tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post769683251663908844..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Resurrecting Fred Singer and the MWP at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger173125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21041214657921669972014-01-30T04:50:32.831+11:002014-01-30T04:50:32.831+11:00I seem to remember you saying that I don't kno...<i>I seem to remember you saying that I don't know how to read a paper. </i><br /><br />No, that's not what I said. I referred to your comment that you wouldn't consider the paper and wrote:<br />-----------------------------<br />To Anonymous:<br /><i>I was going to read your Diaz paper until I saw...etc</i><br /><br />Since you are not familiar enough with science to be able to judge a paper on its merits, you have no business commenting on science at all.<br /><br />---------------------------<br /><br />Which is yet another demonstration of what other people here have been complaining about.<br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72058455083545383372014-01-30T04:44:18.595+11:002014-01-30T04:44:18.595+11:00Give it a rest, Anonymous. You've been grante...Give it a rest, Anonymous. You've been granted more than 80 comments to this article so far not counting the ones that I deleted, which is overly generous of me. Especially considering the appalling way you started out.<br /><br />If you can't express your opinion on Fred Singer's idiocy in 80 plus comments then you are very poor at communicating.<br /><br />As for your "accuracy" - your comments that remain here tell the tale. The first deleted comments of yours were far from accurate and many of your other comments were not better from what I've seen. I doubt too many other people could be bothered reading the mess it's all turned into. I've much better things to do.<br /><br />As for warming - using the corrected data from Rosenthal13, they estimated that between 1965 and 2010 the Pacific Ocean warmed at more than seven times faster than between 1600 and 1950, which is only 350 of the 10,000 plus years of the Holocene. For the previous centuries there was a loss of ocean heat. So once again you are being highly selective. <br /><br />Here are some numbers:<br /><br />2 - 7.5 Ka -5.5E+21 ∆Ho J/century -0.02 ∆T °C/ century<br />1700-1100 CE -3.4E+22 ∆Ho J/century -0.15 ∆T °C/ century<br />1950-1600 CE 1.8E+22 ∆Ho J/century 0.08 ∆T °C/ century<br />2010-1965 CE* 1.3E+23 ∆Ho J/century 0.24 ∆T °C/ century<br /><br />No matter which way you look at it, by their estimates, in the past 40 years the warming is dramatic.<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617/suppl/DC1<br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81395072715908241332014-01-30T03:59:43.738+11:002014-01-30T03:59:43.738+11:00Sou,
Are you really not going to publish my comme...Sou,<br /><br />Are you really not going to publish my comments about the "findings" of the Rosenthal paper? I was called a liar and a troll for my statements that the paper did not "find" current warming to be 15 times faster. But, it didn't. Even using their original data, and assuming it is a useful comparison, the math is that it was 10 times faster. But now they corrected the data, and it is only 7.22 times. <br /><br />The interesting part is that they acknowledge that the error has "no bearing on the main conclusions of the paper." This is because the 15 times statement was never a "finding" of the paper.<br /><br />I seem to remember you saying that I don't know how to read a paper. Now who is it that doesn't know how to read a paper? And, why won't you acknowledge the true state of the science as I have been accurately describing it? Your other commenters are posting in error. Your summary wrap up is in error. Do you care?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3414346505052217842014-01-29T22:57:03.737+11:002014-01-29T22:57:03.737+11:00I'm wrapping this up now.
