JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Watts Up Speculation Thread

Watts Up Suspended

You know you’re going to speculate. The emails started coming in to me early this morning ten minutes after the unusual WUWT post was published.  No — it’s not ClimateGate III, not FOIA. I have my theories. :-)

Rereke calculates the release time for WUWT In New Zealand it will be 7.00 am.

Officially the release is listed for: “Sunday July 29th, around Noon PST in California”

Rereke notes: “Anthony Watt’s site does say PST, which would be 8.00am NZT. The question is, “Is that a typo?” I assumed that it was, because people just look at the clock. It is only people like me who are anal enough to worry.

By assuming that it should be PDT, I might be watching an hour early.”

So here are some other times (assuming it is PDT):

  • California: Sunday 12:00 noon
  • New Zealand:  Monday 7 am
  • Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane Australia : Monday  5am
  • Perth, Australia: Monday: 3am
  • Delhi, India:  Monday 12.30am
  • Jerusalem Israel, Helsinki Finland: Sunday 10pm
  • Paris , France; Berlin Germany; Rome, Italy: Sunday 9pm
  • London, UK:  Sunday 8pm
  • New York, USA: Sunday 3pm
  • Corresponding GMT Sunday 7pm

Times thanks to Timeanddate.com

 

So do tune in to WUWT… :-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (42 votes cast)
Watts Up Speculation Thread, 9.3 out of 10 based on 42 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cqlsydc

200 comments to Watts Up Speculation Thread

  • #

    There’s some speculation it’s to do with Muller and the BEST project but I don’t buy into that one. Or at least, I hope it isn’t …

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/mullering-the-data/

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mack

    If Watts is giving everyone a lesson in patience, then most of us are failing…including me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    If you were installing new servers for instance, wouldn’t this be the best way of ensuring a huge traffic surge to test their resilience ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mick Greentree

    Most likely my guess he has got irrefutable proof that the BEST announcement is complete BS and will destroy this ttempt to tell us that were still warming up due to AGW
    In the meantime temperatures are STILL FLAT since 1998-2002 refer to AMSU satellite temperatures. Muller daughters is highly suspect in the BEST team it is my understanding that shes a complete AGW freak and she is running the show so the BEST data is probably pure c^^^.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert of Ottawa

      This is a possibility. Remember he was enticed by BEST and then crossed. He probably still has some amerterm (sp? possibly a French word)over that.

      BTW BEST announcement of 1.5C since 1750 (!!!) is not opposed by anyone; in scientific terms, it is not perculiar or significant. It was d*mned cold in 1750.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        This is a possibility. Remember he was enticed by BEST and then crossed.

        What you mean by this is that while Richard Muller agreed with Watts, Muller was considered a credible source. But now that Muller seems to be saying things that Watts doesn’t agree with, then his work isn’t worth talking about.

        This is exactly the sort of dog [snip] in this forum.
        [ED]


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Most likely my guess he has got irrefutable proof that the BEST announcement is complete BS and will destroy this ttempt to tell us that were still warming up due to AGW

      So what you are saying is that the BEST’s methodology must be wrong simply because it has produced results that you don’t agree with!

      That’s [snoop] dog!

      [ED]

      —————————————–
      REPLY: Adam, no one can get that interpretation out of that quote except you. Please stop twisting people’s words to produce nonsense statements with ridiculously exaggerated (!) conclusions. It’s a transparently obvious tactic to make people angry and dilute real content on this thread. If you can’t comprehend a sentence, ask. People who can think will help you. — Jo


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Tristan

        The way BEST handles coastlines isn’t great from what I understand. It was an amusing exercise to observe though.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Debbie

          The way BEST handles ranges and uses arbitary calendar points isn’t great either Tristan.
          Do you think your amusement was worth the price?
          What matters is whether the models are correctly updated with real time data.
          If they’re not….they are no longer particularly useful… and perhaps could be seen as a waste of money….but I guess they can still be amusing.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        Jo, excellent reply here, and if I may add something.

        Smith’s political party of choice always accuses the right of endless and mindless negativity. All we ever get from Smith is endless mind numbing negativity. He mentions that we twist his words, and that’s virtually all he ever does. He insults nearly everyone here, and when we do the same to him, he says he wins the debate. When we point out out the impossibility of some of the things he says, he resorts to that other fall back position that we are somehow Talking down Australia.

        Smith, you know your movies.

        The last thing that Adrian Cronauer said to Sgt Major Dickerson applies to you.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        cohenite

        So what you are saying is that the BEST’s methodology must be wrong simply because it has produced results that you don’t agree with!

        The BEST methodology is wrong because it does not do the job it was designed to do. BEST had millions of data points which had to be standardised because some stations had only a few bits of data while others had many, and many stations had varying quantities of data at different times; to reduce confidence intervals a weighting standard had to be applied with subsequent averaging and then removal of data which was an outlier to the average.

        BEST use a Jacknife method with a spatial correlation, height above sea level, supposedly to eradicate UHI, and NO time correlation.

        The Jacknife is a statistical method used to produce accurate confidence intervals where data is sparse but relies on an equal weighting of the data; this did not happen because of the lack of a time correlation; a station may have had sparse data at one time but more data at another. As a result, as Jeff Id notes the following happened:

        Another way to think of it is if you have 5 stations. Say one is weighted approximately 10 times greater than the other 4 which are equally weighted. This would be the same as 10 copies of 1 and 4 other copies of something else. If you eliminate one station which happens to be one of the 4 and the weights are recalculated so that one station is say 10 times weighted to 3 at similar weights to the original, the difference in the temperature reconstruction would be about 1/14th of change from error rather than 1/5th as would be assumed by jackknife.

        These values are arbitrary of course but if you expand the effect across thousands of stations, you can see that the subsampling and reweighting give artificially low CI’s.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ed Moran

    AW is a smooth operator. He understands the downside of a disappointing announcement after such a build-up.

    If he says it is “major, controversial, unprecedented” don’t bet against it.

    Sorry, folks. We’ll just have to wait for another twenty five and a half hours!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      One clue that Anthony has given us is this:

      It does however have something to do with one of my many projects, it is still a “major announcement” and it has important implications that I’m sure everyone will want to know about.

      So, who knows Anthony, or the history of his site, well enough to draw up a list of his projects?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Otter

    How many Watts does it take to change an AGW True Believer’s mind?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Just one, but you have to take his site and pound them over the head with it for at least 10 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I would love some additional company, on the limb or wearing bullseye t-shirts, on how AGW, like education reform globally, is actually just a collectivist political theory to gain social, political, and economic transformations hardly anyone would agree to voluntarily.

    I wrote this post yesterday http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/blending-sustainability-and-education-to-gain-arational-nonlinear-minds-and-new-behaviors/ on how the reports in other areas make it clear education talk about consistent content standards is just a head feint or Bait and Switch to get at much bigger prey.

    James Burke from the post was a BBC broadcaster. The “Arational, Nonlinear Minds and New Behaviors” Goals fits with the UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand education pushes as well.

    None of us citizens are apparently supposed to have axemaker minds anymore. Not sufficiently malleable for the statist plans for us all.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      I would love some additional company, on the limb or wearing bullseye t-shirts, on how AGW, like education reform globally, is actually just a collectivist political theory to gain social, political, and economic transformations hardly anyone would agree to voluntarily.

      You have company. I have the bullseye t-shirt. Then they find I have a fairly thick hide, and I fire back …
      I’ll post to your link, so as not to compromise the SIB (sudden intake of breath) prompted by WUWT’s announcement.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Richard

    Better be good. I’ve got myself all worked up.

    I don’t know how credible it is, but the rumors circulating on YouTube is that they’ve unearthed video-evidence that Al Gore is a Reptilian overlord.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    For the life of me, I can’t think what can be so momumental. WUWT handles revelations on a daily basis. New science, new measurements, new finds, new papers, new proof.

    This has got to be HUGE. But, by his update, not social or political? Dang, I was hoping for some cracking-open-the-nonsense-once-and-for-all type of thing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris in Hervey Bay

    Back in November 2009, Anthony invented a time machine, (his project).

    With the time machine, he sent back into the past, 2000 years, his famous digital wifi weather stations, one for every year.

    Earlier this year they started transmitting back the data from their time and location collected over the last two and a half years.

    Now Anthony has collated the data and will release the results.

    The trend is down, cooling, worse than we thought !
    /sarc


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jonathan

    I’m hoping it’s the launch of a website for his weather stations project – the Heartland sponsored one that will present data from NOAA climate reference network that gets buried, homogenised or otherwise hidden away. If it is, we’ll finally have a data-set that is unpolluted by heat island effects and impossible for warmists to explain away, no matter how much hand waving they do.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Not to be criticizing anyone but let’s simply wait and see. It’s not that far off. Then we won’t have to speculate.

    :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    As far as I recall, Anthony’s projects have been:

    Surface station analysis (his second project)
    Photovoltaic roof for his home
    The impact of cinders on snow
    The effect of paint on Stephenson Screens (his first project)
    Involvement with the BEST project last year, wherein he felt cheated by sharp behavior of te BSET team.
    His invitation to a discussion on the new Climate Data Network that would be more accurate and with less bias and influence from immediate vicinity factors. (He’s big on this).

