Open Letter to Miriam O’Brien of HotWhopper (a.k.a. Sou)

UPDATE: Miriam responded in depth (?).  See update at end of post for links.

# # #

Guest Post By Bob Tisdale

Date: October 5, 2014

Subject: Thank You for Admitting You Were Clueless

From: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations and Regular Contributor at WattsUpWithThat

To: Miriam O’Brien – HotWhopper (a.k.a. Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera)

Dear Miriam:

I wanted to thank you for admitting you had little grasp of the subject matter in a recent post at your blog HotWhopper. Your post was Human influence on the Californian drought. (Archived version is here, just in case you decide to change your post.) Under the heading of “Disclaimer and further reading” you wrote (my boldface):

I make no assurances that I’ve interpreted the work properly. I think I’ve got the gist of it but please point out if you think I’ve gone astray anywhere.

If I may suggest, it would be helpful to your readers if you would preface all of your posts with the reality that you can make no assurances that you’ve interpreted anything properly at any time, and that you’re going to yak about it anyway, regardless. That way your readers can respond as I do to your absurd writings, with laughter.


In your recent post, you criticized Anthony Watts for referring to El Niños in the title of his recent post about the California drought: Claim: Cause of California drought linked to climate change – not one mention of ENSO or El Niño. Under the heading of “Why not ENSO or El Niño?”, after quoting Anthony’s title, you wrote (my boldface):

Indeed. I’ve no idea why Anthony thought ENSO or El Niño should be mentioned. For one thing, doesn’t El Nino often bring rains to California? For another thing, the paper was about the 2013-14 Californian drought. There was no ENSO event in that time.

That was exactly Anthony’s point. If El Niños “often bring rains to California”, and there hasn’t been an El Niño since the one in 2009/10, one might think the absence of El Niños may have exacerbated the drought.

And “another thing”, when your paragraph includes a statement where you, Miriam, admit to not having any idea why a statement was made, it undermines the point you’re trying to make. The facts that (1) you didn’t understand why Anthony mentioned El Niños in the title of his post and (2) you admitted it, made your criticism twice as funny.


This example is rather long, but please bear with me, Miriam, because this will help you understand a little more about weather and climate.

You then moved on to comment about my blog post California Drought – A Novel Statistical Analysis of Unrealistic Climate Models and of a Reanalysis That Should Not Be Equated with Reality, which was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat here.

You noted that much of Swain et al. (2014) was about the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge and geopotential height, not about sea surface temperature:

Bob didn’t mention geopotential height once. He spent most of his time writing about sea surface temperatures and CMIP5 models.

You continued (your boldface):

Bob wrote a whole heap about stuff that the paper wasn’t about and didn’t discuss what the paper was about.

And you, Miriam, added later (my boldface):

I don’t know what he was thinking.

I will apologize, Miriam. Sorry that I wasn’t thinking of you when I wrote my blog post. I assumed when writing it that the readers at my blog and at WattsUpWithThat were knowledgeable enough of climate and weather to understand that the oceans and atmosphere above it are coupled, meaning they interact with one another; they’re interrelated. That is, a change in one impacts the other, and that it’s difficult at best to determine which is the ultimate driver in any given situation. I received a comment at my blog that told me that I needed to clarify that, so I provided an update to my post and the cross post at WattsUpWithThat:

[Start of update to earlier post.]

Based on a comment on the thread of the cross post of this article at my blog Climate Observations, some persons might be wondering why I compared models of sea surface temperature to data, when Swain et al (2014) focused on geopotential height (see note below). My reply:

The large scale atmospheric circulation patterns are in part dependent on local sea surface temperatures. The oceans and atmosphere are coupled. If the models cannot simulate the sea surface temperatures properly, then they are not simulating atmospheric circulation properly.

Let’s confirm that.

Lead author Swain also wrote an article for The California Blog at WeatherWest titled Special update: The Extraordinary California Drought of 2013-2014: Character, Context, and the Role of Climate Change. In it, he acknowledged the relationship between ocean and atmosphere a number of times. On page 2 of his article, Swain wrote (my boldface):

Several recent studies have examined precisely this possibility in assessing cause of the extraordinary persistence of the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge in 2013 and 2014. Wang et al. (2014) find that tropical West Pacific SST warm anomalies (associated with the West Pacific Warm Pool that acts as a precursor of El Niño) played a leading role in causing the strength and longevity of the Triple R by generating a recurring series of atmospheric “Rossby waves” that propagated from west to east across the Pacific Basin. Wang and Schubert (2014) find that the North Pacific SST warm anomalies during early 2013 created a “predilection” for dry conditions during the second half of the 2013-2013  2013-2014 “rainy season” in California, and Funk et al. (2014) also report that the observed Pacific SST anomalies during 2013-2014 contributed to the extremely low precipitation that was observed during 2013-2014.

However, Funk et al. also note that it’s possible the record-breaking warmth in the North Pacific (discussed further below) was actually a geographically remote response to the changes elsewhere in the Pacific–similar to the mechanism considered by Wang et al. It’s even possible that that the Triple R played a role in sustaining itself by reducing North Pacific storm activity and preventing vertical mixing of cooler sub-surface ocean water, culminating in a self-reinforcing feedback loop by which atmospheric ridging led to warm SSTs , which in turn led to more ridging, and so on. Regardless of whether the record-breaking warmth in the North Pacific was the primary cause of the Triple R or merely a secondary one, it’s pretty clear that Pacific SST anomalies contributed to the persistent northeastern Pacific ridging and extremely low California precipitation observed in 2013-2014.

Swain confirmed that the sea surface temperatures of the eastern extratropical North Pacific and atmosphere above it are interrelated, and that the warm sea surface temperatures contributed to the California drought.

Looking back now at my post above, Figures 1 and 2 [The figure numbers refer to earlier post, not this one.] showed that the sea surface temperatures of the eastern extratropical North Pacific had not warmed for 2.5 decades, and had cooled prior to the unusual warming…while the climate models employed by Swain et al, Figure 4, showed the sea surface temperatures of that region should have warmed more than 0.65 deg C in those 2.5 decades if they were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases.

In other words, the climate models employed by Swain et al are not realistic representations of climate in the eastern extratropical North Pacific. This further indicates they have no value when attempting to determine the cause or causes of the California drought, and no values when trying to attribute that drought to manmade factors.

Note: If the term geopotential height is new to you, see the ECMWF webpage here.

[End of Update to earlier post.]

Oddly, Miriam, in your post, under the heading of “Teleconnections and The Blob”, you quoted one of the same paragraphs of lead author Swain’s blog post at WeatherWest that I included in my update. But you ended your quote too soon. If you had read one more paragraph…just one more paragraph…you would have found the answer to your questions:

Regardless of whether the record-breaking warmth in the North Pacific was the primary cause of the Triple R or merely a secondary one, it’s pretty clear that Pacific SST anomalies contributed to the persistent northeastern Pacific ridging and extremely low California precipitation observed in 2013-2014.

Does that help you understand why I focused on sea surface temperatures, Miriam? Between the Triple R (Ridiculously Resilient Ridge) and the sea surface temperatures of the eastern extratropical North Pacific, Swain understands they’re interrelated, but he does not know which is the ultimate driver.


Early in your post you presented a gif animation of sea surface temperature anomalies, which I have presented here as my Animation 1. You were very kind to your readers and you highlighted the region of elevated sea surface temperatures being discussed with a red circle. Please notice, Miriam, that the unusual warming of the sea surface (known as “the blob”) varies in strength and location.

Animation 1 SwainBlob

Animation 1 (gif Animation “SwainBlob” from HotWhopper)

Very oddly, Miriam, after posting that gif animation of sea surface temperature anomalies, you questioned the fact that I presented graphs of sea surface temperature anomaly data. Thanks, your apparent contradiction made me chuckle.


Later in your post, you presented a map of the region I used for the unusual warming in the Northeast Pacific and then you criticized me for using such a large area. See the lower map in my Figure 1. The upper map is one of the cells from your gif animation (presented above). Oddly, they’re basically the same region, Miriam.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Your readers must really be wondering about that complaint of yours.


Toward the end of your complaints about my post, Miriam, you wrote:

Not that anything Bob wrote had anything to do with the Swain paper. That was about the Californian drought of 2013-14. It was about the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge, which is in the atmosphere not the ocean. The paper was about geopotential height and precipitation. Bob was writing about sea surface temperatures.

You forgot something, Miriam. If you had read and understood Swain et al., you would understand what you missed. Swain et al. used climate models to attribute the “ridiculously resilient ridge” [Triple-R], which is associated with the “blob” in sea surface temperatures, to manmade global warming. They wrote:

While the occurrence of events exceeding the P.I. 90–99th percentiles categorically increases in the 20C simulations (which include both natural and anthro­pogenic forcings), we find no such increase in those CMIP5 simulations which include only natural forcing (Fig. 2.2f; see SM). Thus, we find that anthropogenic forcing—rather than natural external forcing—domi­nates the simulated response in extreme GPH.

That’s basically the flawed IPCC argument that’s been around for years. In other words, the climate models that are forced by natural factors alone (volcanic aerosols and solar radiation) cannot simulate “metric X”, but the models that are forced by natural and anthropogenic factors can simulate “metric X”; therefore, the anthropogenic factors must be responsible for the change in “metric X”. That is an absolutely absurd argument, because the models cannot simulate naturally occurring coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that contribute to long-term warming or stop it. A side effect of that is, they cannot simulate where global sea surfaces show no long-term warming, Miriam. And one of the very large ocean regions where the surfaces show little to no warming for over 30 years is the entire East Pacific Ocean, from pole to pole, from the dateline to Panama. That region covers about 33% of the surface of the global oceans, and its surfaces have shown little to no warming in more than 3 decades. I post a graph of the surface temperature anomalies of the East Pacific every month in my monthly sea surface temperature updates, Miriam. Surely you’ve seen that graph and understood its importance, especially when climate models show it should have warmed about 0.45 deg C in that time.

Not too surprisingly, Miriam, the region with the blob is part of the East Pacific.

The fact that Swain et al. presented that flawed argument, Miriam, is why I presented the climate models used by Swain et al. and showed how poorly they simulated sea surface temperatures for the Northeast North Pacific, which as you’ll recall is coupled to the atmosphere and the recent Triple-R above it. Swain et al. presented a flawed argument and used flawed models to support it. If the models didn’t simulate the cooling of the ocean surface in that region, a cooling that occurred for almost 2.5 decades before the 2013/14 ridiculously resilient ridge appeared along with the unusual blob, then the models have no value in any attempt to attribute the Triple-R and blob to manmade greenhouse gases.

Miriam, hindcasts are different than forecasts. The data existed. The modelers knew the answers. Yet the modelers could not get their models to spit out those answers. Climate models have no value other than to show us how poorly they perform, and they do a great job of showing how poorly they perform.


In your post, Miriam, you wrote about the region I used for sea surface temperatures in the Northeast North Pacific:

It covers a lot of territory. Averaging it would diffuse the “blob” referred to above…

Now the reason I ended the quote at that point is because your complete second sentence in that paragraph mixed and jumbled two topics. That is, you find the topics so confusing that you blended two different topics in one sentence. Here’s your paragraph in its entirety:

It covers a lot of territory. Averaging it would diffuse the “blob” referred to above, had Bob bothered to focus on the period in question – 2013-14 instead of excluding that period. Most of Bob’s charts were from January 1989 to December 2012. I don’t know what he was thinking. The authors were writing about the 2013-2014 California drought. Bob did include this chart:

The first topic was area. The second was time, which I’ll get to in a moment.

Using an area that was larger than the blob can reduce the long-term and short-term variations. So in that respect, you were right with your “Averaging it would diffuse the ‘blob’ referred to above…”

But you forgot to note that the sea surface temperatures in that region cooled, not warmed, from 1989 to 2012. Does that mean the larger area I used showed less cooling than the blob region? If I was one of your readers, I’d be asking that question. The other question I’d be asking was, why didn’t Miriam show us why it was bad to use the larger region?

