Sunday, October 27, 2013

Bob Tisdale hides the warming and tries out a conspiracy theory at WUWT

Sou | 6:12 PM Go to the first of 26 comments. Add a comment

Did I ever say that Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale can be very long-winded?

If one didn't know better on would mistake today's WUWT article as a Poe.  (Archived here.) But Bob Tisdale is ever so serious.  He didn't see the humour in Tamino's take-down of his antics a couple of weeks ago, and I guess he's been stewing on it ever since.  And as regulars know, Bob has a crush on Dana Nuccitelli, who gets more than a mention.

To cut to the chase, Bob reckons that 1990 wasn't a hot year because, wait for it, he says:
1990 was an ENSO-neutral year, according to NOAA’s Oceanic NINO Index. Therefore, “1990 was…” NOT “…an especially hot year”. 
In Bob's world, if there is neither an El Nino or La Nina, the surface temperature must be normal.  (Tell that to us in Australia!)  The temperature can't lie above the trend unless there's an ENSO event according to Bob.  It doesn't matter to Bob that in 1990 the global surface temperature was above the trend line.  It "was an ENSO-neutral year...Therefore, “1990 was…” NOT “…an especially hot year"!

Did I say Bob Tisdale can be a bit odd?

At this point I can hear some readers say "well, Bob Tisdale might be tedious and a bit odd, but Sou at HotWhopper repeats herself".  And you'd be correct.  Here's a chart from when I wrote about his first attempt, that prompted Tamino and me to respond earlier this month.

Data Source: NASA and WUWT!

The chart above shows 1990 compared to prior years and to the trend, which it lies above.

How Bob hides the warming

Now Bob has a good trick to show that 1990 wasn't warm at all.  He disputes the record and I think he's trying to argue that 1990 wasn't really the hottest year on record until 1995 (which it was).  Here's Bob's "proof".

Source: WUWT of course!

Really and truly.  Bob removed the heat to prove it wasn't hot in 1990!  ha ha ha...

I wonder why he included the years after 1990, which of course over time (from 1995) got warmer because of global warming.  I did say one could mistake his article for a Poe.

(Update: It's been pointed out in the comments that the point of detrending the data is to show how much or how little the temperature deviated from the trend - in Bob's case he wanted to show that some deviations were greater than that of 1990.  But that's not the issue as I discussed previously here.  Tamino showed the same but in his case it was to determine by how much 1990 deviated from the trend, not to see if other years deviated.  The deviation of other years is not relevant.  All that is relevant is by how much 1990 deviated because it gives an indication of how much the model runs were wrongly shifted upwards.

The point about the problems with the display of model runs was twofold.  Firstly: The model runs were all aligned to a single point, which was wrong.  They didn't all converge to a single point in 1990 let alone converge exactly on the observed average global temperature anomaly, and shouldn't have been shown as if they did.  Secondly: that point lay above the trend, which meant that the model runs looked higher than they were in reality.  Both of these combined to make the chart wrong.  So Bob going on and on about whether or not 1990 was especially hot or not isn't the point.  The fact that Bob goes to such lengths is doubly odd given that the heat record broken in 1990 wasn't broken again until 1995.  So it really was especially hot in 1990 - and even more "especially hot" since, as Bob pointed out, it wasn't an El Nino year!)

Bob writes more...

Now for the long-winded observation.  Bob took nearly 3,000 words to say that 1990 wasn't a hot year because it was ENSO-neutral.  This time around.  The first time it took him about half as many words.  Next time will it take him 6,000 words?

(For the curious, this article has 494 words down to the WUWT comments, and 1008 words in total. And I'm not known for being parsimonious with words!)

It's a guvmint plot!

If you're wondering where the conspiracy theorising comes into the picture, this is from Bob's latest attempt to turn 1990 into a year that wasn't hot:

Adapted from source: WUWT of course!

He seems to think that the final draft AR5 report was changed by politicians.  AFAIK it was the second order draft, not the final draft in which the authors changed the chart.  But I could be wrong, because they may have still been doing the model runs up until the final draft.  I don't know. Whenever it was introduced I know for a fact that the "politicians" had nothing to do with it.  The changes to AR5 following the meeting with member governments and observers are listed here.  The chart wasn't changed.  (As you'll recall the chart in the first order draft was flawed.)