    I opt for BEST, though in what fashion I have no idea.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      I believe we was also a reviewer for the next IPCC report IR5(?). Not sure if that should be in the mix or not.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Involvement with the BEST project last year, wherein he felt cheated by sharp behavior of te BSET team.

      No, what you mean is the BEST team came up with results that Watts didn’t like.

      I guess that’s OK, he should be free to pick and choose his friends, but it isn’t scientific to reject results just because they don’t agree with your pre-existing world view.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Heywood

        “but it isn’t scientific to reject results just because they don’t agree with your pre-existing world view.”

        But it is scientific to cherry pick data which suits yours? Oh.. Ok then…

        00

      • #
        Debbie

        Adam,
        When did the discipline of staistical analysis and statistical extrapolation and projective modelling morph into ‘science’?
        These models are complicated computer generated stat extrapolations using climate data.
        Watts questioned the use of the data….not the ‘science’.
        Science is based on principles such as physics, biology, geology, chemistry etcetera.
        Of course there are many, many sub branches eg marine biology.
        Nearly every profession in the world has used and benefited from science and scientific research.
        Nearly every profession in the world has also used and benfitted from the ‘high powered’ use of statistic modelling that computer technology has given us.
        They are NOT the same thing however.
        If I could be bothered I could gather the data available at this blog on the number of times you have called this work “Science” when you are actually talking about “computer generated statistical extrapolations’, make some assumptions and then model (with ranges) how often you will do that in the future.
        I could also do the same with your tendency to tell everyone that they have no respect for ‘scientists’.
        I could also do the same with your tendency use diversionary tactics and focus on minor points instead of attempting to genuinely engage.
        Would that be science?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Would that be science?

          Yes. The study of slimy camouflaged bottom-feeding algae-eaters is part of marine biology.

          But the Sea Slug From Elm Street is now slithering around in circles in a moderation bucket. Further meaningful statistical study of this unusual creature is much more difficult now that it has been taken out of its natural habitat.

          `Tis truly a loss for Science.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    MadJak

    A Note to the catastrafarians:

    You see, if you don’t scream chicken little at any point, but quietly do your homework and release your findings, you end up with this thing called credibility (that’s spelled C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y and no, it’s not a new word).

    Then if you have something real (usually measurable – spelled M-E-A-S-U-R-A-B-L-E) and pertinent a weird thing happens – people pay attention and listen.

    My bet is that this will be related to the climate data network. one of my sources (not connected to AW) has been quite honest about the crappy state of the data going into certain large institution. Resistance to documenting data changes is prevalent too -apparently it’s a challenge to the egos of the scientists or something.

    Never mind, keep taking your shortcuts and try to pillory anyone who asks for your data or asks what changes the data has undertaken before being released and refuses to take your word for it- after all, it’s been working so well for you, hasn’t it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Maybe someone has cracked the password on that climategate email archive from a few months back.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    u.k.(us)

    After leaving a post (excerpt) that says:

    ..”At that time, there will be a major announcement that I’m sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.

    To give you an idea as to the magnitude of this event, I’m suspending my vacation plans.”….
    ========
    I think he has something to say.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well we were asked to speculate.

    Say, doesn’t The Kyoto Protocol expire at the end of this year.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    My money’s on a refutation of BEST.

    Muller was all over the internet last week circulating a piece called “Converted Skeptic” which is to appear as an op ed article in the New York Times next week.

    In it Muller claims his (and his daughter’s) statistical analysis of the temperature record “established conclusively” that man-made global warming was real and caused by elevated CO2 levels. He also announced he would be releasing his data online “early next week”.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/28/new-global-temperature-data-reanlysis-co

    Given the way Muller blind-sided Watts and others with BEST, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Anthony hadn’t been picking away at a refutation of the BEST methodology and results ever since, with a view to publishing it sooner or later.

    Then along comes Muller’s article and announcement, and Anthony cancels his holidays, pulls everybody off moderation and other tasks, and they all go into lockdown mode to get something finished and up by SUNDAY, immediately BEFORE Muller and the NYT are committed to publish.

    If Anthony can put something up by Sunday which effectively demolishes the BEST methodology and/or results, with Muller and the NYT committed to publish, Muller gets pwned well and truly.

    I cannot imagine many things that would lead to Anthony abandoning his beloved blog, or cancelling his holidays (he’s a committed family man), but I reckon the chance to fry Muller in the juice of his own ego would do it.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Philip Bradley

      The basic flaw with BEST is that it uses predominantly min/max temperatures. Worse, it mixes some non-min/max data without differentiating it. Averaging min/max data shows roughly twice the warming that measurements taken at fixed intervals does. Perhaps, Anthony has separated these 2 sets of data out to show the flaw of averaging them together. Perhaps he has evidence Muller knew this problem and hid the fact.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        To be honest Philip, I don’t know enough about BEST to have an opinion.

        However I’ve been reading WUWT long enough to know if Anthony were given the cypher to the Climategate 3 emails, he would simply publish it without fanfare or buildup.

        But in this case he has taken steps to ensure all eyes of the blogosphere will be firmly fixed on his site for his “announcement”. In doing so he has to a large extent put his very credibility on the line. That suggests a very PERSONAL motivation, rather than a scientific or business one.

        What Muller did to Anthony with BEST was nothing short of intellectual rape.
        I can imagine the scars, and the desire for retribution, would cut deep.
        Deep enough even to risk his up to now cast-iron reputation.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Philip Bradley

          you could well be right. I’d add that a Sunday midday PST announcement is clearly designed to feed into the weekly news cycle. So Anthony certainly thinks its newsworthy.

          FWIIW, my other guess is that Anthony has made a weather forecasting breakthrough, possibly using statistical modelling, rather than the prevalent dynamic modelling.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          Minor correction to my two posts above. The NYT piece was published online about an hour ago.
          So Muller and the NYT are committed and can’t back down now.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Ross James

            Memoryvault,

            I believe this is the Change strategy moment for Watts Up.

            Yes I believe the ARTICLE posted on NYT is the driving force to head off these lastest findings by Muller of Best.

            The findings are certainly a stand out and should only add to the weight of evidence now emerging.

            Skeptics here are in for a hard battle over the next decade. Don’t count any political leaning or election thereby to overturn anything. The writing is permanently on the wall. We just cannot ignore the growth of emissions any longer. What is most important is that skeptics such as yourself tend to think in terms of the past findings rather then move forward as science delves deeper into this situation.

            I find the refutations of many science papers and revealing expose on Monckton, Ball, Michaels, Singer, Linzden, Spencer, Christy and others of same mold most revealing on their very selective hearing and research on this complex science.

            Muller has stated some sound argument for YOUR side. The reality of this phenomena of greenhouse gases which induces global warming he has faced up to and owned will now be castigated to death, character assaulted and assassinated. It is predictable. We humans must do things not considered over our entire industrial revolution. To the ultra right entrenched thinker of just political causes – this is unthinkable.

            I enjoyed reading what Muller has come realise in NYT. It is a pity those who hold severe judgements about this and often extremist viewpoints on politics will not hold back on a completed unwarranted campaign to destroy his reputation. Brave man he is. Even braver are those who admit they were wrong. Ah such is life. To many they think it is all liberal gibberish but it is not.

            What I like to do – go back my roots and shake up the COMPLACENT Christian leadership believing in the storytelling and tales from extremists. Slaying the Dragon should be called “Resurrecting the Mythology”.

            If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            Ah, Mr James, how good of you drop by and enlighten all us poor misguided souls.
            It might have been politer though, for you to have actually READ through the existing posts before leaping in with both feet in your mouth.

            IF you had bothered to bring yourself up to speed, you’d know there have been a few posts quoting Muller in the past, which demonstrate conclusively that the man is not, and never has been a “climate skeptic”.

            That would have saved you the time and bother of writing the crap that you have about Muller and his motives.

            Instead you could have devoted the time to answering the three questions a couple of posts below, originally directed to Team Smith.

            Unfortunately Team Smith got themselves disqualified, so perhaps you like to pick up the baton on their behalf.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            bobl

            @ Ross James… Nothing will convince me that a feedback loop of loop gain 0.67 exists in the atmosphere. Not possible, full stop, discussion done, over.

            BTW, showing that temperature has risen a degree or so since the little ice age, doesn’t worry me, question is WHY? and at this point we have just Hypotheses and few facts. Clearly, it DOESNT involve positive feedback, so now lets move on from that idea and look at direct influences.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          What Muller did to Anthony with BEST was nothing short of intellectual rape

          So you are basically saying that Muller was under an obligation to simply post and publish results that agreed with whatever Anthony Watts thinks.
          [snip] ED


          Report this

          00

          • #
            memoryvault

            Team Smith

            Actually, I’m tired of this game. You support the theory of CAGW, and most of the respondents here don’t. So let’s break it down and make it really simple and end this once and for all.

