OH NO! Too much fresh water! (but we can’t tell)

OH NO! Too much fresh water! (but we can’t tell). Holy cow, Anthony Watts says that a news release from University of California, Irvine sort-of contradicts itself! You know what this means, don’t you – there is no Global Warming! He ponders – “Do these guys even read their own press releases? I want my California State taxes back.”

Apparently Anthony doesn’t read press releases either. He juxtaposes “study finds alarming increase” and “there is no global discharge measurement network” but seems incapable of understanding that the lack of a “measurement network” doesn’t mean that they aren’t able to measure something. This sentence slipped past Anthony’s incurious nose:

This paper uses satellite records of sea level rise, precipitation and evaporation to put together a unique 13-year record – the longest and first of its kind. (Emphasis mine)

So the news release title is “First-of-its-kind study finds alarming increase in flow of water into oceans.” They estimate that freshwater outflow has increased by 18% since 1994 and 2006. The authors clearly are ‘climate alarmists’ because they say:

“In general, more water is good,” Famiglietti said. “But here’s the problem: Not everybody is getting more rainfall, and those who are may not need it. What we’re seeing is exactly what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted – that precipitation is increasing in the tropics and the Arctic Circle with heavier, more punishing storms. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people live in semiarid regions, and those are drying up.”

Delivering Messages Is Not Communicating

Delivering Messages Is Not Communicating. Thomas Fuller rambles on in an “op ed” guest post about how “they” are losing the battle of “messages”. “They” need over-dramatize because:

there really isn’t enough data to make a definitive case for the type of climate change the establishment needs to command immediate and decisive action. (emphasis mine)

Andrew Montford’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion? Not defeated by a blog! Hah! Stephen Schneider’s paper about the credibility of climate change authors? Somehow, libelous! Environmental videos featuring exploding children? In poor taste! (I’ll give you that one.) Hair-splitting denialist scientists like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy? Still splitting hairs!

But what is the denialist messaging, Thomas? Climategate fraud accusations – proven to be fabricated. Political and legal attacks on scientists – proven to be unjustifiable. Statistical evidence disputing global warming – proven to be misreprentative.

Your ‘message’ is one of insinuation about their motives. “Their” message is that denialists are provably lying. Pick a side.

New Scientist’s Fred Pearce calls for Pachauri to resign

New Scientist’s Fred Pearce calls for Pachauri to resign. More trenchant scientific insight from Anthony Watts. Fred Pearce has written in the enthusiastically right-wing Mail that “amiable, bearded, vegetarian railway engineer and cricket fanatic” Dr. Pachauri should resign from his position as Chairman of the IPCC.

Anthony wants us to infer that Pachauri is a corrupt, dishonest and unqualified politician, but the source article seems more focussed on the toll that fabricated denialist assaults have had on the IPCC’s reputation and that Pachauri’s departure might take some of that baggage with him.

Funny how when Fred Pearce says something that suits Anthony’s agenda he’s happy to take it at face value instead of railing against it like his has done in past coverage. Not the mark of an objective mind…

This all proves, of course, that there is no Global Warming.

The other embarrassing AGW story this week

The other embarrassing AGW story this week. Osama bin Laden is against climate change, because he apparently mentions the recent Pakistan floods in his latest audio release. This, according to Anthony Watts, makes him an ally of those commie ‘warmists’ because like them he’s “a man who kills people for having a differing view than him”.

I think I’ll just let this sit there and let you can draw your own conclusions about the workings of Anthony’s mind.

GISS on: How Warm Was This Summer?

GISS on: How Warm Was This Summer?. It was weather, not climate in Russia this summer! NOAA and NASA agree! Thanks Anthony.

It's like a heat wave!

Sure Russian’s hot summer can linked to particular weather patterns. But what about the global climate? Hmmm.

“Though calendar year 2010 may or may not turn out to be the warmest on record, the warmest 12-month period in the GISS analysis was reached in mid-2010.” – GISS director, James Hansen.