I've written enough.  I'll hand you over to some WUWT-ers for their reaction to Bob's tedious, long-winded, serious, boring article :)

From the WUWT comments

Here is a short selection for your edification (archived here).  Just so you know that the scientists are right about being wrong or wrong about being right or whatever twisted logic the WUWT-ers are coming up with today.

François GM has his own conspiracy theory and it's a cute one (my bold italics).  Now this might be a Poe, but who can tell at WUWT?
October 26, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Wonderfully entertaining, Bob. And so much work ….
Amazing how they never thought of disappearing the 1998 temperature peak in the early 2000s when the ENSO-induced warming trend suited their purpose.
Now that the 1998 peak belittles the recent temperatures, they attempt to make it go away by de-ENSOing it. Pathetic. So much deception.

Bill Illis says a whole lot more than this.  I've just chosen enough to give you the gist:
October 26, 2013 at 4:58 pm
1990 was the most neutral year one can get.
The average ENSO value (with a 3 month lag) was 0.03C (certainly Zero in ENSO terms with an impact on the global average temperature of 0.002C).

BarryW is having trouble with his anomalies and says:
October 26, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Comparing anomalies is ridiculous if you don’t align them to the same absolute starting conditions. It’s like taking a 100 volt signal and saying it matches a 1 volt signal because I can aline them on the oscilloscope. The only thing I can compare is the pattern of the two signals. The real values are not comparable by using anomalies. The only valid comparison here is the trends.

Theo Goodwin makes no pretence at scepticism and says:
October 26, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Great work, Mr. Tisdale. Thanks for keeping us up to date on what I will call Tamino’s childish efforts at misinformation.

Post script - what's in a name?

Incidentally, there's a lot of discussion of Tamino's name in the comments.  A whole lot.  By lots and lots of people, starting with Anthony Watts.  Bob Tisdale doesn't buy into it (not so far anyway) and I'm thinking it's just possible that Bob Tisdale is not Bob Tisdale's off-screen name (July 1, 2011 at 3:52 pm).

I could be wrong and it doesn't matter one iota to me and neither to any HW regular I should think.  But such things seem to be important to WUWT-ers.  If someone knows if it is his name (or not) they might let me know privately or here, because I don't want to go spreading unfounded rumours.  It's just a thought I had when I read that comment of his some time back.  Plus I don't think he's ever referred to me as anyone but Sou (plus adjectives), unlike his host.  So whatever name he goes by on or off the internet, Bob does seem to respect other people's preferences, which is a mark in his favour.

Anthony Watts behaves like a jerk again and whistles his WUWT dogs:
October 26, 2013 at 4:06 pm
@Bob Tisdale.
Don’t give this jerk “Tamino” the benefit of anonymity. His name is [Souredacted out of courtesy to Tamino], he lives in [Souredacted out of courtesy to Tamino].
Use his name when discussing his claims, if he stands behind his work, then he should have any problem with his name being applied to it.


  1. When will the shades fall from Tisdale's eyes (perhaps his real name is Ray Bann)? Isn't it hilarious to see all those anonymous posters at WUWT get in a tizz about someone using an alias! Interesting too that Watts commented personally. He's an unpleasant person all round, I find.

  2. Yep, Watts is a real charmer!

    As for Tisdale, that chart is a joke. On him.

  3. Didn't AW once make the claim that posts by his anonymous bastards were no problem, in contrast to every other anonymous post on the net, because he (AW) knew the real name of the poster?

    That last comment from AW makes me wonder whether he knew that Bob
    Tisdale is a pseudonym and whether he knows the real name of Bob Tisdale.

    Naturally, I had to write this comment as Anonymous. :-)

    1. Anonymous, Bob may well be using his own name. It was just all the "outing" frenzy at WUWT about Tamino that reminded me of that comment of his that I once came across. Bob might just have meant that he likes his privacy, not that he's using a pseudonym. I truly have no idea.

      (I probably shouldn't have said anything. I don't see a problem either way. It would be ironic though, wouldn't it.)

      IMO it's quite acceptable to use whatever name you want on the internet, provided you don't sock puppet and I don't see Bob doing that.

    2. Wait, I've lost the plot. Wasn't Tamino already "outed" ages ago? For that matter, Tamino identifies himself on his own website, via his book tout.

      What sort of dimwit would uncritically follow Watts' cue and get in a lather about an imaginary problem? Or is that a pointless question, given the context?

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Why don't you show the whole comment by Bill Illis?

    1. Hi anonymous. Bill's comment was very long and the rest of his comment was pretty much in the same vein. I only intended to give a flavour of the comments. I often just post excerpts but as in this case, always say so.

      Bill Illis is a fairly ordinary "skeptic" at WUWT as far as I've seen. Not the funniest. If you are curious to read his entire comment I've posted a link to the archived comments and you can do an F3 search on the page. I could have missed something classic.

      Here's the link again for you: http://archive.is/rReJM

    2. Have to say read in it's entirety the Illis comment is monumentally stupid. The "adjustments" bit was pretty entertaining since no adjustments were involved. What a maroon.

  5. Replies
    1. Thanks, Steve. Someone kindly sent me an email about that and I would have liked to write about it, but I didn't have a copy of the paper. (Yes, I should join up I know. On the wish list at the moment.)

      In any case I'd never have done a tenth as good a job as Richard Telford did. Well worth reading.

    2. You can always just request one from the corresponding author. Usually they're very prompt.

    3. Yes, I suppose I was just making excuses for not finishing my article. (Sometimes scientists respond to requests, not always.)

  6. El Niño years are warm. Therefore all warm years are El Niño years.

    Dogs are animals. Therefore all animals are dogs.

  7. Lets see now, was 1990 hot or not, or was it only warm?
    Who is the masked hero behind the Tamino mask?

    I thought we were now living in 2013 and that the record of warming is pretty clear, {But then, I don't sweat the nickels and pennies when "balancing" my check book either. Yet, I still prosper, in my modest fashion.}.

    How Watts and Tisdale and the rest of the clowns have mastered the Art of Distraction.
    Actually maybe dog-whistle would be a more apt metaphor.

  8. I thought Tamino was quite open about his identity. He highlighted his latest book (it's quite a good primer on statistics) on Open Mind.

    1. Tamino was "outed" a long time ago but prefers to post Tamino articles as Tamino. Naturally, I respect that.

      Anthony Watts doesn't respect that. He goes further and incites his lynch mob every chance he gets, in this case stopping just short of writing his street address.

      Bob Tisdale doesn't follow Anthony Watts' lead. Bob refers to Tamino as Tamino throughout.

    2. The bully. And the lynch mob of course posting under nicknames. Probably 90% don't even know what they are or what they are trying to do (used to this re my other subject).

  9. Sou, Tamino also presented detrended global surface temperature data (hid the warming):

    the difference was Tisdale used the average of GISS, HADCRUT, NCDC, RSS and UAH data, when Tamino only used GISS.

    the ‘before’ IPCC Figure 1.4 in Tisdale’s side-by-side also appears in their second-order draft. See page 39:



    1. Yes, you're right veritas6053. I was a bit sloppy in that part. And thanks for the info re the chart history.

    2. 'stopgreensuicide.com'! That's an intriguing location to refer to a public document from, don't you think? Confidence inspiring, would you say?

    3. "detrended" - jeez, that's so silly. When, if ever, will Bob Tisdale understand the law of conservation of energy?

    4. Anonymous @ October 28, 2013 at 2:27 PM

      why are you not asking Tamino the same question when he detrended the data?

      it looks as though Tisdale used detrended data because Tamino used detrended data.

      btw, detrending is done all of the time. NOAA's AMO index is detrended N. Atlantic SSTa data.



    5. Thanks, Veritas6053. Your comment prompted me to expand on this as a new blog article.


  10. In 1990 the year was considered globally hot; so much so that it was a record year. The same applied in 1998.

    In 2100 I guess that the latter half of the 20th century and the first half of the 21st century will be considered to have been cold. Such is historical perspective.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.