tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2478738459572553380..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Desperate deniers Part 9: Patrick J Michael's pathetic, unconvincing WSJ report could have come from WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78106652493674397442016-02-01T10:32:25.099+11:002016-02-01T10:32:25.099+11:00eadler2, as veteran of the climate "debate&qu...eadler2, as veteran of the climate "debate" you already know the standard answers to your "questions". For any innocent reader, here is <a href="https://archive.is/zvyvq" rel="nofollow">a very good article from Climate Etc. on the buoy temperature trends</a>.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63709393533027786832016-01-31T04:32:47.589+11:002016-01-31T04:32:47.589+11:00"pose" being the operative word, eadler2..."pose" being the operative word, eadler2...<br /><br />From a politically-motivated reasoning it is quite 'brilliant', since there are loads of people who won't understand anomalies, and thus the argument presented sounds plausible to them.<br /><br />Desired result achieved: doubt spread.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37879053190673809182016-01-31T03:59:32.300+11:002016-01-31T03:59:32.300+11:00Victor Venema wrote:
"You could also call the...Victor Venema wrote:<br />"You could also call the buoys "satellite-sensed" temperatures, they communicate via satellites, but (according to the internet, which is full of misinformation) there was a period in which ERSST of NOAA also used the satellite skin temperatures. That is most likely what Michaels refers to. I thought this was much earlier than last summer, but I am not sure about that."<br /><br />There is good evidence that Michaels was referring to the adjustment as a result of the difference between buoys and ship's intakes. Here is a quote from a Wattsup post by Michaels and Lindzen:<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaas-new-paper-is-there-no-global-warming-hiatus-after-all/<br /><br />As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data."<br /><br />If you are looking at a temperature anomaly plot, anyone with half a brain can figure out it doesn't make any difference. How can these people pose as scientists and say such stupid things???<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29536851092417023702016-01-30T18:52:45.900+11:002016-01-30T18:52:45.900+11:00Russell Seitz I have misjudged you and I apologise...Russell Seitz I have misjudged you and I apologise for that poor judgement. Every comment I have read of yours recently on all manner of sites has been perceptive and often very funny.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49033996599399807812016-01-30T18:43:13.899+11:002016-01-30T18:43:13.899+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27303310934875306302016-01-30T14:04:29.352+11:002016-01-30T14:04:29.352+11:00Tamino is a smart fellow. His data analysis is cle...Tamino is a smart fellow. His data analysis is clear and transparent. It must rub up the liars and denialists that call themselves 'sceptics' when they do not have a clue.<br /><br />Tamino has a thingy where one can donate. Sou when are you going to do it? I know you do it for your well held scientifically evidence based truths. I am basically not a woos where I will let a much tougher person than me fight my fights.<br />I want to back them to the hilt!<br /><br />BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78074203229724002342016-01-30T11:12:27.580+11:002016-01-30T11:12:27.580+11:00He's another good article here - re satellite ...He's another good article here - re satellite data:<br /><br />https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/el-nino-and-satellite-data/Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4735672485354113002016-01-30T02:24:56.670+11:002016-01-30T02:24:56.670+11:00Tamino has a good post on the El Nino contribution...Tamino has a good post on the El Nino contribution:<br /><br />https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/<br /><br />Of course there's the whole secondary issue, El Nino does not produce heat, it simply redistributes it. Why is that so hard for some people to understand. Never mind, we know the answer to that.Tokodavenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64134474493115445412016-01-28T23:15:29.885+11:002016-01-28T23:15:29.885+11:00Why aren't you running for president on the re...Why aren't you running for president on the republican ticket?! Your logic is as least as good as theirs is!!!jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19901380111743698682016-01-28T10:34:47.209+11:002016-01-28T10:34:47.209+11:00The El Nino is the cause of the last El Nino year ...The El Nino is the cause of the last El Nino year being the warmest El Nino year on record, and the La Nina is the reason the last La Nina year was the warmest La Nina year on record....<br /><br />Yeah, that follows...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15427410783634375334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48943539294198828292016-01-28T09:34:38.522+11:002016-01-28T09:34:38.522+11:00The revolving door of the WSJ Editorial Boardroom ...The revolving door of the WSJ Editorial Boardroom has been spittting newly minted PR flacks out on to K Street , Madison Avenue and their adjacent think-tanks for half a century, and in that time the incidence of actual controversy on its op-ed page has fallen close to , if not zero, the same anodyne level of concurrence as the once vibrant papers that opposed it.<br /><br />There seems to have been a global and prolonged pause in the tradition of disinterested journalism .<br /><br />THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81265653886236204672016-01-28T05:44:19.346+11:002016-01-28T05:44:19.346+11:00Bernard J
Agreed, if Dan is correct in what he sa...Bernard J<br /><br />Agreed, if Dan is correct in what he says. It wouldn't fly in court in the UK but US libel law is so farcical that at this stage I'm prepared to believe anything. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37871381253969302192016-01-27T16:58:47.828+11:002016-01-27T16:58:47.828+11:00Just quietly...
