Desperate Deniers Part 4: Anthony Watts is shame-proof despite all his bloopers about NOAA

I would have missed this example of sad desperation, except that Anthony Watts himself highlighted it in a dumb cartoon. One is almost tempted to pity him, except that the real wonder is that he seems to be unable to feel shame or embarrassment. Any normal person would have deleted the article (archived here) after discovering they'd made so many bloopers, hoping that no-one would notice. Not Anthony. Even after he discovered almost everything he wrote was wrong, he kept on lashing out at all and sundry, flinging empty accusations left right and centre. Yet all the while it was Anthony himself who kept making mistake after mistake after mistake. I think he still doesn't realise that his whole article is nothing but one giant bungled mess from beginning to end.

It started with a dumb tweet from a twit called Tom Nelson

What seems to have happened is that Anthony saw a silly and wrong tweet from a rather dim conspiracy freak who denies under the name "Tom Nelson",  I'm a bit surprised that Anthony fell for it. He ought to know that "Tom Nelson" is a raving ratbag when it comes to anything climate.

It looks to me that Anthony has probably permanently tipped over the edge, and will grab hold of anything, not matter how wrong and stupid, in his effort to stop anyone from taking action to slow the warming. His original headline was:

Failed math: In 1997, NOAA claimed that the Earth was 5.63 degrees warmer than today

After someone pointed out one of his errors in the comments, he changed it to:

Failed Math: In 1997, NOAA claimed that the Earth was 3.83 degrees warmer than today

Both his headlines are way wrong. For one thing, in 1997 NOAA said nothing about what the temperature was today in 2016 - or not on the pages Anthony linked to. NOAA most certainly didn't say in 1997 that 1997 was 5.63 degrees or 3.83 degrees hotter than it was or would be in 2016. I doubt there were too many people employed by NOAA back in 1997 who thought at the time that the planet would cool at all, let alone cool by 5.63 degrees or 3.83 degrees between 1997 and 2016. I strongly doubt that any scientists who collated, analysed and reported global temperature changes would have thought the Earth was about to cool down suddenly.

[At this point, if you are going to read on, I suggest getting yourself a mug of hot coffee or a glass of wine or whatever you usually sup on at this hour, and settle down. Careful with it, though. You don't want coffee (or wine) splurted all over your keyboard.]

It's unacceptable: Forty two years after Kellog and Schneider with Tim Ball at WUWT

Way back in 1974, William Kellog and Stephen Schneider wrote these closing words to an article they had published in Science:

While it is essential to work out international mechanisms to guarantee that any new knowledge of our climate system will have only constructive uses, the price in human suffering of continued ignorance of the causes of climate change may already have become unacceptably high. 

In that paper there was a photo of a glacier in France, which the authors compared with an engraving of the same glacier from about 100 years earlier, which was on the front cover of that December 1974 issue of Science. Below are the two images. You can guess which one is the earlier one. I added an arrow to the 1970s photo showing how far the glacier retreated:

Top: Engraving of the Argentierre Glacier (French Alps) made about 1850-1860 showing its front still close to the plain and the village. See page 1163. [From Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie, Times of Feast, Times of Famine, Copyright © and published by Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971. Translated by Barbara Bary] Bottom: Photograph of the town of Argentierre in the French Alps, taken in the mid-1960's. Source: Science 27 December 1974

Gymnastics at WUWT - about faces and backflips over warmer warm anomalies

Are you into gymnastics? You might remember a while back how Anthony Watts and WUWT did an about face and embraced a paper co-authored by Dr Phil Jones. Well, today he's done a backflip and decided that a new paper, which looks to be on a similar but not identical topic to the previous research (which Anthony loved) is no good.

This recent research is about how warm anomalies are getting warmer faster than cold anomalies, if I've got that right, so there's a wider variation in surface temperatures. Here's the abstract of the new paper: by Professors Scott M. Robeson, Cort J. Willmott and Phil D. Jones (my paras):

Rising temperatures on Google Earth brings out all the conspiracy nutters at WUWT

Anthony Watts has posted a press release about an initiative by Tim Osborne and Phil Jones at CRU (archived here).  What they've done is plot temperature land surface temperature data (CRUTEM4) on Google Earth.  It's more than a fun and interesting way to see what's happening to surface temperatures around the world, it would have been a big job.  They've made temperature data more meaningful and accessible to the public using one of the best things to happen since sliced bread - Google Earth.

Here is what happens when you click on the grid over Tasmania (click to enlarge).

You can click the links in the pop-up to get more data. It really is very, very nice.

The exercise is written up in Earth System Science Data here.  You can get the .kml file here and open it in Google Earth.

Anthony Watts is in favour of the exercise, copying the (unreferenced as usual) press release under the headline: "CRU produces something useful for a change".  Which is about the most praise that any reputable scientist would ever get from a science rejector like Anthony Watts.

Here are some excerpts from ScienceDaily.com (my paras):

Climate researchers at the University of East Anglia have made the world's temperature records available via Google Earth. The Climatic Research Unit Temperature Version 4 (CRUTEM4) land-surface air temperature dataset is one of the most widely used records of the climate system.

