.
Showing posts with label justthefactswuwt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justthefactswuwt. Show all posts

Friday, October 2, 2015

No evidence at WUWT - a DuKE, global surface temperature, and statistics

Sou | 7:48 PM Go to the first of 9 comments. Add a comment
Anthony Watts has a new article on his climate conspiracy blog (archived here). It has the title: "Is There Evidence of Frantic Researchers “Adjusting” Unsuitable Data? (Now Includes July Data)". The answer is NO. Or at least none is provided by anyone. Which raises the question of why the title? You'd think he'd at least make up something to appease the mob. All he has is a mish-mash of temperature data from various sources, including lower troposphere data, and land and sea surface data (combined), and sea surface data, interspersed with gobbledegook from one of his long-winded fans. (And July must be a big deal, even though it's already October!)

The authors are listed as follows:
  • Professor Robert Brown from Duke University (aka the batty duke or rgbatduke)
  • Werner Brozek
  • with one of Anthony's pet Anonymous Cowards known as "Just The Facts" as editor.

In regard to whoever is Just The Facts, he or she is a long time regular. Anthony doesn't like people using pseudonyms. Let me correct that. Anthony only likes deniers using pseudonyms. Any normal person who prefers to comment on climate using a pseudonym is castigated by Anthony Watts. (I think Just The Facts is the same person who also posts at WUWT as justthefactswuwt. But I cannot say for sure. It doesn't matter.)

A note on statistical significance: If you want to skip over the meaningless ramble, you can jump straight to the discussion about what statistical significance means. (Hint: a 'not statistically significant' trend doesn't mean that it hasn't warmed.)

Monday, October 6, 2014

More conspiracy theories at WUWT, this time it's HadCRUT4

Sou | 3:29 PM Go to the first of 134 comments. Add a comment

I don't have time for a long post right now, so I'll just comment on one of today's recycled conspiracy theories at WUWT (archived here). It relates to the newest version of HadCRUT4.

The trio of WUWT record-keepers, Werner Brozek, Walter Dnes and Just The Facts, are musing nefarious intent is behind the release of HadCRUT 4.3.0.0, which replaces version 4.2.0.0:
Why are they changing things so quickly? Do they want to take some of the heat off GISS? Are they embarrassed that Dr. McKitrick has found no statistically significant warming for 19 years and before the ink is barely dry on his report, they want to prove him wrong? Are they determined that by hook or by crook that 2014 will set a new record?

It's a strange question - to complain that improvements are made too quickly. Would they prefer that the scientists sat on the information for a few years? That they kept it hidden?

Their "nefarious intent" musing is one of the classic signs of conspiracy ideation. What this trio are implying that the Met Office Hadley Centre scientists are making up stuff, which is ridiculous. Their tossing in McKitrick's analysis is a distraction. They want to fool people into thinking global warming has stopped. It hasn't. That's probably why this trio are a bit concerned that 2014 might rival the previous hottest years on record - 2010 and 2005. Even without an El Nino (which might still emerge before the end of this year.)

Monday, March 10, 2014

Denier weirdness: WUWT denies human-caused ozone depletion - again!

Sou | 5:17 PM Feel free to comment!

Dumb denial comes in bursts. Today there is more ozone hole denial at WUWT.  Hot on the heels of Anthony Watts's announcement of a "new" (five year old) paper about ozone depletion, he's posted an article by justthefactswuwt (archived here).  The article is about the fact that scientists have found that there are some ozone-depleting gases that are rising in concentration.

The article has the title:
Mysterious new man-made gases pose threat to ozone layer…

The only mystery is the source of the gases.  The gases themselves are known.  In other words, they are coming from somewhere.

Justthefactswuwt didn't post any link to the news release s/he copied and pasted.  Just said it was from the BBC.  It wasn't hard to find with a google search.  The WUWT article pinched the BBC's headline but WUWT readers chose to interpret it differently from normal people.

As reported in the UEA press release, the gases were detected "by comparing today’s air samples with air trapped in polar firn snow – which provides a century-old natural archive of the atmosphere. They also looked at air collected between 1978 and 2012 in unpolluted Tasmania."  And it was confirmed by other sources, too.

The gases are CFC-112, CFC-112a, CFC-113a, and HCFC-133a.  I don't have access to the paper itself, which is paywalled, but in the supplementary information there is:
It should be noted, that our observations do not prove that CFC-112, CFC-112a, CFC-113a, and HCFC-133a are entirely man-made. If these substances are not conserved in firn air, or if they are produced by biologically mediated processes that have been enhanced in recent years such as by climate change, then there could be an alternate explanation for the observations reported here. Such alternate explanations cannot be entirely excluded but are very unlikely given the evidence for the industrial usage of these compounds.

The scientists reported that:
Measurements show that all four new gases have been released into the atmosphere recently – and that two are significantly accumulating. Emission increases of this scale have not been seen for any other CFCs since controls were introduced during the 1990s. But they are nowhere near peak CFC emissions of the 1980s which reached around a million tonnes a year. 

So, the gases are newly released into the atmosphere and two are accumulating "significantly".  Even WUWT reported:
"Our firn air measurements suggest that all four newly reported compounds are anthropogenic (see also Supplementary Information), with insignificant atmospheric abundances before the 1960s.”

Somewhat mysteriously, justthefactswuwt wrote:
For reference, the images the head of this article show the current Northern “Ozone Hole” within the Northern Polar Vortex, at 10 hPa/mb – Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet). Draw your own conclusions… 

I'm not sure what conclusions justthefactswuwt wanted drawn, but I'd conclude that s/he doesn't know much about ozone depletion.  I don't know why s/he put up lots of charts of the ozone layer in the Arctic. Ozone depletion has been detected in the Arctic recently, but that was when there was unusual cold, which is common in Antarctica (and necessary for CFC reactions) but isn't as common in the Arctic.  (It's been a concern that Canada cut back on monitoring this.)


From the WUWT comments


This is the weirder part.  The article brought out the utter nutters and there were few comments that showed WUWTers understand anything about ozone depletion.  The author of the article, justthefactswuwt, doesn't have a clue.  Other WUWTers are hypothesising sources ranging from solar panels to marine animals.  Here is a sample:


Col Mosby says it's being emitted by solar panels!:
March 9, 2014 at 6:25 pm
What leads these folks to claim these agents “could be from agricultural insecticides.”? That’s a bizarre thing to claim without explanation. To throw in my own out-of-left-field possible origin : could solar panels be emitting such agents? After all, agricultural insecticides have been around for a very long time, solar panels not very long.


Karl doesn't know much about chemistry and says, irrelevantly:
March 9, 2014 at 6:25 pm
Fluorinated Drinking Water (Fluorine) and Water Treatment (Chlorine and carbon and bacteria)?? (remember fluorine started to be added post WWII but really ramped up in the 1960′s)
Oh nooes!!!
Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?
That’s my hypothesis, where is my grant for the research and to develop an alternative??????
Jut give me money, money, that’s what I want.


Peter Laux is an ignorant bum who says:
March 9, 2014 at 6:36 pm
Zombie Science strikes again.
So lets get this right, CFC’s don’t “destroy the ozone” above Industrial Centres where they are released but migrate too & have an annual jamboree and convention every year at the same time in Antarctica.
Extraordinary really when hardly any atmospheric water vapor from other latitudes can penetrate the Circumpolar winds surrounding Antarctica, thus making it the driest continent on earth.
So ozone is not in a layer but is formed in the Ionosphere as solar UV hits O2 – this “hole” forms during the Antarctic winter where no UV has been wrecking O2 to form Ozone – and we blame a gas as the ‘guilty party’ ………. Detective Colombo would still be asking questions !

Yes, Peter. CFC's don't destroy ozone in the troposphere above "Industrial Centres". (I'd guess Peter is an older bloke, with his unfashionable use of capitalisation).  They are very stable molecules and generally inert in the troposphere, which is one reason they were so useful as refrigerants.  They are dissociated by UV. They are precursors to a catalytic reaction that reduces the amount of ozone, mainly in the lower stratosphere in very cold temperatures. Wikipedia explains it fairly well.


Katherine says it might be dolphins have started manufacturing CFCs or something like that:
March 9, 2014 at 6:41 pm
If the sources are unidentified, how can they say the gases are man-made? How do they know there isn’t a natural source for the gases? After all, there are natural sources for CFCs; for example, volcanic processes, bacteria, fungi, plants, lichen, insects, and marine animals.

As noted above, the scientists have said that they don't absolutely preclude other origins, but point out that it's extremely unlikely.


