tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post531692995109698056..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: NOAA global temperature paper prompts a torrent of paranoid conspiracies at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48838885888470186332015-10-05T16:34:39.809+11:002015-10-05T16:34:39.809+11:00Anthony it is not a joke, your doubt in Creationis...Anthony it is not a joke, your doubt in Creationism gives you away. You are not a true believer. So shut the F_ck up! BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63764572606391545442015-10-05T10:57:38.278+11:002015-10-05T10:57:38.278+11:00His comment is only somewhat off topic, Harry. He&...His comment is only somewhat off topic, Harry. He's picked up the general theme, though. (The main article discusses conspiracy ideation, which is usually associated with a certain amount of paranoia, and mixed up thinking.)<br /><br />Could be a Poe.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42689573327372073182015-10-05T10:40:27.869+11:002015-10-05T10:40:27.869+11:00A trollish comment but I will bite.
"anti-sc...A trollish comment but I will bite.<br /><br />"anti-science"? Really? Around 97% of climate scientists agree with this evidence for AGW. Are they all anti-science as well.<br /><br />"The AGW debate is much like the Atheist/Creationist debate" Care to elaborate, and show evidence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7802396681158823822015-10-05T09:17:21.428+11:002015-10-05T09:17:21.428+11:00You know you run a joke of a blog if you created i...You know you run a joke of a blog if you created it solely for the purpose getting back at another blog because they banned you. But hey, I know you'll either delete this comment or allow your small (but voracious) group of anti-science alarmists to attack me anyway, so, it doesn't even matter.<br /><br />The AGW debate is much like the Atheist/Creationist debate. A fairly small group of people (in comparison) who believe in evolution go out and debunk the nonsensical rhetoric of creationists and are met with nothing but hatred and fury. Anthonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62592010566553672792015-09-17T02:28:46.171+10:002015-09-17T02:28:46.171+10:00And this immence heat accumulation would result in...And this immence heat accumulation would result in a temperature increase of what magnitude exactly?Dysterkvist nr 2https://www.blogger.com/profile/14242998903871902230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21462292155832140072015-08-22T05:44:06.589+10:002015-08-22T05:44:06.589+10:00Ceist,
Did you read the Preface? An excerpt from ...Ceist, <br />Did you read the Preface? An excerpt from the book:<br /><br /><b>Admittedly, I have not read extensively in the more technical areas of climate science; nor do I intend to as frankly this is a field that has never interested me. Aside from the controversy which is the subject of this book, it still does not interest me much,. My concern, at the moment, is not with the mastery of this field but evaluating some of the more troubling claims being expressed by climate scientists, claims I consider unwarranted and also extremely dangerous.</b><br /><br />It reads like a parody of a Dunning-Kruger paper. jrkrideauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04869979887929067657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30192409840316525172015-06-15T11:55:42.186+10:002015-06-15T11:55:42.186+10:00Dr Peterson allowed me to post his comment as an a...Dr Peterson allowed me to post his comment as an article. There are now a few articles as a consequence of Anthony being irate that his very public views, which he also expressed privately in the above email, caught the <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/a-climate-campaigner-bill-mckibben-and-climate-change-critic-anthony-watts-meet-in-a-bar/" rel="nofollow">attention of Andy Revkin</a> at the New York Times. Below is a list of some of the articles, including my description of the NOAA paper itself.<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/thats-gotta-hurt.html" rel="nofollow">That's gotta hurt!</a> - HotWhopper was right. It did hurt him.<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/anthony-watts-publicly-accuses-noaa.html" rel="nofollow">Anthony Watts publicly accuses NOAA scientists of fraud (again) - plus his "people go to jail"!</a> - a topsy turvy Anthony Watts reveals his double standards and complains about Andy Revkin's article, and doubles down on his accusation of fraud<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/noaa-no-pause-in-global-surface.html" rel="nofollow">NOAA: No pause in the global surface temperature</a> - main article describing the NOAA paper (Karl15) published in Science<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/the-perversity-of-deniers-and-pause.html" rel="nofollow">The perversity of deniers - and the "pause" that never was with Tom Peterson</a> - Anthony Watts' email with the full response from Tom Peterson<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/more-perversity-from-anthony-watts.html" rel="nofollow">More perversity from Anthony Watts @wattsupwiththat</a> - about a very perverse Twitter protest from Anthony Watts<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/pausing-for-dozen-protests-at-wuwt.html" rel="nofollow">Pausing for a dozen protests at WUWT</a> - summary of a dozen WUWT protests<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/noaa-global-temperature-paper-prompts.html" rel="nofollow">NOAA global temperature paper prompts a torrent of paranoid conspiracies at WUWT</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/no-pause-in-frenzy-of-denial-at-wuwt.html" rel="nofollow">No pause in the frenzy of denial: at WUWT</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/anthony-watts-alleges-fraud-by-noaa.html" rel="nofollow">Anthony Watts alleges fraud by the NOAA</a> - Anthony's pre-embargo announcement "preparing the ground" and his first allegation of fraudSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62916903298803722012015-06-08T15:18:08.416+10:002015-06-08T15:18:08.416+10:00I'm a little tired right now (and I probably p...I'm a little tired right now (and I probably posted my previous comment in the wrong thread).<br /><br />But RM = Ross McKitrick mashup on Karl15 with respect to the ARGO temperature measurements taken at ~5m water depth (a PDF version of his mashup is available at his homepage).<br /><br />The paper RM referenced is here:<br /><br />Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006<br />http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2513.html<br /><br />I just received a copy (of this paper) in my email today, the Figure 1: Globally averaged SST anomaly of that paper is what RM is referring too. Figure 1 is important as a jumping off point for the main body of that paper which is mainly with respect to OHC (basically, SST itself is not a good indicator of total OHC buildup as SST appears to be a rather very weak function of time (at least as presented in their paper)).<br /><br />Figure 1 shows an insignificant trend of SST as measured from the ~5m depth readings and Figure 1 shows rather very good agreement with (I believe as I've just given that paper a very quick read) satellite derived SST measurements.<br /><br />Long story short? Many people involved in the ARGO efforts have known for quite sometime of the need to collect near surface measurements, overlapping the historic 5m reading and on up to the surface. There is a strong diurnal effect (overturning at night as the ocean cools) at the water surface boundary layer and also the near surface temperature gradient can be very significant given the right conditions.<br /><br />I found a bunch of stuff in trying to find the referenced paper above related to near surface surface measurements using upgrades to the current ARGO system.<br /><br />Note, that this is all very new stuff to me, but anytime the utter nutters get involved, it's usually time to go out and find the real science firsthand, if you know what I mean.<br /><br />I've got to go now, I'm getting tired and sleepy, but tomorrow I can post some links from my browser history file if anyone is interested. Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57684503108846705312015-06-08T13:16:17.180+10:002015-06-08T13:16:17.180+10:00Sounds like marke would like climate science to be...Sounds like marke would like climate science to be simple. He seems to want evidence of greenhouse warming to be only measured by a single variable and a single instrument, preferably in an easy-to-find location. (Try the Arctic, or the HImalayas, or Texas, or India, or California, or Australia, or....). <br /><br />Instead, evidence for global warming is all around us. It's in the atmosphere, on the land, in the oceans, in glaciers, in ice sheets, in ecosystems. And the waste CO2 we're pouring into the air isn't just causing global warming - it's causing a drop in pH in the oceans.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3807982930897048132015-06-08T12:58:14.346+10:002015-06-08T12:58:14.346+10:00Everett, if you spelt things out instead of using ...Everett, if you spelt things out instead of using shorthand (not just here, but elsewhere too), you might get more responses.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52453575798702129652015-06-08T12:52:33.994+10:002015-06-08T12:52:33.994+10:00Marke,
speak for yourself - I know what a troll i...Marke,<br /><br />speak for yourself - I know what a troll is.<br /><br />It does apply to someone "pointing out a fact" if they do so dishonestly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32054410701894349692015-06-08T12:39:45.515+10:002015-06-08T12:39:45.515+10:00Thanks Metzo, it is always nice to correspond with...Thanks Metzo, it is always nice to correspond with people who have spent their tie and energy doing useful reading and research. And it seems some in here have PhDs in "trolling definitions and the application thereof".<br /><br />My position is well known to Sou and others: Somewhere in the middle: Sensible, plausible theory, but 'proof' seems to me to be 'multi measured, multi instrument, spatially varied, much adjusted data sets' and rapid purloining of any suitable climate or weather perturbation, whilst ignoring all others.<br /><br />Concern? How else does one put forward the idea that use of the word "refute" in this case may be overstatement? <br /><br />marke (can't seem to log in here).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55796255230399222412015-06-08T09:51:09.871+10:002015-06-08T09:51:09.871+10:00I looked into that one too.
The diurnal variabili...I looked into that one too.<br /><br />The diurnal variability appears to be the main bug-a-boo, the surface boundary layer also. There's a lot of info on this if you go to the ARGO website. Other background materials elsewhere's suggest circa ~2008-2010 when this near surface measurement stuff really took off. Approximately 300 ARGO floats can now take near surface measurements (all floats take ~5m depth readings of temperature going back to the start of ARGO), I believe.<br /><br />I've asked for a copy of the paper that RM refers to, as I've been unable to find a public domain version (paywalled).<br /><br />I can post some links (have to look at my browser history from 2-3 days ago).<br /><br />Really interesting stuff though.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14887978629925513122015-06-08T09:12:33.720+10:002015-06-08T09:12:33.720+10:00Zeke can likely add more, but he notes this on Twi...Zeke can likely add more, but he notes this on <a href="https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/607321161513377792" rel="nofollow">Twitter</a><br /><br /><i>they discuss Argo in sup mats. Not much SST measurements. 1% of buoy data. Will be in ERSST v5.</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77998410071263499652015-06-08T01:16:23.871+10:002015-06-08T01:16:23.871+10:00People seem to have lost track of the derivation a...<i>People seem to have lost track of the derivation and meaning of the word 'troll' (as it is now used on the internet).</i><br /><br />We haven't lost track of anything, marke. But you seem to have missed the important qualifier, 'concern', there. 'Concern troll', look it up. It's what you and bill are doing, to a tee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83712947453133223072015-06-07T21:11:24.881+10:002015-06-07T21:11:24.881+10:00My new post is now published: No! Ah! Part II. The...My new post is now published: <a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/06/NOAA-uncertainty-monster-karl-et-al-2015.html" rel="nofollow">No! Ah! Part II. The return of the uncertainty monster</a>. Not sure if we should interpret a wiggle this small.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57457718567759239432015-06-07T16:38:00.070+10:002015-06-07T16:38:00.070+10:00People seem to have lost track of the derivation a...People seem to have lost track of the derivation and meaning of the word 'troll' (as it is now used on the internet).<br /><br />It derives from a fishing practice: Trolling. Trailing a baited line from a moving boat and waiting for the fish to hook themselves.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with hairy lumpy human-like beings living under bridges.<br /><br />And does not apply to someone simply pointing out a fact, or a detail, or something they may partially or fully disagree with.<br /><br />It seems to be widely used on both sides of this debate as some sort of a shorthand label to refute a point.markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71774715960523592022015-06-06T23:24:42.277+10:002015-06-06T23:24:42.277+10:00I'm sorry you even had to read that vile unhin...I'm sorry you even had to read that vile unhinged personal attack from Watts. Your response was professional, courteous... and addressed the science. Far more than he deserved, but nicely done. Ceistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3304679527808823952015-06-06T23:21:30.894+10:002015-06-06T23:21:30.894+10:00"...consider and advise...?!
This, from a de..."<i>...consider and advise...</i>?!<br /><br />This, from a demonstrated incompetent who doesn't even understand that the selection of a particular anomaly baseline doesn't change the actual magnitude of movement in the anomalous parameter?<br /><br />Watts has delusions of grandeur on top of his Dunning-Kruger.<br /><br />It's interesting indeed though to see that Watts is happy to accuse Thomas Peterson and his co-authors of fraud. I hope that endeavour grows legs.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69963564317263668342015-06-06T21:55:20.017+10:002015-06-06T21:55:20.017+10:00He, Mark, that will be my next blog post. Start yo...He, Mark, that will be my next blog post. Start your own blog instead of stealing my ideas. :)<br /><br />I always comment by logging in to Wordpress or Blogger. If you see a comment by my name that is not linked to an account, it is most likely a fake.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10770729740954999092015-06-06T20:08:58.712+10:002015-06-06T20:08:58.712+10:00A random comment from a stranger, I know, but well...A random comment from a stranger, I know, but well done Thomas.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15427410783634375334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59089101163921311232015-06-06T20:02:32.193+10:002015-06-06T20:02:32.193+10:00Yep, it looks like the same guy alright.
