Monday mirth – Old Reliable

Josh writes: As visitors here know there’s a video titled “How reliable are satellite temperatures?” with the usual suspects giving their expert opinions. You can watch the video here and read the post on WUWT here.

Yamalometer_scr.jpg

H/t @GroenMNG for the idea.

Cartoons by Josh

[Typo fixed]


 

NOTE/update:  To be clear, this most influential tree, YAD06, was used in Briffa 2000, not MBH98 and the original hockey stick

Josh has simply taken artistic license on the claims of accuracy that swirl around dendro reconstructions, and the difficulty in extracting accurate centennial scale reproductions. He writes:
The reference was to Mann (the pose taken from the recent video) talking about satellites while not being an expert in that field while happily using duff data to pronounce on global temperatures.
Anthony

222 thoughts on “Monday mirth – Old Reliable

    • Mann, ‘this tree here tells me the temperature history of the last 1000 years for the whole globe, year round, I can get this from the 3 months of growing season. Satellites do not do as good of a job since they take 12 months of data for a year and not 3. How can we trust satellites? Yeah we can use satellites to infer Mars’ temperature, Saturns’ temperature and planets light years away, but for Earth they are not accurate at all. Tree rings are the best for temperatures on Earth, you use the portions you want and you use my trick of cutting of recent data you do not like. Trust me I am Mike ‘hide the decline trick’ Mann”

    • You will have to analyse the ring count in Geppeto-Mann’s nose to see just how fast it did grow.

      “The growth rings in my nose are getting wider and wider; this proves absolutely that things are warming up; even as I speak the growth rings are increasing in size.”

      The blue fairy needs to grant him his wish; “Look at me … I’m a real scientist.”

  1. As McIntyre points out: “YAD061 reaches 8 sigma and is the most influential tree in the world.” WUWT, October 1st, 2009.

    Was YAD061 Briffa’s favourite tree as well, or was it only Mann’s favourite? I am a little confused on this point.

  2. Josh …” You can watch the video here and read the post on WUWT is here.” ….drop the ” is ” or the ” read ” !! ( I know, too early on the A.M. ) !!

  3. I must apologize, after all this time, and he has passed away, my dawg did it, it was his favorite tree

  4. Since Michael Mann claimed to be a Nobel Laureate for years, and he was duly spanked for doing so because he wasn’t, how can you trust anything coming out of this man’s mouth?

      • Yes.

        Here’s Trenberth and Mann, momentarily devastated by the fact that their mountain never materialized, juuust flat-as-a-pancake for …… over 18 years…..

        Dumb and Dumber — An AGW Allegory

        (youtube)

        …….. but, not for long! Nucitelli (and his moped) to the rescue! With his motormouth pumping out 97 l1es per minute, they have a full tank and are ON the ROAD — AGAIN!

      • Marcus. To the ONLY woman (“the one”, I mean) whose opinion should matter on that topic, it is the size of the HEART alone that matters. If the size of a man’s muscles or any other part of his anatomy matters, then, he should call for the check, pay it, help her into her coat …. and call her a taxi. And NEVER call her again!!

      • Janice, I agree. The problem is getting it out of their chest for measuring without killing him. Siiigh The saying goes “The quickest way to a man’s heart, is through his stomach”. I always respond with “No it’s not. It’s through his sternum”.

  5. has all the ice melted yet?, they promised that it would all be gone…..

      • We have 4 long needle pine shrub plants on the NE side of our house, planted in 1996. Due to the arrangement 1 gets direct sunlight early morning till about 10 AM. 2dn is slightly shaded by the 1st and direct sunlight till 9 am & in summer after 5pm . 3 & 4 get no morning direct sun and summer sun after 4:30 pm. Planted about 6 feet appart.

        Same temperature and water being with in 20 feet. Same basic soil and feed.

        Plant 1 is 5 ft high and 9 feet dia. (gets trimmed at least 5 inch for the last 5 years.
        Plant 2 is 4 ft high and 6 feet dia. (gets trimmed a couple inchs for the last 5 years.
        Plants 3 & 4 are 3 ft high and 3 feet dia. (get light shape trimming)

        It is the amount of sunlight controlling, not snowfall, or water or temperature. Same goes for our tomato plants, size depends on morning sun.

    • Worse:
      1) It would only apply to the ambient temperature during the growing season.
      2) As temperatures increase, there is a point at which increases in temperature retard growth.

  6. I understand that the Alarmists use 1973 as the start (when I was being taught about man made nuclear winter) and it has been made clear that the starting date for the pause was picked deliberately. However, what is the answer to the satellite slowing and loosing altitude claim?

    • …it has been made clear that the starting date for the pause was picked deliberately…

      Yes.
      It is now. And then we count backwards until the trend in temperatures is significant.

      Now is special. We live here.
      The way you phrased your understanding almost makes it sound as if “now” was cherry-picked like a Yamal tree.
      But that is not the case.

    • The pause is not cherry picked. It starts now and the trend is calculated back in time until the trend starts to be statistically significant

      • It’s projection. The Climate Faithful assume Skeptics cherry pick because they do, just like how they assume Skeptics must be getting huge amounts of money from special interests and believe in huge conspiracies.

      • Marcus
        Me too – with my great-Big Oil Cheque, and an extra beer’s worth of filthy lucre . . . .

        Auto

    • Whatever happened to the global dimming caused by mankind? I thought by now it was predicted there would only be about 10% of sunlight left. Wasn’t that the story? Linear extrapolation of someone’s measurements? We are killing off all plants and animals with our filthy emissions? That is how I remember the alarmist calls.

      I guess we can cross that catastrophe off our list of anthropogenic death-cults. Oh well. What’s up next?

      • DD More- In the description of the four trees in your yard. First, I hope they are only 9, 6, 3, and 3 inches in diameter.

        I find this observation very interesting. My study of the morning sun shows that it is the brightest between sunup and 9:30 am local time. This brightness can only be seen during the summer months when the sun swings overhead rather than to the south. I have an upstairs apartment which faces east and west. The paint on the outside wall of the east side has been destroyed by the sun while the west side has held up fairly well. There are other observations around my place that confirms that the morning sun is harsh compared to the afternoon.

        I set photo cells around the place to see if they could see the difference and wala, there is a definate peak of radiance at about 9am every morning. The pattern (which I have captured several times in the last two years) seems to begin when the solar cells first detect daylight (earlier than sunup) and has a rounded shape that peaks at 9am (10 for daylight savings) and ends around 10:30.

        This pattern is correlated with the increase of temperature. It also is correlated to the increase of barometric pressure that ends when the noon diurnal takes effect.

        I have asked the experts about this curious increase of brightness but it seems to be an unknown.

        I suggest DD that you put up a solar panel on your roof and start recording the voltage that it puts out when it is tied directly into a voltmeter. My readings peak at 17.5v at 9am. I would suggest mounting them at the peak of the roof looking straight up and not facing the normal sun path tilt.

        I also have a photo cell with the voltmeter set on the lowest scale to measure the reflected light from the moon. (used to determine when this pattern begins).

        And if there are others reading this blog that are doing this test, feedback would be appreciated.

  7. He has a certain far-away look. Perhaps he is searching for the forest, but that damn hockey tree is in the way.

      • Ode to the Bristlecone Pine-from Mike Mann

        “Oh Bristlecone Pine, from tree rings define
        The temperatures known by the past,
        And of them I’ll make, a hockey stick fake,
        And declare that it’s warming too fast!

        But Bristlecone Pine, when you showed a decline,
        I knew I’d be viewed as a clown,
        So I did all I could, as all egotists would,
        And I factored them in upside down!”

        :)

  8. You don’t need Satellite Data to debunk the Hockeystick. Google Maps pretty much maps out the MWP. A Monkey could type War and Peace before a set of independent researchers would ever reconstruct the Hockeystick. The Government should take a group a statiscians, mathmaticians and economatricians, put them in a dark room, give them raw data, and have them create a reconstruction given only limited data about what they are reconstructing and only the raw data. No way would they ever recreate the Hockeystick. Government reserach also needs to be compartmentalied so that no one can control the process from start to finish in order to reach a predetermined outcome.
    Study Group #1) Define the problem, and identify the data and techniques that need to be used.
    Study Group #2) Assigned data sets to gather, with no knowledge of what they are gathering data for.
    Study Group #3) Data adjusting techniques defined by Group #1 would be applied to the raw data to prepare it for analysis.
    Study Group #4) The Scientific Method and other predetermined analysis and statistical processes would be applied to the data, and conclusions would be reached.
    Study Group #5) Would be assigned to reporduce the conclusions reached by Group #4 to validate their conclusions.

    Concentration of power is the enemy of science, just ask Gallileo. No one should be granted as much power as Michael Mann has in the scientific process. Michael Mann is to science today what the Catholic Church was to Gallileo, and science in the past.

    https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zvwgQ0tAjx_k.keO5eR4ueHXE

  9. OMG!!! I’ve never seen this data series before, but how isn’t this considered outright fraud? What happens if you use the other trees? That would be an interesting result. Anyway, this proves my point that a monkey would type War and Peace before any independent honest researcher would ever reconstruct the Hockeystick. This whole AGW theory is based upon a chart that is unreproducable if the researchers are given only the raw data and no knowledge of the made up statistical techniques intended to hide the decline.

    • It’s not fraud. The data is real enough. And clearly, all but one or two trees actually do show an upward inclination in the last 50 years and all do so over the last century. YAD071 simply shows the very best correlation to the CO2 increase over the same time. What Mann did was to assume the consequent and then grab what best reflected his assumptions. As statistics goes it is pathetic, which McIntyre and McItrick showed.

      • Choosing to show the results of a single tree from hundreds (thousands?) and concealing the data from all the others is still fraud.

        Fraud is the use of deception to gain advantage, or cause harm.

      • Fraud is precisely what you defined it and demands motive. While anyone with access to the DSM might diagnose Mann as having a serious problem, you need to show that the “gain” or “harm” is more than simple socio-psychological behaviour. A perusal of the climategate emails shows that Mann was neither liked nor trusted by his colleagues. All we “have” on Mann is evidence of massive ego and more or less sociopathic confidence in his own correctness. He is not seeking advantage, he actually believes he has it. So, no, the hockey stick is simply the worst side of science. Mann should have retracted it, but, he really is a “believer,” confident of his own ideas, and it will be a very cold day for the devil before he retracts anything.

    • co2islife January 18, 2016 at 8:08 am
      OMG!!! I’ve never seen this data series before, but how isn’t this considered outright fraud?

      Sadly, for those of us who have been watching this debate for a long time, this particular but of insantiy (along with quite a few others) has long drifted into distant memory. For those new to the debate, it is an OMG! moment.

      Perhaps WUWT should start re-running the earth shattering threads from the past to help the newest crop of skeptics get up to speed? The headlines of the last couple of years don’t tell the story very well about just how bad the science has been corrupted. (For those who are wondering, yes, it is worse than you thought).

      • “Perhaps WUWT should start re-running the earth shattering threads from the past to help the newest crop of skeptics get up to speed?”

        Blasts from the past–a good idea. Or maybe go through past threads and purt stars on the top 10%, for those who look at the titles in the archives.

    • Well, the raw data is not fraudulent, it was what followed that was “misrepresentative of the information contained in the data”.

      The technique used is not to drop all the other data sets, it is to weight them so that ones that are ‘correct’ are weighted more and ones that ‘fail to reproduce temperatures’ are weighted less. If, for example, you weight YAD061 by 400 fold because it is “right” and the ones that are “wrong” once, then the combination, with weighting, looks a lot like the one weighted 400 times the others.

      That of course, is where the misrepresentation lies because it drives a conclusion that is completely at variance with the data set as a whole.

  10. Congress should take a look at these findings, identify the cherry picked outliers that Michael Manny used, provide him the data on the MWP Google Map and force him to reconstruct his Hockeystick without any of the Cherry Picked Outliers. The “Guilty Flee when No One Pursues.” The way Michael Mann reacted to Steve McIntyre’s challenges is what would be expected from a Mann trying to hide something.

    https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zvwgQ0tAjx_k.keO5eR4ueHXE

  11. Remind me how trees can tell the average temperature of the lower troposphere. I seemed to have missed something. The surface of an orange is not the orange nor the peel of an apple the apple. A hundred or two years ago, the surface temperatures were a better indication of climate than our currently asphalt covered heat generating urban heat islands. These days much less so.

    • A hundred or two years ago, the surface temperatures were a better indication of climate than our currently asphalt covered heat generating urban heat islands. These days much less so.

      Bravo!!! I would love Congress to ask Michael Mann about the adjustments he made to his tree ring data to adjust for those issues. This science is simply pathetic. It is so clear all they are doing is looking for data to support a conclusion.

  12. A hundred or two years ago, the surface temperatures were a better indication of climate than our currently asphalt covered heat generating urban heat islands. These days much less so.