            CAGW stands for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. To “prove” your case all you have to do is present us with evidence of the following:

            1) – That the planet is actually currently warming.
            2) – That said alleged warming is caused by human activity.
            3) – That said alleged warming will have catastrophic consequences.

            Off you go.

            Remember, we are not interested in the results of “computer models”, nor what the “consensus” tells us we should believe in, nor endless links to articles and papers that say “should”, or “might”, or “could” or “perhaps” or any of the other english language qualifiers.

            All we are interested in is observed, measured data that supports the claims of 1), 2), and 3) above (and you have to be able to confirm all three to stay in the game).

            In closing, please keep this in mind, Team Smith. Since you never bother actually replying to posts, in future my only response to your posts will be to simply repost this simple request.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            MV, that’s so unfair. You know that the Smith team are helpless gullible followers of authority and that they can’t name evidence to back up their case. He thinks a poll of scientists opinions is evidence about the planetary atmosphere. He devoutly believes in his Gods of Science, (even when they hide their data, lose results, and refuse to debate publicly).

            You have to feel sorry for someone who can’t think for themselves.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      One thing is certain. Muller was NEVER a skeptic. Look at some of his quotes:

      “If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008

      …”There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2006

      …”Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003

      Muller made a few semi-skeptical noises very briefly in 2011 and then parleyed them into pretending to be a card-carrying skeptic. The BEST project was a setup from Day One. I expected nothing but Warmist drivel from Muller, and that’s just what we got.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jesus saves

    Maybe Watts is going to finally [Snip] realize you have a point? Oooh look a pig, flying!

    [ED]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Otter

      Tin foil on too tight, bub?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      [snip - Jo]

      [Adam? You cry censorship after you've posted 23 comments out of 93 on this thread? This is typical of your ability to "spin" crap.

      You can apologize for dominating with boring, trivial points and aspersions.

      See my comment #30.

      Lift your standards and get back to about 5% of the conversation instead of 25% please. -- Jo]


      Report this

      00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    You can expect AW’s release event to be important and scientifically sound, but let me give you the downside. Climategate2 emails were made public and exposed some disdainful behaviour.
    Did this have any impact on the political/religious CAGW landscape? No.
    Did Australian Universities dismiss their tenured con-men for fraud? No.
    Did Australian Government drop all expenditure on the CAGW myth? No.
    Goebellian media management means that the truth has little impact on the behaviour of institutions and our government.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      All too true inedible, but as the post at 19 demonstrates, the cultists are all over the Muller article and are currently crowing all over the internet. By tomorrow it will have been taken up big-time by the MSM. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Muller article hasn’t cracked a mention on even our own ABC by this time tomorrow.

      If Anthony then does indeed release a rock-solid refutation of Muller’s work, the egg will be spread over many, many faces. Sure, the MSN won’t publish a retraction; sure the con-men will still have their jobs, and sure, the pollies will continue to go their own way.

      But the battle for hearts and minds is being fought well and truly on the internet, and such a slap-down in the blogosphere will be a major victory nonetheless.

      I have to catch a plane tomorrow morning, and I’m busy getting ready. It would be helpful if somebody could start grabbing screen dumps from cultist sites who are currently jumping on the Muller article. I note desmog, Dailykos and Think Progress are already running with it.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        If Anthony then does indeed release a rock-solid refutation of Muller’s work, the egg will be spread over many, many faces. Sure, the MSN won’t publish a retraction; sure the con-men will still have their jobs, and sure, the pollies will continue to go their own way.

        As the New York Times opinion piece says, the BEST team is going to be open to criticism of its work. If you have any criticism of the BEST team’s work, send them an email: infoATberkeleyearth.org

        It’s pretty obvious that Anthony Watts knew how damaging this information is going to be to his reputation, so he had to run some interference so people don’t think about it.

        But the battle for hearts and minds is being fought well and truly on the internet, and such a slap-down in the blogosphere will be a major victory nonetheless.

        Well actually it won’t, because Watts already shot himself in the foot by supporting Muller when Muller agreed with him, but now he is seeking to discredit Muller simply because Muller has come to a different view.

        This simply demonstrates how [snip] Watts is. Watts couldn’t care less about what is true. He will tip anyone overboard as soon as they start posting or publishing things he doesn’t agree with.

        [Adam must have a new dog] ED

        00

        • #
          Adam Smith

          [Adam must have a new dog] ED

          WOW,

          [no, bow wow] ED

          [Adam is now in moderation. Jo can decide his fate beyond this] ED


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I realise that Adam has been moderated, but #20.1.1 is quite interesting, not for what it says, but for the way that Adam tries to spin it.

          Firstly, Adam takes a comment from Memoryvault (#20.1), on this thread on the supposition that AW might have some evidence that refutes what Muller is about to publish.

          Adam then deflects the involvement of AW away, by referring to a NYTimes opinion piece (no author reference) that Muller is expected to be criticised. But if not by AW, then by whom? Adam doesn’t say.

          Adam then turns the situation around by saying that, “it is pretty obvious that AW knew how damaging this information is going to be to his reputation, so he had to run some interference …” (my bold). Whose reputation? Muller’s? Watts? And who is the “he” who had to run some interference? Again, we have a question, Muller? Watts? The way the sentence is structured leaves the reader with the impression that it is AW ‘s reputation that may be at risk and not Muller’s. This is a linguistic switch away from what is implied by the first paragraph. But when you unpick the sentence, and take it fact by fact is totally equivocal, the facts can be un-spun to address any criticism that may be levelled, with a “you misread it” defence,

          And then we get another direct quote from Memoryvault, that,”… the battle for hearts and minds is being fought well and truly on the internet, and such a slap-down in the blogosphere will be a major victory nonetheless.” Now again, this statement, when taken in isolation, is equivocal regarding who the subject is. It could be either party. It was clear in Memoryvaults comment that he was referring to AW as the victor. But the quote, when taken out of context, and following the previous linguistic switch paragraph, is again equivocal, and leaves it to the reader to decide.

          Adam then goes on to say, “Well actually it won’t, because Watts already shot himself in the foot by supporting Muller when Muller agreed with him, but now he is seeking to discredit Muller simply because Muller has come to a different view.”

          Now this paragraph can also be interpreted two ways. Does it mean that, if Muller is “slapped down” then AW is culpable by supporting him in the first place? Or, does it mean that Muller is right and that AW will be “slapped down” for being wrong.

          Following on from the previous paragraphs, that seek to shift the role of villain onto AW, uninformed people will tend to take the latter interpretation.

          This is reinforced in the final paragraph that concludes; “ Watts couldn’t care less about what is true. He will tip anyone overboard as soon as they start posting or publishing things he doesn’t agree with.” Thus making sure that any casual reader will see AW as the bad guy.

          This final paragraph is the only place that makes an unequivocal statement, and is typical of one of Adams “parting shots”. But the fact that he invariably does have a “parting shot” can be used to argue that this was, “just another throw-away line”, if he is challenged.

          I found this interesting

          ———

          REPLY: Rereke – this is good analysis, but see what happens when we let the spin-artists comment too much, we end up discussing them, instead of discussing the topic. But in the sense that it’s useful for all skeptics to become aware of how some people spin the topic, this is useful. – Jo


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      You can expect AW’s release event to be important and scientifically sound

      You’re [spam] ED


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I have a considerable admiration for persistence in pursuit of a goal, in this case, winning a debate. But that admiration ends when you go on after, a) winning the debate; or b) losing the debate. Beyond those end points you just start making a fool of yourself.

        Adam Smith, you are clearly in category “b”. No one begrudges you the opportunity to speak your mind here. But every time you start you push it to the point where you’re offensive. Can you not take the hint?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ross

    Well if the BEST result is what has been up on the web already — 1.5C increase in temperature from 1750 and the increase for the later part of the 20th century was due to AGW , then it won’t take much to dismiss.
    If the first 250 years was due to natural variation then how come it was “switched off” in the last 50 years ?
    My understanding is that BEST was only recrunching numbers , not doing some “original” research. Also where did the data for back to 1750 come from ?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “BEST was only recrunching numbers , not doing some “original” research”

      There was a huge surge in urbanisation over the 1970-2000 period, yet BEST seem to say the UHI heating was insignificant.

      But they DID NOT go out and look at the historic changes that occurred around each and every one of those temperature sites. This is the ONLY way to actually get to grips with “IF” there was any real land temperature rise during that period. Actually go out and have a look.. do some research !!!!!

      They DID NOT try to find out what happened to all those many remote sites where the data mysteriously disappeared, at just the right time for the AGW bleteren’s data manipulations. I am convinced that loss of those sites was intentional, how could they loose that many otherwise !

      If they haven’t done anything about these issues this time, then as far as I’m concerned its a pointless exercise with a meaningless conclusion, no matter which way it goes.

      But seeing who is in the group, you can BET the manipulated temperature trend will be upward.
      Muller himself was never a skeptic, just a pretend one, that is for sure, and with his AGW cult daughter in the mix.. pre-destined results !!!!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Peter Wilson

    Adam Smith you are a tiresome troll with a myopic focus on who said what when. It’s surely not a question of whether Watts agrees with Muller, but why (or why not).
    You also make a lot of assumptions about what Anthony’s announcement will be. I don’t know, but I’m picking its more of a “smoking gun” that simply disagreeing with Muller, or anyone else.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      Agree with you Peter Wilson.
      Anthony has previously exposed a number of publications as fraudulent science, without a great deal of fanfare. Add to that some hefty intellect amongst his helpers. So “major announcement” has my curiosity peaked.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        FijiDave

        Piqued, Inedible, piqued. I’m a pedant on Sundays. Sorry. :)

        It is tempting to think that your attention might be aroused to a high point by “peaking” your curiosity; but in fact, “pique” is a French word meaning “prick,” in the sense of “stimulate.” The expression has nothing to do with “peek,” either. Therefore the expression is “my curiosity was piqued.”

        An amazing number of people write about “mountain peeks.” A peak is a summit; a peek is a glimpse.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Can we have a drum roll please?

    !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Here is what Watts wrote BEFORE BEST produced any results:

    I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

    Now it seems he is running away from that statement at about a billion miles an hour.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      • #
        Debbie

        Yep me too!
        Straight behind Memoty Vault’s questions at earlier post.
        While you are entitled to your opinion Adam….how about moving on and engaging in the discussion rather than forever repeating the same thing over and over again?
        Do you have an answer for Memory Vault’s questions that actually considers the context?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      AndyG55

      At the time, AW made the erroneous assumption that Muller was on the ‘up and up’ ie honestly skeptical.

      Turns out this may not have been at all correct.

      Because AW has a good honest nature, he didn’t see the cockroach in the corner.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        [Snip] ‘Adam Smith’, no contributor has the right to continuously post comments and dominate threads while simply ignoring questions posed to them which they cannot or choose not to answer. Nor can they choose to simply not own up to errors (accidental or deliberate) when pointed out to them, while busily attacking posts by other contributors.

        Moderators have given you ‘Adam’ a very long leash in the hopes that your manners would improve. Unfortunately they have not. Unless your comments are on topic, and unless you address questions raised of you before raising more questions of others, this moderator will snip your comments – Mod


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Thank you, Mod!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Brian of Moorabbin

          I could comment to say that when “Adam Smith” first appeared (re-appeared?) on this blog a few weeks ago Jo made the comment that this “new” Adam Smith was different to the “old” Adam Smith, who had been banned for spamming comments and refusing to answer questions put to him.

          It appears the “new” Adam Smith is following in the exact same footsteps set down by the “old” Adam Smith.

          Regardless of having spoken to this new Smith personally (whether by email or phone), I would suggest based on behaviour in this thread (and many many others over the past few weeks) that “old” Smith and “new” Smith are in fact the SAME Smith, and be treated as such.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Mr Smith would do well to heed Memory Vaults questions instead of worrying about Mr Watts…

    CAGW stands for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. To “prove” your case all you have to do is present us with evidence of the following:

    1) – That the planet is actually currently warming.
    2) – That said alleged warming is caused by human activity.
    3) – That said alleged warming will have catastrophic consequences.

    Off you go.

    That was 2 hours ago Mr Smith…. where are your answers? Mr. Smith….]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      James

      The Smith character is another in the long line of scientfic illiterates who demand “proof” of the non-existant.

      When asked for empirical evidence to support their own assertions, Smith and his ilk dodge, weave, prevaricate, and revert to underclass behaviour.

      Black Adder’s questions should be so simple for Smith to answer, but of course he cannot.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Thanks BA.

      Actually I first asked them last night – about 14 hours ago – on the previous thread.
      Obviously I’m not holding my breath waiting for a reply, but the continuing lack of one tells its own story.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        memoryvault,

        good luck waiting for that.

        In September of last year I asked him to explain how his political party’s reliance on the renewables of choice, solar and wind would work, and could he explain that to us and the only answer he gave was something that same party has dodged for so long, Nuclear, which does not get a mention anywhere.

        His only response ever to that question was “hey look over there, isn’t that Britney Spears?”

        He has no real answers, just political meme spin.

        Besides, he doesn’t even know the answer to that himself.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Ally E.

        Certainly you’d think that Team Smith would at least begin to wonder why they cannot get their hands on the “evidence” to show us. The doubt must be nibbling away at their brains. But no, if they really believed in CAGW, they’d be digging deep to supply the proof. To my mind, that means they know full well it’s all a scam.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Tristan

      To “prove” your case all you have to do is present us with evidence of the following

      Evidence is not objective.

      Give me an example of something you’d consider evidence that the planet is warming.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Peter Wilson

        Possibly some evidence of increasing temperatures? That would be a good start.

        Note that almost no one here would dispute that the planet has warmed (past tense). That it is not currently warming is a matter of measurement, not opinion


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Tristan

        This is one of several lines of empirical evidence that show a warming planet. I have added a couple short-term trends in there lest you confuse the oscillatory nature of the surface temperature record (thanks to ENSO) with a stable planetary temperature.

        Will you consider that evidence? No of course not. :)


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Peter Wilson

          Is that it? Your trend for the last 14 years is so slight as to be effectively flat – proves our case better then yours I’d say – it DID warm a lot in 1998, but sod all since.

          This is called considering the evidence. Consider it considered.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Tristan

            Like I said ;)

            Now Peter, would you care to explain to everyone how the climate system somehow acquired all this heat in 1998?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Peter Wilson

            Tristan

            No, I don’t know how to explain it, I don’t have to, that’s not my job.

            But it did happen, the data makes that obvious, and since then virtual stasis, as far as global average temps go. So despite the fact that I can’t explain it, it does need to be explained, rather than denied.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            I guess it’s fortunate that it’s so easy to explain!

            Any oscillation produces this effect and the larger the oscillation in comparison to the gradient the ‘longer’ the pauses, declines, inclines you can draw. Math is cool huh?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Peter Wilson

            Oscillations? Isn’t that just another term for “natural variation”?. You know, the thing alarmists have spent years denying could possibly be the cause of anything, because the science was settled that only man made CO2 can affect the climate.

            Glad you’ve come around. Of course, if “oscillations” can cause a prolonged pause in warming, they could just as easily have caused some or all of the late twentieth century increase in global average temperatures.

            Its perfectly good logic you are using, but it comes around to bite you and you end up proving our case rather than your own. Well done!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            Oscillations are not just another term for natural variation. ENSO is zero sum, it can’t push surface temps around for prolonged periods, it’s merely noise.

            ENSO is to a decade long temperature series what ‘night and day’ is to a week long temperature series.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Peter Wilson

            Yes, we don’t need you to teach us what ENSO is. It IS a natural variation (why can’t natural variation be zero sum?), and one which is not predicted or explained by GCM models.

            Of course you are correct about the time periods. Which is why using ENSO oscillations to explain a once in two decade step change is pretty silly really.

            Do you not notice the obvious contradictions in your arguments? (rhetorical question, I can anticipate your answer)


            Report this

            00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        Perhaps you should try reading your own links:

        A 2012 Psychological Bulletin article suggests that at least 8 seemingly unrelated biases can be produced by the same information-theoretic generative mechanism.[17] It is shown that noisy deviations in the memory-based information processes that convert objective evidence (observations) into subjective estimates (decisions) can produce regressive conservatism, the conservatism (Bayesian), illusory correlations, better-than-average effect and worse-than-average effect, subadditivity effect, exaggerated expectation, overconfidence, and the hard–easy effect.

        “Evidence” is objective; what we do with it can be subjective.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Otter

      I was going to say ‘The pain, the pain!’… but that Smith was a coward, NOT stupid.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KR

    My guess is that Anthony Watts has heard about the BEST results, and wishes to preempt them in some fashion. But we’ll have to wait and see…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Tristan

      It’d be funny if it were the coastal contamination issue.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Debbie

        I’m wondering why you find this particular issue so amusing Tristan?
        Are you trying to laugh off a too too obvious error in the use of the data?
        As I said earlier….I hope your amusement matches the price tag?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Tristan

      Regardless, it wont be anything that remotely challenges the science and even if it is a criticism of BEST and they address the criticisms, he still won’t accept the temperature record. Even though presumably he accepts the UAH record…

      Who knows what internal inconsistencies than man possesses.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        The UAH record shows basically no warming from 1979-1997, the period through which all this warming is meant to have occured.

        There is then a step caused by the 1998 ElNino spike, and then basically level again for the last 13 years


        Report this

        00

    • #
      KR

      Looks like I was right. An announcement of a paper that hasn’t been submitted yet, timed just before a BEST announcement (if I heard correctly) of warming and attribution.

      This may backfire for Watts et al if they don’t have their ducks in line…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Anthony is well able to defend himself, but I pointed out to him at the time that the main problem with BEST (and HADCRUT and GISSTEMP as well) is its derivation from min/max temperatures, all the site specific issues including UHI are secondary.

    Derive average temperature from measurements taken at fixed intervals, a much more statistical sound method, then nearly half the warming dissapears.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/4/australian-temperatures.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Maybe Watts is announcing his “road to Damascus conversion”. Suddenly the scales were lifted from his eyes, and he thought, “Actually, those AGW ideas make a lot more sense than most of the rubbish I publish”.