To summarise the ...I'm wrapping this up now. <br /><br />To summarise the Rosenthal13 discussion - the authors found that the MWP and LIA were global events. Many other papers (see main article) suggest that the MWP at least was not synchronously global (as a peak warming). Global temperatures dropped after the medieval period to the low of the Little Ice age. At both periods global surface temperatures were likely less than half a degree from the 1881-1980 mean.<br /><br />It is very unlikely that global temperatures in the MWP were warmer than those of today, which are 0.7-0.8 higher than the 1881-1980 mean (GISTemp), or 0.2 to 0.3 degrees warmer than the peak of global surface temperatures in medieval times. <br /><br />Rosenthal13 found that the rate of change of ocean heat content between 1955 and 2010 was 15 times greater than previous - as shown in Figure 4b of their paper and as described by them in the press releases.<br /><br />All the repetition here is very tiring. The references have been provided in the comments, so readers can check for themselves the various notions put forward by everyone above.<br /><br />This article was not about Rosenthal13. I'd normally not let things to off the rails so much but, like I've said elsewhere, I'm not able to spend as much time here as usual - so apologies to everyone.<br /><br />I'm not bothering with publishing the comments in the moderation queue that added nothing new to the discussion.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87192118290037353972014-01-29T18:43:42.681+11:002014-01-29T18:43:42.681+11:00Oh dear, what a sorry and sordid web anon has weav...Oh dear, what a sorry and sordid web anon has weaved.<br /><br />Here is the biased and alarmist Linsley stating the sensationalist major finding of his latest research.<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHpwQTI_Bn4<br /><br />Ouch, that's gotta hurt!!<br /><br />If you were able to comprehend graphs, instead of focussing on the 'MWP is warmer than today' folly, you would see that IT IS a major finding of the paper.<br /><br />What's going to be the next crazy excuse, 'Oh, it's actually Mann's voice being dubbed over the top', 'The biased greenies gave him a cheque to make him say it', 'Ahhh, it's not peer reviewed'<br /><br />Anon, you are the quintessential intentionally deceptive troll, on a compulsive obsessive crusade from the cesspool of WUWT. This blog makes fun of the stupid, brainless and whimsical antics of the intellectual bereft and ignorant Wattie cult. You have come onto this blog, intent to show off your reverence to your dogma, but instead it horrendously backfired and blew up in your face, and your sole achievement has been making a complete fool of yourself. You have been pinged so many times, and have petulantly hand waved and foot stamped, and twisted and turned, you are now beyond any redemption.<br /><br />But I will leave the final word to the NOAA, you know, the experts in climate and weather.<br /><br />"In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years"<br />http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.htmlDavenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-140462038358226422014-01-29T13:47:54.646+11:002014-01-29T13:47:54.646+11:00I don't have time to moderate all the comments...I don't have time to moderate all the comments right now or several of the above would have been deleted already. In the meantime I've switched to comment moderation so be patient. Your comment will appear eventually provided it complies with the comment policy. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25770812813950726932014-01-29T11:20:08.282+11:002014-01-29T11:20:08.282+11:00"1. I was asking an honest question."
W..."<i>1. I was asking an honest question.</i>"<br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />You said "If you are suggesting that rate of warming has no relevance to ecological impact (and policy), I think you should make your case", which is not a question but a leading statement.<br /><br />"<i>2. Is this the same Bernard J who name-calls and verbally abuses me in every second post?</i>"<br /><br />I said that you were "verballing" me, not verbally abusing me. If it's not clear, I was using <a href="http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/32857/new-verb-to-verbal" rel="nofollow">the definition where a person puts words into another's mouth</a>.<br /><br />As to being called names, if you are inclined to make ignorant statements about science don't be surprised when someone uses an appropriate descriptor to label your claims.<br /><br />"<i>3. the rest of your post seems to be arguing that rate of warming has no relevance to policy (ie you have contradicted yourself).</i>"<br /><br />Wrong again.<br /><br />I was addressing your comment "I am certain that Rosenthal is assuming the difference between decades and millennia in warming rate is relevant" in the context that differences in short-term and long-term rates of warming will have little (but not absent) effect on the outcomes at equilibrium. Parse <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/resurrecting-fred-singer-and-mwp-at-wuwt.html?showComment=1390830466373#c4345003873761584826" rel="nofollow">my comment</a> carefully and you will (perchance) grok my meaning.