Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
This is the second in a series of posts about the blog HotWhopper, specifically about the misunderstandings about climate-science basics displayed by its author and proprietor Miriam O’Brien (a.k.a Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera). The first in the series was Open Letter to Miriam O’Brien of HotWhopper (a.k.a. Sou), which was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat here. In this post, we’ll discuss her misunderstandings about a very basic climate metric—one called sea surface temperature.
Keep in mind that Miriam O’Brien’s blog Hot Whopper found a new focus after Miriam, blogging as “Sou”, was permanently banned from WattsUpWithThat for her troll behavior. See Anthony Watts’s post My Blog Spawn. Since her departure from there, Miriam’s new focus has been, of course, the blog posts at WattsUpWithThat. Seemingly, Miriam O’Brien opposes anything and everything presented at WattsUpWithThat.
THE TOPIC OF THIS POST
The paper Kuffner et al. (2014) A Century of Ocean Warming on Florida Keys Coral Reefs: Historic In Situ Observations was getting a good amount of press a month or so ago. See the USGS press release here. For much of the paper, Kuffner et al. focused on two sets of sea surface temperature records for two coral reefs that are part of the Florida Keys. Kuffner et al. used sea surface temperature measurements made by lighthouse keepers back in the late 19th Century to early 20th Century and compared them to the buoy-based samples of sea surface temperatures that started in the late 20th Century. The more-recent buoy-based readings were warmer than the early lighthouse-keeper observations, so Kuffner et al. (2014) concluded (This quote is from their abstract):
Results indicate that the warming observed in the records between 1878 and 2012 can be fully accounted for by the warming observed in recent decades (from 1975 to 2007), documented using in situ thermographs on a mid-shore patch reef. The magnitude of warming revealed here is similar to that found in other SST datasets from the region and to that observed in global mean surface temperature.
As a visual reference, my Figure 1 is Figure 3 from Kuffner et el. 2014.
Figure 1
That paper raised a number of very obvious questions:
- What happened to the sea surface temperatures in that region between the turns of the 20th and 21st Centuries?
- Did they remain flat, increasing slowly until the 1970s, when they skyrocketed? The abstract might lead some people to think that was the case, or,
- Did they cycle, consistent with the variability of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation? or,
- Did they warm early in the 20th Century and cycle since then.
- Long-term data, covering the periods examined by Kuffner et al. and running continuously between them, are available. Kuffner et al. even refer to them in their abstract with, “The magnitude of warming revealed here is similar to that found in other SST datasets from the region…” Why didn’t Kuffner et al. (2014) present that basic background data?
I presented long-term data in my post Data Reveal Florida Keys Sea Surface Temperatures Haven’t Warmed in 80+ Years* to answer those questions. I selected a very small region of the Florida Keys that encompassed the two reefs focused on by Kuffner et al. Using a sea surface temperature dataset with a high resolution (HADISST), I presented the long-term data in raw form here, and then smoothed them with a 121-month filter to highlight the underlying variability. See Figure 2 (which was Figure 3 from my earlier post). The greatest warming in the region took place from around 1910 to the early 1940s, which undermined the claim by Kuffner et al. that “the warming observed in the records between 1878 and 2012 can be fully accounted for by the warming observed in recent decades (from 1975 to 2007)”.
Figure 2
The recent downturn in the data also doesn’t help their cause.
I also examined how far back in time we could go with the long-term sea surface temperature data for that part of the Florida Keys while not showing any warming (based on the linear trend). See Figure 3 (which was Figure 4 from my earlier post). Based on the linear trend, the sea surfaces for that part of the Florida Keys haven’t warmed since 1930, more than 80 years. And as I wrote in my earlier post, Yet, somehow, we’re supposed to believe manmade greenhouse gases are causing harm to the coral in recent years.
Figure 3
Kuffner et al. also set their eyes on August sea surface temperatures, because they are seasonally warmest and would do most harm to the coral reefs. I then presented the August sea surface temperatures for that region, based on the HADISST data. Refer to my Figure 4 (which was Figure 5 from the earlier post). The long-term August data confirmed that coral have had to deal with sea surface temperatures that are said to be “stressful” almost every year, and that sea surface temperatures regularly reached and exceeded levels that are said to be “very stressful” in the 1940s, 50s and 60s…and, if the early data are believable, on occasion, they were above very stressful levels in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In fact, many of the peak August temperatures in the 1940s, 50s and 60s were higher than they have been recently.
Figure 4
Kuffner et al. show similar excursions into “very stressful” temperatures in the late-19th and early-20th centuries in their Figure 2. They even provided dashed lines to highlight those temperatures, but they failed to point them out. Those “very stressful” temperatures disappeared when Kuffner et al. used multidecadal averages for their Figure 3 (shown above as my Figure 1).
Bottom line, Kuffner et al. referred to local long-term sea surface temperature datasets in their abstract—“The magnitude of warming revealed here is similar to that found in other SST datasets from the region…”—but failed to present that data. The basic reason they did not present it appears to be that it does not support their claim that “the warming observed in the records between 1878 and 2012 can be fully accounted for by the warming observed in recent decades (from 1975 to 2007)”.
For some reason, Miriam O’Brien of HotWhopper was displeased with my post and published Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale surfs the surface at Florida Keys. (An archived version is attached to link. My thanks to blogger 7DaBrooklynKnight7 for the archived version.) Her post is quite humorous. I think you’ll enjoy it.
Unsuccessfully, Miriam O’Brien tried a number of different tactics to counter my data presentations, without ever addressing the fact that my data presentations were correct.
Miriam’s Misdirection 1 – Miriam claimed that the region I selected was too large. But, of course, she failed to show that there was any difference between the sea surface temperature data I presented and the sea surface temperature data presented by Kuffner et al.
A blogger called 7DaBrooklynKnight7 noted in a comment:
i checked that knmi website and the average august sst from the fowey rocks and carysfort reef buoys (for 1991 to 2012) is the same (29.9 deg c) as the august sst from the hadisst for the coordinates used by tisdale. please check my work.
