tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7706815160800203354..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Living Dangerously: Jim Steele denies Texas warmingSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19998231278775515602015-06-23T13:38:33.104+10:002015-06-23T13:38:33.104+10:00"Slanderous Sou defiles the attempt to have a..."Slanderous Sou defiles the attempt to have an honest scientific debate with comments like "utter nutter"" <br /><br />Hey, asshole, perhaps if you hadn't opened your comments by falsely accusing Sou of slander, you might have a leg to stand on.jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59289034422128100142015-06-23T13:38:09.500+10:002015-06-23T13:38:09.500+10:00"Slanderous Sou defiles the attempt to have a..."Slanderous Sou defiles the attempt to have an honest scientific debate with comments like "utter nutter"" <br /><br />Hey, asshole, perhaps if you hadn't opened your comments by falsely accusing Sou of slander, you might have a leg to stand on.jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61557184691861240242015-06-23T13:30:15.255+10:002015-06-23T13:30:15.255+10:00It's not slander when it's fact. You are a...It's not slander when it's fact. You are an incompetent and a serial liar.jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82107212572569166162015-06-23T13:28:47.385+10:002015-06-23T13:28:47.385+10:00"Ahh Sou always quick to distort and denigrat..."Ahh Sou always quick to distort and denigrate anyone that is a skeptic"<br /><br />Out of the gate with an ad hominem, followed by lies and incompetence ... a typical denier, not skeptic.jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18808479757187752022014-04-26T16:19:45.382+10:002014-04-26T16:19:45.382+10:00For whatever it's worth, here's that detai...For whatever it's worth, here's that detailed critique of Jim Steele's article, including plenty of links to sources of further solid information.<br /><br />Friday, April 25, 2014<br />Jim Steele Exploiting Human Misery and Distorting Science<br />http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/04/jimsteel-distorting-science.htmlcitizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29591944935597093282014-04-24T02:46:40.343+10:002014-04-24T02:46:40.343+10:00Sou, allow me to share some random thoughts that c...Sou, allow me to share some random thoughts that came to me as I'm navigating Steele's wormhole of an article/argument regarding "Years of Living Dangerously."<br /><br /><br />Steele shares extremely biased opinions because he's got Blinders on, <br />just like them old draft horse, <br />his vision doesn't extend beyond the road in front of his feet. <br />Sadly he doesn't recognize his own Blinders.<br />He refuses to acknowledge superseding information,<br />nor consider modifying his own misconceptions. <br /><br />I know that's true of all of us to some extent. <br />~ ~ ~<br />But,<br /><br />Here's the big difference <br />between the faith-based, politically driven ideologue and <br />the curiosity driven scientific type, <br />with their interest (ay, passion...) in observation and understanding. <br /><br />We appreciate we have our own custom fitted Blinders.<br /> <br />We are open to critique, reproach, having our own errors exposed - <br />no doubt it can be painful, <br />we'll even struggle against it defending less and less defensible convictions. <br /><br />But, all the time new information is being listened to... digested... allowed to<br />develop by its own merits.<br />Learning does happen, <br />mistakes are our greatest learning tools,<br />we grow and improve.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />So be aware we are dealing with folks <br />who want to protect dogma and turf above all else. <br />How to deal with that ???<br /><br /><br />The hate-on for scientists is fueled by unspoken religion emotions <br />rather than any evidence of systemic deception. <br />The system of science has more honesty checks-and-balances <br />than any dogmatic faith defending system focused on protecting turf.<br /><br /><br />So one side we have dogmatists and on the other we have rationalists - <br />and the river of time waits for none of us.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72338840972574987582014-04-24T01:15:41.131+10:002014-04-24T01:15:41.131+10:00Oh heck I been missing all the fun.
