I'm starting a collection of comments posted to CAGW websites such as Real Climate, The Guardian, Think Progress, The Green Grok [Duke University], Climate Science Watch, etc. which have been deleted by "moderators" because they are too cowardly to publish or debate, even though the comments are well within the comment policy.
I'll start with a comment deleted twice by Dr. Eric Steig at The "Real" Climate website in regards to the paper he published in 2013 which asked embarrassing questions and completely debunked his alarmist claims, about what turned out to be in truth a bladeless "hockey stick":
I'll start with a comment deleted twice by Dr. Eric Steig at The "Real" Climate website in regards to the paper he published in 2013 which asked embarrassing questions and completely debunked his alarmist claims, about what turned out to be in truth a bladeless "hockey stick":
Posted Apr 23, 2013 at 7:26 PM Permalink [see Permalink for the background]
1. Thanks for your reply and clarifying here that the WAIS has cooled over the past 2000 years. I did read your paper and did not find any mention of this, leaving it for the reader to infer from looking at the trend of d18O in fig 3.
2. If the WAIS has cooled over the past 2,000 years due to Milankovitch, and Milankovitch forcing will continue to decline at 65S for several thousand more years, why the cause for alarm about collapse of the WAIS?
2a. The abstract says “d18O anomalies comparable to those of recent decades occur about 1% of the time over the past 2,000 years”, but fig 3 shows d18O anomalies comparable to the highest levels of the 1990′s have occurred at least 30% of the time over the past 2,000 years, and much higher percentages for d18O anomalies comparable to the average value of the past 50 years. Your paper states, “Before 1,000 years ago modern decadal average d18O values are reached more frequently” – perhaps around 50% of the time.
Likewise, the paper says “Decadal average d18O anomalies comparable to the 1990′s in the WAIS Divide record are reached on only four occasions in the past 1000 years,” but in actuality this happened many more times in terms of the absolute values of d18O.
3. Why isn’t the mean cooling “relevant to the question of atmospheric circulation and glacier anomalies”?
4. What do you calculate the change in annual mean insolation forcing at the WAIS was over the past 2000 years? Your paper does not mention this, and the single sentence mentioning Milankovitch references paper #13, which itself does not have a single mention of Milankovitch forcing.
5. d18O anomalies have declined since the 1990′s – what is the explanation for this despite a steady increase in greenhouse forcing?Next, a comment deleted today in reply to this libelous trash published on "Think or Swim" by hyperalarmist John Gibbons in reply to his comment to me:
You didn't identify any of the >3000 peer-reviewed published papers on my "notorious anti-science clearing house," nor apologize for misquoting me.
Instead, you choose another ad hom -"coward" as your defense. Pathetic.
In science, only the merit of your ideas matter, not your name.
The fact is I've received physical threats from CAGW nuts in comments who don't like me posting >3000 peer-reviewed published papers on my blog for discussion of why they contradict claims of CAGW. If I provided my name, I could easily be looked up and receive such threats in person. Thus, I choose to only discuss scientific ideas, which is how science should be done.
Oh no, the moon landings definitely happened, I was there at the Kennedy Space Center for several Apollo missions. But, do read all about Michael Mann's fake-Nobel and the 5 fake "exonerations":
http://climateaudit.org/?s=mann+exonerationAs time goes on, I'll add additional comments to this post that were deleted by the climate alarmist cowards.