Commenter Dan, on the seriously l...Just quietly...<br /><br />Commenter Dan, on <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/12/22/mark-steyn-the-dc-appeals-court-and-congress/" rel="nofollow">the seriously long Mann/Steyne defamation case thread at Greg Laden's</a> would argue that Pat Michaels is absolutely well qualified to act a a legal expert witness on matters involved with climate science, and hence his opinion is as valid as, say, Hansen's or Mann's or Schmidt's.<br /><br />It shows two profoundly disturbing things: that truth doesn't matter to people who are for whatever reason affronted by the best scientific understanding, and that there is something seriously wrong with a legal system where such as Pat Michaels could be an expert witness for a case involving the science and the scientific implications of climate change.<br />Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14753815984592068752016-01-27T16:27:44.150+11:002016-01-27T16:27:44.150+11:00It depends on the target of the propaganda: if you...It depends on the target of the propaganda: if your target is people susceptible to affinity fraud, a paywall makes your marks feel like they're the "in" group, privvy to secret information untainted by the plebes.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46734258310036090442016-01-27T15:42:10.124+11:002016-01-27T15:42:10.124+11:00You can also copy the first sentence and do a Goog...You can also copy the first sentence and do a Google search on that. Most papers allow readers to read articles if they arrive via a Google search.<br /><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/1SiqBng" rel="nofollow">Google search for "An East Coast blizzard howling, global temperatures peaking, the desert Southwest flooding, drought-stricken California drying up"</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80974629028988923712016-01-27T15:15:13.947+11:002016-01-27T15:15:13.947+11:00Pat has no excuse for getting so much wrong. It...Pat has no excuse for getting so much wrong. It's his job to keep up with these things. When amateur bloggers know more than a paid professional, it's time to question why the professional is employed.<br /><br />OTOH it could be as I suspect, that he's not paid to advise on science, he's paid to spread disinformation. He's a professional liar like Marc Morano. (That's a completely different industry niche.) In which case, Cato itself should not get any tax benefits and if there's a law against giving false information, it should be prosecuted.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7165357835110543542016-01-27T15:08:47.934+11:002016-01-27T15:08:47.934+11:00I don't know what he meant by "last summe...I don't know what he meant by "last summer". It was v3b that discontinued use of satellite data. This is from the ERSSTv3b page:<br /><br /><i>The paper, "Improvements to NOAA's Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880–2006)," describes the update from ERSST v2 to ERSST v3, and both in situ and satellite Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer SST data are included. The current version (ERRST v3) has satellite SST data not included in previous versions. However, the addition of satellite data led to residual biases. The ERSST v3b analysis is exactly as described in the ERSST v3 paper with one exception: ERSST v3b does not use satellite SST data. The ERSST v3 improvements are justified by testing with simulated data.<br /><br />ERSST v3 has improved low frequency tuning that reduces the SST anomaly damping before 1930 using the optimized parameters. However, the addition of satellite SSTs introduced a small residual cold bias (in the order of 0.01°C). The Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer is an infrared-based instrument. There must be clear-sky conditions to obtain infrared measurements, and cloud contaminated data are often difficult to identify. This contamination leads to a cold SST bias in the retrievals. There were attempts to correct these biases as mentioned in "Improvements to NOAA's Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880–2006)," but the adjustment did not fully compensate for the cold bias. While this small difference did not strongly influence the long-term trend, it was sufficient to change the rankings of the warmest months in the time series. Therefore, use of satellite SST data was discontinued. Except for the removal of the satellite aspect, ERSST v3b processing is identical to version 3.</i><br /><br />https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v3b<br /><br />I don't know when NOAA switched to 3b, but GISS started using it in January 2013, which is a lot longer ago than "last summer".<br /><br />Now they both use v4.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29438601851027160752016-01-27T12:44:05.250+11:002016-01-27T12:44:05.250+11:00You could also call the buoys "satellite-sens...You could also call the buoys "satellite-sensed" temperatures, they communicate via satellites, but (according to the internet, which is full of misinformation) there was a period in which ERSST of NOAA also used the satellite skin temperatures. That is most likely what Michaels refers to. I thought this was much earlier than last summer, but I am not sure about that.