The con...Yep, it looks like the same guy alright. <br /><br />The contrast with Gavin Schmidt's response at RealClimate couldn't be greater. Schmidt, sounding like...a...(gosh),.. scientist, says Karl et al is no big deal, the adjustments are routine, and what it proves more than anything else is the temperature record's extreme sensitivity over short time frames, the "real conclusion is that this criteria for a ‘hiatus’ is simply not a robust measure of anything".<br /><br />I think it's important that Schmidt quite pointedly steps back from the idea that "this update is going to be bigger news than normal because of the claim that the ‘hiatus’ is no more." He doesn't need to hype it up as some kind of last nail in the denialist coffin -Karl et al just doesn't decisively change much about climate science.<br /><br />Then we have the...well, plain unhinged...reactions of the Wutters. They just have no way to separate out what a scientific paper actually says, from which mill they think a scientific paper adds grist to. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15427410783634375334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87188487344385020432015-06-06T19:26:35.417+10:002015-06-06T19:26:35.417+10:00No more than anyone else who makes a comment. Howe...No more than anyone else who makes a comment. However that's how Pat Michaels of CATO comments at WUWT generally. <a href="https://archive.is/jZt7M#selection-5651.0-5685.110" rel="nofollow">See here</a> and <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/anthony-watts-trick-is-to-disappear.html#notfunny" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Also, he wrote <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/no-pause-in-frenzy-of-denial-at-wuwt.html#patnchip" rel="nofollow">a dumb response</a> to the NOAA paper. Disinformation lobby groups really don't know what to do now that one of their main talking points has been demolished - again. (Pat's paid job seems to include spreading disinformation and doubt about climate science - papers like this NOAA one are probably considered a threat to his livelihood.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12018406280479964072015-06-06T18:04:49.585+10:002015-06-06T18:04:49.585+10:00Dear Sou et al.,
I thought you might find an emai...Dear Sou et al.,<br /><br />I thought you might find an email exchange I had yesterday with Anthony Watts interesting.<br /><br />16 hours ago I received this email from Anthony Watts:<br /><br />Dear Dr. Peterson,<br /> <br />This latest paper, Karl et al. 2015 is an embarrassment to science. It epitomizes president Eisenhower’s second warning in his farewell address about science and politics becoming hopelessly intertwined, and thus corrupted.<br /> <br />In my last telephone conversation with you, I stated (paraphrasing) that “I believe you folks aren’t doing anything fraudulent, but you are doing what you feel is correct science in what you believe is a correct way”.<br /> <br />After seeing the desperate tricks pulled in Karl 2015 to erase “the pause” via data manipulation, I no longer hold that opinion. You needed it to go away, so you prostituted yourselves, perhaps at the direction of higher ups.<br /> <br />This will be NCDC’s Waterloo, and will backfire on all of you terribly on the world stage. Take a lesson from Yamamoto’s own observation after he bombed Pearl Harbor. Take a lesson from what is on WUWT today.<br /> <br />How sad for you all.<br /> <br />Anthony Watts<br /><br />***********************<br /><br />14 hours ago I sent Anthony Watts this email response:<br /><br />Dear Mr. Watts,<br /><br />As you might imagine, my views about our paper and our motives are somewhat different than yours. To explain why, I should start by explaining my views on what science is and how it works.<br /><br />Here<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GksJ3QteNF0<br />is a 14 minute TEDxAsheville talk I gave in January on What is Science. While I can't do justice to a 14 minute talk in a single sentence, the bottom line is that science is the result of tests.<br /><br />So let me give you two examples from our paper. One of the new adjustments we are applying is extending the corrections to ship data, based on information derived from night marine air temperatures, up to the present (we had previously stopped in the 1940s). As we write in the article's on-line supplement, "This correction cools the ship data a bit more in 1998-2000 than it does in the later years, which thereby adds to the warming trend. To evaluate the robustness of this correction, trends of the corrected and uncorrected ship data were compared to co-located buoy data without the offset added. As the buoy data did not include the offset the buoy data are independent of the ship data. The trend of uncorrected ship minus buoy data was -0.066°C dec-1 while the trend in corrected ship minus buoy data was -0.002°C dec-1. This close agreement in the trend of the corrected ship data indicates that these time dependent ship adjustments did indeed correct an artifact in ship data impacting the trend over this hiatus period."<br /><br />The second example I will pose as a question. We tested the difference between buoys and ships by comparing all the co-located ship and buoy data available in the entire world. The result was that buoy data averaged 0.12 degrees C colder than the ships. We also know that the number of buoys has dramatically increased over the last several decades. Adding more colder observations in recent years can't help but add a cool bias to the raw data. What would you recommend we do about it? Leave a known bias in the data or correct the data for the bias? The resulting trend would be the same whether we added 0.12 C to all buoy data or subtracted 0.12 C from all ship data.<br /><br />You are, of course, welcome to share this with your readers (or not), as you deem appropriate.<br /><br />Regards,<br /> Tom<br /><br />****************<br /><br />13 hours ago I received this email reply from Anthony Watts:<br /><br />Thank you for the reply.<br /> <br />I’ll consider and advise.<br /> <br />Anthony<br /><br />*******************<br /><br />And that is the last I heard from Anthony up to now.<br />Thomas Petersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86021036091956997552015-06-06T17:48:02.299+10:002015-06-06T17:48:02.299+10:00Sou, I'm just curious -not being a blogger and...Sou, I'm just curious -not being a blogger and knowing the mechanisms of this kind of thing- is there any way to tell whether the "Pat Michaels" in the WUWT comments thread is really the same Pat Michaels from the Cato Institute? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15427410783634375334noreply@blogger.com