~~This page is for comments that have been HotWhoppered since January 2015. To see older HotWhoppered comments, click here. If you are feeling masochistic and you're 18 or older, you can peruse the uncensored version of the HotWhoppery. For the HotWhopper blog, click here.
Then there are people like JamesHalifax who believe the nonsense they read on denier blogs instead of realising that the science predicted the world would heat up, and it did. That the science indicated that ice would melt, and it has. His notion of 100% is upside down and back to front. I wonder does he think any of these alarmist predictions are right on track? JamesHalifax posted a comment to the article: "What a treat for Judith Curry - supping with the morally depraved" on December 4, 2015 at 6:55 AM
One finds it curious that all of the Global warming alarmists, their models, and their data.....has been wrong 100% of the time, and yet, they can still find acolytes so incurious as to join them on the bandwagon without proof.
As you know, it's sometimes hard to tell when a person is mocking deniers and when they are being serious. This is the case with this comment from Chuck, who doesn't seem to know that it was a Republican Frank Lutz who urged Republicans and President George Bush to use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" so as not to frighten the populace. The term was around the scientific literature a lot longer ago than that to describe how global warming will change climates. Chuck wrote a comment on December 4, 2015 at 6:51 AM under the article: "What a treat for Judith Curry - supping with the morally depraved".
Anyone using the stupid euphemism "climate change" is a political operative and a fraud. The reason these frauds use this meaningless term is because the entire basis of their non-scientific, politically funded fraud has been proven to be pure fantasy. So they adjust their nomenclature in a pathetic attempt to divert attention from their criminal conspiracy. If one of these supposed geniuses were able to point to a period in world history without "climate change", they might have a rhetorical leg on which to stand. Alas, they can't and thus don't. The jig is up. This stupid, leftist pseudo-religion is nothing more than witchcraft by other means. one might as well walk around with chicken bones in your pocket for luck than take seriously the idiotic nostrums of these deluded children.
Yet another Anonymous whining on the article: "What a treat for Judith Curry - supping with the morally depraved". This comment was left on December 4, 2015 at 3:22 AM, wondering why I "delete" dissenting views. The answer is that HotWhopper exists to demolish disinformation not to promote it. An example of disinformation is in the comment by Anonymous - who alleges fraud in true blue conspiracy theory style. (Most of the comments haven't been deleted, they've been shifted here to the HotWhopppery or to the HotWhoppery Uncensored. I can't be bothered shifting all of them, or even allowing all of the silly denier protests, so this particular Anonymous should feel flattered.)
I don't understand why you keep deleting dissenting views. If you are right, just prove them wrong with your science. (but leave out that part where the climate change scientists "changed" all their numbers to make the science "work".
I don't think that Mark Steyn has any educated or rational fans. They are all nuts. Some try to hide it by writing in complete sentences with few spelling mistakes, but they can't hide the fact that they are no different to evolution deniers, flat earthers, and tin foil hat wearers. Here's such a comment from someone who thinks she knows better than all the world's scientific experts. Thing is, she doesn't know the first thing about chaos theory or climate models or climate science. See for yourself. This is JAR's comment that she wrote on December 4, 2015 at 1:59 AM under the article: "What a treat for Judith Curry - supping with the morally depraved". (She might be a he, I don't know. I figured that some deniers are women so I'd write "she" for a change):
IPCC Third Assessment Report
Chapter 14
Section 14.2.2.2
Last paragraph:
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.
Actually, the entire 2001 IPCC report was available to the press and the public. (Why haven't deniers yet caught up with the fact that there've since been two more major reports - one in 2007 and another in 2013?) What JAR is indulging in is known as quote mining. The rest of the paragraph explains: "The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential."
If the climate is indeed a coupled non linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.
Which is why definitive statements about any particular future state at a particular time aren't made. What can be said with confidence is that as greenhouse gases continue accumulate, the world will get hotter. Other things about the climate can also be said with confidence. Heat waves and precipitation events will be more intense, for example. Ice will continue to melt. Ice sheets will break up and sea level will rise a lot.
The rest of JAR's comment, to use her own phrase, "defies common sense". It also defies science. It sounds just like the sort of denialist propaganda one would expect from one of the less rational "true believers" that Eric Hoffer wrote about.
At this point the coupled non linear chaotic nature of the climate make scientific observations academically interesting but they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.
All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.
Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.
To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.
I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.
In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”
Another relevant publication is: “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer.
"Me again" aka Anonymous, has left a fact-free comment on HotWhopper. "Me again" is a rabid conspiracy theorist of the utter nutter kind. They wrote a comment, maybe more than one, who knows. There are a lot of comments from Anonymice today. The comment below was written on December 3, 2015 at 8:55 PM under the article: "What a treat for Judith Curry - supping with the morally depraved".
