tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8893834235124334132..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale surfs the surface at Florida KeysSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36731494406566950422015-01-24T01:14:14.831+11:002015-01-24T01:14:14.831+11:00Clearly there is an increase in temperature shown ...Clearly there is an increase in temperature shown by Figure 3, Kuffner et al (2014) But what is the increase due to? <br />Classically www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=22809041 the nearby Turkey Point nuclear power station which is clearly causing problems for the coral as reported for the nearby Biscayne Bay corals. scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=oa_theses. Simon P.Goughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17850344025696942522014-11-01T20:42:14.562+11:002014-11-01T20:42:14.562+11:00Don't pretend to be thick, Anonymous. KR was c...Don't pretend to be thick, Anonymous. KR was commenting on Bob's idiotic claim that: "USING A GLOBAL DATASET TO REPRESENT GLOBAL WARMING IS MISLEADING"<br /><br />That's all. If you can't see the ridiculousness of that statement or what is wrong with it, then do as KR suggested and read up on statistics. <br /><br />If you want to write about something else, feel free. But don't go putting words into the mouths of other commenters. There is nothing wrong with looking at changes in different parts of the ocean, and KR didn't ever say there was. <br /><br />"Bob Tisdale" on the other hand, has on several occasions tried to hide the fact that global warming is real or at least to downplay it. Some examples:<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/more-tisdale-tricksdont-worry.html<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/still-more-tisdale-tricks-how-bob-tries.html<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/bob-tisdale-hides-warming-and-tries-out.htmlSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49004447087324965902014-11-01T20:26:25.170+11:002014-11-01T20:26:25.170+11:00KR: See Purkey et al – 2014 – “Relative contribut...KR: See Purkey et al – 2014 – “Relative contributions of ocean mass and deep steric changes to sea level rise between 1993 and 2013”. There was an article about it over at SkS by John Abraham. Link to preprint:<br />http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/Ocean_mass_trends_v2.pdf<br /><br />See their Figures 1 and 5. Purkey broke the oceans into basins and small parts of the Southern Ocean. It’s commonly done. The reasons for doing it are pretty obvious, but they escaped you on that WUWT thread. For some reason, you thought it was funny that Tisadle had done the same thing. <br /><br />Would you call out Purkey et al for cherry-picking for showing no mass contribution to sea level in the South Pacific, and in the South Pacific portion of the Southern Ocean, and in the Indian Ocean? <br /><br />I’ll stand by my earlier statements. <br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />HavingBreakfastAtTiffany's<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61974704350248406232014-10-31T01:15:05.246+11:002014-10-31T01:15:05.246+11:00@Breakfast
Side note: In that thread I did _not_ ...@Breakfast<br /><br />Side note: In that thread I did _not_ <i>(contrary to your post)</i> state I didn't understand something about Tisdales article. I understood completely, as a claim that cherry-picking data represents for him The True Path, and I was simply pointing out that cherry-picking is nonsense. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47431812621543785822014-10-31T00:57:28.227+11:002014-10-31T00:57:28.227+11:00@Breakfast
Much of Tisdales (mis)analysis is base...@Breakfast<br /><br />Much of Tisdales <i>(mis)</i>analysis is based on cherry-picking - SST's only, or perhaps 0-700 meters, ignoring 0-2000 and abyssal changes, looking at ever tinier portions of the ocean, and claiming significant trends with time periods far _far_ too short for anything but noise. <br /><br />Which makes his "USING A GLOBAL DATASET TO REPRESENT GLOBAL WARMING IS MISLEADING" <i>(yes, caps in the original!)</i> statement just hilarious - claiming that his absurd cherry-picking is the One and True Way. <br /><br />As to replying to Tisdale, that's been done at great length in multiple threads on WUWT as well as <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=190&&a=57" rel="nofollow">good discussions on Skeptical Science</a>. His claims don't hold up, wholly ignoring conservation of energy, spectroscopic data, and the entirety of the data in favor of finding tiny regional portions of the sea and timeline that <i>seem</i> to support his claims. <br /><br />But given his statement in the thread referenced above, I just had to laugh - Tisdale makes no sense, cannot be convinced of his errors, and I just didn't bother for yet another round. Why did I post that? Because for anyone at all familiar with the data and with basic statistics, <b>it's hilariously wrong</b>. If you can't see that, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-Guide-Statistics-Larry-Gonick/dp/0062731025" rel="nofollow">I would suggest you do some reading...</a>KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19823972733126470592014-10-30T23:20:52.455+11:002014-10-30T23:20:52.455+11:00Okay. I don't agree but you're entitled to...Okay. I don't agree but you're entitled to nitpick if you want.<br /><br />Personally I found KR's observation highly relevant, although I already know Bob's a greenhouse effect denier and a quack. I mean it wasn't as if it was a mistype by "Bob Tisdale" - he shouted it to the world. He's a weird one.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81757628862355500962014-10-30T22:46:15.464+11:002014-10-30T22:46:15.464+11:00Sou, PS: I didn't say I agreed with Tisdale. ...Sou, PS: I didn't say I agreed with Tisdale. I was saying that KR should have replied, and because he didn't, it seems silly to post it.<br /><br />HavingBreakfastAtTiffany's<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40907289539898851502014-10-30T22:39:00.312+11:002014-10-30T22:39:00.312+11:00Sou, Tisdale did not "remove all the warming ...Sou, Tisdale did not "remove all the warming areas". In that post, every ocean basin is represented from the start of the data in 1955. See the map:<br />https://archive.today/o/Y34iI/http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/2-map.png<br /><br />HavingBreakfastAtTiffany's<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33872648209909269572014-10-30T13:51:07.736+11:002014-10-30T13:51:07.736+11:00Seriously? ha ha ha
Are you saying that you agre...Seriously? ha ha ha <br /><br />Are you saying that you agree with "Bob Tisdale" that:<br /><br />""USING A GLOBAL DATASET TO REPRESENT GLOBAL WARMING IS MISLEADING""<br /><br />Perhaps you agree with "Bob Tisdale" that one needs to remove all the warming areas because ...ummm...they make it look as if the world is warming (when of course all that's really happening is that the world is getting hotter - globally that is, not in Bob's spots that aren't warming as fast as the spots that are warming fastest).Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21752855991625472552014-10-30T13:30:53.735+11:002014-10-30T13:30:53.735+11:00KR, thank you very much for the link.
I was wond...KR, thank you very much for the link. <br /><br />I was wondering why you posted it. You disagreed with Tisdale's position, and admitted to not understanding something. Ric Werme and Tisdale replied to you, explaining, but you didn't acknowledge their replies or attempt to counter their arguments. <br /><br />I still can't figure out why you would post that for everybody to read. <br /><br />HavingBreakfastAtTiffany'sAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44784497198218342642014-10-29T03:02:24.657+11:002014-10-29T03:02:24.657+11:00Yes. He draws lots of lines everywhere though they...Yes. He draws lots of lines everywhere though they are quite meaningless.<br /><br />Bob specialises in one thing and one thing only. He's taught himself how to extract sea surface temperature from KNMI Climate Explorer and he judges everything climate with SST. If he was asked to explain gravity or photosynthesis he'd start with a chart of monthly sea surface temperatures, draw some random lines, then probably claim it proves that gravity and photosynthesis don't exist and that scientists don't know nuffin' :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78641053134664230382014-10-29T02:59:32.300+11:002014-10-29T02:59:32.300+11:00Hmm, bad link in my previous message, should be to...Hmm, bad link in my previous message, should be to <a href="https://archive.today/Y34iI#selection-575.0-585.29" rel="nofollow">https://archive.today/Y34iI#selection-575.0-585.29</a>KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25411331401239932582014-10-29T02:56:17.422+11:002014-10-29T02:56:17.422+11:00To be more accurate, "He then re-packages thi...To be more accurate, <i>"He then re-packages this into pseudo-science claptrap... <b>with graphs</b>..."</i><br /><br />Gobs and gobs of misaligned graphs with insignificantly short trend lines, nonsense interpretations, and blatant cherry-picking. Because, <a rel="nofollow">as Bob says</a>: <br /><br /><i>"USING A GLOBAL DATASET TO REPRESENT GLOBAL WARMING IS MISLEADING"</i><br /><br />I kid you not, he actually said that. Facepalm...KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21830920412782776192014-10-29T02:46:00.107+11:002014-10-29T02:46:00.107+11:00No, we do not agree anything of the sort. You are ...No, we do not agree anything of the sort. You are the one who is trying on the dumb line taken by "Bob Tisdale". He is wrong, plain and simple. For reasons the scientists themselves have explained. (You don't need to take my word for it.)<br /><br />I haven't bothered to read Bob's latest so-called article, but I did see one of his comments. He seems to be denying even that there was in situ underwater temperature records - from one metre to five metres depths in various sites in one set of data.<br /><br />As I indicated in my article (and since you've bothered to read the paper you're rejecting, you will have seen the same) - the scientists spent a lot of the paper talking about the data itself. <br /><br />I don't understand why you aren't interested in what they *did* find and are so intent on "believing" an anonymous quack on a conspiracy theorising anti science blog, like "Bob Tisdale" or whatever his name really is.<br /><br />Look, if you want to claim the inside temperature of your living room is the same as the average of the temperature on the top of the nearest mountain range in winter, be my guest. It makes no sense to me.