Mike Tremblay thinks, wrongly, that he's got a "gotcha" and says:
March 9, 2014 at 6:47 pm
I hate to break it to these researchers, but these are not ‘new’ gases. All were identified in the Montreal Protocol as ODS (Ozone depleting substances) back in 1989, and their production, or use in production of other than non-ODS materials was banned, or due to be phased out completely by 2030 – the phase out of production is currently at 98%. The hyperbole that these are ‘new’ gases and increased threats to the ozone layer has no place in responsible scientific research when simply looking at the ODS listing at the EPA’s website shows that they are already considered.

I hate to break it to you, Mike, but these might not be "new" gases, however they are "new" in the atmosphere.  That's what the paper is all about.  They are accumulating after everyone agreed not to produce them.


hunter injects a rare word of wisdom in a backhanded way and says:
March 9, 2014 at 8:43 pm
Let us not forget that eventually the boy who cried wolf was crying about a real wolf.
CO2 obsession can cut both ways.
It can make skeptics reflexively dismissive of real threats, simply because of the source of the warning.
Let’s keep ourselves on the right side of things and learn more so we can ask informed questions.

otsar says the source is here (eg like this):
March 9, 2014 at 7:15 pm
R113a , CAS No 75. may be purchased from Zejiang China. It may be purchased in 250Kg ISO tanks. It is used as a precursor for other useful molecules such as R134a. I am not surprised that they claim not to know the major source. It can be easily found on the web. They probably are afraid to mention it.

I'm not sure I'd bank money on a web shopping page.  There could well be a black market in the stuff though.  Under the Montreal Protocol, waste CFCs cannot be vented to the atmosphere so it doesn't mean that the producer is the source, it is just as likely (or more likely) to be the buyer or the company supposed to be destroying it.  Anyway, according to the supplementary information the scientists are trying to track where the emissions are coming from (my bold).
Ozone Secretariat significant amounts of CFC-112/112a were still being produced from 1989 up until 2001 with imports of up to 533 tonnes per year after that period. Production and imports could however only account for the cumulative emissions inferred from observations if (a) a large part was released directly into the atmosphere or (b) production was much higher before 1988. For CFC-113a and HCFC-133a reports are much more fragmentary with only one import of CFC-113a reported in 2011 and one country reporting production of 1490 t of HCFC-133a in 2010. In accordance with the Montreal Protocol these data has been anonymised which precludes further discussions. 

The scientific illiterati come out in their droves

Have a look at the type of person Anthony Watts targets.  The bottom of the barrel, the dregs, the illiterati.

goldminor says:
March 9, 2014 at 7:22 pm
Insanity at it’s finest. A tiny amount , but it may get worse. Watch out for the kitchen sink, they must be about ready to throw that in, also.


fobdangerclose says:
March 9, 2014 at 8:07 pm
97% sure my bs meter is pegged.

Bill Sticker is a conspiracy theorist who says:
March 9, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Ah. Sounds suspiciously like the climate units funding must be up for review.

Santa Baby is one of the "scaredy cat" deniers and says:
March 9, 2014 at 8:40 pm
It’s about the 2014 state of fear awards? The competition is hard and lots of state funded are competing?

A Crooks of Adelaide says irrelevantly (does s/he seriously think that the scientists are financially dependent on this, not the emitters?):
March 9, 2014 at 8:46 pm
“Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”
Wake me up when it causes concern among people who are not financially dependant on this.

philjourdan says:
March 9, 2014 at 4:59 pm
They are not out to save the planet but to destroy mankind. 



Johannes C. Laube et al, Newly detected ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere. Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2109

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.


UPDATE:
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.



Monday, November 4, 2013

The certainty of science deniers. And what are the facts about hurricanes, tornadoes and Antarctic sea ice?

Sou | 7:39 PM Go to the first of 3 comments. Add a comment

Straw men are built to be blown away.  They can be constructed from anything really.  It doesn't have to be straw.  It could be wind and rain, like tornadoes and hurricanes, or sea ice.

justthefactswuwt wrote on WUWT today (archived here):
It is amazing how easy alarmist scare forecasts/predictions can be falsified with readily available data...The data shows no increase in tornado counts or strength. Claims about increasing or more dangerous Tornadoes are unfounded.

Unfounded?  That's a strong claim! But first just what are the "claims" and who is making them?

In today's article (archived here) Justthefacts mentioned three things: tornadoes, hurricanes and Antarctic sea ice.

justthefacts is adamant that the projections of what will happen over the coming 90 years or so are completely wrong.  This complete and utter certainty is based on less than a year's data.  Not only that but justthefactswuwt appears to be very certain about what expectations are held by climate scientists.  So I thought it would be useful to see what are the forecasts/predictions for each item to see whether or not they have been falsified.

It turns out that, in contrast to the absolute certainty of justhefactswuwt, there is a lot of uncertainty and little agreement in the science itself:

  • Tornadoes - might decrease relative to severe thunderstorms, although a new paper suggests an increase in frequency of severe tornadic storms over the coming century
  • Hurricanes and tropical cyclones - if anything they are expected to decrease or stay the same, but with low confidence, although a new paper argues they may increase.
  • Antarctic sea ice - expected to decline over the coming century, but again with low confidence.
The uncertainty and lack of strong agreement within the research is not really surprising, given the sporadic and relatively infrequent nature of tornadoes and hurricanes, and the difficulty of collecting data in the southern oceans and across the whole of the Antarctic continent.

And I must add that a single year's weather is hardly sufficient to falsify projections of climate!

Tornadoes in the USA

AR5 WG1 suggested that in the USA at least, the expectation is for more severe thunderstorms relative to tornadoes over time.  Tornadoes are expected to decrease or at least decrease relative to the number of severe storms.  It's all to do with energy vs shear.  But it won't be till towards the end of this century that trends will be able to be measured.  In any case, a single year's data isn't sufficient for "falsification" .  From AR5:
Severe thunderstorms, associated with large hail, high winds, and tornadoes, are another example of extreme weather associated with the water cycle. The large-scale environments in which they occur are characterized by large Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) and deep tropospheric wind shear (Brooks et al., 2003; Brooks, 2009). Del Genio et al. (2007), Trapp et al. (2007; 2009), and Van Klooster and Roebber (2009) found a general increase in the energy and decrease in the shear terms from the late 20th century to the late 21st century over the United States using a variety of regional model simulations embedded in global-model SRES scenario simulations. The relative change between these two competing factors would tend to favour more environments that would support severe thunderstorms, providing storms are initiated. Trapp et al. (2009), for example, found an increase in favourable thunderstorm conditions for all regions of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. Large variability in both the energy and shear terms means that statistical significance is not reached until late in the 21st century under high forcing scenarios. One way of assessing the possibility of a change in frequency of future thunderstorms is to look at historical records of observed tornado, hail, and wind occurrence with respect to the environmental conditions (Brooks, 2013). This indicates that an increase in the fraction of severe thunderstorms containing non-tornadic winds would be consistent with the model projections of increased energy and decreased shear, but there has not been enough research to make a firm conclusion regarding future changes in frequency or magnitude. (Page 12-53)

I searched the AR4 and the Second Assessment report but could not find any projections for tornadoes.  I searched the third assessment report and there was this statement:
Although some evidence is available regarding increases in the intensity and frequency of some extreme weather events, it is not yet clear how tornadoes will be affected
By contrast, a more recent study published as open access in PNAS (Diffenbaugh et al 2013), quoted by justthefactswuwt does suggest that tornadoes, or at least severe thunderstorms, will most likely increase this century.  The paper has lots of caveats but the final paragraph in the conclusion states:
Given the substantial damage from severe thunderstorms in the current climate, uncertainty about the response of such storms to global warming has created an important barrier to climate change impacts assessment (1). Our results indicate that continued global warming might cause substantial increases in the occurrence of the atmospheric environments associated with severe thunderstorms, because the implied reduction in vertical wind shear may not be as important as previously thought. These increases include regions where severe thunderstorms currently are most common, and regions where severe thunderstorms currently are less common but where substantial assets are exposed (3, 6, 15). Although important uncertainties about storm-scale processes still exist, the fact that the projected increases in severe environments are robust across a suite of climate models, emerge in response to relatively moderate global warming, and result from robust physical changes suggests that continued increases in greenhouse forcing are likely to increase severe thunderstorm occurrence, thereby increasing the risk of thunderstorm-related damage.
Note that the above relates to "atmospheric environments associated with severe thunderstorms" and not specifically to tornadoes.  However elsewhere in the paper there is reference to tornadoes.  For example in the abstract, Diffenbaugh13 writes:
We also find that days with high convective available potential energy (CAPE) and strong low-level wind shear increase in occurrence, suggesting an increasing likelihood of atmospheric conditions that contribute to the most severe events, including tornadoes.