I've had ...Oh heck I been missing all the fun.<br /><br />I've had a very hectic couple weeks so have had very little computer time.<br />Past few days I've tried to get back to this jazz and in fact have been going over this very same Steele atrocity of an article.<br /><br />Did anyone else notice Steele's eye for detail. <br />Ten times he misspells Katharine Hayhoe's name and it still hasn't been corrected.<br /><br />Incidentally, Steele still hasn't responded to the various deceptions of his articles attacking Dr. Parmesan.<br /><br />http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/fabricatingclimatedoom-steeles-science.html<br /><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2901653890236996592014-04-18T13:36:27.278+10:002014-04-18T13:36:27.278+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jim Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02652430670493741009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35090226071577038822014-04-18T12:39:10.949+10:002014-04-18T12:39:10.949+10:00He also said "the most powerful driver" ...He also said "the most powerful driver" of disappearing rain forests is "climate fear mongering" in his WUWT article. I commented above that this is actually wrong. It is not "found in the literature" like "everything" else he claims. He has not responded back. Would be great if he would correct that mistake, too.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6856404362292177122014-04-18T08:55:16.047+10:002014-04-18T08:55:16.047+10:00Done.Done.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20453971789567097262014-04-18T06:32:21.572+10:002014-04-18T06:32:21.572+10:00IMO, Jim's deleted posts should still be avail...IMO, Jim's deleted posts should still be available to see, in the HotWhoppery.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35542314601632510752014-04-18T04:48:03.413+10:002014-04-18T04:48:03.413+10:00Possibly the most encouraging post I've seem f...Possibly the most encouraging post I've seem for a while is from your blog-roll:<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2496<br /><br />No-one shows up for the quasi-skeptics any more. That's not to say that you (Sou) or other people should stop what you're doing yet! These guys are still influencing politicians, so it's nice to have forums where people can see how the Non-IPCC science is peddled.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51869553033576183812014-04-18T02:39:32.220+10:002014-04-18T02:39:32.220+10:00I'll give Jim one more chance to redeem himsel...I'll give Jim one more chance to redeem himself by repeating my request. It relates to his statement about which I wrote the above article. Jim wrote: "The truth is there has been no climate warming in Texas."<br /><br />I decided enough was enough and wrote to Jim:<br /><br /><b>Until you come up with data to support your statement or admit you were wrong, any further comment from you will be deleted. And the temperature data you come up with had better be for the whole state of Texas and go to 2013. It can go back as far as you want.</b><br /><br />Jim's written four more comments so far but hasn't complied with my request.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83686349937922334662014-04-18T01:25:40.750+10:002014-04-18T01:25:40.750+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jim Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02652430670493741009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62610868649817606992014-04-18T01:24:15.506+10:002014-04-18T01:24:15.506+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jim Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02652430670493741009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14014615904811405142014-04-18T01:14:59.136+10:002014-04-18T01:14:59.136+10:00Jim writes
"What climate dynamics were so pow...Jim writes<br />"What climate dynamics were so powerful that they cooled half of Texas despite rising CO2. And if those dynamics could cool much of Texas do similar dynamics cause warming and are aliased onto CO2 warming? "<br /><br />Well if you bothered to read the reference I provided, the answer is in there.<br /><br />"What does the present relative lack of warming imply for projections of future climate change in Texas? Knutson et al. (2006) examined the spatial patterns of temperature change throughout the globe and their reproduceability in an advanced coupled climate model. An area of negative century-long temperature trends extends from central Texas across the southeastern United States. This region is one of the few areas of cooling over the entire globe. While ensemble runs of the coupled climate model, including both anthropogenic and natural forcing, produced realistic historical simulations over most of the globe, they completely failed to reproduce the observed cooling in the south-central and southeastern United States.<br />Robinson et al. (2002) took a close look at this anomaly. The climate model they used was able to reproduce the anomaly, whether or not anthropogenic forcings were included, as long as the atmospheric model was driven by observed sea surface temperature patterns. Through a series of experiments, Robinson et al. (2002) found that the key region for driving the cooler temperatures in the south-central and southeastern United States was the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, where warm sea surface temperatures led to increased water vapor and cloud cover over the southern United States, thereby reducing temperatures throughout the year.