The new Google Earth format allows users to scroll around the world, zoom in on 6,000 weather stations, and view monthly, seasonal and annual temperature data more easily than ever before. Users can drill down to see some 20,000 graphs -- some of which show temperature records dating back to 1850.

The move is part of an ongoing effort to make data about past climate and climate change as accessible and transparent as possible. Dr Tim Osborn from UEA's Climatic Research Unit said: "The beauty of using Google Earth is that you can instantly see where the weather stations are, zoom in on specific countries, and see station datasets much more clearly. The data itself comes from the latest CRUTEM4 figures, which have been freely available on our website and via the Met Office. But we wanted to make this key temperature dataset as interactive and user-friendly as possible."

The Google Earth interface shows how the globe has been split into 5° latitude and longitude grid boxes. The boxes are about 550km wide along the Equator, narrowing towards the North and South poles. This red and green checkerboard covers most of Earth and indicates areas of land where station data are available. Clicking on a grid box reveals the area's annual temperatures, as well as links to more detailed downloadable station data.

But while the new initiative does allow greater accessibility, the research team do expect to find errors.  Dr Osborn said: "This dataset combines monthly records from 6,000 weather stations around the world -- some of which date back more than 150 years. That's a lot of data, so we would expect to see a few errors. We very much encourage people to alert us to any records that seem unusual...."

Read the full article at ScienceDaily.com 

Paranoia Plus

What is amazing is the number of WUWT readers who are not only unimpressed, they think it's all part of "the Climate Conspiracy".  One gets the feeling they wouldn't have a clue how to use Google Earth let alone add in the data that the scientists have provided.

I've listed some typical comments so you can see the sort of conspiracy-mongers and general nincompoops who gather at WUWT. I mean many of them haven't even bothered to look at the data and they obviously wouldn't understand it if they did.  Look for yourself.  This isn't just the odd stray conspiracy theorist.  This is a full on collection of utter nutters - typical of the people for whom Anthony Watts has designed his anti-science blog.  If you specialise in wilful ignorance you'll attract the wilfully ignorant.  Anthony Watts has got just what he bargained for.

If you want numbers - of the 32 responses so far, five are from Nick Stokes.  Of the other 27 comments, only three are complimentary while at least 21 are more than "skeptical" - they are from the conspiracy nutter brigade! (Archived here.)

John Peter says:

February 6, 2014 at 12:20 am
So will it now be possible for independent analysts to ascertain if CRUTEM4 is reliable as an indicator or if “warming” has been added lately by reducing pre satellite era temperatures through “adjustments”?

grumpyoldmanuk says:

February 6, 2014 at 12:23 am
Are those temperature records raw data or have they been, “Hansen-ed”? Is not putting carefully-selected everythings on Google a good way of turning doubtful computer-generated data into accepted truth to underwrite the CAGW narrative? “A lie will be halfway round the world before the truth can get its boots on”. One of Stalin’s favourite sayings just may be the watchword behind this move. CRU has form in this matter.

Mailman says:

February 6, 2014 at 12:44 am
As a few others have already touched upon it would be interesting to see if you could run “reports” using unadjusted temperature data wouldn’t it?
Somehow I doubt this data will be available? Hopefully I’m wrong and unadjusted temp data is available but I suspect it’s not.
Regards
Mailman

Somebody says:

February 6, 2014 at 1:00 am
“the temperature records do not depend on the precise location of each station”
Notice the wording. ‘Temperature records’.
Not temperature, which of course it depends on position, they do not have a system at thermodynamic equilibrium to have the same temperature everywhere. In fact, to have a temperature defined…

Stephen Richards says:

February 6, 2014 at 1:21 am
Peresumably these are the adjusted, sanitised and greenpiss approved temperatures. What’s the point. Let’s see the RAW date. You know, the stuff they haven’t adulterated in the name of CO² tax.

Kev-in-Uk says:

February 6, 2014 at 1:30 am
Regarding others comments about data adjustment, I also tend to view with suspicion. If unreasonable data adjustment has taken place, it might be fairly easy to find out (in reasonably developed areas at least). Take your local ‘main’ library for example, it may house weather records, or a copy of them. Hence, a bit like the surfacestations project, a number of volunteers could perhaps search for the ‘written’ information and then compare to the ‘official’ record shown on this dataset?
Much as I am sure that many older written records could have been removed (intentionally or not) – I’m also sure that many will remain forgotton on dusty bookshelves!

Patrick says:

February 6, 2014 at 2:00 am
“Nick Stokes says: February 6, 2014 at 1:47 am
This is gridded data, so the notion of “raw” data doesn’t really apply. It’s locally averaged, and some kind of homogenisation is likely done; it should be.”

Rubbish! Stokes stop trying!

Old Ranga says:

February 6, 2014 at 2:06 am
Are the figures fudged or unfudged, dare one ask?

John Shade says:

February 6, 2014 at 2:37 am
I do not think anything from CRU deserves such automatic trust and admiration, although I admire the generosity of spirit that such responses reveal. My own immediate reaction was less noble. It was along the lines of ‘what are they up to now?’. I would like to see some critical review of this product.