David Rose: From the bizarre to the ridiculous

After last week’s article, in which he produced an extremely misleading figure, David Rose has doubled down with a new article asking how can we trust global warming scientists if the keep twisting the truth? He claims that

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

This is despite the very same whistleblower now saying

The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was. …..

…Bates said the NOAA study relied on land data that were “experimental.” Typically, NOAA officials can publish research that relies partially on experimental data, as long as the data are properly identified

So there’s no tampering with data; at best, it’s simply that the paper did not disclose that the land data were experimental. This post by Peter Thorne might also suggest that even this may not be strictly true; all the datasets had been presented in publications that had already appeared. I’m not even quite sure what is meant by “experimental”; it’s a research papaer, what other sort of data should they have used? In this article Bates is further quoted as saying there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

In his article, David Rose then goes on to makes the following claim

It turns out that when NOAA compiled what is known as the ‘version 4’ dataset, it took reliable readings from buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards – using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations.

They did this even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.

No one, to be clear, has ‘tampered’ with the figures. But according to Bates, the way those figures were chosen exaggerated global warming.

Well, this would either suggest that David Rose still does not understand anomalies, or is someone who simply cannot be trusted. The fundamental point is that it has become clear that there is a difference between the readings from ships and the readings from buoys. This discrepancy needs to be reconciled, but it doesn’t matter whether you adjust the ships to the buoys, or the buoys to the ships; ultimately anomalies will be computed. The data that is ued will be relative to a baseline, so it doesn’t matter if you move one up, or the other down. Let me stress, it makes no difference whether you adjust buoys to the ships, or the ships to the buoys; the resulting anomalies will be exactly the same! Choosing to adjust the buoys up to the ships does not exaggerate global warming; it produces exactly the same result as adjusting the ships down to the buoys.

If fact, as Phil points out in this comment, this was recognised in a paper published in 2008:

Because ships tend to be biased warm relative to buoys and because of the increase in the number of buoys and the decrease in the number of ships, the merged in situ data without bias adjustment can have a cool bias relative to data with no ship–buoy bias. As buoys become more important to the in situ record, that bias can increase. Since the 1980s the SST in most areas has been warming. The increasing negative bias due to the increase in buoys tends to reduce this recent warming. This change in observations makes the in situ temperatures up to about 0.1°C cooler than they would be without bias. At present, methods for removing the ship–buoy bias are being developed and tested.

The requirement to make an adjustment because of a ship-buoy bias has, therefore, been known for almost 10 years. My understanding is that Karl et al. didn’t even actually make this adjustment, they simply included this new dataset in their analysis to compute global surface temperatures.

At the end of the day, not only does it appear that the “whistleblower” is walking back his claims, and is now suggesting that the problem was simply procedural, rather than a problem with the actual results in the paper, but the results in Karl et al. have already been confirmed in Hausfather et al. (2017). Furthermore, David Rose continues to make claims in his new article that are highly misleading, while accusing global warming scientists of twisting the truth. It seems to me that there are some who think that it’s worth reaching out to David Rose because he’s a decent chap. Well, given that he continues to publish misleading articles, this would seem to suggest that reaching out is unlikely to achieve much – at least in the sense of getting David Rose to not publish nonsense. As they say, a leopard can’t change its spots.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate change, ClimateBall, Global warming, Research and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to David Rose: From the bizarre to the ridiculous

  1. Marco says:

    “Typically, NOAA officials can publish research that relies partially on experimental data, as long as the data are properly identified ”

    And this was denied by a NOAA administrator:
    “But Mike Tanner, director of NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at NCEI, says there’s no NOAA policy that requires such a disclosure. “There’s nothing. That doesn’t exist,” he says.”
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

  2. verytallguy says:

    The Mail prints malicious mendacious junk aimed to deceive the ill-informed.

    In other news, ursine faecal matter discovered in arboreal areas.

    The only surprise is the denial of responsibility by the source of the story. Though we shouldn’t really be surprised there either, any more.

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/11/discussion-jcs-role/

  3. Eli Rabett says:

    As Eli (and Tom Peterson in the comments) has pointed out, the ship records extend back a lot further, ER in ERSST stands for extended record, and if you adjust the ships to the buoys you are going to confuse a lot of people who are reading older papers. Indeed, if we had buoy data from the past we would have used that

  4. vtg,
    Indeed, nothing surprises me anymore.

    Eli,
    I thought of making that point. It’s easier/simpler to adjust the new data up to the old, than the other way around – especially as it doesn’t make any difference.

  5. Magma says:

    If you don’t want to raise the Daily Mail’s page view count, the column has been archived:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170212053252/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

    Or you can skip it altogether and go on with your Sunday, happier and no less informed for having missed another batch of Rose’s lies.

  6. JCH says:

    It’s one thing to say over and over that it makes no difference, but they still made a choice between the options and there needs to be emphasis on why their choice was the better choice. One would hope they had reasons the option they chose was better.

    So was Eli’s reason the thing that drove the choice? If so, drag out some old papers, adjust the ship data to the buoys, and show people the mess that option would have created.

  7. Joshua says:

    =={ So was Eli’s reason the thing that drove the choice? If so, drag out some old papers, adjust the ship data to the buoys, and show people the mess that option would have created. }==

    Assuming that anyone really cares what the reality is (rather than only looking to reaffirm their viewpoint), I think this is a good point. It would be interesting for me, because it would help to provide concrete context to understand the issues at hand.

    In the end, in reality it won’t make any difference. The effect of this whole event is already out there. Headlines were written. Judith got to speak of herself in the 3rd person (what’s up with that, anyway?) and duck accountability. Her white knights have donned their armor and defended her as the champion of truth, justice, and the American way.

  8. Assuming that anyone really cares what the reality is (rather than only looking to reaffirm their viewpoint), I think this is a good point. It would be interesting for me, because it would help to provide concrete context to understand the issues at hand.

    Nick Stokes goes through the basic calculation here.