<br /><br />Of course the scientists know the world and the oceans are warming. Who doesn't know that? Even a greenhouse effect denier like Bob Tisdale doesn't deny that the world is heating up a lot. He just denies that it's because of CO2. He's a science denier - not to be trusted on anything scientific.<br /><br />Anders, I'm assuming you are a science denier arrived here from WUWT. Would that be right? You're wasting your breath here if you think you'll make any converts to some anti-science crusade you might be on. HW readers in the main are too well educated in science.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73429856452902624332014-10-29T02:22:16.374+11:002014-10-29T02:22:16.374+11:00Again, thank you for replying. I gather that we ag...Again, thank you for replying. I gather that we agree that the HADISST provides a reference for the in-situ measurements. The authors had these records, but did not use them to this end. That is a choice they made, which is OK but is also debatable. The authors argue that warming will make changes to the reef, which is also OK and in line with the findings from other sites around the globe. The question is of course if these changes are for the better or worse, and how the reefs will handle the changes. The paper has a pretty good discussion chapter, where they discuss the different stressors for reefs. They do touch upon the fact that the current temperature records show that the reefs are not affected by colder temperatures, but only briefly. It is known that cold water is a definite and strong killer of reefs, while higher temperatures are known to be causing bleaching which normally causes shifts in the predominance of coral types on the reef. Thus it is arguable that the reefs are better off with higher temperatures. The authors touch upon this, but do not follow through on this line of argument, focusing rather on the possible (and speculative) detrimental effects of higher SSTs and less alkaline seawater.<br />The authors mention in the discussion chapter that there is much to learn when it comes to how coral reefs handle higher SSTs, while there is good knowledge on the lethality of cold waters. They speculate on the combination of warming SST and less alkaline sea water, but point out that the effect of this is not currently known well enough to conclude on the future of these reefs. As good scientists, they point out that further research is needed. I have no problem with that.<br />The authors do make the connection between anthropogenic global warming and warming of the sea around these reefs. The temperature curves they show do not in my mind provide compelling evidence to this end. It is an argument, and should be treated as such. That is why the use of HADISST provides a frame of reference that is useful. <br />There is more to be said, but I will stop there. Andersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77621893039036452922014-10-29T02:10:45.565+11:002014-10-29T02:10:45.565+11:00Maybe someone more knowledgeable can check, but I ...Maybe someone more knowledgeable can check, but I think I once heard that the ocean sea surface temperature datasets are biased near the coast. The ships get larger and larger and thus stay further away from the coast nowadays. That artificially makes the measured temperatures cooler than they used to be.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40267539202936262572014-10-29T01:42:28.594+11:002014-10-29T01:42:28.594+11:00On a final note, if your arguments are good, they ...<i>On a final note, if your arguments are good, they are good. Drop the mud-dragging stuff. It comes off as juvenile insecurity on your part when read by adults trained in engineering and science.</i><br /><br />Oops I missed your obligatory tone trolling. HotWhopper is for demolishing disinformation - and enjoys poking fun at dumb denierisms.<br /><br />If you don't like snark then go elsewhere. There are plenty of good science blogs around. You could try WUWT - oh, perhaps not. Not if you want to avoid the juvenile and less so if you are interested in science. (People there don't even pretend to discuss science.) Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90652158263950483002014-10-29T01:39:36.775+11:002014-10-29T01:39:36.775+11:00If a data provider is on a paper, this person is a...If a data provider is on a paper, this person is also responsible for the entire content of the paper. Maybe less than a first author, but in principle you own the entire content of every paper you are on.<br /><br />In this case it was not about authorship however, but a mention on a CV, that does not make you responsible for that publication.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36494105857456912582014-10-29T01:36:16.366+11:002014-10-29T01:36:16.366+11:00>What he does argue, though, is that there is a...><i>What he does argue, though, is that there is a) no reason to believe that manmade global warming is to blame for the situation at these reefs</i> <br /><br />Yes, that's a given. Bob Tisdale is a greenhouse effect denier. He doesn't "believe" that greenhouse gases keep Earth warm. He rejects 200 years of physics.<br /><br /><br /><i>and b) it would be interesting to know how the coral reefs have endured periods of stressful warmth in previous years.