    BTW, CO2 isn’t the only thing that has increased since 1950s that influence the temperature. Temperature and miles of highways added also correlate nicely, and the highways can explain the pause and the differential between the N and S Hemisphere, which CO2 can’t.

  13. This is Las Vegas, I’m pretty sure that the heat profile of Las Vegas is wildly different from the surrounding desert. Mile and miles and miles of asphalt will change the temperature far more than CO2. IMHO, the development of the I-State Highway System and urban flight has done far more for altering temperatures than CO2, and this explains the N S Hemi differential.

  14. So, if we can’t trust satellites, is it safe to fly commercially? We trust our lives to them? Do they suffer from atomospheric drag too? Hmm…don’t they compensate for that? Didn’t I read that they have adjusted for atmospheric drag, some time back? Isn’t it inconvenient that their excuses get weaker and weaker? If you believe them – don’t fly! Save yourself! We can’t trust satellite positioning systems either because they suffer from atmospheric drag too – don’t they?

    • The climatastrophists are the type of people that will pull the fire alarm in a large office if someone breaks wind.

  15. The voices in his head kept saying “it’s man made … it’s man made,” so Michael Mann was sure that a higher power was urging him to find the evidence for the cause and the catastrophic impact of AGW.

    But the voices were really saying “it’s MANN made,” and they were talking about the hockey stick, and so he pushed forward in his quest despite the fact that a higher power was trying to tell him to “quit making this s..t up.”

    • Yes Janice – I thought the same! To me looks like a kind of a cross between believe me ‘puppy dog’ eyes and sweet innocence?

      • Great minds, heh :) .

        Actually, that is a drawing taken from a home security video still of Mann at the front door of his date two nights ago. What he was REALLY saying (in the dreamy, twitterpated, tone reflected in his eyes): Here, Mildred, I picked this juuust for youuu.

  16. My God, I just watched the English lawmakers debating whether to ban Trump from traveling there because of his views on muslims !! I can only conclude from listening to this and their beliefs in Glo.Bull Warming, that Europe is lost to liberal insanity !!

      • Aphan:

        I have never been “slapped down” when ridiculing the rabid right’s pretending the ludicrous assertion that H1tler was left wing. Such a ‘slap down’ is not possible.

        I repeat, in this thread I provided facts which corrected untrue assertions and I was bombarded with more untrue ultra-right assertions including this one from you

        Surely not Donald Trump as an American extreme right person! He’s about as centrist as you can get without actually stepping across the line into “left”.

        I replied by pointing out that claiming the US Republican Party is not right wing is on a par with the rabid right ludicrously trying to pretend H1tler was not right wing.

        You may not like reality and you are free to spout whatever you want.
        But I promote truth because I adhere to the opinion that truth is important.

        Richard

      • richard-
        i’m convinced that when somebody does something repeatedly and it always gets the same response, that response is the goal he wishes to achieve. What you get is what you want.
        if that’s not the case- do something different.
        why don’t you just define what you mean when you use the word ‘socialism’?
        it does not mean the same to others as it does to you and i’ll bet you’ve noticed, right?

      • gnomish:

        I am convinced that you are a concern troll who posts on WUWT to be disruptive.

        On this occasion you raise the irrelevant question of what I mean by “socialism”. I have repeatedly answered that question on WUWT when it was relevant. It is completely, utterly and entirely irrelevant here so I will not repeat it here.

        Richard

      • You have been slapped down because Hitler was a creature of the left, as others have more than adequately proven.
        You just keep whining that everybody you know disagrees so it can’t be true.

      • Richard said- “You may not like reality and you are free to spout whatever you want. But I promote truth because I adhere to the opinion that truth is important.”

        The reality IS that the US and the UK define their “right” and “left” differently. YOU do not like that reality and you are also free to spout whatever you want. BUT you are NOT promoting truth in this case and you REFUSE to let go of your OPINION so obviously the truth is NOT that important to you.

        Here are some more AMERICAN FACTS for you, since you keep saying you are all about FACTS:

        FACT-in the United States Socialists formed the Communist Party. Both socialists and communists have ALWAYS been part of the “left” in America.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States#cite_ref-19

        “In 1919, John Reed, Benjamin Gitlow and other Socialists formed the Communist Labor Party, while Socialist foreign sections led by Charles Ruthenberg formed the Communist Party. These two groups would be combined as the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA).[65] The Communists organized the Trade Union Unity League to compete with the AFL and claimed to represent 50,000 workers.[66] In 1928, following divisions inside the Soviet Union, Jay Lovestone, who had replaced Ruthenberg as general secretary of the CPUSA following his death, joined with William Z. Foster to expel Foster’s former allies, James P. Cannon and Max Shachtman, who were followers of Leon Trotsky. Following another Soviet factional dispute, Lovestone and Gitlow were expelled, and Earl Browder became party leader.[67] ”

        “But the next year, internal strife would cause a schism. After Vladimir Lenin’s successful revolution in Russia, he invited the Socialist Party to join the Third International. The debate over whether to align with Lenin caused a major rift in the party. A referendum to join Lenin’s “Comintern” passed with 90% approval, but the moderates who were in charge of the Party expelled the extreme leftists before this could take place. The expelled members formed the Communist Labor Party and the Communist Party of America. The Socialist Party ended up, with only moderates left, at one third of its original size.[77]”

        “Anarchists had bombed Wall Street and sent a number of mail-bombs to prominent businessmen and government leaders. The public lumped together the entire far left as terrorists. A wave of fear swept the country, giving support for the Justice Department to deport with thousands of non-citizens active in the far left. Emma Goldman was the most famous. This was known as the first Red Scare or the “Palmer Raids”.[78]

        FACT- Conservatives in the United States are on the “right” politically and how Americans use and define conservatism is DIFFERENT than how other countries do.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

        “The meaning of “conservatism” in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, “what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism.”

        “In the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent rise of the USSR, both major American political parties became strongly anti-Communist.Within the U.S., the far Left split and an American Communist Party emerged in the 1920s.[94] Conservatives denounced Communist ideals as a subversion of American values and maintained relentless opposition to Communist principles until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Conservatives were especially sensitive to the perception of Communist elements trying to change national policies and values in the U.S. government, the media, and academia. Conservatives enthusiastically supported anti-Communist agencies such as the FBI, were chief proponents of the Congressional investigations of the 1940s and 1950s, particularly those led by Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy, and were wary of ex-Communists who exposed the system, such as Whittaker Chambers.[95]

        Fact-American Socialism began on the LEFT. After a while, the socialist party broke down, and groups splintered off from them and became Communist Parties in the US. (the left which had once only been pro-socialist, became less pro socialist and more pro communist.) After the Bolshevik Revolution-BOTH parties denounced communism (the left joined the right’s already existing aversion to them). Socialism started on the left and stayed on the left, it never became “right wing”. Communism emerged from socialism on the left, and remained in the left until BOTH sides became anti-communist.

        Richard, see, it doesn’t really matter whether you think H1tler was a socialist or a communist. Your opinion is irrelevant to the FACTS. In the US, both of them-socialism and communism-were both left wing political groups, so no matter what HE thought he was, it still would have been “left” to Americans. Your own personal version of the truth, is not the actual truth.

      • Marcus and schitzree:

        It seems you are both unaware of three facts.

        Firstly, several Islamist activists have been banned from entering the UK by use of UK legislation that permits HM government to refuse entry of “undesireables”.

        Secondly, the HM Parliament has a web provision for proposals for government action and support for proposed actions. Parliament debates the most supported proposals.

        Thirdly, the greatest support of any Parliamentary web proposal to date has been for the proposal that Trump’s anti-Islamic speeches are similar to Islamist speeches that have incurred refusal to enter the UK so should obtain similar treatment.

        The arrogant and ignorant behaviour of the extreme right is contemptible.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney January 18, 2016 at 10:53 am

        I have heard that Parliament also banned U.S.N.Captain John P Jones some years ago. He ignored the ban.
        Also wasn’t there also a Admiral Trump (Tromp?) that Parliament was less then fond of. I think he was Dutch. Didn’t he also ignore some sort of ban and do some “punting” on the Thames with some friends?

        If he does become President its going to be interesting. As much as we like the Brits it might cause us to elect him just to tweak your noses. It would be funny. Seeing how you handle haveing banned a U.S. President (if elected) that is.

        michael

      • richardscourtney January 18, 2016 at 10:53 am

        They did ban Robert Spencer of jihadwatch.org and if you have ever watched his presentations they are balanced and well supported since he only uses Islamic texts. He has devastated the other side in every debate because he knows the facts. Why was such a person banned by the UK government if not for Islamic special interests?

      • I provide facts that correct untrue assertions and I am bombarded with more untrue ultra-right assertions. (sigh) This one is a keeper!

        Surely not Donald Trump as an American extreme right person! He’s about as centrist as you can get without actually stepping across the line into “left”.

        The US Republican Party is not right wing? That is on a par with the rabid right ludicrously trying to pretend H1tler was not right wing.

        Richard

      • Richard,
        Stop before you go down the Hitler road again. All I have to do is paste the slap down you got last time right here on this thread. You are NOT an American. You are not a member of either the right or left here and you do not get to pretend to speak for any of us. You make a fool out of yourself on this issue because YOU don’t get to tell US Citizens what they think or believe or what their history is. And what you think you know, is wrong on this.

        You act as if a German maniac had a place in US politics, like one side or another here claimed him and his beliefs as their own. Communists and socialists are both still viewed as UNAmerican by the majority of US Citizens today just as they did whem our US soldiers, on both sides, helped YOUR country kick his % $$ willingly and courageously. Your continual references to him and the US “right” or “left” in the same breath are insulting, irrational, and erode away any respect I have for you.

        As far as Trump goes, in America you can call yourself whatever you want, but there are various shades or positions on either side to choose from. There are far right, middle right and center right and any Republican will tell you that Trump’s policies are all over the map. He’s far from conservative.

    • {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}

      richardscourtney on January 18, 2016 at 10:53 am

      Marcus and schitzree:

      It seems you are both unaware of three facts.

      Firstly, several Islamist activists have been banned from entering the UK by use of UK legislation that permits HM government to refuse entry of “undesireables”.

      Secondly, the HM Parliament has a web provision for proposals for government action and support for proposed actions. Parliament debates the most supported proposals.

      Thirdly, the greatest support of any Parliamentary web proposal to date has been for the proposal that Trump’s anti-Islamic speeches are similar to Islamist speeches that have incurred refusal to enter the UK so should obtain similar treatment.

      The arrogant and ignorant behaviour of the extreme right is contemptible.

      Richard

      richardscourtney,

      It is to be noted that Naomi Klein and Naomi Oreskes and John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky intellectually support an overall assessment that resonates with your words (that I marked in bold). You all radicalize for ideological motivations and political expediency.

      A case study is needed on those who have the intellectual phenomena of intolerance of intolerance in the guise of tolerance wrt extremist/radical/violent sects of religions, n’est ce pas?

      John

      • Who is richardscourtney designating as the “extreme right” here? Surely not Donald Trump as an American extreme right person! He’s about as centrist as you can get without actually stepping across the line into “left”. Is he talking about the UK “right”? He seems to think the UK right and the US “right” are the same thing.

      • When listening to a European whine about the far right, just remember that for most of the ruling class over there, socialists are considered conservative.

      • MarkW-“When listening to a European whine about the far right, just remember that for most of the ruling class over there, socialists are considered conservative.”

        I know right? That is exactly why RichardSCourtney gets this whole discussion wrong, every single time. You try to point out that in the US, the “right” and “left” are different than they are in the UK and he will tell you that you are a perpetrator of the “Big Lie!” You can show him Hitler’s own words. You can send him links to US Government historical docs, you can send him links to articles detailing the differences between the US and the UK on who belongs to their own “left and right” and he will scream and kick and accuse and ignore all the evidence completely.

        I said-
        “Surely not Donald Trump as an American extreme right person! He’s about as centrist as you can get without actually stepping across the line into “left”.

        And richard mocked that and replied-
        “The US Republican Party is not right wing? That is on a par with the rabid right ludicrously trying to pretend H1tler was not right wing.”

        First, I used the word EXTREME right, because there are differences in degrees of “right” and “left”. Donald Trump is certainly not on the EXTREME right as defined in the US. He IS running as a Republican, but there are all types of Republicans. He ignored the word “extreme”. That matters. I’m not a “rabid right” person and it’s not pretending to say that Hitler was not right wing. Not here in the States he wasn’t. Maybe to Richard he was, by UK standards, but he wasn’t in the US.

        Siigh…now I get to locate where he mistakenly posted his reply and go see how much evidence he’s ignoring today.

    • I wonder if the US ever bans visitors from Europe, or has politicians who propose to ban whole ethnic groups?
      I have had lots of disagreements with Richard Courtney over the years, but in this situation he reflects my feelings on banning Trump most eloquently. What does worry me is how ill informed the responses are to his posts, hopefully these do not reflect the political knowledge of mainstream America.