  9. Phil says:

    From David Rose’s twitter account, it seems he’s making much of a disagreement as to when the paper on ERSST.v4 was to be published, and that it was delayed to coincide with Karl et al. 2015. This does seem exceedingly thin gruel, especially since Rose has dramatically overstated the role of Karl et al. in the Paris UNFCCC.

    However (in a counting-angels-on-a-pinhead sort of way) it would be quite interesting to hear the background on this decision.

  10. Jim Hunt says:

    Pot calling the kettle black? Yesterday I pointed out in writing to Rose’s Managing Editor my expectations for today’s Mail on Sunday:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/an-open-letter-to-the-managing-editor-of-the-mail-on-sunday/

    Lo and behold:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/david-roses-climatic-alternative-facts-and-deceptions/

    This is what passes for a “correction” in the print version:

    I see no mention of “World leaders not duped, Mail readers conned again”. Do you?

  11. Jim Hunt says:

    Phil –

    Perhaps there’s no answer to that? Mr. Rose certainly hasn’t offered one!

  12. JCH says:

    Nick Stokes goes through the basic calculation here. aTTP

    Except that thread ends with this:

    Nick

    In my last comment I nailed the issue to the floor with no wiggle room whatsoever. I used quotes from the Karl et al 2015 itself which categorically stated that 0.026°C of the 0.064 trend difference between ERSSTv3b and ERSSTv4 was attributable to the “buoy offset correction” and the “additional weight given to the buoys”. Furthermore, that “This impacts the trend only because the number of buoys and percentage of coverage by buoys has increased over this period.”

    Those two quotes from Karl et al 2015 bookended your excerpt from my comment. Therefore, my initial suspicion that you wish to wilfully misrepresent me and which I disregarded, giving you the benefit of the doubt, is now proven to be correct. There’s no point in continuing this discussion.

    To the skeptic brain, that means Nick has been proven wrong… because he did not waste his time dueling with the guy.

  13. JCH,
    Indeed, that is probably how it might be perceived. However, the person making the claim still doesn’t realise that the change in trend is because of the adjustment, not because of whether the ships are adjuted to the buoys, or the buoys are adjusted to the ships.

  14. Joshua says:

    =={ To the skeptic brain, that means Nick has been proven wrong… }==

    Indeed. Especially if, like me, they can’t actually follow Nick’s math. What they can see is that the issue was nailed to the floor and that Nick was willfully misrepresenting. And what makes it even worse was that scute was being so magnanimous by giving Nick the benefit of the doubt.

    What a scoundrel Nick is. So typical of those alarmists.

  15. angech says:

    Nick Stokes | February 6, 2017 at 12:45 am
    “I think you are falling for the fallacy that seems to have afflicted even Bates, that somehow it matters whether you adjust buoy to ship or ship to buoy. It doesn’t. The only difference between the two is a constant which disappears when you take anomaly. To see that, suppose you adjusted the ship data down by 0.12 to match buoys. Then add 0.12 to everything, everywhere. Ships are back to where they were, and buoys have been adjusted up. The only difference between the two actions is that constant offset of 0.12.”
    I still see that constant which was said to disappear, sorry.

  16. angech,
    The point is that once you’ve made the adjustment, you then determine the baseline from which the anomalies are measured. Whether that baseline is at x, or at x + 0.12, or at x – 0.12, doesn’t make any difference because everything moves up, or down, together.

  17. Lars Karlsson says:

    Angec, that contant doesn’t affect the trend.

  18. paulski0 says:

    Phil, regarding publication date of Huang et al. 2015 (ERSST v4 paper) Rose is just wrong. It was published in February 2015.

    The official release of the dataset was delayed until june/July, and I don’t think anyone has contended otherwise. But that doesn’t feed into anything else Bates or Rose were arguing. It even contradicts their “rush to publish” narrative.

    Why was it delayed? It seems plausible that was to time with Karl et al. publication. Most obvious reason would be that he wanted to publish on this matter before anyone else did. But that’s just a guess.

  19. Phil says:

    angech, if you want algebra;

    Slightly rearranging Nick’s last equation, Eqn (1): Ab = As + a
    Remember ‘a’ is the time-invariant adjustment parameter

    Trend in Bouy adjusted temps from time t0 to t1 = (Ab(t1) – Ab(t0))/(t1 – t0)
    Given (1) we can write the above as = (As(t1) + a – (As(t0) +a))/(t1-t0)
    simplifying = (As(t1) – As(t0))/(t1-t0)
    which is, given 2, the equation for Ship adjusted temps from time t0 to t1

    That’s just the long way of saying what Lars said …

  20. paulski0 says:

    Rose tweeted that NOAA claimed 0.2C/decade trend over 2000-2014 but he misread the y-axis which says F/decade. The gwpf tweeted in support and made a fraud allegation, but deleted it after I pointed out the basic error.

  21. Phil says:

    PaulS, Thanks!

  22. JCH says:

    Exactly.

    Feynmann detected that people were actually believing that Uri Geller could bend spoons with his mind. The visual data indicated that he in fact was bending spoons with his mind. Bending spoons with the mind has no physical basis. In the presence of increasing GHGs, a prolonged period of no warming has no physical basis. So, if there is data indicating that there is a long period of no warming, it would be akin to data indicating that rocks are floating in the air… or that the mind is bending spoons. So the hiatus data should have been very suspect to genuine skeptics from the start, and it cannot be a surprise it was busted.

    Skeptics profoundly misunderstand Feynmann. They think he was one of them. They’re wrong. Feynmann would conclude climate skeptics believe in spoon bending:

  23. Magma says:

    Nick Stokes sums the basic scientific issue in one succinct comment on Climate Etc. I don’t see how it can be made any clearer than this:

    “So much certainty with so little analysis! In fact, the arithmetic of the buoy adjustments is very simple, and not really due to Karl. Kennedy and others established that buoys measure 0.12°C cooler than ships. Over two decades, data has gone from 10% buoys to 90% buoys. That makes an artefact trend of -0.05 °C/decade, caused by change in measuring device, not climate. Correcting it creates an uptrend of 0.05°C/decade, which is about what they get. You can work that out without consulting CDRs, filenames etc.”