Oh, I see. Nothing more than Anthony Watts’ regular cherry-picking.

Various WUWT Articles About the “10:10” Video

O…M…G – Video explodes skeptical kids in bloodbath. Anthony Watts joins in the “astonishment” and “outrage” over this poorly conceived video. I have to point out that the blowin’ up kids bit is only the first of the four scenes. No compassion for white-collar workers, footballers or hard-working narrators?

10:10 exploding skeptical children video “disappears”. Anthony wants to know where the video has gone. Did Dr. Phil Jones e-mail everyone to delete it? Wait he’s found it again! Those wishing to refresh their outrage should click-through.

A message to 10:10 -”sorry”, just doesn’t cut it. Why, oh why would Anthony accept the video author’s apologies when he can continue to use it to malign all environmentalists?

WUWT’s story on 10:10 – 3rd most popular on WordPress globally – even in New Zealand. Anthony boasts about his web statistics. That was a given, wasn’t it?

Blow Me Up, Blow Me Down. Thomas Fuller continues to represent this video as proof that environmentalists think that “it’s okay to ostracize, bully and dismiss those who don’t agree that climate change”. Apparently their intent “is to legitimize the cruelty of children towards each other”. Go get ’em, Junior! Thomas knows he’s gone off the deep end though, because he spends a lot of time trying to preëmpt charges of Nazi allusions (while accusing environmentalists of doing it first).

The Royal Society’s Toned Down Climate Stance

The Royal Society’s Toned Down Climate Stance. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (urging no policy because there is no warming) has jumped on the pretend bandwagon and “welcomed the Royal Society’s decision to revise and tone down its position on climate change.” They tell us the the Royal Society now agrees with them, and they’re now BFFs.

Whatever. The actual Royal Society pamphlet is in full agreement with the “consensus view” and the despised IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report.

Threshers - in - spaaaace!

Funny that the commenters are mistaking the labeled sketch of the Cryosat satellite on the Royal Society’s publication for an old-fashioned thresher while also talking about how they’re going to “teach the scientists.” Groan.

Royal Society blinks – embraces sceptics and uncertainty

Royal Society blinks – embraces sceptics and uncertainty. The Royal Society has released a 19-page layman’s guide to climate change science. Because it’s fairly cautious and restricts itself to the physical science of climate change the denialist industry, including dear Anthony Watts, is trying to crow that the Royal Society has “blinked” and changed their position on climate change (i.e. that it’s real).

So did the Royal Society suddenly realise that their 43 “rebellious” members were right and their 1700 other members were not? No. The document states right off the bat that there is “strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity”. If this is what passes for turning tail and running these days it’s a pretty thin gruel.

Here’s the desperate little nub the denialists are pinning their hopes on – pretending that any awareness of uncertainties is new:

“The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.” (italics mine)

“There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.” (italics mine)

Well, duh. Useful regional predictions may not be possible in this decade, but global ones have been made and are coming to pass. Royal Society vice president John Pethica says “If the report sounds cautious, that’s because the IPCC is cautious” and “There is no change in the science.” Their statement from December 2009, Preventing dangerous climate change, (pdf here) stands unchanged, as does their 2007 Climate change controversies: a simple guide.

That 2007 pamphlet remains an effective rebuttal to Anthony’s most recent posts, which shows just how stagnant and intellectually bankrupt the denialist arguments are. Funny or sad? I guess it depends on your perspective.

Nicole lasts all of 6-hours as a named tropical storm

Nicole lasts all of 6-hours as a named tropical storm. Tropical storm Nicole peters out after six hours, so Anthony Watts sniffs that the climate scientist conspiracy is giving names to smaller storms so they can inflate the numbers and trick the denialists into surrendering.

Of course since this tropical storm is the only evidence of AGW, at least for the purposes of this denialist talking point, it’s decline is the final nail in the coffin of global warming.

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?