OK, it's me again. Please explain how reacting to a forest fire in Australia by setting up a bunch of bureaucrats with an unaccountable system of unlimited political and police power they crave is going to help? Please people, be careful how you "solve" these problems, or we we will all pay a heavy price. I don't doubt your sincerity or your concern for the environment. This struggle, however, is not for the environment, but rather totalitarians making a move against the libertarians. In the 1970's, all scientist agreed that the world was cooling, [Wrong! see below] in the 1980's, it was global warming and all the scientist agreed. Now they have settled on Climate change, which covers every outcome and guess what..all scientist agree. But the truth is "all" scientist don't agree, never have, and there is no doubt that the data is being manipulated and "corrected" to fit a political agenda. Seek truth if you really care about the environment. Watch the hearing and let's see what the people have to say. If you really want a totalitarian world government, then be for that, don't hide behind crisis level hype that literally changes every 15 years.
Most scientists in the 1970s wrote how the world is warming, not cooling. As for the conspiracy theories of totalitarian government- that's standard fare for climate science deniers, usually blended in with anti-Semitism.
John Jaeger chose the HotWhopper article: Laid bare: the sociopathology of climate science denial" to write this comment under, on November 22, 2015 at 11:46 AM. Whether he or she really does believe that climate science is a hoax or whether this is a parody of a denier, we may never know. It's got a lot of the right ingredients such as Al Gore is fat. I've never come across anyone wanting to add water vapour to the Keeling Curve, or "adjust it to a zero base" and remove CO2 from it - I must admit. (The CO2 curve does have a zero base. It's not an anomaly plot, it's a plot of CO2 in parts per million by volume.)
Nastiness, hatefulness, and ad hominem attacks have become the norm for the self-styled intellectuals of the global warming fraud. Dissent is never tolerated. Such conduct by the global warming cabal is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual. It is noteworthy that Barack Obama claimed that climate change was the greatest threat facing America. This was all to be regurgitated, ironically, in Paris. That is noteworthy. The whopper teller who runs this blog is the one who attempted to spin the facts, as warmists always do.
When the Keeling Curve is adjusted to a zero base, and water vapor is added, and naturally occurring carbon dioxide is removed from the chart, instead of curving sharply upward, it is as flat as a pool table. But this isn't scary enough, so warmists continue lying to the public - a lie which costs Americans countless billions of dollars, and accomplishes only to fatten the wallets of non-profits, warmist researchers, and the likes of Al Gore.
David Smith, who claims to be a teacher of science and maths at a secondary school in London, has been trolling the article: Watching the global thermometer - year to date GISTemp with a very hot October 2015. He has demonstrated not just that he is a conspiracy-theorising climate science denier who gets his pseudo-science from extremist right wing websites, but that he is a vulgar, ill-mannered lout, and a person who delights in the thought that millions of people will be displaced by rising sea levels, and millions more from a 4 degree world. Here is one of his comments, which was posted on November 18, 2015 at 7:40 AM:
Yes Miriam, it's me. The David Smith who's currently having a big laugh at your expense over at medium.com I can't be bothered to provide the precise link at medium.com where I'm metaphorically spanking Miriam's arse. However, Miriam's welcome to tell us the link, if she's not too scared...
To illustrate - this is the comment to our Medium article, that David Smith thinks was "a big laugh". His lack of understanding of science is there for the world to see (together with his misogyny and ageism.)
Note: David Smith devolved even further after he wrote the above - see here.
When deniers step over the line they almost invariably resort to abuse. Michael Davison is no exception. This is his latest and last comment at HotWhopper (the last I'm publishing, that is), in which he claims that falsely alleging I misrepresented science is not the same as claiming I was lying. Sheesh! And in which he attempts to dictate terms - his terms, on a blog in which extreme tolerance was shown toward his thread hoggery.
Don't be surprised. The most persistent abusers of their guest status almost always resort to threats like this, and what they probably regard as intimidation (or is it righteous indignation in their mind?). Whatever. This he posted after I specifically warned him about complaining about moderation, mind you! (And sent multiple clear messages to him to lift his game.) Clearly he really wanted to be banned. He has his wish. Now he can play denier martyr to his heart's content. Just not at HotWhopper.
Sou, as mentioned in a post you deleted, I will gladly stop making any replies to this page if that is what you expressly request. However, as you have not done so, then I must assume that any of my alleged ill acts have not risen to that level.