  24. JCH says:

    So why not create the 130-year record the other way so people can see what a freakin’ mess it would be… stop saying it makes no difference. If the above is correct, then reserving a usable extended record makes a difference.

  25. JCH,
    I’m don’t really follow. I think you could do the adjustment the other way around without it being a mess. It would require adjusting the longer record to match the shorter record, but it still wouldn’t make any difference to the resulting anomalies.

  26. Here is Thomas Peterson’s comment.

  27. JCH: “So it was Boyin Huang who made the choice?

    Or one of his co-authors of the paper on ERSSTv4 published in 2013, work on which started years earlier, likely immediately after ERSSTv3b.

    It really makes no difference, but every change you make to the algorithm is a lot of work. You have to check all the intermediary results and the output again to be sure you did not accidentally break something. If it were up to Bates it would apparently require extensive additionally auditing by software engineers and filing of a new Climate Data Record with a lot of paper work. All that for nothing?

    If I understood it right, this arbitrary choice will be done the other way around in the next version of ERSST. I am already looking forward to accusations why NOAA adjusted so much ship data when they could simply have adjusted the small buoy dataset. The unreasonable will always complain.

    That being said, if the unreasonable can even fool JCH, I guess I will have to write blog post about this. This climate debate is so strange.

  28. JCH says:

    VV – I’m a C student. That means I’m too slow to score high on an IQ test. Let me stay late, I’ll sort of get there.

    But if you have all these old papers with SST based mostly on ship data, was the not the choice made by Huang et al to preserve easier coherence with those old paper records? Is that not what Peterson is indicating drove the choice?

  29. Patrick Hackett says:

    OK I know it makes no difference to the anomalies whether the buoys measurements are adjusted up to the ships of the ships down to the buoys but from now on do we really want to adjust all future buoy measurements up. Wouldn’t it have been better to go the other way as will likely have to be done anyway?

  30. I cannot look into Huang’s head or the colleague that did this part. I think I would have done it the same way, you need some rationalisation to break the tie of this being completely arbitrary and this way around is the smallest change to get the right result. I would definitely not have anticipated that this arbitrary choice could be spun by WUWT & Co.

  31. Steven Mosher says:

    Opps..

    I have now Joined Joshua on JC moderation

    She even deleted one of my Thread winners– andy west caught it..

    But JC moderation

  32. Joshua says:

    As Judith explained, it’s for your own good, Steve. She’s just being self – sacrificing, as usual. 🙂

    Anyway, it’s unlikely to be permanent, as it is with me. You have to seriously piss off a lot of “Denizens” to get permanent moderation (Springer in particular) . That will only happen if you continue to question her lame excuses for her lack of accountability. Don’t nt question the purity of her status and you’ll be fine. I feel sorry for you, however, for being compared to my status. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

    I got moderated by Fabius today. Apparently I tried to fool people and made stuff up by linking to a graph (along with the link) that shows that it isn’t true that most “skeptics” accept that the climate is changing.

  33. Steven Mosher says:

    The hilarious thing is she claims to have no time to Correct the record with Rose

    but plenty of time to descend into the comments and accuse me of trying to make myself look important by criticizing her

    I thought I was arrogant. I just got eclipsed

    I’d point that out but Im on moderation.

  34. Hey, at least David Rose has the GWPF and WUWT patting him on the back helping him burp up all that Curry with Lamar spice he got fed.

  35. Steven Mosher says:

    looks like a total ban

    On a related note

    Oroville dam

    The Sheriff said that his decision to evacuate was motivated in part by a lack of modelling. They have no model for what will happen if the erosion leads to a failure of the emergency spillway. Uncertainty is not your friend.
    A Sheriff, a non hydrologist, makes the call.

    Not he employed no game theory and calculated no probabilites.

    On a related note

    Trump tried to block some folks from entering the country. scant evidence, just a judgement about risk.

  36. Susan Anderson says:

    Was just looking at Oroville, but note there are dangerous floods in the whole region. My impression was that once the sinkhole appeared in the spillway, they had to evacuate and that would be a human rather than modeling decision. Not an urban region, thankfully. It’s a big dam.

    An article in Esquire gives a lot of background on Rep. Lamar Smith. Comments popping up like fleas: “now that NOAA has cooked the books …” – there’s no getting anywhere with it.
    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a52925/lamar-smith-house-republicans-war-on-science/ which quotes my favorite New Yorker:

    Smith, who … assumed the chairmanship of the Science Committee in 2013, has escalated that tension into outright war. Smith has a background in American studies and law, not science. He has, however, received more than six hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the oil-and-gas industry during his time in Congress—more than from any other single industry. With a focus that is unprecedented, he’s now using his position to attack scientists and activists who work on climate change. Under his leadership, the committee has issued more subpoenas than it had during its previous fifty-four-year history. Smith, a Christian Scientist, has steadfastly campaigned against other scientific findings that cut against his a-priori beliefs …

    Some of his interventions seem to misunderstand the very nature of science.

    The rest of the article is worth a read, if you have a taste for horrors. It gives you a flavor of the raw power Republicans have arrogated to themselves, partly by foul means.

  37. Jim Hunt says:

    Welcome down the memory hole Steve! Do you by any chance have any hard evidence for your disappearing bon mots? I ask in part because Snow and I are researching such apparently arbitrary activities (AAA for short) as we speak, for an upcoming article in our new academic journal:

    http://AFWetware.org/does-a-lie-told-often-enough-become-the-truth/

    Meanwhile old sleepy head seems strangely silent (SSS for short) on Twitter:

  38. Barry Woods says:

    David Rose is in a great big hole…… 😉

  39. It wouldn’t be Puzo del xitu, would it? Which, I believe, is a cave in Spain, and also the wikipedia username of someone who seems to mainly edit David Rose’s wiki page.

