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:
William M. Connolley says: February 25, 2012 at 6:38 am
> 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)
- Log in to post comments
Well, I'm much more libertarian so I wouldn't have banned you for something like that. There should not be a lot of limits on free speech.
I think he was upset that you basically told TallBloke to shut up because he was stupid.
I'm assuming if I called someone you liked stupid you'd probably take some sort of action as well.
[It depends on circumstances. Firstly, I don't make a big thing of running a free-fire zone. Secondly, I'd have snipped (well, nowadays Burrowed) the original vacuous comment I was pointing out was vacuous. Third, I used more circumspect language than the simple insults they fling around so carelessly there. I expect civility from all sides here, with the possible exception of myself -W]
I saw you in the comments of that joke of a solar article. I could tell you were going to get banned soon because you were cutting through their "arguments" like butter and making them look like fools.
Even the moderator joined in on the collective "Baghdad Bob" act to deny they were being beaten.
I can't get a thing past him; and I'm not famous.
He has told me that he knows where the rural backwater I live in is. And I thought he didn't care.
I would guess he interpreted you as referring to tallbloke's troubles rather than his silly post.
Stoat, that sucks!
I really enjoy when people like you or Joel Shore or Gates show up @ WUWT, because sometimes the conversation actually has some science, point/counterpoint to it. I now scan comments quickly, looking for certain names that usually have something of intelligence to say, and yours is one of them.
[Thanks! I'm there for the people who are interested in the science, though I sometimes find it hard to resist tickling the others -W]
I once tried to post to WUWT "Am I still banned?", since a WUWT moderator had banned me, no surprise the comment didn't make it to the thread.
"If you have nothing to say, don't say it" -- WMC. I like it, and I don't think it deserves banishment. It's not like you tried to "shout down" anybody in the comments; you simply called someone out for avoiding the substance of the argument. I'm glad you did.
BTW, yer a dr, correct? Is it a thing for them to say "Mr" instead of "Dr" for PhDs they don't like?
[I did tell them once in another thread. And to be fair, some of them even try to spell my name right. But most of them are hopeless. Watts, though, pretends to politeness, so I'll tell him when I go back and see if he is capable of remembering -W]
[Um, sorry, but I'm going to be a bit picky about gratuituous venom in this thread -W]
GMU students offer this.
It mixes up me with DC, and gives Wegman a chance to whack "Strange Scholarship" again, something that may not have been too wise.
Hi William,
Let's not be ignorant by suggesting the behavior of many on the pro AGW side has not been less than civil over the years. One does not have to look further than the 'denialist' tag.
[No, won't do. It has become clearer over the years that the denialist tag is entirely correct (I tried to get people to go with septic, but it hasn't really caught on). The only thing that the WUWT folk have in common is denial of GW (in fact even that is being too kind; most of them are utterly clueless about what the scientific opinion is; its not as if they've ever read any, or the IPCC reports. They are still lost in their shadow-world of CAGW). They have nothing to put in its place -W]
It serves no purpose to remain civil in these circumstances. Every man has a right to defend themselves. Some feel their intelligence has been under attack by the consensus side. Good men, not of science but virtue, have always resisted by force movements of destruction.
[That was gobbledegook -W]
The consensus in the wider community that the IPCC is bad for their children's future and that of their children's children. The community is tired of the nonsense foisted on them by "experts", this is now the reality of our times.
[I see you're clueless about the IPCC too -W]
Gravity rejects turbulence, as the public will do. As we all know the science is settled, AGW is not valid empirically.
[Are you trolling? -W]
To compound the cognitive dissonance, Tony's minions often reply to the protestations of climate scientists banned or censored by WUWT by denying WUWT bans or censors climate scientists.
[There ar bits in the current thread about whether PGleick is banned or not; they insist not, just that he is under "heavy moderation", which sounds more like semantics -W]
I posted there about 2 weeks ago about how the discussions are beyond any reasonable respect level and that without respect no dialogue is going to happen and we are all worst off because of it. Then WHAM, some jackalope insults me, pretends to be intelligent but then perfectly made my point. WUWT is simply a den of angry deniers. They deserve to be insulted but its exactly wrong wrong with so many science discussions lately. We are so polarized rational thought is gone from too many sites.
> [Um, sorry, but I'm going to be a bit picky about gratuituous venom in this thread -W]
You wanna CHARGE for it. Eli is outta here
> with the possible exception of myself -W]
Don't ever change
I don't really think Watts cares if you post corrections to the awful stuff that Eschenbach and Evans dish out. Others do it. None of his followers would ever listen, so there's no threat. But he likes to exercise his power, which is why he makes up excuses to ban people. (And after all, you completely rewrote Wikipedia with lies dressed up as science.)