  17. In his cartoon Josh asks “How reliable are these climate experts?”

    Short answer: Those experts are reliably un-Feynman-like.

    Long answer: See various Feynman videos and articles on the demarcation of what is science and what is pseudo-science. See various articles by Richard Lindzen on climate silliness. That just for starters . . . .

    John

  18. Per the video (@ 3:35) , the satellite data had to be adjusted FOUR TIMES! Gosh, I guess we can’t trust the satellite data…Now, how many times have the ground based thermometer data been adjusted? More than four? How about every few months for years and years?

  19. Josh writes: As visitors here know there’s a video titled “How reliable are satellite temperatures?”

    … followed by a cartoon of Michael Mann holding a hokey schtick. Ok, I’ll chase that squirrel:

    Meanwhile, back in reality:

    Figure 3: Spread in the satellite and surface temperature ensembles over time. Each line shows one possible temperature reconstruction from the ensemble (12 month moving average). All of the series have been aligned to a zero baseline for the 10 year period 1979-1988, so that the increasing spread after that period gives an indication of the variability in the trend.

    More at: http://skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html

    • Brandon Gates:

      Are you really trying to claim the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K?

      Even by the laughable assertions of SkS that claim is daft!

      Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        Are you really trying to claim the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K?

        My understanding is that Figure 3 is not a CI calculation, but rather the “raw” display of realization spreads from the data providers themselves. Figure 4 shows the results of the quartile distribution and 95% CI:

        Figure 4: Uncertainty in the temperature satellite and surface temperature trends, estimated from the RSS and HadCRUT4 ensembles. The boxes show the mean and interquartile range of the trends on 1979-2012 in each ensemble. Whiskers indicate the 95% interval (2.5%-97.5%). Crosses indicate outliers.

        The units are K/decade, not K, and that looks like ±0.03 K/decade for HADCRUT4 vs. ±0.13 K/decade for RSS.

        Even by the laughable assertions of SkS that claim is daft!

        I’m glad you think your own jokes are funny. You did however prompt me to more critically evaluate the article written by Kevin Cowtan (reviewed by Carl Mears of RSS), which includes a reference to Mears et al. (2011): http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2011_MSU_AMSU_Uncertainty.pdf

        Table 2 of that paper reports 2-sigma trend uncertainty estimates for TLT as 0.044 K/decade, whereas Dr. Cowtan’s uncertainty estimate is nearly three times the peer-reviewed estimate. I have asked Dr. Cowtan to either correct my misunderstanding or justify his much larger uncertainty estimate: http://skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html#115622

        While we’re waiting for his answer, I should like to ask you if you think 0.044 K/decade estimated uncertainty for RSS, to three decimal places no less, is any more or less defensible than 0.03 K/decade for HADCRUT4. When answering, consider what Dr. Spencer has to say about UAH TLT v6: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

        The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade (1979-2014) is 0.026 C/decade lower than the previous trend of +0.140 C/decade, but about 0.010 C/decade of that difference is due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT weighting function to direct surface emission by the land surface, which surface thermometer data suggests is warming more rapidly than the deep troposphere. The remaining 0.016 C/decade difference between the old and new LT product trends is mostly due to the new diurnal drift adjustment procedure and is well within our previously stated range of uncertainty for this product’s trend calculation (+/- 0.040 C/decade).

        One might reasonably expect uncertainty to improve to less than 0.040 K/decade in the new product. I’m not sure at what point very small numbers to three decimal precision becomes a laughable assertion, hopefully you will be able to clear that up for us.

      • I appreciate that Brandon stayed so well within the Sigma 2 error lines, so well within… like he practiced…

      • It’s almost like he doesn’t see that his graph produces nearly the same temperatures for both spreads…if you take the midline of the wider green spread, and the midline of the red spread, they are within 0.01 C of each other. Or did he mean to highlight that for us?

      • Aphan,

        It’s almost like he doesn’t see that his graph produces nearly the same temperatures for both spreads

        Not true, but it warms my little heart that you do.

        …if you take the midline of the wider green spread, and the midline of the red spread, they are within 0.01 C of each other. Or did he mean to highlight that for us?

        The main point of the SkS article is that the estimated trend uncertainty of the RSS TLT series is about 5x greater than for HADCRUT4, and hence, one tends to better trust the data with less calculated uncertainty. You do raise an interesting point about statistical significance and making statements about the differences in trends.

        I have an outstanding question for Kevin Cowtan about his uncertainty estimates however, so I’m going to hold off making stronger arguments until I have learned more about his analysis.

      • Marcus,

        As always, Brandon is drawing pretty pictures from his cozy little insane asylum !!

        The lunatics must be running it then, because when I turned on my computer today, I saw that some guy named Josh has apparently rebutted a video about satellite temperature reliability vs. surface station data by drawing a cartoon making fun of Michael Mann’s Hokey Schtick. Bizarre.

        Nurse Ratched? May I have my meds now please? Stat?


      • Brandon Gates

        January 18, 2016 at 2:03 pm

        The main point of the SkS article…”

        The main point of any SkS article is to deceive the weak-minded, gullible reader.

        It is a bit disappointing to see that they’ve been successful once again.

      • JohnWho,

        The main point of any SkS article is to deceive the weak-minded, gullible reader.

        Ok, please inform this weak-minded, gullible reader which part of the SkS article is the deception, and why. Try to include something other than unsupported assertion and personal insults in your answer.

      • Just noticed “Brandon Gates January 18, 2016 at 3:33 pm

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/monday-mirth-old-reliable/comment-page-1/#comment-2122907

        Not in order of importance, but please notice along the right side of WUWT that the SkS site is deemed “Unreliable” partly because it has been noted as deleting comments that disprove what they want said, partly because of allegations of post editing where commenter’s post have been changed, and, I believe, mostly because the information provided is simply unreliable.

        Also, a site called “Skeptical Science” would, as the name suggests, provide alternate possibilities – skeptical views – to what is believe to be established science. The SkS site, instead, provides what they deem “supporting” information to a non-established concept. Just that alone should make one, uh, skeptical of anything on that site.

        Others with much more knowledge on the subjects discussed on SkS often de-bunk the SkS bunk. Since you admit to being weak-minded and gullible, I would suggest you stay away from any site with dubious reliability. Or, continue there and post here exposing your admitted weak-minded and gullible nature.

        The choice is yours.

      • JohnWho,

        Not in order of importance, but please notice along the right side of WUWT that the SkS site is deemed “Unreliable” partly because it has been noted as deleting comments that disprove what they want said, partly because of allegations of post editing where commenter’s post have been changed, and, I believe, mostly because the information provided is simply unreliable.

        I didn’t ask you for someone else’s opinion of the entire SkS website, I asked for what part of this particular SkS article you think is the deception, and why: http://skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html

        The SkS site, instead, provides what they deem “supporting” information to a non-established concept. Just that alone should make one, uh, skeptical of anything on that site.

        I didn’t ask you of your opinion of the entire SkS website, about how well established any particular concept is or is not discussed.

        Others with much more knowledge on the subjects discussed on SkS often de-bunk the SkS bunk.

        I’m not asking what others think about the entire SkS website, I’m asking you what you think about a particular article.

        Since you admit to being weak-minded and gullible, I would suggest you stay away from any site with dubious reliability.

        I also asked you to try to include something in your response other than unsupported assertion and personal insults; you have essentially failed to do so and have completely failed to even directly answer my question as asked. I’m trying to understand how me pointing these things out is consistent with being weak-minded and gullible, but I’m probably just too stupid to figure that out.

      • Brandon Gates –

        You quoted:

        “The main point of any SkS article is to deceive the weak-minded, gullible reader.”

        I’ve explained somewhat why I believe that.

        My statement:

        “Others with much more knowledge on the subjects discussed on SkS often de-bunk the SkS bunk.”

        is my direct reply to your request for me to take the time to “review” that SkS article.

        I am smart enough to stay away from a site that I’ve discovered is unreliable and I’ve had that discovery confirmed by the good folks here at WUWT and I will not help increase their traffic.

    • Brandon Gates:

      HadCRU make larger changes than 0.01 K to much of their data on most months!

      So, a claim that the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K is daft. And you cited SkS as your source for that nonsensical assertion. You cannot divert attention from that claim being nonsense by attempting to say others also make that ridiculous claim.

      Also, I made no jokes so I could not think them “funny”. I said that assertions of SkS are “laughable” and that truth is NOT a joke.

      Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        HadCRU make larger changes than 0.01 K to much of their data on most months!

        Credit: Nick Stokes, http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html

        And between v5.6 and 6.0(beta), the UAH team have made upward of ±0.1 K changes to some months, call the mean ~0.05 K. Dr. Spencer tells us that the error estimate of the trend for UAH TLT v5.6 is ±0.040 K/decade. Your point is what again?

        No wait, I think I’ve got it …

        So, a claim that the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K is daft.

        The CI is calculated for a trend of multiple simulated temperature realizations, not a single global monthly value. The answer Dr. Cowtan got for HADCRUT4 is not ±0.01 K, but ±0.03 K/decade.

        The estimated monthly and annual uncertainties for HADCRUT4 are indeed quite a bit higher:

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt

        From 1979-2012, the mean monthly uncertainty is ±0.151 K and the mean annual uncertainty is ±0.087 K.

        And you cited SkS as your source for that nonsensical assertion. You cannot divert attention from that claim being nonsense by attempting to say others also make that ridiculous claim.

        Odd argument to make against me since the premise of this post appears to be an attempt to divert attention away from a critical comparison of satellite tropospheric temperature estimates away from apparently less uncertain surface temperature estimates with a cartoon about Dr. Michael Mann’s Hokey Schtick:

        When you’re quite done impotently spewing fallacious ad hominems and failing to answer direct questions, perhaps you can explain to the class what the law of large numbers and central limit theorem are, and from those statistical concepts why — barring uncorrected systematic biases — we might expect error estimates to become smaller than the stated precision of a single measurement as the number of observations increases.

      • Wow, 0.04ºC change per decade! That means in… (gotta go get my calculator) …a century from now it will be 0.4º!

        Then what??

        I know! Climate Catastrophe!!

        Run for your life!

      • dbstealey,

        Wow, 0.04ºC change per decade! That means in… (gotta go get my calculator) …a century from now it will be 0.4º!

        Read the whole paragraph again, Stealey:

        The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade (1979-2014) is 0.026 C/decade lower than the previous trend of +0.140 C/decade, but about 0.010 C/decade of that difference is due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT weighting function to direct surface emission by the land surface, which surface thermometer data suggests is warming more rapidly than the deep troposphere. The remaining 0.016 C/decade difference between the old and new LT product trends is mostly due to the new diurnal drift adjustment procedure and is well within our previously stated range of uncertainty for this product’s trend calculation (+/- 0.040 C/decade).

        The calc you should have done is 0.114 C/decade * 10 decades/century = 1.14 +/- 0.4 C. So as much as 1.54 C or as little as 0.74 C.

        Why you would think that extrapolating a linear trend out a whole century is defensible in this context is quite beyond me, but if you’re gonna do it, and least use the proper input values.

      • Gates, this may surprise you. I rarely read your comments, I skim them to see if there’s any meat on the bone. Usually you’re just parsing and nitpicking what someone else wrote about you. Often you go after a bunch of folks, one after another. I just noticed here that you’re trying to make a case out of 0.04º/decade, and I was having some fun.

        The article on ‘Climatism’ by Ari Halpern shows that the dangerous AGW scare isn’t science at all. It’s a giant hoax fueled by money. Do you still believe in it?

      • dbstealey,

        I rarely read your comments, I skim them to see if there’s any meat on the bone. Usually you’re just parsing and nitpicking what someone else wrote about you.

        Hmm, this sounds familiar. Ah: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/16/piers-sellers-climate-and-cancer/#comment-2121882

        dbstealey
        January 17, 2016 at 11:50 am

        […]

        I don’t pay much attention to what politicians like the UN say, so I question their plan. They started this scam with a preconceived conclusion, and everything they say and do has supported their ready-made conclusion.

        Two data points don’t exactly establish a pattern, but it might pique one’s attention … if one were given to paying attention that is.

        I just noticed here that you’re trying to make a case out of 0.04º/decade, and I was having some fun.

        To err is human, DB, and honest mistakes do happen. “Whoops I goofed,” would totally have sufficed here.

      • Gates, you’re doing the same thing again, and you ignored my helpful advice:

        And I admit it when I make a misteak. But I wasn’t paying attention to your endless nitpicking; as I said, I was having some fun with numbers I noticed. Minuscule numbers. The kind of tiny, unimportant numbers the alarmist cult uses to try and scare the public. BTW, I still haven’t read your long post. It’s satisfying enough when I can spin you up with a short comment.

