>UPDATE (January 21, 2011): On the HideTheDecline post Where should we expect UHI in temperature data 1979-2009?, I have added a request of Frank for his future posts:
Title: Hopefully My Final Reply To Frank
Frank, with respect to your ongoing efforts along this line research, please do you and me a favor.
Please do not refer to or link my posts, please do not refer to me by name, and please do not link to or use my graphs in your posts. If you adhere to my request, I will have no need to return to your website and find error with what you’ve written and presented.
UPDATE (January 16, 2011): Frank Lansner has again hidden the second of his posts in which he attempts to use TLT anomalies to identify Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. The link…
…in my January 13, 2011 update (below) brings you to a page with “Sorry, no active content to display”.
It appears that Frank Lansner of HideTheDecline has now merged the follow-up post with the original UAH reveals UrbAn Heat post. And the comment thread from the second post, which held my criticisms of the posts and his replies, has now been turned into a linked Word file…
…with fonts so small the comments are difficult to read without changing their size or your screen zoom. The returns and spacing between paragraphs have disappeared so that they are hard to follow.
Frank has now written a third post in the series called Where should we expect UHI in temperature data 1979-2009? He continues to subscribe to the error-filled line of thought that the difference between TLT and surface temperatures can be used to identify areas of UHI effect, Figure 2. He attempts to confirm this by using population growth maps, Figure 6. But he misses the point once again. UHI exists in areas that he has identified as “No UHI”, but there is limited to no UHI effect in other areas that he identifies as “UHI”.
My final comment to Frank (refer to above linked Word file) was titled “End Of Discussion – Goodbye Frank”.
The comment reads:
Frank replied, “So basically, your result says that the UAH-Grounbased difference is from oceans…”
Wrong. Read what I wrote again. I wrote that the trend in TLT anomalies over the North Atlantic was higher than the SST trend. I did not say “the UAH-Grounbased difference is from oceans.” You misrepresent what I write repeatedly. Every chance you get, you redirect the discussion, stating that I have said one thing, when, in fact, I have said the opposite and presented data to confirm it.
What about my comment about inland Africa, Frank? There, I showed you that the GISS trend was considerably higher than the TLT trend:
I used that as an example that UHI effect is not the only reason for the difference between land surface data and TLT. There’s not a lot of UHI in the Sahara desert, Frank. At WUWT I provided you with a link to the post that graph came from. Here it is again:
In that post, there are many graphs of many areas of the globe that disagree with your initial premise that UHI is responsible for the difference between TLT anomalies and surface temperature anomalies.
In my latest reply to you at my blog, I wrote, All you are doing is rehashing discussions we’ve already had on the thread at WUWT. I’ve already presented to you in multiple ways why what you had written there was wrong. My rewriting it another way apparently doesn’t help because you become defensive and you argue.
And what are you doing in your latest reply on 14th January, 2011 at 14:44:54?
You being defensive and you are arguing.
And in my last comment at my blog, I suggested, Reread what I discussed with you on that thread. Attempt to understand what people who disagreed with you were saying to you. Don’t become defensive. Don’t become argumentative. Steven Mosher suggested ways for you redo all of your graphs. Have you tried it to see if it presents different results?
Have you tried that? Apparently not.
In your latest reply here, you wrote, “You get the opposite result compared to me, so it’s a little early to conclude anything much for now.”
Any of your readers, those who are interested in determining whether you or I are right, can reproduce the graphs I had presented to you, Frank. They can see for themselves I have presented reality and that your original post was flawed.
Since you, Frank, are still arguing and still misrepresenting what I have written, I cannot continue this discussion.
Your readers will understand why I have chosen to end this conversation. You might try to spin it, but your readers will understand.
UPDATE January 13, 2011: The post at HideTheDecline has reappeared.