</i><br /><br />Sure. If there were records the scientists would have used them Did you even read the paper? Are you a greenhouse effect denier too? The scientists weren't making any claims other than what the data showed. Unlike Bob Tisdale, they weren't stretching anything. They were simply reporting what they found based on observations.<br /><br />Thing is, the scientists were comparing periods for which there *were* records. <br /><br />The HadISST charts Bob put up showed small changes in average SST and there they showed that recent years (around the turn of this century) have had the hottest SST in the record. Don't be distracted by the lines that Bob drew. Look at the charts themselves, not what Bob wants you to see, but the actual data. However that's not very relevant to the paper that is being discussed here.<br /><br />The data the scientists used was specific to the sites in question. If you've ever swum in a lake or river (or reefs in the sea), you'd know that there are parts that have temperatures very different to the average. <br /><br />I know you want to "believe" that an armchair pseudoscientist can "prove" that scientists don't know nuffin'. If you think Bob has a case to argue, ask him to publish it. He won't. He says he's not even game to post a comment here for fear of it being deleted. I can't see him being game enough to attempt to compete with real scientists. He's only good for denialist and conspiracy theorising blogs like WUWT, where he can command some adulation from the 8% dismissives. Though not everyone there is a fan (think Wondering Willis, who is a competitor not an ally).<br /><br />Bottom line is that warmer reefs will bring changes to the reefs. And as global warming continues to kick in there will be many coral reefs that will be affected. They are getting a double whammy. Hot spells will bring more coral bleaching events. Acidification will alter the habitat as well. Some species will not thrive and may not survive.<br /><br />Deniers don't want to hear about that. Fisher folk will be interested. Marine scientists will be interested. There are a lot of people who are interested in this sort of thing. There are a few people who are signed on members of the illiterati who think that knowledge is a waste of time. (Many of them would rather make crude sexist remarks than discuss science. That's a subject they are more at home with.) Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91949801804663058162014-10-29T01:02:17.412+11:002014-10-29T01:02:17.412+11:00Thank you for answering. I disagree with you, thou...Thank you for answering. I disagree with you, though. <br /><br />It is true that HADISST is not directly interchangeable with the in-situ measurements. At the same time, it is true that the in-situ measurements are related to the HADISST. Since you have not argued on that point I take it that you agree with me.<br /><br />This means that the HADISST provides the reference into which the in-situ measurements should be interpreted. That is what Bob Tisdale is arguing. <br /><br />When you look at the story told by HADISST it is clear that the bulk of the warming happened in the early 1900s. Thus the authors are not correct in saying the the 1975-2007 period accounts for the observed warming of the area. That is the main argument of Tisdales post. There is not a single place in his post where he argues that the in-situ measurements were wrong. He rather says that they were not put in the proper frame of reference. That is quite another issue, which you seem to have missed.<br /><br />It is actually quite clear that when you look at the presented in-situ measurements compared to the longer HADISST they are in agreement, i.e. they show similar patterns. <br /><br />It is also clear that the area has had several periods of warm temperatures at and above what is generally thought to be stressful for coral reefs. It is reasonable to assume that the local in-situ measurements would be elevated accordingly during thos times. It is absolutely reasonable to wonder why coral reefs seem to have endured this in previous times without dire consequences. It may be that nature is quite robust, after all. The authors of this study have presented observations, they have discussed and argued on hypotheses related to the issue. Theirs is a contribution in the quest for Truth, but it is not itself Truth. It is very important to remember that.<br /><br />Bob Tisdale does not argue that coral reefs are not stressed by high sea temperatures. I do believe there a lot of studies showing that they in fact are. What he does argue, though, is that there is a) no reason to believe that manmade global warming is to blame for the situation at these reefs and b) it would be interesting to know how the coral reefs have endured periods of stressful warmth in previous years. To me those are reasonable arguments with regards to this study.<br /><br />On a final note, if your arguments are good, they are good. Drop the mud-dragging stuff. It comes off as juvenile insecurity on your part when read by adults trained in engineering and science.Andersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26335296711081579092014-10-28T23:54:02.031+11:002014-10-28T23:54:02.031+11:00I "must" do nothing of the sort.
