. The man is NOT qualified to be considered an authority on much of anything.

dude! so you are ignoring what it says in his paper. official status only!

and if he is so unqualified why did the paper pass peer review and get published? I thought you guys considered that the gold standard of authority.

ps. do you really believe the highly exaggerated modlelled rates of extinction?

 

[Abraham3]

ps. do you really believe the highly exaggerated modlelled rates of extinction?

Where's Swimexpert to explain your fallacy?

I believe - apparently - that extinction rates are higher than you do.

I also believe that Willis Eschenbach is not a reliable source for anything.