<br /><br />And in case it's not clear, I distinguished the effect that differences in rates of warming over different time-scales can have on policy by pointing out that inactivists are trying to use the current "low" rates of warming, resulting from 'noise' in the signal, to camouflage the underlying trajectory. I also pointed out that even if the low rate of warming were maintained beyond what is noise in an inappropriately-taken short time-span, this only delays the inevitable rather than 'disappearing' the inevitable.<br /><br />It's only in the minds of denialists and their ignorant/unaware audiences that the tricksy misrepresentation of the underlying significances of the numbers seems plausible.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9213072121193843892014-01-29T06:39:25.257+11:002014-01-29T06:39:25.257+11:00Do you really think that the headline in a press r...<i> Do you really think that the headline in a press release about a scientific paper qualifies as a finding of that paper?</i><br /><br />Yes. And only a desperate liar like you would try to pretend otherwise.<br /><br /><i>Parts of Pacific Warming 15 Times Faster Than in Past 10,000 Years<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.</i><br /><br />It's a finding of the paper. <br /><br />I suppose when you've been nailed for so many other lies, belabouring a new one is about the only way to distract attention you have left. <br /><br />It isn't working. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81807830314944029472014-01-29T06:04:17.609+11:002014-01-29T06:04:17.609+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44175549345796285292014-01-29T05:40:24.215+11:002014-01-29T05:40:24.215+11:00I keep posting examples of you lying. All you have...I keep <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/resurrecting-fred-singer-and-mwp-at-wuwt.html?showComment=1390902565996#c5942667169385941855" rel="nofollow">posting examples</a> of you lying. All you have to do is read them, Anon.<br /><br />And you are lying about the 15x figure not being a finding of R13. If it was not a finding of that study, then the authors would not have allowed this specific figure to feature in the *two* press releases describing the study. <br /><br />The figures are in the supplementary information, Table S3, link above.<br /><br />Stop lying.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45033252889189333182014-01-29T05:33:58.093+11:002014-01-29T05:33:58.093+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67260699210928408962014-01-29T05:20:19.216+11:002014-01-29T05:20:19.216+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23684743123739172762014-01-29T05:16:26.882+11:002014-01-29T05:16:26.882+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34132167879034794322014-01-29T04:23:34.370+11:002014-01-29T04:23:34.370+11:00One can even argue that the paper supports this co...<i>One can even argue that the paper supports this conclusion, but it is not a finding of the paper as represented at least erroneously by Mann.</i><br /><br />Another lie. <br /><br />It IS a finding of the paper - look at the SI - and it is explicitly endorsed by the authors and Mann made <i>no error referring to it</i>. Read the press releases issued by their respective institutions.<br /><br />Do you seriously argue that Rosenthal and Linsely would sign off on two separate press releases that materially misrepresented their findings? Don't be fucking ridiculous. <br /><br />I know exactly what a lie is and what a liar is - and <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/resurrecting-fred-singer-and-mwp-at-wuwt.html?showComment=1390902565996#c5942667169385941855" rel="nofollow">you are a liar.</a> This thread stands as incontrovertible evidence of that. The depth of your mendacity is evidenced by the fact that you are still here and <i>still lying.</i> <br /><br />Something needs to be done about this. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5990301366727796202014-01-29T03:51:48.540+11:002014-01-29T03:51:48.540+11:00BBD,
It is not a finding of the paper. It is a s...BBD,<br /><br />It is not a finding of the paper. It is a sensational headline of a press release, and, perhaps, an opinion of the authors. The paper is subject to peer review, and the outside opinions and sensational headlines are not.<br /><br />Do you see the difference? Do you understand the significance of the difference? One can even argue that the paper supports this conclusion, but it is not a finding of the paper as represented at least erroneously by Mann.<br /><br />If you do not understand the difference, then there is really not much more I can do for you. You don't even seem to know what a lie is. Arguing with you is like the Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court arguing with the peasants. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10851747651988783582014-01-29T03:39:47.012+11:002014-01-29T03:39:47.012+11:00No he did not. You are lying again.
