tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post375026416782667089..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Roy Spencer grows even wearier...Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60487384251669384412017-07-09T18:59:55.132+10:002017-07-09T18:59:55.132+10:00For people that are used to looking at climate mod...For people that are used to looking at climate models superimposed, the immediate red flag in Spencer's graph is that all the dozens of models coincide exactly at 1983. In reality, of course, the models do not coincide in 1983, they actually vary a lot - more than 0.5°C.<br /><br />There's no doubt, though, that satellite troposphere readings were below most model projections. This is shown by Gavin Schmidt's analysis:<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/<br /><br />I say "were" since the record high global temperature in 2016, combined with the new RSS dataset, brings satellite troposphere observations back in line with the models. As Zeke Hausfather said, “If you don’t like adjustments, you really shouldn’t use the satellite record.” Interpreting those records is really hard, so they keeps getting changed retroactively after accounting for sources of error and cross-checking with other records.<br /><br />Unfortunately while most climate scientists publish peer-reviewed papers first and communicate their findings with the public second, guys like Spencer want to communicate any and all anti-AGW arguments directly with as many members of the general public as possible, scientific literature be damned. Because for him it's not a scientific debate but a political one.David Piepgrasshttps://medium.com/big-picturenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29674041774389863132015-07-11T22:34:24.960+10:002015-07-11T22:34:24.960+10:00Ernest, we're all well familiar with the arrog...Ernest, we're all well familiar with the arrogance and ignorance of your type ... it's no "assumption".jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45097478830906630172015-07-11T22:32:08.079+10:002015-07-11T22:32:08.079+10:00"Is this the type of "trick" mentio..."Is this the type of "trick" mentioned in the CRU emails?<br />If so , disgraceful...........2 wrongs do not make a right."<br /><br />The "trick" mentioned in he CRU emails was neither disgraceful nor wrong.<br /><br />jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38090431380549496382014-05-25T12:47:49.005+10:002014-05-25T12:47:49.005+10:00I don't get what all the fuss is about. Why no...I don't get what all the fuss is about. Why not just make a scatterplot of models vs. observations? That way the choice of baseline is irrelevant as it just offsets the whole graph in the X or Y axis. Here's the CMIP5 model mean vs. HadCRUT4 with a loess smooth (to make a more apples to apples comparison): <br /><br />http://i.imgur.com/kbb11eQ.pngAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982409667756307764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66371992556427863042014-05-23T13:18:08.988+10:002014-05-23T13:18:08.988+10:00"I also think that the contributors are very ..."<i>I also think that the contributors are very interesting if a bit rude at times !</i>"<br /><br />There's a very simple solution to this - stop "contributing"...Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49551849961994609292014-05-23T13:16:20.772+10:002014-05-23T13:16:20.772+10:00[Heavy irony warning...]
Mr Churlish said:
"...[Heavy irony warning...]<br /><br /><i><b>Mr</b></i> Churlish said:<br /><br />"<i>Anyway since </i>[sic]<i> I do not wish to appear in court with Mr </i>[sic]<i> Mann I shall refrain from further discussion on </i>[sic]<i> the subject which appears to be litigious enough </i>[sic]."<br /><br />I am vehemently opposed to the use of titles in everyday life, and this goes for most scientists I know (but not all...).<br /><br />However, when you use the prefix "Mr" rather than "Dr" or "Distinguished Professor" for a person who very conspicuously is not a "Mr" the only person you diminish with this petulant pettiness is yourself.<br /><br />Either you are a baby, or so completely ignorant of the facts of this whole subject that you are unable to contribute anything sensible. Either way, you should just slink off and moulder silently in a dark corner.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5981665102581279522014-05-23T03:54:22.134+10:002014-05-23T03:54:22.134+10:00"Surely if the first graph was valid ,it woul...<i><b>"Surely if the first graph was valid ,it would still be printed ?"</b></i><br /> <br />I am not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you being serious or just trolling? I assume you are talking about the original Mann hockey stick graph. From 1998? Are you really suggesting this graph would not change after 25 years with new data, improved understanding and new techniques? <br /><br /><br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53168970363573340552014-05-23T03:47:46.507+10:002014-05-23T03:47:46.507+10:00Ernest, some history.
What I said: "You wer...Ernest, some history. <br /><br />What I said: "You were doing so well until the "Hockey Stick" comment. But to treat you "reasonably well", tell us what you meant to imply by it. Is the HS dead? proven wrong? Replaced by better time records? If the latter, do they disagree with the HS?"<br /><br />Your response: "PL , you need to chill a bit , if the hockey stick is wrong so what? The AGW effect is not based on a graph. Your belief system can therefore remain intact until it gets colder , if it does."<br /><br />So, I give you a chance to explain your point. All you had to do was answer easy questions. "if the hockey stick is wrong" isn't an answer to anything; doesn't help me understand your point. How do you discuss the "HS" without defining it? You seem to want to define it as the original plot from a specific Mann et al. publication. But, if so, why would people continue to use that if a more complete, updated plot is available? Once we'd agreed on that, we could have moved on.<br /><br />Then you infer, for no apparent reason, that the HS is integral to my "belief system". However, I work in climate science: I don't have a "belief system", I accept and interpret the facts. The HS is not even integral to my acceptance of the validity of AGW, although it seems to be quite important to yours. PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50639254896798682012014-05-23T01:19:58.814+10:002014-05-23T01:19:58.814+10:00Read my comment below and stop treating denier sit...Read my comment below and stop treating denier sites as if they could ever present facts. They don't. The purpose of denier sites is to mislead and deceive.<br /><br />You are also taking this thread way off topic. This is the last OT comment from you that will be tolerated. If you are interested in discussing the medieval warm period, you can comment on an article about the subject, such as one of the following:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/medieval-anthony-watts-reveals.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/medieval-anthony-watts-reveals.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/resurrecting-fred-singer-and-mwp-at-wuwt.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/resurrecting-fred-singer-and-mwp-at-wuwt.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/when-deniers-have-nothing-they-recycle.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/when-deniers-have-nothing-they-recycle.html</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11158340364399575592014-05-23T01:13:12.510+10:002014-05-23T01:13:12.510+10:00could you explain the following?
[redacted denier ...could you explain the following?<br />[redacted denier link - see <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/comment-policy.html" rel="nofollow">comment policy</a> - Sou]<br /><br />This is just one of hundreds of sites which display some sort of anomaly with the graph. The IPCC have run versions of the original , one with the WMP one without and one where it is reinstated, what kind of a graph can be subject to such reviews? Surely if the first graph was valid ,it would still be printed ? Anyway since I do not wish to appear in court with Mr Mann I shall refrain from further discussion on the subject which appears to be litigious enough.<br />I quite enjoy learning from Sou too! I also think that the contributors are very interesting if a bit rude at times !Ernest Hurleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53278586977163030822014-05-23T01:01:34.223+10:002014-05-23T01:01:34.223+10:00Lots of trolling on this thread.
An interesting ...Lots of <i>trolling</i> on this thread. <br /><br />An interesting response to Spencer's misleading graphs. <br /><br />One intellectual dishonesty begets another. <br /><br />Two wrongs do not make a right...BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49192956200399286512014-05-23T00:59:08.367+10:002014-05-23T00:59:08.367+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08981995591819086349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4949140529892742202014-05-22T21:48:04.691+10:002014-05-22T21:48:04.691+10:00The converse is not true though: more important wo...The converse is not true though: more important work doesn't necessarily raise the noise machine's hackles. It's just the papers that have a clean and easily understood warning that get the special treatment, and then only if the press publicizes them.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18217613374138702342014-05-22T18:31:34.885+10:002014-05-22T18:31:34.885+10:00This business over the hockey stick is puzzling
I...<i>This business over the hockey stick is puzzling</i><br /><br />I suppose that's progress of a sort. Thing is, it isn't puzzling at all. The measure of the importance of any aspect of climate science is the vigour with which dumb deniers protest it. <br /><br />Temperature reconstructions are important to deniers because they show very clearly that we will soon, if we haven't already, made the world hotter than it's been since civilisation began. That has big ramifications for the production of food, feed and fibre. It also has big ramifications for human settlement. Within the next few decades, millions of people will probably need to relocate. On a planet in which land is considered private property, that will mean a lot of social disruption.<br /><br />Remember Marcott13. Anthony Watts posted more than thirty articles protesting that work. Others hopped onto the protest wagon as well.<br /><br />Cognitive science is another area that deniers protest a lot, dreaming up all sorts of conspiracy theories in the process.<br /><br />Deniers also mobbed to protest the fact that 97% of papers attributing a cause to climate change show that it's predominately from human activities.<br /><br />The bigger the protest the more important is the work. It's a fairly simple metric and one where the rare exception (if there is one) proves the rule.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75918256937024760812014-05-22T18:21:32.575+10:002014-05-22T18:21:32.575+10:00Well you should have stopped after my post and not...Well you should have stopped after my post and not read the comments from the gang. Unfortunately we are in different time zones so I cannot be here at your convenience.<br />This business over the hockey stick is puzzling , I will grant you that. a google search on the subject "The Hockey Stick Climate" reveals thousands of sites some of which are actually about real hockey sticks.<br />As per usual the comments have descended into the typical name calling which i seek to diffuse , but what the hey! <br />As they say , "great minds think alike and fools seldom differ".