For the record, I am fairly certain that in none of my replies have I called you a liar. While I may have used the word "misrepresentation" on occasion, it was clearly done in a context of something that "might" be the case, and also followed by leaving open the possibility that I "might" be wrong - along with the invitation to point out how. That, to me, is a far cry from calling someone a liar.
As for comment policies, I have a policy of my own, which after this reply, I will now enforce. In my view, you have either abused your powers as administrator, or have chosen to run this blog as a mere echo chamber of those opinions with which you agree. In either case, while I'll be happy to provide responses (unless you request otherwise) to other readers of your blog who have respectfully (for the most part) engaged my in dialogue, I am choosing to not make any further replies to you unless and until you:
1) Restore all my deleted comments to this thread (to which you may then repeat or restate the disparaging remarks you made about my replies on another page that prevents me from being able to rebutt any of those remarks).
2) Apologize for what has been a clear abuse of your administrator powers - unless, of course, you really do want this blog to be nothing more than an echo chamber.
And then Michael Davison complained that he was merely making "sincere and respectful inquiries". What bullshit. His comments were anything but sincere, and calling me a liar (see below) was not the only thing that shows he lacks all respect. This is his latest comment under the article: A challenge to climate science deniers. which he made on October 12, 2015 at 7:53 AM:
I guess there is no point in my making any further responses, as it seems I am now being censored by the blog administrator. I suppose when there is no intelligent way to answer or to rebut what have been nothing other than sincere and respectful inquiries, then when all else fails, simply take the cowardly way out and delete the comment. Disappointing, but hardly surprising.
So goodbye for now. However, I will check back later, and if the blog administrator chooses to restore my deleted comment and apologize for the capricious deletion, then I'll gladly reply to any other comments here. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.
Incidentally, within a couple of minutes he added another comment despite his promised "goodbye for now". He'd already hogged the thread enough and had nothing new to offer, and his bad behaviour did not endear him to the blog administrator.
Michael Davison has been busy not meeting a challenge I set for deniers. He posted a stream of comments rejecting science, and then sort of accepting it, only to reject it again. This is the latest in his denial, which he posted on October 11, 2015 at 3:19 PM under the article: A challenge to climate science deniers. He is now claiming that I am a liar. He is falsely accusing me of misrepresenting scientific papers, when I didn't. I quoted from them directly and accurately, with links to the papers. (You'll note that he doesn't say what he thinks those papers showed, let alone providing any research that shows different - thereby proving the point of my challenge). So his comment is assigned to its proper place - the HotWhoppery.
Yes, this or that scientist is this or that journal, along with some parts of the IPCC report may all agree with you. But my question all along has been about the so-called 97% consensus. Is it something more than a seemingly irrelevant consensus that achieved a 97% result by using the lowest common denominator to which even many skeptics would agree - that the earth is warming and that some of the warming is caused by humans? Or is it a hair-raising alarm-bell-ringing consensus which you and others seem to want to claim that it is, which says that nearly all the warming is caused by humans and that unless we take action now, we are all doomed?
And if there is such a consensus for anything that approaches the latter position, please demonstrate that.
Certainly, I can understand that is you believe the most dire predictions made by some scientists and by the IPCC that you might be inclined to misrepresent the relevance of the consensus study, in the belief that this would be a rhetorical hammer that you could then use to bring more of the public to your point of view. However, while that strategy might have some short-term benefits, as people become more aware of the actual meaning of those studies, than I think the loss of credibility that would occur as the result of that misrepresentation would do more harm than good to your own cause.
But again, please correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps you and others have not been misrepresenting what the consensus studies show. So please, if there are specific claims in those studies that justify the need for urgent action, then once again, please feel free to point that out.
After many comments over a six week period, Nabil Swedan has left another comment on the article "New Hansen discussion paper is online". Nabil cannot fathom that all things with a temperature above absolute zero radiate (and absorb) long wave energy. He seems to think that an object "knows" whether or not it is the hottest object in an environment and, if it's not, it somehow stops itself from emitting photons. He does seem to want to have the last word on his subject - and to make sure, I'll preserve his last word here at the HotWhoppery. On October 9, 2015 at 1:02 PM he quotes from a longer comment by CCHolley:
"You ignore that in the case of your solar heater or chiller that the results are the net effect of the radiant heat transfer per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. In the sunlight, the net exchange is positive for the solar oven.
At night, once again, it is the net exchange of radiation. The radiation heat exchange to the almost absolute zero of space is far greater than back-radiation received by the device, hence the net effect is cooling."
If the net effect is cooling, then where is your backradiation that warms the surface at night by 330 watts per square meter? You run in a circle, now disputing yourself. I have to discontinue this conversation.
Nabil is wrong. CCHolley is not "disputing" anything written before. It's Nabil who has a mental block when it comes to physics. I think this is only the second comment from Nabil in which he has used the word "net", although he still doesn't appear to understand the implication. Nabil is (weirdly) totally convinced that if there is a warmer object in the vicinity then no cooler objects can emit any energy. He argues that they just "know" not to emit any, though he doesn't use those words. If anyone knows Nabil, would you be so kind as to explain that if, for example, a surface emits 350 W/m2 and absorbs 330 W/m2, then the net effect is a loss of 20 W/m2 and the surface cools. However if there were no downwelling radiation of 330 W/m2, then the net effect would be a loss of 350 W/m2 - and the surface would cool a lot more quickly.
Nabil Swedan has been posting a few comments declaring that he rejects physics. In particular, he doesn't accept that objects radiate energy. He does seem to accept that some objects might, but only the very hottest object can do so. Nabil hasn't been able to explain how the hottest object knows that it is the hottest object. I expect he thinks it has it's own built in temperature detector, which tells it when a hotter object appears so that it can stop radiating any energy. From his comments, he thinks that the very hottest object only radiates energy to other objects. That it somehow knows where that other object is in space and only directs all energy toward it. I've left most of Nabil's comments in place but he is relentless. So I'll be deleting any more of his nonsense. Just so you know, here are some excerpts from his latest comment, now deleted from HotWhopper, that he posted on September 20, 2015 at 1:28 PM:
...If a cold object radiates heat back to a warm object the warm object will radiate more energy to the cold object and the temperature of the world would have run out of control, which is not observed.
...Engineering reference books are based on practical successful applications, no backradiation exists and no greenhouse gas effect exists in these books.
...Those publications measuring backradiation with instrument at ambient temperature are in error and have to be discarded. They measured backradiation from the instrument’s housing and background and not from the atmosphere. I spoke with several instrument operators and confirmed what I had always suspected. None of them shielded and cooled the shield close to zero degree absolute as they should. Therefore none of these publication counts as hard evidence.
I'd say marke has been itching to earn a place at the HotWhoppery. He finally scored, with his silly and wrong comment about the work of Professors Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998). He wrote a comment on August 15, 2015 at 1:58 AM ironically under an article in which I derided the wilful ignorance of climate science deniers: Marginalised, alienated and put upon: climate science deniers are not innocent
IMO You are over thinking things Sou.
We were discussing Mann, and in particular MBH98.
The warming trend he presented may well be shown, by better more recent work, to actually be happening.
But, that particular paper, and the ingredients of that particular 'hockey stick', could perhaps best be described as horse hockey.
Concocting by scanty data and contrived methods what later turns out to be the correct answer, is not good science.
It is guesswork and luck.
co2isnotevil is convinced that he is right and all the world's leading scientists are wrong. Turns out he's a greenhouse effect denier and harbours conspiracy theories. co2isnotevil wrote on July 8, 2015 at 5:22 AM
Sou,
Be happy and content in your bubble of confusion. Trenberth certainly played a significant role in cannonizing assumptions about CAGW during the formative years of the IPCC. At the time they never had real proof, and still don't, but pushed the narrative hoping that the science would eventually bear fruit. It didn't. Get over it.
Denialism can have various guises but there is one common factor. That is the conspiracy theory and defamatory smear that climate science is a hoax and scientists are committing fraud. Some people live in a weird world of their own making. The comment below was posted by Sam on an old article from two years ago: Who's lying now? It's Brandon Shollenberger on WUWT at June 23, 2015 at 7:33 AM. He can't accept the reality that of all scientific papers that attribute a cause to the current global warming, 97% of them attribute it to human activity. Sam wrote:
You're a liar.
Shollenberger was pointing out that of the 12,000 papers cited, only 65 (about 0.5%) of then strongly endorse the theory of AGW.
Their cut-off was NOT "50%". Their cut off was the first three categories of papers in the Cook et al study, the definitions of which can be found here once you register:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=rate_papers&a=guidelines
The cut-off you lied about dealt only with papers strongly endorsing AGW as a theory.
The Cook et al study is invalid and actually pretty sIeazy (and amusing) once you realize that they included in those first three categories papers that only implied AGW was real and problematic, not to mention papers that said so without quantification.
I just came across this today, so I realize I'm late to the party, but . . .
In
You're a fraud.
Sam might start searching for his imagined thousands of papers that prove that humans aren't causing global warming, unless he's typical of fake sceptics. As I noted in a 97% article:
...of the 11,944 papers published between 1991 and 2011 there were 4014 that expressed a position on global warming. Of these 4014, 3896 papers or 97.1% endorsed human-caused global warming, 78 or 1.9% disputed it and 40 or 1.0% indicated the cause was 'uncertain'. The remaining 7,930 took no position on current anthropogenic climate change. (I expect this proportion to rise dramatically over time. After all, how many papers on atomic physics today would explicitly state "we believe atoms exist"?)
Or read Cook13 for yourself. (Deniers really, really don't like that paper. It upsets them no end. Just like the temperature charts, which all come out in the shape of a hockey stick.)
A bit later I discovered that Sam didn't like it that his comment was moved here. He wants to debate something or the other and he's wanting to debate with me. Sorry Sam, just as sensible people don't debate with creationists, I don't debate with climate science deniers. Sam left a new comment on "Who's lying now? It's Brandon Shollenberger on WUWT". This might have appeared sooner, but Google in its wisdom thought it was spam:
You poor thing.
1.) If you were not so dishonest, you wouldn't have "moved" my comment to a forum where I cannot post a reply.
So in addition to being dishonest, you also lack the courage to debate this topic openly and freely.
How pitiful is that? You're afraid of a debate. Well, so is Al Gore, so that's nothing new.
If you had truth on your side you would WANT the 13 people who know who you are to read this back and forth.
But you need to run away and hide.
2.) You didn't even try to address what I wrote. You simply told me to do more research. Why not refute what I wrote?
You can't. You lied to your readers, telling them about this fictitious "cut-off" of 50%, when in fact Cook et al included thousands of papers that only imply AGW is a valid theory or they say so without any evidence at all.
Anything tangentially related to AGW was listed as yet another paper in support of the theory, when in point of fact only 65 out of 12,000 papers fall into the author's category "1" - those that strongly agree.
Category 3 is entitled "Implicit Endorsement of AGW" and consists of 2933 papers that are the bulk of those that supposedly agree with the theory of our man-made, impending doom.
Do you know what the word "implicit" means? In this category, the causes and problems are at most implied in these papers and are thus invalid in the context of Cook et al's study.
In other words, in your world, I can imply something without evidence, *count it as evidence*, and you're fine with that? Cook obviously is, but he's a fraud, just as you are.
That's not science, and you have quite obviously never heard of the scientific method.
What's it like to pretend to care about science while simultaneously being too timid to debate it? No wonder you ran away.
When you find the baIIs to debate, I'll be here waiting for you. I'm an amateur, like John Cook, the former self-described professional cartoonist whose work you're defending with lies.
And you're afraid of me? Again . . . you poor, pathetic creature.
And another from jmorpuss, who is a tad upset at his or her conspiracy nuttery being recognised for what it is, despite his or her inability to articulate it. Comment from jmorpuss on More conspiracy theories from WUWT: It's a strong climate plot on June 2, 2015 at 8:02 PM
And you leave the morons rants above. He's the one being conned and promoting a conspiracy and conspiring with the blog administrator . I conspire with no one to promote the truth http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspire
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy
Comment from jmorpuss on More conspiracy theories from WUWT: It's a strong climate plot on June 2, 2015 at 6:14 PM
You finished you DIP-stick, here's some more reality you can rant about. The dangers of microwaves (not the oven) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z99_SzoXZdY
And remember life is like a mirror , you'll get back what you put out fool.
In case you are tempted to believe this youtube nuttery, here is an article about conspiracy theorist Barry Trower.
Posted by Schitzree to HotWhopper on May 29, 2015 at 10:58 AM
No, they don't deny that there is an ozone hole. They say that the ozone hole is a natural and full explained climate phenomenon. And it is. This is not a controversial position. It is not 'denying the science'. It is accepting the truth.
As for CFC's, I have no idea if they can really do significant (read measurable) damage to the ozone layer. I suspect that they can, just as I suspect CO2 can add to global warming. But when alarmists exaggerate the effect by adding in every natural twist of the climate, whether ozone or global warming, they only hurt there credibility.
Posted by HAS to HotWhopper at April 15, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Sou..
he didn't know that d15N related to water mass movement, not temperature.
"I haven't been talking about water mass movement in any of my comments and haven't mentioned it. I've been discussing the other characteristics and relationships of the various indices and whether they are consistent or not.
Indeed, HAS didn't talk about water mass movement, he was talking about temperature. It was the scientists who were exploring the ocean currents, not HAS - who missed that point altogether.
I've tried to explain that you can analyze data this way (check the statistical properties just as you might check the arithmetic) but this isn't an idea that seems familiar to you or you feel comfortable with.
That's fine in my book, but if you don't understand this stuff ask, and don't snip the comments you find difficult to understand.
If only HAS would ask about the things he doesn't understand. Now he's trying to pass his "not understanding" onto me, as well as claiming the "scientists don't know nuffin'".
Also you need to relax a bit about people's motives. You say:
"[He was] trying to find a spot where he could "prove" the authors were wrong when they described how they calculated the AMOC index."
Quite the reverse. It was because they weren't explicit on how they did it and the graph was ambiguous that I raised the issue. I simply wanted to find out, and I appreciate the fact that you got that clarified.
How is this for explicit? "...we define an AMOC index by subtracting the Northern Hemisphere
mean surface temperature from that of the subpolar gyre". You cannot get any more explicit than that, which the scientists wrote in their paper. They even drew a picture so the illiterate could see what they meant. And yet HAS claims it's "ambiguous". Is 1+1=2 "ambiguous? And HAS does keep trying to find "something wrong", jumping from one bit of his own "wrong" to another, barely stopping for breath.
In respect of whether the AMOC Index has anything to do with the AMOC you yourself quote the authors saying they simply assume it did (in fact they attempted to justify that using GCMs but as I said their logic breaks down because GCMs that do the circulations don't do the surface temps well, and that is what links the Index to the circulation).
He keeps claiming that the models are useless, contrary to the evidence provided him, in a paper that he himself referred to (but took no notice of.) The scientists used a model, MPI-ESM-MR, that was most suitable for the purpose. HAS is fixated on proving he is right and the experts are wrong.
Climate Science is an empirical science. It involves using data, and that data needs to be used within its limits. That is why more input from statisticians is essential if conclusions are going to be robust.
HAS doesn't understand the science and now he's claiming to be a statistician. He doesn't know how to apply statistics any more than he understands climate science (or how to apply scientific theory).
In a discussion about a paper in Nature Climate Change, about AMOC, a person called HAS visited HW from his normal haunts (a denier blog). After numerous comments where he tried to make out the experts "don't know nuffin'", he comes out with more BS.
In contradiction of his claims that he knew what the paper was about, in his first and second comment he didn't know that d15N related to water mass movement, not temperature. (There's nothing wrong with not knowing something. It was the way he continued to argue, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that he was "right" and the experts were "wrong" that annoyed HW readers.)
When he pretends he understood the simple subtraction, that's another fib. He spent hours peering at a clear chart (eg here and here and here), trying to find a spot where he could "prove" the authors were wrong when they described how they calculated the AMOC index.
And when he claims that the AMOC index has nothing to do with circulation, well that takes the cake. That's what the entire paper is all about. From the paper:
To isolate the effect of AMOC changes from other climate change, we define an AMOC index by subtracting the Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperature from that of the subpolar gyre .... We thus assume that differences in surface temperature evolution between the subpolar gyre and the whole Northern Hemisphere are largely due to changes in the AMOC.
I've no idea what HAS thinks the AMOC is. It's the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Duh!
Oh, and he's wrong about the model the scientists used, too. (He still hasn't twigged which model it was.)
Now HAS is trying to make out I didn't understand him. It's true, though not in the way HAS means. I'll never understand the lengths deniers go to to reject science. Nor will I ever understand nincompoops who don't have a clue about a subject, pretending to know more than experts. Note the passive aggressive tone HAS adopts, attempting condescension. That's typical of some deniers.
Sorry Sou.
You didn't follow what I was talking about from the beginning. I understood what d15N represented in Sherwood, and what Rahmstorf claimed for it. What you didn't understand is that you can analyze these datasets independently of the physical interpretations people are putting on them.
I did assume the AMOC index was a simple subtraction but found it didn't appear exactly that way when working off the graph, so I asked if anyone knew what the relationship was.
The problem with taking a too literal meaning out of the numbers is that you end up making the mistake you have made above. The AMOC index here isn't to do with circulation, it is as you have been told by the author the difference between the SPG temperature anomaly and the NH temperature anomaly. Just because the authors use the "circulation" word doesn't make it so.
In fact part of the purpose of this paper is to justify their claims, and for that they use the relationship with d15N to help make that stack up. Unfortunately it doesn't work - the index is unrelated to the d15N measure.
The only other evidence they offer is that the index agrees with the surface temperature of models that agree with the circulation patterns, but as their ref 11 tells us those models don't reproduce the SPG SST temps well, so the chain of logic breaks down.
As for the authors and reviewers at Nature Climate Change all I can suggest is that they get more help from experts in statistical analysis. It isn't hard Sherwood gets it right in his paper when dealing with similar issues, but I suspect he's less of an advocate and more interested in the science.
HAS's points have all been demolished in the discussion. Some multiple times. Also in the paper itself. HAS is wrong on all counts. He is making up stuff and falling over himself in repetition.
Richard Tol has been responding to my articles (here and here) about his smear campaign against John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and the rest of the team that wrote Cook13, the well-known 97% consensus study. When I say responding, that's not quite the case. What he did was ignore the points I made demolishing his nonsense, and instead used my articles to promote a whole bunch more of his foolish and unsubstantiated and wrong claims. He's been asked to supply evidence on more than one occasion and refused. Now Richard goes for more smear. He is unethical and unprofessional and wrong. Richard S J Tol wrote this comment on March 30, 2015 at 4:53 AM on the article "The fall and fall of Gish galloping Richard Tol's smear campaign"
Bernard
Removing data is always bad, and removing data without telling is worse.
In this case, data from the first round of rating seem to have been replaced by data from the second round of rating. Ratings were materially and significantly different between the two rounds, so the final results are affected.
That is bullshit, pure and simple. Duplicate articles were removed from the database after they were inadvertently added. There was no need to "tell" anyone anything. The final results were not affected. Richard is making up stuff again. Note his "seem to have been replaced" - no evidence as usual. Not that it would make any difference. The abstracts that were removed were duplicate entries. They all were included in the research study and categorised.
Bob is very keen to get some comments on HotWhopper and today has posted the following twice on a two-year-old thread "The Wrong Climate Stuff" - once as Anonymous and once as Bob. He sent his comments some time apart and he must have valued them highly enough to copy them word for word. I don't agree that deniers' opinions are worth two bob, but since he's so keen to be seen here are his thoughts:
This is an old thread, but I just ran across it. Holy cow. Roll me a joint too. You write about "drought or extreme heat waves or floods or shifting seasons or wildfires" as if these things are unprecedented in some way. Despite the hype over Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, California’s drought, etc., there is nothing historically unusual about today’s weather/climate.
Global cyclonic activity, both in terms of frequency and ACE, are moderating (Maue). Severe tornado activity is moderating (NOAA). There are no significant global wet and dry trends (NOAA). Worldwide grain production is at an all-time high and rising (USDA). The number of wildfires in the United States is declining (NIFC). The drought in California is mild compared to droughts that it has experienced in the past. There is literally nothing that is more extreme today that it has been in the past. Sea levels were much higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum. Droughts experienced by the Khmer, Maya, Anasazi, and the Yuan were far worse than anything we have experienced in the last 150 years.
He's wrong about what I wrote about drought and heat waves. He didn't "get" that any benefits of CO2 as plant food will not be sufficient to counteract the adverse changes to climate as global warming continues.
And there's more. He seems to think that 78 out of 11,944 papers that dispute mainstream science are worth more than the thousands that don't. Of the 4014 papers that took a position on the cause of global warming,, 3896 papers or 97.1% endorsed human-caused global warming, 78 or 1.9% disputed it and 40 or 1.0% indicated the cause was 'uncertain'. Bob goes with the 2%. Would he do the same if it were 2% of doctors that told him he was fine, and 97% who told him he needed to take medicine or he'd get very sick? Probably.
Then you climb on board with the 97% nonsense. With all due respect, the studies are useless. Doran and Zimmerman sent out 10,257 email questionnaires, got back 3,146 responses, and picked 79 that met their criteria. Of those 79 scientists, 77 agreed that humans had a “significant” impact upon the climate; whatever “significant” means. Anderegg didn’t poll a single scientist; he simply identified those who had signed a petition of some kind (as a measure of their certainty) and counted their papers and citations. Cook reviewed the abstracts of 11,944 papers and counted those that either explicitly or, in his opinion, implicitly endorsed man-made global warming. Only 65 abstracts were quantified explicit endorsements, not exactly 97% of 11,944.
There's still more. Bob doesn't know what ad hominem means:
And of course, no post of this nature is complete with liberal doses of ad hominem; clueless geriatrics, merchants of doubt, deniers… Come on. The logic seems to be that if a researcher is not a climate scientist then their opinions don’t matter. Yet it is your much-ballyhooed climate scientists whose opinions should be questioned. Their models are the basis of the entire AGW argument, but they have failed miserably to accurately project global temperatures. The averaged CMIP5 projection vastly overestimates actual temperature increases, particularly in the lower atmosphere as measure by RSS and UAH, but also on the surface. Failed models, failed hypothesis.
He's got it wrong. If a researcher is not an expert in climate science and disputes it on no grounds, without evidence, then they are rightly called deniers and their opinions are not worth anything at all. Bob provides no good evidence for disputing the science, nothing more than recycled denier memes. This is what has been happening as the world warms. And here's a reality check of surface and lower troposphere - in the last couple of years, RSS is the only odd one out. Not forgetting the hottest year on record - 2014.
I let Lucifer run free on the blog, but his or her comments fit the HotWhoppery better. Here's a sample. Posted on February 19, 2015 at 3:10 AM on the article Confessions of deniers at Judith Curry's blog:
guthrie,
You know, that raises a good point.
Tribalism is most entrenched when it becomes institutionalized,
like... the IPCC.
Peter claims he was misrepresented in his tone trolling. He's done it again, accompanied by a gish gallop of denial. After promising that would be his "one last comment", in typical denier form he wrote another. This time he really gave himself away, with a vengeance. In the very first line, Peter paints himself as a hard-core denier using the denier term "CAGW". And it only gets worse from there. Denier memes 101, replete with a prediction that an ice age is comething..
Peter whined on February 1, 2015 at 7:37 pm on the article "An uncanny ability: Anthony Watts goes to Iceland and figures 2+2=5 or 7".
Gotta do one more as I have been misrepresented. I was a CAGW adherent and believed everything on sites such as HopWhopper. However I gradually became disillusioned as I saw that instead of rational discussion and a genuine search for the truth, CAGW people always reverted to abuse and “I’m right and you’re wrong” arrogance and only searched for ways to further their (religious?) beliefs.
I found that CAGW people desperately want CAGW to be true and will pervert and distort the truth in order to distort their cause. I believe it’s caused “noble cause corruption”.
Anthony Watts did nothing more than to respond to a silly and provocative statement by Kruger. “The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere."
To say it doesn’t mean more than Iceland is just absurd. Read it and read it again, it means what it means. The context is that the findings extend everywhere. If it wasn’t for this single sentence, Watts wouldn’t have had any ammunition for an article.
I notice that the longer the global temperature “pause/slowdown/hiatus” continues, the more shrill and desperate you people become.
Let’s see…
No (Rss) or reduced(Giss) atmospheric warming this century
Record Antarctic sea ice
Arctic Sea Ice 96% back to normal (Sorry Al Gore but it didn’t disappear)
Record snow dumps in Greenland and many parts of the NH
Cold summer in Australia
record polar bear and walrus numbers
Glaciers have been in massive retreat since the last ice age ramped down in the early 1800’s which was before atmospheric CO2 increase by man could have had any effect.
Well CAGW people, hate to rain on your parade but if I was a betting man, I would bet that planet Earth has reached the top of it’s post little ice age heating oscillation and is heading back towards cooling again. Can we all agree to meet again on this site in 15 years time to see if my prediction came true?
In conclusion, CAGW is unfalsifiable and that precludes it from being a scientific theory. Even if we had 50 years of future cooling, you would still be making up excuses and sticking solidly to your faith.
I won’t visit this site again.
I wonder will he keep this latest promise?
It could be the same anon as the paranoid conspiracy theorist from yesterday (below). I don't normally leave comments like this for display. This time I will because it's funny. Funny peculiar. Because anon is carrying on a conversation with him or herself- while talking about mental illness. Both comments are on the article "No, Willis - WUWT is not a science site - eg CO2 in the atmosphere" Anonymous on January 20, 2015 at 5:26 AM wrote:
You are clearly suffering from clinical depression Sou. For the benefit of your own wellbeing and health you really need to stop stalking WUWT and other people on the web.
Get a proper hobby and you will find your mental health will improve.
And then a couple of minutes later, the same Anonymous mutters aloud back to him/herself, writing on January 20, 2015 at 5:32 AM that he agrees with himself.
I agree, it can't be good for anyone let alone a person of Sou's age, to suffer from an obsessive personality disorder that leads to the irrational behaviour exhibited in some of these posts.
I get that sort of comment from time to time. Nothing to do with any article at HotWhopper. A freebie psych diagnosis from a paranoid conspiracy nutter who talks to himself on the internet.
It's been a while since someone volunteered for the HotWhoppery. This one's from the ubiquitous Anonymous, a paranoid conspiracy theorist, who left it on an older article "The latest climate science from the IPCC and some early reactions" on January 19, 2015 at 10:22 PM
Minions of Rockefeller's Agenda21. That's all. Period.
Time has gone for them and for these managed BS's. There are no probe of realistic grow of warming, specially "due to human activities". Statistics of few dozens of years are ridiculous. CO2 has never been proved to be a damage for the Earth, instead... We are on the edge of a new mini glacial Era. What warming are they talking about? John Kerry is the puppet of Rockefellers, every average American knows it. In order to know the truth every single word of him must be upside down.
You are lost, guys. Very very lost and you'll have the evidence of it in few years.
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Feel free to share with attribution to HotWhopper.