<br /><br />Skin temperature, the top few mm where the infra-red radiation the satellite receives comes from behaves quite differently from the Sea Surface Temperature, which is the bulk temperature of the mixed layer, which is typically much much deeper. The skin temperature, for example, has a considerable daily cycle, while the SST nearly has none. The way I understood it, it was difficult to remove the biases due to these two very different types of temperature. For the global mean temperature, which dominates the public "debate", this may have been doable, but the datasets also need to get the spatial patterns of the trends and variability right so that they can be used to understand the physical processes in the climate system.<br /><br />There was so much wrong with Michaels article that it is nearly impossible to respond to all problems. Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63606575416369804782016-01-27T12:31:57.909+11:002016-01-27T12:31:57.909+11:00There is now a nice summary written by Emmanuel Vi...There is now a nice summary written by Emmanuel Vincent of our <a href="http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/patrick-michaels-the-climate-snow-job-the-wall-street-journal/" rel="nofollow">comments on the CATO WSJ article</a>.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31868298789778682442016-01-27T11:39:41.550+11:002016-01-27T11:39:41.550+11:00I don't have a WSJ account but was able to rea...I don't have a WSJ account but was able to read Michaels' article at the CATO link. One oddity you didn't mention was this claim of Michaels:<br /><br />"That changed last summer, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) decided to overhaul its data, throwing out satellite-sensed sea-surface temperatures since the late 1970s and instead relying on, among other sources, readings taken from the cooling-water-intake tubes of oceangoing vessels. The scientific literature is replete with articles about the large measurement errors that accrue in this data owing to the fact that a ship’s infrastructure conducts heat, absorbs a tremendous amount of the sun’s energy, and vessels’ intake tubes are at different ocean depths."<br /> <br />My understanding of what happened is that the sea surface temp anomaly was corrected by an offset which relfects the difference between temperature readings by ships intakes and buoys.The buoy temperatures were not thrown out. I am used to hearing conspiracy theories on the web, but I am shocked that such an outright lie would be told by someone who poses as a scientist and who must know better. Is he really that ignorant or is he just getting paid to lie? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74228042435464725202016-01-27T10:07:46.447+11:002016-01-27T10:07:46.447+11:00I'm not sure we know how this warmer world wil...I'm not sure we know how this warmer world will respond to this super El Nino, and I'm not sure that this super El Nino knows how it's going to respond to this warmer world. It appears to be doing something strange. http://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/extreme-weather/el-nino-update-could-it-be-gaining-a-second-wind/62770/Constant Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509855164424268208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54814500453054396982016-01-27T08:57:41.376+11:002016-01-27T08:57:41.376+11:00(My apologies for an inadvertently sexist comment....(My apologies for an inadvertently sexist comment.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87511318969302471792016-01-27T08:36:26.792+11:002016-01-27T08:36:26.792+11:00"Global average surface temperature in 2015 p..."Global average surface temperature in 2015 popped up by a bit more than a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit compared with the previous year. In 1998 the temperature rose by slightly less than a quarter-degree from 1997."<br /><br />Sounds like Michaels is paying homage to Monckton and SPPI, tilting the graph:<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-16-bizarro-world-sea-level.htmlNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3603734483637658492016-01-27T08:35:55.498+11:002016-01-27T08:35:55.498+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70647203319301927282016-01-27T07:26:33.515+11:002016-01-27T07:26:33.515+11:00It would make sense not to pay-wall propaganda.
I...It would make sense not to pay-wall propaganda.<br /><br />If I may say so, I liked my answer to your Michaels' quote:<br /><br /><i><a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/07/lakes-warming-surprisingly-fast.html" rel="nofollow">Lakes and rivers are warming faster than the regional air temperatures</a>.<br /><br />The Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than modelled. As well as snow cover.<br /><br />Precipitation is getting stronger faster than models predict.<br /><br />Would Michaels conclude from that that it would be prudent to increase the "modeled temperature forecasts" (actually projections)? I would personally argue that we should first understand the reasons before we would do that, but maybe I am too much of a scientist.</i>Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.com