Here's how to tell the difference between a true skeptic and a conspiracy theorist. A true skeptic would actually look at the direct link to the journal showing those "massive adjustments" made by Karl et al. 2015 in Fig 2(b) (backup) then admit that Layzej and other scientists are right. In contrast, a conspiracy theorist won't click on links even though he specifically asked for them, and certainly won't admit he was wrong even though NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

To be continued as a response to this comment.

... warmer weather is expected to weaken cyclonic activity, not make it stronger. Until about the end of the century, anyway. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-11-01]

No, read your own link: "It is likely - in my opinion - that manmade global warming has indeed caused hurricanes to be stronger today."

I've answered the more important question of "how much stronger?" by repeatedly showing Jane a paper by Prof. Judith Curry which concludes that "the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature".

And once again, Grinsted et al. 2012 helps to answer the question of "how much stronger?" by measuring hurricane surges back to 1923 using tide gauge instruments. This yields a homogeneous record of empirical observations which is totally independent of models and confirms that "warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years." (By the way, measuring instruments like tide gauges and thermometers aren't proxies.)

Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said: [Dumb Scientist]

I know. You just proved my point: you were contradicting yourself. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

No, those links show that I've been consistently agreeing with Dr. Landsea and the IPCC when they say that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future because of factors like wind shear. But once again, the IPCC and Dr. Landsea also agree that "the most intense cyclones" are different. That's why the "global" box at the bottom center of Fig. 14.17 has two metrics which go in different directions: Cat 1+ (metric #1) and just Cat 4/5 (metric #2). Again, that's what I've been saying for years, along with the IPCC and Dr. Landsea:

"... future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. ..."

Jane keeps linking to Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece, but in that link Dr. Landsea says his conclusions are similar to those in that 2010 paper he co-authored. Is Jane accusing Dr. Landsea of "contradicting himself" for saying that the total frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) could decrease (due to factors like wind shear) and saying that the increased energy available likely increases the frequency of the most intense cyclones? I emailed Dr. Landsea a link to that discussion and asked if my supposedly "contradictory" statements were actually consistent with his viewpoint. He graciously responded:

Yes, in my opinion, the increased vertical shear (and perhaps increased mid-level drying) is projected to reduce the overall frequency (numbers) of tropical storms and perhaps even hurricanes. However, the hurricanes that do occur would have slightly enhanced energetics leading to these cyclones being stronger by a few percent.

So overall, global warming could reduce the number of hurricanes, but slightly enhance how strong they get. I thought that I had indicated that in my opinion piece, but perhaps it needs to be made more clear. [Dr. Chris Landsea, 2015-11-10 email]

I told Dr. Landsea that he was clear enough the first time. Again, that's what I've been saying for years. No, we're not contradicting ourselves.

Jane keeps repeating his very tiresome and utterly boring nonsense, so I'll respond there.

As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST does.

In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request? [Dumb Scientist]

You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers? For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science? You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

No, you repeated the same IPCC link I gave you hours earlier and (innocently?) misrepresented it while calling Eric Holthaus a "bozo":

I'd be fascinated to read peer-reviewed literature saying CC will cause fewer Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Doubt it exists, but may have missed it. [Eric Holthaus]

IPCC, you bozo: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment...
"it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease... or remain ... unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in ... maximum wind speed and rain rates."
That's one. ... For somebody who likes to insult others so much, you sure don't know much about the subject. [Jane/Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-24]

Eric Holthaus asked about Cat 4/5 hurricanes, but Jane/Lonny Eachus couldn't/wouldn't answer the actual question. Instead, Lonny called Eric a "bozo" and desperately tried to deflect attention away from Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Ironically, Lonny's quote should have been a clue that answering an imaginary question about the frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) isn't the same as answering Eric's actual question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes because those have the maximum wind speeds and rain rates which will "likely increase".

Prof. Adam Sobel answered Eric's actual question with TS.26 on p. 108 here, which is also Fig. 14.17 on p. 1250 of Ch. 14.

The "global" box at the bottom center has 4 tropical cyclone (TC) metrics for the 2081-2100 average under an "A1B-like scenario", relative to 2000-2019. Metric #1 is the frequency of all (Cat 1+) TC's, which Jane/Lonny indirectly cited even though it doesn't answer Eric's question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes. By "astonishing" coincidence, Lonny Eachus cited the only global metric which decreases. Metric #2 is the global frequency of Category 4-5 TC's, which actually DOES answer Eric's question and DOES increase.

Hopefully Lonny's misrepresentation of the IPCC wasn't deliberate. It would be easier to believe Lonny was just innocently confused if he retracted his misrepresentation and apologized to Eric Holthaus.

Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper [Dumb Scientist]

Good! If that's true, then we must both agree that vertical windshear will tend to hamper the formation and intensity of hurricanes, should CO2-based warming show to be strong. Because after all, that's what that opinion said. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said:

"... future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. ..."

Dr. Landsea and I both acknowledge that the total frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) could decrease (due to wind shear) at the same time that we both acknowledge the increased energy available likely increases the frequency of stronger hurricanes, like the Cat 4/5 hurricanes Eric Holthaus asked about.

This shouldn't surprise Jane, because I've already told Jane about a paper saying "the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature". Note that paper was co-authored by Prof. Judith Curry, who Jane/Lonny Eachus frequently cites. Can Jane/Lonny link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Prof. Curry's direct link between sea-surface temperature and Cat 4/5 hurricanes?

Once again, Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict the abstract which he co-authored in 2010. If Jane still disagrees, maybe he should read both very carefully and then if necessary just ask Dr. Landsea if that's the case?

Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into." [Dumb Scientist]

Holy crap, you can be blind to your own hypocrisy sometimes. He ALSO says in the same few paragraphs that AGW models require faster warming of the troposphere than of the surface... which you admit is not happening, and which have tried to claim is not important. You aren't going to get it both ways, man. On either point. Any of the 4 ways you go, you have contradicted yourself. As usual. "What a maroon", as Bugs Bunny so famously said. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

Good grief, Jane. Anyone who clicks on my link will see that you're fractally wrong, as usual. Once again, greenhouse warming actually requires that the upper troposphere be colder than the surface. If it's not, the greenhouse effect disappears! Isn't physics cool? I've repeatedly explained this to Jane/Lonny, but he keeps getting it backwards. Will Jane/Lonny ever admit that AGW models actually require an upper troposphere that's colder than the surface, and that this cold upper troposphere isn't required for warming due to (say) a hypothetically brighter Sun?

And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications. Despite my clear words, Jane gets "confused" once again and falsely accuses me of admitting that Jane's "hot spot" is actually missing. Anyone who clicks on my link will see that I never admitted any such thing, so Jane's either "confused" or deliberately lying.

If Jane's actually just "confused" then I'll make this crystal clear. I don't "admit" that a "hot spot" is missing because that's just a silly meme (probably started by Lord Monckton) which spread like a virus on gullible crackpot websites like WUWT. Any "skeptic" who caught that virus ignores large uncertainties showing that there isn't a statistically significant difference between projected and observed temperatures in the upper troposphere. (Yes, the same "skeptics" who baselessly accuse scientists of ignoring uncertainties are themselves blatantly ignoring actual uncertainties. Go figure.)

But Jane/Lonny Eachus believes so strongly in this "missing hot spot" that he accuses scientists of fraud and incompetence when scientists point out the uncertainties are so large that we can't really show the "hot spot" is missing. Since responding to Jane/Lonny's baseless accusations of fraud/incompetence is extremely tedious and unpleasant, I decided to sidestep those accusations by asking Jane/Lonny Eachus "even if the 'hot spot' were actually missing" what would that imply? Sadly, Jane/Lonny Eachus believes so strongly in the "missing hot spot" that he misinterpreted this as an admission that he's somehow right (!?).

Jane/Lonny, I didn't "admit" you're somehow right. I "admitted" that I'm tired of dealing with your endless and baseless accusations of fraud/incompetence. Since you'll never be able to admit that Lord Monckton's "hot spot" isn't actually missing, I tried to reason with you regarding the implications IF it were actually missing. I hoped that side-stepping Jane's accusations of fraud/incompetence would help Jane grasp the physics implications, but Jane just kept hurling accusations of fraud/incompetence and refused to even try to learn physics.

Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into." [Dumb Scientist]

Holy crap, you can be blind to your own hypocrisy sometimes. He ALSO says in the same few paragraphs that AGW models require faster warming of the troposphere than of the surface... which you admit is not happening, and which have tried to claim is not important. You aren't going to get it both ways, man. On either point. Any of the 4 ways you go, you have contradicted yourself. As usual. "What a maroon", as Bugs Bunny so famously said. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

Jane, you keep insisting this "hot spot" is missing, and hurl accusations of fraud/incompetence at anyone who says otherwise. I'd rather not deal with your accusations because that's even more unpleasant and tedious than being called an idiot maroon. You'll have to find it in your heart to stop hurling those accusations on your own. Good luck.

So try to think skeptically, and try to grasp the irony of your saying "you aren't going to get it both ways". Once again: even if the "hot spot" were actually missing, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."

Please note that this isn't an admission that Jane/Lonny Eachus is right. I'm just avoiding Jane's accusations of fraud/incompetence while trying to explore the implications IF Jane were somehow right. Once again, Dr. Landsea actually just explained that even IF Jane were somehow right about the "hot spot" then that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."

So Jane/Lonny Eachus either gets to insist that Monckton's "missing hot spot" myth is true, OR Jane/Lonny gets to deny Prof. Curry's evidence that hurricanes get stronger as the surface warms. Does Jane/Lonny Eachus finally grasp the irony in his saying "you aren't going to get it both ways"?

In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request?

Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper, but Jane's use of "AFTER" suggests he doesn't agree. If Jane thinks Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece contradicts his 2010 paper, couldn't Jane just ask Dr. Landsea if that's the case?

Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."

The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea? [Dumb Scientist]

How about your vaunted IPCC, and its "low confidence" rating for same? Further, that isn't a demonstrated connection. It says right in the abstract that it's a speculative projection based on models. And we know very well now that the models are severely flawed. There are papers on both sides of the issue, but of course you only want to present those on your side, as always. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-23]

As expected, you can't (or won't, which is indistinguishable) link to a paper debunking Dr. Landsea when he points out that higher temperatures cause more intense hurricanes. But you can't/won't admit that, so you just vaguely insinuate that other papers (which you don't have time to link, of course) deny that higher temperatures cause more intense hurricanes. Please consider reading Dr. Landsea's abstract again to look for "speculative" and try to read the bolded part:

"Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate - and if so, how - has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies."

How about your vaunted IPCC, and its "low confidence" rating for same? Further, that isn't a demonstrated connection. It says right in the abstract that it's a speculative projection based on models. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-23]

Jane, please consider searching the whole paper for "speculative". And are you absolutely sure the IPCC gave a "low confidence" rating to the "same" statistic Dr. Landsea's paper mentioned, that the "globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100"? Maybe the IPCC split up their TFE.9 table 1 into early and late 21st century? Would the "same" statistic as Dr. Landsea's "2100" quote be early or late 21st century? Are you absolutely sure the relevant box is rated "low confidence"?

What's really ironic is that I cited Dr. Landsea specifically because Jane told me: "The 3rd and 4th IPCC Assessment Reports are not credible sources. Much of the science cited by the reports may be reliable... but that is not the same thing. Chris Landsea is hardly the only scientist who has sought to have themselves removed from IPCC's references..."

Jane/Lonny Eachus uses Dr. Landsea's email to bash the IPCC and accuse scientists of telling "bald-faced, deliberate lies". Jane/Lonny even ironically said "You might also consider looking up Landsea's own papers." But after Jane gets his first glimpse of Dr. Landsea's own papers, Jane mistakenly cites the IPCC (!?) and runs away screaming about models being severely flawed.

... And we know very well now that the models are severely flawed. There are papers on both sides of the issue, but of course you only want to present those on your side, as always. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-23]

That's just a meaningless talking point you like to repeat. It's meaningless because all models are flawed, but some are useful. Like Dr. Landsea's models are useful. Did you notice while quoting Dr. Landsea that he was saying an implication of a "hot spot" would be a reduction in energy available for hurricanes to tap into? In other words, even if the "hot spot" were actually missing, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into." That's an ironic quote for Jane to provide, after Jane/Lonny got confused about the climate sensitivity implications of a "missing hot spot."

