tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8525480547956662134..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: The perversity of deniers - and the "pause" that never was with Tom PetersonSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65101855539409746842015-06-17T06:54:15.592+10:002015-06-17T06:54:15.592+10:00He stopped by my blog for a one-off but I haven...He stopped by my blog for a one-off but I haven't heard back from him after I replied.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02320395147911342848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69009559529184370052015-06-16T21:23:54.418+10:002015-06-16T21:23:54.418+10:00Yes, he very likely is *that* DaveScot.
I am not...Yes, he very likely is *that* DaveScot. <br /><br />I am not sure he got tired of ID.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63433795950462243712015-06-16T20:18:29.981+10:002015-06-16T20:18:29.981+10:00Marco.
Are you saying DaveScot is THAT DaveScot -...Marco.<br /><br />Are you saying DaveScot is THAT DaveScot - one of the people who got bored with Intelligent Design anti-science so they shifted over to Climate Change Denial anti-science.<br /><br />I would rather debate with a room full of ChemTrail supporters! (they too look up in the sky and see things that no one else can... )<br /><br />Well I already had him marked as a troll. And a "burden of evidence" shifting troll at that.<br /><br />For any "lurkers" who are puzzled about what I am on about. There is a type of troll who goes from group to group, framing "skeptism" in such a way as shift the burden of evidence onto anyone responding, and having them do all the homework.<br /><br />It is all fine and good, some people like doing the homework as an intellectual challenge. But what I discovered when I did this in the past, regardless of what you say they will just REPEAT what they said in their original post. So their interest in your response is zero. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18082397295095732202015-06-16T19:54:59.046+10:002015-06-16T19:54:59.046+10:00Marco.
Who is "Dembski" ?Marco.<br /><br />Who is "Dembski" ?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69876031490912374512015-06-16T19:47:16.599+10:002015-06-16T19:47:16.599+10:00Harry, DaveScot doesn't need Curry to talk non...Harry, DaveScot doesn't need Curry to talk nonsense. He's been Dembski's 'attack dog' for quite some tim, so he's been well trained.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88357765608606861652015-06-16T18:52:59.988+10:002015-06-16T18:52:59.988+10:00I would like DaveScot to just answer those two que...I would like DaveScot to just answer those two questions I proposed above.<br /><br />It might then prove that he isn't a troll out to waste people's time here.<br /><br />Other than that, he appears to have picked up some of Dr Judith Curry's nonsense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60753250493555816452015-06-16T09:35:27.018+10:002015-06-16T09:35:27.018+10:00Thanks for the clarification Sou. I was aware of t...Thanks for the clarification Sou. I was aware of the buoy network but assumed that it was being extended by Argo.<br /><br />This site has some useful information on the extent of the data buoy network which apparently the target deployment extent in 2005.<br />http://www.jcommops.org/dbcp/network/status.html<br /><br />Dave Scot - now that Sou has clarified the data sources, would you care to retract your accusations of malfeasance and conspiracy<br /><br />"...makes Karl 2015 into an obvious attempt to deceive the public in my view."MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10117190493010104122015-06-16T04:05:09.270+10:002015-06-16T04:05:09.270+10:00Dave Scot, if you want to convince me your propose...Dave Scot, if you want to convince me your proposed Argo correction is oh-so-good and important, please show me that the trend in the Argo data is different from that of the engine intake measurements. If they are not, it really does not matter, because it does not matter whether the SST right now is 20.5 degrees or 20.1 degrees.<br /><br />Do remember the differences in surface coverage of the engine intake and Argo data (including changes over time).<br /><br />That should keep you busy for a while, we all know how long it took the Hadley center and NOAA to look at all the small details.<br /><br />Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61912582003837971202015-06-16T02:53:01.701+10:002015-06-16T02:53:01.701+10:00Dave, I'm glad the references helped. (For lur...Dave, I'm glad the references helped. (For lurkers, they illustrate why different instruments are used for different purposes like surface temperature and ocean heat content - eg surface instruments vs instruments at depth vs satellites).