tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5665921157540121878..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Sheldon Walker came to HotWhopper to get help for his WUWT articleSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11702207006026792762016-02-09T08:18:37.830+11:002016-02-09T08:18:37.830+11:00I'm smiling. Thanks.I'm smiling. Thanks.stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43699828276468542782016-02-07T21:06:07.440+11:002016-02-07T21:06:07.440+11:00@ D.C.Petterson
No THANK YOU for taking the time...@ D.C.Petterson <br /><br />No THANK YOU for taking the time to write such a great (and simple) analysis of the pause fraud <br /><br />And another great updated article Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49617239407957527432016-02-07T18:32:39.871+11:002016-02-07T18:32:39.871+11:00OSweetMrMath.
I suspect he was attempting to cons...OSweetMrMath.<br /><br />I suspect he was attempting to construct a Gish Gallop. For a Gish Gallop to appear plausible, it has to contain a bit of truth.<br /><br />Why post in a known denialist blog? It is hard to speculate about motivations but attention-seeking is likely. If he is convinced the 2015 temperature record is incorrect or unimportant for ideological reasons then "the end justifies the means" could be the motivation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27956453837608240962016-02-07T16:43:14.153+11:002016-02-07T16:43:14.153+11:00D.C Petterson, you could post a link to Peter Sinc...D.C Petterson, you could post a link to Peter Sinclair's (Yale Climate Connections/Climate Denier Crock of the Week) recent video interview with Carl Mears from RSS:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0<br /><br />or from an email from Carl Mears to Seth Borenstein (AP)<br /><br />http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d77eaa1018554de2b3582917c84fa620/earths-temperature-depends-where-you-put-thermometer<br /><br />"For impacts on human society and the environment, the surface data are more important," Mears said. Mears said his analysis of his own satellite data has five times the margin of error of ground measurements. That's because satellites use complex mathematical algorithms and thousands of bits of code to translate wavelength measurements into temperature readings"<br /><br />Ceisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831378692022001009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62481692635532189472016-02-07T15:46:27.118+11:002016-02-07T15:46:27.118+11:00As I think more about Sheldon's post and comme...As I think more about Sheldon's post and comments, I feel like I don't understand what he's doing. On the one hand, he says the global temperature has increased by 0.72 degrees since 1975. As he says, that doesn't sound like a denier.<br /><br />On the other hand, he wrote a guest post for WUWT, and when Carbon Brief came to a different conclusion than him, he implied it was a conspiracy. Which does sound more like a denier.<br /><br />My current guess is that Sheldon understands so little of this that he doesn't understand what he doesn't understand. So he takes the data at face value, but then sets off to do his own analysis, and he isn't aware of the faulty assumptions that he's making. And when he can't follow someone else's argument, he assumes they must be mistaken.<br /><br />But then I'm left with the question of why would someone with so little understanding set out to write articles to be posted at WUWT? And then I get stuck, because I have no further explanation of his motives.OSweetMrMathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57135068055062817912016-02-07T15:01:01.196+11:002016-02-07T15:01:01.196+11:00Sheldon Walker.
How do you distinguish between a ...Sheldon Walker.<br /><br />How do you distinguish between a "pause" and the normal variability inherent in a dataset such as mean annual (or even monthly) global temperature?<br /><br />You can use statistical concepts if you like.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38753766629164003542016-02-07T15:00:10.135+11:002016-02-07T15:00:10.135+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41547347207279024442016-02-07T14:26:06.842+11:002016-02-07T14:26:06.842+11:00On a denialist blog, I commented several months ag...On a denialist blog, I commented several months ago for them to watch out for a spike in the RSS data set due to the developing Great El Nino (which has since happened).<br /><br />If any of the other commenters actually understood what I was getting on, none were game enough to respond to my prediction. This did not surprise me.<br /><br />This new Independent Committee on Geoethics group makes me think they know the end is in sight for the satellite data cherry-pick, and they have come up with a new game plan.<br /><br />Looking at their Founding Statement, I suspect they intend to discredit and smear individual climate scientists and groups. It is the only card they have left to play.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40569717701405631882016-02-07T14:11:42.680+11:002016-02-07T14:11:42.680+11:00D.C.Petterson.
Excellent article.
