>UPDATE 2 (11-5-09): It’s Thursday and six days have gone by since MPR emptied its spam filter and released my original comment. Paul Huttner responded to it.
I then posted three replies to Paul. The first advised him that I had revised the title of my post, eliminating the word censor, and had updated the version of the post here at my website. My second comment advised him that the first of my most recent comments was stuck in the spam filter again, just like the original one. And the third was a detailed response to Paul’s reply to my original comment. Only the second of my three comments made it past the spam filter.
That leaves the other two still in there, floating in the limbo of the MPR spam filter.
If Paul Huttner has read the thread since October 30, 2009 7:25 PM, he is aware that there are comments awaiting moderation, but maybe he hasn’t returned to read the comments.
UPDATE (10-30-09): It appears we resolved the problem of missing comments at the Minnesota Public Radio Updraft © blog. The comments were held in a spam filter that the moderator Paul Huttner appears not to have known existed and that appears not to be checked on a regular basis, since my initial comment remained in the filter for a day and a half.
In response to Meteorologist Paul Huttner’s request on his “Could 2010 be the hottest year ever?” thread…
…in which he asked me to resubmit my comment, I did as asked, but documented the text that appeared when a comment is being held for approval by a moderator; that is, “Thank you for commenting…Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner”
I suggested he check his spam filter in a subsequent comment.
He replied, “I’n [sic] not an IT guy, so I don’t know why you would get that message. I will be happy to forward it to those who would know.”
Then later Ken Paulman, Managing Editor for Online News at MPR, added, “The missing comments were indeed being caught up in a spam filter. I’ve released the unpublished comments and they should be visible on the site now.
“The comments that didn’t post had a large number of hyperlinks – suspect that’s why the filter didn’t like them.
“Paul does not screen comments beforehand.”
The comments do now appear on the webpage, and in response to Paul Huttner’s request,”Would you please remove or change your incorrect blog post headline below?” I have changed the post title.
The new title of the post is, “Regarding Missing Comments At The Minnesota Public Radio Climate Change Blog.”
The following is the rest of this post, which remains unchanged.
This morning while checking blogs with the phrase “sea surface temperature” I happened on the Minnesota Public Radio Updraft © climate change blog. Meteorologist Paul Huttner authored a post there titled “Could 2010 be the hottest year ever?” Link:
The post begins with, “The numbers are in, and it looks like the “global cooling” theory just melted away.” It has the requisite link to the typical news release (Seth Borenstein’s (AP) article “Statistics experts reject global cooling claims”) and a two-year-old GISS Annual Global Temperature Anomaly Graph, even though a graph of current data would have better helped his cause. But what struck me and caused me to comment there was, first, Huttner’s use of the Climate Change Attribution graph…
…which he wrongly attributes to Kerry Emanuel, and, second, his projection that 2010 could be the warmest on record while hinting that ENSO would ultimately be responsible for it.
I felt obligated to advise him of his error in attribution of the graph and of the fact that the Climate Change Attribution graph uses outdated TSI data. I also reinforced the ENSO-global climate link over the past decade by quoting from Knight et al (2009), but noting that Knight et al make an error in their assumption that the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. Here’s what I wrote:
Paul Huttner: A few things. You attribute the Climate Change Attribution graph to Kerry Emanuel, but it’s actually from Global Warming Art:
The graph is obsolete. It relies on an outdated (1993) Hoyt and Schatten TSI reconstruction that was manufactured, in part, to explain the rise in global temperature in the first half of the 20th Century. The current understanding of TSI variability shows little change in solar minimum:
I discussed this in detail here:
As you imply, global temperature variations are dictated by ENSO. This is confirmed by Knight et al (2009) “Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?”:
They write, “El Nino–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08 +/- 0.07 deg C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00 +/- 0.05 deg C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.”
So there hasn’t been the anticipated rise in global temperature because, after you remove the effects of ENSO, the trend is zero. Therefore, if this year is a record year, it should be attributable to ENSO, not AGW.
Also note that Knight et al (2009) assume the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. It is not.
Have a nice day.
And what did Meteorologist Paul Huttner do?
He rejected my comment.
And as noted in the update above, the comment was being held in a spam filter that appears not to be checked on a regular basis.