    (No it is to complete a PROJECT of his that he wants to finish earlier than planned) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Tristan

      It’s not rubbish, it’s recycling ;)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Even Damascus is not a safe place to be these days.

      The political irony here is that the USA is the one agitating for destabilisation and war whereas Russia and China are the ones keeping world peace. :(


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The political irony here is that the USA is the one agitating for destabilisation and war whereas Russia and China are the ones keeping world peace.

        Andrew, sometimes I wonder if you can actually read English. How do you get that statement from what you linked?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Otter

      Beating yourself over the head with your own stick? Dr. Ball will be feeling better.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      James

      Brookes’ comment is commensurate with the full head-tilt; a vapid piece of immature silliness with his inability to deal with empirical evidence. Ah, the wishing out aloud that all such data would just go away and leave his new faith undisturbed by Anthony Watts et al.
      And of course he won’t be checking in tomorrow.. Sad, really.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Crazy Larry’s wild speculation: Mitt wants Anthony to be his science adviser for the remainder of the campaign. If so, great choice!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mr/Ms/Master/Miss Adam, we have a problem. I rely on my mods – volunteers – to make it possible to keep comments open, but you are becoming too much of a burden. You’ve posted 507 comments in the last month, by far the most frequent commenter, dominating and diluting threads all under a false name, and from multiple locations, and needing [snips]. We could bust you all for that, but generously let you cowards (who hide behind anonymity) keep going.

    Not only that, but frequent commenters must be held to higher standards than rare commenters (for obvious reasons). If you stick to posting worthwhile comments (where we learn something about the topic and you correct a serious error), we’ll be grateful.

    If you use up our time on comments like #4.2 (and so many others) rational commenters get angry at having to correct your inane incoherent remarks. You need to reply to MV #18.1.1.3.1. I would accept “substantiation” (not “proof”), because we all know it’s not a question of “proving” anything but of reasonable evidence to substantiate your base-assumption (upon which nearly all your comments rely).

    You are henceforth in moderation automatically. We will clear comments that contribute or make a serious correction. Comments which correct minor irrelevant points mean the thread becomes a discussion about the comments rather than a discussion of the topic. No more.

    If you lift your standards and post less but higher standard comments you (all) can go back to posting freely. We don’t want to moderate you.

    Have you broken a rule? Yes and many times over. I ask for politeness, and for people to stop repeatedly breaking laws of reason. You repeatedly rely on argument from authority, and it’s not polite to turn up late to a party then interrupt, dominate, incorrectly twist people’s words (putting words in their mouths), nor to falsely shout “victory” (having provoked people with incorrect statements) and nor to demand answers without answering questions yourself. Worse sometimes you claim victory over points we discussed at length before you turned up. Boring.

    You can ask questions about the topic, and if commenters can be bothered answering, that would be useful.

    Otherwise, you need to answer MV properly.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Joanne,

      perhaps this may indeed be a good thing for Smith. Now he has tested the water, and seen just how popular he really is, the thought might be planted in his mind to start up his own Blog. After all, it seems that he has endless time on his hands to contribute so prolifically here. He might even include a bio so we can see who and what he really is.

      That way, we could perhaps go and contribute at his site.

      Oh yeah! Right!

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      I was in favour – though it’s clearly not my business or my call – of full freedom of expression for hostile commenters, one very busy one included.

      However, I can see where it’s gone beyond “expression” to deliberate diversion and clogging of threads. The commenter was already doing this, but now it’s just comment-swamping, of a semi-professional nature. I hope my opinion didn’t help encourage this person.

      I don’t care if Anthony Watts has become a believer in CAGW overnight – it would be nice to see an exchange of opinions, or even hostilities, on whatever is at issue without deliberate GetUp-style stunts.

      Really, I can do without verbal spin and intellectual stunts for the rest of my days. To borrow some of the alarmists own language, there’s been an utterly unprecedented rise in record-smashing trickiness which can only be attributed to human-caused conniving.

      What Macbeth said:

      “And be these juggling fiends no more believed,
      That palter with us in a double sense…”


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      Mr/Ms/Master/Miss Adam, we have a problem. I rely on my mods – volunteers – to make it possible to keep comments open, but you are becoming too much of a burden. You’ve posted 507 comments in the last month, by far the most frequent commenter, dominating and diluting threads all under a false name, and from multiple locations, and needing [snips]. We could bust you all for that, but generously let you cowards (who hide behind anonymity) keep going.

      Actually hardly any of my comments have required SNIPs. The fact some of your moderators have heavily snipped my comments, in particular in this thread, just demonstrates that they don’t abide by the forum’s moderation policy! They just moderator whatever they like in the most absurd ways.

      [Actually more of your posts should have been snipped - stuff like #4.2 should have not seen the light of day. But we don't have time. You need to self-edit. That's one of the rules of this blog. - Jo]

      Have a look at Jesus Saves post for example:
      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/watts-up-speculation-thread/#comment-1096075

      It has been moderated in a way that the original post is now unrecognisable.

      There is no rational reason why this post was moderated at all let alone in a way that completely changes the initial post.

      The only reason that post was edited is because it challenges a popular view of this forum.

      [I don't know what that post said originally. Probably the comment should have been [snipped] in entirety. It hs nothing to do with you or your comments. –Jo]

      Not only that, but frequent commenters must be held to higher standards than rare commenters (for obvious reasons). If you stick to posting worthwhile comments (where we learn something about the topic and you correct a serious error), we’ll be grateful.

      I have posted numerous worthwhile posts that have either been moderated for no reason or completely ignored by people here simply because they challenge prevailing views.

      [Which ones? Why post the junk we have to snip? --Jo]

      If you use up our time on comments like #4.2 (and so many others) rational commenters get angry at having to correct your inane incoherent remarks.

      There is nothing wrong with 4.2 at all. There is a common habit in this forum of outright rejecting views that don’t agree with the prevailing view here.

      This was most obvious in the BOM ACORN thread where people were criticising procedures that they hadn’t even bothered to read about.

      [No. As I commented inline at #4.2. Only you can reach the twisted "words in mouth" interpretation of the quote you referred too. It does not make sense. --Jo]

      You need to reply to MV #18.1.1.3.1. I would accept “substantiation” (not “proof”), because we all know it’s not a question of “proving” anything but of reasonable evidence to substantiate your base-assumption (upon which nearly all your comments rely).

      Those questions aren’t the topic of this thread. If I were to answer those questions then I would be dragging the thread off-topic which you seem to think is a bad thing to do.

      You are having everything both ways. On the one hand you don’t want me to post things that you think are irrelevant, but then when someone asks me questions that aren’t relevant to the thread you expect me to answer them!

      [You can't have it both ways. You've dominated threads making up to 25% of the comments then cried "censorship". Many of your comments are about commenters and are trivial or non-points, not about the topic of the post. After 500 comments in a month this is simply the thread we are finally calling you on. Most of those 500 comments are based on your assumption that there is evidence for Catastrophic man-made global warming. Dominating threads is rude - that breaches blog policy ("Be Polite"). You don't answer questions, but expect everyone to answer yours. (That's not an honest conversation). Yes I should have busted you for it back in the first week. I hoped you would improve. I've been too generous in letting you keep posting. But if you improve, you can keep commenting. :-) --Jo]

      You are henceforth in moderation automatically. We will clear comments that contribute or make a serious correction. Comments which correct minor irrelevant points mean the thread becomes a discussion about the comments rather than a discussion of the topic. No more.

      So again, you expect me to answer blatantly irrelevant questions, but you don’t think I should be allowed to reply to posts in a way I see fit.

      That’s hypocritical, and demonstrates that your moderation policy is just nonsense that you don’t apply consistently.

      [Its true I lowered my standards in allowing you to dominate when you won't use your real names. Due to the lack of reasonable defenders of AGW I put up with posters like the Adam team, even though they break blog rules (impolite, repetitive, off-topic, false name - pretending to be one person etc etc), because the blog benefits from counter opinions. Name me a single commenter on my site who has posted as much as 25% of a thread day after day and has not been moderated eventually? Adam you make a few excellent comments, but the ratio of excellent to trivial, or illogical is too low. --Jo]

      If you lift your standards and post less but higher standard comments you (all) can go back to posting freely. We don’t want to moderate you.

      My standards are already much higher than most posters on this blog. What you simply don’t like is the fact I make posts that challenging the prevailing views of most people in this forum. That is why my posts have been moderated, because I am presenting views outside of the consensus of this forum, it has nothing to do with the quality of my posts which are much higher than many posters who simply reply to my posts by personally attacking me.

      [Your comments are almost all based on the fallacy that there are Gods in Science whose opinions matter more than data. You believe in consensuses. Scientists don't. If you think your standards are higher than most posters here it's only because you can't reason. --Jo]

      Have you broken a rule? Yes and many times over.

      Clearly you don’t have much faith in this judgement because you couldn’t even name a rule I broke.

      [ Wrong. Read #30 again. --Jo]

      I ask for politeness, and for people to stop repeatedly breaking laws of reason.

      Where!? Give me one example!

      [Read #30 again. --Jo]

      You repeatedly rely on argument from authority,

      Where!? Give me one example! I actually reference my claims a lot more than most people in this forum. When people accuse, for example, the BOM of being corrupt, where is the evidence to back up that claim?

      [Look up "BOM" in my index. We've covered it all before at length. You turn up late to the clubhouse, then make loud accusations without bothering to do your own research. It's lazy, lacks goodwill, and is impolite. --Jo]

      Otherwise, you need to answer MV properly.

      So the reason my comments are being moderated is because you think my comments are irrelevant, but to solve that issue you want me to answer a bunch of irrelevant questions that don’t relate to this thread.

      That makes no sense and proves your moderation policy is just a work of fiction.

      [Spin. As usual. My first and most important rule is politeness. You have been impolite, lacking goodwill, dominating threads, see #30 for more, from the beginning. Yes, strictly I ought to have busted you before. You can thank me for being so generous as to allow you to keep doing it for weeks. I'm still hoping you will improve. Prove you can be logical, and polite in conversation and answer MV. --Jo]


      Report this

      00

      • #
        brc

        Don’t like it?

        Get your own blog.

        You can post as much as you want from there, and nobody will stop or moderate you.

        I think the mods on this site have been far too accomodating. There’s no point in debating – each point answered creates 5 more obfuscations, like chopping heads off a hydra.

        This is a privately run site. Nobody has the right to comment here except the owner of the blog. People read a site like this to get interesting information and various points of view, and occasionally to have a laugh.

        There are regular commenters here who post points of view that are against the theme and topics raised. They get published because generally they’re polite and try and argue from reason. The responses are generally polite for the same reason.

        It’s not an undergraduate insult throwing contest with giggling mates keeping ‘points’.

        Honestly, of all the blogs I read, this one has the least amount of moderation and also the lowest level of rudeness between commenters. Pranksters shouldn’t try and abuse that.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Jaymez

        I can only concur with Jo’s comments. I went back through a few topics with the intention of counting how many questions I raised with Adam Smith which he did not answer, (yet responded with further comments or questions). I also counted how many times I had caught him in a lie, error or misinterpretation. I actually got bored with the exercise because it was so frequent.

        Of course the logical thing for me to do is ignore his comments, but if they go unchallenged, then a green horn coming to this site seeking information may actually think there is some substance to what Adam Smith writes. So I, and others, are forced into a time wasting, unproductive correspondence with Adam Smith. Clearly he has nothing better to do.

        Longer term readers at this site know the moderators are volunteers and may not read and edit every comment posted. Adam Smith has been given an extreme amount of leniency but there comes a time when a rude guests behaviour should be borne no more!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Jesus saves

        You’ve obviously hit a nerve here Adam, Nova doesn’t like it when you make her look like a goose and she has no comeback.

        (When have YOU made a good thoughtful comment that is on topic and supports meaningful discussion of the posted topic? No do not answer my question!) CTS

        (I will start snipping or even trashing your entire comments you make that are like this one in the future from now on) CTS


        Report this

        00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Another outstanding Effort.

        This time they managed to get two and a half pages of Adamaceaous fill before running out of material to cut and copy.

        Another record for Team Smiths.

        KK

        Time to go Adam.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Proving my point at 20.2.1.

        Just plain offensive.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Jo. I propose you choose one isp location ONLY for Mr/Mrs/whatever Smith.

      Anything NOT from that location, gets dumped automatically.

      It appears that there might just be one point of intelligence in the mod, a glimmer, maybe (but I might be being overly hopeful)

      ……… the rest…not so.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Joanne,

      I suggest that you change the levels of negative voting before comments are “hidden” automatically (reader can choose to expand said comments). Make the required score -10 (10 more red thumbs than green thumbs) and most of Team Smith and other trolls will be treated as they deserve.

      All done by consensus.

      You have gotta love the irony of that.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jesus saves

        You wouldn’t be advocating “group think” would you “Truthseeker”?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Wrong as usual “Jesus saves”. I am advocating free choice, but I can see how you would see that as a threat. Free choice is the antithesis of all dogmas, regardless of whatever the particular “message” is.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Tristan

      Joanne

      In the spirit of answering questions, a few of my own:

      1) Why don’t you account for ENSO in all your surface temperature speculations?

      2) Why don’t you account for all the other forcings when looking for the observed warming due to GHGs since the industrial period? (It’s around 1.2C)

      3) Why don’t you acknowledge that climate science predicted that CO2 lagged temperature, rather than implying it’s counter-evidence?

      4) Why don’t you acknowledge that climate science does not assume a linear relationship between CO2 and IR absorption, rather than implying that the log relationship is counter-evidence?

      5) Why do you insist that the ‘hot spot’ is a signature of global warming from GHGs when the signature of GHG warming (as opposed to natural warming) is actually stratospheric cooling?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        1) – ENSO is a “natural” variation. According to Great Greenhouse Guru James Hansen in 1988 testimony to Congress, CAGW would “swamp” ALL natural variations by 2000. Since all “natural” variations have been “swamped” by CAGW effects for over a decade, they no longer require accounting for.

        2) – According to Great Greenhouse Guru Phil Jones in an interview with BBC radio soon after Climategate 1, ALL other possible forcings had been investigated, and none of them fit, so the culprit HAD to be CO2.

        3) – This is a trick question, right? The whole basis of CAGW “theory” predicates that humans burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2, which SUBSEQUENTLY causes a rise in temperatures.

        4) – CAGW “theory” claims that CO2 UP = temperature UP, no ifs, buts or maybes. If that’s not a linear relationship then I am at a loss to know what is.

        5) – That might because we were all told by the Great Greenhouse Gurus – aka “the Team” – (back when the “science was settled”) that the hot spot was THE signature of GHG global warming. The “new” signature of GHG global warming – the cooling stratosphere – was only proposed AFTER the hot spot failed to materialise.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Tristan

          I’ll abandon my usual principle of ignoring your posts for this comment.

          So basically all your arguments are: “Well if you take certain quotes to mean certain things, you shouldn’t have to do any of that stuff!”

          Not exactly up to your usual standards Mv. Long day?


          Report this

          00

      • #
        bobl

        Actually Memory Vault you have a couple of things wrong

        Trstan
        1. You need to account for the solar cycle, ENSO, The PDO The IOO, The AO orbital cycles and any number of other know cyclic forcings. For gos sake, when you evaporate gigatonnes of water and rain it back at earth even the kinetic energy of that rain and wind, and the electric discharges of the lightning need to be accounted, Did you do that? It’s a lot more complicated than Just ENSO – you think the models do that ????

        2. Don’t quite get this, yes all the other forcings are significant, thats why you can pretty much say that only a small portion of the temperature rise since the little ice age is due to CO2 warming. This implies LOW temperature sensitivity to CO2 and hence low or negative feedback as implied by the lack of ocillatory behaviour in the climate and the missing hotspot.

        3. Memoryvault is right here. The facts (evidence) shows that CO2 outgassing is a result of temperature not the cause of it.

        4. The Temperature to CO2 relationship is presumed to be a natural log law which is not linear (memoryvault stands corrected) however the log law, must break down at some point to avoid singularities. One point is zero CO2, the other is likely 100%. The log law presumes that the atmosphere is allowed to exceed 1 ATM but since manmade CO2 production does not increase the net pressure of the atmosphere no expansion of absorption in the tails will occur. Mars has 10x Earths CO2 partial pressure but has Narrower absorption bands, so Co2 warming will effectively saturate at some point. At 100% CO2 1ATM atmosphere thats 5.2 degrees ever… Not “Catastophic” in the venus sense at all but self limiting at something between 0 and +5.2 degrees. Tropical Paradise worldis the most likely outcome by my reading. May have to mow the lawn a bit more though.

        5. The models predict there should be a hot spot due to the increase of absolute humidity as the temperature rises, largely due to any cause but especially due to GHG warming. This doesn’t happen, which implies the FEEDBACK is much less than the models propose, the amount of positive feedback (loop gain of 0.67) is clearly unreasonable and overstated implying climates sensitivity is much lower than 3 degree per doubling.

        Any way you look at it the sensitivity to CO2 comes out < 1 degree per doubling

        There you are questions answered. Happy now?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi T

        Your request of Jo:

        “4) Why don’t you acknowledge that climate science does not assume a linear relationship between CO2 and IR absorption, rather than implying that the log relationship is counter-evidence?”

        Let’s put that in plain English and not Warmer Speak.

        You know as well as I do that the point of asymptotic behaviour of CO2 has got to do with buckets not b*llsh*t.

        If you have a big tank up there somewhere with a pipe draining down and the tank hold 10 buckets equivalent of water (representing the ground IR from one days solar out put to Earth).

        And further you have 11 buckets ready each morning to catch that day’s water coming back up through the sprinkler system (ground IR escaping to deep space).

        Something funny will happen.

        At the end of the day you can only fill ten buckets because that’s all the water there is?

        Analogy: More CO2 cannot absorb any more ground IR.

        Because it has ALL BEEN ABSORBED DUDE!