  40. angech says:

    Phil says: February 12, 2017 at 3:22 pm. “angech, if you want algebra;”
    Yes?
    There are two seperate trends.
    The ships, hotter than the buoys by 0.12C – see Magma says: February 12, 2017 at 3:31 pm.
    Everything starts at t0 in the past with ships.
    At t1 we start moving to using buoy data, at t2 we use mainly buoy data then we end at t3.
    If we ignore t1 to t2 and consider the trend from t0 to t3 it is obvious that the overall trend is lower.
    Take two equal time periods for AS and AB
    AS (t0-t1) plus AB (t2-t3) over two is < 2AS trend by the constant of 0.12c .
    The trend is lowered. Over a century this would be minuscule , 0.012 C.
    Over a 2 decade interval (t1-t2) in this case Nick himself says
    " Over two decades, data has gone from 10% buoys to 90% buoys. That makes an artefact trend of -0.05 °C/decade, caused by change in measuring device, not climate. Correcting it creates an uptrend"
    He calls it an artefact but it is actually a change in trend caused by the difference in the recording device over that time.
    Your algebra is fine if applied to one time period only but there are two or more different time periods involved.
    Nick appears to my limited maths to have given the right answer that it does affect the trend and then contradicted himself in the post I alluded Toby saying there is an artefact to be corrected. There is no artefact, there is a drop in the trend.
    Using the ships and adjusting buoys up gives an upward trend.

  41. verytallguy says:

    It wouldn’t be Puzo del xitu, would it? Which, I believe, is a cave in Spain, and also the wikipedia username of someone who seems to mainly edit David Rose’s wiki page.

    Not just integrity, but prizewinning integrity.

  42. verytallguy says:

    Oh, and angech, do your sums, report back what the trend change is if you do the adjustment the other way around.

    Clue: if it’s different, you’ve done your sums wrong.

  43. Marco says:

    angech, consider it as follows: the ships have a trend. The buoys have a trend. These two trends are essentially the same for the period that they overlap (see also Hasufather et al). The mixing of the two records goes through absolute values. Since one is on a different baseline, you create an artificial change in trend (in this case a reduction). It is a change in trend that does not correspond to reality. It is therefore an artefact of the procedure. This is solved by first putting both records on the same baseline, before blending the two records.

  44. John Hartz says:

    For those of you who may not already be aware, Dana Nuccitelli has today posted a scathing critique of the Daily Mail. It nicely expands upon ATTP’s OP and many of the comments on this thread.

    This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are ‘unreliable’ by Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Consensus – the 97%, Guardian, Feb 13, 2017

  45. angech,

    Nick appears to my limited maths to have given the right answer that it does affect the trend and then contradicted himself in the post I alluded Toby saying there is an artefact to be corrected. There is no artefact, there is a drop in the trend.
    Using the ships and adjusting buoys up gives an upward trend.

    Jeez, how hard is this? There is, of course, a difference between the trend if you correct for the bias and the trend if you do not. However, there is no difference between correcting the ships to the buoys, or correcting the buoys to the ships.

  46. Willard says:

    Think of when Freedom Fighters move an image in Paint to create their memes, Doc.

    Whether you move your image up or down or else, it still is the same image unless you transform it.

    The adjustment Nick and Zeke and others are talking about does not modify the image. It preserves the relevant relationship.

    It is as if you believe that measurements are absolute or something.

  47. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    It looks like you’ve touched the third rail/broken the first commandment of Climate Etc.: Though shalt not criticize Judith.

    You can be always insulting (e.g., Chief, tim), endlessly promote political propaganda (eg., Chief, Glenn, jim2), spam (Chief, Lang), be off topic (Chief, Wags), self-promote (Chief, Rud) and remain free from the horrors and injustice of “censorship,” but criticize Judith’s logic (e.g., she doesn’t have time/is too sick to correct the record associated with l’affiare Bates even though she digs down into comment to respond/conducts radio interviews about l’affaire Bates with self-described conspiracy theorists) and you will be guilty of the capital crime of being “rude.”

    Off with your head.

  48. Steven Mosher says:

    sad

    I wanted to post how a real decision maker handles information from experts
    risk and uncertainty

    http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-live-updates-oroville-dam-in-oroville-even-the-command-post-was-1487021412-htmlstory.html

  49. Steven Mosher says:

    “It looks like you’ve touched the third rail/broken the first commandment of Climate Etc.: Though shalt not criticize Judith.”

    ya.. I think she must have winced when I pointed out that the pause was uncertain

    That Muller thought it wasnt real, while Judith and Mann thought it was.

    Maybe the strange bedfellows comment threw her off her game.

    Any ways, if enough people ( me, nick, jimd and jch) just stop commenting there the discussion will quickly degenerate into full blown WUWT.

    Time to experiment, but others would have to join the effort.

    Question: What will happen to the “debate” there if certain folks just comment here instead.

  50. verytallguy says:

    Steve,

    this thread, and this comment in particular, convinced me there was no way back for JC.

    Anyone who can convince themselves the IPCC doesn’t recognise the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 rise is lost to reason. Next step: lizardmen (mentioning that gets you moderated too, natch).

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/#comment-703425

  51. Willard says:

    Spamming too much criticism at once tilts people. The long game suits best audits that never end. The next episode always provides another opportunity – we only need to wait a few days before Judy posts something else to cover for a comment thread that did not go as she may have anticipated.

    There’s little point in trying to save Judy from herself. She has become a political icon. Turning back is not an option anymore.

    Let’s Make ClimateBall ™ Great Again!

    Oh, and don’t say “Judy” – it triggers moderation.

  52. Steven Mosher says:

    any minute now someone will claim Bates is a false flag

  53. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    =={ Question: What will happen to the “debate” there if certain folks just comment here instead. }==

    Nothing, IMO – with consideration of starting orientation – for the vast majority of participants and observers.

    My guess is that the absence of comments from that cohort (and assuming there were no bench players who filled in) would not affect the perception among the typical “Denizen” which is that even w/o comments from that cohort what takes place there is a fully open and completely non-biased discussion of “pure” science.

