Response To Pat Michaels

Pat Michaels was at my presentation yesterday and pointed out at minute 56 that one of the reasons temperature representations have changed is because of the inclusion of southern oceans into the global temperature record.

Answering Pat, the main graphics I used were comparing 1975 Northern Hemisphere temperatures vs. 2014 GISS Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and shows a sharp discrepancy between 1910 and 1940.

ScreenHunter_913 Jul. 09 09.01ScreenHunter_920 Jul. 09 09.36ScreenHunter_921 Jul. 09 09.36

Also, a 1978 NOAA report actually showed more cooling in the Northern Hemisphere from the late 1950s at altitude (radiosonde) than at the surface. And the global representation from that report showed very similar global cooling at altitude as at the surface.  So I don’t think that Pat’s objection really impacts the message I was presenting.

ScreenHunter_914 Jul. 09 09.03

ScreenHunter_919 Jul. 09 09.27<0755%3AGTVSMA>2.0.CO%3B2

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Response To Pat Michaels

  1. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Tony, for your detailed examination of “The Emperor’s New Climate.”

    Any honest scientists still employed by federal research agencies like NASA and NOAA will be silently cheering you on.

  2. Brad says:

    It was obvious you were talking about the Northern Hemisphere. Even to a dope like me.

  3. _Jim says:

    Pat Michaels … pointed out at minute 56 that one of the reasons temperature representations have changed is because of the inclusion of southern oceans into the global temperature record.

    Answering Pat, the main graphics I used were comparing 1975 Northern Hemisphere temperatures vs. 2014 GISS Northern Hemisphere temperatures

    Spoken as if there was one and only one ‘record’ … wha!!!???

    I’ll take his ‘shot’ at your data as an opportunity to weaken your position or impugn your credibility.

    I think it is just that simple. On the flip side maybe his intention was to ‘help’ by reinforcing the point that you were indeed doing an apples-to-apples comparison, and only the dates (and NASA GISS data) had changed …


    • omanuel says:

      The Emperor’s propaganda agents are skilled at impugning credibility.

      In 1976 a former student of Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg -Vic Viola – invited me to give my opinion on the discovery of “Super-heavy element fission products in the Allende meteorite” by Professor Edward Anders aka Alperovitch of the University of Chicago.

      I went to the ACS Convention in San Franscisco to speak “back-to-back” with Professor Anders, while Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg listened.

      After my presentation, one familiar face from NAS laughed loudly, as if local synthesis of elements in the Sun were an insane idea, instead of an empirical fact. That scientist went on to win an internationally recognized scientific award worth $millions.

      • omanuel says:

        Science published the debate in January of 1977:

        Undisputed evidence of local element synthesis – the close association of all primordial He and Ne with “isotopically strange” forms of Ar, Kr and Xe in material that formed the solar system – has been unanimously absent from writings of mainstream scientists (including Nobel Prize and Crafford Prize winners) for the past thirty-nine years (2014 – 1975 = 39 years), despite being confirmed in 1995 by the Galileo Probe’s finding of “isotopically strange” Xe in Jupiter’s He-rich atmosphere..

  4. Latitude says:

    you’re right…….

  5. Let Michael’s present his ‘proof’. I would like to analyze every single digit of his southern-ocean claim and why that impacts the north, or why that is important at all… where is the meat Michaels?…..what next, we added in aerosols, worm decay and we now ‘model’ the warm hiding in the pacific ergo your claims are wrong ? Straw men arguments from Michaels. [I object to your proving that we lied, since you did not include the impact of logging on redwood trees in california]. blah blah

  6. James Strom says:

    As I understand it, you are comparing Northern Hemisphere temperature records presented at different times by various official bodies and noting that the record for the Northern Hemisphere had changed markedly over a 40 year period. It’s not at all clear how the addition of Southern Hemisphere records would affect your point, other than that you might want to be alert for someone mentioning the other records as a red herring.

  7. this is very disturbing, I have a great respect for Michaels but this show that he is either unaware of or uncomfortable about the fact that the temperature record had been so blatantly and criminally tampered with. Both possibilities are equally scary.

  8. jimash1 says:

    ” So I don’t think that Pat’s objection really impacts the message I was presenting.”

    I guess not. Unless he thinks they now count the southern hemisphere as part of the northern hemisphere.
    Grasping at straws.

  9. gregole says:

    It was a good question…but the answer is even better! As I heard it, Pat’s question was couched in very tactful and respectful terms IMHO; I don’t recall the exact wording, the the words “you need to be careful when…” were in there. It was more of a “head’s up brother” kind of question than a challenge as far as I heard it; and I love the answer!

    You know what? That is the power and beauty of this blog, it’s about the data. I just can’t get over how the actual temperature data is taken lightly, taken for granted, rounded from +/- 1/2 degree rounded to the degree and then presented to a precisions of 0.01 degree (? huh ?); all done completely carelessly while the debate bangs on endlessly about an obscure thermal property of a trace gas. I find it infinitely entertaining, if a bit insane.

    And Pat Michaels is a true warrior for truth AFAIK. Energetic great person. Awesome to see him at Tony’s presentation. Which was awesome.

  10. Uh – base line for anomaly in 2014 GISS is 1951-1980. What was the baseline for 1975 NAS? Not something with 1980, I suppose. What was the baseline for the 1978 article?

    Steven – you got the baselines wrong again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *