“GISS land and sea ratios revisited“. When Anthony Watts cross-posts a teammate’s refutation of an earlier post you know that it must have been the source of a lot of embarrassment.
Fellow-denialist Bob Tisdale explains, gently, how Frank Lansner’s ignorant beef about the way GISS produces global temperature estimates from land station records is baseless. Zeke did it better though.
Spot the differences? The "Trick" is revealed! From Climate Observations.
“Tipping point at GISS? Land and sea weight out of balance“. Anthony Watts gives us Frank Lanser’s ill-informed assumptions about how GISS integrates land and sea temperature readings and hopes we’ll bite.
Frank maintains that GISS uses a land weighting of 67%, which is the reverse of the land/ocean ratio. They’re lying! Aussie dunce Joanne Nova is in enthusiastic agreement with Frank’s stunning discovery.
Except Frank, Joanne and Anthony have no clue what they’re talking about. Zeke explains it to them in mostly small words.
“New Dogs; Old Tricks“. Like the croaking raven, Steve McIntyre spends his days rasping out “the trick!” Steven Mosher assures us that this somnambulistic accusation is “largely misunderstood by nearly everyone discussing it, except Steve and a few of his readers.” Such brilliant minds that can, like the Emperor of fable, discern something so invisible to everyone else! I presume Mosher includes himself in that select few.
Mosher wants us to know that Steve McIntyre has begun a series of curmudgeonly posts about his critics, focussing strangely on desmogblog.com‘s summary of Brian Angliss’ exposure of McIntyre’s false accusations about dendrochronology climate evidence.
Here’s a short version of the years-old puffed up controversy: “northern” tree rings correlate with interpreted climate trends up until about 1960 when they suddenly began showing an opposite trend. This means that “northern” tree rings are a useful climate indicator in older times because they match other measured trends. But after 1960 they don’t respond the same way as other indicators, so they shouldn’t be used in the most modern era. Why the change? I don’t think it’s understood yet. Why use the older data? Because it’s a good indicator and the data can be accurately collected. Seems kind of straight-forward to me. But Steven McIntyre claims that if tree rings stopped correlating to climate then they shouldn’t be used even for the time periods where they work. This is kind of like drinking from a bottle of milk every day and when later the milk starts to turn sour declaring that it must always have been sour.
Here’s a trick, Steven (and Steve): spend all your time implying malicious motivations by your critics and make vague insinuations about their arguments while talking as little as possible about the actual subject. You guys are good at that one.
As Steven Mosher grandly declares, we can indeed “watch the things [a slippery denialist] chooses to discuss and which things get ignored.” [my revision] Like the fact that so little of the scientific evidence of Global Warming is legitimately challenged by the denialists and how much time they spend talking about personalities and punctuation…
“New bear species discovered: Ursus Bogus“. Anthony Watts claims he’s been “avoiding this photo issue” but he somehow manages to jump in with both feet. The denialists are outraged that the recent letter in Science about the political and personal attacks by denialists on climate scientists was printed with a photoshopped image of a polar bear on an ice floe. This is a deception!!!!! Damn those graphic artists!
iStockphoto.com is part of the conspiracy!
When you’ve got no real argument to make I guess you argue about nothing.
“Climate Actually Changes! Film at 11:00!“. The USA’s EPA has done a masterful job of responding to denialist submissions about their finding that rising CO2 emissions constitute an environmental danger. Anthony Watts and Co. have, sensibly, been pretty quiet about this hoping that their readers will remain unaware of the smack-down.
Part of that effort was an educational report released in April, 2010 called Climate Change Indicators in the United States.
Willis Eschenbach's statistical analysis of the state of climate knowledge...
Willis Eschenbach tries to brave it out here, inventing a cute pie chart that apparently “shows” how little we know about climate. Other than that he simply waves his arms about indignantly about choices of words and other nit-picked irrelevancies. They don’t interpret the Heat Wave Index trend the way he thinks they should! A reference link doesn’t go to the data it’s supposed to! The Drought Monitor indicator is too new!
24 indicators, nit-picks with two of them.
“Hotness is in the eye of the beholder“. Anthony posts more nit-picking from Frank Lansner. He’s confused and angry because different representations of surface temperature anomalies use different colors. Specifically he’s comparing NOAA vs. UNISYS Sea Surface Temperature plots. Of course he has very little idea about the decisions behind the representation of either dataset…
He seems to be of the opinion that only ‘cool’ colors should be used so as not to upset anyone, and that there should only be one baseline value to plot from. Different plots are created for different purposes, Frank. No, “tricking” people is a valid scientific purpose.
At least Frank learned that the NESDIS dataset is gathered at night to eliminate variable solar heating of the sea surface and solar glare.
“500,000 km2 Discrepancy Between NSIDC and NORSEX“. More confusion from Steve Goddard. NSIDC is clearly falsifying the Arctic Sea Ice Extent data because their trend is different from the ArcticROOS one (NORSEX)! It’s lower and dropping faster. This is ‘conclusively’ proven by taking the Sea Ice Extent graphs published by the two agencies and distorting them with a graphics editor.
Um, the two agencies define Sea Ice Extent differently.
Steven seem to think he can draw meaningful conclusions from squeezing and stretching JPG files in Photoshop. That just about sums up his scientific contribution.