There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]
You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.
... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4.
Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.
... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions.
... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".
Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".
Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): buoys, CCI (satellite), and all three Argo near-SST datasets. Figure 4 subtracts all those datasets from each composite SST record, then calculates the trend. If a differenced trend includes "zero" inside its 95% confidence interval, scientists say that particular instrument's trend agrees with that particular composite SST record's trend at the 95% confidence level.
For both examined timespans, buoys and CCI agree with ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level, and disagree with all the other composite SST records. The H2008 Argo dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because it shows more warming than all composite SST records, although ERSSTv4 is the closest match. The APDRC Argo dataset agrees with ERSSTv4 and COBE-SST. The RG2009 Argo dataset (which Lonny wrongly claims they "ignored") is in fact the last dataset shown in figure 4. RG2009 agrees with all four composite SST records at the 95% confidence level. That's what Hausfather et al. meant when they said RG2009 is "more ambiguous".
Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Presumably Lonny's "new contrived data set" is ERSSTv4, which Jane/Lonny has complained about ad nauseam. Look at figure 4 again. Buoys and CCI satellite datasets agree with ERSSTv4. The Argo APDRC and RG2009 datasets agree with ERSSTv4, but they also agree with other composite SST records so those results are more ambiguous. The Argo H2008 dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because H2008 shows more warming than all of them including ERSSTv4, though ERSSTv4 is the best match.
In other words, they didn't ignore any data, and most of the data matches ERSSTv4. In fact, the RG2009 dataset which Lonny wrongly claims they "simply don't use" is "more ambiguous" precisely because it does match ERSSTv4 (and all the other tested composite SST records). The Argo H2008 dataset is the only one which doesn't have a trend matching ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level (because H2008 shows more warming than ERSSTv4) and it also shows that ERSSTv4 is a closer match than any other tested composite SST record.
That really is what they did, though. As I described. They transformed data in ways that are not 100% clear. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
No, what Lonny described really isn't what Hausfather et al. 2017 did. In fact, it's hard to imagine how Lonny's description could have been more wrong. See above. Or just read the paper to see that they didn't ignore data and made their methodology 100% clear by making their code freely available.
I find it amusing that climate scientists are prone to argue "surface temp. records are better than satellite". But then claim that the satellite record is "better" than ARGO floats. Just as they did with satellites, climate scientists crowed about their new ARGO floats. "Best thing ever." Then, just like satellites, when the new data does not fit their preconceptions, they just omit it. That has been a very noticeable pattern in the field of climate science.
... a pattern of behavior is a pattern of behavior. Always excuses to omit inconvenient data. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Again, Lonny's delusional narrative where "scientists crowed" about satellite data before "omitting" them is completely baseless. And even though he probably won't ever admit it, deep down Lonny should realize that his new delusional narrative about Hausfather et al. "omitting" data was also just shown to be completely baseless.
Again, Lonny's just projecting. Jane/Lonny previously cited ocean heat content (OHC) measurements based on Argo and satellite data until I showed him that those data doesn't support his incorrect claims that there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years. For years, Lonny has shown a pattern of behavior where he ignores the "best measure" of global warming: OHC data from Argo which reveal ~90% of Earth's added heat. Maybe Lonny omits those data because they don't fit his preconceptions?
Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".
... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]
Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?
... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate.
... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]
Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.
Nonsense. The Earth continues to warm. I'd already told Jane/Lonny Eachus that his very ironic accusation is wrong. I'd even shared code and data showing that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.
But more importantly, I'd also already told Jane/Lonny that ~90% of Earth's added heat goes into ocean heat content (OHC) measured by Argo, etc. Why are Lonny Eachus and "FriendsOScience" ignoring the fact that OHC keeps rising when they keep wrongly claiming that there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years? Are they ignoring Argo data because Argo data show that Earth continues to warm, which doesn't agree with their preconceptions?
Why did Lonny Eachus link to a graph showing a 3.1 mm/year global sea level trend? Since that's higher than Lonny's claimed "1.1 mm/year", doesn't that simple comparison show the rate of sea level rise is increasing (i.e. accelerating) over the long term? And since Lonny's accused scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year, why did Lonny cite a graph containing what he called a lie from a scientist he's previously called a "liar"?
Furthermore, that's not a peer-reviewed paper. It's a slide from a 2011 presentation which hasn't been turned into a peer-reviewed paper. A real skeptic might wonder why it hasn't. Hint: in 2011 Jane/Lonny briefly stopped denying satellite measurements of sea level because they showed a short term drop. Of course, scientists told Jane that this was because the 2011 La Nina caused such massive flooding that global sea level fell temporarily. See Boening et al. 2012 (PDF).
