Denier weirdness: Anthony Watts at WUWT predicts major imminent global cooling

Not a lot of time today but I just couldn't pass this one up.

Anthony Watts has gone full-on denier in an article about global surface temperatures (archived here). At the very end of his article he puts up this chart:

Source: WUWT

And he writes:

To my eye, I see a natural sine wave, which I’ve traced below on the same graph in solid grey, with extrapolated segments in dashed grey:

It seems to me that our current “pause” might simply be that we are at the top of that sine wave I see, and that we might actually see some cooling ahead, assuming it isn’t all adjusted away by the next “improvement” from NCDC.

First up, I'd say his eye is out a bit if he thinks it's a natural sine wave. Second up, did you notice his conspiratorial thinking? But lets leave all that aside and assume that the Anthony's "wave" will be repeated. Here's the result:

Oh my! It looks as if Anthony Watts has become a greenhouse effect denier. He speculates that global temperatures will drop by more than 1°C before the end of this century.

Addendum: How Anthony Watts "disappears" the Little Ice Age

Since Anthony bothered to put in some dotted lines for "extrapolated segments", you might like to see how well his hindcast matches up with the instrumental record. I've superimposed HadCRUT4 and "extrapolated" Anthony's wave. It's not looking too hot. Or should I say it is looking too hot. Has Anthony decided to "disappear" half the Little Ice Age? :)

Sources: WUWT and HadCRUT4

(Added by Sou 10:48 pm 27 July 2014)

Now compare Anthony's prediction with IPCC temperature anomaly projections for different cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If we're not careful, by 2100 the world will be more than 3 or 4°C hotter than this year and maybe 5°C or more hotter than it was in 1870:

Adapted from source: IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers

Click "read more" to see what WUWT deniers have to say.

From the WUWT comments

Anthony's closing line was: "I’ll leave you all to the squabble which will surely follow." But his readers weren't interested. There were almost no comments about Anthony's predicted global cooling this century. Perhaps it was a test to see if there were any normal people still reading WUWT. If there are, they rarely comment there.

Most of the deniers are bickering about whether this century started in 2000 or 2001. There were a lot of OT comments, like this one which, interestingly, puts the kibosh on Y2K denier claims that it wasn't a serious issue. dp says:

July 26, 2014 at 1:45 pm
As someone who was a principle player for a very large aluminum customer in the Pacific North West the Y2K bug was not trivial, finding and correcting things before the Y2K roll-over was an enormous effort, and we were well rewarded for our work. Because of our success the Y2K “bug” effect was minimized by us, and trivialized by an ignorant press. If one weren’t part of the solution it is unlikely one have any notion of the scale of the problem.

A few other people back up dp's comment. Which raises the question, what will deniers say if the world manages to cut emissions enough soon enough to prevent the worst of global warming? Will they say there wasn't a problem to start with or will they acknowledge that the world managed to act in time? For example, GabrielHBay talks about being "never praised for the effort that went into preventing them from going wrong":

July 27, 2014 at 1:10 am@dp : Agreed, but no matter how many times one tries to explain, those who have no idea what went on behind the scenes persist in thinking that, because of the problem was contained through huge effort, Y2K was trivial to start off with, rather than to acknowledge the success of the containing effort… One only gets slammed if systems go wrong… never praised for the effort that went into preventing them from going wrong. Ah well. That’s the nature of the system support game. 

Other comments include:

Non Nomen finds Anthony's nonsense "absolutely fascinating" and says:

July 26, 2014 at 10:50 am
Absolutely fascinating. It is going to be a real pain in the *ss of certain people being shot with their own weapon. Thanks!

Jim Davidson fails basic arithmetic, not able to calculate (396-369)/369=7.3%, and says:

July 26, 2014 at 11:57 am
You are perpetuating the arguments of the warmists. You say:” CO2 has risen from 369ppm in 2000 to 396.48 in 2013, an increase of about 7.3% You go from parts per million to parts per hundred. If you want to express your answer in parts per hundred (%), you should be in parts per hundred throughout. You should have said: ” CO2 has risen from 0.0369% in 2000 to 0.0396% in 2013, an increase of about 0.0025%.”

Quite a few people try to straighten out Jim's crooked thinking, such as Rex (who doesn't seem too concerned about "The Enemy" mocking Anthony's crooked thinking):

July 26, 2014 at 2:22 pm
>> Jim Davidson says:
What I meant was this :

Assuming proportions of the same base number,
if 20% of the population were completely bonkers
last year, and 25% of them are completely bonkers
this year, then that is an increase of 5 percentage
points, and an increase of 25 percent.

It may seem a trivial point, but this is just the sort of
thing The Enemy will pounce on. 

Bill Guessford is annoying the mod, with multiple posts deleted. This one gives a bit of a clue to what he's trying to inject (not really, but I figure it's even weirder than the normal denier comments):

July 26, 2014 at 12:08 pm
[snip off topic astrology Neptune and Uranus haven't anything to do with the content of this post. Stop posting this offtopic nonsense please .mod]

Tom Trevor might be seeing the light of global warming when he says:

July 26, 2014 at 8:48 pm
What I am wondering is in the last chart where are the “normal” years. I only see about 4 years that look to me that they are really close to the zero abnormality line. It seems to me that abnormalities are normal when it comes to weather.