<br />While these studies provide interesting evidence, they are far from conclusive. If portions of the Pacific Ocean are indeed responsible for the suppressed warming in Texas, it is still not known whether those sea surface temperature variations are part of a natural cycle or are themselves a response to global warming. Alternatively, the mechanisms in the climate model and the real atmosphere may be different, and the actual cause of the suppressed global warming response in Texas may be a consequence of cloud-aerosol interactions, land use changes, or other natural or anthropogenically- forced regional climate modes.<br />At this point, there is no evidence that the climate patterns responsible for the lack of a century-long temperature trend in Texas and the southeastern United States are caused by anthropogenic influences, and natural processes, particularly those driven by variations in ocean circulation, are likely to be cyclical. Furthermore, recent temperatures in Texas are among the highest on record. Thus, it seems prudent to assume that the relative lack of 20th century warming in Texas is a temporary climate phenomenon, and that temperatures are likely to rise significantly in Texas over the coming decades."<br /><br />So given that this was written about 5 years ago, and in those 5 years, Texas has seen it's hottest year on record, the statement of "relative lack of warming" needs to be revised, to include the most up to date records.<br /><br />The main problem as I see it, is that Jim has relied too much on old, and out of date studies to base his conclusions on. As new data comes in, the conclusions of previous studies also needs to be updated. At the time the 9 NOAA scientists (NOT 10) were correct in their conclusions, but Texas has continued to warm, so much so, that the trend has now changed. But Jim, is stuck in the past, trying to argue his way out of a hole with accusations and misrepresentations. It's 2014 now, not 2006. In that time the climate has changed. Probably why it's called climate change. That's one of the pesky things about climate science, it's a fast moving subject, and relying on old and superceded studies will get you into trouble. It's a common occurrence with deniers. Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31014027827293758912014-04-18T01:11:25.309+10:002014-04-18T01:11:25.309+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jim Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02652430670493741009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41032014855036261152014-04-18T00:46:19.577+10:002014-04-18T00:46:19.577+10:00Stainless Steele, do you accept that Hoerling &...Stainless Steele, do you accept that Hoerling & al twice state that there is warming in Texas and clearly indicate that a proportion of it is anthropogenic? If not, why not, since both sections have been quoted to you? Since you are keen on an honest debate, perhaps you would, in future, post your items on a site other than WUWT where an honest debate is impossible? Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76125976367086124542014-04-18T00:15:44.110+10:002014-04-18T00:15:44.110+10:00Jim, as Dave pointed out, that book is old. It wa...Jim, as Dave pointed out, that book is old. It was published by January 2008 therefore the data can only go to 2006 at the very latest. And if you check you'll see that is so.<br /><br />As for your looking for an "honest scientific debate" - you've not shown any inclination to be honest, let alone "debate". You've been fudging, denying what is staring you in the face, misrepresenting the very report you've relied upon. And still you won't admit that you were wrong when your wrote: "The truth is there has been no climate warming in Texas."<br /><br />As for scientific, you wouldn't know science if it bit you in the bum (to quote an Aussie expression).<br /><br />My article wasn't about the cause of the warming. It was all about exposing the lie in that single statement of yours. It was only after you came in waving Hoerling12 about that in the comments it has emerged that some of the recent warming in Texas has been attributed by your "NOAA scientists" to human causes.<br /><br />I've had enough of your pathetic filibustering, obfuscation, whining and snivelling. And I don't imagine I'm the only one. You have no hesitation in vilifying scientists who are much more successful at their profession than you ever were. Until you come up with data to support your statement or admit you were wrong, any further comment from you will be deleted.<br /><br />And the temperature data you come up with had better be for the whole state of Texas and go to 2013. It can go back as far as you want. The data I showed goes back to 1895 - I challenge you to find data that shows different. Or, as I say, a simple admission that you were wrong in that statement would suffice. (I'm not demanding an apology and doubt you'd give one anyway. From what I see you are not that sort of man.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17377695664223105452014-04-17T23:28:42.420+10:002014-04-17T23:28:42.420+10:00The discussion here should be about different data...The discussion here should be about different data representations and the causes of those temperature.<br /><br />People have presented different references and as Dave has shown Only a very slight warming is present in East Texas and South Texas, and a very slight cooling is present in West Central Texas and South Central Texas. The cooling in North Central Texas is –0.1 to –0.7°F per century. All trends except for Far West Texas are smaller than the global mean temperature trend over the same period." That supports the Hoerling paper and the USHCN graph of Plainview Texas being cooler.