tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post198419058182437056..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: HotWhopper Competition: Best Name for a Denier Lobby Group (in 25 words or less)Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger321125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54875004268352719962014-04-25T22:38:06.943+10:002014-04-25T22:38:06.943+10:00This thread is being closed because the number of ...This thread is being closed because the number of comments is making it too hard to load. Feel free to continue the discussion in <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/heat-sinking-temperatures-rising-in-us.html" rel="nofollow">this new thread</a>.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68890140372954236052014-04-25T22:09:28.392+10:002014-04-25T22:09:28.392+10:00"We are addressing heat sink only for this st..."We are addressing heat sink only for this study."<br /><br />Quite. I thought the sites were being classified according to Leroy (2010) which includes shade & humidity factors as well as heat sinks. This statement suggests that the classifications from Evans et al. (20??) will be somewhat different from Leroy (2010) which is concerning given the assurances made here & elsewhere.<br /><br />Sou, I wonder if you would consider giving this subject a separate post? There's plenty more to discuss here & Evan has been very accommodating in enabling discussion. It has, however become very difficult to follow the (many & varied) threads that have arisen, particularly as I am now having to "load more" 3+ times to get to the current posts.Quiet Watersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50282489023204379722014-04-25T22:00:40.250+10:002014-04-25T22:00:40.250+10:00But I ain't seein' no enhanced signal in t...<i>But I ain't seein' no enhanced signal in the post-1950 record.</i><br /><br />That's because you ignore the fact that CO2 forcing 1950 - present was NON-LINEAR (although I have pointed this out, at least twice). You also ignore OHC, although several commenters have raised this issue. <br /><br />And here we are again, with you yet again repeating a FALSE CLAIM.<br /><br />I'm fed up with your nonsense, Evan. Troll bin time. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61985483097470589312014-04-25T21:56:31.684+10:002014-04-25T21:56:31.684+10:00I hacked apart the one study you showed me on aero...<i>I hacked apart the one study you showed me on aerosols and it turned out it was saying exactly the opposite of what you claimed it did.</i><br /><br />No you didn't. You demonstrated that you did not understand it. I responded, pointing this out. And now you are lying.<br /><br />I'm fed up with your nonsense Evan. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75413743730648008192014-04-25T21:48:34.603+10:002014-04-25T21:48:34.603+10:00Oh, just read the damn thing. There certainly WERE...Oh, just read the damn thing. There certainly WERE data quality issues with the sediment proxies, probable human influences during the calibration interval, they should probably have been excluded, which is why Mann did a sensitivity study and showed that the molehill is still a molehill.<br /><br />Seems to me the only ones all that het up these days about MBH98 are those still trying to discredit it, trying to keep alive the old lies or irrelevancies such as the red noise fallacy, the PCA fallacy, the Bristlecone fallacy .... goes down a treat at WUWT, out in the real world, not so much.<br /><br />Jus Sayin'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29358908505017974582014-04-25T21:35:34.312+10:002014-04-25T21:35:34.312+10:00But look, there's a squirrel.
Reverse the squ...<i>But look, there's a squirrel.</i><br /><br />Reverse the squirrel, then.<br /><br />Then we can forget all about it.<br /><br />But my original point was that Mann et al. (2008) is not a panicmaker. MBH98 is. <br /><br />And if you don't remember the huge splash MNH98 made and the huge impact it had, you had better get a checkup because your memory is starting to go. <br /><br />For heaven's sake, MBH98 had such a dramatic impact that we are still spitballing about it to this day. Q.E.D. Hardly anyone even remembers Mann 2008, though. No surprise. it's quite unremarkable.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82936299526985730222014-04-25T21:20:01.291+10:002014-04-25T21:20:01.291+10:00And when there is no data quality issue except for...And when there is no data quality issue except for the fact that I happened to type the wrong sign, I do <b>not</b> get to remove the station.<br /><br />The Tiljander proxy was turned upside down. That doesn't mean you get to drop it. It means you have to turn it right-side up and use it.<br /><br /><i>Of course some will just say WHAT? You have a single station with the wrong trend?! Well, I'm just going to discount the whole study write a two thousand word blog post on your corrupted data and label you 'Wrong Way Jones'.... ;-)</i><br /><br />You got that right. Don't think it won't happen. But I will open my books and assist falsification anyway because that's what I do.<br /><br />I truly think I am at least 99% correct. And I have given a closer eye to the close calls, especially the dividing line between Class 2s and Class 3s. But there must be at least one error in there somewhere. Or I missed something in a station's metadata.