And that's why he came to your blog to see what you were writing about him...it's a pathetic ego game. BTW, hi, Anthony! Hope you don't ban me for posting about you here. :)
With regards to your update and more recent banning, it appears that the problem was the wording - accusing the writer of "faking" the graphs.
Again, if I'd accused someone on your side of faking a graph, the Hockey Stick for instance, then I suspect I'd get banned as well (as you say - depending on the circumstances).
I think it would be quite easy to avoid any bannings without compromising the information/viewpoint you wish to present.
[I think you're right, that is why I got banned. But I disagree that counts as good cause, or even that it would happen here (of course if you jump up and post OT stuff with gratuitous claims of fakery, I'm unlikely to look kindly on that). But I was very strictly on-topic, and I supported what I said with reasoned argument - as you see.
Finally - I don't claim to run a free-fire zone; see the comments policy. WUWT, however, claims to have a reputation for not censoring comments. You can't go far into their mess without running into some dittohead saying how much better it is than RC, or somewhere, where (they claim) their wisdom is invariably censored. Its now clear that repuation is a lie - built around not allowing anyone who disputes it to comment -W]
The ARGO project, which is the first time the oceans have been adequately instrumented for temperature sampling,
http://goo.gl/D4ney
was completed in 2006 ~ 2007.
One can recontruct temperatures averages for the oceans before this time based on too sparse sampling and different types of measurements taken at different times. However, simply because one can does not mean that such a reconstruction provides accurate and useful information.
[Well, if you're arguing that ARGO is vital and ARGO wasn't completed until 2006, then you too agree that Evan's choice of 2004 is invalid, albeit for different reasons. Oddly, I don't see you mentioning it "over there".
But your basic point - and Evan's - is wrong. It is possible to meaningfully estimate the ocean heat since then. The only reason he wants to snip the series at 2004 is to have a short and therefore statistically meaningless series to work with -W]
When it comes to cowardice, it's hard to beat Anthony and WUWT.
Evans also mentions that Argo floats go down to 2,000 meters, but then only shows the 700 meter data.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png
Also of interest is the timeline of Argo float deployment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/argoproject#p/a/u/2/miiHsBTC6X4
His wife, Joanne Nova, should have told him already ... http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/the-nova-travesty-cherry-pic…
Are they still unaware, or just deceptive?
Disgraceful! How can this happen! The very three websites (WUWT, Jo Nova and Tallbloke) that are the worst of the worst have all three of them just got awards at "The Bloggies"!
I mean...where is yours?
[I fear that just demonstrates the obvious: that these awards are based entirely on voting numbers and take no account of quality -W]
I don't know Evans rationale for quoting 2004 except to guess that some significant percentage of ARGO buoys had been deployed by then. Anyways, as part of the error estimate of any model fit to time series data, one should vary the start and stop dates. So, if you're suggesting that the choice of 2004 or 2006 is somehow a key difference, that is not the case.
[You're missing some logic in there. Evans certainly hasn't done the "vary start and stop dates" stuff you're suggesting. What Evans is saying is that he is entitled to start from 2004, because ARGO was available then. But as you've said, that isn't true: ARGO wasn't fully available until later -W]
Non sequitur. What does this have to do with measuring the heat content of oceans? If I post at WUWT, you're not currently in a position to reply to my questions.
[The issue is, are you honest? If so, you would be mentioning this fact over there (whereupon you'd be declared a heretic or ignored) -W]
Why is the 2004 to present time series to short to be statistically meaningful?
[It depends on the time series, and how noisy it is. You'd need to actually look at the statistics of the series to see what error bars it has, to see whether from-2004 is too short or not. But less-than-10-years generally is; certainly, if you're asserting that is *is* significant, you'd need to show the analysis showing that -W]
There is now enough data to compare between model predictions and reality:
http://goo.gl/bq9bC
http://goo.gl/v8K2H
http://goo.gl/360r6
[Err, that's Pielke. He appears to believe that the models predict the same heat accumulation each year, which is nonsense. I don't see any analysis there as to significance - perhaps you could point it out? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-conten… might help -W]
I posted here expecting a factual counterargument to my point, rather than a simple [re]assertion of your claim - saying something is so does not make it so.
[Ah, yo're looking for a refreshing change from WUWT. Well, I can't blame you. I'm not sure what your basic point was, though. That going back before 2004 is invalid? You simply assert this, and make no attempt to justify it. I could point you at the various studies that do exactly that, and make their error analyses. But if you cared, you'd have already found them, via IPCC or any number of other sources -W]
Well there is always http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/, but seriously Tony is just doing a Mother Kloor on you with the peanut gallery playing the Tom Fuller role
@WMC I agree that it isn't a free fire zone and I wish it was more so, but again, that's not my call to make. The only thing I'd censor would be blatant spam or perhaps post releasing people's personal data.
I do think it is a far cry above Real Climate though. While some of my comments have been Boreholed correctly, mostly because I occasionally pick at them, my reasonable commentary will either not get published, or I will not be allowed to rebut their rebuttals.
A small example of a comment that shouldn't have been Boreholed:
408
TheGoodLocust says:
17 Jul 2011 at 4:50 PM
So why was the sea level rise accelerating so much from 1940 to 1970 when global temperatures were going down?
Also, can you please post the full chart to 2010 so I can look at the trend better. It looks like it may be a sine wave.
Thanks.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/com…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise… (to be posted here)
It seemed like a relatively simple question and I was nice about how I asked it. I'd still like to know their answer actually since I don't see how they can adequately explain it without compromising their paradigm.
[Maybe you'd made a name for yourself. And the why-don't-we-understand-cooling-from-1940-to-1970 is overused. However, your question is at first sight reasonable. I'd say that its not really right to say cooling from 1940 to 1970 - constant from 1935 to 1975 would be closer. It looks like http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/so-what/ has more to say about this; but ter be honest I don't care enough to unravel the details -W]
"Heâs got the same problem as Gleick, and over reaching ego steeped in a belief that he holds the moral high ground- Anthony"
Lulz.
Just curious ... did Anthony condemn you to consecutive 24 hour and 72 hour "time-out" sentences, or concurrent? :)
@WMC I don't believe I've made a name for myself over there since I've posted very sparsely over a long period of time.
If I were to posit a guess, from your viewpoint, then I'd suggest that perhaps the heating was uneven and affected the poles more causing the accelerating sea level rise not from thermal expansion but from increased runoff from glaciers.
As glaciers get smaller, having more surface area and less volume, they should melt at an ever accelerating rate assuming a temperature high enough to cause any melting.
This would seem to fit the standard viewpoint regarding global warming with sulfates causing cooling over the rest of the world while the poles would be most affected anyway due to a lack of WV.
My personal belief however is that it suggests either:
a) The temperature record isn't terribly reliable around that time period.
b) The sea level record isn't terribly reliable around that time period.
c) Sea level changes from increased temperatures take decades to manifest and the sea level rise we see from 1940+ have their origins in the solar heating from around 1920.
GoodLocust... You could save yourself a good deal of trouble by just clicking on the Tamino link provided above. It's pretty thorough.
TGL:
Name one glacier at the north pole. For extra credit, name one at the south pole.
@Dghoza I clearly didn't mean at exactly the north pole. I meant glaciers closer to the north pole like in Greenland, Canada and other lands around the arctic sea.
@MK I already read it. I'm not sure what information in it you think I should've been referenced.
perhaps worth a look; one report at RC from someone who made a couple of tries commenting.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=proctor+clouds+climate+tallbloke
(yes, I'm trying anything but google for a while)
[Hmm, not really clear which of those was the one you meant -W]
First link is some guy's climate theory; tallbloke is the publisher. Someone at RC reported having tried comments and had them returned unposted, not sure who did the rejections. Sounded like the place is a hothouse atmosphere for new and delicate blog science that needs protection to flourish.
Hank: Oh yeah, the stuff that Tallbloke publishes definitely needs protection to flourish...Protection from anybody who might know enough about the basic laws of physics to know when they are violated!
And, Tallbloke is definitely an aggressive "protector". He's manage to censor or drive away just about anybody with any knowledge whatsoever.
[Well, I was there for the N&Z stuff, as you know, and that was bizarre -W]
Hank, about that first hit: When I see sine waves, I reach for my gun...
Tallbloke challenged me to 'find any reliance on density in their (N&Z'S ) equations'. This I did with quotations from their paper. I have been banned until I recant my heresy!
Eli translates from the Tallbloke
Tallblokese
Doug Proctor: "Climate Change is caused by Clouds and Sunshine"
English
Doug Proctor: "Climate Change is Caused by Smoke and Mirrors"
"(now that I look, I see that another comment makes this same point)."
That's my comment. In case you thought it was it was a skeptic being skeptical, no it's just an alarmist being skeptical.
Tor and hotmail can be your posting friends
https://www.torproject.org/
This is what Evans has to say about climate sensitivity.
[Yes. There is a large pile of septic meme-ry in there; they have got the idea that higher T is *assumed* to lead to more evap., rather than being solidly physically based and not really assumed in the GCMs -W]
Best Science or Technology Weblog 2012? What a f***ing joke!
I tried questioning the ex-weatherman after the Heartland exposure, about his previous statement denying receiving any money from external sources - asking him to deny knowing he was going to receive the money at that time and asking him to confirm that his denial would still stand if he had specifically been asked about Heartland at that time - and he censored my first attempt and disappeared the second. I gave up after that.
No, Watts doesn't (not) censor...
> This is what Evans has to say about climate sensitivity.
Not only that, but if you read his latest screed carefully he argues that climate sensitivity could be as low as 0.275 C (although IIRC he doesn't provide even a single reference to a published paper that supports his claim).