Newspapers are a big offender. I search News on Sea Level and just today I posted a comment on this article:
ReplyDeleteInsuranceNewsNet Tuesday March 4, 2014
Ga. Town Hall Meeting To Address Rising Sea Levels
Here's the text of my message:
The tide gauge at Fort Pulaski
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/395.php
says that since 1935 the rate of sea level rise has varied over 30 year periods from 1.7 mm/yr to 3.7 mm/yr The all time rate since 1935 is 3.0 mm/yr and the current rate over the last 30 years is 3.1 mm/yr. See table below:
Time Span ........ yrs ....... Rate
All time ...... 1935-2013 .. 3.0 mm/yr
1st 30 yrs .... 1935-1965 .. 2.5 mm/yr
Highest rate .. 1975-2005 .. 3.7 mm/yr
Lowest rate.... 1941-1971 .. 1.7 mm/yr
Last 30 yrs ... 1983-2013 .. 3.1 mm/yr
Globally the satellite data from Colorado University
Their URL [Can't seem to make the HockeySchick accept a URL or Link]
has 20 years of data back to 1993. For the first ten years, 1993-2003, the rate was 3.6 mm/yr and for the last ten years since 2003 the rate has been 2.7 mm/yr
Satellites tell us sea level rise is slowing a tiny bit, and the tide gauge at Fort Pulaski says it varies but hasn't changed much overall.
Future changes are based on models and are only as accurate and honest as the data and parameters that the modelers feed into them.
Steve Case - Milwaukee, WI
It popped up "Under Moderation" and then disappeared. There aren't any comments there so maybe something else is going on. But I've had this happen before, more often than not, on exactly this sort of post.
Thanks Steve, please continue to post additional deleted comments in the future.
DeleteBest,
MS
I've got a whole pile of deletions from SkepticalScience before they totally banned me a little over a year ago. How much do you wan't?
ReplyDeleteCool, I want them all! Or at least the best of the bunch lol
DeleteI wish I'd kept all of my comments that have been deleted there & elsewhere.
I'd love to post the files, but I keep getting HTML illegal, posts too long, and some other crap that just makes posting here a chore, plus I have no idea who runs the site, I can't e-mail whoever it is.
ReplyDeleteI thought about breaking the whole thing up in to parts, but it's the HTML and links that verifies what the discussion at the time was and what was said.
Sorry there are limitations on what Blogger will accept that I can't override. Files have to be first posted somewhere else on the internet, like google docs etc and then post the link to that here. Or email me the file & I can put on google docs
DeleteHockeyschtick@gmail.com
Thanks
From Steve Case:
ReplyDeleteHere's the text from my files where I noted that the post was deleted, snipped or other action.
*************************************************
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The_Greenhouse_Gas_Effect_All-Star_Fan_Club.html#88283
30 Steve Case at 21:00 PM on 6 December, 2012
What you've done is set up a straw man argument implying that skeptics dispute that the greenhouse effect is real, but you provided no supporting evidence.
[Not deleted but was the final straw resulting in my total banishment from SkepticalScience.]
*************************************************
13 Steve Case at 12:12 PM on 6 December, 2011
From the main article above:
In fact, not only is global mean sea level data rising, but the rise is accelerating.
Not since 1992. Here's that graph from Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group which is featured in the main article above but with an Excel Second Order Polynomial trend applied:
http://www.imageuploading.com/ims/pic.php?u=22799866u9&i=135957
It doesn't show any acceleration.
C O M M E N T D E L E T E D
Steve Case at 12:27 PM on 6 December, 2011
There was nothing in my comment that broke the Comments Policy.
Response:
[DB] Not quite. This post is on Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise, not on your predilection for ignoring the totality of the data by focusing on cherry-picked periods of time too short to rise to the level of statistical significance. As such, your comment was OT.
Steve Case at 12:51 PM on 6 December, 2011
I used the same period of time as shown in the graph at the top of the main article.
I merely added a 2nd order polynomial to to demonstrate that a claim made further on down in the text wasn't true.
******************************
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glacier-update-0809.html
14. John Russell
If you lose the glacier, you have no more storage
Really?
Snowfields
Streams and Rivers
Lakes
Ground water
Reservoirs
D E L E T E D
http://www.skepticalscience.com/yes-virginia-there-is-sea-level-rise.html#82561
ReplyDeleteSteve Case at 00:02 AM on 22 July, 2012
#2 Rob Painting
"Whether it will accelerate in the next few years remains to be seen"
Yes, and in order to get to the prediction in the video, 6 Feet (1.8 meters) by 2100 it will have to average over 20 mm/yr for the next 88 years. That's well over six times the current rate. A very healthy acceleration will have to happen in order for that prediction to come true.
The first two posts were D E L E T E D
******
http://skepticalscience.net/update-from-easton-glacier.html#comments
11 Steve Case at 03:57 AM on 21 October, 2012
"These glaciers make up a large part of the water supply for major cities and agriculture in many parts of the world. Without them, a lot of Great Plains agriculture would be impossible. A lot of western cities would be impossible as well. Not to mention a lot of the south Asian population would be put under severe distress. We're talking about potential upheavals of millions of people having no water to drink and less food to eat.
Yes, it is a serious problem."
Just because a glacier recedes does not mean that the rain and snow stops falling. Indeed, in a warmer world, the IPCC tells us that there will more evaporation, more water vapor and more precipitation. The rivers in those watersheds that currently have glaciers will still flow even if the glaciers disappear.
12 DSL at 04:38 AM on 21 October, 2012
Steve, I think you've brought this up before. The problem is not with available moisture. The problem is that life in these areas of the world have developed around glacial water supplies. Glaciers provide a more consistent water supply throughout the growing season than does rain/snow only. In order to mimic the role of glaciers, more dams will be necessary -- more infrastructure, more money, more ecological questions, more local politics. And there are critical rivers in the world where dams would seriously restrict movement of materials (thus forcing the construction of more elaborate and costly infrastructure).
13 Steve Case at 11:13 AM on 21 October, 2012
That's right DSL I've brought it up before, and the reason I've brought it up again is because of the hyperbole about the loss of glaciers. The claim in the quote I put up is "...millions of people with no water to drink." It comes down to the claim from your side of things, and there are sides in this discussion, that the difference in melt rate between ice and snow makes a huge difference. I know from personal experimentation that it's an "it depends" sort of thing as to which melts faster.
Post a Comment
13 Steve Case at 11:13 AM on 21 October, 2012
That's right DSL I've brought it up before, (-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] Yes, you did indeed pursue this line, here. Thus, if you wish to continue pursuing it, do it there, not here, where it is off-topic. Sloganeering snipped.
14 Steve Case at 19:05 PM on 21 October, 2012
DB, There wasn't any "Sloganeering" in what I had to say, and you let the "millions of people with no water to drink" which is an unsupported claim stand.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html
ReplyDeleteA goal of Skeptical Science is to change people’s minds, especially the minds of people who doubt the reality of man-made climate change. Many of my posts here on Skeptical Science are deleted outright or snipped. Some of those have violated the posting rules, and some were deleted simply because my view is not to be tolerated here.
Posts that are allowed to stand are often mocked with sarcastic comments from SkepticalScience moderators
That's hardly a recipe for changing anyone's mind.
D E L E T E D
*****
Chrisoz and Sceptical Wombat
Yes, it isn't uniform, and I do wonder, with all the dynamics and variability that the oceans exhibit, how an accuracy of ± 0.01°C is achieved. In fact I wonder if any change is being measured at all.
D E L E T E D
********
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=29&t=1406&&a=164#comments
1407 Steve Case at 10:15 AM on 2 April, 2012
Tom Curtis at 08:04 AM on 2 April, 2012
...In the popular vocabulary, that means the atmosphere heats the surface.
I get it, you want to continue to say that the atmosphere heats the surface.
D E L E T E D
*******
http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html#comments
#2 Steve Case at 05:00 AM on 25 April, 2012
The key statement is:
... ARGO floats corrected for systematic errors ...
D E L E T E D
*******
Steve Case at 22:22 PM on 29 May, 2012
Sphaerica #30, Why do I go back to 1900 instead of cherry picking more recent dates? Ok, There hasn't been any "Global Warming" since 1995. How's that?
D E L E T E D
**********
http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-American-Heatwave-The-United-States-Glimpses-its-Hot-Future.html
Well it's 3:45 PM here in Milwaukee and it's only 99°F. The forecast was for low 100s. Well anyway, temperatures over the last 160 years are up about 1.25°F which means that without "Global Warming" we'd be at maybe 97 or 98 today.