That wasn’t well received by Miriam.
I did confirm 7DaBrooklynKnight7’s statement. For the period of 1991 to 2012, the average of the August sea surface temperatures for the Fowey Rocks and Carysfort Reef buoys (29.9 deg C) is the same as HADISST for the coordinates of 24N-25N, 81W-80W that I used in my post. The data for the Fowey Rocks and Carysfort Reef buoys were provided by Kuffner et al. through the webpage here. The Excel spreadsheet with the Carysfort Reef buoys data are here, and the Fowey Rocks data are in the spreadsheet here. And, of course, the HADISST data are available at the KNMI Climate Explorer.
Miriam’s Erroneous Claim 1 – After stating correctly that I had presented “gridded data estimated from combining observations from ships, from buoys, from satellites, with data gaps filled by interpolation”, Miriam then incorrectly claimed that I was “only interested in the temperature of the thin skin of the sea surface”. She repeated that claim of “skin” temperature in the post and in her comments on the thread.
It turns out, the only “thin skin” is Miriam’s, who responded with insults when a blogger point out her errors. More on that later.
HADISST is a sea surface temperature dataset, not a sea skin temperature dataset as Miriam claims. The metric presented by Kuffner et al. (2014) in their Figures 2 and 3 was sea surface temperature—same metric I presented. Miriam is correct that HADISST includes the skin temperature observations from satellites, but she fails to acknowledge:
- that satellite data only extend back in time to the early 1980s,
- that there are also “surface temperature” measurements from buoys and ship inlets in that time, and,
- more importantly, that adjustments have been made to account for satellite biases. The make-up and corrections applied to the HADISST dataset were discussed in the paper Rayner et al. (2003) Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century.
Miriam even provided a link to Rayner et al. at the end of her blog post. She either failed to comprehend the paper or she missed the part of the paper where Rayner et al. state:
We adjusted the satellite SSTs to be unbiased relative to the in situ data (Appendix C).
This was pointed out to Miriam by blogger 7DaBrooklynKnight7:
according to the rayner paper you provided they also adjust the satellite data with data from ship inlets and buoys, like the buoys at the reefs, to take care any biases from the satellites sensing the skin.
That also was not well received by Miriam.
Miriam’s Misdirection 2 – Miriam wrote:
But in this case, because deniers want to pretend that coral bleaching doesn’t happen, the world isn’t warming etc etc, they decide to ignore the careful measurements taken on site over the years. Data that is much more appropriate when considering the actual reef. Deniers decide that this time around they prefer data that’s been “tampered with”. Data from multiple sources, with gaps interpolated.
I never claimed that coral wasn’t stressed by high sea surface temperatures. That’s an outright fabrication. In fact, I presented a graph that showed that sea surface temperatures in that region reached levels that are said to be “stressful” to coral almost each and every year, and that sea surface temperatures regularly reached and exceeded levels that are said to be “very stressful” in 1990s and 2000s….and in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, too. Her post is riddled with off-the-cuff remarks that have no basis in fact. I present data, Miriam fabricates.
Miriam apparently wants to dismiss decades of research into the adjustments required to correct for different methods used for sampling sea surface temperatures. Granted, many persons are concerned about the adjustments, especially when, globally, they suppressed the warming during the late-1930s and early-1940s that existed in the source ICOADS data, which impacts the amount of warming during the early warming period of the 20th Century. See Figure 5, which is Figure 15 from the post Multidecadal Variations and Sea Surface Temperature Reconstructions.
Figure 5
The best part: Miriam obviously forgot that Kuffner et al. presented sea surface temperature data from “multiple sources”. Kuffner et al. presented thermometer readings taken by lighthouse keepers during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, using one technology with biases. And they presented temperature measurements taken from buoys in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Miriam’s Misdirection 3 – Miriam wrote (my boldface):
He was only interested in the temperature of the thin skin of the sea surface – averaged over a wide area well beyond the corals the scientists were researching. Yet leaving out some of the area that the researchers did cover.
The long-term sea surface temperature data that I presented was for coordinates that included the two reefs presented in Figures 2 and 3 of Kuffner et al. (Fowey Rocks and Carysfort Reef). The only other temperature data presented by Kuffner et al. in a time-series graph was the sporadic late 20th century subsurface temperatures for the Hen and Chickens Reef. (See their Figure 4.) It wasn’t a long-term sea surface temperature comparison, like those at Fowey Rocks and Carysfort Reef, and was not applicable to my post.
A Few More Comments by A Blogger on the HotWhopper Thread – Blogger 7DaBrooklynKnight7 presented many of the realities I’ve discussed in this post. But he also made a couple of other observations. 7DaBrooklynKnight7 wrote:
one last thing. i also checked that knmi website and they have more sst data. there’s one from noaa that does not use satellites in recent years. the noaa ersstv3b, for the florida keys, the sea surfaces have cooled sinse 1930.
Cooled, he wrote? From a dataset that excludes satellite data? It turns out that the negative trend is so slight that it’s basically flat.
Keep in mind that the minimum grid size of the NOAA ERSST.v3b data is 2-deg latitude by 2-deg longitude. So this is a larger area than what was presented in my first post about Kuffner et al. ERSST.v3b also extends further back in time, and the further back one goes, the less realistic the data become. (The hump that peaks in the 1880s looks suspicious.) With that in mind, Figure 6 presents the sea surface temperature anomalies for the coordinates of 23N-25N, 81W-79W. Also shown is the linear trend for the period of January 1930 to September 2014. A cooling rate of -0.008 deg C/decade is essentially flat. Sorry, 7DaBrooklynKnight7, you got a little carried away with “cooled” since 1930.
Figure 6
But, along with the similarities in the buoy temperatures and the HADISST-based readings discussed above, the ERSST.v3b dataset (which does not use satellite data) do help to dismiss Miriam’s complaints about satellite “skin” temperatures. (NOAA actually removed the satellite data from their ERSST data.)
Blogger 7DaBrooklynKnight7 also asked a very basic question of Miriam:
something else you’ve overlooked. are the data from the lighthouses and from the buoys included in the hadisst data?
Miriam ignored the question.
And that’s a question that I cannot answer with any certainty. The buoy data should be included (key word “should”) in the ICOADS sea surface temperature dataset, which is the source data for the NOAA and UKMO datasets. The lighthouse data might be, key phase “might be”.
Miriam’s Response When Confronted with Data-Based Questions – First Miriam insulted blogger 7DaBrooklynKnight7. Then when he responded to her incivility and exposed more problems with her post, she deleted his comment. The exchanges between Miriam (who poses as blogger “Sou”), 7DaBrooklynKnight7, and the HotWhooper denizens are worth a read. They start with 7DaBrooklynKnight7’s initial question at September 13, 2014 at 1:33 AM. They extend down to his response to her insults at September 15, 2014 at 8:07 PM. (Miriam deleted his final comment, as visible at a direct link to where that comment once existed.) After 7DaBrooklynKnight7 was obviously banned, bloggers continued to insult him at HotWhopper.
Blogger 7DaBrooklynKnight7 then wound up at my blog, alerting me to the exchange at HotWhopper.
Thanks, 7DaBrooklynKnight7. Sorry it took so long for me to respond to Miriam’s post.
CLOSING
I really do enjoy reading Miriam’s posts at HotWhopper. She is willing and able to expose her misunderstandings about the topics she addresses, along with her want and need to misinform her readers. I also enjoy replying to her posts. You can look forward to more of my posts about Miriam O’Brien and her escapades at HotWhopper.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr. Tisdale, as Ron White is fond of saying “you can’t fix stupid”. Some people are just going to go to any lengths to keep the CAGW meme going. Keep up the good work.
It is not a matter of Slandering Sou “misunderstanding.” She purposively distorts and fabricates for the sole purpose of denigrating not just all skeptics, but everyone she disagrees with.
Miriam is a living illustration of what is wrong with the Alarmist side of the debate – if the discussion goes against her and her friends, she edits the thread to present her view in a better light.
As Mann once said, “this isn’t about truth at all…” 🙂
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1256735067.txt
Yes, another website used to do that, ‘Hot Topic’ – a New Zealand-based website, I think. The website owner would alter your post (edit), and then decide not to even let it be posted if it went against the nonsense he had posted. There should be an international law about deleting posts!
So called Scientific American deleted years of posts & banned any posters who criticised their climate related claims. Where some debates used to exceed a hundred comments, now three is a good result for them & they have become even more irrelevant. For old timers like me who used to read that magazine starting in the 1950s, the bastardization of that once fine scientific publication is a tragedy.
Does that apply to WUWT moderators?
Carlyle,
You are exactly right. SciAm is irrelevant now.
Simon:
What do you mean?
Eric…is this the truth? Baroness (ugh) Verma at HoL UK
UK Government Claims Its Green Policy May Have Caused Warming Pause
http://www.thegwpf.com/uk-government-claims-its-green-policy-caused-warming-pause
may have, might have, could, maybe…WTF
Paul Homewood has a good post on this:
“What has she been smoking to imagine that the UK’s reduction of 16 million tonnes can have had the slightest effect on climate, when the Rest of the World has increased their emissions by 68 times as much?
And, God forbid, this ludicrous woman is actually an Energy Minister! Heaven help us all.”
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/image_thumb98.png?w=780&h=446
Dana’s 97% blog on the Guardian does that.
Although Carrington’s is fairer; still stupid but it doesn’t distort the comments.
Why waste your time with this (snip) No one reads her blog anyway.
If you are busy, replying is a waste of time, but if you have a few moments to spare I think replying is a good exercise. It hones your debating skills, develops your civil procedures, and teaches you to keep your cool when dealing with a rave.
There is also the added satisfaction of knowing it likely irks the heck out of some Alarmists when their ranting is met with calm, logic, and facts.
Lastly, there may be a few naive readers of their blog who have their eyes opened, before your comments are snipped.
I think it’s unlikely that your description of her is helping as it seems unnecessarily harsh.
Peter:
The moderator [snipped] you for threats in your 1st comment, not what you list as “evidence” in your 2nd comment.
I’ll stipulate Malcolm’s comment was over the line. Grade-school ad hominem (sexual or otherwise) is hardly ever worth the effort. Due to WUWT’s high volumes, not every comment gets moderated. However, congratulations are in order – you’ve just demonstrated that explicit threats do indeed get moderated.
Just wondering, Peter: when you send your petty email to Dr. Curry (et al), are you going to man up and include your threats?
Over the top. Especially the bit about the sand.
Agreed and I apologise for doing what I despise seeing others do. No excuse other than a poor connection between my medulla, prefrontal cortex and finger tips. Sorry to all unconditionally.
Refer such to Yik Yak where everyone can post anything anonymously.
Man up and include his threats? “Mann” up is likely..
Apologies to everyone for my unnecessary and offensive ad hom.
That’s OK. Here’s some words of encouragement:
Hey Pete!
Yr: Oct 28, 1:03 am comment
Let’s see now, Pete, ol’ sport, I’ve got from you, with your last comment:
-a pseudo-exorcist, incantation of “Alex Jones” x 3
-a Freudian-slip “red-flag” for “false-flag” (help me out here, Pete, will yah?–didn’t the Anarchist bomb-throwers of yore and their cheka-and-gulag Bolshevik-contemporaries push their proto-Gaia, cull-crazy hustles under the “Red Bannner”? (see what I mean, Pete?)).
-and you in a riled-up, gibbering-weenie tantrum-mode over some “sexist nastiness” that–and here I emphasize that I’m quoting you, Pete, ol’ buddy, –“went unmolested”. “WENT UNMOLESTED”?!!! So, Pete, let me get this straight–you demand that “sexist nastiness” be MOLESTED!!! or you’re gonna be all p. o.’d, if it isn’t, right? Jeez, Pete, what are you doin’? I mean, like, that molestation-business of yours seems to me to be kinda, you know, like, really creepy and weirdo and maybe a little sicko, even. Can you see what I’m talkin’ about, Pete?
