The problem with topics like these that address specific points is some are triggered by certain words to trot out favorite but unrelated arguments.
The OP is not an argument about climate change, only about climate models and their extreme predictions.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
All of the predictions of doom have fallen flat.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Where has Patrick Michaels lied? I have already posted some examples of where he has misled or made false statements. I know that he is a smart man, smart enough to know what the truth is.
Where he discusses the first adjustment to the ocean surface, he says that the buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards and that is guaranteed to put some artificial warming in the data. It is true that the buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards and that is because prior readings were taken by a different methodology that involved ships throwing buckets overboard or by drawing buckets of water through the hull of a ship that produced warmer sea surface temperatures. The buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards and this was proper as I will show below. It did not put "some artificial warming in the data."
NOAA argued that the transition from engine room intake (ERI) method of extracting water from the ocean surface to buoys introduced approximately 0.1 degree C. cooling bias. Buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards to match ERI records in forming a new data set, ERSST v4 shown in red below. There was also an adjustment made across ships to account for different biases with different ship water bucket methods.
"As shown in Figure 3, a buoy-only record is quite similar to the ERSST v4 but shows statistically significantly more warming than ERSST v3b during the period from 1995 through the end of 2014 (p < 0.05 trend in the differences). This suggests that ERSST v3b suffered a cooling bias when blending buoy and ship records that is properly corrected in ERSST v4, at least for the areas where both ship and buoy records are available. Because the buoy record is relatively homogenous and requires no adjustments, it provides a good check in the validity of the combined ship-buoy series when normalized for spatial coverage." (From skepticalscience.com, A buoy only sea surface temperature record supports NOAA adjustments)
This adjustment had no significant bias to Earth's global land-sea mean temperature computer modelling results. It also resulted in a lower amount of energy absorbed by the
oceans over the 20th century.
Figure 3: ERSST v3b, v4, and Buoy-Only SST anomalies and trends from 1995 through the end of 2014. The trend periods shown are the full record (1995-2014) and the “hiatus” period (1998-2014). 2015 is excluded as the year is incomplete, and the period prior to 1995 is excluded due to limited buoy coverage. The anomaly graph is baselined to 1995-2005 to show the time-evolution of differences (From skepticalcsience.com)
Last edited by skepticalmike; 08-26-2019 at 03:42 PM.
What are the warmists going to do when citizens do not vote for the radical Green Neal Deal?
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
No, I asked you specifically "Where in the OP article does Michaels lie?" Please answer that as that is the topic.Where has Patrick Michaels lied?
In your log argument to show he lied elsewhere all you show is that you and he disagree. Disagreement is not a lie. Also, his argument was about bias in existing data and you argue "computer modelling results." Earlier we were discussing computer models and you argued existing data, and now he's talking existing data and you're talking models. You don't seem to want to address points directly.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Patrick Michaels states that, "these models have produced dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences."
The increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are not small. The increase from around 280 ppm pre-industrial, to 409 ppm (the current value) has resulted in 2.0 watts/square meter
of radiative forcing relative to 1750. That is a big pertubation to the climate system. I don't know what "catastrophic consequences" that he is talking about. Climate scientists and
climate models have not promoted the idea that this increase in carbon dioxide would produce catastrophic consequences.
What are the warminsts going to do when citizens don't vote for the Green New Deal?
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
You're not going to argue the overly simplistic and wrong liberal argument that CO2 drives temperature, are you? Indeed over the last decades, CO2 levels rose dramatically, while temp rise remained in hiatus. The relationship is so much more complicated--as Judith Curry says, it's a wicked problem.
Listen, even if every point in your post was true, all you've done is show where you disagree with or are uncertain what Michaels says. Your claim was that he lied in the OP article.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Peter1469 (08-26-2019)
There's a serious disconnect between this paper's conclusions and the datas the conclusions are based on: How well have climate models projected global warming?
And the data:Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
30% difference, 16%? Not even close in horseshoes.
They do admit:
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler