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.

Bombshell: Anthony Watts embraces Professor Phil Jones of UEA - but fails Anomaly 101

Total about face by Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is finally heeding what one of the world's leading climate scientists, Professor Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia, says.  After years of libellous taunts and multiple ad homs, Anthony Watts finally concedes that Professor Jones and, presumably, other climate scientists were right all along.

Professor Jones' work documenting weather records from all over the world plus other research over the past few decades has contributed enormously to our understanding of just how much we are messing with the climate.  That is why he was maliciously targeted by disinformers like Anthony Watts and other propagandists.  They weren't able to find fault with his painstaking work so they formed a right wing lynch mob and attacked him personally instead.  It didn't work.  He and other climate scientists are still doing quality research.


While Anthony might want to kiss and make up, if I were Professor Jones I wouldn't give him the time of day.

Increased temperature variability in some NH high population areas but not at the global level

Today on his anti-scientist ad hom blog, WUWT, Watts posts about a study in Nature: No increase in global temperature variability despite changing regional patterns authored by Chris Huntingford, Philip D. Jones, Valerie N. Livina, Timothy M. Lenton & Peter M. Cox.

I can't read the study (budget doesn't stretch that far at the moment), but can copy the press release about it (my bold italics):

In recent decades there has been increased variability in yearly temperature records for large parts of Europe and North America, according to a study published online today (24th July 2013) in Nature.

The study was carried out by scientists from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, the University of East Anglia and the University of Exeter.

Lead author Dr Chris Huntingford from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “Fluctuations in annual average temperatures have shown very substantial geographical alteration in recent decades. However, to our surprise, when considered across the globe, total variability has been relatively stable.”

Co-author Professor Phil Jones, from the University of East Anglia said, “We used globally-complete surface temperature data that has been constructed by merging observations and weather forecasts, and verified our findings against station temperature records”

The study concluded that regions of high variability have moved markedly over the last five decades, including to areas of high population in Europe and North America. Dr Huntingford added, “The movement of raised temperature variability to regions of high population may have contributed to the general perception that climate is becoming more volatile.”

The study also examined future projections by 17 climate model simulations.  Almost all predict that overall temperature fluctuations will actually decrease towards the end of this century, as greenhouse gas concentrations increase.

Co-author Professor Peter Cox, from the University of Exeter said, “We provide evidence that decreasing global temperature variability will be a consequence of major sea-ice loss in a warmer world.”  

Dr Huntingford added, “Our findings contradict the sometimes stated view that a warming world will automatically be one of more overall climatic variation.”

Technical note – The analysis looked at year-to-year variability in temperature at different geographical locations. This variability is occurring around general global warming trends. These trends were subtracted from the actual temperature measurements, and the remaining “anomalies” analyzed for changes over time and space.

What an about face.  Anthony Watts has effectively made the following declarations to his readers:

• he now accepts climate science from Professor Jones and his colleagues, 
• he has complete faith in surface station temperature records
• he agrees that many centres of high population in Europe and North America have experience greatly increased variability in temperature of late.

Next Anthony Watts will be writing that the hockey stick was never broken after all.

Watt's an anomaly?

Anthony fails Anomaly and Variability 101

More seriously though, Anthony can't tell the difference between an anomaly from a baseline temperature and temperature variability over all the world.  He stupidly writes:

Another blow to the “heat waves and extreme weather are on the increase” alarm meme:

No, Anthony.  While I applaud you for finally giving credence to Professor Jones and his colleagues, you are just being silly trying to say that this research means heat waves and extreme weather  aren't on the increase.  Heat waves are getting hotter, downpours are getting heavier - that is, they are both getting more extreme than they used to be.