<br /><br /><i>'Wrong Way Jones'</i><br /><br />I think mjx has already called me that twice or once.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1940528594175155112014-04-25T21:09:24.062+10:002014-04-25T21:09:24.062+10:00Oh, and PS - If you look at the SI I linked, parti...Oh, and PS - If you look at the SI I linked, particulary Fig s9, you'll see the lake sediment proxies are practically flat before 1800, so including it, excluding it, reversing the sign does not affect the conclusions of the study, as the authors showed in Fig S8. <br /><br />But look, there's a squirrel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80408937128870571872014-04-25T21:07:27.995+10:002014-04-25T21:07:27.995+10:00I can't comment on the temperature record topi...<i>I can't comment on the temperature record topic because I don't know enough about it, but when it comes to paleoclimate, feedbacks and sensitivity, Evan is horribly confused and badly wrong. And he refuses to acknowledge error or take correction, which is far worse. Anybody can be confused. That is not a problem in and of itself. </i><br /><br />Unconfuse me, then. Show me the net positive feedback in the post-1950 record. And please don't forget and leave out the word "net", this time.<br /><br />Telling me that the PO or Millie cycles are enhanced by strong positive feedback is all very nice. But I already knew that. The reason I knew that is that <b>it is reflected in the temperature signal.</b> <br /><br />But I ain't seein' no enhanced signal in the post-1950 record.<br /><br />Show me. Don't tell me about a warm teacup. Show me some tea.<br /><br />I hacked apart the one study you showed me on aerosols and it turned out it was saying exactly the opposite of what you claimed it did. <br /><br />Yes, errors, are okay. But maybe you better find one that says the exact opposite of the one you already showed -- shouldn't be hard given that the subject is aerosols, in case you hadn't noticed.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76950960918052615972014-04-25T20:50:42.584+10:002014-04-25T20:50:42.584+10:00"Now, if I put the wrong +/- sign next to a c..."Now, if I put the wrong +/- sign next to a climate station trend, I don't get to drop the station. I actually have to reverse the +/- sign and include the station."<br /><br />Erm, is dropping the station exactly what you DO in fact do if there are data quality concerns? And see if it makes a difference.Of course some will just say WHAT? You have a single station with the wrong trend?! Well, I'm just going to discount the whole study write a two thousand word blog post on your corrupted data and label you 'Wrong Way Jones'.... ;-)<br /><br />I guess we wait a bit longer for the defence of Watts' lies and hypocrisy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65017445555917783972014-04-25T20:46:28.373+10:002014-04-25T20:46:28.373+10:00Yes, heat sink only.
The only other significant ...Yes, heat sink only. <br /><br />The only other significant factor, really is shade. But shade is not an independent variable, because nearly always the shade is caused by the heat sink obstruction itself. Or else it is typical of the natural surroundings, in which case Leroy says you are not supposed to rate for shade anyway.<br /><br />But we may do a followup on shade if there is interest. <br /><br />I am also curious about the two types of Class 3 stations: the ones that are Class 3 because of 10%+ obstruction within 30 m. as opposed to the ones that are Class 3 because 1%+ obstruction within 5 m. or Class 3 because of 5%+ obstruction within the 5 to 10 m. annulus.<br /><br />Call it Class 3a, 3b, and 3c.<br /><br />I'd like to see how those trends compare with each other. I'd also like to compare "Class 4-lite", with little or no obstruction in the 10m. - 30 m. range compared with "Class 4-heavy", with lots of obstructions in that range.<br /><br />Not sure if I can drum up enough samples for a robust dataset, but worth a look, I think.<br /><br />But it would be fun to turn the Leroy (2010) bag inside-out and see if anything interesting falls out.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4767256483286777682014-04-25T20:41:18.719+10:002014-04-25T20:41:18.719+10:00Even so, Cugel, we have had severe oil shortfall s...Even so, Cugel, we have had severe oil shortfall since 2005.MJXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09923344115002943368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58826630333940926612014-04-25T20:39:01.302+10:002014-04-25T20:39:01.302+10:00You continue with your diversionary waffle and con...You continue with your diversionary waffle and continue to acknowledge your large backlog of <i>false claims</i> so redundantly proving my point. You are intellectually dishonest and you are trolling. Time you went into the bin, IMO. <br /><br />Neukom et al. (2014) were archived at NOAA in April. Even McI admits this, although not prominently. You clearly missed it. <br /><br />McI hasn't laid a glove on N14 - he is simply making a noise, just as you are. <br /><br /><i>You didn't even mention Gergis. I was the one who picked it right out of the Neukom header. One of those the-irony-it burns moments.</i><br /><br />Why on earth should I? Papers are referenced as "LeadAuthor et al. (Year)". You are confecting an argument, as I would expect from a troll trying to divert attention from its large backlog of <i>unacknowledged false claims.</i><br /><br />Time you went. <br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83341698170497787752014-04-25T20:30:55.153+10:002014-04-25T20:30:55.153+10:00particularly the SI, data quality and contaminatio...<i>particularly the SI, data quality and contamination issues with the lake sediment proxies were explicitly mentioned and the reconstruction performed with and without those, and other suspect proxies. Guess what? No significant difference.</i><br /><br />Must be nice to be an official member of the scientific community.<br /><br />Now, if I put the wrong +/- sign next to a climate station trend, I don't get to drop the station. I actually have to reverse the +/- sign and include the station.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41189176506541129512014-04-25T20:19:04.659+10:002014-04-25T20:19:04.659+10:00Ah, so the entire concern about greenhouse emissio...<i>Ah, so the entire concern about greenhouse emissions and climate change is predicated on a single study from 1998, nearly a decade after the IPCC was set up?</i><br /><br />Seems to me that what it ought to be predicated on is the global record since 1950, when CO2 became a significant player. <br /><br />We haven't even stopped to consider HadCRUt4 from 1910 to 1940, but I'll give that one a pass. Because you go all the way back to <i>before</i> Haddy3, the graph doesn't even show that much warming from 1910 to 1940. Of course that added on ~0.2 per century to the slope. Remember that one? You can't have it both ways.<br /><br />Are we headed for +3C by 2100? I sure don't see it in Haddy4.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84023927875474969822014-04-25T19:42:43.361+10:002014-04-25T19:42:43.361+10:00"If Mann, Zhang (2008) had been presented as ..."If Mann, Zhang (2008) had been presented as a first effort instead of MBH98, no one would even have noticed, much less panicked. And we wouldn't be here today. (Did they ever patch that sediment proxy?)"<br /><br />Ah, so the entire concern about greenhouse emissions and climate change is predicated on a single study from 1998, nearly a decade after the IPCC was set up? That's some Straw Man you've built there. And issues with the Tiljander proxy were well known and mentioned in the study, I recommend <br />it, particularly the SI, data quality and contamination issues with the lake sediment proxies were explicitly mentioned and the reconstruction performed with and without those, and other suspect proxies. Guess what? No significant difference.<br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/02/0805721105.DCSupplemental/0805721105SI.pdf#nameddest=STXT<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44305806729002457742014-04-25T19:30:01.651+10:002014-04-25T19:30:01.651+10:00the network of proxies is almost identical to the ...<i>the network of proxies is almost identical to the proxy network of Neukom and Gergis 2012, which was not archived at the time and which Neukom refused to provide (see CA here). I had hoped that Nature would require Neukom to archive the data this time, but disappointingly Neukom once again did not archive the data.</i><br /><br />Does that mean if I ever achieve the stature of Gergis I get to not archive the data on my climate stations? And refuse to release them to McIntyre?<br /><br />Or do I have to man up and lay my cards on the table. All my cards. <br /><br />If it seems like I am pedantic on the subject of openness, it's only because I am.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32093332358556435062014-04-25T19:13:47.920+10:002014-04-25T19:13:47.920+10:00One of the three proxies is screened out of the Ne...<i>One of the three proxies is screened out of the Neukom reconstruction: readers are invited to ponder which one – I’ll tell below.</i><br /><br />http://climateaudit.org/2014/04/01/sh-proxies-peru-d18o/#comments<br /><br />Three data series walk into a room. One of the three did not look like a hockey stick. Only two walk out. Guess which one didn't walk out.<br /><br />Sounds an awful lot like what was wrong with Gergis et al., to me.<br /><br /><i>When you have the sort of impressive CV that Dr Gergis has already achieved in only a few years, then any comment you make might be taken more seriously.</i><br /><br />And if that ever happens does it mean I get to exclude climate stations form my dataset if I don't like them? If I tried to "screen out" contrary results, Anthony would have my head on a pike.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67661414836931298942014-04-25T18:56:54.227+10:002014-04-25T18:56:54.227+10:00And so it goes on. You make a series of false clai...<i>And so it goes on. You make a series of false claims and when these are pinpointed, you simply ignore the corrections while maintaining a diversionary chatter..<br /><br />The standard intellectual dishonesty of the troll.</i><br /><br />You didn't even mention Gergis. I was the one who picked it right out of the Neukom header. One of those the-irony-it burns moments.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5730005753902890002014-04-25T18:48:37.972+10:002014-04-25T18:48:37.972+10:00You're just throwing sand in the air ....