Bloggers have comments deleted all the time. Most don’t like it because of the time and effort that goes into writing it. I just had something happen that’s a little bit different. Not only has my comment disappeared, so has the entire post. The title of the blog post was “List of claimed ‘errors’ mostly received from Bob Tisdale in the comments on WUWT”, and for some reason it caught my eye. It ran at the blog HideTheDecline.
Someone at HideTheDecline must have been displeased with me.
I didn’t mind having my name in the title of the post. I didn’t mind having my arguments misrepresented. But I did not like having my comment on that HideTheDecline thread deleted.
I’ve prepared a number of posts that compare TLT and surface temperature data, and if I find a blog post or comment that contradict what I’ve found, I leave a reply, explaining where I disagree. I disagreed with much of the UAH and UHI post by Frank Lansner that was cross-posted at WUWT. Apparently Frank was not satisfied with the lack of progress of his arguments at WUWT UAH and UHI, so on December 26, 2010, he prepared a post with my name in the title. Some sort of payback? Who knows?
I discovered Frank’s post at hidethedecline on January 8, 2011, and replied in a comment that was name- and date-stamped with “By Unknown on 8th January, 2011 at 01:35:38”. My comment remained on that hidethedecline thread for a couple of days without reply from Frank. When I went back to check for a reply today, January 12, 2011, I discovered not only was my comment gone, but so was the entire post. It vanished. No explanation. Someone had deleted that entire HideTheDecline post.
THE POST REMAINS IN GOOGLE CACHE
The google cache version of Frank’s post (without comments) is here: Cached. And here’s a screen cap of the cache page:
The title of my comment was “If You Had Performed a Reasonable Analysis…” and it read:
If YOU had performed a reasonable analysis, Frank, you would have discovered that the vast majority of the difference between TLT and surface data exists in only one area of the globe. All areas would be impacted by UHI if it had a significant effect, but they are not. And that fact alone contradicts your claims that UHI is the primary reason for the difference between surface and TLT data.
If you had researched it a little more, you would have discovered that much of the difference between TLT and surface data occurs over the North Atlantic. One wouldn’t think that there is a lot of UHI effect on the North Atlantic, Frank.
If you had performed a reasonable analysis, Frank, you would have discovered that GISS land surface data for much of the United States has a lower trend than the TLT data:
If you had performed a reasonable analysis, Frank, you would have discovered that there is little difference between GISS land surface data and TLT data for much of Europe:
If UHI was such a dominant factor, why are they so similar, Frank?
Everyone knows the major difference between GISS and TLT data is how GISS treats the Arctic data.
THE COMMENT STILL RESIDES IN GOOGLE
Since the Google cache of the post does not contain any comments, someone might think I’ve fabricated it. So I Googled the opening of my comment in quotes “If YOU had performed a reasonable analysis, Frank, you would have discovered” and Google returned with the link shown in the following screen cap.
I clicked on the link, but my comment did not exist.
I JUST SEEMS A LITTLE ODD
It’s odd that a blogger would take the time to write a post, then delete the entire post because he didn’t like a comment on the thread, but still leave the original erroneous post UAH reveals UrbAn Heat.
I’m not sure what to make of it.
Please don’t delete another of my comments, Frank Lansner.
>Hi Bob!Your comments where not deleted as such, i took the discussion-thing off since I normally only keep the best things on the front page for peoble to scroll through. I only keep "goldies" on the front 🙂 The discussion is not deleted, and if you want I can put it on online somewhere else on the site? I can put the discussion-thing in after the main post "Uhi-Uah.."?Normally just few makes comments at hidethedecline.eu so it has never been a problem when i take things off before. And to be honest, I thought you would be happy it was taken off (!!!) Making a post out of it yourself in stead of just contacting me, ask why its off or what ever really seems to be overkill :-)) You are allways welcome to contact me on email@example.com as I have said many many times before.The things (the article) you commented on was given for you to review half a year ago, you did not take the time to help me then, but in stead you use incredible amount of energy "commenting" online. Sad and odd.K.R. Frank
>For now the discussion is back online.. but later i will move it to the UAH – UHI article as explained.In your new post you write: "Apparently Frank was not satisfied with the lack of progress of his arguments at WUWT UAH and UHI, so on December 26, 2010, he prepared a post with my name in the title."Do you actually think that i would write a whole illustrated post at hidethedecline summing up the discussion at WUWT due to "a lack of progress" in my arguments???K.R. Frank
>Frank Lansner wrote, "Normally just few makes comments at hidethedecline.eu so it has never been a problem when i take things off before. And to be honest, I thought you would be happy it was taken off (!!!)"Why would I be happy? It makes no difference to me either way. You, Frank, make claims that are not supported by the data, because you, Frank, fail to investigate the reasons for the differences between the datasets.
>Bob, you wonder why I did a summary post of all the claims of errors you came up with?Look, you have earned a position as a very respected debator in the climate debate by many interesting articles and hard work.I have very often used your material and still will. When a capacity like you go out and machine guns a loooong row of error claims everybody is going to take your word for it even though the very fragmented error claims is likely not to be fully understood by all.For Each and every single error claim you came with i found that the arguments fell apart, or at most could qualify as your opinion.You went so far, so that when Lucy – which i like very much – showed herself finding results interesting, then you wrote to her, and i quote:“Lucy, the post is so error filled it leaks like a collender. “But Lucy and everybody else has NO way of finding out for them selves and thats why i felt i had to write an overview of all these "errors".And honestly one after the other simply falls apart, i havent seen you defent the 8 errors i comment.I made the summary so peoble did not have to just take your word that there was all these errors when its simply not true.It was not a "pay back", i dont waste my time on such.The very last error – number 9) – you have come with now weeks after the article at WUWT at least holds some scietific strong points! Really, this is surprising. But you neeeeed to claim that it is a "failure" of my part that I have not done these exact analyses, i sorry i just dont know why you want to present it like this.it is ALLWAYS a good idea to do more analysis. I did some analysis regarding equilibrium i have NEVER seen anywhere before, and mark my word, it will not be the last we hear about missing equilibrigum in land vs ocean temperatures. YOUR extended analysis IS welcome and interesting, just as an even further study of why UAH and RSS data gives very different results on this – which is why your results do not show what I found: UAH-land has LESS warming than ground based data, and no difference from average ocean data.Frank
>Hi Bob, (I don’t see where else to send this; sorry)Mr. Robert Ellison (on a WUWT post) has linked to an article of his and the third paragraph mentions the PDO: A cool mode PDO, over 20 to 30 years, sees cooler than average sea surface temperature (SST) in the northern Pacific and more frequent and intense La Niña. A warm mode PDO is defined as warmer than average SST in the north eastern Pacific over 20 to 30 years and is associated with more frequent and intense El Niño.http://sciencefile.org/SciFile/articles/articles-earth/2297-how-the-pacific-ocean-influences-global-climate-a-review-of-the-physical-evidence-?showall=1This seems not to fit with the idea of a “pattern” using PC analysis, that, I believe I have gotten from your posts and the original explanation from the jisao.washington.edu site.A second commentor has suggest that this article become a post on WUWT.See the comment by Baa Humbug at 7:16 am onhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/the-australina-cites-covered-up-report-of-brisbane-flood-danger/#comment-573178Just wondering about this — John
>John: Thanks. I'll leave a comment for Robert Ellison and Baa Humbug.Many people misinterpret/misunderstand the PDO. Apparently, the author of the webpage you linked, Robert Ellison, was one. The PDO does not represent the SST anomalies of the North Pacific.
