New bear species discovered: Ursus Bogus

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! 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!

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

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

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.

NOAA says – Hottest (Warmest) March on Record

NOAA says – Hottest (Warmest) March on Record“. Anthony Watts pastes in some weather info from NOAA, but prefaces it with this sullen complaint:

I’m sure the press will make this into a much bigger story. This today from NOAA News. The choice of “hottest” in the title is interesting. We should ask our Canadian friends if it was “hot” during March, since Canada seems to be leading the world in “hotness” according to the NOAA image.

NOAA Global Temp. Anomalies. Yes, it was "hotter than average" in Canada.

Guess what, Anthony? It was a “hot” March up here. To quote NOAA, “Temperature anomaly is the difference from average“. This is not a story, this is evidence. Deal with it.

Oxburgh’s 5 page Climategate book report gets a failing grade

Oxburgh’s 5 page Climategate book report gets a failing grade“. Oh, here’s a shocker. Anthony Watts tells us that the latest report on Climategate, by the Oxburgh Panel, is worthless. A whitewash!!!!

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, the denialist operation that is home to such notables as Ian Pilmer and Nigel Lawson, call it “Another Unsatisfactory Rushed Job“.

Steven McIntyre is still fixated on a certain word, he declares “Oxburgh’s Trick to Hide the Trick”.

Could it be because the report exonerates the Climate Research Unit and Dr. Phil Jones (emphasis mine)?

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.  Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

Or because of how they describe the assaults of denialists like Steven McIntyre (emphasis mine)?

We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU.  They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted.

2012-07-19 Update: Norfolk police have called off their investigation for procedural reasons, but state:

“However, as a result of our inquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct inquiries. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”

An error in the pole hole assumption

An error in the pole hole assumption“. Even Steven Goddard chokes when the lunatic right-wing web site “The American Thinker”, which presumably he finds otherwise agreeable, tries to add to their roster of birther/muslim conspiracy theories by claiming that the decline in the Arctic sea ice extent has (naturally through a “trick”) been deliberately overstated.

Yes, the satellites for reasons of orbital mechanics can’t overfly the real north and south poles. No, that doesn’t mean that there are large stretches of open water concealed from our view at the north pole in the dead of winter.

Classic “Tea Party” mentality, which is so, so close to the denialist mentality.

  1. Choose desired conclusion (government is evil/earth not warming).
  2. Find something that you think might support your desired conclusion.
  3. Cling to it in spite of all contrary evidence and logic.

WUWT Status report – 40 million

WUWT Status report – 40 million” Anthony Watts blows his own horn over his web stats, claiming the status of “the most visited climate science blog in the world” and in the process admits that he’s “resorted to posting a lot of press releases rather than analysis and commentary” owing to “a period of exhaustion and illness”.

Yet somehow in spite of this elevated status traffic has slowed to about half since December, his revenues are down, and he’s going to have to start posting more ads.

Joe Romm over at Climate Progress handily dissects Anthony’s statistical “trick”. “Memo to Watts: “Hits” are what people use when they want to hype or inflate their webstats.” The only stat Anthony provides in support of his claim is a dubious Alexa statistic for “Daily Reach”. 40 million total hits also doesn’t seem to hold up so well to Climate Progress’ own stat of 20 million in the first three months of 2010, but as Joe says “hits” are a deceptive benchmark.

This stat doesn't look as good as the one Anthony touts...


GISScapades“. Willis Eschenbach tries to support Joe Bastardi’s ignorance with accusations about Arctic surface station temperature extrapolation. It boils down to this claim: “No data available? No problem, just build in some high temperatures …

Willis can make up some number series that show decent correlations, which is very clever of him. But it doesn’t undermine the fact that the surface station data used to represent the Arctic Ocean is real. His chart also deliberately minimizes the legitimate overlap of the two dozen surface stations that are used to extrapolate into the Arctic Ocean. There is no theoretical surface station being generated in the center of the Arctic Ocean as Willis tries to insinuate.

The most damning thing that Willis can actually say at the end of all this is (bolding mine): “Their trends may not be similar at all.” All that waving of charts and polar maps, and this is what it boils down to?

Quadruple those surface station ranges and tell me how poorly represented the Arctic Ocean is (from wattsupwiththat).

Of course if you want to avoid the extrapolation, just use a different data set. There are several. They show similar results regardless of whether they include extrapolations for the unavailable Arctic Ocean temperature data.

Or you could use satellite data and avoid the whole issue.

Why Joe Bastardi sees red: A look at Sea Ice and GISTEMP and starting choices

Why Joe Bastardi sees red: A look at Sea Ice and GISTEMP and starting choices“. Groan. Anthony Watts is promoting another “simple question” from Joe Bastardi: “If it’s warmer than normal, you should not have an increase in ice.” Joe, the chart is of temperature anomalies not temperature. So even though its warmer in the arctic that doesn’t mean that it’s warm. Joe Romm’s post on Climate Progress takes this on more fully – “Accuweather’s “expert long-range forecaster” Joe Bastardi has now firmly established himself as the least informed, most anti-scientific meteorologist in the world.

GISS surface temperature anomaly, Dec-Jan-Feb 2010.

Naturally Anthony’s totally onboard with Joe Bastardi’s dark hints about conspiracy theories and “magical readjustment”. Also, he claims that using red to denote positive temperature anomalies is deceptive.

Anthony also posts a blizzard of charts which boil down to an exercise in picking a baseline date at a time when some of the global warming has already occurred to reduce the apparent temperature anomaly. Why didn’t he just set today as the baseline and declare NO temperature anomaly? If you’re going to misuse data might as well go all-in.

He the cooly admits that “anomalies can show anything you want based of choosing the base period.” We know, Anthony, you just gave us a master-class in biased analysis!