It is also worth pointing out that Diffenbaugh13 notes the paucity of data, writing:
First, there is no reliable, independent, long-term record of severe thunderstorms—and particularly tornadoes—with which to systematically analyze variability and trends.

The science is much less certain about tornadoes than is justthefactswuwt.

Hurricanes (and tropical cyclones and typhoons)

It doesn't look as if the projections for hurricanes have been falsified, either.  From AR5 WG1 - there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones but not overall.
In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported longterm (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence however is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region. (Page 2-60)
And tropical cyclones are projected to stay the same or decrease, according to AR5.  But the ones that emerge will be fiercer and wetter:
There is low confidence in the projections for the tropical Atlantic, both for the mean and interannual modes, because of systematic errors in model simulations of current climate. The implications for future changes in Atlantic hurricanes, tropical South American and West African precipitation are therefore uncertain. ...
...Based on process understanding and agreement in 21st century projections, it is likely that the global frequency of occurrence of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and precipitation rates. The future influence of climate change on tropical cyclones is likely to vary by region, but the specific characteristics of the changes are not yet well quantified and there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity.(Page 14-4)

From AR4 - tropical cyclones will become more severe and intense:
Earlier studies assessed in the TAR showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. More recent modelling experiments have addressed possible changes in tropical cyclones in a warmer climate and generally confirmed those earlier results. 


From AR4 - tropical cyclones and hurricanes will become more intense but globally, less frequent (low confidence)
Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period. {9.5, 10.3, 3.8}

From the Third Assessment Report:
Climate models currently are unable to project accurately how hurricanes will change in the future. 

However not all research points to a decrease in tropical cyclones.  A recent paper by Kerry Emanuel suggests that tropical cyclones may increase, but large uncertainties remain:
An increase in global mean frequency during roughly the first three quarters of the 21st century is indicated, with a total increase in the range of 10-40%. ... most of the increase in frequency is in the North Pacific, but with substantial increases in the North Atlantic and South Indian oceans as well. The only coastal region that experiences a substantial decline in track crossings is the southeast coast of Australia....
...The differences between our results, those arrived at by applying the same technique to CMIP3 models, and the conclusions of other groups using different models and/or using different methods suggest that projections of the response of tropical cyclones to projected climate change will remain uncertain for some time to come.

All I can say once again is that justthefactswuwt is a lot more certain than the science itself.

Antarctic sea ice


On the other hand, Antarctic sea ice is expected to decrease over time - presumably over winter because there's precious little sea ice in summer.  However, but there is only low confidence in the projection.  From AR5 WG1 (page 12-5)
It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue shrinking and thinning year-round in the course of the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. At the same time, in the Antarctic, a decrease in sea ice extent and volume is expected, but with low confidence....There is however low confidence in those values as projections because of the wide inter-model spread and the inability of almost all of the available models to reproduce the mean annual cycle, interannual variability and overall increase of the Antarctic sea ice areal coverage observed during the satellite era.

Again, justthefactswuwt is much more certain than the science.


From the WUWT comments

There aren't too many people jumping on justthefactswuwt bandwagon.  Maybe they've been bitten too many times in the past, jumping in too soon. Or maybe they are remembering the massive tornado that tore through Oklahoma in May this year. There are a few more Gore-bashing comments than usual, probably because justthefactswuwt let fly in the article.  (Comments archived here.)


sophocles says "it's cooling":
November 3, 2013 at 12:14 pm
The National Academy of Sciences said:
“…are forecast to see a “robust” increase across parts of the U.S. in upcoming decades because of climate change …”
===========================================================
Unfortunately, they may be correct but not for the reasons they are thinking.
If past records are any hint, the onset of cooling can bring bad storms, (from
Brian Fagan’s book “The Little Ice Age”), not warming.
The AMO and PDO have turned over, the Sun is sliding into another minimum
and cooling is already apparent (only slight, so far but…) so the next ten years
are going to be interesting …


Paul Homewood predicts the lull in tornadoes won't last and says:
November 3, 2013 at 12:17 pm
It’s extremely unextreme.
And next year, no doubt, NOAA will be bragging off about “a big jump in tornado numbers from last year”. 

