Continuing in from Comments elsewhere which has faded into the dust of past ages.
Timmy elsewhere but really on If the MWP Was Global What Does That Tell Us About Climate Change Now? wherein Timmy is clueless about climate science.
> From which the takeaway point is that perhaps climate sensitivity is lower than currently thought
You realise you sound like Ritchie, talking about stuff that you really haven’t got a clue about, don’t you?
It is the other way round.
(in which Willis Eschenbach fails to read a paper by Curry)
> You say “Curry doesn’t claim a relation between sea ice and total snow extent”, but that doesn’t hold up when you look at what she said.
But notice, in reply, that you only quote some ambiguous words – not any of the actual results from the paper. No figures, no numbers – those are the actual content of the paper, as always. The words are just wrappers around the numbers and the figures.
> This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents.
Cold surges, not snow amount, and notice the restricted geographical range. Some gets colder, sometimes. Some gets warmer. No claim about total snowfall, or total extent.
> Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter, and the northeastern and mid-west United States during winter.
More snow, but only in restricted regions. This is what her figures show – not an increase in overall snowfall.
> If I look at the winter (DJF) North American snow…
You haven’t defined the region “North American” that you use. The paper doesn’t use that region; what it says is “northeastern and mid-west United States” though I think those are words about the figure (the one from the paper that you have reproduced). Looking at that figure, and the gradient between red and blue over “North America”, it is easy to see that you’re unlikely to see much using the analysis in your comment.
You’ve read something into the paper that isn’t there. You’ve looked for an effect that wasn’t claimed, and you haven’t found it, leaving you in agreement with the actual paper, though possibly not with your mental image of the paper.
The Skeptics Case (WUWT by David M.W. Evans).
[Note: unwisely, I assumed this would get through, so I didn't keep a backup copy; I'll know better in future. But it got censored, so this is a rough recreation of what I said]
> Figure 3: Hansen’s predictions
You’ve faked figure 3, by shifting the model predictions – there is no scientific justification for starting the lines exactly at 1988’s observed values (now that I look, I see that another comment makes this same point).
> The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system
You’ve faked this by starting in 2004. The idea that we only know ocean heat from 2004 appears to be a common “skeptic” meme designed to stop you looking back at data that would falsify your ideas.
> The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory (see Figure 1). The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation…
Dubious, and unreferenced.
> The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space
Again dubious, and referenced only to Lindzen and Choi. It seems dishonest to present their work as part of the std.consensus.
[Update: poor Watts didn’t much like that, and I’m now banned for 72 hours, and threatened with a permaban for scaring the horses. So much for the no-censorship meme.
I complained that he was lying about me:
> That’s not a ban, but since you have admitted to playing games,
Err, no I haven’t. Indeed you’ve snipped the very post where I deny doing so – that really doesn’t seem very honest of you.
> Keep it civil
Happily an example of how hypocritical you are in this regard has just gone by: this
one saying “I don’t know whether you trained to be a prat or whether it was thrust upon you…” – it is lain that you enforce “civility” only on those whose viewpoint you dislike.
but that one disappeared down the Watts Memory Hole without even a trace to show that it had been censored.]
Added: feel free to visit vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com]
It has taken me a little while, but my adventures into WUWT land have finally provoked a banning, though only temporary. The poor darling didn’tlike me pointing out the vacuousness of one of his favourites. I should add that WUWT likes to pretend that it is tolerant of dissenting voices; it is commonplace for people there to say “well at least we don’t stop people commenting here“. But of course they don’t really mean it, though the tolerance extended to the “skeptic” side is very wide.
You be the judge:
> If it was indeed plagarism
GMU found him guilty. The journal editor had already retracted the article due to plagiarism. There is no room for doubt.
But in this case – as the link I provided before shows – the plagiarism is a marker for something worse: that Wegman simply didn’t know his stuff. He ripped off other people’s work because he didn’t understand the material well enough to write his own.
So you ne to stop making excuses, and you need to drop the “If…” stuff.
> Mistakes happen
Oh yes they do. But this wasn’t one.
> “Well m’name’s Deepclimate Dave
> help me out…
Yes, you need help. My advice is that making up silly songs is no substitute for having the intellectual capacity to address his arguments; your lack there is painfully obvious. If you have nothing to say, don’t say it.
REPLY: Mr. Connolley, you don’t get to choose who says what on this blog, so I suggest you go back to Stoat and Wikipedia where you can force your demonstrated controlling tendencies on others. Taker a 24 hour timeout – Anthony Watts
(bold in the original)