      • dbstealey,

        My previous reply went into the moderation bin for some reason, in the meantime I realize I neglected to answer this question:

        The article on ‘Climatism’ by Ari Halpern shows that the dangerous AGW scare isn’t science at all. It’s a giant hoax fueled by money. Do you still believe in it?

        No, I don’t believe that AGW is a hoax fuelled by money because I don’t confuse physical science with political science. I also think that a blog which frequently laments about the “politicization” of science might consider not contributing to the very thing about which it complains. Just sayin’.

      • Odd argument to make against me since the premise of this post appears to be an attempt to divert attention away from a critical comparison of satellite tropospheric temperature estimates away from apparently less uncertain surface temperature estimates with a cartoon

        The argument against you by richardscourtney was not predicated in any way on the premise of the post. Your assertion therefor is an attempt to divert attention from that argument. You really are a hoot.

      • I just noticed that Gates wrote:

        Read the whole paragraph again, Stealey

        “Again”? I didn’t read it the first time.

        davidmhoffer,

        I’ll never understand how someone like that can still stick to their story, with zero credible evidence that supports their dangerous AGW belief, and a planet that’s making fools of every scary prediction ever made by the alarmist cult.

        But I guess that’s why martyrs will die to be right.

      • Brandon Gates:

        Amidst a load of irrelevant waffle, you ask me

        Your point is what again?

        My points were and are

        HadCRU make larger changes than 0.01 K to much of their data on most months!

        So, a claim that the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K is daft. And you cited SkS as your source for that nonsensical assertion. You cannot divert attention from that claim being nonsense by attempting to say others also make that ridiculous claim.

        And your response was to say NS (whose assertions are usually plain wrong) supports the silly assertion of SkS together with a load of irrelevant twaddle (sigh). It is not surprising that you forgot what it is you were failing to answer.

        Richard

      • @Brandon Gates
        “These aren’t the adjustments you are looking for”
        Correct, my sarcastic friend. The surface temperature datasets (especially SST’s) are riddled with selection bias at every turn – geographical, temporal and methodological, making an utter mockery of their claimed certainty. Only an idiot, or maybe an educated fool blinkered by ideology would fail to see this.

      • richardscourtney,

        HadCRU make larger changes than 0.01 K to much of their data on most months!

        Yeah, I got that the first time. As I have explained previously:

        Here is UAH’s latest adjustment from v5.6 to v6beta:

        Credit: Nick Stokes http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html

        So, between v5.6 and 6.0(beta), the UAH team have made upward of ±0.1 K changes to some months, call the mean ~0.05 K. Dr. Spencer tells us that the error estimate of the trend for UAH TLT v5.6 is ±0.040 K/decade: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

        The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade (1979-2014) is 0.026 C/decade lower than the previous trend of +0.140 C/decade, but about 0.010 C/decade of that difference is due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT weighting function to direct surface emission by the land surface, which surface thermometer data suggests is warming more rapidly than the deep troposphere. The remaining 0.016 C/decade difference between the old and new LT product trends is mostly due to the new diurnal drift adjustment procedure and is well within our previously stated range of uncertainty for this product’s trend calculation (+/- 0.040 C/decade).

        0.1 > 0.040; therefore, by your own (wrong) reasoning, it would seem to me that UAH make the same “daft” and “laughable assertion” you claim HadCRU do with HADCRUT4. I don’t know for certain whether that is true of your reasoning or not of course, because you apparently dismiss this point as “irrelevant waffle”.

      • davidmhoffer,

        The argument against you by richardscourtney was not predicated in any way on the premise of the post. Your assertion therefor is an attempt to divert attention from that argument.

        Nice try; I rebutted his argument directly in a prior post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/monday-mirth-old-reliable/comment-page-1/#comment-2122791

        And again within that same post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/monday-mirth-old-reliable/comment-page-1/#comment-2122894

        I give him credit for at least attempting a substantive response, not so much credit for failing to recognize that his critique of the HADCRUT4 trend uncertainty also tends to poleaxe UAH’s trend uncertainty estimate.

      • JJB MKI,

        Correct, my sarcastic friend. The surface temperature datasets (especially SST’s) are riddled with selection bias at every turn – geographical, temporal and methodological, making an utter mockery of their claimed certainty.

        SST adjustments for HADSST3 …

        … are net COOLING over the entire interval. The Karl et al. (2015) adjustments to SSTs …

        … are also net COOLING over the entire interval. It’s only in land surface station data we see net WARMING adjustments …

        … however, the combined global land/ocean adjustments …

        … are still net COOLING.

        Credit for all plots except Karl (2015); Zeke Hausfather and Victor Venema: http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

        OTOH, between version 5.6 and 6.0beta of the UAH TLT product …

        … the net version changes are net COOLING to the tune of 0.10 K in the “pause” era, whilst the net version changes to GISTemp over the same interval are WARMING on the order of 0.03 K.

        I would think that should just about do it for idle speculations about selection bias.

        Only an idiot, or maybe an educated fool blinkered by ideology would fail to see this.

        I’m guessing mod thought my first response to that is the portion that was uncalled for, so, um, no response I guess.

      • Nice try; I rebutted his argument directly in a prior post:

        Brandon, your argument in the comment I addressed was without merit, regardless of what came before or after it. If you’d keep your responses down to something manageable instead of run on essays, you might be able to remember what your original position was. You might even get people to read what you say as well.

      • And….he’s out of the “gates” with another run on essay….:) If the IPCC predictions were as accurate as ours are about BG….there’d be something to worry about. :P

      • davidmhoffer,

        Brandon, your argument in the comment I addressed was without merit, regardless of what came before or after it.

        Your opinion is noted. I don’t think it’s inappropriate for me to point out that the premise of the OP is a weak argument whenever and wherever I choose to. I’m afraid we’ll just have to remain disagreed on this point.

      • don’t think it’s inappropriate for me to point out that the premise of the OP is a weak argument

        It isn’t. But that isn’t what you did. What you did was try to discredit a comment by richardscourtney that had nothing to do with the OP. You were guilty at that point of doing exactly what you were complaining about. Had you made the point as a general comment in response to the OP, that would have had merit.

      • Brandon Gates:

        In explained that a graph from SkS you had presented is obviously wrong when I wrote:

        HadCRU make larger changes than 0.01 K to much of their data on most months!

        So, a claim that the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K is daft. And you cited SkS as your source for that nonsensical assertion. You cannot divert attention from that claim being nonsense by attempting to say others also make that ridiculous claim.

        You have twice responded to that with long diatribes but you have not answered it.

        What I wrote is true and, therefore, the only rational replies would be agreement with it or discussion of it. But you have claimed of your responses

        Nice try; I rebutted his argument directly in a prior post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/monday-mirth-old-reliable/comment-page-1/#comment-2122791

        And again within that same post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/monday-mirth-old-reliable/comment-page-1/#comment-2122894

        I give him credit for at least attempting a substantive response, not so much credit for failing to recognize that his critique of the HADCRUT4 trend uncertainty also tends to poleaxe UAH’s trend uncertainty estimate.

        THAT IS A FALSEHOOD!
        You did NOT make any “rebuttal” of anything I said.

        1.
        You made the irrelevant claim that other graphs also have a large uncertainty (and I have quoted you doing it again).
        2.
        You attempted to wave a ‘red herring’ by making the untrue assertion that my point in some way referred to the top post.
        3.
        You made the irrelevant claim that somebody else (whose comments are usually plain wrong) also makes the silly claim that the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K
        4.
        You posted pages of irrelevant twaddle that – as is your usual practice – you had copied and pasted from elsewhere.
        5.
        You forgot what you were failing to answer and asked me

        Your point is what again?

        6.
        When I answered your request to remind of my points because you had forgotten them, you replied with more reams of irrelevant twaddle that you copied and pasted from elsewhere.

        Gates, I offer the following helpful advice.
        When you know you are wrong then admit it or – if you are not man enough to do that – then say nothing: your behaviour in response to my pointing out that you had posted an obviously erroneous graph has made you look very, very silly.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        THAT IS A FALSEHOOD!
        You did NOT make any “rebuttal” of anything I said.

        Except I did, and shrieking that I have not it in bold text will not change that.

        1. You made the irrelevant claim that other graphs also have a large uncertainty (and I have quoted you doing it again).

        May I remind the court that the topic of the OP is: Josh writes: As visitors here know there’s a video titled “How reliable are satellite temperatures?”

        Of of the statements made by Dr. Judith Curry in her recent congressional testimony at Senator Ted Cruz’s “Data or Dogma?” hearing was, “I think we should look at the satellite data because it’s the best data we have.”

        Noting that the satellite temperature anomaly products apparently show a higher uncertainty than HADCRUT4 therefore is entirely topical and relevant to the subject of the OP.

        2. You attempted to wave a ‘red herring’ by making the untrue assertion that my point in some way referred to the top post.

        I attempted to point out the irony of being accused of waving red herrings in a post which rebuts the aforementioned video with a cartoon of Michael Mann holding a hokey schtick.

        3. You made the irrelevant claim that somebody else (whose comments are usually plain wrong) also makes the silly claim that the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K

        “whose comments are usually plain wrong” is a red herring in the form of an ad hominem and which relies on an unsupported assertion that his comments are usually wrong. Your original attack on SkS took the same fallacious form.

        Your more substantive point that the calculated ±0.01 K confidence interval for HADCRUT4 is silly is wrong on two counts:

        1) The calculated value is ±0.03, not ±0.01.
        2) The calculated units are K/decade, not K.

        (2) is an especially important distinction because the confidence interval being calclated is that of a linear trend covering over 3 decades of data as opposed to a single month or year. People who are numerate understand that as the number of data increase, statistics of the data such as the mean or a least-squares regression tends to decrease. This is why I asked you to explain to the class the law of large numbers and central limit theory in a previous rebuttal, which, for whatever reason you have still failed to do.

        I am still waiting for your answer.

        4. You posted pages of irrelevant twaddle that – as is your usual practice – you had copied and pasted from elsewhere.

        The bulk of my copypasta is from primary literature citations. I think that the best way to understand the relevant uncertainties in both surface and satellite temperature data is to read the primary literature which discusses them.

        5. You forgot what you were failing to answer and asked me

        You don’t know what goes on inside my head, Richard, and in this case you are, again, quite wrong.

        6. When I answered your request to remind of my points because you had forgotten them, you replied with more reams of irrelevant twaddle that you copied and pasted from elsewhere.

        It was a rhetorical question, you chose to answer it literally. Apparently I need to again spell out my point:

        Between v5.6 and 6.0(beta), the UAH team have made upward of ±0.1 K changes to some months, call the mean ~0.05 K. Dr. Spencer tells us that the error estimate of the trend for UAH TLT v5.6 is ±0.040 K/decade.

        Here’s your argument again:

        HadCRU make larger changes than 0.01 K to much of their data on most months!

        So, a claim that the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K is daft.

        By your own argument, UAH’s stated TLT uncertainty of ±0.040 K/decade is daft because 0.1 > 0.040.

      • Brandon Gates:

        Stupidly, you have ignored my friendly advice to you that was

        When you know you are wrong then admit it or – if you are not man enough to do that – then say nothing: your behaviour in response to my pointing out that you had posted an obviously erroneous graph has made you look very, very silly.

        Anybody can see that you did NOT answer my point which was that you had posted a blatantly false graph. Your claim that you did is an addition to your egregious behaviour.

        You now present excuses for having presented the blatantly false graph. I will address your excuses because you may learn not to foul WUWT if your nose is rubbed in your mess.

        Firstly, as davidmhoffer has repeatedly told you, “the topic of the OP” is completely irrelevant to my pointing out that you posted a blatantly false graph. But you have waved that ‘red herring’ again (repeatedly).

        And “statements made by Dr. Judith Curry in her recent congressional testimony” are also irrelevant to the fact that you posted a blatantly false graph.

        Secondly, your attempt to “point out” an “irony” which does not exist (except in your imagination) is merely your attempting to justify your having posted a blatantly false graph.

        Thirdly, you did make “the irrelevant claim that somebody else (whose comments are usually plain wrong) also makes the silly claim that the confidence limits of HadCRUT4 are less than ±0.01 K”.

        The lack of relevance of that claim is not affected by your pretending my point contained an ‘ad hominem’ remark. In fact, my remark was a rejection of your unfounded ‘appeal to authority’.

        And there was nothing “fallacious” in anything I wrote. Your unsubstantiated claim that there was is merely another of attempts to distract from my complaint that you posted a blatantly false graph.

        Fourthly, you now – at last – attempt to address my complaint that you posted a blatantly false graph, but your attempt is nonsense which demonstrates – yet again – that you don’t understand what you post. Your silly attempt is this

        Your more substantive point that the calculated ±0.01 K confidence interval for HADCRUT4 is silly is wrong on two counts:
        1) The calculated value is ±0.03, not ±0.01.
        2) The calculated units are K/decade, not K.

