Rowing and running (again)

Bumps is over, so tis the season for off-the-river exercise again. Yes, I know that no-one but me cares about this but it is *my* blog.


30 minute erg, heart rate. Split varying from 1:56 to 2:00 for most of it, down to 1:39 just before the line (yes I know: it means I should have pusehed earlier), distance 7582, so overall split around 1:59. Sadly no speeds on this - the watch got confused since I was wiggling back and forth in place.


Lunchtime run with Ian. 3 laps of Milton Country Park, last lap alone and faster (note it is plotting pace not speed), peak heart rate on the "sprint" coming up the A14 bridge. Total distance 7 km.

As I said before my rowing is "better" than my running. But with practice my running is getting better (plus of course I have Maz's Shoes of Speed). And it is clear from the graphs above that I'm working far harder in the rowing, so all I now need to do is xfer that into running.

More like this

What happened to the bicycle?

By Paul Kelly (not verified) on 06 Aug 2010 #permalink

Is that a hockey stick I see (second graph, blue)?


By Martin Vermeer (not verified) on 06 Aug 2010 #permalink

Hi William,

Glad to hear you're enjoying the boating and how I wish I could do something similar.

Meanwhile, I just read Gavin Schmidt's interesting foray into the neutral territory of Keith Kloor's C-a-s blog. I offered a congratulatory thank you to him somewhere in the comments. Then I read Steve McIntyre's latest, which is (Now I'm here.)

Not that anyone has asked, :-) my main criticism of Gavin Schmidt's piece would be that he doesn't seem to be completely informed with respect to what's happening 'over there' in all the enemy blog posts. I don't say this because he makes any actual mistakes that I could identify, but simply because he omits so much as to give the impression that he's not following a lot of it and not really interested.

[I'm not surprised. That is exactly the attitude that I would expect Gavin to have. McI obsesses over the details of stuff which is not very interesting; and feels free to write stuff like attempt to rehabilitate Mannian paleoclimate reconstructions, characterized here as dendro-phrenology so it isn't too surprising that serious people don't read. It seems fairly clear there that McI is writing for his crowd, and that is what he'll get -W]

As for Steve's post, I had to regret that his sarcasm detracts somewhat from what is otherwise a very clear and understandable post. (I found myself having to look up things only to find that he was making a bit of an in-joke which was a little annoying.)

[Ah, then you've done better than me. I skimmed it and found it neither clear nor understandable. What is his point, other than invective? -W]

Now as for who is right and who is wrong, I am unable to have an opinion as a non-scientist. That said, Steve's post leaves me feeling like someone's just got to respond.

[The std answer is: if he bothers write it up for a journal and submit it, then he'll probably get a response. While he sticks to the blogosphere, he likely won't -W]

So the whole thing is surely very interesting to anyone with enough grasp of this debate to actually read these posts from beginning to end. And I'd say, given the similarities of the Mann graphic, your previous defences of the Tiljander proxies, and the colour similarities with your Wikipedia graphic (at the MWP page), you should be an interested party to all this (is that fair?).

So, what are the chances that someone from your side would now actually publicly engage Steve, Jeff Id et al. so that we could see this whole thing (likened in comments to Steve's thread as a kind of slow moving game of chess) finally 'move forward'? What has Steve done that wrong or dishonest in his latest post?

[I'll make the std.denial that there are "sides" - this is a failure of worldview. I don't think that I, or Gavin, are going to do much commenting at CA whilst McI goes so far out of his way to be hostile. Presumably McI can visit RC if he wants to engage? But anyway I'm not really sure what McI's point that I'm to engage with is -W]

Best, Alex

(PS. 'Move forward' is a very bad election slogan coined by Australia's present prime minister as part of her campaign if you're wondering why there are quotes.)

By Alex Harvey (not verified) on 07 Aug 2010 #permalink

Alex - isn't that kinda the problem? The Steve's & Jeff's of this world want to keep the discussion on their ground (the blogosphere), whilst avoiding the scientist's ground (the published journals). As has been seen when the blog-scientists foray into the world of the journals they tend to get stung, likewise when scientists attempt to engage on the blogs. Our esteemed host has, to all intents & purposes, left the world of academia so may be in a position to keep up with the blogosphere better than most academics (in between running, boating and his day-job). Most working scientists don't have the time or inclination to keep up with the blogs AND the journals and thus will "give the impression that [they're] not following a lot of it and not really interested." Mainly because they don't, and aren't. If some of the blog scientists actually pulled their fingers out and worked some of their ideas up into papers they may get more attention (and respect) from those that read the journals.

Getting back on-topic: how do you like the watch? I'm looking for something similar.

By RobSavoie (not verified) on 08 Aug 2010 #permalink

mr el stoat, actually, you're not alone. i care that people in the "climate change arena" are taking care of their health and fitness. if climate change is about one thing (but it isn't, of course; that was just a literary device) it's about changing the way we all live life - downshifting, eating healthful, being wholesome, growing organic, human transport, woollies-in-winter and being good to ourselves and our biosphere and our biobrethen. it's about de kwaliteit van leven, not just about being right, attractive, good or financially successful. your general level of zip is awesome, so be proud of the stats. jo.