Do We Care if 2010 is the Warmist Year in History?

Do We Care if 2010 is the Warmist Year in History?. The new denialist talking point emerges! Who cares if 2010 was the warmest year ever? Ira Glickstein says (well, suggests) that it’s all because of lying corrupt climatologists making malicious adjustments anyway!

Keep talking about that, but remember to add a caveat like:

“What does this all mean? Is this evidence of wrongdoing? Incompetence? Not necessarily.”

A few years ago there was debate about whether 1998 or 1934 was the hottest year ever, but the climatologists made 1998 the hottest year with their evil adjustments! They’re probably doing it again.

Next problem.

Some of the Missing Energy

Some of the Missing Energy. Willis Eschenbach keeps trying to use Excel to disprove the Earth’s accepted energy balance. He’s suddenly learned about evaporation and now the counter-proof is “thunderstorms!” Apparently they make CO2 irrelevant. He also introduces the new preferred energy unit, the “tiny bit”.

Try again.

Where Did I Put That Energy?

Where Did I Put That Energy? More Christmas Guest pudding. Willis Eschenbach is always good for a snort, but before I even caught up to this post he’d admitted a factor of 10 calculation error…

Willis is trying once more to misrepresent Kevin Trenberth’s “travesty“‘ statement that “we can not account for what is happening in the climate system” (he was talking about simple data collection issues, not that the evidence disproved Global Warming). This time he tries to include the oceans in his argument. Why not, eh? They do cover 71% of the Earth’s surface.

Willis’ complicated equation for solving the puzzle is ∆Q (change in energy added) = ∆U (change in energy lost) + ∆Ocean (change in energy in/out of ocean). He substitutes surface temperature “T” divided by the climate sensitivity “S” (conventionally estimated as 0.8) to get this: ∆Q = ∆T / 0.8  + ∆Ocean  (Joules/year). Nuanced, isn’t it?

As always, Willis’ only path to enlightenment is through crappy Excel charts. He theorizes (let’s be generous for a moment) that:

because energy cannot be created or destroyed. If we add extra energy to the system, it has to either leave the system via increased radiation or get stored in the ocean. There is no “lag” or “in the pipeline” possible.

This lets him assert that any discrepancy is proof that the mainstream climatologists are wrong. Handy that, although it doesn’t show any awareness of what Trenberth’s real concern was: that there were areas of the ocean that are inadequately monitored, with potentially unaccounted energy flows.

Still, Willis races on to his profound insight:

I make no hard claims about any of this, as I don’t know where the missing energy really is. I don’t even know if this is the missing energy that Trenberth was talking about. My theory is that the energy is not missing, but that Equation 2 is wrong. My hypothesis is that the earth responds to volcanoes and other forcing losses by cutting back on clouds and thunderstorms.

Sorry dude, a climate hypothesis isn’t something pulled out of your ass, it’s something that uses a real physical mechanism to accurately explain measured values. Changing thermodynamics to suit your interests doesn’t pass muster.

Confirmation of Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day

Confirmation of Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day. December 23rd gave us Anthony Watts’ first Christmas Guest, and Paul Vaughn (M.Sc.) served up a delightful slice of Dunning-Kruger pudding. There’s nothing a denialist likes more than a new and obscure correlation to (briefly) divert the conversation… Causation is for sissies.

Paul wants to show that Earth’s Length of Day is influenced by cosmic rays, which slightly affect atmospheric density. Hence, using the power of wishful thinking, all Global Warming is natural and will reverse itself. Eventually. Paul gives us lots of cluttered stock promoter-style charts, spreading a tiny proportional change over a full chart range. You’d think an analytical genius like, perhaps, Steve McIntyre would call him to task on it wouldn’t you?

Yes, atmospheric and oceanic angular momentum impacts Length of Day. Trivially. This influence, measured as being on the order of one millisecond out of 86,400,000 over a period of months, is significant? Try again. Cue the ignorant arguments about magnetic fields in the comments.

Call for guest authors

Call for guest authors. Anthony Watts wanted his readers to take over misrepresenting and misunderstanding climate science for a week as Christmas loomed. Doesn’t seem that hard; copy and paste a few spin-able press releases, repost another denialist’s article, get some scraps from various conservative think tanks, check the in-basket for missives from Dunning and Kruger.

Looks like I’ll have some even more entertaining posts than usual to digest as I catch up! I wonder if any of these  new authors will affirm mainstream climatology or if they’ll be the same rants we get from Anthony and his team members?

The Story Told by the Southern Oscillation Index

The Story Told by the Southern Oscillation Index. David Archibald guest-posts on Anthony Watts’ blog, trying to make the case that the Southern Oscillation Index, which supposedly influences the Pacific Ocean’s El Niño currents, proves that Global Warming is all just a natural wobble.

Except the “The Story” boils down to arm-waving over very noisy data (with a side reference to Climategate) and concludes with “for some as yet unknown reason.”

Now that’s blog science, Anthony-style…

New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are

New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are“. Ah yes, when I look for compelling climate science, I always turn to the civil engineers at Hydrological Sciences Journal. Just like Anthony Watts. Hey, it’s peer-reviewed! The author’s conclusion? Computer models suck.

So is anyone claiming that global climate models are perfect? Is anyone claiming that they are useful on a local or regional scale? Nope and nope.

Were the models really never compared against the past record? Of course they were! It’s how they were frickin’ developed.

So, what’s better? Still waiting for a credible devastating analysis of “the consensus”.

P.S. I’m just eyeballing things here, but don’t the paper’s temperature charts show an upward trend?

Various temperature time series spatially integrated over the USA. Figure 12 from Anagnostopoulos et. al., 2010.

Testing … testing … is this model powered up?

Testing … testing … is this model powered up?” Willis Eschenbach guest posts on Anthony Watts’ website and mentions about Judith Curry’s “excellent blog”, where she has apparently been talking in her usual vague way about a subject that she seems to have only a superficial understanding of. In this case about “verifying and validating” climate models.

After drowning us in a deluge of Excel charts derived from a variety of old (6+ years) climate models and using a conveniently short 20-year span, Willis tells us that generalized climate models don’t mirror the specific fluctuations of real temperature trends well enough. This, somehow, is a surprise to Willis. Apparently all the climate models must be discarded now.

Newsflash: “general” is not “specific”. The impact of one-time events will never be predicted. Regardless, I guess we can’t trust any of them sneaky climate computer models, can we Anthony?

New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon

New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon“. You know a climate denial book is on shaky ground when even Anthony Watts has trouble with the list of authors! Yes, “Iron Sun” kook Oliver K. Manuel is among this confederacy of dunces.

Windmills on the Moon and dragon-riding astronauts!

Still, Anthony’s happy to report that Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, available as an e-book only, has debunked the greenhouse gas theory. Funny how these devastating “refutations” of accepted science never seem to find their way into an actual scientific journal. Damn those cliquish scientists and their social networks!

Read the author’s modest description of their own work. Bemused emphasis mine.

Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.

Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.

By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.

This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.

Journeyman denialist and former professor of geography Tim Ball seems the only author with even faintly relevant scientific credentials…

Examination of CRU data suggests no statistically significant warming

Examination of CRU data suggests no statistically significant warming“. Anthony Watts’ ferociously qualified associate A.J. Strata says:

Bottom Line – Using two back-of-the-envelope tests for significance against the CRU global temperature data I have discovered:”


“let me explain how I derived (by eye – ugh!) the two primary pieces of data I used”

Back-of-the-envelope tests? Eye-balling? Does anyone need to read any further? A.J., who seems more like a Tea-Bagger than a climate expert, is apparently working backwards from various printed graphs! This is classic denialist bunk, even down to accusations of “deception off on a global scale”. It’s kind of pitiable watching these obsessions play out in public.

So how did A.J. pull the Global Warming edifice down? He’s taken sets of what he claims are raw country temperature data (well actually pretty much of his own invention as he’s pulling the numbers from printed graphs) and slapped a line on them so he can declare that there is no Global Warming. I think I’ll wait for the cover story in Nature before I join the parade. Although he has been “working on [this] for about a week now”.

For a laugh, here's a cherry-picked sample of the printed temp charts A.J. Strata used to prove that there's been no Global Warming. These are from Mozambique and South Africa.

In the comments we get more examples of Anthony threatening critical commenters when he asks “Onion” about the weather in England. Anthony likes to use information from his website logs to reveal private details of his critics so he can make them feel exposed.