Jane's newfound "skepticism" about Dr. Landsea's models and their "severe flaws" doesn't apply to the observational evidence I just showed Jane. That evidence is completely independent of models and shows that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. How did Jane react to this non-model based evidence?

Grinsted et al. 2012 measured Atlantic hurricane surges back to 1923: [Dumb Scientist]

No, he didn't. He estimated them using proxies. He didn't "measure" them at all. I have no more to say about it to you. It isn't worth my time. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-23]

No, proxies like ice cores or sediment cores contrast with measuring instruments like tide gauges and thermometers. Grinsted et al. used instruments to measure hurricane surges back to 1923, which yields a homogeneous record that extends before the 1950s. Even if we threw out every model in science and thus regressed to mere rock collecting, Grinsted et al. 2012 would still confirm basic physics using observational evidence from tide gauge measurements: warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years.

As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST.

We've been using "modern" measurements for hurricanes since about 1959, which just happened to have a record storm. BUT... that year also had an El Nino. And the strong El Nino of this year again made one more likely. Nothing terribly special about that, statistically. And nothing particular connecting it to "global warming".

The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea?

If there's really "nothing particular connecting" a process that's intensified by global warming, then this year's high temperatures should be due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming. If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. Have you seen a graph of global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo)? Do you think that best-fit line through just El Ninos would have a positive or negative slope? Can you think of another metric than GMST which would reveal more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades? Do you see why these questions are relevant to your claim?

P.S. Don't worry- if you can't or won't answer these questions then I will. But first you deserve a chance to show off your scientific skills. If you won't provide a graph, will you accept a graph made by a scientist who co-authored a peer-reviewed paper with Anthony Watts?

Prior to that time, hurricanes were only actually measured at all when they made landfall. Others were only estimated from ships or from shore. Which means most of them were never measured, and in fact we actually have no idea where Patricia falls in the severity range since records began.

Grinsted et al. 2012 measured Atlantic hurricane surges back to 1923:

"Detection and attribution of past changes in cyclone activity are hampered by biased cyclone records due to changes in observational capabilities. Here we construct an independent record of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity on the basis of storm surge statistics from tide gauges. We demonstrate that the major events in our surge index record can be attributed to landfalling tropical cyclones; these events also correspond with the most economically damaging Atlantic cyclones. We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02)."

... this, from the guy who earlier here on Slashdot cherry-picked quotes from an NAS report I had cited? (And yes I have a record of that, as does Slashdot.) Why should I trust you to NOT cherry-pick yet more quotes from the NAS? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

... This is the same NAS of which I caught you not long ago cherry-picking quotes which supported your agenda, when in fact the entire paragraph and subsequent paragraph actually supported what I had asserted. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-13]

Maybe Jane doesn't link to that record because anyone who clicks on it will realize Jane and "Steven Goddard" are cherry-picking quotes from a NAS if-then statement that don't apply in our universe. They might notice that the NAS's if-then statement that does apply in our universe was quite accurate. Jane repeatedly "forgets" to link it, because then people could see the full context. Isn't that naughty?

Jane probably won't appreciate the irony that he's dismissing the US NAS because he can't stop misrepresenting a cherry-picked quote from a NAS report written 40 years ago while (ironically) whining to a member of Congress about how I'm quoting things from 6 years ago.

Be careful. When Watts was reminded of the three articles at WUWT making that silly claim, he pretended not to remember them.

By the way, changing the y-axis of that interactive tool to "cumulative emissions" shows that my previous statement is also true (and clearer) without the words "per capita". That is, the USA has emitted more cumulative CO2 (total, in tons) than India and China combined. As of 2011, the USA has emitted a cumulative total of ~360 Gt of CO2, compared to India's 40 Gt and China's 141 Gt.

In fact, we've emitted roughly twice as much CO2 as India and China combined. That's quite an "accomplishment" for a nation with only ~320 million people, compared to a combined population of ~2.5 billion. America, fuck yeah!

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions data. Anyone who clicks on that link could quickly confirm that the USA has emitted more cumulative CO2 per capita than India and China combined. Click on the sources link if you want to dig even deeper into the data.

