2011-07-19 02:45:36Michaels the denier and liar
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I think this seals Pat's fate-- he is a denier and a liar.  Dana will have a field day with this, so will a person proficient in stats like Dikran is.

Pat needs his own series at SkS.  Anyone got a catchy name?

2011-07-19 02:46:55
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Michael's Mendacities.

2011-07-19 03:20:36
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

I'm a big believer in Hanlon's razor (in this case "never attribute to dishonesty that which can be adequately explained by incompetence").  Michaels demonstrates in that post that he doesn't understand statistical significance, firstly the lack of statistical significance in the trend does not mean that there was no warming, just that there was insufficient data to rule out the possibility that the trend was flat or zero.  Secondly, he doesn't apply a test of statistcal significance for the difference in trend between hemispheres.  On such a short timescale it could easily be that there is no difference and the apparent difference is just down to random chance.

Having said which, the idea that there is little exchange of air between hemispheres doesn't sound right to me.  IIRC the CO2 in the SH only lags about two years behind the NH where the bulk of the emissions ocurr.

2011-07-19 03:35:57
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Most importantly he can't count to 15.  He (non-seemlessly) transitions from the "(no) statistical warming during the past 15 years" to "Kaufmann et al report no net change in HadCRUT3 over 1998-2008" - but, of course, he doesn't say that their trend was ONLY for that time period, nor does he bother to entertain any of the other natural forcings that contributed to the cooling trend when you use those endpoints (or, even use HadCRUT3).  I myself would be hard-pressed to say he's THAT incompetent.

2011-07-19 03:37:23
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dikran it may be he is incompetant.  Then again, he may be both incompetant and a liar, or an incompetant liar (his shenanigans are so transparent to thos ein the know) ;)  Perhaps, as Rob suggested, mendacious is the most generous way of putting it.

I'm sorry, but with all respect Dikran, we are way beyond being able to give Pat the benefit of Hanlon's razor.  Pat has been at this long enough to know how to conduct a basic statistical test, and he also knows that his target audience will not require him to conduct such a test.  So even though he can do such a test and even though he knows it is the correct way to do it, he won't. 

2011-07-19 03:49:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Son of a...

So I guess the question is, now that the idiots at Forbes have given Michaels his own blog, how often should we put in the time to refute the constant bull excrement he posts there?

This is an easy one - I may even tackle it tonight.  We've already got the relevant info in Rob's post on Kaufmann and my post on warming since 1995 now being statistically significant.  Not sure what to say about Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere rates though - any thoughts?  GISTemp looks different than HadCRUT, which is what Michaels is using.

Michaels seems to be writing new posts about once per week for Forbes - do we set up a Michaels Disinformation Denier series and refute them regularly?

Michaels Misinformation?

2011-07-19 04:04:34
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Albatross, Hanlon's razor is as much for the benefit of the user as the target.  

2011-07-19 04:21:00
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Actually I just plotted GISTemp NH and SH trends from 1975 to 1997 and 1998 to 2010.  SH trend was the same for both periods (~0.1°C per decade).  NH trend dropped substantially (~0.22 to ~0.17°C per decade = nearly a 25% drop).  Problem is Michaels is only showing half the picture - one of John's "half truths at best".

2011-07-19 04:25:29
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

One thing you have to remember about Pat Michaels is, he is paid to say this stuff.  Being a hired gun for the Cato Institute means he has to try to come up with stuff like this.  I believe Michaels is one of the scientists whom, like Carter, knows he's lying.  It's his job.

It's very telling that these guys are having to tell such blatant and deliberate lies.  That says to me they're starting to run out of ammunition.  

2011-07-19 04:27:08How about...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Michaels' Mischiefs

2011-07-19 04:32:35
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

HadCRUT NH - trend went from 0.18°C/decade to 0.055°C/decade

NH

SH went from 0.13°C/decade to -0.046°C/decade

SH

2011-07-19 04:35:41
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Michaels Mischiefs is good.  Better or worse than Misinformation?