<br /><br />I don't agree with you about the "not real fast". It's not just the land surfaces that are getting hot, the oceans <a href="http://www.hotwhopper.com/Charts/Vertical%20ocean%20temperature.png" rel="nofollow">are shoring up heat</a> rather quickly.. <br /><br />Still, we're drifting off the topic of denier's conspiracy theorising about scientists sea surface temperatures. Here are a couple of articles on the topics you touched on to whet your appetite - till I undoubtedly write more on both at some stage:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/a-lot-more-heat-is-found-in-ocean.html" rel="nofollow">A lot more heat is found in the ocean</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/the-relevance-of-climate-models.html" rel="nofollow">The relevance of (climate) models - increasing understanding</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/gavin-schmidt-co-have-been-reconciling.html" rel="nofollow">Gavin Schmidt & Co have been reconciling climate models and surface temperature observations</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26004493051252767322015-06-16T02:03:58.101+10:002015-06-16T02:03:58.101+10:00Thanks Sou for the links. I read them all. In ge...Thanks Sou for the links. I read them all. In general they're too dated for ARGO but I learned a few things about other SST sampling methods. The bottom line for me remains that ARGO is the instrumentation of choice for knowing what's going on with regard to change in ocean heat content from surface to 2000 meters. No other system comes close with regard to spatial coverage, consistency, accuracy, and precision. The mixed layer of the ocean is currently warming at 0.05C/decade. This is in good agreement with top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance measured by satellites such as<a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2513.html" rel="nofollow"> CERES</a>. Global warming is real it just isn't real fast according to the best data we have and is well short of climate model projections. Denial is rampant but the bulk of it these days seems to have shifted into denial that climate models have unresolved problems.<br /> <br />DaveScothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03796727784739909570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53589251355264062002015-06-16T01:30:07.857+10:002015-06-16T01:30:07.857+10:00Well at least Sou knows that ERSST doesn't inc...Well at least Sou knows that ERSST doesn't incorporate ARGO data. Hopefully others will read the links you provided.<br /><br />So Sou... ARGO samples at 5 meters and ship engine intakes sample both above and below that depth depending on ship size and whether the deep or shallow sea chest is selected.<br /><br />Unlike other systems ARGO distribution is purposefully global and the largest system of its kind. Each float takes temperature/salinity profile from surface to 2000 meters once every ten days. Times 4,000 floats that's 400 high precision "surface" (within the ERSST definition of surface) measurements each day. All available online in real time.<br /><br />From the source: http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html<br /><br /><br /><strong>"Why do we need Argo?"</strong><br /><br />"Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?<br /><br />In 1999, to combat this lack of data, an innovative step was taken by scientists to greatly improve the collection of observations inside the ocean through increased sampling of old and new quantities and increased coverage in terms of time and area.<br /><br />That step was Argo."<br /><br /><br />I understand that ARGO has been fully operational only since 2007 but its mission is explicitely to provide data to qualify climate models. Your readers either are or are not interested in validation of climate models. If they are sincerely interested in that then one might anticipate they'd embrace the past 8 years of ARGO data. That data is the best we have and it shows global SST has, in fits and starts (see figure 1 here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2513.html ) risen at a pace of 0.05C/decade.<br /><br />This is good data and the article I cited from top shelf literature; Nature Climate. Rejection of it is almost certainly indicative of an ideological agenda whether it's rejected for being too little or too much to suit the agenda.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />DaveScothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03796727784739909570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14731515168036637172015-06-15T23:35:09.274+10:002015-06-15T23:35:09.274+10:00There's another recent paper by Abraham et al ...There's another recent paper by Abraham et al that's helpful, too. <br /><br />A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change<br />JP Abraham, M Baringer, NL Bindoff, T Boyer, LJ Cheng, JA Church, ...Reviews of Geophysics 51 (3), 450-483. It's <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/full" rel="nofollow">open access.</a> <br /><br />It's more about ocean heat content that sea surface temperature, from a quick scan.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4076751375684538772015-06-15T22:30:28.657+10:002015-06-15T22:30:28.657+10:00It's my understanding that the ARGO system is ...It's my understanding that the <a href="http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/" rel="nofollow">ARGO system is for the sub-surface</a> down to some depth, not the surface. The are for profiling down to around 2000m, so they spend more time under the surface than on it. Buoys on the other hand, like ships, float on the surface.<br /><br />This paper by Woodruff et al is quite good for describing how sea surface temperature (etc) is monitored: <a href="http://meteo.edu.vn/DATA/Books/Climate%20Variability%20and%20Extremes%20during%20the%20Past%20100%20Years/4.%20The%20Evolving%20SST%20Record%20from%20ICOADS.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Evolving SST Record from ICOADS</a><br /><br />SkS has <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/hadsst3_a_detailed_look.html" rel="nofollow">a good article on HadSST</a>, which describes the sources for observations, too. It also provides a <a href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_figinline.pdf" rel="nofollow">link to Kennedy et al (2012)</a><br /><br />Here's <a href="https://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=10975" rel="nofollow">another article that might help</a> - from Woods Hole.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63433403477047547972015-06-15T22:01:28.271+10:002015-06-15T22:01:28.271+10:00" Are you arguing for exclusion of ARGO data?..." Are you arguing for exclusion of ARGO data? If so, why?"<br /><br />Did this question come to you in a dream? I am not arguing anything, you are.<br /><br />You still have not said anything about the data ARGO collects, and whether it can be used in the analysis Karl et al did.<br /><br />Saying that ARGO should have been used, is an obvious attempt by you to get different results, because you personally do not like the results of the Karl et al study.<br /><br />And if ARGO does collect the same data as ERSST, what is the justification for using it if it does not cover the periods 1998-2012 and 1951-2012?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52243528872179228052015-06-15T21:57:34.988+10:002015-06-15T21:57:34.988+10:00"Failure to use ARGO data to "correct&qu..."Failure to use ARGO data to "correct" lesser instruments including ship engine intake temperature and bucket measurements makes Karl 2015 into an obvious attempt to deceive the public in my view."<br /><br />"Why on earth did we pay so much money for the ARGO floats ... if we don't use the data?<br /><br /><br />You obviously have not read the paper and you struggle with basic arithmetic. There in itself is a good reason for not getting misinformation from climate crank blogs like WUWT.<br /><br /><br />They do in fact use the buoy data. Increasingly. Because it is more accurate.<br /><br /><br />From the paper. The new ERSST4 temperature series includes an<br /><br />"(i) an increasing amount of ocean data from buoys, which are slightly different than data from ships; (ii) an<br />increasing amount of ship data from engine intake thermometers, which are slightly different than data from bucket sea-water<br />temperatures; and (iii) a large increase in land-station data ..."<br /><br />and<br /><br />"More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling."<br />http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full.pdf<br /><br /><br /><br />Because they are now using increasing amounts of data from the buoys, it has amplified an existing and known bias between the new buoy data and the old ship intake data of around 0.12C. This is not a new discovery - the bias adjustment already exists in HadSST version 3.<br /><br />They applied a correction of 0.12C to the buoy data but given we are looking at temperature anomalies, it could have been equally applied by reducing the ship intake data by 0.12C.<br /><br />If arithmetic is not your strong point as seems apparent, a more complete explanation can be found here.<br />http://michiganssa.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/other-bad-wuwt-commentary.html<br /><br /><br /><br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62123192611628077422015-06-15T21:23:11.192+10:002015-06-15T21:23:11.192+10:00Since I answered your questions you can respond in...Since I answered your questions you can respond in kind by answering mine. Are you arguing for exclusion of ARGO data? If so, why?<br /><br />DaveScothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03796727784739909570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58003371271690010342015-06-15T21:17:39.492+10:002015-06-15T21:17:39.492+10:00I answered both your questions. ARGO takes temper...I answered both your questions. ARGO takes temperature measurements at 5-meters which is a depth within the range of ship engine intakes used in ERSST. ARGO covers approximately half the period of the pause. The pause is the period of greatest interest as evidenced by the title of this blog article.<br /><br /><br />DaveScothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03796727784739909570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69033311522445534242015-06-15T21:07:32.158+10:002015-06-15T21:07:32.158+10:00DaveScot,
you haven't answered those two ques...DaveScot,<br /><br />you haven't answered those two questions.<br /><br />You are now accusing Karl et al of having an agenda.<br /><br />And what is with the rhetorical "Surely you are not arguing...". I said nothing of the sort, straw manning is not considered an honest way to discuss something.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73137165507360553992015-06-15T20:57:30.095+10:002015-06-15T20:57:30.095+10:00http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/...http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2513.html<br /><br />Yes ARGO 5-meter overlaps the depth used by ship engine intakes.<br /><br />Buoys in general do not cover the entire temporal range of ERSST. The intent of the paper was to discount "the pause" and ARGO covers approximately half of that period.<br /><br />Surely you are not arguing for exclusion of the only global instrumentation specifically designed for the task of recording ocean temperature all over the globe at depths ranging from the surface to 2000 meters.<br />DaveScothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03796727784739909570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1439204954245123962015-06-15T20:45:29.428+10:002015-06-15T20:45:29.428+10:00DaveScot,
I think you are jumping to conclusions ...DaveScot,<br /><br />I think you are jumping to conclusions without looking at the facts. Answer these questions first:<br /><br />- does ARGO collect the type of data the study used in it's analysis?<br /><br />- does the ARGO data cover the periods of time the study used in it's analysis?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61134780967558592112015-06-15T20:26:28.901+10:002015-06-15T20:26:28.901+10:00Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure...Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006 <br />~Nature Climate Change 5, 240–245 (2015)<br /><br />ARGO data taken at 5 meters by 4000 precision instruments spread around the global ocean shows 0.05C/decade warming since 2006.<br /><br />Failure to use ARGO data to "correct" lesser instruments including ship engine intake temperature and bucket measurements makes Karl 2015 into an obvious attempt to deceive the public in my view.<br /><br />Why on earth did we pay so much money for the ARGO floats, the only instrumentation actually designed for the task of measuring global ocean temperature accurately to hundredths of a degree, if we don't use the data?<br /><br /> <br /><br />DaveScothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03796727784739909570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22207570488850903462015-06-12T14:54:45.537+10:002015-06-12T14:54:45.537+10:00I understand all that. Dana Nuccitelli's artic...I understand all that. Dana Nuccitelli's article from the Guardian on this paper. A screen grab of the comments<br /><br />http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.com.au/2015_05/Captureg.png<br /><br />Looks familiar? Same talking point as anon1. gonzoman was all over this comment stream. Bert<br /><br />Yes I was confused by two anons. I was up all night collecting astro data in my observatory. My mind was not as clear as it could have been. Sorry.<br /><br />This is precisely what these deniers do. Bert<br /><br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39303988811556870292015-06-12T14:12:59.174+10:002015-06-12T14:12:59.174+10:00Uh Bert...not sure if you are talking to me or not...Uh Bert...not sure if you are talking to me or not. <br /><br />First, sorry about anon--I do not post here preferring other places like tamino, RC, and SkS so did not include my usual handle for what I thought would be a quick comment. But another anon has appeared that may have confused things.<br /><br />My posts assert no "Gish Gallop" I merely pointed out a single slight, but important, overstatement of your own which is key in time series analysis--one which is routinely ignored by deniers to misinform. Therein lies this anon's "motive". I have no reason whatever to disagree with Peterson et. al. and for those statistical parts I am competent to judge absolutely do not.<br /><br />I also specifically stated the overstatement did not apply to this case, so this anon can hardly be accused of all the additional things you add which do appear to be a direct reply to my anon.<br /><br />Your single overstatement is overlooking that time dependent parameter bias can be, and very often is, a problem in time series analysis. No, not the estimates of the trend generally (except under specific conditions highly likely not applicable here). But the estimates of the CIs very much so. This parameter is part of the regression solution as well.<br /><br />I can understand that deniers drive you crazy. They drive me as a stats person (not in climate) crazy as well. <br /><br />Why is this important? Well, as one example, ignoring autocorrelation effects--i.e. ignoring time dependent parameter bias--leading to a false conclusion, one need only note that failing to correct for that bias in the temp record is part of the general denier strategy in wrongly proposing a "pause". Correcting for that bias shows the "pause" to be even more expectable as natural variation than OLS (which itself is highly equivocal in showing any such thing). This sort of thing is the only reason to point out the overstatement in the first place.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67962186491937986042015-06-12T06:46:53.678+10:002015-06-12T06:46:53.678+10:00Anon or should I say gonzoman you are just confusi...Anon or should I say gonzoman you are just confusing the issue with the difference between trends and biases with a Gish gallop of unrelated variations due to totally different effects that are irrelevant. This attempt to confuse and cast doubt is the hallmark of the seemingly scientifically poorly educated denier who's target is the poorly educated.<br />I have explained it to you once. If you are too stupid or unwilling to understand I will not bother with you again.<br />It is very clear to me that you are trying to conflate time dependant trends with instrument biases. The motive is to cast doubt on the valid data adjustments by Tom Peterson et al. Bert<br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35895572697819328032015-06-10T23:29:43.614+10:002015-06-10T23:29:43.614+10:00Off topic and may be a language issue. Various bia...Off topic and may be a language issue. Various biases based on time dependencies are common in time series. Seasonal effects, other cycles, time-dependent survival analyses, and the like all are common. In climate, besides seasonal cycles we also have all the other cycles--primarily at the sea-air interface--we are getting ever more research on. <br /><br />Unless there is drift over time (common in survival analysis situations, for example), this does not bias the mean at all. But such bias very much (can) bias the confidence intervals.<br /><br />Surely with all your calculus you know this! You may call it by a different name than statisticians, but it most definitely applies to biasing certain parameter estimates in an analysis!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com