I am ...I "must" do nothing of the sort. <br /><br />I am pointing out that HadISST is too crude a measurement to indicate anything much about what is happening in specific coral reefs. If HadISST were considered useful, the scientists would have used it. It provides a continuous record after all. However it doesn't say much about what was happening on the reefs where the corals are growing.<br /><br />Bob was effectively arguing that the coral bleaching and other changes that have been observed in the coral population has nothing to do with the temperature of the environment the corals were growing in. He bases this not on any knowledge he has of coral reefs (which is probably zero). Not on any understanding of oceans or marine science (which is probably less than zero). Nope, he makes his claim based on his charts of the average surface temperature of the ocean over an area way beyond where the coral reefs are located. He effectively says that the people who carefully recorded the temperatures on site were wrong. <br /><br />He effectively says that the marine scientists who have spent their lives studying coral reefs don't know what they are talking about.<br /><br />Bob says all this because he wants to reject that fact that humans are causing global warming. Plus he wants to sell his "books". Bob Tisdale is an armchair crank who mines the work of others, picking the bits he likes and rejecting what he doesn't like. He then re-packages this into pseudo-science claptrap and sells it to whoever is mug enough to buy it.<br /><br />Bob Tisdale is just another science denier. One of the nutty crowd that hang about conspiracy theory websites like WUWT.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36738600243923093592014-10-28T20:04:59.736+11:002014-10-28T20:04:59.736+11:00I see your point about using in-situ measurements....I see your point about using in-situ measurements. I do believe, however, that you make a slight misrepresentation of what the authors state. The authors argue that the in-situ measurements are good for calibration purposes. That is an important statement, and should not be overlooked.<br />That statement says that there is a connection between e.g. the HADISST and the local temperature. That also means that Bob's point about when warming occurred is crucial to the interpretation of the causes of the warming. The authors of the paper have stated that the warming of 1878-2012 can be fully accounted for by the warming of the much shorter period 1975-2007. According to HADISST that statement is incorrect, regardless of local measurements being suitable for calibration purposes, and regardless of the fact that the local measurements tell the local story of how the corals are dealing with local temperatures.<br />Field measurements is a tricky thing, and one should take great care in not overstating the meaning of what is measured. If you take the authors at their word, you must aknowledge the connection between the in-situ measurements and the HADISST. If you claim that HADISST is something different altogether, then you should address that issue with the authors beacuse you are in disagreement.<br />Regards, AndersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74200164895643883362014-10-28T14:58:20.696+11:002014-10-28T14:58:20.696+11:00Bog-standard tone-trolling. Boring. Next.Bog-standard tone-trolling. Boring. Next.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84350733412070950622014-10-28T14:38:51.988+11:002014-10-28T14:38:51.988+11:00That comment did not deserve deleting and reflects...That comment did not deserve deleting and reflects poorly on your judgement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87113494352383484302014-10-28T13:09:41.221+11:002014-10-28T13:09:41.221+11:00For the benefit of new readers looking for the del...For the benefit of new readers looking for the deleted comment, you can find it where it belongs, in <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery.html#anon15914" rel="nofollow">the HotWhoppery</a> :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com