The map in Figure 2 shows the average sea surface temperature anomalies from July 2013 to June 2014 for the region I presented in my earlier blog post. The blob stands out quite plainly in that map. Yup, it looks like my larger area would have damped the impact of the blob. So we’ll use the coordinates of 30N-55N, 160W-130W for the sea surface temperature data of the blob region.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 3 compares the sea surface temperature anomalies and cooling rates of the eastern extratropical North Pacific (the region I presented in my earlier post) and the blob region. Again, I’m ending the data in this graph the year before the blob appeared. The sea surface temperature anomalies of the blob region show more monthly volatility and they also show a higher cooling rate from 1989 to 2012. The cooling rate of the blob region is more than twice that of the larger region I presented in my earlier post.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Hmm. I don’t believe we have to wonder why you elected not to show that, Miriam.

Let’s add the last year and a half of data…the time of the blob. The last year and a half doesn’t cause a warming trend. See Figure 4. All the blob did was stop the cooling in the blob region.

Figure 4

Figure 4

But what about the models that Swain et al. used for attribution? See Figure 5. The models show the sea surfaces of the blob region should have warmed about 0.7 deg C in the 24 years from 1989 to 2012. But, in the real world, the sea surface temperatures there cooled.

Figure 5

Figure 5

And you don’t find the disparity between the models and reality important, Miriam? Remarkable. Simply remarkable. If the models can’t explain the cooling, the models cannot be used to explain the warming. It’s that basic, Miriam.


Let’s continue with the paragraph that you appeared to jumble, Miriam. You wrote in continuation:

… had Bob bothered to focus on the period in question – 2013-14 instead of excluding that period. Most of Bob’s charts were from January 1989 to December 2012. I don’t know what he was thinking. The authors were writing about the 2013-2014 California drought.

It’s pretty obvious what I was thinking, Miriam. I was showing that there was no evidence of the impacts of manmade greenhouse gases on the surface temperatures of the eastern extratropical North Pacific, or on the North Pacific as a whole, for almost 2.5 decades leading up to the unusual warming. Yet Swain et al. found evidence of human-induced global warming in the virtual worlds of climate models…which blatantly have no relationship with the real world. I thought that was so obvious that I didn’t have to spell it out. Next time, I’ll spell it out for you, Miriam, so you can grasp the obvious point I was making.

I further explained what I was thinking in my earlier post, but apparently you missed it, Miriam. Here, let me repeat it for you:

It’s tough to employ climate models so you can claim that manmade greenhouse gases caused the California drought, when the models used by Swain et al. can’t simulate the lack of warming of one of the key metrics associated with it.

That key metric is sea surface temperature, Miriam. And as you now know, sea surface temperatures are coupled to the atmosphere…that is, the Triple-R is associated with the blob in sea surface temperatures and the blob is associated with the Triple-R.


You repeatedly stated that you didn’t think I even read Swain et al., Miriam. One of your headings read:

Bob Tisdale probably didn’t read the paper

And later in your post:

Reading Bob’s article I have to wonder if he even read the paper.

I obviously read Swain et al., Miriam. How do we know? I presented the outputs of the three climate models they employed. Also, in the comments on the thread at WattsUpWithThat, I asked if anyone had found a link to the supplementary materials referred to in Swain et al. And, Miriam, if I hadn’t read Swain et al., how would I have known to present the sea surface temperatures for the region of the North Pacific under the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge?

You simply fabricate stuff, and I really enjoy that. You have no qualms about making statements regardless of whether there’s any truth behind them.


As part of your “Disclaimer and further reading”, you wrote (my boldface):

I think I’ve got the gist of it but please point out if you think I’ve gone astray anywhere.

When I read that, I was immediately reminded of the harassment you gave a newcomer to your blog recently. After lurking there, that blogger tried to offer some corrections, noting where you had “gone astray” in another of your posts. He was so frustrated by your rude response to him that he archived that thread with his comments, thinking (correctly) that you’d delete his replies, and he posted a comment at my blog.

My post was Data Reveal Florida Keys Sea Surface Temperatures Haven’t Warmed in 80+ Years*. It was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat here. Your mistake-filled response, Miriam, was the post Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale surfs the surface at Florida Keys. The archived copy of your post is here. The blogger’s name was 7DaBrooklynKnight7. His questions and comments start at September 13, 2014 at 1:33 AM in the archived version. After you insulted that newcomer to your blog, his final comment on that thread was:

wow. i will happily go elsewhere, sou. there is no reason for a newcomer (like me) to ask questions of someone so rude (like you).

i tried nicely to show you where your article is wrong and you keep repeating skin temperature. hadisst is not skin temperature data; it is sea surface temperature data. the data from the paper (figures 2 and 3) you’ve shown above in your article is Sea Surface Temperature data. the y-axis in both figures reads SST. maybe it’s you who needs “remedial arithmetic services or personal tuition in climate science and oceanography for dummies”.

something else you’ve overlooked. are the data from the lighthouses and from the buoys included in the hadisst data?

i may not be a skeptic but i am now skeptical of what you call science, sou. i will happily go elsewhere. maybe tisdale will answer my questions. his series of posts about el nino this year were easy to understand and accurate. they were educational. i noticed you didn’t try to question those. he is building his credibility by helping people understand. you are not. you seem intent on hiding the truth and that destroys your credibility.

Do you remember that blogger, Miriam? Not too surprisingly, Miriam, you deleted his last comment. It no longer exists on that thread. It now reads:

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

And now you’d like visitors to your blog to, as you said, point out if they think you’ve gone astray? I almost spritzed coffee on my keyboard this morning when I read that. Thanks for the belly laugh, Miriam.

But that’s not the best.


As part of many of your posts, you’ll copy and post portions of the comments made by visiting bloggers on the threads at WattsupWithThat and you’ll criticize what the visitors wrote. Every now and then you’ll find a comment you agree with. As a preface, in the above, under the heading of EXAMPLE OF WHY I FIND YOU’RE FUNNY 2, I explained why I included sea surface temperature data in that post, Miriam, while Swain et al. dealt with geopotential height. The two metrics are interrelated—they’re coupled.

You copied a comment by blogger Barry on the thread at WattsUpWithThat. Barry wrote (my boldface):

Bob, if you read Chapters 3 and 4 of the BAMS report, they both indicate that the CA drought cannot be attributed to the long-term warming trend, which seems to align with your argument. The Swain et al. paper, though, does not make a case based on sea surface temperatures, but rather geopotential height and wind anomalies (the high pressure ridge).

What Barry overlooked was the fact that the sea surface temperatures in the eastern extratropical North Pacific hadn’t warmed in 24+ years, and cooled from 1989 to 2012, so the other two papers he referred to did not agree with my post if they were discussing a long-term warming trend. There was no warming in the North Pacific for 24+ years.

That aside, you wrote about Barry’s comment (your boldface):

Barry is the first person to point out that Bob got it all wrong:

That implies that you believe Barry is correct. But Barry wrote, “…if you read Chapters 3 and 4 of the BAMS report, they both indicate that the CA drought cannot be attributed to the long-term warming trend.” Barry’s comment undermines the basic premise of your post, Miriam. The title of your post is “Human influence on the Californian drought.”

Visitors to your blog have to wonder why they wasted their times reading a 3000-word post, with you yakking about this and that, making stuff up, admitting you didn’t know what you were talking about, when in the end you contradict yourself by implying Barry got it right. Thank goodness I had put down my coffee by that point.


Once again, thank you, Miriam, for admitting you had no understanding of the subject matter. Every time I stop by your blog to see what you’ve written about one of my posts, I discover once again that you have little grasp of the topics. I find that very entertaining. And, the fact that there are visitors to HotWhopper who agree you…that’s the icing on the cake.

If I could make a suggestion, you may want to consider changing the name of your blog to HotWhopperIsClueless. That would be a perfect fit for your blog.

I sent an email to another “fan” of yours, Miriam, and let that blogger know I was writing you an open letter. That blogger emailed back:

I would add something like “Miriam O’Brien is professional consultant for businesses and boards of directors in Australia, where the stakes of being wrong are very high. So it is puzzling that she doesn’t do the most basic homework on some of these issues before she launches attacks and vitriol. While she might score some tribal points for attacking people, it certainly does not enhance her professional credibility.”

Would you like to guess who wrote that Miriam? I’ll give you two guesses.


Bob Tisdale

PS: One more comment, Miriam. You threw what you thought was a jab about my understandings of the long-term effects of ENSO. You wrote:

But then again, Bob thinks that global warming is caused by ENSO. We’re used to mistakes made by perennially puzzled Bob Tisdale.

You must be aware that I’ve been showing the flaws in your perennially puzzled post for more than half a decade, Miriam. Yet, in response to my data-filled posts, you simply repeated the flawed arguments. Basically, you’ve used the absurdly funny contradiction approach to argument, reminiscent of the Monty Python sketch. You really crack me up, Miriam. Thanks.

You must also be aware that data support my understanding of ENSO, Miriam. I’ve been presenting it for more than 5.5 years. Sea surface temperature data support it. Ocean heat content data support it. Sea level data, trade wind strength and direction data, precipitation data, cloud cover data, ocean current data, lower troposphere temperature data, sea level pressure data, warm water volume and depth-averaged temperature data for the equatorial Pacific, etc., all support my understandings of ENSO. I’ve animated many of those metrics to show their relationships with ENSO, Miriam, so people could watch and learn.

Last year, Dr. Kevin Trenberth of NCAR jumped on the bandwagon and began saying that ENSO contributes to long-term global warming. In addition to being a loyal advocate of the hypothesis of human-induced global warming, Dr. Trenberth is also a world-renowned expert on ENSO. And he now says that El Niño events cause global warming…not that they’re caused by global warming. Here’s the kicker, Miriam. Dr. Trenberth has also written in at least two peer-reviewed papers that El Niños are fueled by sunlight.

Just in case you missed it, I provided an overview of Dr. Trenberth’s new understandings of ENSO in my post The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 9 – Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another “Big Jump”.

# # #

UPDATE: It took about a day and some coaxing, but over at HotWhopper, Miriam O’Brien responded to my post, admitting again that she still had no idea what I was talking about…even though I spent a good amount of time explaining. Her “Huh?” and “Huh (again)” are classics.

See the archived version of Miriam’s consecutive comments at October 6, 2014 at 12:32 PM and 12:51PM here.  She continued her rant on the next thread, replying to a skeptical blogger who made an appearance at HotWhopper. See Miriam’s October 6, 2014 at 10:34 PM comment here. (Thanks for coming to my defense blogger “LongIslandSound71”.  Your comments to WebHubTelescope are spot on, too.)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Evans
October 5, 2014 4:51 am

I’m sorry, but you are giving her way, way too much attention.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin

Reply to  Paul Evans
October 5, 2014 6:28 am

Agreed, not worth the effort.
far too much effort. She appears to be an Australian concerned about “misogyny and climate change”. All you need do is intermittently email her images of men wearing blue ties glancing at their wristwatch*. She’ll choke on her own bile in short order.
Miriam sweetheart,
I understand you are an avid reader of WUWT. What you don’t understand is that the base assumption of 255K for the planet’s surface without radiative gases is in error by ~90K for 71% of the planets surface. This means AGW is a physical impossibility. This also means every single thing you have ever posted about the “settled science” is utter drivel. Sadly, pet, that drivel is now a matter of permanent record. And no darling, the blue tie whining misandry won’t save you…
*highly effective against Australian misandrists

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Konrad.
October 5, 2014 10:05 am

Konrad, I find your comment here as disgusting as Miriam’s lack of understanding of the oceanic atmospheric teleconnections. Yes, she makes climate scientists cringe, regardless of their position on the extent of anthropogenic warming. But your comment is as cringe-worthy with regard to your disgusting use of misogynistic-flavored rhetoric as well as your apparent inability to understand absorption and re-radiation of longwave infrared heat energy as an important component of Earth’s energy budget.

Reply to  Konrad.
October 5, 2014 10:38 am

please. I’m sorry the comedy escapes you. I did give fair indication that it was an “Australian thing” . You and I have had discussions in the past. I have never used language like that. It is wrong, in this case intentionally so. Miriam doesn’t have a chip on her shoulder, she’s got an entire tree. That’s the point.
As to your challenge on radiative physics, you would need to be better at the engineering of “selective surfaces” than me. And you are not. But you could be as good if you were to review the equations used for asymmetric absorptivity and emissivity in spacecraft thermal control and actually build and run the experiments I post.
A 90K error in base assumptions sounds incredible, but then the difference between what standard SB calcs indicated for the lunar regolith and the empirical results from Diviner were of the same magnitude. Surface properties matter. They matter a lot.

Richard D
Reply to  Konrad.
October 5, 2014 11:37 am

Konrad, give us a break. Your fake physics is some kind of twisted conspiracy theory and best suited for the darker corners of the internet – not WUWT.

Reply to  Konrad.
October 5, 2014 3:49 pm

Could you be more specific about what physics you are claiming I have faked or lied about?
All my experiments have had build diagrams, operation instructions and photos of build examples published here at WUWT. Anyone can replicate them. There is no way I could get away with lying.
Oh and “twisted conspiracy theory”, Richard? Surely you don’t think the Lewandowsky approach will still work? And as to “us”, the Alisky techniques are not effective on blogs where everyone posts as an individual. Herding sceptics is like herding cats. A dead end.

Reply to  Paul Evans
October 5, 2014 8:36 am

I can see two approaches that would have worked…
1. Treat O’Brien’s article with respect and without insult, and use it to make various points about the California drought.
2. Ignore it.
It is unseemly to stoop to trading insults with O’Brien.

Reply to  rabbit
October 6, 2014 10:34 am

Granted I’ve visited her site on just a few ocassions, but I have yet to see anything she writes which is deserving of respect.
That you do says a lot.

David, UK
Reply to  Paul Evans
October 6, 2014 4:52 am

Additionally, whether justified or not, I’d humbly suggest that condesending correspondences (as tempting as they are to make, especially when frustrated) don’t usually encourage reception to new information. Usually has the opposite effect (as I have learned the hard way!).

Reply to  Paul Evans
October 6, 2014 10:29 am

My thoughts as well.

October 5, 2014 4:56 am

Thanks Bob. Miriam, a female who cannot find her sidebottom with both hands. She writes her blog to shine a spotlight on misogyny and the rejection of climate science. Her words say it all. Two planks thick.

Reply to  Perry
October 5, 2014 1:01 pm

Are sceptics working towards a new system of Warmism measurement, The Plank Constant?

October 5, 2014 4:58 am

“Again, this policy helped the skeptic sites grow, since ordinary people doing nothing more than raising some reasonable questions, resented being portrayed by such ugly, and at times viciously presented caricatures.”
The function of people like O’Brien is to drive their commenters towards the skeptic blogs.

Reply to  Pointman
October 5, 2014 6:41 am

That’s why she only had 2 external comments since yesterday. This post has 36 so far and is likely to reach 50 or more by my experience.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 6:43 am

Yikes, it’s now over 50 and my last comment was about 1 minute ago!

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 7:39 am

Jimbo, she must be very busy moderating at the moment. I just had to check it out and there are only 13 comments at this time. Seems that most are hers. Richard Betts did comment.
There were none from a walrus. 😉

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 8:54 am
Mike O
October 5, 2014 5:06 am

Wow, that was Great!
Thanks Bob.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 6:11 am

He spent his absolutely DESTROYING her ignorant arguments, petey. I’d say that was a good use of his day.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 6:12 am

…and it was aptly spent, too, Peter.
Or would you rather that Bob do nothing about the egregious misinformation Miriam spreads about his work?
Let’s see–there’s several hundred thousand daily readers of this blog and before today I hadn’t spent a single second considering HotWhoppers.
But now I know not to go there and waste my time on a climate science shill.
And the worm continues to squirm.

david eisenstadt
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 6:39 am

eh…probably spent yesterday writing it up, don’t you think?
today he can sit back and take in the comments.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 7:12 am

To comment a person and not give him/her
a chance to defend him-/herself, in hope of “winning” an argument, is low and cowardly behaviour! Not much different then (malignant) spreading of rumors (aka defamation) …

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  SasjaL
October 5, 2014 7:15 am

Yep, she’s a master of not giving people a chance to defend themselves.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 2:35 pm

Bob definitely isn’t the cuddliest pit bull in the litter, but he does his homework. Over and over again, he does his homework. Paraphrasing an old advertising campaign “…when Tisdale speaks, WUWT listens”. Bob’s earned the respect.
The WUWT audience (excluding a few trolls) generally understand the scientific method (i.e.: importance of accurate data), are interested in the fraud called CAGW, and are highly appreciative of the effort taken by Bob (and others) to educate the community. If Miriam wants to deliberately mis-quite Bob for her emotional rants (i.e.: which include zero mathematics & analysis), she is at risk of being shown (over and over) to be a fool.
Unlike you, Peter, I got a kick out of Bob’s well reasoned, documented, and richly deserved response.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 5, 2014 5:18 am

I wonder if sou will even attempt to read past the first paragraph. She might actually LEARN something….

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 5:22 am

It must be Ridiculously Resilient….

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 8:37 am

Leading to a comment drought??

October 5, 2014 5:19 am

I spritzed my iPad over the belly laugh. Now it’s all shiny and coffee scented. Thank you Bob!

October 5, 2014 5:21 am

Thanks Bob, must read up on Rossby Waves again to try to get it understood.

Reply to  johnmarshall
October 5, 2014 6:47 am

I, like you, have used this posting as en educational tool and would suggest looking at a link Bob provided above:
I’ll also need to revisit the Rossby Waves.
I believe Mariam received two lessons in one. I am absorbing the one on the technical/scientific issues at hand. There is much, very much, to be gained from Bob’s work here.
But I absolutely loved the take-down! If only all physics and engineering classes could have been so interesting!

October 5, 2014 5:24 am

People who attack comments at a separate location are cowards, who can’t actually make a case in the original location. And everyone who has been following WUWT for any length of time is aware that WUWT does not censor or remove posts unless they’re blatantly off-topic hurled insults, or a direct and grievous violation of site policy.
I would never care even the tiniest but what some cowardly blogging fool has to say about my comments at a completely different site.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 5:25 am

Obviously that contained a typo in the last paragraph, where “but” should have been “bit”.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 5:51 am

I liked the original 🙂

October 5, 2014 5:27 am

Menopause must be tough.

Reply to  Kate Forney
October 5, 2014 5:33 am

As funny as that was, Kate (seriously, laughed for real), I skipped through that woman’s site briefly.
I’d say the quote from Game of Thrones is more apt:
“There’s no cure for being a c***”.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 5:52 am

petey grace, that’s one thing I have noticed about people like you- they LOVE to attribute misogyny to skeptics, or basically to anyone they disagree with. When I pounded one of them into the dirt over their claims about climate, that person accused me of being anti-gay and racist.
People like you SICKEN me.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 5:54 am

Peter, your inability to grasp my humor is something I take as a badge of honor.
You’ve repeatedly demonstrated on this site that you are not an intelligent person, in any way. So go ahead, try the insult route. It won’t work.
You are also a great example of that Game of Thrones quote, spoken by Bronn about people just like you.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 6:45 am

petey, we all agree: YOU ARE UNQUALIFIED.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 6:57 am

I think you ignored my question, Peter.
I asked: “Are you saying you agree with Miriam”?
And your response is still forthcoming.
But regarding your questions, I actually think people here are being polite with their comments.
Yes, those comments are not polite, but they pale compared to what I would call her.
These CAGW acolytes literally have blood on their hands. They have effectively stopped development of energy sources in many developing nations. Consequently, millions of people have died from disease and hunger. And their future looks bleak until CAGW-contaminated policies are eradicated.
So don’t get me going on what I really think of Miriam, Peter. You eyes would burn from reading my accurate, unconstrained description of this horrible woman.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 7:08 am

Anti-women? No, but I do have an Auntie Gay.

david smith
Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 9:38 am

I have an Uncle Lesbian.
There’s a coincidence!
PG (Tips) will probably accuse me of being homophobic now.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 1:19 pm

Peter, as usual you express an opinion that demonstrates you have no clue what the grown-ups are talking about.
The “No cure” comment has absolutely nothing to do with gender in any way, shape or form. It was actually about Joffrey, who epitomizes that c word. I would have the exact same sentiment no matter who was writing that petty little blog, even it if was you.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 5, 2014 6:01 pm

Petey petey of little grace. If I call a man a dick today due to his bullying behaviour, does that mean I hate men? I mean since you are a self-proclaimed expert on who-hates-who based on gender, race, religion, or food and cleaning product choices, I thought I’d ask you.
Again, if I call a man a dick, does that mean I hate men? If I call a man a c***, or a woman a dick does that mean I hate both men and women, or is it that I just do not have a very commendable way of reacting to any gender who is a bully?

Reply to  CodeTech
October 6, 2014 3:27 am

Dave Smith:
Does your Uncle Lesbian still live in Lebanon?

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Kate Forney
October 5, 2014 5:34 am

What’s this about men and the Pause?

B. B. in central V
Reply to  Kate Forney
October 6, 2014 6:36 pm

Wow!! The more I read of this “Miriam”, the more that Julia Gillard, former Australian Prime Sinister, comes to mind. Emotive man-hate rants, blaming everybody else for own failures, findng a conspiracy around every corner (despite appearing to be the core of one herself), misogyny-this, misogyny-that, my life is hard ‘cos of misogynists, and from the very beginning, an arrogant, self-righteous, self-decieved, deluded liar. Is this the product of a lefty media culture that continually portrays men as clueless imbeciles and women as an entire class of hapless, whinging, professional victims? It is a terrible state of affairs, for ALL people. A sad day indeed! Though I find Miriam incredibly foolish, seemingly one who would cut off her nose to spite her face, I feel sad for her. I understand that she is essentially a troll, boastful and full of her own self-overestimation, and I suspect that the takedown is well deserved, but this state of affairs deeply saddens me, for ALL involved. Though I laughed out load as I read Tisdale’s rebuttal post, after reading many comments I ended up feeling grief.
This is a terrible state of affairs, for ALL of us!

Reply to  Kate Forney
October 7, 2014 10:32 am

– don’tcha know? It is not “misogyny” when liberals do it. If you want to see some really ugly stuff, google Bill Maher’s quotes. DU dot org gets it leads from its leaders.

October 5, 2014 5:34 am

I hope she wasn’t wearing a dress when he dressed her down. lol. I’d never even heard of this person. “Never take mess with the bull. You’ll get the horns every time.” People will say not to waste energy on contrarians such as “sou,” but I disagree. The truth needs out.

david smith
Reply to  Gary
October 5, 2014 9:39 am

Oops, mind out sisters, PG Tips is waving his handbag around!

October 5, 2014 5:46 am

Bob, very well done with many fine examples in excellent technical detail.
However, all I could think was “throwing pearls before swine” – a basically useless exercise because the swine will never appreciate your pearls of wisdom.
Google “HotWopper Glickstein” for the ridiculous pig parts they threw at some of my WUWT postings.
Ira Glickstein

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Ira Glickstein, PhD
October 5, 2014 5:50 am

As I noted in Twitter, is it even possible to make silk purse out of a Sou’s ear?

Alan Clark, paid shill for Big Oil
Reply to  Ira Glickstein, PhD
October 5, 2014 6:41 am

Pearls before swine is likely true as Bob’s efforts relate to sou. However, having read his dissertation I feel that I have a much greater personal understanding of the mechanisms of drought in California. So not a waste of time Bob. Not in the slightest.

October 5, 2014 5:51 am

Bob, your post is a superb take-down if ever there was one.
Miriam has a lot to think about now. Did you post this as a comment on her site?

Reply to  eyesonu
October 5, 2014 6:09 am

Miriam doesn’t do critical comments – she edits and / or removes them, modifies the content of the thread until it reads the way she wants it to.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 6:20 am

I agree with you there but it would be fun to put a stop watch on it!

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 6:23 am

Maybe someone could post a comment there with a link to here. Be sure to make a screen capture and put a stop watch on it!

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 3:46 pm

Gee Bob, a few moments?? You give yourself too much credit, I thought you’d be blocked automatically.(LOL).

October 5, 2014 5:53 am

Miriam is one of those sad Aussies who is waiting for vindication – she wants the world to admit she was right all along. She will have a long wait.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 5, 2014 6:20 am

She’ll undoubtedly “age-out” first.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  RockyRoad
October 5, 2014 6:27 am

Petey, that means she will sooner or later join you, in being past her prime.

david eisenstadt
Reply to  RockyRoad
October 5, 2014 6:42 am

that she will, like all of us, die?