So is it really surprising that calculating sea level acceleration from 1993-2011 gave an unrepresentative answer? Especially because that's a short timespan, and detecting acceleration requires a longer timespan than just detecting a trend. Maybe we could learn why that 2011 presentation hasn't become a peer-reviewed paper by looking at that same data up to 2016.
Let's analyze that raw data (backup) from sealevel.colorado.edu (backup). Here are accelerations and uncertainties for timespans that all end at 2016.1 but start at 1993, 1994, etc. Notice the similarities between the satellite acceleration graph and the older global tide gauge acceleration graph I've shown Jane/Lonny. All the black best-fit accelerations are positive. More recent accelerations tend to be larger. (The most recent accelerations and even their red lower 95% confidence intervals are off the scale even though the upper vertical limit is twice as high as in the older graph.) This tends to suggest that not only is global sea level accelerating, it's even "jerking" up.
(Technical note: those 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a ARMA(1,1) noise model. I also tested AR(1), MA(1), ARMA(1,2), and ARMA(2,1), but ARMA(1,1) minimized both the AIC and BIC.)
That's not a peer-reviewed paper, Lonny. It's yet another of your crackpot blog links. This time in German, so we're at the mercy of automated translation. Are you joking?
Nonsense. Despite WUWT's and Lonny's distortions, Winnick and Caves 2015 doesn't even indirectly "show SLR slightly DEcelerated." Instead, Winnick and Caves 2015 directly shows that ~3 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 was roughly equivalent to today's concentration, global mean sea level was 9 - 13.5 meters higher than it is now.
Aside from other problems with that WUWT rant, it's hilarious that Lonny pretends that mainstream scientists are somehow only using "ONE beach" to study acceleration. Because that's exactly what Lonny's WUWT rant does! Lonny's WUWT rant doesn't analyze a global sea level timeseries for acceleration, instead it cherry-picks "ONE beach" at a time.
Hughes and Williams 2010 (PDF) confirms that local sealevel trends have lower signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) than global sealevel trends. This means that global trends (and accelerations) can be precisely estimated using less data than required for local trends and accelerations. They explain why: "...the global average is reducing variability by more than just statistical averaging of noise, it is genuinely reflecting the fact that much of the variability is due to redistribution of volume."
So the global ocean is sloshing around, which means that any scientist who's actually interested in sealevel rise wouldn't just cherry-pick ONE beach at a time. They'd take a global average. Why does WUWT refuse to do that?
Again, same story. Why do Lonny's WUWT links keep cherry-picking individual beaches? Is it because WUWTians know that a global average would have such a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that they'd have to acknowledge accelerating sealevel?
Again, same story. That WUWT rant refuses to analyze a global sealevel timeseries, instead cherry-picking "ONE beach" at a time. Sadly, that sort of nonsense really IS exactly what Lonny Eachus has been saying. Ironically, even the first comment on that WUWT rant points out this blatant problem.
All alarmists cite Church & White, for example... never any papers with different results. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-05]
And yet strangely, Lonny hasn't linked a paper which provides a different global sea level timeseries. Even Houston and Dean 2011 (which Jane/Lonny cited) doesn't provide a global sea level timeseries. Instead, Houston and Dean 2011 mangled and cherry-picked the timeseries from Church and White 2006. If Lonny ever finds another paper which provides a global sea level timeseries, I'd gladly help Lonny analyze that timeseries for acceleration.
The reports of sea level rise accelerating have been refuted by more recent studies. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-07]
"Sea level is rising at an increasing rate
"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."
That's also consistent with the US NAS's statement that "Sea level is rising faster in recent decades". But instead of acknowledging all that, Lonny links to WUWT:
Presumably Lonny means "PSMSL" data, which was already used to create a global sea level time series: "We use monthly sea-level data downloaded from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL; Woodworth and Player 2003) web site (http://www.psmsl.org) in August 2010."
Notice that Church and White did what WUWT refuses to do: calculate a global sea level time series from PSMSL data, rather than cherry-picking measurements from one beach at a time.
Sea levels have been rising for a long time. No acceleration according to recent papers. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-06]
I'm not denying that it's rising. But the latest studies I've seen say it's steady or DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-16]
Recent papers: SLR has not accelerated. Same rate for 100s of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-10]
Recent peer-reviewed paper says sea level rise NOT accelerating. Same rate for hundreds of years. Maybe even slowing. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-02-23]
Nonsense. Once again, Lonny just keeps insisting these papers exist without links. Ironically, the only paper Lonny's linked which studies acceleration is Kopp et al. 2016: "... A significant GSL [global sea-level] acceleration began in the 19th century and yielded a 20th century rise that is extremely likely (probability P >= 0.95) faster than during any of the previous 27 centuries. A semiempirical model calibrated against the GSL reconstruction indicates that, in the absence of anthropogenic climate change, it is extremely likely (P=0.95) that 20th century GSL would have risen by less than 51% of the observed 13.8 +/- 1.5 cm.