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Sea ice: Out of the mouths of WUWT-ers

Sou | 3:06 AM One comment so far. Add a comment

Thought I'd post a few of the comments from WUWT.  These are from justthefactswuwt's article about global sea ice (archived here).  No, I'm not going to comment on the fact that justthefactswuwt thinks that the world has "stopped warming".  Well, maybe I'll just show one of the charts he uses as evidence, with my own notations as an animated gif. I suggest clicking on the chart for the larger version because it's very wide:

Adapted from Cryosphere Today

From the WUWT comments


Contorted thinking from Robin Hewitt who says (excerpt, my bold italics):
October 21, 2013 at 6:45 am
I rather hope the ice does not stick around. If we get a big ice anomaly year then that puts up the average ice cover that all subsequent years will have to match. The sceptics get one chance to thumb their noses at the catastrophists and then have to pay for ever more.
I think Robin is saying that even if the ice didn't melt as much one year, it's on a downward spiral in the medium term.


David in Cal has never heard of coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation climate models.  I wonder what he'd say if he learnt about the earth system models, which include not just the ocean and the atmosphere but biogeochemical cycles like the carbon cycle, the sulphur cycle, and ozone.  David in Cal writes:
October 20, 2013 at 10:52 pm
To say that extra heat is hiding in the oceans is to admit that all the climate models are wrong. After all, no climate model specifically includes heat moving into and out of the oceans (as far as I know.)


DR thinks the greenhouse effect is old hat and says:
October 20, 2013 at 10:28 pm
Funny how the Warmastrologists want to change what was actually predicted when this all came to the forefront. When things didn’t work out as predicted, they simply make it up as they go along. The “greenhouse effect” was all the rage back then. Today they’d just wish it would go away because it just ain’t happening the way we were told it would.


MrX says "they always come back baffled" but I'm guessing it's not for the reason he thinks:
October 20, 2013 at 8:28 pm
Jimbo says: October 20, 2013 at 1:32 pm I kept trying to explain to Warmists that most sceptics are fervent proponents of climate change. The climate always changes.
——————
YES! I do the same. It’s amazing how much I get asked “What? You don’t believe in climate change?” And I always respond back, “Climate change is a skeptical position. Of course I believe in climate change. Unprecedented and catastrophic global warming is your side’s position. If it isn’t unprecedented, then it’s happened before (aka climate change) and it’s natural and not catastrophic. Nothing to worry about.”
They always come back baffled and completely confused about their own position. Sometimes they’ll throw a word in about not liking the fact that used “global warming” or some other nonsense. But they never know how to argue against the fact that it can only be climate change if it’s not unprecedented.


How's this for logic and understanding?  RACookPE1978 goes for a "cool - cool" argument:

October 20, 2013 at 9:02 pm

Chris B says: October 20, 2013 at 8:33 pm So the argument that, a decade of reductions in Arctic Sea Ice Extent indicates we are on the verge of Dangerous Warming, is unsupported then?
True. The false arguments about Arctic amplification – the fears that a continued loss of Arctic sea ice from its current extents is dangerous – ARE unsupported and ARE wrong.

The numbers show that, additional loss of arctic sea from today’s sea ice extents from mid-August through mid-April cause more loss of heat from the newly exposed ocean areas than can be absorbed from the sun. More Arctic ice loss from today’s levels means more cooling in August, September and October. More snow on the land surfaces around the Arctic as well..

On the other hand, the INCREASED Antarctic sea ice at minimum AND maximum extents all year DOES reflect more heat energy and DOES cause increased cooling of the planet.


There's a heap more convoluted thinking going on in that thread.  If you're bored you can read the archived version here.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Denier weirdness - On WUWT it's Arctic ice-breakers causing global warming!

Sou | 2:29 PM Go to the first of 3 comments. Add a comment

Anthony Watts has posted an article by one of his regular guest authors, justhefactswuwt (archived here).

The article goes on about how the sea ice isn't declining to a new record minimum this year, as if that means that global warming is at an end or some such nonsense.  And that Antarctic sea ice has been above the maxima this winter, as if ice in winter means global warming isn't happening.

The following charts give you an idea of what has been happening to the sea ice in the Arctic over the past few years and decades.  Click images to enlarge them.