D E L E T E D
Along with my comments on the advantages of Farenheit
*****
http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-American-Heatwave-The-United-States-Glimpses-its-Hot-Future.html#82436
If my comment was off-topic then so was the remark in the article about the archaic Fahrenheit scale.
As far as sloganeering is concerned, the article showed shifting Gaussian distribution curves with no temperature values given for the shift. My post applied a value to the shift and some perspective. There wasn't any sloganeering involved. What part of my post involved a myth that has already been debunked? Temperatures are up about 1.25°F and the IPCC tells us that most of that is elevating the night time, winter time and Arctic temperatures. So I was being generous with my arithmetic. The effect of the run-up over the last 160 years would have been even less.
D E L E T E D
Along with any evidence that any posts censored.
Well, let's see them debate this comment without deleting it as will no doubt happen on Jeff Conlon's "The Air Vent."
ReplyDeleteSomething all should consider is the obvious fact that all our temperature measurements showing (natural) global warming are made in the first two metres of the troposphere where weather stations must be placed. But the vast majority of the radiation from the surface passes straight through this mere 2 metres which is obviously a very small percentage of the height of the troposphere.
So the temperatures that we measure are primarily determined by sensible heat transfers due to kinetic energy being shared when molecules collide. That is why, at least in calm conditions, the temperature of the first 2m of air above the ocean surface is very similar to that of the first 1mm of the water surface, because it is only molecules in that 1mm (or in fact far less) which can collide with air molecules. In fact it is the predetermined thermal profile in the troposphere which determines the ocean surface temperature by diffusion and conduction, not the other way around.
Now, the models do not calculate the temperature of that 1mm fairly transparent surface layer of water by somehow working out how much of the energy in the warmed ocean thermocline will rise to the surface and what the temperature would thus be, or by any calculations involving sensible heat transfer in the troposphere..
Instead the models do a most ludicrous calculation using the Stefan Boltzmann Law which is only for black and grey bodies that do not transmit any incident radiation, quite unlike that 1mm ocean surface layer.
If the models were to use S-B calculations in any remotely valid way, they should calculate the percentage of solar radiation that is actually absorbed in the first 1mm (or even less) and use that far, far smaller radiative flux in their calculations, which would then give totally incorrect results of course, because radiative flux is not the primary determinant of planetary surface temperatures, as is blatantly obvious on Venus..
I hope that the Hockey Schtick will not be sidetracked by going after alarmist blogs. It's a waste of time. They will continue to misrepresent the facts, lie, and be unfair to dissenters. I think that the HS has been much more effective by just getting the facts out there. This is one of the few places I know of where peer reviewed work supporting a skeptical view of AGW is presented to the lay public.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind words
DeleteDon't worrry, THS won't get sidetracked, I agree it is a waste of time because they delete any comment which presents a serious scientific challenge, so I rarely bother to comment.
I wish I'd saved all of the comments that have been deleted though!
More examples of comments deleted by SS:
ReplyDeletehttp://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/effective-emission-height/comment-page-1/#comment-71727
More examples from Steve Case:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.batemansbaypost.com.au/story/2211290/no-simple-answer-to-sea-level-rise/?cs=228New
picture & my post missing, so I posted again and it was deleted. So
it looks like once they approve, they can't edit, well some one could,
but not the moderators and an easy way to correct their "mistake" is
just have the article reissued and use an excuse - in this case a new
photo of Dr. John Church.
My post is still on the 2211307 below but apparently not approved on
the 2211290 above
Waiting for Approval
4/10/2014http://www.batemansbaypost.com.au/story/2211307/no-simple-answer-to-sea-level-rise/?cs=228
Kerrie O'Connor reports that: Dr. John Church said:
“The sea-level is rising. It has been rising during the 20th century
and the rate of rise over the past two decades is larger than
the rate during the 20th century as a whole."
“Sea levels are going to continue to rise during the 21st century and
most likely at a faster rate than they are now."