Reply to  RockyRoad
October 5, 2014 6:46 am

“Age-out” is a term commonly used in the health and life insurance business, Peter. It means to die. And I suggest it as the answer to Eric’s comment “She will have a long wait”.
It reflects the sad nature of humans in the astute observation: “Science progresses one funeral at a time”, since most scientists aren’t amenable to new ideas; they’re stuck in an intellectual rut.
And likewise, there’s little hope for Miriam to change her evil ways–she’s evil because she’s an obvious liar and because she employs nasty, in-your-face Alinsky-like tactics. Both are to be exposed for what they are.
But she will never change. Not in this life.

Reply to  RockyRoad
October 5, 2014 7:45 am

Age-out is also a term that I have heard whereas and idea, fad, or person is popular but over time fades away to obscurity. This often occurs very rapidly.

bit chilly
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 5, 2014 6:35 am

she is part of a group of people that would dance for joy if the poles melted,sea levels rose metres, global temps rose several degrees and millions of people died,just so they could say,told you so . in short ,as code tech notes, a group of c****.
many thanks to bob tisdale for lucid presentation and education once again ,amazing the clarity that comes from just representing factual observation versus obfuscation .

October 5, 2014 5:55 am

I read this post…and I have to tell you, it was hard. It would have been easier, just from a “style” point of view if you eliminated the insertions of “Miriam” throughout the post. I found that for me, it sort of took away from a good, solid, factual response.
Great points made tho.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 7:36 am

I think you may have over-cooked it a little; read the wrong way it could sound patronizing. In my opinion, it’s better to conduct such a thorough dismantling with polite respect. That way, at least you won’t be, even inadvertently, turning it into a match of fluid waste elimination, which isn’t worthy of your hard work.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 5:44 pm

Kate is concerned Tisdale’s article could be read as “patronizing”.
The definition of “patronizing”: “…to talk to someone in a way that shows you believe you are more intelligent…”.
So, whats the problem here?
This isn’t “keep no score” sports for 5 year-old kids; this is public life – words have consequences and people like Miriam who knowingly mis-quote and make absurd emotional claims, frequently and deservedly get called out as idiots.

October 5, 2014 5:56 am

HotWhopper currently has THREE comments since yesterday. One of them is from Sou! Miriam O’Brien is sure making headway against the sceptics.

Bill Illis
October 5, 2014 5:57 am

Miriam Webster does not want to debate facts or discuss climate change.
Her goal is simply to “hound and badger” people into quiting the debate and shutting down any skeptic discussion anywhere in the world.
David W January 11, 2014 at 12:32 pm
Last year the climate change section of the Weatherzone forums was closed down here in Australia. A large part of this was due to the behaviour of a poster “Ceebee” who many of us suspect was Miriam from Hotwhopper.
“Ceebee” certainly shared many of the obnoxious attributes as Miriam and when the section was closed down it was Ceebee straight away boasting on HotWhopper of the achievement.
Time and again it is shown to be patently obvious that those who support CAGW theory have no desire to have the matter debated,
This is what CeeBee posted on the Hotwhopper site.
CeeBee June 26, 2013 at 3:53 PM
The Weatherzone climate forum though was a strange place in that it is owned by Fairfax Media but the moderators of the forum were climate deniers and pals with the deniers in the forum, which is why the forum became a deniers playground where they could shut down any rational science discussion with impunity.
My goal there over the past 16 months was to politely hound and badger the deniers with science until it worked them up into such a lather that the moderators lost all control and the Admin had to step in to bring to whole sorry mess to an end.
The result is the deniers have now lost a mainstream outlet.
When you are dealing with an individual like this, just remember what their motive is. “Hound and badger” until you give up.
Leave this person alone.

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 5, 2014 6:33 am

Oh, no… I disagree.
Reverse hound and badger with facts and discussion. It drives them crazy.
Show the world what she’s doing and why. Consequently, everybody will be less likely to believe her.
Never let up and never leave them alone–all you do is cede influence and audience to them if you do.
They’re part of “Climate Science Pravda”, a throwback to the fiction and propaganda rag the Soviets put out for decades. The best way to fight lies and deception is by telling the truth, which Bob has done.
Miriam uses one of the tactics championed by Saul Alinsky, which thwarts human progress. It should never be tolerated or ignored.

Bill Illis
Reply to  RockyRoad
October 5, 2014 7:04 am

Did you see the part where she kept this up for 16 months (I mean 10 posts per day).
No amount of facts or rational discussion swayed her from her goal of shutting the forum down.
Hotwhopper and the predecessor soubundanga and under her previous nick MobyT has been doing this same thing for more than 5 years now.

Reply to  RockyRoad
October 5, 2014 7:35 am

Never let up and never leave them alone
– Politicians too, who (constantly) lie and try to slip away from the problems they are causing …

Reply to  RockyRoad
October 5, 2014 10:46 am

I agree, Bill–it has been going on for a long time.
And it will continue forever, for evil ignorance never stops.
However, the objective is to expose their deceptions so the populace isn’t misinformed, even lied to.
We can’t stop stupid but minimize it with information.
Running away will never solve this problem.

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 5, 2014 7:18 am

Hi Bill. I was one of the ‘deniers’ who had to take a ‘short holiday’ from WZ before they closed the climate change threads.

Reply to  BruceC
October 5, 2014 5:26 pm
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 5, 2014 9:58 am

weatherzone was always going to close that forum. the topic was too close to taboo for their stakeholders. BOM reps use and post at the site, but to their credit they did not censor too much, which is a far worse thing. eg skeptical science where they alter even actual climate scientists posts to say what they want them to.
i stopped posting at another forum that i had for years because of censorship. it had only started, but when someone alters or removes your post when there is absolutely nothing insulting, troll like etc, but the mod just disagrees with you, then it is just time to move on. to me it is far worse that posts are censored that way rather than the whole forum closed.
another different australian forum that was taken over by the warmist zealots was whirlpool. it wasnt censored too much while i was posting there but a few months after they stopped responding to my replies i went back to take a look at the status, and more than half of the sceptics comments (posters i had seen comment clearly and with respect) were gone with a little note saying comment moderated. its quite funny, the thread just looks like an alarmist arguing with himself.. and losing! so that was the end of that forum.
this is a deliberate attack on sceptics to try and push the debate out of the public conversation because, well, they have lost the debate. due to the fact that feedbacks did not respond the way they thought they would, they ditched the scientific method and this is proof that they lost. it has now the status of a cult movement, nothing more.
it really must annoy them that what they think should be popular, is not. eg the top worldwide website viewed on the subject of climate change is this one, and in australia the top contemporary blog that deals with this subject is bolt (sceptical), and the top newspaper is the australian (sceptical), the PM is a known sceptic and so on. most tv stations still try to sneak in a bit here or there, and the rest of the irrelevant media still push out as much trash as they can to try and teach us poor numbskulls how to think correctly.. the socialist way.

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 5, 2014 11:32 am

Wow. The pejorative “deniers” is used five times in one paragraph!
If that crowd didn’t have ‘deniers’ to fill space, they might have to, like, think. That would be a new experience for some of them. If I had a dollar for every time “deniers” was used as an insult, I could retire in style!

October 5, 2014 6:07 am

Ooh kook a sou, said the walrus to the clew.

Richard Barraclough
October 5, 2014 6:07 am

I’ve had the odd look at her blog. She is clearly a sour woman but with a warped hero-worship for the owner of WUWT. She hangs on his every word, follows his every move, and then tries to ridicule him. It reminds me of an on-line version of the Stockholm Syndrome where kidnap victims form an unlikely bond with their captors. There’s probably a valid psychological name for it.
However, by ripping her off like this, it will just lead to a lot of silly tit-for-tat name calling. Perhaps the 2 of you could meet on neutral ground somewhere and have your slanging match out of the public eye?

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Richard Barraclough
October 5, 2014 6:13 am

Maybe Ben Santer could come, too- she’ll need all the backup she can get, and will still fail.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 7:34 am

I hope she wastes time on me. LOL!

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 12:48 pm

I actually find myself wishing I’d made more “edgy” comments here so she’d say something about me. XD Oh well. Guess I should start working on that now.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 5:04 pm

Hi Bob,
I haven’t looked, but I can guess it’s insulting in the exreme. She comes across as a twisted person. The best way to deal with such people is to ignore them. At least if she’s playing with her keyboard all day, she can’t do anybody any real damage.
I’m reminded of the occasional news item of teenagers being traumatised by on-line bullying on Twitter or whatever. They don’t have to log in and read it.
Accept that there are a few nutters out there. Not everyone will agree with what you write, but most people have the decency to point out what they disagree with in a civilised way, and perhaps coming across the odd lunatic helps to emphasise that.

Reply to  Richard Barraclough
October 5, 2014 7:49 am

. . . There’s probably a valid psychological name for it.

Bunny boiler? 😉

October 5, 2014 6:08 am

In case Miraim is reading this post let me point out something about drought in the USA west of the Mississippi River.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
Multiple proxies, including tree rings, sediments, historical documents and lake sediment records make it clear that the past 2 kyr included periods with more frequent, longer and/or geographically more extensive droughts in North America than during the 20th century (Stahle and Cleaveland, 1992; Stahle et al., 1998; Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998; Forman et al., 2001; Cook et al., 2004b; Hodell et al., 2005; MacDonald and Case, 2005). Past droughts, including decadal-length ‘megadroughts’ (Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998), are most likely due to extended periods of anomalous SST (Hoerling and Kumar, 2003; Schubert et al., 2004; MacDonald and Case, 2005; Seager et al., 2005), but remain difficult to simulate with coupled ocean-atmosphere models. Thus, the palaeoclimatic record suggests that multi-year, decadal and even centennial-scale drier periods are likely to remain a feature of future North American climate, particularly in the area west of the Mississippi River.

Sou, can you please point out the “Human influence on the Californian drought” from the start of the Holocene to 1935?

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 9:03 am

Jimbo, great links as usual.
I find it astounding that evidence of past megadroughts is completely ignored by the CAGW crowd.
The papers you link are enough in themselves to completely derail this supposed ‘human influence on recent/current droughts’.

Reply to  markx
October 5, 2014 11:25 am

Here are some abstract references for US droughts and mega-droughts during the Holocene. Sou, please take a look and try and get some perspective. Droughts in the USA have been far worse in the past than what you are pinning your claims on.

david smith
Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 9:49 am

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
PLEASE publish a list of all the outstanding links you’ve collected over the years, as every single one contradicts, rebuts, and catches out the alarmists and the rubbish they spout.
I for one would be more than happy to pay for a pdf of such a list.

October 5, 2014 6:13 am

Sou quotes

Rajaratnam and his graduate students Michael Tsiang and Matz Haugen applied advanced statistical techniques to a large suite of climate model simulations.

How much confidence should we place on these models Sou?

The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California
Climate model simulations disagree on whether future precipitation will increase or decrease over California, which has impeded efforts to anticipate and adapt to human-induced climate change……..Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter. These results are obtained from 16 global general circulation models downscaled with different combinations of dynamical methods…

Sou, you need to take a cold drink and have cold shower. Then sit in a dark room for some time.

October 5, 2014 6:17 am

I wonder is Ms. O’Brien’s business partners and/or customers know of her internet antics?
If not, perhaps they should be made aware of this behavior.

October 5, 2014 6:22 am

Thanks, Bob. The silly debunker is debunked herself.

October 5, 2014 6:22 am

This reminds me of one of Heinlein’s SF novels where they are dropping rocks from the moon on a mountain on earth in kinetic strikes and they stop when the mountain isn’t there any more. You probably don’t need any more rocks, Bob.

Reply to  Snowsnake
October 5, 2014 8:26 am

Mr Robert A. Heinlein was a very good SciFi novelist! The crap the Reality Deniers are producing, even though it is fictional, doesn’t qualify as SciFi … Far from. Perhaps only as a really bad horror story. With a inconcistent and sometime contradictional storyline, the latter applies … 😉

Tom in Florida
October 5, 2014 6:28 am

Never heard of Miriam O’Brien or the Hot Whopper blog. Now I have and still don’t care.

bit chilly
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 5, 2014 6:39 am

your life experience is all the better for that situation,i assure you.