<br /><br /> In contrast Sou's graph is supported by Far West Texas has the largest trend, 1.1-2.2°F per century. The warming trends are more moderate, 0.4-0.9°F, in the Panhandle and Plains and Southeast Texas. The question is how does all that get combined to have generated such opposite interpretations. Were the data homogenized and if so was it documented. Homogenization creates totally different trends as I have documented here http://landscapesandcycles.net/why-unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-.html<br /><br />The second question is whenever we ferret out the correct trend for Texas, what are the causes. What climate dynamics were so powerful that they cooled half of Texas despite rising CO2. And if those dynamics could cool much of Texas do similar dynamics cause warming and are aliased onto CO2 warming? <br /><br />Slanderous Sou defiles the attempt to have an honest scientific debate with comments like "utter nutter", but that is exactly what I have come to expect from such an intellect. SOU you need to choose. Are about you sincerely science debate and follow the truth not matter wher it takes us? Or are you simply trying to suppress scientific debate via personal attacks?Jim Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02652430670493741009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19451864155302049872014-04-17T18:21:33.019+10:002014-04-17T18:21:33.019+10:00Here is another good paper, a bit old, but still r...Here is another good paper, a bit old, but still relevant.<br /><br />http://www.texasclimate.org/Portals/6/Books/ImpactTX/Ch2Nielsen-Gammon.pdf<br /><br />"Despite the fundamentally different nature of decade-scale temperature variations throughout the year in Texas, the century-scale trends are quite uniform across seasons. Far West Texas has the largest trend, 1.1-2.2°F per century. The warming trends are more moderate, 0.4-0.9°F, in the Panhandle and Plains and Southeast Texas. Only a very slight warming is present in East Texas and South Texas, and a very slight cooling is present in West Central Texas and South Central Texas. The cooling in North Central Texas is –0.1 to –0.7°F per century. All trends except for Far West Texas are smaller than the global mean temperature trend over the same period."<br /><br />Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66503036177750089172014-04-17T17:55:16.788+10:002014-04-17T17:55:16.788+10:00To paraphrase a misquote...
...it's warming J...To paraphrase a misquote...<br /><br />...it's warming Jim, but not as you misunderstand it.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76163905425953101182014-04-17T17:09:26.421+10:002014-04-17T17:09:26.421+10:00Dear Jim,
I've come late to the discussion bu...Dear Jim,<br /><br />I've come late to the discussion but the following are for your edification and I think are self explanatory:<br /><br /><a href="http://temperaturetrends.org/state.php?state=TX" rel="nofollow"> Congressional Temperature Trends for Texas</a> which are in agreement with the graphic <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/41/00/tmp/ytd/12/1895-2014?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2013" rel="nofollow"> Texas, Temperature, January-December 1895-2013</a> which was generated from NOAA's <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/" rel="nofollow"> Climate at a Glance</a> which are in agreement with the graphic at the head of Sou's article/post. <br /><br />And the following from Climate Central's <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-heat-is-on/" rel="nofollow"> The Heat is On: US Temperature Trends</a> which, if you click on the state of Texas, includes a graphic of the warming trend in Texas which is labelled "Texas is the ninth fastest warming state (at 0.575 degF per decade since 1970)".<br /><br />I believe that you've overlooked average annual temperatures and focused too much on "summer temperatures" in your quoted research paper.<br /><br />Warmest Regards,<br /><br />George<br /><br />PS My apologies to other commenters if you've already brought the above links to Jim's attention.George Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042191140401441348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56638289990858680982014-04-17T16:34:59.709+10:002014-04-17T16:34:59.709+10:00It might be worthwhile to check this out. (It'...It might be worthwhile to check this out. (It's good not to rely on just a single dataset)<br />http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/texas<br /><br />Or this one.<br /><br />http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-states<br /><br />I think it is Jim who desperately needs to "get over that fact that nature does not support your beliefs". <br /><br />But to be frank, there was nothing in the documentary was misleading or incorrect. Also it had been fact checked by leading climate scientists who are professors. I just don't get it how people (like Jim) who do not have the slightest qualification or real world experience in climate science can all of a sudden run roughshod over a massive body of evidence. Look, it has been known for decades now, that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere at a rate unprecedented in the earth's history, and that the energy trapped by these greenhouse gases affects the climate. It's also known that these affects include changes in the water cycle. There is no debate on this. It's just the observable facts.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57232802400541670682014-04-17T16:08:22.116+10:002014-04-17T16:08:22.116+10:00Astute (and not so astute) people will also notice...Astute (and not so astute) people will also notice that there has only been one year this century that was cooler than the twentieth century average - unlike the 1930s or any other decade last century.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com