        NO! Look at the graph under discussion: you posted it but you have already said you forgot what I was complaining so I provide this link to it.

        The graph is of “Temperature Change” shown as anomalies for individual years. The units are “°C” and for an anomaly a change of one °C is the same as change of one K.
        i.e. The units on the graph are K and NOT “K/decade”.
        And observing the width of the red line, the indicated error of the plotted “Temperature Change” is – as I said – ±0.01K.

        But you say that the “calculated ±0.01 K confidence interval for HADCRUT4 … is ±0.03” and for this the “units are K/decade”. So what? If the decadal error is ±0.03 K/decade then that confirms that the indication of the graph – which I stated – is an error for individual years of less than ±0.01K.

        Having got that wrong you waffle on about “an especially important distinction because the confidence interval being calculated (sic) is that of a linear trend covering over 3 decades of data as opposed to a single month or year” when the graph is of INDIVIDUAL YEARS.

        And you follow that with this

        This is why I asked you to explain to the class the law of large numbers and central limit theory in a previous rebuttal, which, for whatever reason you have still failed to do.
        I am still waiting for your answer.

        And you will keep waiting because that ‘red herring’ has NOTHING to do with my complaint at you having posted a blatantly false graph.

        Fifthly, you say your inclusion of irrelevant twaddle which you copy and paste from elsewhere is mostly from “primary literature citations”. Whatever you claim to “think”, irrelevant twaddle is not relevant (wherever you copy it from).

        Sixthly, you did forget what you were failing to answer and asked me

        Your point is what again?

        But you are right when you say I don’t know what goes on inside your head and your output is so strange that I dread to think what that might be going on in there.

        You now claim your question was rhetorical. Well, that is more evidence that what goes on in your head is unfathomable.

        Seventhly, I made no mention of UAH and your repeated attempts to talk about that are attempted distractions from my complaint that that you posted a blatantly false graph.

        Gates, you really should have accepted my friendly advice.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        The graph is of “Temperature Change” shown as anomalies for individual years. The units are “°C” and for an anomaly a change of one °C is the same as change of one K. i.e. The units on the graph are K and NOT “K/decade”.
        And observing the width of the red line, the indicated error of the plotted “Temperature Change” is – as I said – ±0.01K.

        Here’s the offending plot, again:

        Here’s the caption, again:

        Figure 3: Spread in the satellite and surface temperature ensembles over time. Each line shows one possible temperature reconstruction from the ensemble (12 month moving average). All of the series have been aligned to a zero baseline for the 10 year period 1979-1988, so that the increasing spread after that period gives an indication of the variability in the trend.

        Emphasis mine, read it carefully.

        Here is the next figure, again:

        Here’s the caption, again:

        Figure 4: Uncertainty in the temperature satellite and surface temperature trends, estimated from the RSS and HadCRUT4 ensembles. The boxes show the mean and interquartile range of the trends on 1979-2012 in each ensemble. Whiskers indicate the 95% interval (2.5%-97.5%). Crosses indicate outliers.

        That’s the uncertainty estimate of the trends derived from the ensembles of multiple temperature realizations shown in Figure 3.

        But you say that the “calculated ±0.01 K confidence interval for HADCRUT4 … is ±0.03” and for this the “units are K/decade”. So what? If the decadal error is ±0.03 K/decade then that confirms that the indication of the graph – which I stated – is an error for individual years of less than ±0.01K.

        Trend uncertainty (divergence per unit time) is not the same thing as the uncertainty at a given single point in time. It is wrong to infer from the trend uncertainty of ±0.03 K/decade that the annual point-in-time uncertainty is ±0.03 K/decade * 0.1 decade/year = ±0.003 K/year.

        As I have previously noted:

        The estimated monthly and annual uncertainties for HADCRUT4 are indeed quite a bit higher:

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt

        From 1979-2012, the mean monthly uncertainty is ±0.151 K and the mean annual uncertainty is ±0.087 K.

        Notice that the annual uncertainty is smaller than the monthly uncertainty, and that the units are not temperature per unit time, but simply temperature. Being keenly aware of units, and their meaning, is a way one might avoid comparing apples to oranges.

        “This is why I asked you to explain to the class the law of large numbers and central limit [theorem] in a previous rebuttal, which, for whatever reason you have still failed to do. I am still waiting for your answer.”

        And you will keep waiting because that ‘red herring’ has NOTHING to do with my complaint at you having posted a blatantly false graph.

        Both the law of large numbers and central limit theorem explain why we expect the annual uncertainty estimate of HADCRUT4 to be smaller than the monthly uncertainty estimate, and also why we might reasonably expect a trend uncertainty estimate (trend divergence per unit time) calculated over an interval of multiple decades to become smaller as the length of the trend interval becomes greater, and as well, for trend uncertainty per year to be smaller than the annual uncertainty.

        That you apparently do not understand very much of this does not make Figure 3 above a “blatantly false graph”.

      • Brandon Gates:

        I complained that you posted a blatantly erroneous graph because it indicates HadCRUT4 has confidence limits of ±0.01°C which cannot be true because HadCRU make larger changes than 0.01°C to much of their data on most months.

        You are now claiming the graph is not erroneous because – you say – its Y-axis is labelled wrongly as being in “°C” when – you say – it should be labelled as “°C/decade”.

        Your claim is plain daft. The graph is blatantly wrong whether the Y-axis is right or wrong.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        I complained that you posted a blatantly erroneous graph because it indicates HadCRUT4 has confidence limits of ±0.01°C which cannot be true because HadCRU make larger changes than 0.01°C to much of their data on most months.

        Your interpretation is erroneous; Figure 3 does not indicate a 95% CI of ±0.01°C. We already know such a claim is not true because Hadley CRU provide error estimates of monthly and annual HADCRUT4 values which well exceed that interval.

        You are now claiming the graph is not erroneous because – you say – its Y-axis is labelled wrongly as being in “°C” when – you say – it should be labelled as “°C/decade”.

        No, I did not make that claim.

        Your claim is plain daft.

        When one blatantly misrepresents the claim being made, it becomes easier to “falsify” it. I think it’s a daft strategy, but apparently it fools some people.

        The graph is blatantly wrong whether the Y-axis is right or wrong.

        The units for Figure 3 are correct, degrees C. The purpose of the data shown in Figure 3 is to calculate linear trends for each ensemble member; the caption says as much in very plain English:

        Figure 3: Spread in the satellite and surface temperature ensembles over time. Each line shows one possible temperature reconstruction from the ensemble (12 month moving average). All of the series have been aligned to a zero baseline for the 10 year period 1979-1988, so that the increasing spread after that period gives an indication of the variability in the trend.

        Trends tell us rate of change per unit time, so the expected units are degrees C per some unit time and that’s what is shown in Figure 4: °C/decade.

      • Brandon Gates:

        Please read my last post in this subthread. The graph you posted is wrong.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        Please read my last post in this subthread.

        I read it when I responded to it.

        The graph you posted is wrong.

        Read the caption again, because your interpretation of it is wrong.

      • Brandon Gates:

        You are demonstrating yet again that you do not understand the things you copy and paste.

        The facts are as follows.

        In the graph you copied from SkS and posted here
        1.
        the vertical thickness of the red line indicates the estimated error range of the HadCRUT4 data
        and
        2.
        the labeling of the graph’s Y-axis indicates the units are °C
        so
        3.
        the graph indicates an estimated error range of ±0.01°C for HadCRUT4 data.

        But I pointed out that an error range of as little as ±0.01°C is obviously wrong because HadCRUT4 changes its data by more than ±0.01°C most months.

        And I do not intend to go through all of the above again.

        YOU COPIED AN OBVIOUSLY WRONG GRAPH FROM SkS AND POSTED IT HERE.

        That is my final word in response to your nonsense.

        Richard

    • You must be playing dumb.

      ” Each line shows one possible temperature reconstruction from the ensemble”

      After homogenising or before? If after, its not an estimate of uncertainty.

      • Robert B,

        After homogenising or before?

        After.

        If after, its not an estimate of uncertainty.

        Homogenization is explicitly identified as one source of uncertainty in Morice et al. (2012): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf

        In addition to the differences arising from data set construction methodologies, differences in computed climate diagnostics, such as regional average temperatures, can result from differing approaches to compensating for non-uniform observational coverage across the globe. The differences in temperature analyses resulting from the various approaches is referred to as “structural uncertainty”: the uncertainty in temperature analysis arising from the choice of methodology [Thorne et al., 2005]. It is because of this structural uncertainty that there is a requirement for multiple analyses of surface temperatures to be maintained so that the sensitivity of results to data set construction methodologies can be assessed. The requirement for any given analysis is to strive to both reduce uncertainty and to more completely describe possible uncertainty sources, propagating these uncertainties through the analysis methodology to characterize the resulting analysis uncertainty as fully as possible.

        So, how certain can we be of the temperature evolution observed in a given observational analysis? A detailed measurement error and bias model was constructed for HadCRUT3 [Brohan et al., 2006]. This included descriptions of: land station homogenization uncertainty; bias related uncertainties arising from urbanization, sensor exposure and SST measurement methods; sampling errors arising from incomplete measurement sampling within grid–boxes; and uncertainties arising from limited global coverage.

      • Homogenization is explicitly identified as one source of uncertainty

        and yet ignored or did it come out as negligible? Despite other errors, at least the satellite data has a good even spread over most of the globe. The quality and spread of thermometers readings can not be claimed to be better because they were fudged to be more alike.

      • BG-
        “the net version changes are net COOLING to the tune of 0.10 K in the “pause” era, whilst the net version changes to GISTemp over the same interval are WARMING on the order of 0.03 K.”

        LOLOL!! No Brandon. No.

        Wrong. 1st-Anyone can see that the GISS data in your charts does not run through the year 2015 as does the UAH data. Why is that? Did you purposefully choose a chart that lied or was that an accident?
        2nd- These are temperature anomalies, not actual warming or cooling…just deviations from the mean baseline (the Zero point)
        3rd-The “cooling” shown in your chart shows a difference between -0.04C and -0.08C-a whopping interval of 0.04C NOT 0.10!! Check your math.

        When graphed correctly you can see that the GISS data shows a 0.6C increase in trend and the UAH data shows a 0.5 C increase in trend. The difference between the UAH V 5.6 and V 6 is approx 0.1 C

        Once again, you went to a lot of work to prove that you can’t even use honest, accurate charts.

      • Robert B,

        and yet ignored or did it come out as negligible?

        I gave you the complete citation, and it is very clearly not ignored. The uncertainty estimates themselves are available on the HADCRUT4 downloads page: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html

        Since 2010, the mean monthly uncertainties are (+/- K):

        0.04 bias (homogenization)
        0.03 measurement and sampling
        0.15 coverage
        0.05 bias (homogenization), measurement and sampling
        0.16 combined uncertainty

        Despite other errors, at least the satellite data has a good even spread over most of the globe.

        I think that is probably their main strength, and one reason why I personally don’t categorically dismiss their utility.

        The quality and spread of thermometers readings can not be claimed to be better because they were fudged to be more alike.

        The only way to detect and quantify bias in instrumentation is to check them against other measurements. Both UAH and RSS do this by comparing their results against radiosonde data … which do not enjoy the same level of coverage as either the sats themselves or the surface records, and which have their own known calibration errors and inhomogeneities and hence also need to be homogenized. I’ve already cited Mears et al. (2011) elsewhere, which discusses this sort of chicken-egg problem in detail.

        However, since RSS is not the only game in town, here’s Christy et al. (2007) saying similar things: https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/10-Mid-tropospheric-warming/more/Christy-etal-2007.pdf

        11. Caveats
        [52] We point out that data sets based on satellites undergo constant examination by the developers and users. These data are observed by complicated instruments which measure the intensity of the emissions of microwaves from atmospheric oxygen, requiring physical relationships to be applied to the raw satellite data to produce a temperature value. Further, the program under which these satellites were designed and operated was intended to improve weather forecasts, not to generate precise, long-term climate records.

        [..]

        [56] We have and will continue to examine various families of radiosondes to document inhomogeneities which create problems for time series analysis. To date, using a number of tools, we have discovered both positive and negative biases in many types of radiosondes [Christy and Norris, 2004, 2006]. As noted here, many shifts appear to be spuriously negative, but there are also many, including some of the largest in magnitude, which appear to be spuriously positive. Thus in total these would seem to have a relatively small impact on lower-tropospheric trends of large-scale averages. Given the results of the current versions of the data sets and experiments presented here, we see that all (except RSS and one RSS-adjusted sonde experiment) indicate trends for the tropical lower troposphere that are less than that of the surface (+0.125 K/decade). This yields trend ratios of troposphere versus surface of less than 1.0, which is smaller than the ratio of 1.3 generated from climate model simulations for this time period.