C’mon, Pete, I mean, like, the way you’ve been runnin’ your mouth here lately, people might mistake you for some sort of ivory-tower, tenured-parasite Professor-type. You don’t want anyone to be thinkin’ that about you, do you?
P. S. Almost forgot! Remember, Pete, my comment in that last HotWhopper blog-post by Bob Tisdale where I asked you to Goggle: “democratic underground Ann Coulter” and then, maybe, if you’d be so kind, I mean, share with us your misogyny-expert conclusions on what you found there? Remember that? So how’s that little project comin’ along, Pete?
P. P. S. Another “Almost forgot!”–you cite Malcolm’s “comment-history” as proof of his “denier” bona fides. But what does that “comment-history” really demonstrate, Pete? Perhaps, it merely demonstrates that the hive salts this blog and others with “agent-provocateurs” and takes care to create “comment-history” legends for them? You know, that sort of thing, Pete? “Wilderness of mirrors”, and all that sort of good stuff, when you’re dealin’ with the hive’s ever-morphing duplicities and flim-flam, right guy?
It is always facinating to see a person (for example Peter) attempt to solve the problem of digging a hole they can’t climb out of by continuing to dig the hole deeper.
I didn’t see the word that was snipped, so do not know offensive it was. Human nature being what it is, blurting out an insult at a person exhibiting judgemental/arrogant/dishonest behaviour can be an emotionally satisfying release against the offender. However, it don’t make it right. I agree, simply describing the poor behaviour as you have done, is a much better path than calling names.
However to be clear, there is no indication deletions or edits occur on this site in order in order to stifle opposing views as evidence shows Miriam does. Mirium practices what I call tabloid blogging, manipulating content and comments for maximum exploitation of that minority of people who truly believe the world is going to end due to CO2.
HotWhopper is certainly full of Whoppers, but it sure ain’t hot. Waste of time.
The typical discussion at HotWhopper is: “I’m right and you are a poo head”.
“Shut up” she explained.
Well done Bob. I enjoy reading your slightly restrained rebuttals to this woman. Very effective. I rarely give her site oxygen by visiting it, as it tends to suck the life out of me. Your posts are enlightened and we’ll reasoned; Hers are suffocating.
Sorry… dammed auto complete.
we’ll = well
NZpete, good advice , I did give her some O2 as well , you have to at times just to keep up where the BS comes from. But I agree with you, she is suffocating, there is not one iota of normal discussion anywhere on that site and that includes her sycophants.
The problem with this post is that curious people may go to her blog, inflating the fool’s ego. Perusing her blog may be amusing, but its a waste of valuable time as anyone who frequents her blog is to far gone to convince with science.
I disagree. The internet encourages us to live in our own little bubbles interacting only with people who think as we do. This is not constructive when it comes to resolving any kind of discussion or debate. It is healthy and helpful to go and read the perspective from the other side from time to time, if for no other reason than to marvel at how silly they all are.
We one needs a good laugh one goes to such sites as Hot Whopper for a few minutes. If you go there for science, you are then just a delusional as the hostess!
Hot WHOPPER,.. a very true description of that particular site.
Whopper, after whopper after whopper !
The truth ???… No thanks, say Sou. !. !!
Hot whopper => local colloquialism for bad smell 😉
She doesn’t misunderstand. She’s willfully ignorant. Why bother?
The whole incident is reminiscent of an old saying involving a silk purse.
Unfortunately I voluntarily clicked Bob’s link to Miriam’s site. I realized this (my first visit) was not going to be a day at the beach, but HotWopper ends up being a pretty intense stream of toxic ad hominem slime with a tiny amount of technical discussion (aka: distortion).
Even if Miriam’s technical opinion were correct, her dysfunctional personal & professional immaturity so taints her communication that only a true believer could wallow thru this material.
It’s amazing she expends this level of energy to simply howl at the moon. Who’s mind is she going to change? Oh yea, and good luck hurting Bob’s feelings.
She’s a hater, so she lays down her hate on anyone who doesn’t suck up to her. You can see it in all her comments. There is no middle ground. Either you’re her pal or you get hated. ☹
Why is it, when I meet women like that (and you see them in every government institution, and in every life-wrecking activist organization), I always have a picture of an execution squad before my eyes?
Peter:
Alexander did not say he pictured Miriam in front of a firing squad (you, however, appear to have assumed that, so maybe you have a problem with women).
But I digress.
Miriam and her ilk frequently are quoted in main-stream media as suggesting people who don’t buy their CAGW crap (they call us deniers) should be put in prison, fired, sent to re-education camps, etc. Not too much of a stretch to see them wanting to put us in front of a firing squad.
…and another thing, Peter:
You will have problems communicating your message on this site if you can’t understand some issues have two sides, fail to cite supporting data, resort to threats, and tattle to mommy when you get your butt kicked.
Geeze! Get a pair of big boy pants and invest some intelligence when discussing issues. The WUWT audience generally respects well-documented arguments (even ones at odds with the general opinion) focusing on science & data, not personalities.
If you don’t behave like an adult here, you will be marginalized.
That’s a Disgrace, Peter.
I don’t know about “women” in plural but I’ve been happily married for 33 years.
How about you?
Peter:
In response to your request I document my “denies should go to jail” comments: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/. Here’s on for “academic fired for climate opinion”: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/professor-nicholas-drapela-fired_n_1615947.html
Note this took 7.5 seconds for me to do – there’s a wide variety of examples to choose from.
Oh, and, with women like that — yes, I have a problem.
The problem is, they have a problem with men.
Peter:
Please note I did not explicitly say Miriam made those comments (she may have, I just won’t take the time to Google it).
Like I said, if you don’t behave like an adult, you’ll be quickly marginalized.
Reprising your behavior on this thread:
(1) I doubt you have an informed background or experience with data-based scientific climate discussions (you’ve offered no technical insights);
(2) You didn’t appear to be aware of the general political environment in which CAGW conversations take place (ie: academic firings over climate dissent or MSM calls for “deniers” to be put in jail);
(3) You easily resort to snarky ad hominem, even when you’re right on the issue;
(4) Frankly, you seem out of your depth. Like I said previously, this is an adult site (lots with heavy-duty science PhDs…). Emotional, ill-informed prattle simply won’t cut it.