Dave has alre...No he did not. You are lying again.<br /><br />Dave has already linked the <a href="http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3130" rel="nofollow">Colombia press release</a>for you above (I linked the Rutgers press release), but since you clearly did not bother to read it, here it is again, with an expanded quote:<br /><br /><i> From about 7,000 years ago until the start of the Medieval Warm Period in northern Europe, at about 1100, the water cooled gradually, by almost 1 degree C, or almost 2 degrees F. The rate of cooling then picked up during the so-called Little Ice Age that followed, dropping another 1 degree C, or 2 degrees F, until about 1600. The authors attribute the cooling from 7,000 years ago until the Medieval Warm Period to changes in Earth’s orientation toward the sun, which affected how much sunlight fell on both poles. In 1600 or so, temperatures started gradually going back up. Then, over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C, or .32 degrees F. That might seem small in the scheme of things, but it’s a rate of warming 15 times faster than at any period in the last 10,000 years, said Linsley.</i><br /><br />So that's Rosenthal approving the 15x figure in the Rutgers release (his institution) and Linsley (sp!) approving the 15x figure in the Colombia release (his institution).<br /><br />It is self-evident that the paper's finding support this claim or both press releases would have been rejected by both authors. <br /><br />The relevant numbers seem to be in <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/30/342.6158.617.DC1/Rosenthal.SM.revision.1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Table S3 in the SI. </a><br /><br />You are trying to distract from the fact that you have been exposed as a serial liar. It's not working. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62138643098209152282014-01-29T03:24:21.525+11:002014-01-29T03:24:21.525+11:00BBD,
No one said that the author's don't ...BBD,<br /><br />No one said that the author's don't believe that warming is 15 times faster or whatever. Had Mann said that the author's believe such, it sounds like he would have been accurate.<br /><br />But he made a statement about a paper's finding which was untrue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15245701462216171782014-01-29T03:09:00.034+11:002014-01-29T03:09:00.034+11:00The statement is from the press release, which is ...The statement is <a href="http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/global-warming-viewed-deep-ocean/20131031#.UufQpPtFC9K" rel="nofollow">from the press release</a>, which is subtitled:<br /><br /><i>The intermediate waters of the Pacific Ocean are absorbing heat 15 times faster over the past 60 years than in the past 10,000</i><br /><br />From the main text:<br /><br /><i>Climate scientists say it went into the ocean, which over the past 60 years has acted as a buffer against global warming. However, a new study led by Rutgers’ Yair Rosenthal shows that the ocean is now absorbing heat 15 times faster than it has over the previous 10,000 years.</i> <br /><br />If the authors disagreed with their own press release, don't you think they would have <i>said something?</i><br /><br />Or perhaps you are simply thrashing around desperately trying to distract attention from the fact that you have been exposed as a serial liar?BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81589923958008922082014-01-29T02:49:24.855+11:002014-01-29T02:49:24.855+11:00BBD writes: "The modern rate of Pacific OHC c...BBD writes: "The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years (Fig. 4 and table S3)."<br /><br />Yes. Exactly. Now that is not what Mann wrote now is it? Here is a hint for you. Even if they did include the "15 times" statement in the paper, it would probably not have made it past peer review because such a statement is comparing proxy data to the instrumental record which has different resolution. They can't possibly know that it was 15 times greater based on the data they collected. 15 times greater is far different than saying "greater."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14614335616942527392014-01-29T02:42:40.931+11:002014-01-29T02:42:40.931+11:00From R13 p 621:
The modern rate of Pacific OHC ch...From R13 p 621:<br /><br /><i>The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in<br />the past 10,000 years (Fig. 4 and table S3).</i><br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30970979417396238742014-01-29T02:36:51.256+11:002014-01-29T02:36:51.256+11:00Dave
It is clear that when talking about climate ...Dave<br /><br /><i>It is clear that when talking about climate science, there needs to be a new addition to Godwin's law, that is whenever there is an ad hominem of Michael Mann, the thread needs to be closed immediately.</i><br /><br />Or the offending ad hom snipped, at the very least. The whole personalise-and-demonise denier tactic needs to be stamped out. It is a vicious and underhand attempt to deceive the public by trashing the professional integrity of scientists. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17686032023626106412014-01-29T02:34:40.323+11:002014-01-29T02:34:40.323+11:00Dave,
