Monday, January 27, 2014

Anthony Watts forgot to satire tag justthefactswuwt

Sou | 12:45 AM Go to the first of 6 comments. Add a comment

Justthefactswuwt is back with some satire - at least that's what it looks like to the casual reader (archived here).

There's the schematic from FAR that Fred Singer abused recently, with no numbers on the temperature scale and no indication of what data it is based upon.  In fact there is no description given at all at WUWT.  Here is the description - dunno how I missed it.
The Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age can be seen clearly on the following temperature reconstruction based upon Alexandre, 1987 and Lamb, 1988, found Page 250, Figure 7.1 of IPCC Assessment Report 1:
Funny how science deniers keep yelling for "code and data" but don't ask for data when it suits them and don't even ask for numbering on the axis.

Source: WUWT - from the IPCC First Assessment Report 1990

As Lars Karlssen pointed out, the origin was traced by Jones et al (2009) - see Appendix A page 36.  It's history goes all the way back to this paper by Lamb from 1965.

It is so primitive I'm surprised that even science deniers keep resurrecting it.

Here is an animation comparing the above chart as shown at WUWT with Figure 7.1 from FAR (page 202, not as cited by justthefactswuwt as page 250).

I've added the current anomaly assuming the markings on the scale at the left denote one degree Celsius.  The caption states the "dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century".  Temperatures are now 0.8 degrees above those "near the beginning of the twentieth century" so even on the above schematic, Earth is now approximately 0.2 degrees hotter than the highest temperature in the schematic.

By the way, the sentence in FAR that references the chart is as follows (my bold italics).
The period since the end of the last glaciation has been characterized by small changes in global average temperature with a range of probably less than 2°C (Figure 7 1), though it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global.

Compare it with this latest set of reconstructions by lots of different independent teams using lots of proxies from all around the world.

Figure 5.7 IPCC AR5 WG1 Reconstructed (a) Northern Hemisphere and (b) Southern Hemisphere, and (c) global annual temperatures during the last 2000 years. Individual reconstructions (see Appendix 5.A.1 for further information about each one) are shown as indicated in the legends, grouped by colour according to their spatial representation (red: land-only all latitudes; orange: land-only extra-tropical latitudes; light blue: land and sea extra-tropical latitudes; dark blue: land and sea all latitudes) and instrumental temperatures shown in black (HadCRUT4 land and sea, and CRUTEM4 land-only; Morice et al., 2012). All series represent anomalies (°C) from the 1881–1980 mean (horizontal dashed line) and have been smoothed with a filter that reduces variations on timescales less than ~50 years.

The other bit of satire, or I presume it's satire, is when justthefactswuwt puts up this chart and directly underneath it writes: In fact it was not until approximately 1975 that temperatures began to rise. As such, one could argue that Global Warming began in approximately 1975.

Apparently if the anomaly is below the baseline it doesn't count with WUWT!

There's more nuttery at the WUWTery - but that's all I have time for.

From the WUWT comments

This article attracted the 8% Dismissives at WUWT.  No-one with more than half a brain bothered to comment. (Archived here.)

Latitude says "the overall trend is down":
January 25, 2014 at 6:02 pm
JTF…thank you for another excellent article
I particularly glad you posted that second chart….everyone should notice two things
The overall trend is down, with a few uptics…
..and….how small the difference is between what we are calling the modern warm period..and the little ice age
The ‘Hysterics” are all about a 1 degree swing in temps….if our climate didn’t bounce around 1 degree.. it wouldn’t be normal…..but the overall trend is still down
This must be what Latitude sees:

George McFly......I'm your density tells Anthony Watts to make an even bigger fool of himself:
January 25, 2014 at 7:28 pm
Anthony, this should be published in every major newspaper in the world as a paid full page advertisement (possibly excluding the first paragraph). I would be happy to make a contribution to this.

Dreadnought talks about the intellectually moribund - ha ha ha:
January 25, 2014 at 5:39 pm
What a truly excellent article, thank you!
It just goes to show how wide-of-the-mark and intellectually moribund those who deploy the ‘denier’ insult actually are. They are lower than a snake’s belly in a gutter.
And that’s before you even take into account their unwitting invocation of Godwin’s Law, by attempting to smear those who are sceptical of the CAGW conjecture as having Holocaust denial tendencies.
Providing you accept the veracity of the data used to create the above graphs, there is no doubt that the CAGW conjecture is pure bunkum. The jig is up, and the hoax is finally over.


  1. For that date, 1965, the H.H. Lamb picture isn't bad at all.

    When I began entering the scene halfway the eighties, the LIA and MWP were still the main features of global temp development over the past millenium/millenia, though the years had begun to touch the upper MWP envelop. The climate catastrophe since renders those old wiggles of MWP and LIA more insignificant by the year. Singer's demented trick is to have us forget the past half century wholesale. Sure, forget him.

    1. I've looked at it more closely and I agree, it's not that bad of a schematic given there was no global or NH reconstruction at the time. I've put in a marker for current temps and the actual FAR chart for comparison above as an update.

  2. The graph is cherry-picked in a way that shows that people either never read the original source or else ignored the surrounding caveats, (pp. 199-206) IPCC(1990) where IPCC basically said they didn't know much yet, had doubts of a global MWP. That led to a lot of research, real reconstructions in place of Lamb(1865), by 1992/1993, and all this was gone by IPCC(1995).

    It is also a false citation. because if you compare the WUWT graph with the real one, the images are not the same:
    Real one:
    (c) in upper left corner
    Temperature change (lower case change)
    Sanserif font
    Yeas before present
    All of which were different.
    The curve is ~right, but the image came from somewhere else.

    WUWT's is identical to that of John Daly, non-scientist "science advisor" to the Western Fuels Association (Powder River coal), here.
    Daly showed an image of unknown provenance, and then used a false citation that claimed it for 1995, totally untrue, hinting that he had access to neither 1990 n or 1995. He's dead, so we can't ask him where he got it.
    The same graph and falsehood about 1995 was used by Steve McIntyre in 2005. When Tom Curtis later asked, McIntyre couldn't remember where he got it.

    The same thing persisted in the blueprint for the Wegman Report, i..e., dog astrology journal, JSE Curiously, a few weeks earlier, McKitrick's talk in Australia got JSE right, but in Washington, JSE became Science.

    As the Stoat says, it's the Adoiration of the Lamb, although I prefer to call it allegiance to a flat-earth map in an age of GPS..

    1. John, I've added an update comparing the WUWT chart with the FAR chart, and in the animation I've also marked the current, which is around 0.2 degrees hotter than the highest temperature on the schematic.

    2. Thanks, the "blink" graph is nice.

    3. Note of course, that the spaghetti graph curves not only sued different methods, but the results must depend heavily on the geography they claim to cover. One expect bigger jiggles in a reconstruction that covers 30-90N, 50% of the NH,and dominated by land, compared to ar 0-90N NH (like MBH99), which has more water, or NH+SH, which has much more water.

      Of course, N. Atlantic-area-weighted curves might swing more, and Central England ... a lot.


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.