This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]

Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]

Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."

How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?

It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.

Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.

On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.

The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!

How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.

If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely to grasp that irony but he might be able to ask why his "many counterexamples" led to this statement in the IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

I've also linked to a great talk on sea level rise by Jerry Mitrovica. That's how scientists learn about science outside of their fields: reading literature reviews, watching talks by publishing scientists, double-checking trend and uncertainty calculations by independently writing code. In contrast, Jane/Lonny refuses to write a single line of code or perform a single uncertainty calculation, then cites a paper he really should have known had already been prebunked. Could it get any worse?

Avg. sea level rise at all tide gauge stations is 0.90 mm / year. Not 3.3 mm / year as alarmists advertise. Liars. notrickszone.com/2015/09/03/sea... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]

It got worse. Lonny's accusing scientists of being "liars" once again because he once again fell off the peer-reviewed literature wagon and landed in crackpot blogland. Lonny doesn't seem to realize that he's citing a crackpot rant which redefines "global sea level" from the standard scientific definition which averages sea level everywhere in the global oceans, to his own "special" definition which eliminates ~99% of the ocean which isn't right next to shore.

A real skeptic would note that satellites and tide gauges independently yielded trends from 1993-2009 of 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/year and 2.8 +/- 0.8 mm/year for the actual scientific definition of global sea level. How could those independent measurements be within each other's error bars, unless the scientists at NASA and the NAS are incompetent and/or liars? Since Lonny Eachus is accusing many scientists of being liars, wouldn't his accusations be more compelling if he could come up with a single shred of evidence that independent scientists lied about these independent results, and somehow manipulated both of them to show the same "erroneous" trend?

Here's a massively incomplete list of the scientists Lonny is accusing of being "liars":

NASA (backup): 3.21 mm per year

University of Colorado (backup): 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/yr

US NAS and UK Royal Society, p16: "Long-term measurements of tide gauges and recent satellite data show that global sea level is rising, with best estimates of the global-average rise over the last two decades centred on 3.2 mm per year"

... I just showed you a graph from NAS. That's not good enough for you? You want maybe I should call God down to talk to you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-08]

I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop accusing all those scientists of being "liars"?

Continued here.

so where is the example of me calling someone a liar? questioning facts & logic is honest disagreement U should try that approach [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2015-08-24]

I've repeatedly showed Dana links to his incredibly ironic accusations of dishonest lying fraud. Here are just a few:

whoever gave U the 97 percent scientists endorsing Man made Global warming theory is lying 2 U. [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-07-05]

97% is fake number & reflects dishonesty of those giving U info on GWarming. ask Urself what process used 2determine it [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-09-15]

James Taylor's Forbes oped 5/30/13 detailed blatant fraud behind 97 claim yet alarmists R so brazen they keep using it [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-09-16]

That figure is a total fraud. U may not know where it came from but I do. In the end it was 97% of 87 selected scientists. [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-03-26]

who ever told U that is the same one pushing the lie. I have read full account & 97% is fraud, other GWarming evidence [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-03-28]

If U knew fraud behind that 97% number surely U'd quit using it. ... fess up that the 97% figure is the percent of the few scientists who responded to a poll that was itself selectively sent.FRAUD ... the 97 % figure you use is a total fraud, just like the rest of the phony evidence of man made Global Warming [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-04-01]

97% figure is just as much a fraud as GWarming theory. Some times U should question what this crowd is feeding U [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-04-04]

major figures refuse to support 97% claim. That should tip U off as to lies that many advocates of GWarming support [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-06-05]

... it is a lie to say 97% agree [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-06-27]

CO2 theory is fraud [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2015-01-12]

It's especially ironic that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has spent years accusing scientists of lying dishonest fraud when scientists tell him what scientists think.

Does Rep. Rohrabacher also accuse surgeons of lying dishonest fraud when surgeons tell him what surgeons think? Or does Rep. Rohrabacher realize that surgeons probably know what surgeons think better than he does?

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? ... U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. ... Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. ... I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates ... so where is the example of me calling someone a liar? questioning facts & logic is honest disagreement U should try that approach [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

Once again, that's unbelievably ironic coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud.