“RSS data: 2010 not the warmest year in satellite record, but a close second“. Anthony Watts discovers that 2010 was merely the second warmest year on the satellite record, although his first version of the chart “proving” this was just a tiny bit exaggerated. Thus disproving Global Warming. Of course the declaration that 2010 is now warmest year was based on surface temperature records, not satellite observations.
Funny how a few days ago denialists were poo-pooing the slightness of 2010’s new record but are now hailing the slightness of their claim that 1998 is still the warmest.
So what was “the warmest year” in Anthony’s preferred dataset? Yes, 1998, the outlier year with a massive El Niño boost which has been the denialist “trick” for several years because it throws off short-term statistical significance. Look for this talking point to be quietly dropped over the year as moment
Pick your story from the satellite temperature observations.
“USA record lows outpace record highs 19 to 1 this week“. Anthony Watts wants you to think that “snow” (somewhere) equals “cold” (everywhere) and therefore Global Warming is a fraud. His convincing evidence? One week of US data.
In 2009 Gerald Meehl published a report in ScienceDaily that the denialists have tried to undercut ever since titled Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US. He used 60 years of data.
60 years beats seven days. Source: ScienceDaily.
The last paragraph in Anthony’s post shows that he knows his headline was not only misrepresentative but also only momentarily accurate (italics mine):
*Note: some people clicking on the interactive map will see different numbers, since that map will record new highs and lows as this post ages. The headline was originally based on 16 highs during the week (see the highs map for a ratio of 21 to 1) then by the time the post editing was completed and the post made, the number of highs was up to 18, giving an 18.6 to 1 (~19 to 1 in the title) ratio. Later in the day the number of record highs in the one week period increased as new weather occurred (on Dec 31) and reports came in. The numbers were accurate at the time the post started. Weather records, like weather itself are dynamic with the forward moving one week period the interactive map generator uses, so please don’t assume error if you click on the interactive map and the numbers don’t match now, or in the future. – Anthony
“Quote of the Week – Total Ecplise of the Moonbat“. Right-wing libertarian blogger Richard North pontificates that any cold weather anywhere is proof that there is no Global Warming and that George Monbiot is somehow foolish, stupid and loathsome for not understanding that. Giving him a mocking nickname, “Moonbat”, certainly caps the argument.
Anthony Watts’ nomination of EU Referendum as a well-argued denialist website is deeply educational… Yeah, nothing like cherry-picking weather news reports to try to dismantle a journalist’s climate story. It definitely proves that the mainstream climatologists are scheming liars!
“Australia’s white summer, Monbiot’s red fury“. Watt a surprise, Anthony Watts drawing our attention to a freak weather event in Australia. This must surely prove that there’s no Global Warming! Anthony also stretches his mental capacity to compare the size of Australia to America and to Europe. Anthony is mad that environmental reporter George Monbiot consulted “the kids at the Climate Rapid Response Team“, aka professional climate scientists, to understand this Australian weather. How dare he!
Don’t you know that if you cherry-pick a small enough smoothing radius you can make big holes appear in the global temperature data maps? I’m surprised that Anthony doesn’t try to claim that all smoothing is false and present a temperature data map with 99.9% “no data”.
Changing your color scheme to assign ‘bluer’ colors to warm temperatures also helps make things look ‘cooler’. Presumably Anthony thinks that every year those corrupt mainstream climatologists have been slightly changing their color schemes to look make the same temperatures look ‘redder’.
Hmmm... Dr. Spencer's map is pretty red. He must be in on the plot now too.
Anthony has to come up with something to distract from the fact that 2010 has proven the hottest year in the instrument record even with only a moderate El Niño influence. (Note: who cares about one year? That’s a denialist distraction. It’s the long-term trend that matters.)
Further more, we learn that the weather stations in remote Greenland communities are clearly affected by the urban heat island effect. Anthony’s speculation proves it! (Maybe this particular rant was a bit of nostalgia for the old days when Anthony regularly tried to get away with this UHI b.s.)
BBC “disappears” headline “Coldest December Day on record for some sites”. Oh. My. Dog. (Sorry, reading Anthony Watts’ blog makes me dyslexic sometimes.) A website changed an article headline! It is a climate conspiracy!
Anthony follows this revelation with some nit-picking over whether 2010 really will be a “dead heat” with 1998 for the hottest year on record. This requires ignoring the running averages that have always been used for comparison, mumbling about where the real “finish line” is, breaking out a magnifying glass and of course not discussing at all the fact that 1998 was hot because of a very strong El Niño effect while there is no comparable influence contributing to 2010’s results.
Ooh, an Emily Litella moment! After all that whining about the word “dead heat”, it turns out that the denialist’s favorite scientist Dr. Roy Spencer is the one that used it. Quoth Anthony; never mind.
“Warmest year ever? – 2010: An Unexceptional El Nino Year“. Anthony Watts kindly re-posts ‘Global Warming Policy Foundation’ lobbyist David Whitehouse’s comical cherry-picking of evidence that 2010 wasn’t so warm after-all. Surprisingly, The Daily Mail is naturally taking our pet right-wing lobbyist at face value.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of warming seen in the global average annual temperatures seen in the last decade has changed.
Hmmm. If you play the usual bogus denialist statistical mis-representation and ignore all the natural contributions that have been tending towards cooling. And then add in a comparison of individual months to cherry-picked years. This is eye-rollingly stupid/dishonest.
“No, no” say the commenters, “we’re on the cusp of an ice-age!” They also declare, standing with a dripping brush in their hand, that them durn climatologisters have painted themselves into a corner. Somehow.
“Watts Up With Nuuk?“ Ooohhhh, a weather station in Greenland has some weird values! You’re right Anthony Watts, this means we can’t trust any of them! Oh, wait it was just a charting error. The data is actually fine. But thanks for the 3400 word rant about CLIMAT, METAR, and the glory days of weather reporting by teletype. And all the photos from flickr.
Interesting note: Anthony’s post marks the subtle return from exile of Steven Goddard. Perhaps Anthony thinks we have short memories.
Proving, of course, that there is no Global Warming.
“A MUST READ: European climate, Alpine glaciers and Arctic ice in relation to North Atlantic SST record“. Anthony Watts posts an “excellent essay” by Juraj Vanovcan that tells us that a dog bit a man. Apparently, “oceans drive the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around”! Now if only climate scientists knew this… Oh wait, they do.
All the usual claims are present: It’s all natural cycles, earlier warming periods were just like this one, cherry-picked examples are compared to the preferred cyclic pattern and match perfectly, pretending that a claimed correlation means that a causation has been found, etc. Anthony’s contribution is to pretend that “the New Scientist finally came to realize and publish on this week [that] the sun and the oceans play a bigger role than many give credit for.” Thank you Anthony for leading them to truth!
Unfortunately this information doesn’t have any relevance to the fact that AGW is overpowering natural climate variation.
“Maybe they’ve found Trenberth’s missing heat“. Anthony Watts notes another climate press release with a class-clown giggle so he can side-step the fact that Kevin Trenberth’s honest concern about deep-ocean temperature records is being resolved. His confederacy of dunces sings along in the comments. Once again Anthony’s entire contribution is his choice of blog post title. It’s a reference to a cherry-picked statement by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Kevin Trenberth back in the Spring:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Trenberth used the word “travesty” to describe the lack of well-distributed temperature measurements from places like the deep ocean, he was not talking about a failure of climate theory. However the denialists grabbed that useful sentence fragment with both hands and tried to paint him as agreeing with them that climatology was corrupt, fraudulent, and never visits its mother. This malicious denialist meme is still widely circulating.
NOAA has a press release called Scientists Find 20 Years of Deep Water Warming Leading to Sea Level Rise. It covers a paper on this subject in the Journal of Climate titled Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters Between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets (abstract here, PDF here):
This study shows that the deep ocean – below about 3,300 feet – is taking up about 16 percent of what the upper ocean is absorbing. The authors note that there are several possible causes for this deep warming: a shift in Southern Ocean winds, a change in the density of what is called Antarctic Bottom Water, or how quickly that bottom water is formed near the Antarctic, where it sinks to fill the deepest, coldest portions of the ocean around much of the globe.
Anthony’s last kick at this cat is to now suggest that Trenberth is a sloppy scientist. He lost the heat! So careless.
Abyssal Heat Fluxes in the Southern Ocean. From Purkey and Johnson, 2010.
What’s really happening? Climate scientists are improving our understanding of the Earth’s climate. Uncertainties are being reduced. The honest overall picture remains the same: AGW is real. Anthony’s readers aren’t having any of that though.
“RC’s response to McShane and Wyner: a case of orange cones“. This is a classic whine from Anthony Watts about “the Team” and their “egos”. Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and Scott Rutherford (apparently representing the Team) have written a scathing comment letter to the Annals of Applied Statistics about the recent allegedly “hockey-stick busting” paper by the naïve statisticians McShane and Wyner entitled A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? [PDF].
Update: I just noticed that the URL for Anthony’s blog post is “http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/rcs-response-to-mcshane-and-wyner-the-teams-steaming-pile-of-snip”! Now that’s critical analysis.
The paper has been debunked as wishful thinking and statistical failures (particularly embarrassing if you’re trying to overturn statistical evidence) that rely heavily and uncritically on biased sources and is coated with an irrelevant layer of political posturing. Read the coverage at Deep Climate, or Deltoid, then have a chuckle over Anthony’s first coverage of this “new and important study“. It has proven to be the latest superficially useful denialist effort, so it is being blindly praised in the usual quarters and stubbornly defended by the ignorant (this is Anthony’s cue).
I’d summarize it as an attempt to claim that the weak results of their poor statistical analysis means that the better techniques used to successfully identify the “hockey-stick” temperature trend are invalid. Sort of like saying “we get crappy results, so you must have done a crappy job just like us.”
Anthony jumps in with both feet sputtering about the nerve of those climatologists pointing out improper “data quality control” in McShane and Wyner’s paper. It’s one thing for denialists to fabricate quality control criticisms and splash them about freely, but apparently poor sportsmanship for scientists to point out real data flaws. Even if M&W tried to preëmptively claim that they’re “not interested at this stage in engaging the issues of data quality.” (Except they are.)
M&W are also called out for adding “poor quality proxies [that have] a material effect on the reconstructions, inflating the level of peak apparent Medieval warmth”. Why can’t they spin the climate record for the benefit of their desired conclusions? It’s standard practice for denialist papers! Sorry Anthony, M&W have to play by the big kid’s rules. What M&W did was to throw back in all garbage data they could to try to cherry-pick their way to an inconclusive trend.
And all this adds up in Anthony’s mind as mere wounded egos on the part of some pesky climatologists…