Yes, it will b...D.C.Petterson.<br /><br />Excellent article.<br /><br />Yes, it will be interesting to see how the deniers spin that one if it happens. I suspect they will:<br /><br />- Claim that it is only a spike in the data. They can run that one for a year or two. They will be massacred on that one because they will have to admit the 1997/98 measurements were only a spike as well.<br /><br />- Ignore it, just like they ignore other inconvenient evidence.<br /><br />- Claim the data has been manipulated to give a desired result. This will mean they will have to throw Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Christy under a bus. This did this to Richard Muller when he produced the Berkeley Earth results.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85075535395649316722016-02-07T12:35:12.607+11:002016-02-07T12:35:12.607+11:00I've just written a new article about Monckton...I've just written a new article about Monckton's fraudulent "pause". It's about to go away. He soon won't be able to claim even the RSS lower troposphere temperature graphs show a zero trendline.<br /><br />I wonder what deniers will do then? It will be interesting to watch.<br /><br />http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/6/1481083/-The-fake-global-warming-pause-is-about-to-end-Here-s-whyD.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12103953830752489972016-02-07T08:08:19.596+11:002016-02-07T08:08:19.596+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.bill hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849188148172259760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52541686807054222512016-02-07T07:56:18.960+11:002016-02-07T07:56:18.960+11:00WUWT adopts a huge number of mutually contradictor...WUWT adopts a huge number of mutually contradictory positions.<br /><br /> Do the acolytes know this? At some semi-conscious level I suspect so. <br /><br />DO they care about this? Definitely not.bill hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849188148172259760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11396915568161534072016-02-07T05:45:57.638+11:002016-02-07T05:45:57.638+11:00Sheldon,
The main question I'd like to see an...Sheldon,<br /><br />The main question I'd like to see answered about the pause is whether you or Monckton has any statistically significant evidence that it exists. When it comes to warming, Monckton is very quick to show that a short period of warming might not be significant, but never mentions this with regard to his pause.<br /><br />I'd also like to know why Monckton says every month that:<br /><br />"The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.", <br /><br />yet doesn't see it as a problem that this fastest warming rate continues through the first half of his Great Pause. I'd like to know how he arrived at this statement when there are 15 year periods with a much greater warming rate?Bellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872924578152375407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48085565600059053872016-02-07T05:11:39.621+11:002016-02-07T05:11:39.621+11:00I notice that Monckton has changed the template fo...I notice that Monckton has changed the template for his monthly Pause report, in anticipation of the pause disappearing next month. I'm not sure how he can be so certain of this. RSS could be at 0.86C next month and he could still claim a pause starting in December 1997.Bellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872924578152375407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50960793037490882762016-02-06T21:20:44.476+11:002016-02-06T21:20:44.476+11:00Sheldon,
I would also like to know why the start d...Sheldon,<br />I would also like to know why the start dates of Monckton's nebulous 'Great Pause' keep changing:<br /><a href="https://archive.is/4mMsB" rel="nofollow">August 1996</a><br /><a href="https://archive.is/Rg9EF" rel="nofollow">September 1996</a><br /><a href="https://archive.is/rkKC6" rel="nofollow">October 1996</a><br /><a href="https://archive.is/hOFg5" rel="nofollow">November 1996</a><br /><a href="https://archive.is/SEcAq" rel="nofollow">December 1996</a><br /><a href="https://archive.is/sutwb" rel="nofollow">January 1997</a><br /><a href="https://archive.is/qBX2m" rel="nofollow">February 1997</a><br /><a href="https://archive.is/etlA2" rel="nofollow">March 1997</a><br /><a href="https://archive.is/3Nlx5" rel="nofollow">May 1997</a>rubiginosahttps://twitter.com/rubiginosanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23559367083065360322016-02-06T16:21:19.743+11:002016-02-06T16:21:19.743+11:00Looking at Sheldon's comments at WUWT, I'd...Looking at Sheldon's comments at WUWT, I'd say my original take on his article was correct. Sheldon was mixing up the notion of a difference between months (December) and years (2014 vs 2015). He seems to have got himself mixed up, like he did here in the other thread. It shows, because he didn't correct any of the other people at WUWT who got it wrong. The reverse IIRC.<br /><br />You make a very good point that the scientists at the Carbon brief were looking at the overall contribution of ENSO to the longer term warming, not just to 2015. (The result wouldn't have pleased Bob Tisdale, though I doubt he'd have understood it.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17140519008089620502016-02-06T16:12:50.439+11:002016-02-06T16:12:50.439+11:00I don't disagree, OSMM. The lines were just to...I don't disagree, OSMM. The lines were just to help the eye because of the messy looking scatter plot. P'raps I could have been more explicit, instead of merely hinting at that in the text above. <br /><br />Re linear trend lines, there are at least three change points over that period for all the years (not just ENSO years). I could have plotted three different trend lines for each of El Nino and La Nina, making six trend lines and two scatter plots. The result would have looked very messy.<br /><br />There were not enough data points (too many gaps between ENSO years) for LOESS curves in my view.<br /><br />The chart isn't integral to the article. It was a bonus. As Steve Mosher said, "just for grins". People can make of it what they will.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7377747878146765672016-02-06T16:02:11.744+11:002016-02-06T16:02:11.744+11:00Sou, one more thing: in your graph of El Niño temp...Sou, one more thing: in your graph of El Niño temperatures and La Niña temperatures, you use cubic fits. Polynomial fits tend to be very unstable near the endpoints and should be avoided. Even though the temperature change is not linear over the entire time period, the linear fit is more stable, and therefore generally more informative. If you are not satisfied by that, you are better off using a nonparametric fit (like LOESS) or a piecewise linear fit, rather than a polynomial fit.OSweetMrMathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89848135806936339012016-02-06T15:51:45.997+11:002016-02-06T15:51:45.997+11:00I noticed the WUWT post and the fact that Sheldon ...I noticed the WUWT post and the fact that Sheldon was repeating the same mistakes he made here, so I left the comment about it without giving it much more thought. This post demonstrates that even if Sheldon's reasoning didn't miss the point, it would still be trivial.<br /><br />It is not true that because the linear trend is .0175 degrees per year, the difference in temperature between December 2014 and December 2015 should be .0175 degrees. Other comments in this thread, the Climate Brief articles, etc. explain why.<br /><br />Leaving that aside, by only looking at the December 2014 and December 2015 data, the conclusion applies only to a single month. Sou's calculations show the absurdity of extending the conclusion to longer periods of time. The monthly variability in temperatures means that each month has a different percentage change in temperature due to global warming. It's closer to a meaningful result to ask what percentage of the change in annual temperature between 2014 and 2015 is due to global warming.<br /><br />But this is still missing the point. The real question is what percentage of the temperature change from the baseline to the present is due to global warming. This is the question addressed in the Climate Brief posts. If you discount the December 2015 temperature because of El Niño, the followup question is what will the temperature be after El Niño ends (say, in December 2016). Monthly variability can be quite large, so it's hard to guarantee a minimum, but it's easy to predict that it will be far above the 20th century average and, on average, rising. More concretely, the December 2014 anomaly was 0.78 degrees (using HadCRUT4, and I'm guessing the baseline is the 20th century average). There's a good chance December 2016 will be above that level. If we proceed directly to a La Niña, it's not unreasonable that it could drop to 0.6 degrees. (If that happens, will Sheldon post an article on WUWT stating that 120% of the drop from 2014 is due to La Niña?) Regardless of the observed temperature, we will be well above the 20th century average, and no amount of short term variability will change that.OSweetMrMathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66055051546245935802016-02-06T15:16:58.191+11:002016-02-06T15:16:58.191+11:00Thanks, Tadaaa.Thanks, Tadaaa.D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37609294006542880832016-02-06T10:52:41.222+11:002016-02-06T10:52:41.222+11:00Funny how they want to remove the 2015/16 El Nino ...Funny how they want to remove the 2015/16 El Nino but don't want to apply the same logic to previous El Ninos or La Ninas. If they were to do that they'd end up with exactly what Tamino has been harping on for the past 10 years.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44806863077217352332016-02-06T10:44:38.624+11:002016-02-06T10:44:38.624+11:00The positive phase of the PDO is associated with E...The positive phase of the PDO is associated with El Nino dominance, and the negative phase of the PDO is associated with La Nina dominance. As can clearly be seen, the shorter-term trends are steep, but as you go back in time, <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/last:360/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/last:480/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/last:600/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/last:720/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/compress:12/plot/jisao-pdo/last:840/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/last:960/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/last:1080/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/last:1200/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/last:1320/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/trend" rel="nofollow">the PDO trend relaxes toward zero.</a> The PDO ends up causing not much of anything.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14062290928187803622016-02-06T10:31:15.944+11:002016-02-06T10:31:15.944+11:00Interesting that Sheldon didn't also do a calc...Interesting that Sheldon didn't also do a calculation for 1998 so that we could compare the two El Ninos.<br /><br />And of course it would be informative to show the temperatures *only* for El Nino years and look at their trend. <br /><br />Of course those figures will never appear on WUWT.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68592237122837969822016-02-06T09:17:47.546+11:002016-02-06T09:17:47.546+11:00Making prediction again ThankssMaking prediction again <a href="http://www.kompi.xyz" rel="nofollow">Thankss</a>Wahib Irawanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12731451373061911641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5932689157232802892016-02-06T06:10:03.759+11:002016-02-06T06:10:03.759+11:00I always thought this was a really good analysis o...I always thought this was a really good analysis of the pause "fraud" - for a science dunce like me<br /><br />http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/22/1386999/-Monckton-and-Watts-inadvertantly-reveal-global-warming-Pause-to-be-clumsy-fraud<br /><br />Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.com