I said “Miriam and her ilk” meaning the foaming at the mouth CAGW crowd.
It’s interesting that Miriam seems to be an expert on almost every post at WUWT and able to individually refute almost each and every one of them, no matter that the posts are by a diverse group of individuals and specialists. It must be nice to be omniscient!
In my first (and I hope only) visit to Miriam’s site today, I had the same opinion.
You can get away with a reasonable amount of this behavior if you run a low-traffic site that secretly (this is the trick) copies & pastes comments without telling the authors you’re hijacking their material – almost nobody gets a chance to rebut…except Tisdale.
I presume this plays well to her intended audience.
Phyllograptus says: “It’s interesting that Miriam seems to be an expert on almost every post at WUWT…”
Bingo. She seems to latch onto key words or phrases, without comprehending them.
It would have been better to let the technical refutation speak for itself, leaving all else alone.
But since HotWopper stoops frequently to ad homs, I reckon stooping to her low level is fair.
So at that level, Bob, you win. But not a level where civil society wins in the end.
Saddest is that Miriam O’Brian (now fully outted) should have known that from the beginning. Miriam, you want to play internet hard ball, prepare to get beaned. You just were. Now go away.
Mr. Tisdale, you give this individual Way, WAY too much of your time and energy – she is not worth an iota of your efforts ! As others suggest, let it go. Why give her ANY promotion ?
I have to say this is also my view. Bob and others here have oodles more actual real-life credibility than this person. I mean, you can’t stop people from expressing themselves on their own blog – and you can’t stop other people from reading those blogs (never been there though). She is no threat to Bob’s work or the real science shown on these pages and is never likely to be so. As such, I tend to believe in the ‘Give ’em enough rope’ attitude, and think it best to leave her to construct her own gallows. The only thing it may be worth checking, is her blog for libel and copyright or other such legal stuff? regards Kev
Reading her blog I found DaBrooklynknight’s questions to be pertinent. Sou apparently wasn’t interested in answering them. Today she goes on to insult Willis in a critique of his latest post. I find this woman angry, dismissive, her arguments filled with nasty personal attacks, and her followers worse than she.
I don’t think Willis will be able to counter her argument on her blog today criticizing his latest post, just as BrooklynKnight was not allowed. You don’t like polite but difficult questions? Just label him/her a troll and a denier and ban their posts. Problem solved. Anyway, from going over the comments she apparently has a close knit group of sycophants there to support her. Although, Not many at that.
It demonstrates that in this polarized climate discussion that the truth is often not the goal.
I hope some of you who disagree with some of the posts on WUWT will continue to offer arguments and corrections to mistakes made here, it’s what makes the discussion informative and fun and educates us all.
Good work, Bob. Play the data not the troll.
Well, one thing Sou does a nice job of is dealling with differing opinions, and I would say that the discourse is for the most part science based. She bans people, but they haf to try. Here at watts, opposing voices don’t last long before being “moderated” as “trolls”, so the discourse becomes rather vanilla to the point of boring.
trafamadore, the quickest way to get a banned at HotWhopper is to prove Sou wrong with facts, go try it.
Not sure how DaBrooklynNight ‘tried’ to get banned other than defending Bob’s data and graphs. Maybe you could point out his offenses.
trafamadore:
Can you give a SINGLE example of “… Here at watts, opposing voices don’t last long before being “moderated” as “trolls”, so the discourse becomes rather vanilla to the point of boring…”?
Just one?
Sou for a starter.
Which makes the Tisdale rant asymmetric to the Sou rant, since he can comment on Sou’s site but she can’t comment here.
[Reply: Like you, Sou is welcome to comment here if she abides by site Policy. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in the past. ~mod.]
I rest my case.
trafamadore says: “Which makes the Tisdale rant asymmetric to the Sou rant…”
Tisdale rant? What Tisdale rant?
Here at watts, opposing voices don’t last long before being “moderated” as “trolls”, so the discourse becomes rather vanilla to the point of boring.
And yet, here you are! As a long time denizen of this blog, my observation is that most “trolls” rush in thumping their chests and blaring their knowledge of the science…. and promptly get crushed. That’s the real reason they leave. The number who have been “moderated” out of existence is pretty low compared to those who left of their own accord. The few (very few) that were banned were ones that lashed out after being thumped on the science with over the top (WAY over) language.
I welcome the trolls. They make me defend my belief system. I’ve been wrong on a few things over the years, sometimes embarrassingly so. But as to the big picture…. I welcome the “troll” that puts up an actual argument that can be debated and potentially change my belief system. That’s how we learn. But trolls such as that have been far and few between for a long time.
I agree. We need dissenting voices putting over well reasoned arguments or we risk becoming an echo chamber.
tonyb
Yup. Moderations here are rare, and richly deserved. Look at the thread-bombing that is often tolerated here without moderation. I think Anth*ny & the mods tow a difficult line regarding how much to moderate & succeed about as well as possible.
Sorry guy. Only 50% of my posts make it, depending on the mood of the mod.
[Reply: That is flat untrue. ~mod.]
trafamadore “Sorry guy. Only 50% of my posts make it, depending on the mood of the mod.”
[Reply: That is flat untrue. ~mod.]
so there you go, I am obviously wrong.
(sarc)
Well ,that will come as a huge surprise to Mr Mosher. I wonnder why he still posts here seeing as how he disagrees with Anthiny & Tisdale & others quite a bit and must have been ‘moderated’ or ‘banned’ long ago.
Steven seems to do quite well on WUWT – his comments get noticed and frequently inspire intense discussion – nothing wrong with that.
Your statement “…seeing as how [Mosher] disagrees with Anthiny & Tisdale & others quite a bit and must have been ‘moderated’ or ‘banned’ long ago…” is confusing on 2 points:
(1) Mosher is not banned; like some others, he does get moderated from time to time for being off-topic.