“At the current rate, the global average of the rise is a bit over 3mm
per year,”
What Dr. Church didn't say is that the satellite record shows that the
rate of sea level rise has slowed over the past two decades.
Which begs the question, if that's so, how come he says sea levels
will most likely rise at a faster rate than they are now? Besides
that and considering the GIA adjustment of 0.3 mm/yr that is added to
the satellite record, the average rate is somewhat less than 3
mm/yr.
But there's more. Over the last decade the historical data from
satellites has been changed. Anyone can call up the Internet
Archives "WayBack Machine" and see what the data at the time said, and
what it said is the rate was 2.6 mm/yr for the period 1992-
2003. Today that same 1992-2003 data series shows 3.5 mm/yr. The
historical data has been rewritten to the tune of 0.9 mm/yr.
With respect to tide gauge data, the Church & White papers use only
about 500 of the 1260 PSMSL tide gauges. Those 500 tide gauges
compared to the 1260 as a whole have a decided bias of about +0.6 mm/yr.
Anyone with a little curiosity and modest Excel ability can verify these facts.
Steve CaseMilwaukee, WIUSA
and more:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-sea-level-rise/No
Pause in Global Sea Level RiseMar 26, 2014 |By Christa Marshall and
ClimateWire
I clicked on "submit" and a terse message came up "This Post is Marked as SPAM"
*****************************My Post:*****************************
The article from Climatewire tells us:
"Global sea levels rose at a rate of about 3.5 millimeters annually in
the 1990s..."
And you can verify that with an analysis of the current data From
Colorado University’s Sea level Research
Grouphttp://sealevel.colorado.edu/Except that you don't get to 3.5
mm/yr until September 2002So what did the data say at the time? A trip
to the Internet Way Back Machine
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/will tell us
that, and the earliest CU page with data is March 27th
2004http://web.archive.org/web/20040327115248/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/where
it can be shown that the rate of sea level rise by September 2002 was
only 2.6 mm/yr. And in the mid '90s it was negative for a short period
of time around the end of 1994.
The historical data has been rewritten and it's very difficult to know
what the truth of the matter is. But it doesn't look like it's
anywhere near 3.5 mm/yr during the '90s.
Tide gauge studies
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_data_cmar.htmldon't show 3.5
mm/yr during the '90s either.
My comment to the claim of sea levels rising 3.5 mm/yr in the '90s is
no they didn't. And if that's not correct, then what else isn't
correct?
from Steve Case:
ReplyDeleteLooks like the mods at Z News won't let this see the light of day:
**********************
The data from the 10 long-term sea level monitoring stations can be
found at the Permanent Service For Mean Sea Level
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
That data from those ten span from at least 1916 to 2012 and a simple
analysis of that data in mm/yr of sea level rise since 1916, the last
30 years and the difference
Station ...... 1916 .. 30 yrs .. Difference Trieste ........... 0.3
... 0.3 .... 0.0Honolulu ....... 0.5 ... 0.1 ... -0.4Den Heider ....
0.6 ... 0.1 ... -0.6Key West ....... 0.7 ... 0.3 ... -0.4Newlyn
.......... 0.7 ... 0.3 ... -0.5Brest .............. 0.8 ... 0.7 ...
-0.2San Diego ...... 0.8 ... 0.3 ... -0.5Sydney .......... 1.0 ... 1.3
.... 0.3Fremantle ..... 1.2 ... 1.4 .... 0.2New York ...... 1.4 ...
1.0 ... -0.5
shows that some are increasing in rate and others decreasing, and none
of them come close to the 3.2 mm/yr that is commonly claimed for for
current sea level rise.
Satellite datahttp://sealevel.colorado.edu/from colorado University's
Sea Level Research Group does show a rate of 3.2 mm/yr since 1992 but
over the last ten years that rate has slowed to 2.8 mm/yr.
Anyone with a modest ability using Microsoft Excel can verify these numbers.
Steve Case Milwaukee, WI