        THAT’S THE PRACTICAL MEANING OF ASYMPTOTE: JUST IN CASE YOU REALLY WERE JUST CONFUSED AND NOT DELIBERATELY TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE STILL.

        KK :)

        HUH? drop


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Tristan

          Well we have 9.999 buckets ready to collect upwelling ground IR.

          Another full bucket or another 20 buckets will not increase the amount of IR held in the atmosphere.

          KK

          The days of baffling the uninformed public with “Climate Science” are over.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        1) Why don’t you account for ENSO in all your surface temperature speculations?
        ANS: When did I miss it and it mattered?

        2) Why don’t you account for all the other forcings when looking for the observed warming due to GHGs since the industrial period? (It’s around 1.2C)
        ANS: 2a/ You expect me to do what our billion dollar CGM’s can’t? We don’t know all the forcings. 2b/ what evidence for “1.2C” attribution? Climate “simulations” don’t count.

        3) Why don’t you acknowledge that climate science predicted that CO2 lagged temperature, rather than implying it’s counter-evidence?
        ANS: 3a/ Because I do when it matters, and 3b/ But it IS counter evidence. The absence of any calculated feedback from CO2 from observations of ice cores suggests feedbacks from CO2 are small.

        4) Why don’t you acknowledge that climate science does not assume a linear relationship between CO2 and IR absorption, rather than implying that the log relationship is counter-evidence?
        ANS 4a/ I’ve never said climate scientists don’t use a log curve. 4b/ Find me an official government PR sheet informing the public that CO2′s direct effect is log and declining.

        5) Why do you insist that the ‘hot spot’ is a signature of global warming from GHGs when the signature of GHG warming (as opposed to natural warming) is actually stratospheric cooling?
        ANS: Because it isn’t. Why do you insist on getting this wrong after I’ve posted so much on it, here, even the gurus admit it’s missing and here? Falling ozone causes a cooler strat. You are missing the key parts of the whole fingerprint as described by Santer.

        From me:
        1/ Define “counter evidence”? If I simply point out that “evidence” as claimed by the establishment is weak, not definitive, or meaningless, do you call that “counter evidence”? It appears you do.
        2/ Point me to where you hold government officials to the same standards as you expect from a volunteer. I want to see your critical comments on their sites.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Tristan

          ANS: When did I miss it and it mattered?

          p3 The skeptics handbook. That over a 10-year period there is not a trend distinguishable from zero in the atmospheric temperature data in no way implies the models are wrong. This is because the atmospheric temperature data is not the same as the earth’s total heat content. On short time scales the data is confounded by heat exchange between the oceans and atmosphere known as ENSO. Without accounting for ENSO, claiming there has been no warming is moot.

          [Find me a model that predicted the flat trend. Find me ocean heat content rises that matched the same model.(Hint, a "heat content rise" is not the same as a heat content rise that matches the models. The numbers matter. They've lost about 7000 quadrillion joules of energy. Bad luck eh? You have nothing. The models are wrong. We use numbers, you use a yes-no "test". --Jo]

          We don’t know all the forcings.

          We know them a lot better than you claim. To say that ‘we aren’t sure about everything so I wont mention aerosols’ is misrepresenting the state of the science. As the paper shows, the sum of anthro forcing since 1750 is about half of the anthro GHG forcing since 1750. 1.2C is my rough guess of where the anomaly would be if we stopped putting soot into the air for a year or two.

          [ Yes, exactly. We don't know all the forcings. --Jo]

          Because I do when it matters [CO2 lag]

          p3 skeptics handbook “Turned the theory inside out…This totally threw what we thought was cause and effect out the window”. You seem to know that’s wrong.

          [Skeptics HAndbook page 5 quote "Conclusion: 1. Ice cores don't prove what caused warming or cooling...." end-quote .For fifteen years the media have been telling us the ice cores were evidence and implying that CO2 lead the temperature -- see New Scientist, and Al Gore, NYT 2005. -Jo]

          The absence of any calculated feedback from CO2 from observations of ice cores suggests feedbacks from CO2 are small.

          We’ve actually got lots of different lines of evidence of the size of the feedback. For anyone to hang their hat on any one source of information would be a bit silly.

          [You have climate simulations. Not real data. The feedback of 0.65 is far too high to be stable. No stable natural systems have a f this close to 1. In a multivariate system like Earth it would have gone runaway in 500 million years and it hasn't. It had a 10 degree range. --Jo]

          I’ve never said climate scientists don’t use a log curve.

          Fair. I was wrong, my apologies.

          [Thanks --Jo]

          Because it isn’t. Why do you insist on getting this wrong after I’ve posted so much on it, here, even the gurus admit it’s missing and here? Falling ozone causes a cooler strat. You are missing the key parts of the whole fingerprint as described by Santer.

          As you claim one thing and an actual modeler claims another I have emailed Santer himself. I will fwd you the email and reply if I get one. :)

          [I've quoted Santer and Karl et al 2006. Look at the first link to one of my first posts that you ignored in my last comment. Look at the graph for "ozone depletion". --Jo]

          1/ Define “counter evidence”? If I simply point out that “evidence” as claimed by the establishment is weak, not definitive, or meaningless, do you call that “counter evidence”? It appears you do.

          Anything that contests the assertions made by the science.

          [OK. Define "The Science". We use science here, and there is only one sort. We don't disagree with science. --Jo]

          2/ Point me to where you hold government officials to the same standards as you expect from a volunteer. I want to see your critical comments on their sites.

          Critical comments on a government website? I can’t find the comments section.

          [Letters, emails, comments on pro-AGW forums by you will do. --Jo]


          Report this

          00

    • #

      Hi Jo. You and your mods have displayed an amazing amount of patience. Personally, I operate a zero tolerance policy to trolls, because I don’t have time to keep my eye on every comment.

      If you’re not going to drop the ban hammer on him or on them, since multiple IP addresses would imply that, you might as well house train them. Try a bit of quid pro quo.

      They get to make a single comment, only after each time they’ve replied to a query put to them by another commenter, and the latter has to say whether the reply is to their satisfaction. If it isn’t, they’re not allowed a comment. Perhaps we could all use the thumbs to decide if the reply is satisfactory?

      Pointman


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Fun speculation at Lubos Motl’s blog. My favourite is Gavin Schmidt was the FOIA ‘hacker’.

    http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/anthony-watts-major-announcement-what.html

    Which suggest a possible reason for the delay. Anthony has gone somewhere, presumably to meet someone.

    Has one of the Team turned whistle blower?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I think Anthony is about to reveal the Climategate hacker. It looks like in the last week lawyers have been consulted and have indicated the path is clear for the big reveal.

    Norfolk Constabulary has made the decision to formally close its investigation into the hacking of online data from the Climate Research Centre (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich.

    The decision follows a comprehensive investigation by the force’s Major Investigation Team, supported by a number of national specialist services, and is informed by a statutory deadline on criminal proceedings.

    While no criminal proceedings will be instigated, the investigation has concluded that the data breach was the result of a ‘sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet’.

    Police closes UEA investigation


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    I would say never give the enemy forewarning about anything. Particularly a desperate and cornered one with plenty of power.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Larry Sheldon

    Some times it is sort of fun to turn on the light ans see which way the roaches scurry. And how big they are.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The Truth about Richard Muller

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

    I was never a skeptic” – Richard Muller, 2011

    If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008

    There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2006

    Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Open minded… NOT !!!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      So Muller was only pretending to believe whatever it is that you guys believe? He was tricking you? Oh the shame (at being fooled – of course).

      ——————————————————————-
      He had no-one fooled because before the BEST project he had never uttered a sckeptic word. In the end he simply combined the data sets, they weren’t audited, the homogenisations and adjustments weren’t audited. So all he was reall faying is I agree with the average of all of those guys. There really was nothing new to see! – Mod


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Janet Thompson

    Argh!! I tried to like Mack’s comment (#2) on my phone…. And gave a thumbs down instead! Then tried to fix it and reported the comment!! Sorry, Mack (et al). Somebody stop me using my iPhone at 2:20 am after 3 days of Austrian Economics and campaigning for a good guy for US Senate (choose Cruz!). :-)

    I’m enjoying this thread immensely. Lots of you are making me smile or laugh even. But I’ll refrain from attempting to give you a thumbs up.

    Cheers,
    Janet


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      The dreaded iPhone finger, Eh!
      It has a lot to answer for and given many cause to curse the proximity of these three Rating options.
      It’s also not great for eyesight, if you don’t keep swiping to expand.
      Touching anything near the top of the screen can be deadly too, as it tends to jump you right back to the top of the page and navigating back to where you were can be very tiresome with no ‘go-to-bottom’ or ‘find-in-page’ options , especially with some of Joanne’s longer threads as many on Australia (& NZ)’s Best Weblog tend to become (like remember these record breaking Convoy threads, that were driving iPhone users everywhere crazy).

      It’s great hearing from you Janet.
      Already fighting for freedom & justice in the land of the still free I see.
      :-)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MadJak

    Maybe he has found the ever elusive evidence we all require to confirm AGW? Now that would be huge!!! I must admit that it would really surprise me.