    And the perceptions of people who fall outside the designation of “typical Denizen” is that the crippled nature of the discussion that takes place there is long standing, and would continue apace.

    A question for you. When you said:

    =={ Trump tried to block some folks from entering the country. scant evidence, just a judgement about risk. }==

    Was that intended to tweak non-Trumpian “realists” who putatively would be advocating for mitigation policies without evidence and based only on judgement about risk?

  54. Joshua says:

    =={ any minute now someone will claim Bates is a false flag }==

    It is certainly interesting to see him be exempted from the uniform incompetence, religious zealotry and bias of “warmists” who consider it reasonable to be concerned about risks from ACO2 emissions.

  55. verytallguy says:

    any minute now someone will claim Bates is a false flag

    They’re way ahead of you. Go denizens!

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/11/discussion-jcs-role/#comment-838554

  56. Joshua says:

    VTG –

    And the follow-on is priceless.

    Angech, just asking questions….and Ron providing answer?

    Has this honorable and noble whistleblower – who risks life and limb to defend truth, justice, and the American way by writing a blog post that poor Judith put up in her patriotic commitment to save her country (after she leveraged her long academic career fostered by students’ tuition fees and government largess to parlay a lucrative career in the private sector) – so at protect against legal persecution by “alarmists?”

    No doubt, as Ron says, anything is reasonable to prevent another persecution such as poor innocent lil’ ol’ Steyn by the evil Mann.

    Thanks god that angech and the “Denizens” have a laser focus on the “real issues.”

  57. Willard says:

    Why would it be a false flag when JohnB did not backpeddle?

    JohnB’s non-back-peddling is very good news indeed.

  58. Steven Mosher says:

    Of course some are asking which we should believe

    Bates Thumb?
    Bates Recant?

    I’m not certain that Judith actually posted what Bates wrote. Perhaps, perhaps not.
    There are many theories. I think we need to see the draft posts, the email exchanges,
    and audit wordpress as well. Did they follow a CDR process in putting up this guest post?

  59. Steven Mosher says:

    I’m not suggesting she changed his post, but you know maybe there was some flutter in the wordpress code that mangled his words.. who knows, there is so much we dont understand.

  60. Joshua says:

    Or maybe there was an inadvertent error on Judith’s part.

    Maybe Bates wrote “thumbs in the kale” and when transcribing Judith’s autocorrect turned it into “thumb on the scale.”

    Not that it matters anyway, because anyone who isn’t a biased “progressive” knows that thumbs on the scale doesn’t imply fraud any way, so when Bates said he didn’t mean to imply fraud he wasn’t walking anything back.

  61. angech says:

    John Hartz says:February 13, 2017 at 6:14 pm
    This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are ‘unreliable’ by Dana Nuccitelli “focusing their attention on Antarctic sea ice. Why is Antarctic sea ice important? For no reason, except it’s bucked the disappearing trend of all the rest of the Earth’s ice. Global warming is actually one reason – melting of Antarctic land ice has freshened and cooled the ocean surface, allowing for more sea ice to form.”
    Does this mean the world is rapidly cooling down now since the Antarctic ice extent has shrunk in the last 18 months, or is it more alternative truth?
    Like the debate on trends you can have your win both ways.
    “there is no difference between correcting the ships to the buoys, or correcting the buoys to the ships”
    Is different to “There is no difference between warming causing Antarctic sea ice extent decrease or increase.”
    But changing baselines, Marco gets rid of an inconvenient truth. see ATTP
    ” There is, of course, a difference between the trend if you correct for the bias and the trend if you do not.”

  62. John Hartz says:

    Angech: in the first part of your most recent post, you state:

    This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are ‘unreliable’ by Dana Nuccitelli “focusing their attention on Antarctic sea ice. Why is Antarctic sea ice important? For no reason, except it’s bucked the disappearing trend of all the rest of the Earth’s ice. Global warming is actually one reason – melting of Antarctic land ice has freshened and cooled the ocean surface, allowing for more sea ice to form.”

    Does this mean the world is rapidly cooling down now since the Antarctic ice extent has shrunk in the last 18 months, or is it more alternative truth?

    The answer to your strawman question is contained in the very paragraph (see below) of Nuccitelli’s article that you have extracted your quotses from. As they say, “context is everything”.

    In 2014, as Arctic sea ice continued its death spiral, along with disappearing glaciers and ice sheets around the world in a year that would soon become the hottest on record, Rose tried to distract his readers by focusing their attention on Antarctic sea ice. Why is Antarctic sea ice important? For no reason, except it’s bucked the disappearing trend of all the rest of the Earth’s ice. Global warming is actually one reason – melting of Antarctic land ice has freshened and cooled the ocean surface, allowing for more sea ice to form. But David Rose isn’t interested in the physical mechanisms, he’s just interested in giving his readers the impression that something about this global warming stuff just doesn’t seem right.

  63. John Hartz says:

    Angech: in the first part of your most recent post, you state:

    This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are ‘unreliable’ by Dana Nuccitelli “focusing their attention on Antarctic sea ice. Why is Antarctic sea ice important? For no reason, except it’s bucked the disappearing trend of all the rest of the Earth’s ice. Global warming is actually one reason – melting of Antarctic land ice has freshened and cooled the ocean surface, allowing for more sea ice to form.”

    Does this mean the world is rapidly cooling down now since the Antarctic ice extent has shrunk in the last 18 months, or is it more alternative truth?

    The answer to your strawman question is contained in the very paragraph (see below) of Nuccitelli’s article that you have extracted your quotes from. As they say, “context is everything”.

    In 2014, as Arctic sea ice continued its death spiral, along with disappearing glaciers and ice sheets around the world in a year that would soon become the hottest on record, Rose tried to distract his readers by focusing their attention on Antarctic sea ice. Why is Antarctic sea ice important? For no reason, except it’s bucked the disappearing trend of all the rest of the Earth’s ice. Global warming is actually one reason – melting of Antarctic land ice has freshened and cooled the ocean surface, allowing for more sea ice to form. But David Rose isn’t interested in the physical mechanisms, he’s just interested in giving his readers the impression that something about this global warming stuff just doesn’t seem right.

