Monday, November 11, 2013

WUWT comes full circle - will this be the last of Anthony Watts' Typhoon Haiyan protests?

Sou | 12:28 PM Go to the first of 7 comments. Add a comment

I notice that Anthony Watts has come full circle.  He's posted the NASA article (archived here) that he slammed in his first WUWT article, in which he showed such callous indifference to the victims of Typhoon Haiyan.

Even now I'm not sure whether he even realises that is what he's done.   I bet Anthony Watts doesn't even know that it was this very same article that Heidi Cullen tweeted when he chose to ridicule her and (by default) NASA.

His latest article is by Bob Tisdale, who probably got the item from HotWhopper, because there was no sign that anyone at WUWT followed the link in Heidi Cullen's tweet, which Anthony mocked in his original article.  Not Anthony himself and not any of his readers.  (Or if a reader did, I missed it.)

All Anthony's typhoon articles come across as a knee-jerk reaction in protest at extreme weather. This time, in an apparent afterthought (it's an Update), he's decided to add a link to the Red Cross.

Typhoon Haiyan is "global-warming-alarmist hype"?

Anthony Watts and/or Bob Tisdale are still, even now, calling the reports of the typhoon "global-warming-alarmist hype".

I'm lost for words.


  1. Well if Anthony calls it "global-warming-alarmist hype", he must have noticed it sure was alarming - catastrophically alarming - and deserves all the hyperventilation hype brings.

    1. The irony is that despite all Anthony Watts' protests and allegations, I've not read anyone saying Typhoon Haiyan was caused by global warming.

      It's expected that over the course of this century, tropical cyclones and typhoons will become more intense but maybe or maybe not more frequent. Even one of Anthony Watts' Typhoon Haiyan protest articles stated this fact (the Bjorn Lomborg repost).

      Ironical, isn't it, that while Anthony protests so much, it was his own article at WUWT that was one of the few so far that's actually made the link.

    2. After ten minutes head scratching I came up with the simile: "Climate change influences extreme weather events like a team's manager influences each goal/try/home run".

      No one can deny that climate change affects all the planet's weather to a greater or lesser degree. It's altered the 'envelope' in which every weather event occurs. The questions—which can never be answered in the case of single events—are "in what way?" and "by how much?"

    3. I call it the Law of Trenberth: "All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be." (K. Trenberth, March 2012).

      Some 'affects' could cancel, leaving some phenomena perhaps e.g. extratropical Atlantic storms trendless. But some could reinforce another.

      If we knew sea water temps up to say a couple of 100m depth along Haiyan's track and could compare them to a climate mean some decenniums ago, perhaps a wee bit of quantification were possible.

      Climate change MUST affect everything. But this is already quite measurable. Here is an example of how this can be seen: Unnatural catastrophes.

  2. What would it take for these psychopaths to admit that the planet's climate is changing?

    Really - what?

    Bernard J.

  3. Interesting to see Watts' post getting a drubbing from the weather aficionados commenting at Wunderground. They're laughing at him.

    "Scorched earth" tactics are not supposed to include burning one's own reputation.

  4. Denial at its finest from "Braddles" on that thread. Classic case of "what I remember" trumps actual facts:
    "I wonder if those wind speeds are actually measured or estimated. A couple of years ago in Australia, we had cyclone Yasi. The experts said it would reach 180 mph+ (290 kph+), a figure repeated endlessly in the media as Yasi approached the coast. However, the highest wind actually measured on the ground was under 120 mph (190 kph), still strong but a huge difference.
    Nevertheless, Yasi is still rated a strong Cat 5 because the models said it was. Forget the real-world data. Sounds familiar."

    Except that this is pure bollocks. "Experts" - ie the BOM and media people taking their feed reported gusts of 295 kph several hours before landfall and forecast winds in excess of 280 (obviously gusts) when it hit the coast.

    So, what happened? BOM's page on Yasi reports estimated gusts of 285 kph, based on eye-pressure measurements of 929 and 930. Braddles states the highest reading on the ground was under 190 kph. There were two readings of 185 kph - one at Willis Island at which point their anemometer broke, while peak winds were still nearly an hour away (and it wasn't in the direct path of the strongest winds), and the other at Lucinda, 50km's south of where Yasi crossed the coast. Once you make allowance for these pesky little details, gusts above 250 kph at Innisfail are entirely reasonable.

    Yasi rated a just-barely category 5 because the facts said it was. Perhaps Braddles was hoping people would follow his advice to "forget the real-world data".

    I wouldn't normal link to Ken Stewarts nonsense, but in this case the commentary is far more informative than the OP.



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.