Do you have trouble reading? Mann said tha...Dave,<br /><br />Do you have trouble reading? Mann said that the Rosenthal paper had a specific finding that "middle depths [of the Pacific Ocean] have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000."<br /><br />Can you please show me where the paper makes that specific finding?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8140183032320954002014-01-29T02:33:22.679+11:002014-01-29T02:33:22.679+11:00BBD, I never said Diaz supports my claims. It just...<i>BBD, I never said Diaz supports my claims. It just didn't support yours. There is a difference, and I already explained that in detail.</i><br /><br />No, you did not and I have been through this with you again and again. <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/resurrecting-fred-singer-and-mwp-at-wuwt.html?showComment=1390764915718#c1250045189698227508" rel="nofollow">You are a liar.</a> <br /><br /><i>From the beginning I kept the MWP in context. Just because the evidence points to it being global and as warm or warmer than today doesn't prove anything about man made global warming. </i><br /><br />More lies. You have been shown that the evidence DOES NOT point to an MCA as warm as or warmer than the present. <br /><br /><i>Now you ask "How do you reconcile your interpretation of R13 with the fact that all the surface temperature reconstructions of the MCA show that on average, it was cooler than the present?"<br /><br />What evidence do you have to support that assumption? </i><br /><br />All of it, <i>including Rosenthal 13</i>. You, on the other hand have nothing except your incessant lies.<br /><br />Moderation please, Sou. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7804422033924136272014-01-29T01:59:27.783+11:002014-01-29T01:59:27.783+11:00Anonymous wrote.
"Here is Michael Mann himse...Anonymous wrote.<br /><br />"Here is Michael Mann himself showing bias. He makes this statement about the Rosenthal paper:<br /><br />The study finds, specifically, that (to quote Columbia University's press release) the "middle depths [of the Pacific Ocean] have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000".<br /><br />Could someone here please point to where Rosenthal "specifically" makes that finding? Anyone? If Mann is going to make a statement about a "finding" of a scientific paper, why not quote the paper? Why quote someone else's press release about it? Is that "honest?"<br /><br />It was the co-author Linsley, you know, the one that you couldn't even spell.<br /><br />"That might seem small in the scheme of things, but it’s a rate of warming 15 times faster than at any period in the last 10,000 years, said Linsley."<br />http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3130<br /><br />You have now proven beyond any doubt to be totally bigoted and dishonest and a proven illiterate ignorant idiot. Not only that you seem to be totally colour blind, and are unable to interpret a graph. You have shown yourself to be beholden to the professional deniers at co2science, and are now resorting to the denouncement of Mann, and ad hominem attacks of everyone else. You are claiming that everyone is biased but cannot see the extreme bias in yourself and your statements. You are running to a script, written by co2science, and as such, you are unable to think for yourself. You have an ideological view of the past climate, and are trying to find the data to fit your preconceived ideas. That is not how science works, in fact it is the opposite. <br /><br />It is clear that when talking about climate science, there needs to be a new addition to Godwin's law, that is whenever there is an ad hominem of Michael Mann, the thread needs to be closed immediately.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50178508551910108882014-01-29T00:37:59.489+11:002014-01-29T00:37:59.489+11:00All this talk about the relative warmth of the Med...All this talk about the relative warmth of the Mediæval warm period compared with today misses a basic point - the MWP peaked and then declined in response to known forcing mechanisms, and the modern temperature trajectory is going to keep skyrocketting for the next few centuries and then hang about the plateau for a few more centuries to millenia afterward.<br /><br />And as has been noted several times now on this thread, the warmer the MWP was, the more poo the Earth is in as a result of the trajectory that humans have initiated with the Industrial Revolution.<br /><br />What Anonymous is trying to tell us is that the world is toast. I don't disagree with him on that.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.com