        And here is Christy, Spencer and Braswell (1999): https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/uah-msu.pdf

        3) PRECISION ESTIMATES FROM “GLOBAL” RADIOSONDE DATASETS
        The test above is confined to those locations, which have relatively high quality time series of radiosonde data. It is possible that the MSU data may happen to be more (or less) precise in these sites and their subgroupings than for the globe as a whole, even though the MSU dataset has systematic procedures applied everywhere. A more appropriate test would be a comparison with a truly global distribution of radiosondes. Unfortunately, large areas of the globe are not sampled (hence global is in quotes), though this is not such an extreme a problem as for other quantities (i.e., surface temperatures) because there are fewer DOFs in the deep-layer atmospheric measurements due to the strong spatial coherency of the quantity (Hurrell and Trenberth 1996; Wallis 1998). However, the lack of geographic coverage is indeed a shortcoming of these datasets and is compounded by serious discontinuities in several radiosonde timeseries (Gaffen 1994; Christy 1995; Parker et al. 1997; Luers and Eskridge 1998). The annual anomalies of the datasets described below are displayed in Fig. 10.

        Just like with surface temperature products, Christy et al. also compare satellites to themselves to check for possible discrepancies. From the same paper as above:

        2. Adjustments prior to merging

        The basic problem of this research is to determine how to merge data from nine instruments to produce a useful time series of deep-layer atmospheric temperatures. In constructing the previous versions of the MSU data (A, B, and C) we relied exclusively on the observations obtained as two satellites monitored the earth simultaneously, that is, as a coorbiting pair, to adjust the data for errors. Corrections were applied which eliminated major differences between the various pairs (e.g., intersatellite difference trends and annual cycle perturbations; Christy et al. 1998). In general, when data differences between two satellites were found, a decision was made as to which satellite was correct and which was in error, based on local equatorial crossing time variations or other factors. Some aspects of the temperature differences (trend and annual cycle) of the one deemed in error were then removed, forcing a good (but somewhat contrived) match with the one deemed to be correct.

        We take a different approach here in which we calculate and remove two effects, 1) orbit decay and 2) diurnal sampling due to orbit drift, for each satellite prior to any intersatellite comparison. A third source of error, also resulting from orbit drift due to the variations in the temperature of the instrument, is calculated by solving a system of linear equations in which the differences of global temperatures from coorbiting pairs and their instrument body temperatures are utilized. The solutions provide the linear coefficients of the instrument body temperatures which explain the most variance in the temperature difference time series; that is, we solve for the cause of the differences in earth-viewed temperatures measured simultaneously by a coorbiting pair. This third source of error, based on the instrument body temperature, is then removed from the time series of each satellite. After this, the time series of the nine satellites are merged taking into account the simple biases among them as in Christy et al. 1998.

        A rose is a rose by any other name, and the above is a description of pairwise homogenization if I’ve ever seen it elsewhere in literature. I don’t have a problem with it for surface, radiosonde or (A)MSU data because … how the heck else would we do it?

      • Aphan,

        1st-Anyone can see that the GISS data in your charts does not run through the year 2015 as does the UAH data. Why is that?

        Here again is the plot by Nick Stokes http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html :

        Read the caption: UAH 2015 versions diff vs. GISS 2015-2011 and 2015-2005

        GISS 2011 stopped in … 2011. Can’t compare GISS 2015 to GISS 2011 if there are no data to compare.

        2nd- These are temperature anomalies, not actual warming or cooling…just deviations from the mean baseline (the Zero point)

        Umm, no, the plot shown above is the difference of anomalies between present and past versions of temperature anomaly data products.

        Anyway, yes I know that plot doesn’t show actual heating or cooling. It does however show net heating or cooling ADJUSTMENTS between product versions.

        3rd-The “cooling” shown in your chart shows a difference between -0.04C and -0.08C-a whopping interval of 0.04C NOT 0.10!! Check your math.

        I did no math there, I just read values off the y-axis for each difference series.

        When graphed correctly you can see that the GISS data shows a 0.6C increase in trend and the UAH data shows a 0.5 C increase in trend.

        I’m not using that plot to support an argument about trend differences between data products, but rather the difference in monthly anomaly values from version to version between two data products.

      • Again, what is the point of the figure you titled “Meanwhile, back in reality” without the 0.16 error bars? Sure looks like they were ignored to me.

      • Robert B,

        Again, what is the point of the figure you titled “Meanwhile, back in reality” without the 0.16 error bars?

        Read the caption. Carefully.

        Figure 3: Spread in the satellite and surface temperature ensembles over time. Each line shows one possible temperature reconstruction from the ensemble (12 month moving average). All of the series have been aligned to a zero baseline for the 10 year period 1979-1988, so that the increasing spread after that period gives an indication of the variability in the trend.

        Upon following the link provided to the entire article: http://skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html

        … one will note that the next plot is:

        Figure 4: Uncertainty in the temperature satellite and surface temperature trends, estimated from the RSS and HadCRUT4 ensembles. The boxes show the mean and interquartile range of the trends on 1979-2012 in each ensemble. Whiskers indicate the 95% interval (2.5%-97.5%). Crosses indicate outliers.

        What? Aren’t those error bars?

        Sure looks like they were ignored to me.

        You may be right. Another possibility is that Dr. Cowtan didn’t realize that the HADCRUT4 ensemble doesn’t include all sources of uncertainty …

        http://skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html#115558

        Once he factored them in …

        The original spread in the trends was about 0.007C/decade (1σ). Combining these gives a total spread of (0.0072+0.0022+0.0022)1/2, or about 0.0075 C/decade. That’s about a 7% increase in the ensemble spread due to the inclusion of changing coverage and uncorrelated/partially correlated uncertainties. That’s insufficient to change the conclusions.

      • Read the caption. Carefully.

        Brandon Gates in a nutshell. Pretend that there is something in a slab of bombast.

        Nothing there to justify the plot without error bars. Its still propaganda and not reality no matter if the actual calculations were done somewhere else. Simple bit of logic. If the data has been homogenised so that stations hundreds of kilometers apart are more alike, a plot of an ensemble without error estimates due to that homogenisation is meaningless.

      • Does anyone here even know what point he’s trying to make? I’m too lazy to read his novels to find out.
        But he usually makes some assumption about someone here, and then tries to prove that person’s imaginary point of view is flawed. He seems think he’s making some kind of obvious point here, and it appears he’s assumed that whomever he is addressing will object to that point/disagree with him.

        He’s just a rambling pain in the rear end.

      • Robert B,

        Nothing there to justify the plot without error bars.

        Figure 3 is a plot of multiple realizations of the same metric, which is a way of generating error estimates from which error bars are derived in Figure 4.

      • Aphan,

        Does anyone here even know what point he’s trying to make?

        Main point was that the trend uncertainty for RSS is greater than HADCRUT4. Secondary point made in follow-on posts is that if the same skeptical questions about reliability of HADCRUT4 uncertainty are applied to RSS and UAH (A)MSU TLT anomaly products, it’s entirely clear that asking skeptical questions of both is entirely appropriate. Conclusion: When Judith Curry testifies in front of Congress and says, “I think we should look at the satellite data because they’re the best data we have” I’m thinking that such a claim isn’t supportable by what the data providers say about their own product in peer-reviewed primary literature.

        And then I get an ever so subtle taste of irony over the name of that particular hearing: Data or Dogma?

        Is that short and sweet enough for you to parse?

      • Ok. RSS and HADCRUT and GISS have never been exact matches, but they are amazingly similar all things considered.(in terms of tenths/hundredths of degrees) Based on the fact that the surface temperature stations are so out of whack that 90% of them aren’t cited properly, and their readings are in question, then yes, I’d agree with Curry that the satellite data is the “best” we’ve got all things considered.

        Seems like a lot of back and forthing for such a simply point really.

      • Aphan,

        Ok. RSS and HADCRUT and GISS have never been exact matches, but they are amazingly similar all things considered.(in terms of tenths/hundredths of degrees)

        Don’t forget UAH. I would not put as much stock in sat temperature anomalies as I do if RSS and UAH were not also remarkably similar, and if both of those also did not track well against radiosonde temperature anomaly products. The one fly in that ointment is the RATPAC-A radiosonde time series which shows greater warming over “The Pause” era than both satellite products to.

        Based on the fact that the surface temperature stations are so out of whack that 90% of them aren’t cited properly, and their readings are in question, then yes, I’d agree with Curry that the satellite data is the “best” we’ve got all things considered.

        I may have more to say on that when Watts et al (2015) makes it through peer-review and is published. One elephant in the room there is that USHCN (post-adjustments) tracks very well against USCRN since its inception, and USCRN was purpose-designed as a reference network to avoid the siting, calibration, time of observation, enclosure, UHI and other issues that are known to be problems in USHCN requiring homogenization.

        All things considered? There are a lot of things to consider. Neither of us are going to be able to consder all things, ever, and especially not in the format of a blog comment section.

        Seems like a lot of back and forthing for such a simply point really.

        I thought my main point was abundantly clear and succinct from my very first post.

      • Well it’s a lame point. Especially in a CARTOON thread where Josh posts a cartoon that asks “How reliable are these climate experts”? and a cartoon that was inspired in a thread here weeks ago. You do realize that satellites are not “experts” and that the cartoon was aimed at Mike’s completely inept work with tree rings-and thus HIS “expertise”. But you just keep plugging away with your view that this thread was all about satellite data and not about the questionable expertise of the “experts” in that video all you want.

        No one here, that I know of, has ever claimed that the satellite data, from ANYWHERE, should be taken as some kind of gospel truth. But almost everyone here is familiar with Anthony’s work with surface stations and know that the SSData SUCKS even more than the satellite data, so all you’re really doing here, besides poking richardscourtney until he has a stroke, is making points that everyone here pretty much knows and most likely agrees with. So kind of a lame point.

        But heaven forbid that one thread on the internet should lack a lengthy, irrational discourse from you.

      • Aphan,

        No one here, that I know of, has ever claimed that the satellite data, from ANYWHERE, should be taken as some kind of gospel truth.

        I cannot recall anyone phrasing it exactly that way. Then again, I am not arguing that phrasing … I quoted Dr. Curry’s congressional testimony wherein she opines that it is the best data we have.

        But almost everyone here is familiar with Anthony’s work with surface stations and know that the SSData SUCKS even more than the satellite data

        Apples and oranges, Aphan. Two completely different methods of estimating temperature trends going on here. Go read some of the papers I’ve cited here, I think you’ll find that while the sources of error are different, the satellite teams use remarkably similar methods to identifying, quantifying and attempting to correct them as the surface data teams do.

        so all you’re really doing here, besides poking richardscourtney until he has a stroke, is making points that everyone here pretty much knows and most likely agrees with.

        You don’t speak for everybody here, and I respectfully disagree with your opinion about what others here think.

        But heaven forbid that one thread on the internet should lack a lengthy, irrational discourse from you.

        Heaven forbid you make a post that doesn’t make sweeping generalizations about other people.

      • BG-“I am arguing that I think Dr. Curry’s, “best data we have” argument looks thin when one takes a look at the relative uncertainty estimates between the surface-based and satellite data products,

        Why? There are only 4 satellites used to retrieve data from. Thus the levels of uncertainty are limited, and as you have repeatedly proven in this thread, the data results are amazingly close to each other with very small amounts of bias. The surface based stations number in the thousands and are wildly biased and uncertain. See here-http://www.surfacestations.org/

        The surface station trends move in all kinds of different ways, and do not mimic each other closely at ALL.
        7.9 % of surface stations show difference of 1 C or less.
        21.5% of surface stations show differences of more than 1C
        64.4 % of them show differences of more than 2 C
        and 6.2% of them show differences of more than 5 C

        BG- “Apples and oranges, Aphan. Two completely different methods of estimating temperature trends going on here. Go read some of the papers I’ve cited here, I think you’ll find that while the sources of error are different, the satellite teams use remarkably similar methods to identifying, quantifying and attempting to correct them as the surface data teams do.”

        We have two methods for determining temperature trends BG- apples-satellites and oranges-land based stations. The satellite trends mimic each other very closely, no matter which “team” processes the data, and the differences in trend between them is LESS than 0.10C. The surface temperature data does not even match in trends, let alone mimic each other, and in the case of the land based surface temps, 92% of those stations show a difference of more than 1C!!! Or in other words- 92% of the land surface records show a difference in trend that is MORE THAN 0.10C.

        The FACT has been demonstrated that the land surface data IS NOT BEING CORRECTED, its being recorded as accurate when its NOT even remotely accurate. Anthony’s work here is based on PROVING how flawed it is, and FORCING the powers that be to correct it. Curry knows how bad the land data is. So does Anthony. So does ANYONE who has actually viewed the data and how it’s collected. Thus-to anyone with even a passing familiarity with both data sets, “the satellite data IS THE BEST we have.” Curry was 100% correct about that. Michael Mann et al are WRONG to think otherwise.

        I said” so all you’re really doing here, besides poking richardscourtney until he has a stroke, is making points that everyone here pretty much knows and most likely agrees with.”

        BG replied-“You don’t speak for everybody here, and I respectfully disagree with your opinion about what others here think.”

        You can disagree all you want to, but every single response to your argument here has been met with resistance because you seem to think you are MORE competent in this area of discussion that anyone, or everyone else here is. Dunning Kruger much?

        I said: “But heaven forbid that one thread on the internet should lack a lengthy, irrational discourse from you.”

        BG replied- “Heaven forbid you make a post that doesn’t make sweeping generalizations about other people.”

        Oh, you’re right, I did sweep didn’t I? I tend to get caught up in the use of logical fallacies when I respond to people who use them frequently. I also tend to pick up accents easily when I’m around people who have them. It’s a form of empathetic mimicry. I tend to speak in the same terms/dialect/forms that I see or hear being used. My bad.

        Let me rephrase-“Heaven forbid that a cartoon based thread at WUWT should lack a lengthy, irrational discourse from you”. Is that better? Valid, empirically based, and can be tested by others. Happy?

      • Aphan,

        There are only 4 satellites used to retrieve data from. Thus the levels of uncertainty are limited, and as you have repeatedly proven in this thread, the data results are amazingly close to each other with very small amounts of bias.

        RSS lists 16 currently active: http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

        … though it is true that only 4 have been available all the way back to 1978. I wouldn’t expect that fewer instruments entails greater “limits” on uncertainty, but rather quite the opposite. I have “proven” nothing on this thread, and certainly not that satellite uncertainty is less than that of the surface record. I believe that I have shown compelling evidence that, by using the various data providers’ own uncertainty estimates, that HADCRUT4 has about 5 times less trend uncertainty from 1978-2012 than RSS TLT over the same interval.

        The surface based stations number in the thousands and are wildly biased and uncertain. See here-http://www.surfacestations.org/

        Been there many times, read it with much interest. I don’t recall seeing any quantified estimates of uncertainty, and no comparisons of same to any satellite temperature time series. Your qualifying terms “wildly biased and uncertain” in this are meaningless for any kind of reasonably objective comparison.

        The surface station trends move in all kinds of different ways, and do not mimic each other closely at ALL.
        7.9 % of surface stations show difference of 1 C or less.
        21.5% of surface stations show differences of more than 1C
        64.4 % of them show differences of more than 2 C
        and 6.2% of them show differences of more than 5 C

        Those are not trend differences, but rather estimated single-measurement uncertainties used as threshold as part of a station classification scheme. Visually inspecting a certain station and applying a classification to it on that basis does not necessarily mean that its measurement error corresponds to the assigned classification.

        The satellite trends mimic each other very closely, no matter which “team” processes the data, and the differences in trend between them is LESS than 0.10C.

        0.10C per what unit time? Paying attention to units is important here.

        Trend 1979-2015 (K/decade):

        UAH TLT 0.114
        RSS TLT 0.123
        
        mean    0.118
        range   0.009
        

        Data sources:
        http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta4.txt
        http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt

        The surface temperature data does not even match in trends, let alone mimic each other, and in the case of the land based surface temps, 92% of those stations show a difference of more than 1C!!! Or in other words- 92% of the land surface records show a difference in trend that is MORE THAN 0.10C.

        Apples and oranges again. As I explain above, measurement error of a single station is not trend uncertainty.

        Trend 1979-2015 (K/decade):

        NCDC      0.155
        BEST [1]  0.156
        GISTEMP   0.165
        HADCRUT4  0.165
        BEST [2]  0.172
        
        mean      0.162
        range     0.023
        

        [1] Global Average Temperature Anomaly with Sea Ice Temperature Inferred from Water Temperatures
        [2] Global Average Temperature Anomaly with Sea Ice Temperature Inferred from Air Temperatures

        Data sources:
        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/p12/12/1880-2015.csv
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

        Going back to your argument: The satellite trends mimic each other very closely, no matter which “team” processes the data, and the differences in trend between them is LESS than 0.10C.

        Using that logic, I could say that GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 mimic each other very closely even though they’re produced by different teams using different source data and processing methods, and also note that they only differ from the mean trend of all surface series by 0.003 K/decade whereas UAH TLT and RSS TLT each differ from their respective mean by +/-0.005 K/decade. Therefore, by the same logic you apply in your argument, GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 are the “best” choices.

        But I can’t really make that argument on that basis because comparing the trends to each other does not necessarily indicate the structural uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions themselves. This argument is also reliant on which surface temperature reconstructions we include.

        The better way is to go to the literature and start by reading what the providers themselves have to say about the estimated uncertainties of their own products.

  20. Satellite temperatures have been verified by comparing them to balloon temperatures. If one claims the satellite temperatures are inaccurate then the balloon temperatures must also be inaccurate. This is a bit far-fetched.

    • Ralph Kramden,

      Satellite temperatures have been verified by comparing them to balloon temperatures. If one claims the satellite temperatures are inaccurate then the balloon temperatures must also be inaccurate. This is a bit far-fetched.

      Mears et al. (2011) provide about the best answer to that conundrum I’ve read on this topic: http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2011_MSU_AMSU_Uncertainty.pdf

      [38] Several similar analyses and intercomparisons have previously been undertaken [Christy et al. , 2010] which question the veracity at given times of several of these products, including but by no means limited to our own [e.g.,Christy et al., 2007; Christy et al., 2007; Randall and Herman, 2008]. We would caution that all such comparisons are two or more point comparisons between instruments or products that are not absolutely calibrated. Any such comparisons between uncertain measures cannot de facto provide absolute conclusions as to the veracity of any of the individual products. Indeed, on a scientific basis such comparisons have limited quantitative value without making recourse to defensible quantified uncertainty estimates in each comparator series when we know a priori that each is in fact uncertain. Rather than making at best semiobjective decisions based upon such imperfectly scientifically posed prior comparisons to preclude data products we prefer to include all products. We caution that readers should not consider our analysis in isolation of others which provide potentially valuable insights.

      I think it’s worth reading up a few paragraphs for background context.

      The simple answer to your question, unfortunately, is that it isn’t that simple. Don’t think for a minute that I like saying so.

      • davidmhoffer,

        By that standard, every calibrated instrument ever is “uncertain”.

        Yes, exactly.

      • davidmhoffer,

        It’s funny that you don’t seem to realize that I’ve known since grade school that all measurements contain an element of uncertainty, and that one of the challenges and imperatives of doing empirical science is quantifying them.

        Wake me up when you’ve remembered these absolute basics.

      • It’s funny that you don’t seem to realize that I’ve known since grade school that all measurements contain an element of uncertainty

        Excellent. Now read what you quoted, what I said, and what you agreed to carefully several times over. I’m not going to spell it out for you. I’ve led you to the trough, I can’t make you drink. Try guessing. I’ll agree to telling you if you are close or not.

      • Aw, I can’t help myself. I will give you a hint.

        For a given instrument of unknown accuracy and precision, there are multiple strategies for determining same. Please list them.

      • davidmhoffer,

        For a given instrument of unknown accuracy and precision, there are multiple strategies for determining same. Please list them.

        For accuracy, one can measure a “known” value in the form of a standard. For precision, one takes many measurements of whatever one wants (so long as it isn’t changing) and calculates the standard deviation of those multiple measurements.

        There are other methods which are variations on those themes, none of which are perfect. If you’re aware of one which is relevant to satellites vs. ground-based thermometers which somehow falsifies my real-world notion that calibrated instrumentation does not wholly eradicate observational uncertainty on a planetary scale, how about you just tell me what it is?

      • Brandon Gates January 20, 2016 at 2:28 pm
        Compare to another instrument reading the same thing.

        What does that get you?

        A) if two instruments of unknown accuracy and precision give you different answers?
        B) if two instruments of unknown accuracy and precision gave you similar answers?

      • davidmhoffer,

        What does that get you?

        A) if two instruments of unknown accuracy and precision give you different answers?
        B) if two instruments of unknown accuracy and precision gave you similar answers?

        A conundrum. I’ve already pointed out in my first post on this subthread …

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/monday-mirth-old-reliable/comment-page-1/#comment-2122948

        … that this is discussed in literature relevant to both sats and ground-based instruments. In that post, I cite Mears (2011), elsewhere I cite Christy (1999) and (2007) which Mears also references. One can easily find similar issues discussed in papers dealing describe the process for homogenizing surface station or radiosonde temperature time series.

        Thus we have arrived full circle to something I have already discussed. If you know a way out of this vicious cycle, twice now I am asking for you to suggest it.

      • “Thus we have arrived full circle to something I have already discussed. If you know a way out of this vicious cycle, twice now I am asking for you to suggest it.”

        I’ve got a suggestion for you, but it involves a proctologist and the Jaws of Life….the oxygen increase will probably be hard to get used to. So lay down for a few days afterwards….

      • A conundrum. I’ve already pointed out in my first post on this subthread …

        There is no conundrum. All you posted was an excuse.

        When two instruments of unknown accuracy and precision disagree with one another, one has a conundrum. Which, if either, is correct?

        When two instruments of unknown accuracy and precision provide similar results, they are corroborating one another. While there is a chance that both are inaccurate by the same amount and in the same direction, the chances of this corroboration being a coincidence are, particularly in measurement systems of this complexity, not to mention being both spatial and temporal, are vanishingly small. This was pointed out to you, and you responded with the quote you use to create the impression of conundrum where there isn’t one.

        As I pointed out to you, the quote as stated would make almost any measurement uncertain. To which you agreed. There’s the conundrum, if you will. Faced with two entirely different measurement systems which corroborate one another, the best you can do is to cast doubt on the whole thing by using a standard, which if applied rigorously, would render nearly any measurement we have ever taken of anything as merely “uncertain”. The quote by Mears is used by you to suggest that this uncertainty is large enough that we don’t have a clue what we’re looking at, some sort of conundrum that doesn’t in fact exist. If it were taken in the literal sense implied by you, there’d be little of we could be certain of, death and taxes included.

      • davidmhoffer,

        There is no conundrum. All you posted was an excuse.

        An “excuse” that is detailed in peer-reviewed literature specific to satellite data:

        http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2011_MSU_AMSU_Uncertainty.pdf

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/uah-msu.pdf

        https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/10-Mid-tropospheric-warming/more/Christy-etal-2007.pdf

        I didn’t write those things, Mears, Christy, Spencer and Braswell did. Go complain to them about making excuses, not me.

        Faced with two entirely different measurement systems which corroborate one another, the best you can do is to cast doubt on the whole thing by using a standard, which if applied rigorously, would render nearly any measurement we have ever taken of anything as merely “uncertain”.

        The title of the video is, “How reliable are the satellite temperatures?” One way to attempt to answer that question is look at uncertainty estimates. Because error is always expected, error estimates are the things which allow us to gauge reliability in a hopefully rigorous and quantifiable manner.

        The quote by Mears is used by you to suggest that this uncertainty is large enough that we don’t have a clue what we’re looking at, some sort of conundrum that doesn’t in fact exist.

        No that is not what I am arguing because that is not how I think about quantified error estimates.

        I am arguing that I think Dr. Curry’s, “best data we have” argument looks thin when one takes a look at the relative uncertainty estimates between the surface-based and satellite data products, but that’s far cry from throwing the entire (A)MSU method under the bus — which, for the record, I think is genius.

      • The side of truth, justice, knowledge and stuff like that.
        Just cus I don’t listen to what you say, doesn’t mean I don’t hear it.

      • I have to laugh at the lemmings who hardly ever attacked satellite and balloon data before, saying they don’t agree and that ‘satellites don’t measure temperature’. But as soon as that became the latest alarmist talking point, they pile on as if they know something special.

        They don’t. And the fact that they let their handlers do their thinking for them is amusing.

        So the latest narrative is that satellite data is NFG because ‘it really doen’t measure temperature’. And of course they nitpick any rational replies.

        Face it, Gates, you’re just one of the “Say Anything” crowd. You made up your mind a long, long time ago that there’s a big climate crisis brewing. But despite a couple decades of perfectly normal, natural temperatures and no scary runaway global warming despite the endless predictions, you still dig in your heels and insist that everything’s about to blow — because, you see, satellites don’t measure temperature!

        Better make an emergency call to Tom Karl and get some more direction. Tell him we’re on to both of you. Because we are. You’re both 100% politics, 0% honest science.

      • Brandon Gates January 20, 2016 at 6:24 pm

        An “excuse” that is detailed in peer-reviewed literature specific to satellite data:

        Appeal to authority.

        I didn’t write those things, Mears, Christy, Spencer and Braswell did. Go complain to them about making excuses, not me.

        Appeal to authority combined with misrepresentation of what the authority said.

        The title of the video is, “How reliable are the satellite temperatures?” One way to attempt to answer that question is look at uncertainty estimates.

        No error estimate was produced in the quote in question.

        No that is not what I am arguing because that is not how I think about quantified error estimates.

        There was no quantified error estimate in the quote you produced.

        I am arguing that I think Dr. Curry’s, “best data we have” argument looks thin when one takes a look at the relative uncertainty estimates between the surface-based and satellite data products,

        You produced no comparison of the error estimates. You implied via a circuitous route, that some sort of conundrum exists because the radiosondes and satellites corroborate one another. Your definition of uncertainty when extended logically would make ALL measurements “uncertain” to which you agreed.

        but that’s far cry from throwing the entire (A)MSU method under the bus — which, for the record, I think is genius.

        I see. Corroboration of AMSU is, in your books, a conundrum, but AMSU is genius. I see the conundrum.

      • Phil Jones said “AT LEAST” … fifteen years.

        It’s been 18 years, 8 months of NO global warming.

        So nice try, but another fail… impostor.

      • davidmhoffer,

        Appeal to authority.

        I want to know how satellite temperature time series are put together, and what the uncertainties in their measurements are. Who am I going to ask, the guys who put it together, or some random person?

        Appeal to authority combined with misrepresentation of what the authority said.

        Sweeping generalization. Which part was the misrepresentation?

        No error estimate was produced in the quote in question.

        I provided them elsewhere from the same citations.

        There was no quantified error estimate in the quote you produced.

        Ditto.

        You produced no comparison of the error estimates.

        Read my first post on the thread. Read the cited literature.

        I am not going to to all of your homework for you.

      • Gates, you snipped the comment of mine that you were complaining about. Was it this one?:

        I have to laugh at the lemmings who hardly ever attacked satellite and balloon data before, saying they don’t agree and that ‘satellites don’t measure temperature’. But as soon as that became the latest alarmist talking point, they pile on as if they know something special.

        They don’t. And the fact that they let their handlers do their thinking for them is amusing.

        So the latest narrative is that satellite data is NFG because ‘it really doen’t measure temperature’. And of course they nitpick any rational replies.

        Face it, Gates, you’re just one of the “Say Anything” crowd. You made up your mind a long, long time ago that there’s a big climate crisis brewing. But despite a couple decades of perfectly normal, natural temperatures and no scary runaway global warming despite the endless predictions, you still dig in your heels and insist that everything’s about to blow — because, you see, satellites don’t measure temperature!

        Better make an emergency call to Tom Karl and get some more direction. Tell him we’re on to both of you. Because we are. You’re both 100%.

        Since I posted facts and evidence, it was hardly ad-hom. But I can tell you don’t like facts and evidence posted because you made your snide comment and deleted mine.

        So I just re-posted it here. Other readers can decided for themelves. And thanx for giving me a reason to post it again.

      • Brandon Gates;
        I want to know how satellite temperature time series are put together,

        That was not the point of the discussion that you and I were having. The rest of your response follows in a similar vein. You either can’t remember what it was we were talking about, or are simply and deliberately using these interminably long responses of yours combined with references from the thread that have nothing to do with our discourse to continually shift the topic while pretending you actually addressed issues that were raised to you. I’m not sure what you get out of this, but I only get so much return from watching you dodge and weave and convince yourself that you are accomplsihing something, so I abandon the field to you, expecting that you believe you have won.

      • DavidMHoffer-

        I have a theory based on observations and empirical evidence. BG has found purpose in life by being a detractor. To detract is :”To draw or take away; divert”. BG comes here, yells “squirrel” and hopes that the hounds will then chase him over the river and through the woods. It’s his MO. He pretends to be an intellectual who is only interested in the “truth”, and then behaves in ways that are anything but truthful.

        I believe that the reason he does this is because it makes him a hero or an accepted member of other tribes of detractors. The queen is of course Soooouiiie. All of the empirical evidence of her own making on her own site demonstrates that she has an unhealthy, obsessive, irrational, and almost psychotic fascination with Anthony Watts and WUWT. BG is one of her “flying monkeys” and his purpose is to come here and rile up the troops WITHOUT getting banned (as so many of her other monkey’s have been and are). So he plays very closely to the lines here, but avoids stepping over them in any obvious way. Then, Sou and the others can “quote mine” the conversations that take place here due to BG’s efforts. Any visitor to her site can see what I’m saying is valid and obvious. Then they use those “sound bites” as “evidence” to build enormous caricatures (of thoughts, or personalities, or ideas, or people here at WUWT) using the “straw” they gather here. Then light them on fire over there as if they are brave, knowledgeable heroes in the climate debate and they have conquered yet another blasphemous, horrific dragon that was hatched here in the nest of demons.

        It’s how they validate themselves. Its how they feel “important”. It’s a sad, pathetic, but completely obvious attempt to build themselves up by tearing other people down. They behave in ways that match up perfectly with bullying. Correlation? Yep, almost a perfect correlation. Causation? No way to prove that.

        http://bullyonline.org/index.php/bullying/bullies/5-serial-bully

    • Good point, Ralph Kramden.

      Stepping OVER the esoteric gobbledygook of B.G., Evangelist for AGWism……

      To: Ralph Kramden and any reader confused by that disingenuous (“don’t think for a minute that I like saying so” — BARF! — now, I’m going to let at LEAST another 2 months go by before reading another B.G. comment ….. yes, it is worthwhile to read and refute B.G. to prevent him from leading others into his coven of ignorance, but, he argues so like a spider on cocaine making a web (look it up: looks like web… but, pretty messed up), that I’m not going to worry about it) AGW Zealot, B.G., 24/7 on the job for AGW:

      In this post are links to 3 lucid comments that firmly support the assertion of strong UAH – RSS agreement:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/friday-funny-or-not-so-funny-satellite-deniers/#comment-2121296

    • Brandon Gates;
      I want to know how satellite temperature time series are put together,

      That was not the point of the discussion that you and I were having. The rest of your response follows in a similar vain. You either can’t remember what it was we were talking about, or are simply and deliberately using these interminably long responses of yours combined with references from the thread that have nothing to do with our discourse to continually shift the topic while pretending you actually addressed issues that were raised to you. I’m not sure what you get out of this, but I only get so much return from watching you dodge and weave and convince yourself that you are accomplsihing something, so I abandon the field to you, expecting that you believe you have won.

  21. There’s another round of stories intended to undermine the satellite data, circling the media – accompanied, of course, by another swath of ‘the ocean ate my Global Warming’ articles just this morning. Apparently, the oceans just swallowed 90% of the ‘man-made’ global warming. I’m guessing that’s the deviation from their predictions based on their models. Why sweep it under the rug, when you can just bury it at the bottom of the ocean – no one’s going to check there.

    Wasn’t this among the first thirty-or-so excuses for the ‘Pause’? But here it is again. A ridiculous warmist claim, that never really deserved serious consideration, gets debunked and all they have to do just get on stage and say it again.

    • ” …the oceans just swallowed 90% of the ‘man-made’ global warming. ”

      Wouldn’t the CO2 need to heat the atmosphere and then the warmed atmosphere be “swallowed” by the oceans?

      • The whole point then becomes “What then” – if 90% or 0.54 Watts of the 0.6W of global warming forcing is dissipated into the “Colder than atmosphere” ocean then that leaves 0.06W or about 0.015% change in earths temperature extra for poor Gaia to dissipate.

        That is – if the warming goes into the ocean there is no way that global warming can happen, it all becomes just a component of 0.01 degrees change in ocean temperature change instead of X degrees of atmospheric warming. If the ocean rises 0.01 degrees then the most that can happen to the atmosphere is 0.01 degrees, warming and that’s if none of the ocean absorbed energy is lost in evaporation (which of course is practically impossible)

        90% of Global warming energy going into the ocean means “Game Over” for the global warming idea.

      • I would first like to state that I am not a believer in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. I do believe that the greenhouse effect is real and there is in all probability some effect on climate, it’s just not an emergency and the proposed “solutions” are BS. We can adapt until viable “solutions” are developed.

        But one thing that is ignored in so many “analyses” is that the earth is EXOTHERMIC (sorry to shout, but sometimes it is necessary). Ever since Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the earth as between 20 and 400 million years it has been suspected that there was an energy source within the earth. That source is now known to be radioactive decay (there are arguments about additional sources, but that is another matter).

        For warming to occur it is only necessary to slow the rate of energy loss, not capture additional energy.

    • “Why sweep it under the rug, when you can just bury it at the bottom of the ocean – no one’s going to check there.”

      … yep, although some more observant folks might ask “well how is it going to cause positive water vapor feedback from down there?”

      I’m sure Climate Dupe Extraordinaire on here has an answer for that that he can cut and paste for our edification.

      How’s that falsifiable hypothesis going CDE ? You’ve had what, a year to formulate it ??

  22. What amuses me is that they are exposing their method of fiddling the surface data in their criticisms of the satellite data.
    You can see how they have gulled so many politicians with their half-fact statements and glossing over important things. They are very practiced at muddying the waters.

    For example they say that satellites depend on modelling,as if modelling can never be accurate, because they know their models are wrong. Yet they argue that their fiddling of raw data to make their models accurate is good practice.

  23. NOTE/update: To be clear, this most influential tree, YAD06, was used in Briffa 2000, not MBH98 and the original hockey stick

    So, does that mean that Mann is not bright enough to determine the temperatures of the world using THAT tree, or that he can only do it with HIS tree?

    I’m so confused!

  24. YAD 061 was the only tree playing ball, so it just had to be chosen for the Hockey Stick.
    Josh’s cartoon is brilliant and stands on its own two feet. We get the point instantly. Mann’s tree seems to have been adjusted a bit, but his nose does seem to have grown a bit longer over the years.

  25. If Mann is supposed to holding a hockey stick he has it upside down. Maybe it’s supposed to be a lake core?
    Or maybe it’s supposed to be Mann lining his stick up with reality? If that’s the case, then he needs to tilt it a bit to right so that the blade indicates “the pause”. 8-)

  26. Great cartoon, but I would suggest it would be better if the tree were labelled YAD06 to make the point that the claim is not about any one tree but THAT one tree.

  27. Here we have a GREAT cartoon by Josh on a thread dedicated to having a little FUN and, like the stench of limburger cheese sitting on the kitchen counter, it gets polluted by ol’ B.G., Zealot for AGW — On the Job, 24/7. What a PAIN.

    B.G.: THREAD POLLUTION.

    Marcus: THREAD EMBELLISHMENT.

    • Janice, B.G. is just trying to heat things up in hopes of making this post his own hockey stick. (I could say something about a certain type of “envy” here but I’ll refrain.)
      Don’t give in to the temptation to hit him with it. 8-)
      Let the facts do that.

      • Thank you for your advice, Gunga Din. Facts are best, yes, however, B.G. doesn’t deal in facts. Talking “to” him is pointless. Any refutations of B.G.’s half-truths and pseudo-science are usefully directed only at those who might be led astray by him.

        And, yes, describing B.G.’s disgusting character and behavior only gives him the perverse joy of getting attention.

        I have, in the past 2.5 years, occasionally been sharply rebuked by WUWT commenters for not sticking to science (on science threads). I think it is perfectly appropriate for me to lambaste B.G. for sabotaging a FUN thread by using it as a platform to preach his pseudo-science. Lol, I can’t win! I get corrected for having fun on a “science thread,” and corrected (with a smile) for slamming B.G. for polluting a fun thread.

        Yeah, the best thing to do with B.G. is: 1) facts to refute him aimed at the uninformed reader; or 2) ignore him. Usually, I do the latter.

        His little performance today ticked me off. So, I vented. And I will do it again when I feel like it, for it was CALLED FOR.

      • We love you Janice. After reading the blathering, insipid, clucking he’s used to on a site that shall not be named, I’ve decided that f I were him, I’d prefer it here too. Even if he gets schooled here, it beats what’s going on at home. :)
        Hugs

      • Hi Janice,
        I think you may have taken my comment more seriously than I intended.
        Keep calling them as you them.

  28. Just to try and clarify, along with the Note/Update to the head post about Briffa being the One Tree Pony. Mann used a series of cores from a stand or grove of Bristlecone Pines in the American Southwest. Then he grossly overweighted the value of that one proxy (something like a weight of 491 vs other proxies), so that those cores swamped any other proxies. So while Mann didn’t have one tree, he did have one type of tree in one geographical area.

    I might add that the NSF concluded that the bristlecone pine, due to it’s odd growth patterns, should not be used for temperature reconstructions, but that doesn’t stop Mann and others from still using the Greybill series.

  29. So I guess temperature readings are random events…
    “A “law of large numbers” is one of several theorems expressing the idea that as the number of trials of a random process increases, the percentage difference between the expected and actual values goes to zero. “

Comments are closed.