Yes...<i>You're just throwing sand in the air ....</i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />I can't comment on the temperature record topic because I don't know enough about it, but when it comes to paleoclimate, feedbacks and sensitivity, Evan is horribly confused and badly wrong. And he refuses to acknowledge error or take correction, which is far worse. Anybody can be confused. That is not a problem in and of itself. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31884408961085224192014-04-25T18:42:09.563+10:002014-04-25T18:42:09.563+10:00You have not yet withdrawn your demonstrably false...<i>You have not yet withdrawn your demonstrably false claim that there is "zero evidence" for positive feedbacks in the modern temperature record. </i><br /><br />Try that gain, but with <b>net</b> positive feedbacks.<br /><br />We have warmed at a rate of 1.1C per century since 1950. That period has comprised both a negative and positive PDO, so that pretty much cancels. Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 increased by ~a third. Raw CO2 forcing is at ~1.1C per doubling.<br /><br />So where is the room for the net feedback? Net feedback has to leave its signature in the data record.<br /><br />Either there is no net feedback in play now or else Arrhenius was wrong and raw CO2 is less and what's left over is a vestige of net feedbacks or Hadcrut4 is lowballing the amount of warming. <br /><br />Or aerosols have had a strongly continually increasing cooling effect. And that is flatly contradicted by CMIP5 (of all things), which shows the complete opposite and the paper cited shown actual net warming from the Brown Cloud (which would be amply explained by the NASA/UI in 2009 study and its two followups).<br /><br />Otherwise you are trying to squeeze a 3C cat into a 1.5C bag.<br /><br /><i>This style of commentary is a serious obstacle to reasoned discussion ESPECIALLY ABOUT SCIENCE. </i><br /><br />Did the scientific community always trump arithmetic? Or was that only since the era of PNS?Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17052543172904144332014-04-25T15:42:35.146+10:002014-04-25T15:42:35.146+10:00"Did I leave out the NA proxy? Strip-barks ar..."Did I leave out the NA proxy? Strip-barks are a dendro proxy no-no. Especially when they are overweighted the upwards of 400 times. There's that PCA issue."<br /><br />And so it continues, the same old McIntyre Memes regurgitated. The chairman of the NAS panel on the Mann reconstructions actually said strip-barks are only problematic after around 1850, and the decentred PCA issue is moot, even a non-PCA reconstruction has a near-identical shape, and Mann 2008 is within the uncertainty bounds of MBH98 ...<br /><br />You're just throwing sand in the air ....<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39682590970236040702014-04-25T14:48:35.264+10:002014-04-25T14:48:35.264+10:00Really Evan? You're going to try and fly that ...<i>Really Evan? You're going to try and fly that tired old canard?</i><br /><br />Did I leave out the NA proxy? Strip-barks are a dendro proxy no-no. Especially when they are overweighted the upwards of 400 times. There's that PCA issue.<br /><br />If Mann, Zhang (2008) had been presented as a first effort instead of MBH98, no one would even have noticed, much less panicked. And we wouldn't be here today. (Did they ever patch that sediment proxy?)Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40440166301091993512014-04-25T14:31:29.832+10:002014-04-25T14:31:29.832+10:00I thought that [0.00000] was the statistical signi...<i>I thought that [0.00000] was the statistical significance of the difference between the categories.</i><br /><br />It is.<br /><br />It is also the significant difference between Raw Class 1\2 and homogenized Class 1-5, since after homogenization they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same anyway.Evan Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74249296517971428672014-04-25T14:23:07.640+10:002014-04-25T14:23:07.640+10:00We are addressing heat sink only for this study.<i>We are addressing heat sink only for this study. </i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com