  64. angech said on February 14, 2017 at 12:42 am,

    “John Hartz says:February 13, 2017 at 6:14 pm
    This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are ‘unreliable’ by Dana Nuccitelli “focusing their attention on Antarctic sea ice. Why is Antarctic sea ice important? For no reason, except it’s bucked the disappearing trend of all the rest of the Earth’s ice. Global warming is actually one reason – melting of Antarctic land ice has freshened and cooled the ocean surface, allowing for more sea ice to form.”
    Does this mean the world is rapidly cooling down now since the Antarctic ice extent has shrunk in the last 18 months, or is it more alternative truth?
    Like the debate on trends you can have your win both ways.”

    Many have published papers explaining what has happened with the Antarctic sea ice. Don’t forget that none other than Judith Curry is one of them. She published a paper in 2010 the broad argument of which is that, over the long term (over decades starting earlier than 2010, of course), we can expect global warming to cause Antarctic sea ice to increase and then, eventually, to decrease. And yes, as is the case so often in nature, the increase and decrease can be nonmonotonic. And so this recent decrease in Antarctic sea ice may or may not be the big turnaround in question.

    This (even nonmonotonic) phenomenon of an increase followed eventually by a decrease exists elsewhere. We can in some places over the long term expect global warming to increase and then decrease the amount of precipitation in the form of snow. Don’t forget that there’s such a thing as being too cold and dry to snow, and so with continued warming in areas that have been like this often during the winter, we can expect over the long term to see this phenomenon of an increase followed eventually by a decrease.

  65. JCH says:

    The other day after commenting I walked the dog… we usually do a couple of miles. On the way I was thinking about all of this and decided I was interpreting this wrong, so I will try again.

    To have a coherent extended series, there had to be an adjustment.

    The choices were ship to buoy or buoy to ship. Either adjustment would work as well as the other. Between those choices there is no definitive nontrivial reason for why one would be better than the other. It simply makes no difference, which is the explanation I’ve read since the night an article showed up at CargoCult etc.

    The team that wrote the paper, made the call and the criticisms of their call are absurd.

  66. Joshua says:

    Thanks God teh Donald will restore honesty to our science/policy interface:

    https://t.co/Va9VNj3DFo

  67. angech says:

    JCH says:
    To have a coherent extended series, there had to be an adjustment.
    The choices were ship to buoy or buoy to ship. Either adjustment would work as well as the other.
    True
    ATTP says
    “”Between those choices there is no definitive nontrivial reason for why one would be better than the other. It simply makes no difference,”
    but he also says
    “Of course, making this adjustment will change the overall trend (relative to not making the adjustment) but having concluded that an adjustment is necessary, it doesn’t matter which way you make the adjustment.”
    SO you have the adjusted trend in situ, no difference, or the overall trend which is changed by said adjustment.
    Nick says “If you don’t correct, the temperature gradually slides from ship temp to buoy temp, which is 0.12°C cooler.”
    Note that for short periods of adding the buoys in the trend drops sharply, The longer the two series the less important the drop becomes.
    At intervals of up to 30 years this change in trend could be considered quite significant.

  68. angech,
    I don’t think I said the first thing you quoted. I don’t know how to explain this any more clearly. You data from two different types of sensors – ships and buoys. Your analysis tells you that there is a bias; buoys tend to measure slightly lower temperatures than ships for the same location and time. What do you do?

    1. Nothing – just combine them as they are.

    2. Adjust the buoys to the ships?

    3. Adjust the ships to the buoys?

    Well, 1 would mean that you had included a known bias in your results, so the obvious thing to do is to correct for this, which means either 2, or 3. However, once you’ve decided to make the correction it doesn’t matter if you do 2, or 3. Of course, having decided to make the correction you will get a different trend to what you get if you did nothing, but you know that doing nothing is wrong, so therefore correcting for the bias will produce a trend that more correctly represents reality than not correcting for the bias.

  69. Jim Hunt says:

    Since the conversation is turning to my specialist subject the assembled throng may be interested to hear this “Shock News!”?

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/david-roses-climatic-alternative-facts-and-deceptions/#comment-218184

    The NSIDC daily Antarctic sea ice extent metric is at the lowest level EVER in their records going back to 1979.

    Following the recent heatwave the Arctic equivalent is of course still at the lowest level for the date in NSIDC’s records.

  70. Steven Mosher says:

    you guys angech is just playing stupid.

    For more than a few years I have tried to convince him there are more than 2000 stations.

    and you think you can explain something as complex as algebra and get him to simply agree.

    its a sick game

  71. Willard says:

    You might also like David P. Young from The Boeing Company’s opinion on this:

    Javier, Your comment is the most sane one on this entire thread I’ve read so far. There will be an investigation and this will become clear with the disinfecting sunshine.

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/11/discussion-jcs-role/#comment-838619

    Javier’s point was that there will likely be an investigation. Between two comments the possibility gets adjusted from likely to absolutely.

    Teh Donald will make fishing expeditions great again!

  72. Magma says:

    I’m shocked–shocked!–to learn David P. Young has been a computational engineer at Boeing since at least the early 1980s.

    I think Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann should start winding up engineers with blog posts and articles about why most bridges are badly designed, or the shortcomings of conventional internal combustion engines.

  73. angech says:

    ATTP it was over in a thread at Judith’s.
    The issue is one of correcting a known bias as you say.
    The bias is in the temperature result one quotes , not the anomaly or trend of the anomaly as everyone correctly points out.
    When one quotes the resultant change in global temperature you can either do it from an anomaly or the estimated real temp.
    If you use the anomaly that is 0.12 C lower as your base the temp will be .12 lower
    Than that from a base where the anomaly is 0.12 higher it will be higher.

    Jim it follows that with the recent heatwave in the Antarctic the sea ice extent is of course at the highest level for the date in NSIDC’s records? No ?

    Someone, Hansen ? said you only needed 3 thermometers to give a world temperature, if they were accurate. And located well and lasted for very long lengths of time.
    More is better to a point.
    There are weather stations. There are less temperature reporting weather stations
    There are less max/min reporting weather stations.
    There are less due to duplicate weather stations, up to 10, from using different sources.
    There are less stations because some exist as a locale, but have data imputed from other stations routinely.
    There are less stations because many have their data adjusted when they differ from others by too many SD’s.
    There are less because stations breakdown and do not report and again data from other stations is inputted.
    Then there are less than the data set describes because to build up a history you have to incorporate data from stations that no longer exist but are counted as part of the overall station data list.
    Same with active Argo floats.
    I dislike quotes on station numbers from people who are aware of all these issues but choose to use the overall numbers (more is somehow impressive) rather than real.
    It is alright telling a primary grade about atoms being a nucleus with little electrons buzzing around.
    It is another thing to openly discuss the methods and numbers used with their warts and all and taking on the criticisms that will flow from being open.
    I doubt anyone could disagree with these statements.

  74. angech,

    If you use the anomaly that is 0.12 C lower as your base the temp will be .12 lower
    Than that from a base where the anomaly is 0.12 higher it will be higher.

    I don’t get what you mean. Anomalies are computed from some baseline, which is the average for some period (for example, 1971-2000, or 1961-1990). You can, of course, use a different baseline period, but then you should do that for all of the data you’ll be using. Ultimately, it doesn’t make a difference, as long as you’re consistent.

  75. Steven Mosher says:

    “Someone, Hansen ? said you only needed 3 thermometers to give a world temperature, if they were accurate. And located well and lasted for very long lengths of time.”

    Err no. Shen ( cited by both Gavin and Hansen ) showed that theoretically you could get reasonable anwers with 60.

    The principle is pretty basic. but next time the nurse measures your temp using your south end
    suggest she stick the same thermometer in your mouth to improve the accuracy.

    Wait until she removes the device from your south end, otherwise she wont understand the words coming out of your preferred elocutionary cavity.

  76. verytallguy says:

    I doubt anyone could disagree with these statements.

    It would be like disagreeing with a bouillabaisse.

  77. Magma says:

    @ATTP

    From your reference:
    “Shen et al. (1994) showed that the global average annual mean surface temperature can be accurately estimated by using around 60 stations, well distributed on the globe, with an optimal weight for each station.”

    The 1994 paper is here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007%3C1999%3ASATOEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

  78. Magma,
    Thanks, should have looked a bit closer.

  79. Magma says:

    No worries… both papers are interesting.

  80. Jim Hunt says:

    angech – What on Earth are you on about? Is that an attempt at humour? As I state above:

    The NSIDC daily Antarctic sea ice extent metric is at the lowest level EVER in their records going back to 1979.

    The Arctic equivalent is of course still at the lowest level for the date in NSIDC’s records.

    Did you bother to click my links and read what was on the far side?

  81. Leto says:

    angech,
    Are you merely trolling, or are you genuinely unable to see why it makes no difference whether temperatures are converted a bouy-centric or ship-centric scale? Everyone has been incredibly patient with you, but you keep making remarks that imply there is still a significant point worth debating.

  82. Leto says:

    Edit: “converted to”

  83. It’s also “buoy” not “bouy” 🙂

  84. Leto says:

    Ah yes, typing is not my strong point.

  85. I can type fine, I just can’t proofread.

  86. Phil says:

    Looks like Rose and Curry did their jobs:

    When asked for examples of where the current vetting process has failed, Happer cited a recent controversy surrounding a high-profile paper published by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists showing that global surface temperatures had risen again after temporarily levelling off.
    [snip]
    “This disappearance of the hiatus in global warming, which was trotted out just before the [UN] Paris conference … it was clearly just a political fanfare,” said Happer. “We shouldn’t be doing that. They were fiddling with the temperature records to make the hiatus go away.”

    From here

  87. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:

    “I can type fine, I just can’t proofread.”

    To paraphrase an old alarmist: And yet, it proofreads.

    Never mind that –
    Thank goodness that the hiatus is back.

    At least in Washington, London, and Canberra.

    Scientists: They can science fine, they just can’t affirm.

  88. Joshua says:

    =={ It would be like disagreeing with a bouillabaisse. }==

    I had some bouillabaisse the other day and it definitely disagreed with me.

  89. BBD says:

    That’s very unfortunate; bb is God’s own fish soup, IMHO.

    @ Phil

    Thanks (?) for the Graun like about Harry Happer and the Glassy-Eyed Cult.

  90. Andrew Dodds says:

    Well, I wear glasses. Can I join the cult? Or is moderate intoxication mandatory?

  91. Jim Hunt says:

    They did indeed Phil!

    Seconds out for #NOAAGate round two. Lamar Smith jumps from his stool, still swinging below the belt:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/david-roses-climatic-alternative-facts-and-deceptions/#Feb-15

    Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Acting Administrator Benjamin Friedman requesting information on the Karl study following reports the study ignored NOAA standards, was rushed to publication, and was not free from political bias.

    The news release continues to describe the alleged “background”, but I think we’re all pretty familiar with that by now? The letter itself is addressed to Benjamin Friedman, NOAA’s acting administrator. It demands to see a big pile of documents “related to the Karl study”. It will come a no surprise whatsoever to our regular readers that it references the leading actors in the David & Judy show!

  92. verytallguy says:

    bb is God’s own fish soup, IMHO.

    Perhaps Angech provides God’s own word salad to accompany.

  93. Glassy-Eyed Cult.

    I initially mis-read this and thought he was talking about himself.

  94. John Hartz says:

    Speaking of Lamar Smith…

    Two Republican members of Congress sent a formal letter Tuesday to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of the Inspector General, expressing concern that “approximately a dozen career EPA officials” are using the encrypted messaging app Signal to covertly plan strategy and may be running afoul of the Freedom of Information Act.

    The open source app has gained renewed interest in the wake of the election of President Donald Trump.

    House members: EPA officials may be using Signal to “spread their goals covertly” by Cyrus Farivar, Ars Technica, Feb 15, 2017

  95. An interesting network:

  96. BBD says:

    A small world. And demon haunted.

  97. Steven Mosher says:

    Sure thing attp.
    Long ago I laughed out loud when I heard the 60 number.
    Then I err read the science
    Opps.

  98. John Hartz says:

    Just when you thought that the news about manmade climate change couldn’t get much worse…

    A large research synthesis, published in one of the world’s most influential scientific journals, has detected a decline in the amount of dissolved oxygen in oceans around the world — a long-predicted result of climate change that could have severe consequences for marine organisms if it continues.

    The paper, published Wednesday in the journal Nature by oceanographer Sunke Schmidtko and two colleagues from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany, found a decline of more than 2 percent in ocean oxygen content worldwide between 1960 and 2010. The loss, however, showed up in some ocean basins more than others. The largest overall volume of oxygen was lost in the largest ocean — the Pacific — but as a percentage, the decline was sharpest in the Arctic Ocean, a region facing Earth’s most stark climate change.

    The loss of ocean oxygen “has been assumed from models, and there have been lots of regional analysis that have shown local decline, but it has never been shown on the global scale, and never for the deep ocean,” said Schmidtko, who conducted the research with Lothar Stramma and Martin Visbeck, also of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre.

    It’s official: The oceans are losing oxygen, posing growing threats to marine life by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Feb 15, 2017

  99. Joshua says:

    Will is getting around…

    Andy talks about Will here:

    –snip–
    GROSS: So you just met with someone who might be very important in the Trump administration. This is Will Happer, a Princeton physicist who’s one of the two scientists who’ve met with Donald Trump and are presumed to be candidates for the position of his science adviser. So what is Will Happer’s position on climate change?

    REVKIN: Well, he thinks it’s fantasy, fiction, a tendency toward apocalyptic thinking on the part of environmentalists.

    […]

    –snip–

    http://www.npr.org/2017/02/15/515390569/the-trump-presidencys-potential-impact-on-climate-change

  100. Steven Mosher says:

    Rich and Will worked together on Jason and on adaptive optics.

  101. John Hartz says:

    Perhaps the flurry of recent kerfuffles generated by Eboll, Rose, Curry, Happer, etc., were all about laying the groundwork for the Tump Environmental Circus Show scheduled for next week,

    Staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have been told that President Donald Trump is preparing a handful of executive orders to reshape the agency, to be signed once a new administrator is confirmed, two sources who attended the meeting told Reuters on Wednesday.

    A senior EPA official who had been briefed by members of the Trump administration mentioned the executive orders at a meeting of staffers in the EPA’s Office of General Counsel on Tuesday, but did not provide details about what the orders would say, said the sources, who asked not to be named.

    U.S. EPA staff told to prepare for Trump executive orders: sources by David Shepardson, Timothy Gardner & Richard Valdmanis, Reuters, Feb 15, 2017

  102. JCH says:

    (The huge “sea level rise” seen in Florida is actually subsidence of the land mass, and is not related to global warming.) – Muller

    Versus:

    … Other regions are geologically stable and have only small differences with respect to the global rate of change. In South Florida, in general, coastal land elevations are considered to be relatively stable meaning that the land is not experiencing significant uplift nor subsidence.

    It is also important to note, the vertical land movement that is occurring is non-uniform across South Florida and movement measured at specific monitoring stations sites may not reflect vertical land movement in adjacent areas. …

  103. angech says:

    Jim Hunt says:
    “What on Earth are you on about? Is that an attempt at humor?” Yes one of the reasons given for more ice in Antarctica is that more ice is formed when it gets warmer.
    “suggest she stick the same thermometer in your mouth to improve the accuracy”
    Do you think we need to adjust the trend using different orifices or will the anomaly be the same?
    Also an attempt at humor.
    “Err no. Shen ( cited by both Gavin and Hansen ) showed that theoretically you could get reasonable anwers with 60”,
    thanks..

  104. JCH says:

    Increasing flooding frequency
    in Miami Beach as an indicator for
    accelerating rates of sea level rise
    along the US Atlantic shores

    Shimon Wdowinski,

    • The accelerating rate of SLR in Miami is
    consistent with similar rates found along
    the US Atlantic coast, and are caused by
    the weakening of the Gulf Stream.

    •A similar period of accelerating rates of
    SLR occurred along the US Atlantic coast
    between 1930-1950. It is correlated with a
    period of anomalously high surface air
    temperature in Greenland.

    •We suggest that the increasing rate of ice
    melt in Greenland affects the AMOC,
    weakens the Gulf Stream, increases the
    rate of SLR along the US Atlantic shores,
    and consequently increases flooding
    frequency in Miami Beach.

    Maybe Muller can generate some funding to prove himself wrong again.

  105. John Hartz says:

    Off-topic, but extremely important information for scientists employed by the federal government of the US…

    Many of President Donald Trump’s words and actions have federal scientists worried their work will be politicized or suppressed. Now, one advocacy group is responding with a step-by-step guide for scientists to securely share information about any foul play.

    The Union of Concerned Scientists, whose mission is to protect scientific integrity, has created a webpage for federal scientists to report abuses, with instructions on how to avoid detection or hacking.

    Scientists’ Group Launches Website to Help Federal Whistleblowers by Nicholas Kusnetz, InsideClimate News, Feb 15, 2017

  106. Jim Hunt says:

    Episode 3 of David Rose’s epic fantasy fiction saga hit the newsstands here in the once Great Britain this morning. Snow White and I are blocked by The Mail’s leading imaginative churnalist of course, but we’re nonetheless eagerly awaiting Mr. Rose’s response to this idle enquiry by my professional persona:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s