That's right, Lonny. You've never been able to link to papers showing "deceleration" but you did link to a paper showing acceleration!
Several recent papers show DEceleration of sea level rise, compared to past centuries. [Lonny Eachus]
You keep saying that, but you've never been able to link to papers showing "deceleration". [Dumb Scientist]
(A) I have several times. Too bad you missed them.
(B) You're blocked. Stop tweeting at me. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-04-17]
Wrong again, Lonny. Several times, you have linked incoherent WUWT rants, papers which don't show deceleration, an out-of-date presentation, and a paper which actually shows accelerating sealevel! And you just told a mother who blocked you that there's a "special place in Hell" for people like her. Aren't you the person who said this?
I will rebut anybody if I have REASON and EVIDENCE to believe they are wrong. And not apologize. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-03-14]
I make evidence-based comments about climate science. No amount of harassment or attempted coercion from you will stop me. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-03-15]
I will not stop making evidence-based comments about climate science. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-03-15]
Does Jane/Lonny Eachus really not recognize his hypocrisy? Apparently not.
Perhaps you would like to rebut the Royal Society paper, that shows a DECREASE in wildfires last decades/centuries [Les Johnson, 2016-06-13]
Wow. One of Lonny Eachus's fellow travellers completely ignores everything I wrote. What a complete surprise!
Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that Royal Society paper:
"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% . This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others.
So that paper explicitly includes "slash-and-burn cultivation" in the decreasing total area burned. Which is exactly what I told you earlier. That paper is examining all fires, both wildfires and intentional burns. Notice that they're examining charcoal records and isotope-ratio records in ice cores? Those records necessarily include intentional burns, like the "staggering amounts" of land clearing fires that occurred just in the USA over the last century. Ice core and charcoal records can't distinguish wildfires from intentional burns, but when Doerr and Santin use statistics that can tell the difference, the results aren't quite what Les Johnson is implying:
"... the widely reported increase in area burned for the USA  and particularly the western USA in recent decades [43–46].
So Doerr and Santin are actually saying that wildfires are burning more area in the western USA in recent decades. That's exactly what I said in 2012. And note that Doerr and Santin say "These statistics need to be viewed with some caution when examining trends as annual reporting methods and biases have undergone changes over time ."
Doerr and Santin reference 47 is Short 2015, which says:
"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades.
That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which include intentional burns onto newer data that exclude intentional burns. So when Les Johnson repeatedly linked that graph to claim a "massive decline" in fires, what Les really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.
Perhaps Les Johnson would like to rebut his own link, Pechony and Shindell 2010, when they project an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."
And perhaps Les Johnson would also like to rebut his own Royal Society link, which says:
"... the observation of increasing fire season length in some areas , which is an important contributor to the increase in area burned during this century in the northwestern USA [43,46], boreal Canada and Alaska [51,52]. A future lengthening of the fire season is also anticipated for many other regions of the globe, with a potential associated increase of fire activity [19,53–56].
Or will Les Johnson acknowledge those statements? Since Les didn't acknowledge them the first time, it's highly unlikely. That would involve acknowledging that global warming is creating an "unprecedentedly fire-prone environment" so instead Lonny Eachus and Les Johnson simply deny their own cited sources by inventing a new "fact" that "warmer = wetter".
What's even more bizarre is that the paper Lonny cited as support actually debunks Lonny and Les's "fact"! Once again, look at Greve et al. 2014 Fig. 4c. Notice how the red, yellow and orange areas on the map represent areas that are getting drier? How could that reference possibly support Lonny and Les's "fact" that "warmer = wetter"? Perhaps Lonny and Les would like to rebut Lonny's own link?
It's almost like a warmer world has more water vapor in the atmosphere and has more rapid evapotranspiration, which exacerbates drought. But that can't be true, not if Lonny and Les's "fact" is actually a fact. Maybe Lonny Eachus and Les Johnson should read their own cited papers more carefully instead of just making up "facts".
I found the creationist tack amusing. From everything I've read about evolution you would think the 'random genetic variation' thing would be a slam dunk. Now here's Spencer saying that's not the case. Is it true? I don't know since I've never looked into it. (It's not high up on my list of interests...) But simply being open to Spencer's claim, being willing to listen and hear it out, makes me a creationist. Apparently because of the threat to science there is no room for debate. Sound familiar?
Nobody said you were a creationist. I asked if you agreed with Spencer's creationist claims. Once again, you still haven't been able to say "no". If you can eventually figure out why Spencer's creationism is anti-scientific and wrong, maybe you'll eventually be able to figure out why his similar arguments about AGW are also wrong.
Artificial intelligence has the same relation to intelligence as artificial flowers have to flowers. -- David Parnas