Reply to  bit chilly
October 5, 2014 10:26 am

I just made the (large) mistake of looking at her blog and skimming through the first post and some of the comments. Some poor newbie was, as many “deniers” do, properly bringing up the impact these climate related restrictions have on the 3rd world. He or she was asking about what to do when people who are being denied a chance at a better life to appease some bureaucrat’s notion of how much CO2 can be emitted for energy production. Her responses… well… the ignorance, astounding… compassion for those living in the 3rd world, absent… I won’t go back.

Reply to  bit chilly
October 5, 2014 4:00 pm

Thanks for the warning neils

Steve Keohane
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 5, 2014 6:47 am


Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 5, 2014 6:59 am

HotWhopper is just that, it tells hot whoppers. See the number of comments and you will soon realise it’s not worth reading. Life is too short to spend time reading drivel and propaganda.

F. Ross
Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 2:14 pm

Another variation on “hot whopper” might be “stolen lie”

October 5, 2014 6:40 am

If I could make a suggestion, you may want to consider changing the name of your blog to HotWhopperIsClueless.

How about HotWhopperIsNoBeef?

Richard M
October 5, 2014 6:51 am

There’s a variation of an old saying I often use and it applies here to Miriam in spades.
You can lead (wo)men to knowledge but you can’t make them think.

Reply to  Richard M
October 6, 2014 4:18 am

“I May make you feel but I can’t make you think”
Jethro Tull, Thick as a brick.

Sums Miriam up very well.

Reply to  Chris
October 6, 2014 10:28 am

Glad you didn’t quote the next line.,

October 5, 2014 6:53 am

Nice post, Bob. Since the climate debate isn’t only about climate science, and since the warmunists are using all the usuall political tactics of the far left ( the analogy was first drawn by former Czech President Vaclav Klaus in his 2007 book Blue Planet in Green Shackles), starting to fire back in a fair factual way is more than appropriate. You know more about the coupled Pacific than most of the so called professors.

Claude Harvey
October 5, 2014 7:00 am

Good grief, Bob! If seems to me you just put an obscure site I’d never heard of on the map, thereby rewarding an ignorant and insulting personal attack with a major boost in readership. If you just had to vent, a rebuttal of charges made by unnamed sources would have done the trick. Instead, great hoards of readers now have a woman’s name they’d be better off without burned into their consciousnesses.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Claude Harvey
October 5, 2014 7:02 am

You mean, like Madam Bathory?

Reply to  Claude Harvey
October 5, 2014 7:30 am

The short-term consequence might be elevated readership, Claude, but what matters is the world’s estimation of the content of that blog, which is obviously abhorrent.
She gains nothing but notoriety. I hope it grows.

October 5, 2014 7:02 am

I have just been on her site for the first time…she is scarily obsessed with WUWT. Look out for the bunny boiler, Anthony

F. Ross
Reply to  Galvanize
October 5, 2014 2:32 pm

Right on!
I too just visited there for the first time as well.
Truly scary; may be on another continent but watch your backs Anthony & Bob.

October 5, 2014 7:34 am

Well, that was a tour de force, but what good will it do?
Forget it, Bob, it’s Warmistown.

October 5, 2014 7:41 am

Oh, Miriam, Madame Propagandarian,
Why listen to all your broadcastafarian?

October 5, 2014 7:42 am

“Letters are written, never meaning to send”
It is a cathartic effort, and very amusing for the rest of us (your writing style is very good).
I especially like your use of the word “silly”. As it is mild, yet very meaningful.
(For the quote impaired, the opening quote is from Nights in White Satin, Days of Future Passed, Moody Blues, 1967 – a very obscure song no doubt).

Reply to  philjourdan
October 5, 2014 8:04 am

Phil, thank you for taking me back in time.
That recording, while obscure is beautiful.
For a quick link here it is on youtube. If one spends the time to get the live recording in concert it is worthwhile. It is a classic.

Reply to  eyesonu
October 5, 2014 4:04 pm

Been to three live concerts the first a long time ago (69) the last a few years ago it is a timeless piece of art every time!

Reply to  eyesonu
October 5, 2014 9:24 pm

A drift back in time took me to another all time classic. Maybe OT but “She’s buying a stairway to heaven”.
Here are the lyrics:
And here is the audio from Madison Square Garden. I hope it comes out as another quick link:

Reply to  eyesonu
October 5, 2014 9:36 pm

I missed the copy of the link to youtube for “Stairway to heaven” above. This is it enjoy:

Reply to  eyesonu
October 6, 2014 1:36 pm

I have them all. I have been a fan of theirs since that first album came out and bought everyone I could get. I even managed to see them in concert – twice! But that was in the early 80s, after Pinder had left.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  philjourdan
October 5, 2014 5:26 pm

Minor correction. Should be “Letters I’ve written…”
One of my all-time fav songs.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 7, 2014 12:40 pm

Thank you.

October 5, 2014 7:46 am

Bod Tisdale,
Thanks for your article on the trivialness of Miriam O’Brien. I rather enjoyed it. But you used an awfully big flyswatter on an intellectually non-biting / non-breeding midge.
Miriam O’Brien is an intellectual drone clone of Oreskes who is an intellectual drone clone of Al Gore who isn’t any kind of intellect.

October 5, 2014 7:51 am

Miriam is the Internet doofus of the alarmist side. She is a prime example of why misogyny exists. Bat shit crazy feminists like her can’t debate with the big boys who have larger IQs like Anthony, so she resorts to throwing temper tantrums and threatening lawsuits.
She is going to get a rude awakening of what the first amendment means in the United States.
Also she really should not use such weak passwords.

Reply to  Poptech
October 5, 2014 3:05 pm

Miriam threatening lawsuits? Do you have proof of that? Christopher Monckton regularly threatens lawsuits and there sure is plenty of proof of that!
And please explain why you said she really should not use such weak passwords. Have you been hacking?

Ursa Felidae
October 5, 2014 7:56 am

Bob Tisdale,
Thank you for the wonderful post. Your humor is top notch and the takedown exquisite! Perhaps now that Miriam “Sou” O’brien has been so thoroughly exposed as an intellectual lightweight, she may cower in the dark room of her making, forever fearful of typing another word that would further reveal her mental deficiency.

October 5, 2014 8:00 am

He he,
Good work Bob!
Now I put up with this Hotwhopper nonsense a lot at a very large Facebook Climate Change Discussion group,where a Judy Byatt post a lot of whoppers from Hotwhopper,that make me cringe at how low people descend when they read and accept misleading babbling warmist crap.
Here is the group for those who wants to wade in and fight for good science:
So Hotwhopper blog is a recent entry in the warmist cult misdirection game?
I am Thomas Pearson (real name) there.

October 5, 2014 8:20 am

Nicely done, Bob. The more I read your posts, the more I come to appreciate your understanding of oceans and climate.

October 5, 2014 8:38 am

Feminism and climate alarmism go nicely together. They both share the same level of ignorance and failed approach of modelling reality to their agenda, and never reality. Just substitute key terms of one with another, and you’ll feel at home.Misogynists are deniers, CAGW is patriarchy … reasoning is pointless.
They also share gravy train mentality.

Stephen Richards
October 5, 2014 8:39 am

Bob it is always very tempting for a well educated person to try to correct the beliefs of an idiot but believe you me it is like banging your hea on a brick wall. The wall won’t budge but your head will sure as hell hurt.

October 5, 2014 8:40 am

After reading how CAGW proponents, usually, try to debunk science I’d say: “If to err is human… nobody can deny the astounding human level we have reached” (Quino, loosely translated)

October 5, 2014 8:44 am

Bob, send her a copy of “Who Turned On The Heat” for an early Christmas present. 🙂

Michael Lemaire
October 5, 2014 8:57 am

Unfortunately your enlightening statements will be lost on her: way above her head… the poor thing.

Peter Crawford
October 5, 2014 9:00 am

I clicked on Hotwhopper and assumed from the obvious bollocks that it was an elaborate spoof. It seems I was wrong yet again. You can’t second-guess these [snip . . you know the rules and profanity doesn’t make your point any better . . mod]. They really are as mad as it says on the box.

Ian L. McQueen
October 5, 2014 9:01 am

Hi Bob-
Another posting full of information. It gets so deep that I don’t have the time to follow it all, but you are to be thanked for the amount of time that you devote to this cause.
Two minor corrections:
Near the end of the sentence
“Wang and Schubert (2014) find that the North Pacific SST warm anomalies during early 2013 created a “predilection” for dry conditions during the second half of the 2013-2013 “rainy season” in California, and Funk et al. (2014) also report that the observed Pacific SST anomalies during 2013-2014 contributed to the extremely low precipitation that was observed during 2013-2014.” is the bit “during the second half of the 2013-2013 “rainy season” in California”. Should the last “2013” be “2014”?
In “Example 5”, “your” is written “you’re”.
Thanks again for your many postings.

Doug Proctor
October 5, 2014 9:07 am

The Californian drought has been caused by the failure of the winter snows, not the summer heat or rains. Understanding that is the key.
The warmists focus on hear because the narrative says CO2 causes heat and THEN the heat causes bad things to happen. They mistake symptom for cause as they confuse correlation with causation.
Winter precipitation has not stopped because warmer, moister air is cooling but not releasing its moisture. The circulation pattern has changed.
The connection between CO2, a minor temp change of the Pacific and winter air movements though California is not visible. That is why models are needed. But the public is told a lie. Conjecture drives CAGW just as it did the reading of goat entrails for facts about the future for the ancient Romans.

October 5, 2014 9:08 am

One of the facts that I frequently deploy in discussions with wamanistas is tide gauges.
I always hold that one back, much like a trump ace, until they’ve spilled everything they’ve got.
Tide gauges are their worst enemy. Why? Because you can’t manipulate the data set. It can’t be adjusted because you think Grandpa Jones read the thermometer at a different time on some day in 1934, you can’t claim an adjustment is justified due to station move, or UHI, or anything else they typically regurgitate as a justification for data manipulation.
A tide gauge is what it is, period. And it even one single iota of what they spout is true, it would show up there, because their entire argument is all interconnected. If there is warming, there MUST be sea level rise.
There isn’t. Bang, done, and on to How ’bout those Red Sox?”

Reply to  jimmaine
October 5, 2014 11:45 am

Correctomundo. Tide gauges, when employed en masse, are just about impossible to argue with. One gauge might be affected by subsidence, and another by rising. But when all are averaged together, the result must be accurate, because movements of the crust must average out to zero.

Reply to  jimmaine
October 5, 2014 4:37 pm

You say the truth, jimmaine. I have looked all NOAA mean sea level plots and SL has been steady for 15-20 years and longer. That hard fact does not stop the fabrication of a SL rise, as at the U of Colorado and even NOAA (by using satellite altimetry plotted on a sloping base).

October 5, 2014 9:16 am

It is remarkable at the great array of labels that are invoked to counter any unwanted or inconvenient discussion: ‘concern trolls’, ‘tone trolls’… Some people live in a strange world.
It reminds me of the time my comment at Skeptical Science was deleted as a’Gish Gallop’, when it consisted of one directly related point with one supporting reference link.
Such people are completely indoctrinated and ruthless.

October 5, 2014 9:17 am

I wonder if it fries her circuits when Bob Tisdale is the only reason her blog traffic increases for brief periods. Must be sad to know that your regular readership pales in comparison to link through readers.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 12:55 pm

A few percent from WUWT in a half a day may be more than that blog receives in a year.

October 5, 2014 9:20 am

That is an absolutely absurd argument, because the models cannot simulate naturally occurring coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that contribute to long-term warming or stop it. A side effect of that is, they cannot simulate where global sea surfaces show no long-term warming, Miriam.

