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.

Australia’s white summer, Monbiot’s red fury

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.)

A helpful note to Dr. Eric Steig

A helpful note to Dr. Eric Steig. Anthony Watts casts about for something critical to say about “perfesser” Eric Steig, whose 2009 paper on Antarctic warming trends was supposedly refuted by Anthony’s team-mates, O’Donnell, Lewis, and McIntyre. In this case “refuted” means that they packaged the data slightly differently and got slightly different warming trends. Thus revealing once and for all (the denialists shouted) that Global Warming isn’t happening.

Here’s the response to a comment by “MapleLeaf” at Real Climate that has Anthony foolishly yelling “gotcha!”

And why did WUWT show an image that appears to have less warming than the one shown here by Eric? Sorry but I have to fault you both there..the figures should show for what season they are valid, or if they are for annual temperatures.

[The figure here shows O’Donnell’s et al.s reconstruction for the same time period as our Nature cover image. These are annual mean estimates. I cannot speak to WTF WUWT has done.–eric]

So what is Anthony’s “gotcha” advice to Dr. Steig? It wasn’t Anthony who used temperature color bands that visually minimized warming in the Antarctic temperature anomaly map shown on Watts Up With That, it was someone else! Ooh, snap! Anthony just blindly copied and pasted it, like the alert “skeptic” he is, so you can’t blame him for any graphics shenanigans. Take that “perfesser”, you were impugning the wrong website!

There was much denialist lip-licking when this paper was in preparation. Finally the virtuous scientist-citizens were going to show the corrupt climatologists how to do science… Too bad that in the end the authors had to conform to reality and found themselves the proud owners of a dud. From O’Donnell’s closing comments:

In my opinion, the Steig reconstruction was quite clever, and the general concept was sound.

Poor  Anthony’s looking for a way to pretend the denialist firecracker didn’t fizzle.

BBC “disappears” headline “Coldest December Day on record for some sites”

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.

AMO+PDO= temperature variation – one graph says it all

AMO+PDO= temperature variation – one graph says it all. If you’ve got a high-school science project, the “Science and Public Policy” Institute has a laser printer! Anthony Watts is eager to tell us about the latest final nail in the coffin of AGW from retired meteorologist Joe D’Aleo and geologist Don Easterbrook. Our hopeful contestants present Multidecadal Tendencies in ENSO and Global Temperatures Related to Multidecadal Oscillations. They’ve managed to force the US Mean Temperature to look like it’s a near-perfect match for ocean circulation patterns! Global Warming is dead! And it’s natural. Although they do admit that there is “some departure after around 2000.”

More wishful chart fiddling from denialists. After D’Aleo and Easterbrook.

How did they see what no-one else could? Well they chose their time period carefully so they could exclude the last ten years of warming that oppose the natural patterns. Then they smoothed the heck out of the data to artificially inflate the confidence of their results. Of course the AMO (detrended North Atlantic SST anomalies) and PDO (principal component analysis North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N) are incompatible values, so we have to wonder why they are combined. One graph does indeed say it all…

Of course, even if their claim withstood examination they still would have only found a correlation. Are the ocean circulation patterns driving air temperature, or vice versa, or is something else driving both? Joe and Don are silent on this interesting subject. Can you say anti-science?

Climatologists have no problem observing natural patterns in historical temperature data and proxies. They just also know that the recent global temperature increases do not follow any of these natural patterns.

Loehle: Vindication

Loehle: Vindication. Craig Loehle uses Anthony Watts’ blog to declare “victory!” over criticisms of his 2008 temperature reconstruction, which claimed to overthrow Mann’s “hockey-stick” reconstruction, in the discredited journal Energy & Environment (A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data).

At the same time, I have been repeatedly insulted about it on the web. It is claimed that it has been debunked, is junk, that E&E is not a “real” journal, that I’m a hack, that I “only” used 18 series (though 2 were composites covering China & North America), etc. In the ClimateGate emails, Mann called it “awful” (which I’ll take as a compliment!). Lot’s of fun. In this post I demonstrate perhaps a little vindication.

Feel good to get that off your chest Craig?

Craig Loehle's misleading comparison of his discredited temperature reconstruction to a new one by Ljungqvist.

So was this victory achieved? Apparently through a new paper by Fredrik Ljungqvist called “A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millenia“, in Geografiska Annaler. And all Loehle has to do is cheat the charts a bit! Don’t align over the calibration period, center “on their respective long-term mean values”, ‘warm’ the new reconstruction a bit to get it closer to yours, use non-comparable baselines, and… victory!

An honest comparison of Loehle's proxy reconstruction. Loehle's is the red high one, Ljungqvist's is the green one in middle with the rest. By Zeke Hausfather

Funny that the Ljungqvist abstract ends with this, uh, inconvenient quote (underline mine):

Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.

I guess Loehle and Anthony were too lazy to read the whole thing, even though they pasted it into their article. Is this what passes for “vindication” in denialist circles these days?

A MUST READ: European climate, Alpine glaciers and Arctic ice in relation to North Atlantic SST record

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.