    I would like to think that everyone here would have the courage to listen and critically evaluate if being confronted with factual information from a reputable source including data and methods provided to prove it.

    I for one will be watching intensely and will hear the man out – regardless of what he has to say.

    Just playing devils advocate here and keeping a completely open mind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    He’s found Trenbeth’s missing heat in his bath.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Reading through the comments at Climate Audit, it looks like Anthony has been offered an important position or significant funding from a pro-AGW source.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Being a meteorologist, hence taught the fake back radiation idea, he agrees with the basic AGW concept when there can be no CO2-AGW from basic IR physics.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MadJak

    Apparently from one of the mods on WUWT:

    [REPLY: Donations don't come to Anthony's attention immediately... it's kinda automated... and Anthony is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY busy and distracted at the moment. Your support is truly appreciated and I think you will find the wait quite worthwhile. What Anthony is going to publish tomorrow is not of the flashy fire-works variety, rather it is a tectonic sort of event. Lots of people are going to be, shall we say, non-plussed? Could even get bloody. Stay tuned, and thank you for your support. -REP]

    Techtonic,, bloody, non-plussed….

    Blimey. It sounds like the blogosphere is going to be flooded with meltdowns and epiphanies maybe?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      REP

      Damn. Didn’t think anyone paid much attention to Tips & Notes. When you read what Anthony posts, take the time to actually read it, think about it, and the implications will become obvious. We will be moderating strictly. Snark, outrage, disappointment, and instant-analysis of how that stupid Watts got it all wrong will, of course, be snipped.

      Enjoy.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jaymez

    On Adam Smith

    I can only concur with Jo’s comments above. I went back through a few topics with the intention of counting how many questions I raised with Adam Smith which he did not answer, (yet responded with further comments or questions). I also counted how many times I had caught him in a lie, error or misinterpretation. I actually got bored with the exercise because it was so frequent.

    Of course the logical thing for me to do is ignore his comments, but if they go unchallenged, then a green horn coming to this site seeking information may actually think there is some substance to what Adam Smith writes. So I, and others, are forced into a time wasting, unproductive correspondence with Adam Smith. Clearly he has nothing better to do.

    Longer term readers at this site know the moderators are volunteers and may not read and edit every comment posted. Adam Smith has been given an exceptional amount of leniency but there comes a time when a rude guests behaviour should be borne no more!

    ——————————————————-
    edited ‘extreme’ to ‘exceptional’ – Mod


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      “. Adam Smith has been given an extreme amount of leniency but there comes a time when a rude guests behaviour should be borne no more!”

      Somehow extreme leniency has a funny ring to it, like ‘extreme tolerance’ might too for instance, but I think I know what you mean.

      You possibly meant exceptional, which indeed Jo’s Blogg is in so many ways.

      Where discipline cann’t be learnt though’, it needs to be applied, to avoid spoiling the child.
      Where tolerance isn’t working, something else is called for.

      —————————————————————
      ‘Exceptional’ would have been a far better use of English so I have edited ‘Jaymez’s comment accordingly thank you Joe V – Mod


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Prolific posters such as the A.S.(s) should confine themselves to using only a handheld device, such as an iPhone for instance.
    That should help keep them succint & ensure ‘value’ of their contributions , if anything can.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Why is this comment here? It contributes far less than Adam Smith does, and yet it sits here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    OK, new theory. Anthony is going to announce that we’ve all been reading the thermometers upside down. And its actually cooling quite rapidly!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    vukcevic

    Steven Mosher was also analyzing the BEST data, he claims he found some surprises in the spectral analysis. There are rumors that a Stanford’s scientist now claims that some of the long term temperature’s changes are caused by the Earth’s core oscillations, something I’ve been advocating for some years now,the Earth’s magnetic field is the best proxy we have.
    Not long to go.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ninderthana

    The BEST project identify a strong narrow spectral peak in the AMO [Atlantic M
    Multi-Decadal Oscillation] at a period 9.1 ± 0.4 years with a p-value 1.7% (CL
    98.3%). There is a similar periodicity in the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation]
    that has a period 9.0 ± 0.5 years with a p-value 6%. The is much weaker evidence
    for a 3.6 year oscillation in the AMO, as well.

    The 9.3 year variation is caused by the effects of the Lunar atmospheric tides
    upon the general circulation patterns in the mid latitudes. The lunar tides
    influence the rate of transfer of heat energy from the tropics to the poles,
    which effects the world mean temperatures on decadal time scales.

    BEST goes onto ignore the long term effects of lunar atmospheric tides in claiming
    that the observed changes in CO2 are the ones that best correlate with long-term
    changes in temperature.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ninderthana

    Here is reference explaining why the 9.3 year lunar atmospheric tides are
    an important influence upon the general atmospheric circulation in the mid-
    latitudes.

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/open-atmospheric-science-journal-2012-6.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fitzcarraldo

    I think this time will attack the man not the science like the warmistas always do this copied from Lucias blog
    plazaeme (Comment #100288)
    July 29th, 2012 at 12:42 am
    Richard Muller 2012:
    “CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.”
    Richard Muller 2003:
    Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Ross

    Hi JoNovans,

    Whatever else happens, the suspension of WUWT has driven WUWT regulars to look around other skeptic sites and, as it has been reported on warmist sites, it might make a few of them peruse Anthony’s, which can’t be a bad thing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I make it less than three hours till we know. I’ve plenty of time for more coffee, breakfast and then back for a front row seat.

    This thread has been great reading! Jo should ask for speculation more often.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    …less than 4 hours. Too easy to forget Daylight Saving Time.

    Nuts!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ben U.

    Arranging some hints and guesses together:

    “Cryptic”, Bishop Hill blog
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/7/27/cryptic.html?currentPage=4#comments

    I hate to be cryptic, but: “shoelaces”.
    Jul 27, 2012 at 10:47 PM | Unregistered Commenter dearieme

    Search on “Anthony Watts” shoelaces
    http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Anthony+Watts%22+shoelaces

    Promising result:
    “Scientists Prove Existence of ‘Magnetic Ropes’ that Cause Solar Storms”
    June 15, 2011, posted by Anthony Watts
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/15/scientists-prove-existence-of-magnetic-ropes-that-cause-solar-storms/

    The magnetic ropes could be like shoelaces. The “shoelace” image is in a comment there though in a somewhat more cosmic context.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/15/scientists-prove-existence-of-magnetic-ropes-that-cause-solar-storms/#comment-682660

    Next:

    “Tips and Notes” July 28, 5:14 pm (PDT?) Watts Up With That
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-and-notes-2/#comment-1046372

    [REPLY: Donations don't come to Anthony's attention immediately... it's kinda automated... and Anthony is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY busy and distracted at the moment. Your support is truly appreciated and I think you will find the wait quite worthwhile. What Anthony is going to publish tomorrow is not of the flashy fire-works variety, rather it is a tectonic sort of event. Lots of people are going to be, shall we say, non-plussed? Could even get bloody. Stay tuned, and thank you for your support. -REP]

    “tectonic” “…shall we say, non-plussed?” Sounds geo-magnetic.

    JoNova blog, “Watts Up Speculation Thread”
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/watts-up-speculation-thread/#comment-1096470

    vukcevic
    July 29, 2012 at 10:40 pm · Reply

    Steven Mosher was also analyzing the BEST data, he claims he found some surprises in the spectral analysis. There are rumors that a Stanford’s scientist now claims that some of the long term temperature’s changes are caused by the Earth’s core oscillations, something I’ve been advocating for some years now,the Earth’s magnetic field is the best proxy we have.

    Not long to go.

    Vukcevic may be on to something.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wow, the trolls are jittery across the sceptic blogosphere aren’t they. All twitchy and ready to start attacking whatever Watts releases without even reading or thinking. You watch, whatever it is the usual footsoldiers will be on it within minutes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ben U.

    If people are talking about my post, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be so cryptic, I was just trying to keep a light tone and keep my post from getting too lengthy. Based partly on the use of images and potential puns by people who seem to be in the know, I’m guessing that Anthony’s “surprise” has something to do with the the Sun’s magnetic field, maybe Earth’s magnetic field too, and anyway Earth’s climate; and that it also ties into something in the BEST report. Given things that Anthony has said, my guess needs also to involve some specific project of Anthony’s. Solar data, his widget, his plans for making NOAA data more accessible, etc., I guess. I’m not sure there. Also, I accidentally omitted the following, which at least doesn’t conflict with the idea:

    “Muller in the NYT”, Bishop Hill blog, July 29, 2012
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/7/29/muller-in-the-nyt.html

    Richard Muller’s op-ed in the New York Times is now published:

    [....]

    Interestingly, I learn from Anthony that this is not what has caused him to postpone his vacation. There’s more news coming later today.

    Update on Jul 29, 2012 by Registered Commenter Bishop Hill

    Just a note to clarify – I am saying that the excitement is not over the Muller editorial. It’s not unrelated though.

    But that’s it, I’ll refrain from further speculation now!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    3 hours and a steak and beer to go…


    Report this

    00

  • #