>Frank Lansner wrote, “I made the summary so peoble did not have to just take your word that there was all these errors when its simply not true.”Your post is simply a repeat of your continued disbelief and misunderstandings of what was presented to you over many days. I am not going to spend any more time on them. You were so confused on that WUWT thread that you quoted what I wrote, and attributed them to Steve Mosher. Examples:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/uah-and-uhi/#comment-552737and:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/uah-and-uhi/#comment-552720
>Bob, you write: "Your post is simply a repeat of your continued disbelief and misunderstandings of what was presented to you over many days. I am not going to spend any more time on them. "First you make a whole post out of me removing that post, and then when asked to then defend the 8 "errors" you in reality do not want to spend time on it (or cannot defend it).This is exactly what i thought, and why i thought you certainly would have NO problem that i took that post off!What a farce.
>Frank replied: "First you make a whole post out of me removing that post, and then when asked to then defend the 8 "errors" you in reality do not want to spend time on it (or cannot defend it)."All you are doing is rehashing discussions we've already had on the thread at WUWT. I've already presented to you in multiple ways why what you had written there was wrong. My rewriting it another way apparently doesn't help because you become defensive and you argue. Reread what I discussed with you on that thread. Attempt to understand what people who disagreed with you were saying to you. Don't become defensive. Don't become argumentative. Steven Mosher suggested ways for you redo all of your graphs. Have you tried it to see if it presents different results?I presented to you that land surface temperatures varied more than SST and TLT. I wrote to you, Are you aware that the annual variations in monthly land surface data are at least 4 times greater than the TLT data and about 35 times greater than the annual variations in monthly SST data?And I used this graph:http://i51.tinypic.com/34dr6de.jpgI then wrote, With differences that large, one might expect the trend of the land surface temperature to be higher than the trends of the other datasets. Do you use that graph in your post? No. Yet you call what I had presented to you “nonsense.” I should not have to present to you another graph that shows land surface temperature anomalies rise more than SST during warming periods and decline more than SST during cooling periods. I would have thought you could have made the connection to TLT. But you haven’t. During warming periods, land surface temperatures should rise more that TLT because they are inherently more variable. And likewise, during cooling periods, land surface temperatures should drop more than TLT.
>Bob,At some point in time, an accomplished researcher need to decide whether commentors are legitimate in terms of the questions they present or the analysis they want to advance. I believe that most researchers promoting the CAGW theory are excessively restrictive in choosing to whom they respond. On the other hand, you might be too generous in your efforts to communicate and educate.
>An Inquirer: Thanks.I try to keep in mind, though, I'm debating, communicating, on this thread with someone (Frank) for whom English is a second language.
>Dear Bob, you write: " I'm debating, communicating, on this thread with someone (Frank) for whom English is a second language."This is true – and i cannot rule out that this has had an impact. Bottum line: As I have said to begin with, I allways only keep the "goldies" on the front page of http://www.hidethedecline.eu so that people can scroll through the most interesting things. This is nothing new.The particular discussion is not removed due to scientific reason but due to the not so nice tone. I dont like that and would prefer to take it off line totaly, but that dialog appears important to you so i put it in a word, cut and paste. If I can delete it let me know. The scientific part:Your best argument is that the divergence between GISS-UAH does not point to UHI where you expect.So you have made a superbe work, but your conclusion is simply based on where you expect the UHI should be globally in recent year.But I think you have just expected wrong. So this writing looks into where we then shold expect UHI:http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/where-should-we-expect-uhi-in-temperature-data-1979-2009-212.phpSo honestly i think your tough scrutniy has contributed to womething interesting!K.R. Frank
>An Inquirer , you are suggesting that Bob should not communicate with me.I dont know how you can write like this, its really not nice.I think you should read the article:http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/where-should-we-expect-uhi-in-temperature-data-1979-2009-212.phpAnd then tell me if you can still recommend that Bob should not communicate with me and why.
>Frank: I saw the third in your series of posts that try to use UHI to explain the differnce between TLT and surface temperature anomalies. I was NOT impressed, to put it nicely. I strongly suggest you stop your continued efforts along these lines. You lost your credibility with me a month ago. By having that most recent UHI-TLT-Surface Temperature post on your website, you will lose all of your credibility with everyone who bothers to open it.