(2) I doubt “Anthony & Tisdale” care if you disagree with them; what they do seem to care about is the quality (defined by clear house rules) of the debate.
You are totally wrong about the moderation here. I have seen debates rage on for days and as long as the site rules have been obeyed I am sure no one was modded out. Perhaps you have personal experience that you could point to.
trafamadore,
What planet are you posting from?
The question should be, “trafamadore, as an outsider, what do you think of the human race?”
trafamadore \,
You sound more like Slandering Sou’s alternate ego.
Sou has fabricated things I never have said and then attacked her fabrications as if I had actually uttered her nonsense. When I tried to have a reasonable discussion, without responding to her insults, and referenced with peer review papers, she simply deleted my posts because she does not know how to debate science. Based on my experience she is a total fraud!
Based on my experience she is a total fraud!
In more ways than one I think Jim. Have a look at her very first comment in the thread. GSR says:
“That was fast Sou. Well done to you and all your research staff.”
Her reply is very interesting to say the least:
“I’m a bit miffed with my research staffer. She got 3/4 of the way through the article and then the lazy sod went to bed. Claimed she was “tired”. Pffft.
She didn’t finish writing till she got up today.”
Now reading this, Sou didn’t even research or write the above article. It was written for her. Sou loves to call us ‘fake sceptics’, ‘fake d*niers’, ‘fake scientists’, etc, etc. It appears to me, Sou is a ‘fake blogger’. If I was the person who researched and wrote that article, and then seeing the comment made by Sou above, I would tell Sou to stick her research and writing where the sun don’t shine.
Ha ha Bruce. I think Miriam’s point may be that SHE (Miriam herself) is the ‘research staffer’! 🙂
That’s how I read it anyway!
Well, I haven’t seen you at HW, but have seen your insult filled submission to Keats site. He _did_ deal with your references, patiently, point by point, and they did not support your claims.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/search?q=jim+steele
So he is a total fraud too?
trafamadore,
Keating is a clown. He’s the same guy who makes those bogus offers to pay skeptics if they show he is wrong. It’s easy to prove Keating is wrong. But try to pry a dime out of that dishonest skinflint.
Speaking of a frauds, Keating has been shown to be flat wrong many times. But like any devious propagandist, he will never pay anyone a dime. Why? Because he is a fraud. In addition, Keating constantly labels those with a different point of view as “contrarians”, “denialists”, and worse.
So it is not surprising that you would side with that fraud. Keating would never DARE to get into a fair debate with a scientific skeptic in a neutral venue, where the moderator is mutually agreed. He would be slaughtered in short order.
Keating does not have an honest bone in his body, and he knows he would lose any such debate, fast and decisively. So he hides behind his fake ‘rewards’, and calls people names. Could he — or you — be any less credible?
trafamadore:
Ok; so I read your link regarding Steele’s comments & Keating’s response. My observations:
(1) Steele’s comment ran 528 words (i.e. it was long);
(2) Steele’s argument was well organized, well stated and well documented (i.e.: definitely not a simple emotional rant);
(3) Steele did say “…Mr Keating you are a joke…”, which is not exactly polite, but on the Richter Scale of insults, it rates about a 0.9;
(4) It is obvious Jim does not agree with Keating’s opinions, but he makes his points with scientific logic, not ad hominem.
It was impossible for me to read your example as “…[an] insult filled submission…”. You appear to be having difficulty with heated adult-level heated conversations.
Keating’s response to Steele’s documented arguments (in which Keating claimed not to hurl insults) started with his rant:
“…So, let me see, your submission consists of making personal attacks. Not very scientific. Nor, are they very well informed, just like your misguided opinions on global warming. I don’t really hurl insults, I just point out the truth about deniers. It isn’t my fault that the characteristics of deniers are not complimentary. You are a perfect example. What part of science includes all of your personal attacks? Since you have no science to support your claims, you act like a jerk as if that will make you seem more credible. You really are denier. You not only deny global warming, science and the rights of other people to make up their minds without your lies, but you deny any kind of civility in a discussion on an open forum. Tell me, do you make this kind of example for your children? Do you act this way in front of your parents? What an ass. And, your argument reflect that in you.”
After reading Keating’s insult-filled rants attacking “deniers”, I would put him in the same category as Sou. They are both pretty despicable characters, IMHO. Two peas in a pod. Birds of a feather.
To see if you agree you can start here.
Keating is still preposterously blaming his problems on Bush! Keating is the one who claims he will pay $30,000 to anyone who can falisify his beliefs — but only he gets to decide if there is ever a payout.
What do you think? Do you believe him? Check out some of the comments under his payoff links.
“Mr Keating you are a joke and obviously lack any scientific understanding of the dynamics of climate change. ”
“Your misdirection via another sophomoric attack on “deniers” is only an attempt to obscure your total lack of knowledge and critical thinking skills.”
and that is how Steele begins.
and
“Speaking of a frauds, Keating has been shown to be flat wrong many times.”
Document pls. Wrong? I don’t think so.
But both you and chipJ miss the main pt, that Keating demolished Steele’s referenced articles, showing that they did not say what Steele claimed them to say. And Keating did it in a calm logical manner, laying out the paper and explaining it.
trafamadore,
When I read Keating’s nonsense I have a hard time wondering if you and he are not the same.
Keating made a bogus proposal, in which he ‘offered’ fake money for skeptics to… wait for it… prove a negative.
He wants skeptics to prove that AGW does not exist! That is like ‘proving’ that a black swan doesn’t exist. How could you prove it? You can prove a black swan does exist. But if you’ve never found one, how could you prove it doesn’t exist?! That is Keating’s disreputable tactic.
Further, just to make sure he never has to pay out a dime, Keating himself is the final arbiter! His ‘ethics’ are no different than Peter Gleick’s.
Now, if he was honest, Keating would abide by the Scientific Method and offer a prize if anyone can falsify the ‘carbon’ scare. That wouldn’t be too hard.
I would turn around the award around, and offer $1,000 to anyone who can post a verifiable, testable, empirical measurement quantifying the percentage of global warming attributable to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
But that would be nothing like Keating’s bogus propaganda ‘offer’. That would be a testable hypothesis, where a true measurement = easy money.
Finally, I have to laugh at your preposterous nonsense claiming that people are “insulting” Keating. Just look at his rants: there isn’t one where he does not label folks who simply have a different scientific opinion than his as “deniers” or “denialists” or “contrarians” or “anti-science”, etc.
Keating is the King of the Insulters, and he is also the King of Projection: when he whines about having his feet held to the fire of science, he blames skeptics for his own faults — and if you cannot see that, you are either blind, or you are Keating.
“I have a hard time wondering if you and he are not the same.”
Such an honor. But I am an a developmental geneticist not a climate person.
“He wants skeptics to prove that AGW does not exist! That is like ‘proving’ that a black swan doesn’t exist. How could you prove it? You can prove a black swan does exist. But if you’ve never found one, how could you prove it doesn’t exist?! That is Keating’s disreputable tactic.”
Hmmm. So clueless. Logic is not your strong point. If I was to “prove” AGW wrong I would show that natural processes are causing warming. Done deal. That would prove the “negative”. But all indications are that things should be cooling. So you really are clueless I guess.
@ur momisugly trafamadore or keating or what ever your real persona is.
You, trafamadore/keating, had repeatedly called all skeptics deniers and other insulting terms in serveral posts and long before I ever posted. trafamadore/keating seem to be copying Slanderng Sou’s abrasive style.The replies to my posts on your/Keating website came later and only after you/keating had deleted several of my posts in order to control the debate and prevent contradictory evidence from being fairly viewed. I never returned to your/Keating’s site after you prevented me from posting further
Indeed I harshly criticized trafamadore/keating’s suggestion that sea ice was growing because continental ice melting was melting and I still see and climate ignorance not supported by any of the literature. But your archive took our discussion out of context as well as failing to post the whole discussion.
Stammerjohn’s 2008 paper which I referenced in a post you deleted said “Large perturbations in the seasonality of the marine habitat occur in association with ENSO and Southern Annular Mode (SAM) variability. The local atmospheric response to these climate modes is largely a strengthening of the meridional winds during spring-to-autumn, which in turn affect the timing of the sea-ice retreat and subsequent advance.”
My argument was the stronger winds minimized sea ice extent around the peninsula and that allowed more heat to be ventilated from the exposed ocean. Stammerjohn’s mention of “warming in winter of almost 6 1C since 1950” makes no definitive connection to CO2 warming. I also mentioned that during the summer there was no such warming trend because the ocean is realatively ice free and in the summer changes in heat ventilation are no longer an issue. CO2 does not cause a dramatic warming trend in the winter and then stop working in the summer.
Your reply under “What are they saying?” further shows how you badly you misinterpreted Stammerjohn’s paper “you wrote Antarctica peninsuala has lost 87% of its land ice” But that is not what the paper said. They said “the retreat of 87% of the marine glaciers”. That is a very big difference.
Lastly I am not sure if trafamadore/keating deleted my post or it was never posted after I could no longer access the web site, but I tried to post a reference to Fan (2014)” Recent Antarctic sea ice trends in the context of Southern Ocean surface climate variations since 1950. “
They showed that where sea ice was growing sea surface temperatures were cooling writing “, sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures decreased during 1979–2011, consistent with the expansion of Antarctic sea ice” So much for your ridiculous arguments that global warming causing more sea ice.
Their abstract states, “This study compares the distribution of surface climate trends over the Southern Ocean in austral summer between 1979–2011 and 1950–1978, using a wide variety of data sets including uninterpolated gridded marine archives, land station data, reanalysis, and satellite products. Apart from the Antarctic Peninsula and adjacent regions, sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures decreased during 1979–2011, consistent with the expansion of Antarctic sea ice. In contrast, the Southern Ocean and coastal Antarctica warmed during 1950–1978. Sea level pressure (SLP) and zonal wind trends provide additional evidence for a sign reversal between the two periods, with cooling (warming) accompanied by stronger (weaker) westerlies and lower (higher) SLP at polar latitudes in the early (late) period. Such physically consistent trends across a range of independently measured parameters provide robust evidence for multidecadal climate variability over the Southern Ocean and place the recent Antarctic sea ice trends into a broader context. “
You, trafamadore/keating, repeatedly insult all skeptics before and after my visit and then you manipulate the debate by deleting posts just like Slandering Sou has done. You both are just alarmist frauds.
You link to a page that takes the discussion out of context and after Keating deleted some of my posts and banned me fro further replies. To read the whole discussion starting with Keating insulting “deniers” from the start and before Keating began manipulating posts and the disscussion go http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/misconceptions-on-antartica-ice.html
@trafamadore:
Anyone reading Keating’s blog should click on the links and see his dishonesty, especially on his links offering “$1,000” or “$30,000”. He offers those fake payouts — if skeptics will only prove a negative! — and Keating alone is the arbiter of who will or will not get paid.
Of course, no skeptic has been paid and none will ever get paid. Keating is a despicable propagandist who uses a fake reward as his form of alarmist propaganda. That is Keating’s schtick.
Read some of the threads in Keating’s links. When he comments, he cannot say anything without hurling constant insults. I’d love to have a dollar for every time he calls someone a “denier”. Name-calling is his argument; no credible scientific facts are used.
You say you are “honored” to be considerd Keating. You have no idea what honor is.
I have to say, being taken for Keats is a real honor.
But Steele, I don’t have time to go to Keat’s site and see what he exactly wrote, I need to write a lecture tonight.
But so what if the antarctic is cooling? It doesn’t balance the rest of the world warming. It’s weird, we can’t explain it, people have hypotheses on it, so what? We have one of the highest temp years and there is no El Niño (yet).
trafamadore says of Keating:
So he is a total fraud too?
Yes.
And:
…being taken for Keats is a real honor.
Tell ya what, tafamadore, why don’t you invite your alter ego to write an article here? Or, at least post a comment or two? Is he a chicken?
You, and Keating, and the rest of us here know Keating is a scientific illiterate who can’t hold his own in a real science debate. Keating is even more lame than you are, if anyone can imagine that.
You post pseudo-science like this:
…so what if the antarctic is cooling? It doesn’t balance the rest of the world warming. It’s weird, we can’t explain it…
The continent of Antarctica has 10X the volume of ice that the Arctic has, so you’d better believe that matters. And the planet is not ‘warming’, no matter how many times you assert that fact-free nonsense. Both satellite records, plus other databases show conclusively that global warming has stopped. So your baseless assertions mean nothing.
You and Keating are alike. Both of you are science illiterates who have made ‘global warming’ your religion. If you dispute that, have your pal/alter ego Keating post here. Personally, I think Keating is a little chicken. Because he would get a well deserved licken by knowledgeable folks here who have forgotten more than either of you have ever learned.
Well mr db…
“The continent of Antarctica has 10X the volume of ice that the Arctic has, so you’d better believe that matters.”
Right. But the total ice is less now, right? So that matters, right? So what is your point?
“You and Keating are alike. Both of you are science illiterates who have made ‘global warming’ your religion.”
I am an atheist in that “religion”. Only believe data. Data says this should be cooler than the 1960s.
It’s not. It’s getting hotter than an El Niño year with no El Niño.
Religion means believing in illogical ideas, and you are doing a good job of that. I am guessing, the religion of de Nile?
trafamadore, you are so lame. You say:
…the total ice is less now, right? So that matters, right? So what is your point?
You stated that the Antarctic has been getting cooler. But now you claim that Antarctic ice is declining [wrong. And don’t cite Grace, it was not made for that].
Only in the mind of a deluded climate alarmist will we see contradictory statements like those.
And it is not “getting hotter”. You wish it was, so you could salvage some credibility. But sorry, that isn’t happening.
No, you are wrong. Dead wrong.
On today’s date (29 October) no part of the arctic sea ice is exposed to the sun’s rays. At the latitude of the increasing Arctic sea ice, the sun remains below the horizon the entire day, and the entire night. To [ut it in terms you may understand, it doesn’t matter how much Arctic sea ice there is today, the sun doesn’t shine on and cannot be reflected from it.
Now, the ABSENCE of Arctic sea ice from past normals on today’s date DOES increase heat losses from the open Arctic ocean: Longwave radiation losses to the sky are higher 24 hours of the day and night, evaporation losses of latent heat are higher 24 hours of the day and night, convection and conduction losses to colder Arctic air are higher 24 hours of the day and night.
But that 1/2 million square kilometers of “excess” Antarctic sea ice down south at latitude 58 and 59 south? THAT IS reflecting tremendous amounts of the sun’s energy back into space. And, every day, it is reflecting even more energy as the sun moves towards its peak on January 5. Which, by the way, is just a little ahead of the Antarctic sea ice peak in mid-late February.
RACookPE1978, when I used to work in Cambridge Bay the sun would “set” about mid-December and “rise” about mid-January. There is still Arctic sea ice exposed to the sun’s rays at this time of year, but declining fast.
PS. There was always a big party for “sunrise”, it was good fun.
Hi Robert and Jason,
I am far from being very knowledgeable regarding polar ice dynamics, so maybe you could help educate me. As I understand it, at 80º N [let’s just use North so I don’t get too confused], the sun dips below the horizon for the year on about December 21 – 22 [or is it in September?], and then reappears around the vernal equinox. Or is it in January?
There is so much misinformation out there that the real facts get buried in the noise. The only thing I’m fairly sure about is that the heat engine takes in energy at the equator and emits it at the poles. Polar ice cover matters, but how, exactly? And how much? Does less polar ice raise or lower global T? The North Pole was very likely ice-free [at least during the summer] around 6,000 years ago. Did that have any noticeable effect on global T at the time?
The only thing I clearly hear the planet telling us is that human emissions either don’t matter at all, or they matter so little [a “third order forcing” according to Willis] that human CO2 emissions can be completely disregarded, since second– and first-order forcings swamp their putative effects. So where is polar ice in all this? Does it really matter, and if so, how, and how much?
Thanks in advance, you both know a lot about polar ice and its effects. The alarmist crowd makes a big deal about ice [probably due to the fact that every other alarming prediction they ever made has turned out wrong]. But from the looks of things, there are a lot of other effects that matter more. If polar ice declined by say, half, would that cause higher or lower global temperatures? Or would it even really matter?
Seems to me that the existence of trafamadore and Sou strongly support belief in parallel universes. Thus, they may not be from Earth, but could be from Earthe’.
I’ve never been to HotWhopper, don’t want to.
Anytime in my life I’ve have tried to engage a hard-core Liberal with facts and data, usually all I get is blank stares, and then… with a few, I get a response that is something like “well you’re entitled to your opinion.” Then I say well your entitled to your own “made-up facts” I guess. Opinions are opinions, facts are facts. I tell them they can make up facts in whatever universe it is they are living in. Liberals don’t like arguing with well-informed scientists-engineers, I promise you that.
Bottom line, true Liberals don’t want the truth, can’t handle the truth. Their lives are surrounded by lies and half-truths. The “end” of whatever they believe justifies whatever “means” necessary.
If it is about Obama and his incompetence, I usually just get something back about Bush blah blah blah. To which I respond, “Curious, I don’t ever recall ever having seen Bush and Obama on the same ballot.” That usually shuts them up. and they walk off.
AW blogged: Today is epic. I got my life back. I can hear nearly normally for the first time in decades.
Congratulations. Awesome.
Great news! More info please if available.
Yes AW, let’s us know i may need the same solution this is great news and good health, (make sure you turn down the volume on the comp.)
WOOHOOT!
Great to hear!
I am sure AW feels just like that 🙂
Anthony,
. . . .the hills are alive with sound of music . . . enjoy . . .
John
Why waste your time on such a puerile hate-filled women in her sixties who’s old enough to know better?