Wednesday, March 4, 2015

At WUWT, Bob Tisdale pleads "no more sea surface temperatures"

Sou | 2:20 PM Go to the first of 20 comments. Add a comment

The rest of us plead "no more of Bob Tisdale's nonsense".

Bob Tisdale must be thinking of retiring. Bob is a frequent contributor at Anthony Watts' blog WUWT. He writes very, very long articles full of charts of sea surface temperature. He also write a lot of junk about climate models, about which he doesn't have the first clue.

Bob is a greenhouse effect denier who thinks that ENSO events suddenly, out of the blue, for no known reason, started to heat up the world. ENSO has been trundling along nicely for hundreds, probably thousands of years. According to Bob, back around forty years ago ENSO took it into its head to heat up the sea surface - such that it never cooled it back down.

Today he says he wants to stop climate science research (archived here). Perhaps he's sick and tired of preparing chart after chart after chart. I'm sick of his charts and I've only been looking at them a short while.

Bob wrote:
Believe It or Not There Are Plans for a 6th Assessment Report from the IPCC

He probably got that news from yesterday's article here. His last paragraph is where he suggested there be no more research or monitoring of earth's systems. He wrote:
What an incredible waste of money!!!  We got the message after the first report.  Assuming those continuously unchanging predictions are correct, those tens of billions of research dollars would be better spent on adaptation.

In case you think that Bob thought that the IPCC spends tens of billions of dollars, well he probably did. But he recovered in the comments when someone pointed out that the IPCC just collates and reports on the science. Bob's comments was:
March 3, 2015 at 6:07 pm
Richard Treadgold says: “In general, I agree, but you don’t mean to imply that the IPCC is spending those billions, surely?
It was not my intent.
“The science is settled”, the climate science community and activists keep telling us. If it is settled, then taxpayers surely don’t need to keep funding the repetitive, uninformative research that allows the IPCC to function.
Hmmm. I foresee an open letter to some politicians in the near future. 

Someone tell Bob that he's under no obligation to continue to clog up WUWT with his tedious articles. That doesn't mean that the rest of us don't want to monitor what's happening. TimTheToolMan remains interested, and wrote:
March 3, 2015 at 5:17 pm
I would have thought much of the ongoing expense was in measuring the various quantities (ie various temperatures, sea level, gravity anomolies and so on) we analyse to try to come to grips with how the earth works. I’m all for continuing to do that.

Eric Worrall is an ice age comether, and says, despite last year being the hottest on record globally, and January being the the second hottest January on record globally, and February - well there aren't any global numbers out yet, but in Australia it was the second hottest February on record. Ever hopeful, Eric wrote:
March 3, 2015 at 5:29 pm
The 6th assessment may occur a few years into a significant cooling trend – it could actually be entertaining, to watch them tie themselves into bizarre contortions as they try to demonstrated they predicted this all alone.

The rest are similar nonsense comments, replete with climate conspiracy theories.

What would WUWT deniers do if the science stopped? Where would the deniers congregate once WUWT shut down? My guess is Jesse Ventura, or one of these - until they got too hot, hungry or thirsty - or there was a total failure of communications and/or energy infrastructure as global warming kicks in. They wouldn't see it coming.


  1. So Tisdale thinks:

    "The 6th assessment may occur a few years into a significant cooling trend – it could actually be entertaining, to watch them tie themselves into bizarre contortions as they try to demonstrated they predicted this all alone."

    If he’s so sure of a “significant trend” he might like to put his money where his mouth is.

    The current trend-removed 1.96x standard deviation variability-around-anomaly in the GISTemp record is about 0.17° C for the data since 1980. Last year’s temperature anomaly in the record was 0.68° C. So let’s put this in crude terms - if there’s a “significant cooling” in the year of AR6, relative to today, the mean annual global land/ocean temperature anomaly should be 0.51° C or lower.

    I bet Bob Tisdale one thousandd US dollars that this will not be the case.

    Note, I am giving Tisdale a head-start here. I am not asking for evidence of a “significant trend” in the forward temperature, I am simply saying that if, in the year of AR6 there’s an occurrence of a deviation below the 95% confidence interval, he wins. I’ll go further, and concede if any single year between now and the year of AR6 has a mean annual global land/ocean temperature anomaly in the GISSTemp record of 0.51° C or lower.

    The last two occurrences of such a temperature were in 2008 (0.49° C) and 2004 (0.51° C), so the question is… is Bob Tisdale feeling lucky? Offer is good for one week from the time of posting. If Sou is agreeable I propose that she hold the stakes from both parties, with 10% of the winnings for her troubles.

    And if he want to bet on a significant cooling trend, I’m happy to start the stakes at US$10,000.

    For the sake of full disclosure I will note that the January 2015 anomaly in the GISTemp record is currently listed as 0.75° C…

    1. Bernard, that was Eric Worrall who wrote what you quoted. He lives in Queensland, so if he takes you up on the bet and doesn't come through voluntarily when he loses, it'll be easier to collect :D

    2. Ah, Eric Worrall then.

      Hopefully he'll be alerted and come running to HotWhopper post-haste with his courage and fundage.

      He's one denier who I really would like to nail with a commitment to his ideology.

    3. His name is Eugene, will you ever get it right?

      Rational Troll

  2. Bob Tisdale gets a tad nasty when you point out the issues in his articles, or even just politely ask a question.

    1. It's tough being constantly misunderstood.

    2. In Tisdale's case, not as tough as being understood, with all the pointing and giggling that results.

    3. Speaking of, Anthony just torpedoed Tim Ball's latest all by his lonesome.

  3. If Tony folds his tent, David Archibald expects the faithful to flock to the green banner Jihad , or the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party,

    unless the Seven Headed Beast of the Apocalypse shows up first.

    1. I just found out the WUWT brain trust considers "our" antics equally amusing:

      "It’s hilarious how you guys always presume you know the real, true hidden meanings behind what people say."

      I agree with you: one couldn't make this stuff up.

  4. Sou,

    "But he recovered in the comments when someone pointed out that the IPCC just collates and reports on the science."

    Said someone is now telling me that Bob didn't write anything about adaptation even though he quoted that bit directly.

    1. ... though in fairness I should note that he's owned his mistake.

  5. Proud

    Phil Clarke March 4, 2015 at 2:43 am
    [snip – banned poster -mod]


    1. How odd. (Not really. WUWT prefers nutjobs, so it's a sign that WUWT regards your comments as sensible.)

      Was that the first you knew of it, Phil?

    2. Well there was this.

      I'd just about stopped reading or posting over there, as others have observed, Watts has pretty much severed the flimsy ties that connected him and his mob with reality. (and as an aside, thanks for the ongoing summaries. Do wash your hands after you visit).

      But its a slow day, and in a post defending Willie Soon's lack of disclosure (case closed, guilty as charged) Lord Monckton repeated his utter misrepresentation of IPPC 1990, which is what got me riled up last time. On that occasion, Watts simply silently dropped my posts once they started to expose the Emperor's lack of attire ...

      This time, specifically, The Viscount of Benchley reproduced an IPCC CO2 emissions prediction graph, stating that IPCC Scenario A had turned out to be an underestimate (which is not definite, the uncertainties overlap). I calmly pointed out that emissions are only half the story, that CO2 is circa 55% of emissions and other gases, especially methane were under-predicted by IPCC, and so CO2 concentrations and actual forcings, which are what count, tracked somewhere between Scenarios B & C, as did global temperatures.

      Yet another massive Monckton Chery Pick, in other words. I guess his Lordship and the Watties need to be protected from too much reality. Ha Ha.

    3. Most of the people at WUWT these days are loopy, swearing climate science is a hoax/conspiracy, and/or we're heading for severe global cooling. That includes the authors of the articles that Anthony favours these days (like Tim Ball).

  6. This last post by Bob is not even worthy of satire.

  7. Perhaps we should write our respective Admiralties commending the new and revolutionary Tisdale Sea Surface Bucket for temperature measurement, as its all-ice construction assures consistency of results .

    I believe it is endorsed by this gentleman .

    1. Speaking of Captain ENSO:



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.