And this, in a nutshell, is the enormously serious problem. GCMs get so very many things just plain wrong!. They openly fail to simulate the temperature variation of most of the 20th and early 21st century in spite of using a 20-25 year stretch of it as a reference (training set) period. They utterly fail to correctly describe the lower troposphere — which is an absolutely enormous failure, given that the lower troposphere is basically where almost all of our weather happens. They fail to describe the behavior of the entire Pacific Ocean. They fail to predict the decadal time variations of rainfall, the violence or frequency of storms. It isn’t particularly clear what they do do a good job simulating, since the Earth’s climate system is strongly and nonlinearly coupled and making an error in any one of these major components of the Earth’s climate system would almost certainly force errors everywhere else.
The best that can be said of the models is that, when run, produce individual model, individual runs, that sort-of look like planetary weather. Until you look at them too closely and observe that they require continuous renormalization in order not to diverge on the hot or cold side because their time evolution is not, actually, conservative. They are integrated at an absurd spatiotemporal scale — one some 20 to 30 orders of magnitude larger than the scales that are likely to lead to a quantitatively relevant result. They have the wrong variance — seriously wrong, in most cases — the “weather” in these models, which require delicate and improbably precise tuning between the effect of the overdriven greenhouse gases and the overdamping aerosols to function at all, varies far more strongly than the actual weather does (hence, among other things, their assertion of more and more violent storms in those weather extremes and during the much more violent and extensive temperature changes). The variations have the wrong autocorrelation spectrum — which is, by the way, direct evidence that the models have the wrong physics internally, but who cares about a silly little thing like that? The thing is that they produce nifty graphs that really look like weather! I mean “climate”. As it changes. The weather, the climate, whatever. No two runs of any given model agree — they are not, in fact quantitatively or even qualitatively predictive. And not even the averages over many such runs — a meaningless quantity as far as the one actual trajectory of the one actual planetary climate is concerned — agree between truly independent models. Which, sadly, the models in CMIP5 are not — most of them share code, data, and many other things so that they really can’t even pretend to constitute some sort of statistical ensemble with predictive value in the mean, even though that is precisely how the IPCC uses them.
Finally, the models obviously cannot, and do not, quantitatively predict the large-scale decadal oscillations that equally obviously directly determine the efficiency of the planetary heat transport system. Let me explain just how big a problem that is. In far simpler systems — for example, a simple pan of water being uniformly warmed on the bottom and cooled at the top — as one increases the rate at which the bottom is being warmed, at various points in the warming the system smoothly conducts heat bottom to top, then convective turnover starts, typically signalled by the appearance of topologically stable convective rolls, then those rolls start to exhibit instabilities, and then the system successively self-reorganizes as the warming continues to increase into modes that are ever more efficient at moving the heat. Predicting even a qualitative response of the system in this highly nonlinear regime obviously requires a substantial quantitative knowledge of the particular convective structures involved, the topological quasiparticles of the nonlinear convective dynamics. A system with (say) two convective rolls is not going to respond the same way as a system with four, or fifty, or with rolls that are constantly breaking and reforming with ever changing numbers but with some sort of long term quasi-periodicity.
Do the models (say) correctly predict the PDO? The NAO? ENSO? Do they correctly predict the advent and strength of the monsoon in Asia, years in advance? Do they even predict variations in global patterns of atmospheric oscillation like this?
No. They do not. In fact, this is a major source of apologia. Why didn’t the models correctly predict “The Hiatus”? Because “The models couldn’t know that we would have several consecutive La Ninas” is an excuse I often hear. But think about what that means! It means that if something literally unpredictable by the models — that Ninas exceed Ninos for decadal timespans — occurs, the models are completely, unambiguously wrong, not even close! It means that Nino vs Nina matters (not that this isn’t obvious from the timeseries itself). It means that neglecting this when building the models means that even in the reference period, the models may “work” but they are still wrong as they neglect or underestimate the enormous impact of ENSO on the outcome and accomplish warming or cooling some other way (by means of overdriving opposed GHGs and aerosols, of course).
I’ve actually had a bit of experience in trying to balance out something far simpler than weather — just fitting nonlinear functions to data as a predictive model — when the nonlinear functions are large and have to be cancelled in order to produce a comparatively small total functional form. It is one of the most difficult of tasks, because even small errors in the training set data fit rapidly amplify outside of the domain where you forced them to work. A similar thing occurs in the theory of ODEs, where “stiff” ODEs are by definition ones where tiny errors amplify as one integrates.
The climate is far, far, beyond merely being stiff. It is chaotic. But like many other chaotic systems, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t structured, or that the structure isn’t important. It just means that unless you get the structure exactly right, you won’t even be able to make qualitative statements about what the chaotic system is likely to do, let alone what it actually does. In this sense, failing to be able to quantitatively predict the PDO, ENSO etc, let alone variations in the thermohaline circulation, let alone all local phenomena like blocking highs that again are named, commonly occurring quasiparticle structures that appear and persist for “important” lengths of time, that have a huge impact on the evolution of planetary temperatures and rainfall distributions and much more, and that the GCMs are utterly blind to, incapable of predicting even the right probability distribution of such phenomena, let alone the detailed evolution of a single one given their initial conditions at the limits of our ability to resolve them.
But none of this is likely to stop people from running the models and claiming that the results are relevant to the future, while avoiding any use of the word predict because predictions can be falsified where mere projections and prophecies never can be.

Reply to  rgbatduke
October 5, 2014 10:09 am

I agree with those comments. I would also like to point out that if the mainstream consensus is wrong then there will never be a decent model made by those who follow the consensus.
A fellow who calls himself “gallopingcamel” and posts at a site we are not supposed to link to but is run by a tall fellow and won best European blog last year, said he is an ex-colleague of yours. He was responding to a comment that said, “The thing that bothers me about the so called down-welling IR is that excited CO2 molecules collide with other atmospheric gases before they have a chance to emit that photon.” He responded that he had tried to get you to admit something explained at a link to some post about a “Robinson and Catling Model” that I did not read.
I figure that you and your ex-colleague both understand that we may have looked at this whole problem wrong. It may be that the magic molecule does darn little and that we are barking up the wrong tree altogether. (“we” as in the consensus of today’s science on climate)
All those words just to say, “models can be real hard, especially if you get the basic science wrong”.

Reply to  markstoval
October 5, 2014 2:02 pm

Yes, RapidCamel and I know each other pretty well;-). Yes, it is true that CO_2 molecules almost always collide with other molecules and transfer some or all of the energy they absorb before they have a chance to reradiate.
However, that does not make it correct to assert anything but that CO_2 remains in thermal equilibrium (or nearly so) with the surrounding atmosphere — indeed, it is one of the primary things that helps to warm it as the air otherwise is rather transparent to both visible and LWIR. But forget not the Laws of Kirchoff! You cannot have a system in detailed balance (that is to say, in dynamical thermal equilibrium) where absorption and emission are not symmetric. All that happens is that CO_2 absorbs LWIR and heats both itself and the surrounding air until the rate that it loses energy, both to the O_2 and N_2 surrounding it and to reradiation, matches the rate that it gains energy from the surrounding N_2 and O_2 and from radiation re- and otherwise.
That is, the CO_2 is not disequilibrated with its surroundings by absorbing LWIR, holding it a while at a much higher energy, and then releasing it as a sort of “elastic collision” or “elastic scattering” process. The interaction is inelastic and highly nonlinear. But it still has to be energy symmetric as long as the CO_2 is remaining at a roughly constant temperature — ins must equal outs.
Besides, it is pointless to argue about the theory of the GHE when one can just measure it. The merest glance at TOA and BOA spectrographs and you simply have to go “Yup, there’s the greenhouse effect all right, right there where it should be.”

Reply to  rgbatduke
October 5, 2014 12:06 pm

Thank you, rgbatduke. Appreciate your posts.

Reply to  rgbatduke
October 5, 2014 12:35 pm

Any model not showing La Ninas predominating during the cool phase (as has started) of the PDO is prima facie going to be as wrong as it can be. But then GCMs were hatched long before the PDO & AMO were even discovered.

Reply to  rgbatduke
October 5, 2014 7:12 pm

Dr. Brown,
I feel this is an excellent summation of the numerous problems with climate modelling. In particular the complexities of Raleigh-Bernard circulation. This is a critical flaw in the models, they are not actually running CFD in the vertical dimension. Vertical non-radiative energy transport is parametrised. If you don’t increase the speed of vertical circulation for increased radiative subsidence, you model surface warming. Essentially the algorithms used for vertical parametrisation say that CO2 will cause significant warming, so that’s what the models show.

Reply to  rgbatduke
October 5, 2014 11:39 pm

Dr Brown, I look forward to your most informative comments. I usually read them a couple of times as I don’t want to miss anything.

Don B
October 5, 2014 9:35 am

Jimbo quoted from the IPCC’s report, and here is a quote the NY Times, from 1994.
“BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.”
In 1994 the NYT was either less involved in climate campaigning, or science surreptitiously slipped by the gatekeepers. (Note the Triple-S.)

October 5, 2014 9:38 am

Oh, and Pete, you aren’t qualified to judge comments on women unless you understand the difference between someone who truly anti-women and and someone who is clearly only being anti-wench.
The fact that you seem to feel the need to attack ONLY the comments that apply to her gender, and have ZERO defense for her actual arguments, reeks of a misogynistic belief that her gender is the only ” weakness ” you see being mentioned here that elicited a response from you.

October 5, 2014 10:01 am

This paper published by the AMS in 2013 predicted that AGW will increase winter precipitation in California. This was allegedly a ”robust feature” in CMIP5 simulations.
Now the same CMIP5 models are used to justify the claim that AGW caused the “unusually low” winter precipitation in California.
It would be more impressive if the models could tell beforehand whether California gets wetter or drier. It’s less impressive to speculate afterwards how AGW did it, even though we predicted it would do the opposite.

Evaluation of the large-scale model experiments for phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) suggests a greater degree of agreement on the sign of the winter (December–February) precipitation change than in the previous such intercomparison, indicating a greater portion of California falling within the increased precipitation zone. … Significant precipitation increases in the region arriving at the California coast are associated with an eastward extension of the region of strong Pacific jet stream, which appears to be a robust feature of the large-scale simulated changes.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 2:26 pm

That is their MO. Produce mountains of papers contradicting each other then sit and wait. No matter what happens they will say “the models predicted it”. This is akin to climastrology voodoo played on gaming machines.

October 5, 2014 10:05 am

Don’t take Slandering Sou’s attacks personally Bob. She is a sniper bent on denigrating all who she disagrees with. When I posted about Kivalina Island that is in the Chukchi Sea, I used the record extent of sea ice to the south in the Bering Sea plus the only two PSMSL tidal gauge date one from the Beaufort and from the Bering Sea. Although I never ever said Kivalina was in either one of those sea, Slandering Sou twisted it with headlines that I do not know my geography. When I posted about the restoration efforts in Florida that could account for any changes in the mangroves range,–hijacking-another-conservation-success.html
She focused on one region to the south to again use the ignorance of geography attack. She accused me of not examining all the evidence but she herself ignored data that the mangroves were much further north in the 60s than they are today. When I posted about the Texas Heat Waves in which climate scientists reported there was no warming, she turned it into me denying warming. When I responded to he misinterpretations she deleted several posts to maintain just her twisted view. I realized it was pointless to ever hope for an honest discussion with Slandering Sou.
But its not just skeptics, she has attacked and pissed off a former moderator of RealClimate because he exposed some bad science and he regrets ever visiting her website. She has shown absolutely no integrity and acts as if her life depends on catastrophic global warming being a reality. As she so often to brands others, she is a real “nutter”.

Reply to  jim Steele
October 5, 2014 12:09 pm

I had a post up on IPCC ‘predictions’. I went over to her blog when she covered it. She insisted I accept her point of view otherwise I would not be allowed to comment further. I told here she must accept my point of view and told here to basically piss off.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 12:40 pm

How did ‘her’ turn to ‘here’? Grrrrr.
[But, how does “Her is Sou” make more sense? 8<) .mod]

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 12:45 pm

I may have an explanation–it appeared in today’s Sunday edition of the “literature pages” in the form of B.C. by Mastroianni and Hart.
It shows Peter grabbing a tablet and writing “Humanity shall extinguish itself in a smoldering plume of toxic ash”. He then throws it into the ocean and watches it swim off.
After sitting up all night, the next day Peter sees a response tablet coming his way. It says: “Have you tried the patch?”

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 2:28 pm

MOD, the mistakes I made are in bold.
“I told here she must accept my point of view and told here to basically piss off.”

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 7, 2014 11:57 am

Laughing at what they say, when their intention is to hurt, is the worst thing for them. It enrages them even more.
And the only response is to laugh more.

Jim A
October 5, 2014 10:09 am

I dont get the attention devoted to this moonbat Cultist!
Her whole site is about whopping WUWT. And she references Lewandowski which tells you all you need to know about her veracity… not even counting the heavy use of ‘denier’
Just use one liner ‘fisking’ with links.

October 5, 2014 10:21 am

I’ve never seen a more appropriately named blog. It is one hot whopper after another there. Perhaps I misunderstand and that she’s actually a very successful fiction blogger. That doesn’t explain the serial stalking of site owners she disagrees with, though. Her name should be offered to SNL on the chance they’re looking for a role model for a GF from Hell skit.

Reply to  dp
October 5, 2014 10:50 am

…and what’s funny is that they’re so self-absorbed, so brainwashed, they don’t even recognize it!

October 5, 2014 10:30 am

For Miriam, the issues are not the issue. She creates controversy in order to draw attention to herself, is extremely sensitive to criticism, and among other things, has rules which only she knows and then attacks others for breaking them. On the other hand, she sees herself as exempt from common rules of civil discussion.
I suspect she may suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder.

Reply to  bonanzapilot
October 5, 2014 11:55 am

No ‘borderline’ about it.

October 5, 2014 10:43 am

May be she has been “Thunder Struck” as in the you tube cover by steve’nseagulls

Reply to  fobdangerclose
October 5, 2014 11:04 am

Cool tune 🙂

October 5, 2014 10:44 am

Miriam and Obama have the same personality disorder.

Anarchist Hate Machine
October 5, 2014 10:45 am

Commenting on commenters on another site is of course cowardly… and they don’t have much other choice. I’ve seen time and again on this site, when warmists put forth their arguments and get ripped to shreds by data and facts, no name calling or vitriol needed. They simply can’t stand up to scrutiny. So the only thing they can do is to hide behind their own little blog and take pot shots at individual commenters.

Reply to  Anarchist Hate Machine
October 5, 2014 12:15 pm

She cherry picks silly comments / jokes or sarc at WUWT and presents them as being representative. They are never a random selection you will note. There are so few visitors at her site that there is little to gain in traffic.

October 5, 2014 10:47 am

From Psychcentral
Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment.
A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation.
Identity disturbance, such as a significant and persistent unstable self-image or sense of self.
Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating).
Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior.
Emotional instability due to significant reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days).

David in Cal
October 5, 2014 10:57 am

Mr. Tisdale — I have no doubt that your points are correct, and, of course, you have the right and obligation to defend yourself from unfair criticism. Still, I didn’t like the tone of this piece. It was unnecessarily nasty IMHO.

Reply to  David in Cal
October 5, 2014 11:24 am

It appears to be an attempt at writing in-kind. If so it was wonderfully successful.

Reply to  David in Cal
October 5, 2014 12:17 pm

The tone was unnecessarily mild IMHO. This is climate war not climate nice.

Anarchist Hate Machine
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 5, 2014 1:58 pm

I won’t pretend to speak for everyone, and I’m certain there are those like David in Cal who think you may have over done it. However, I agree with Jimbo that this is a war now, and we must treat it as such. It’s not a simple debate anymore. Whether we win or not *will* affect our livelihoods and our standards of living, and possibly even more so for a great many more who are not there yet, but want and have the right to develop their resources to attain it. This doesn’t mean we have to sling mud like they (warmists, warmistas, warmunists, illusionists, delusionists, whatever title that suits) do, but I think what you did and how you did it was warranted, and I think many others share that view. As long as at core of our position is facts and empirical data.

October 5, 2014 11:10 am

Bob, I do understand the need to point out the color of the blemishes on the skin of the emperor without clothes….
Good job.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 5, 2014 11:16 am

How do you manage to write so much good stuff faster than I can read and appreciate it? I just bought your Who Turned Up the Heat? at the new, incredible bargain price and have started working my way through it to great profit in personal knowledge.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 5, 2014 12:11 pm

You’re right. Who Turned Up the Heat? is worth reading at 5X the price. An incredibly smart book.

October 5, 2014 11:58 am

RE: rgbatduke 10/5 at 9:20 am

It means that Nino vs Nina matters (not that this isn’t obvious from the timeseries itself). It means that neglecting this when building the models means that even in the reference period, the models may “work” but they are still wrong as they neglect or underestimate the enormous impact of ENSO on the outcome and accomplish warming or cooling some other way (by means of overdriving opposed GHGs and aerosols, of course).

Concisely stated and highly focused, rgb
If important bits are left out of a model, then the training process will give unimportant bits much greater weight than deserved so as to force fit the training result.

“With four parameters I can fit an elephant. With five I can make his trunk wiggle.” —John von Neumann
[Here is a complex Fourier function] that draws an elephantine curve using just 4 fitting coefficients or parameters. [Stephen O’C] also sent me his translation of the Python code into R.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
October 5, 2014 2:11 pm

Very amusing. John von Neumann proven wrong. The elephant can be made to wiggle his trunk and wink with only four. Odd that he’d make such an elephantine curve mistake…

October 5, 2014 11:59 am

1. big lie, fabrication, falsehood, untruth, tall story (informal), fable

October 5, 2014 12:15 pm

I went to that Hotwhopper post about “Perennially Puzzled…” and she writes this gem of total lack of self-awareness.

Deniers toss out direct measurements, preferring homogenised estimates

Holy crap.

October 5, 2014 12:18 pm

I followed one of the links to Hot Whopper where this was a heading.

Deniers toss out direct measurements, preferring homogenised estimates

Is the lack of self-awareness really this bad?

October 5, 2014 12:34 pm

Is this Sou? The profile of Miriam matches the one at HotWhopper.
Miriam O’Brien Consulting

Reply to  Jimbo
October 5, 2014 2:11 pm

I think she should add Hedging and Insurance to her risk management class.

Nigel S
Reply to  Jimbo
October 6, 2014 12:33 am

If it is the government work may be drying up with the new regime. I imagine that would be quite annoying!

October 5, 2014 12:37 pm
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 5, 2014 12:38 pm

Just checked in on her article on the CA drought- as everyone already predicted, she not only did not learn one Damned thing, she has doubled-down on Stupid.

Richard D
October 5, 2014 12:39 pm

It’s great to see her ignorant opinions confronted with humor and FACTS! Well done and thanks Bob Tisdale.

Alan Robertson
October 5, 2014 12:59 pm

Is Sou pronounced Sow as in a sow, suckling her piglets?

October 5, 2014 1:02 pm

I think you being a little hard on O’Brien, after they are working to ‘acceptable ‘ standards for climate ‘science ‘ as set by Mann , Jones etc who made it clear that a lack of ability , knowledge or honest is in no way a negative thing in this area .

Patrick Maher
October 5, 2014 1:04 pm

Some people see things through objective eyes. Some allow bias to influence their perceptions. Many don’t bother to look at all and just rely on others to decide for them. It is the latter group that seem to hold the strongest opinions. The more evidence you present the more desperate they become. If you disprove the beliefs of the people they rely on for their opinions, they might have to start thinking for themselves and make a decision. Nothing frightens them more.

Will Handler
October 5, 2014 1:17 pm

These kind of riposte do not help win any arguments, treat children like children and keep your patience. In the end you get rewarded.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 6, 2014 12:07 am

Like a mouldy cheese – she may well ripen.

October 5, 2014 2:51 pm

Well, this song came to mind:

October 5, 2014 3:00 pm

Well done and thanks, Bob Tisdale. Personally. I had always assumed that the Site Title “HotWhopper” came from the enormous outrageous CAGW lies that were published by Miriam on it.

Eamon Butler
October 5, 2014 4:08 pm

A well deserved public arse kicking for this ignorant woman. I came across this (H.W.) foolish site some time ago. I can assure anyone who hasn’t seen it, it contributes absolutely nothing of value. Not worth wasting any time on it.
Thanks Bob. Good example of when to use a sledgehammer to crack a NUT.

October 5, 2014 4:14 pm

Err……there only appears to be a single comment now on that post…?
Down the memory hole…..A favoured tactic by the gruaniad.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 6, 2014 1:10 am

Ahh…I must have been having a man-look!
Looks like 14 on the Californian drought..
Huge apologies.

October 5, 2014 4:16 pm

Apologies…contextually it would have been better to say “also” a favoured tactic……………

October 5, 2014 4:48 pm

I think it was really nice of Bob to respond in depth to Miriam. You have to educate these people one at a time sometimes to go “forward” . I hope she will won’t be turned off by some of the comments. Who knows, maybe she can be open minded about the whole thing about CO2 being the control knob for climate change/global warming/climate disruption/climate wierding…etc.

October 5, 2014 5:40 pm

Great job.
I think Miriam O’Brien can be summed up in three words, “Mean People Suck”.

October 5, 2014 5:41 pm

“Hindcasts are different than forecasts…The modelers knew the answers. Yet the modelers could not get their models to spit out those answers.”
Ain’t that it, in a nutshell.
What is so silly is that even though they know the models are wrong they’ll do things like perform “applied advanced statistical techniques” on the models which in no way fixes the models base inaccuracies. It is kind of like thinking you can remove the odor from stool by performing high-level statistical analysis on it’s composition.
I keep saying it is a mental condition. I really think some of these folks are off the rails.

October 5, 2014 6:05 pm

Because the system is incompletely characterized and unwieldy, accuracy is inversely proportional to time and space offsets from present. That is, as time and space gaps increase, accuracy approaches its lower limit. For this reason, the scientific domain is necessarily constrained in time and space, and the scientific method enforces this limitation. Outside this limited domain, there is faith and philosophy.

October 5, 2014 6:39 pm

I used to lurk around HW but have given her up as a lost cause. It is however worth going there occasionally for a bit of comic relief. But she is vicious with the ethics of an alley cat. eg
A while back she had a post where she utterly (I mean utterly) misunderstood a point made by Tim Ball about CO2 as a percentage of all GH gasses. I pointed out the error and explained Ball’s point. She didn’t get it (probably because I used polysyllabic words!) so I reiterated it in simpler language. The penny dropped and she went into damage control:
1. Both comments were deleted
2. She changed her original post so that the error didn’t seem so egregious without any acknowledement of the change
3. She explained to her readers that she had to delete my comments because they were so laughably wrong.
When I protested at her obvious falsehoods and challenged her ethics – given that she was merrily deleting comments while elsewhere claiming to only do it in extreme cases – she (ironically) deleted my comment and banned me.
As I say, HW is an ethics-free zone.
On the other hand, she is not completely beyond redemption. She has this childish way of attaching little nicknames to those she views as opponents – ‘perpetually perplexed’ etc. She used to describe someone here as Eric ‘Eugenics’ Worrall. When I wrote a comment explaining why Worrall talked about eugenics and that, given his pivotal part in the decline and downfall of ‘Watching the Deniers’, she might more usefully call him Eric ‘Photoshop’ Worrall, she stopped the eugenics nonsense. (She also deleted my comment -big surprise!). She’s mentioned Worrall several times since without the silly honorific. So she does have the capacity to learn – sort of.

Reply to  Mark
October 6, 2014 4:45 am

“So she does have the capacity to learn – sort of.”
So does my goldfish.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
October 5, 2014 7:12 pm

Looks like a “Man” versus “Woman” law suite in the making!
Oh dear indeed.
A “Genius” WUWT Super Human Above Culture and Race Contributor in shackles and towed unceremoniously to the local county-holding cell.

Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
October 5, 2014 9:21 pm

Suite, or suit, no need to be clear.
A suite sounds better than a “local county-holding cell”.
Just an opinion.

George Tetley
October 5, 2014 11:48 pm

Its an Australian thing,
Want to know what an Australian thing is ? ask a New Zealander !

Nigel S
October 6, 2014 12:18 am

“Whaaat is your favourite whopper!?” (Searching for the wholly bogus grail of CAGW)

October 6, 2014 3:43 am

Dear me. Reading this indicates that the public side of “climate science”, and its adherents, is populated by severely damaged human beans. I give you Mann, Gleick, Lewandwoski and Ms. O’Brien for starters, all severely obsessive and disfunctional humanoids.
Just sayin…

October 6, 2014 4:13 am

I had never heard of HW but taking a look you start to recognize the style of writing and heavy usage of certain words. I think Miriam travels far and wide around the internet posting under many, many names.
Mark October 5, 2014 at 6:39 pm- flagged up “attaching little nicknames” and looking at her site, her heavy use of “paranoid” and other little giveaways, I believe i have come across Miriam under her many , many names.
When she cannot runaway by deleting comments it becomes enormous fun to confront her. It is quite wonderful to watch a certain “madness’ appear as the comments progress.
I look forward to her using my comments above on her HW website.

October 6, 2014 5:08 am

Honestly, I find this post really creepy, reminds me of some elderly man stalking and imposing on a woman on the interwebs. Honestly, *48* mentions of her first name in one article? What are you trying to get at?

Reply to  captain pithart
October 6, 2014 5:24 am

hahaa, is that you Miriam!! if so, we welcome you stalking WUWT and re-posting comments on your HOT Wopper site..

Reply to  captain pithart
October 6, 2014 7:08 am

The truth.

October 6, 2014 5:18 am

Lurker here. I enjoy your articles but this one seems over the top. She does sound clueless and mean but there isn’t any reason to sink to her level. She’s a troll. A sophisticated one but a troll none the less. It won’t take long for her over the top blog posts to reach her professional organization then she will be done. Until then why demean yourself by addressing her in lengthy dedicated articles.

Reply to  Al
October 6, 2014 7:07 am

Many “professional organizations” agree with the CAGW stance, Al, so they won’t address this abhorrent deviation–they only cheer it on.
I used to be polite in these encounters, thinking these climate science charlatans (CSC) are amenable to civilized persuasion, but that’s a mistake.
So anymore I take off the gloves and shove the truth in their faces. Admittedly most of them will never come around, but it effectively counters their defamation and slander of the science and people who honestly present it.
And while some clear-thinking realists might appear to be wallowing in the mud with these CSC, aggressively parrying their nastiness and total deception is an effective way to expose them for what they are.
You’d think a brutal riposte would shut these “sophisticated trolls” up but when it doesn’t, readers can decide for themselves who are the pigs and who are the stallions.

October 6, 2014 6:11 am

I agree Al, I’m new here (a fellow lurker) and when the message board degenerates into cheap shots designed to goad someone – no matter what they have done to deserve it, isnt that ‘trolling’. To my mind theres no excuse to troll a troll….. ‘takes one to know one’ perhaps is the retort. There are numerous blogs on both sides of the argument that redact perfectly reasonable comment, that is not a good basis for debate and their editors and participants are not worth the effort engaging with, you cannot win. What Bob has done and it would seem that he has had some considerable provocation, is bring his ‘beef’ into a more open arena where comment is less likely to be removed unless entirely off topic or abusive. Moderating the latter could be a bit better IMO.
Anthony – great site – nice to be able to sit on the fence and not feel uncomfortable!

October 6, 2014 7:26 am

The only thing that would have made this post better would be to begin it with…Oh Miriam, Bless your heart…

October 6, 2014 9:24 am

Perhaps we should start referring to Miriam’s blog, HotWopper, as CodsWollop.

October 6, 2014 10:50 am

I think her purported misandry and obsession with “Hot Whoppers” tells us all we need to know about her mental state.

October 7, 2014 7:46 am

I spent a little while there talking about ice breakers, to their credit they went along with the flow but finished with-
“That’s enough. Any more nonsense from you and it will be promptly deleted”
my last comment about trends and a link on the thread has not had a reply –

James Hein
October 7, 2014 2:57 pm

In Australia a “whopper”, besides being the burger, is a term used to describe a big lie. So by extension a hot whopper would be. . ..

October 7, 2014 4:00 pm

Though they threatened to delete my posts they carried on and tried to ridicule me, i answered back but that was finally deleted,
So to see one of the replies and their utter stupidity –
“JoeOctober 8, 2014 at 1:54 AM
Haha! So the 10,000 stuck vessels is nonsense. As expected from deniers.”
so to finish this guy off – my reply-
“The icebreakers in the Bay of Bothnia assisted 4 277 merchant vessels and 590 towing
operations were conducted. The average waiting time was 9 hours and 7 minutes. 18
59,6% of all port calls did not have to wait for icebreaker assistance at all, but 32,4% of
the port calls had to wait more than 4 hours for icebreaker assistance (so-called long
“According to statistics from the Baltic Sea icebreaking authorities, 10750 vessels
received assistance from icebreakers this season”

Reply to  richard
October 8, 2014 12:15 am

First up that article is for the 2010 – 2011 season. The discussion was about the more recent season. Secondly that article is for the Baltic Sea. The discussion on HotWhopper was to do with the Arctic Ocean and Arctic sea ice, not the Baltic Sea.

Reply to  Martin
October 8, 2014 7:04 am

I agree.

Cream Bourbon
Reply to  richard
October 8, 2014 1:29 am

You appear to have omitted at least one key detail of what you said Richard. That is you initially claimed that there were 10000 vessels rescued – not just assisted. Not to mention adding another sea into the summation.

Reply to  Cream Bourbon
October 8, 2014 11:03 am

You are just nitpicking.

Cream Bourbon
Reply to  Cream Bourbon
October 9, 2014 7:19 am

No, I am not nitpicking. I have given a fair assessment of why richard was moderated at HotWhopper. Have you read the relevant thread at HotWhopper? There is no way you can say icebreakers were anything to do with the article. And he pushed icebreakers incessantly, just like he is doing here.

Reply to  Cream Bourbon
October 9, 2014 9:42 am

You were nitpicking the difference between assistance and rescue. If they are not assisted, they remain stuck in ice for …how long? Forever?
In this context both words seem synonymous to me.

Cream Bourbon
Reply to  Cream Bourbon
October 9, 2014 10:32 am

No, I was not nitpicking. You are not looking at the full context. The subject of ice-breakers was off topic. The subject of Arctic sea ice was off topic. Introducing figures for icebreakers in the Baltic Sea was completely moving the goalposts as well as being off topic. Before you again repeat I was nitpicking I suggest you read the article and the thread and you will see it is quite clear why richard was moderated. And richard certainly did not give an accurate description of why he was moderated, which is what I am talking about here.

Reply to  Cream Bourbon
October 9, 2014 11:15 am

The comment of yours that I replied to was where you tried to make a big difference between “rescued” and “assisted”. To me, when the locale is in a place like the Arctic where a simple mistake can lead to disaster, it looks like nitpicking to make a big deal out of the two words. As I said, in that context they look synonymous to me.
And thanx for your suggestion that I click on HotWhopper. But, no thanks. They get too many clicks as it is. As Lily Tomlin said, no matter how cynical you get, it’s hard to keep up. That blog exceeds my daily quota.

Cream Bourbon
Reply to  Cream Bourbon
October 9, 2014 1:38 pm

Well, that was not the major point I was trying to make. But as you think it is a significant detail without looking at the full context I will fill in a bit for you.
richard made the claim that 10000 ships were rescued in the Arctic. When this point was questioned he referenced a report in in the Baltic Sea. This was clearly not the Arctic. And rescuing is very different from requesting assistance in icy regions. It is routine to get assistance – convoys of ships will follow one icebreaker clearing the ice. This is how it is done. By no stretch of the language is that needing rescuing.
Even if it is all debatable that is no reason for richard to call people utter idiots and complain when he is moderated for thread bombing. And that is the point. Not giving an accurate and complete account of what happened is not informative.

October 8, 2014 1:41 am

The ships assisted, if an ice breaker had not come along what would the consequence have been- stuck? The ice breakers come along to free a passage.
Was the ship stuck in the Antarctic last christmas assisted or rescued. I believe a channel was opened up.
So finally on hotwopper they can respond to my previous comments but I am finally moderated. The never responded to my link showing a 0.07 decrease per decade in warming since 1935.

October 8, 2014 1:43 am

when i call out the AA for assistance it’s because i am stuck.

October 8, 2014 1:46 am

Cream Bourbon-
US icebreaker en route to help ships stuck in Antarctic Ice … › News › World News › Antarctica
2 Jan 2014 – … sent to rescue stricken Chinese and Russian vessels in the Antarctic. … are “ASSISTING” in breaking a navigational path for both of these vessels.

October 8, 2014 3:14 am

gerund or present participle: assisting
help (someone), typically by doing a share of the work.
“a senior academic would assist him in his work”
synonyms: help, aid, abet, lend a (helping) hand to, give assistance to, be of use to, oblige, accommodate, serve, be of service to, do someone a service, do someone a favour, do someone a good turn, bail someone out, come to someone’s rescue;

Cream Bourbon
October 8, 2014 5:50 am

As you do not appear to have absorbed what people said:
Richard, you posted numerous times that 10,000 vessels had to be *rescued*. That report is about icebreakers assisting vessels to get through the ice in the ice-breaking season. That is, clearing paths through the ice in winter. That’s normal traffic around and between ports in the northern latitudes. That’s completely different to what you were claiming – and it’s got nothing to do with summer ice disappearing in the Arctic.
“The Baltic Sea isn’t the Arctic Ocean.”

October 8, 2014 6:38 am

Cream Bourbon
Did the ships rescued call through for Ice breaker assistance? Why ask for assistance – is this to be rescued?
Did the ship trapped in the Antarctic last year call through for icebreaker assistance?
What would this suggest- that there is ice getting in the way?
If the icebreakers did not answer the call for assistance , what would the consequences be?
but you answered yourself-
“That is, clearing paths through the ice in winter”
but you missed out the summer as well if you read the report thoroughly. It is a 2010/11 season.

Cream Bourbon
Reply to  richard
October 8, 2014 6:56 am

“The Baltic Sea isn’t the Arctic Ocean.”
You have had this pointed out to you by Martin above, and me, and on HotWhopper. I see you are now dragging in the Antarctic as if that was somehow relevant.
Repeating your points yet again does not improve your faulty claim.

October 8, 2014 6:47 am

this should help you including nuclear-powered icebreakers, have now enabled
regular navigation.
“Over the past eight decades the ice-infested sea route along the Russian Arctic coast has been
steadily developed. Massive resources, including nuclear-powered icebreakers, have now enabled
regular navigation. The western portion is kept open all year and there are through voyages
between the Atlantic and the Pacific for three or four months annually”

October 8, 2014 6:54 am

moreover as the paper explains-
” first offer to open the Northern Sea Route to international shipping was made
early in 1967, when it was argued that it could save thirteen days between Hamburg and
Yokohama as opposed to the conventional link via Suez. Soviet cargo carriers made three
demonstration voyages from north European ports and Japan. Unforeseen events then
intervened. The Suez Canal was closed later in 1967 by war and the invitation for international
shipping on the sea route was quietly withdrawn. The Soviets apparently did not wish to offend
friendly Arab governments by offering an alternative to the Suez Canal. The Canal was to
remain blocked for eight years and international shipping adjusted smoothly to using the Cape

Cream Bourbon
October 8, 2014 7:13 am

“The Baltic Sea isn’t the Arctic Ocean.”
And neither is the Antarctic.

Reply to  Cream Bourbon
October 8, 2014 7:44 am


Reply to  Cream Bourbon
October 8, 2014 7:53 am

would you agree that the early 2Oth century saw a steeper climb in temps in the Arctic than the latter?

Cream Bourbon
Reply to  richard
October 8, 2014 8:04 am

You are now going off topic and just going on and on about icebreakers, again. Just throwing more information around does not get you back on topic or correct the wrong claim you made. In case you do not understand, the topic here is that you claim your comments were (unjustly) deleted at HotWhopper and you were ridiculed with utter stupidity. In exactly the same way you are going on about icebreakers here and you have gone off topic. That is why you were curtailed at HotWhopper.

Cream Bourbon
Reply to  richard
October 8, 2014 8:11 am

You have gone off topic and you are just going on and on about icebreakers. In case you do not understand, the topic here is your claim that your comments were unjustly deleted at HotWhopper and you were ridiculed and had to deal with utter stupidity. You are doing exactly the same here by throwing out loads of detail about icebreakers that is not on topic and does not correct your original invalid claim. That is why your activities at HotWhopper were curtailed.

October 8, 2014 2:26 pm

cream bourbon
I am sorry we have to continue here and not on HW.
Looking back at HW there seems to be a lot of moderation.
My last comment here was-
Would you agree that the early 2Oth century saw a steeper climb in temps in the Arctic than the latter?
Perhaps you could also comment on this-
“Massive resources, including nuclear-powered icebreakers, have now enabled
regular navigation”

October 9, 2014 1:49 am

I hammered away at the icebreakers as I felt that this needed to be corrected on HOT WOPPER
“SouOctober 7, 2014 at 12:13 AM
Richard, given it was only a couple of years ago that there was no commercial shipping there in *summer*, to be talking about year-round navigation is amazing and (depending on the cargo) risky to the environment”