<br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08981995591819086349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10046752766402465682014-05-22T15:15:44.843+10:002014-05-22T15:15:44.843+10:00Oh, I love that cartoon, Bernard. The differences ...Oh, I love that cartoon, Bernard. The differences between that and the numpties I often come across at WUWT are:<br /><br />a) he's somehow become aware he's lost his mind and<br /><br />b) he's making some effort to retrieve it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6773430137576006012014-05-22T15:11:11.625+10:002014-05-22T15:11:11.625+10:00"Mallificent I seek only to learn , I will no..."<i>Mallificent I seek only to learn , I will not be swayed by insult...</i>"<br /><br />Whilst I'm deeply guilty myself of barbed comment the overweening hypocrisy here is breathtaking.<br /><br />"<i>If you wish to persuade people that you are correct then you should not start by presuming that you are talking to a cretinous troll.</i>"<br /><br />If you take umbrage at being treated like a cretinous troll you shoulf first stop behaving like one.<br /><br />"<i>It is about time people of all points of view realised that there are millions of people addressing these issues for the first time and that entrenched views of the past 30 years are redundant .</i>"<br /><br />Who are these "millions of people" who have any valid capacity for overturning science? You're not referring to the army of science denialists, are you? Having many people being wrong doesn't make being wrong, not wrong. You're indulging in logical fallacy.<br /><br />And on what basis are the "entrenched views" (which is apparently your propaganda code for "professionally derived, tested, and established science") redundant? Are you able to provide any actual expamples with reference to papers, analysis, and defensible conclusion?<br /><br />"<i>This is not a debating contest as so many people appear to think but a conversation about the validity of scientific endeavor and the results pertaining therefrom</i> [sic]." <br /><br />So why then do you Denialati debate science with ignorance, illogic, and untruth?<br /><br />And why do you refuse to accept the consensus on the validity of the science, especially when it is patently apparent that you doen't understand even basic science in the first place?<br /><br />"<i>If this site , as I perceive it to be, one of the foremost sites in favour of the consensus ,cannot have a rational discussion about the facts and perceived reality ,then where does the future lie?</i>"<br /><br />The key word here is "rational". Your filtering and misrepresentation of the science is not rational.<br /><br />"<i>Perhaps it is time for a site where those who are intransigent are banned and only people with an open mind and a view to discourse are allowed to talk.</i>"<br /><br />The problem is that you have a view to a particular discourse - one that ends in the parking lot of your ideology rather than of scientific parsimony.<br /><br />And on <a href="http://www.toonpool.com/user/856/files/brain_906965.jpg" rel="nofollow">open minds</a>...<br /><br />"<i>Even the IPCC do not print that anymore ,, excuse my numptiness.</i>"<br /><br />Considering how wrong this comment is as has been repeatedly demosntrated above, no, your numptiness cannot be excused.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14991720149812323532014-05-22T13:18:36.271+10:002014-05-22T13:18:36.271+10:00Sorry Bill. When a comment gets deleted all the re...Sorry Bill. When a comment gets deleted all the replies get deleted with it. I guess I missed retrieving a couple.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7556101619023480452014-05-22T12:57:59.791+10:002014-05-22T12:57:59.791+10:00I'll point out that I was responding to the sa...I'll point out that I was responding to the same deleted comment. <br /><br />This ludicrous tribal-myth - both Mike Mann's reputation and his Hockey Stick having been 'demolished' - is such an extraordinary feature of identity in Clan Denial it's got to be worth a few psychology PhD's! Paging Prof. Lewandowsky...<br /><br />But you're not cranks living in an invented reality*, or anything! No Sirree...<br /><br />*The Happy Heartland? Kochworld?billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88516852148213551702014-05-22T12:16:54.053+10:002014-05-22T12:16:54.053+10:00[deleted comment redacted]
Hahaha!!! Oh come on, ...[deleted comment redacted]<br /><br />Hahaha!!! Oh come on, you're just trying to get some wiggle room after being proven wrong. <br /><br />Keep on, it's fun to watch. Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44910564368314980572014-05-22T12:14:20.226+10:002014-05-22T12:14:20.226+10:00[deleted comment redacted]
IPCC AR5 WG1, Figure 5...[deleted comment redacted]<br /><br /><a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg" rel="nofollow">IPCC AR5 WG1, Figure 5.7</a>. p409 of the <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">report</a>.<br /><br />took me all of 2 minutes to find on the IPCC website.lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49115081442812829892014-05-22T11:23:21.783+10:002014-05-22T11:23:21.783+10:00"two citations" - well said numerobis. T..."two citations" - well said numerobis. This is becoming such a fun thread to watch!Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42926592883898393482014-05-22T10:32:46.698+10:002014-05-22T10:32:46.698+10:00Also, Table 5.A.6 says where they got the hockey s...Also, Table 5.A.6 says where they got the hockey sticks. Mann's reputation is so demolished that he gets two relevant citations as primary author (from 2008 and 2009), whereas everyone else only gets one.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63086255868037973002014-05-22T10:28:18.589+10:002014-05-22T10:28:18.589+10:00As for the BS claim about the hockey stick not bei...As for the BS claim about the hockey stick not being in the latest IPCC report, here's chapter 5:<br />http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf<br /><br />We've got a hockey stick for temperature in Figure 5.7 (p409), Figure 5.8a (p413), and Figure 5.12 (p419).<br /><br />There's an inverted hockey stick for the PDSI (droughts) in Figure 5.13c (p423).<br /><br />Figure 5.17e (p429) is some kind of a bent stick relating to sea level change.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2775274774642296992014-05-22T09:55:28.161+10:002014-05-22T09:55:28.161+10:00This constant argument-by-repeated-assertion regar...This constant argument-by-repeated-assertion regarding Mann is truly funny. How's do you all manage to breathe in your epistemic bubble?<br /><br />Look at Sou's link above, dummy! And thanks for being such a pathetically easy target! It;s [sic]billnoreply@blogger.com