2011-07-19 04:37:17
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Keep in mind the time span Kaufmann's paper covers, it's not to 2010.  This also relates to other factors brought up in the paper, including the solar minimum and ENSO signals at the start and end points.  Does Michaels mention these?  No.  If I'm not interpreting this incorrectly either, the solar forcing dropped more during the minimum than the aerosol emittance offset the CO2 warming:

"The increase in sulfur emissions slows the increase in radiative forcing due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations (Fig. 1). Net anthropogenic forcing rises 0.13 Wm2 between 2002 and 2007, which is smaller than the 0.24 Wm2 rise between 1997 and 2002. The smaller net increase in anthropogenic forcing is accompanied by a 0.18 Wm2 decline in solar insolation caused by the declining phase of the eleven year solar cycle..."

They also state that the natural forcings dominate the anthropogenic ones.  I think Michaels is up-playing the Chinese aerosol contribution.

2011-07-19 06:01:06
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Michaels switches back and forth a lot.  He starts of with "since November 1996".  Then he references Kaufmann (1998-2008).  Then he plots data from 1998 to 2010.  To be fair, Michaels does mention ENSO, but he's somewhat incoherent about it.

I only get a -0.07 W/m2 solar forcing based on the TSI decline since about 1985.  And that's using PMOD - it's basically zero using ACRIM.

2011-07-19 06:36:50You're right
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

I need to learn to read more before I comment - he did bring up ENSO.

The major problems with his article appear to be the mixing up of the Jones significance story and the Kaufmann paper's conclusions (not to mention the misunderstanding of "significant warming"), as well as his assertion that increased aerosol emittance should have caused NH cooling while the SH continued to warm as it did.  The former is not a necessary corollary, just that they should have played a hand in decreasing the trend (it did decrease, per the graph you gave).

Also, wouldn't the SOI affect the SH more than the NH, so you would also expect that cooling?  Do I have that right, or no?  The SH data you plotted, for instance, seems to show greater sensitivity to ENSO than the NH does.

A big problem is also that he didn't correct for those other factors when he compared the hemispheric trends, otherwise how could one actually tell the signal was there, or more appropriately, how could one accurately quantify its effect?  He uses that to argue... that there were no aerosols?  That the aerosols that were emitted were of little consequence?  In either case Kaufmann et al graphed the forcing due to aerosols - does Michaels have a response to that?

2011-07-19 06:39:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
206.108.161.26

Michaels says that ther ehas been no warming in about 15 years no?  Title of his piece:

Why Hasn’t The Earth Warmed In Nearly 15 Years?

He cannot even be consistent, or make up his bloody mind, he appears to be cherry picking within cherry picking.  I would work with up till the end of 1996, and starting the beginning of 1997.

This trick of repeatedly cherry picking short time frames is nonsense though, and that needs to be stated up front.  Good for Gleick for calling him on that up front.

2011-07-19 08:45:58
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Wow.  The Forbes comments section is a real pigsty of denial.  

2011-07-19 09:30:57
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.118

Michael's first paragraph:

There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia.

Note how many things he needs to specify:

- no statistical significance

- since November 1996

- monthly surface temperature record

- at the University of East Anglia

while doing no analysis whatsoever. From the very first paragraph you know it's garbage.

2011-07-19 15:29:16
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Wow, I had no idea:

A treasure trove.

2011-07-19 16:04:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Have people seen this? I think Rob referred to the Shindell and Faluvegi (2011) paper recently?  Anyways they say:

"We find that while the near-term effect of air quality pollutants is to mask warming by CO2, leading to a net overall near-term cooling effect, this does not imply that warming will not eventually take place. Worldwide application of pollution control technology in use in Western developed countries and Japan along with continued CO2 emissions would lead to strong positive forcing in the long term irrespective of whether the pollution controls are applied immediately or several decades from now. Continued emissions at current (year 2000) pollutant and CO2 levels may have little near-term effect on climate, but the climate ‘debt’ from CO2 forcing will continue to mount. Once pollution controls are put into place as society demands cleaner air it will rapidly come due, leading to a “double warming” effect as simultaneous reductions in sulfate and increases in CO2 combine to accelerate global warming. The only way to avoid this would be not to impose pollution controls and to perpetually increase sulfur-dioxide emissions, which would lead to a staggering cost in human health and is clearly unsustainable"

Ironically came across it curtosy of these nutbars.  Really, their stupidity never cease to amaze me.