This first chart shows the change from 1979 to now.  It's a very disturbing trend.  The Arctic sea ice all year around has had a huge decline.  It's not just summer sea ice that's declining, though that's arguably the most dramatic ice loss.

Source: Cryosphere Today

This chart only shows from 2002 to 2013.  Even just this decade the sea ice extent in summer has declined to a remarkable degree.
Source: JAXA

This next one shows the stark difference between sea ice in early September 1980 and that of the same day this year.
Source: Cryosphere Today

The WUWT guest writer and WUWT readers are oblivious to the fact that the Arctic summer sea ice is the fifth or sixth lowest it's ever been in recorded history. It's lower than all but one year (2007) or maybe two years (2007 and 2009) of the first decade this century, though not as low as 2011 or the record low of last year, 2012.


Ice breakers in the Arctic are causing global warming!


One sadly hilarious lot of comments from justthefacts and several other people is that they speculate that ice breakers are causing the Arctic sea ice to decline.  Seriously.  They are suggesting that a ship that breaks up a path through ice so that they or ships behind them can make it through are responsible for the melt of an additional two to three million square kilometers of ice in summer.  It's true.  Here are some comments (archived here) so you can read for yourself just how ignorant is the audience that Anthony Watts, denier blogger, aims for:

Eve says:
September 7, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Loved that US sailer on a boat in the Arctic saying the Canadian government should learn good PR and provide gratis Icebeaking service. I wonder how much ice breakers have contributed to the “soon to be ice free Arctic”? There are Russian and Canadian icebreakers out there now breaking up the ice.

noaaprogrammer says:
September 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm
Eve wrote: “I wonder how much ice breakers have contributed to the ‘soon to be ice free Arctic?’ There are Russian and Canadian icebreakers out there now breaking up the ice.”
By so doing, they’re allowing more ocean heat to escape into the atmosphere and space.


justthefactswuwt thinks it "measurable but not major" and says there are 110 ice breakers in the entire world.  He says (excerpt):
September 7, 2013 at 6:46 pm
Eve says: September 7, 2013 at 4:27 pm I wonder how much ice breakers have contributed to the “soon to be ice free Arctic”?
I have not seen any substantive research on the subject, thus cannot answer with any confidence. However, if I had to guess, I’d say measurable, but not major. 


Some of the WUWT commenters appear to be finally coming to the realisation that an ice free Arctic is not a good thing.  When WUWT-ers suggest that Neven and others who report on the subject are happy about it (are WUWT-ers insane?  Yep, or verging on the irrational at least), there are a few comments like this one from Kevin Ryan who says:
September 7, 2013 at 6:57 pm
“Next year will probably be better.” – Neven
If that means what I think it means then what the heck is wrong with some people. Hoping for bad things to happen. Imagine someone saying, “Well your cancer is in remission, but next year will probably be better and it’ll come back.”
No, Kevin.  If you ever visited Neven's excellent sea ice blog you'd know very well it doesn't mean what you think it means.  But it's good that you realise that the disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice is a disaster of major proportions.


Other WUWT-ers are still in deep denial. Josh M talks about "fictitious runaway global warming", he is very confused about what the science says (it's neither fictitious nor runaway):
September 7, 2013 at 7:48 pm
Anyone dumb enough to extrapolate an exponential trend from a chaotic natural process shouldn’t be running a science blog. It’s quite clear that variation in arctic ice extent can be largely ascribed to wind patterns (+ – dipole anomalies) and oceanic cycles such as the PDO and AMO rather than some sort of fictitious runaway global warming.

BarryW isn't aware that Arctic sea ice extent is way, way below what it used to be and is declining much more quickly than scientists had projected.  He says:
September 7, 2013 at 5:21 pm
The warmist’s are no different than any other cult that believes the “End of the World” is nigh. Even when the signs they predict don’t happen, they just push the date out and rationalize why the sign didn’t appear. Their frustration is that though they are sure they are right regardless, the sign was to convince the unbelievers of their revealed TRUTH.
Update: Smokey aka dbstealey proves the points I made in my latest blog article and is even deluded enough to claim that Arctic sea ice is "completely normal".  He combines the scaredy cat delusion with his anti-social lack of values and says:
September 7, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Jeff Allen says: “I’ll also say ‘shame on you’ to Anthony for taking quotes on Neven’s blog out of context.”
Relax, Jeffy. The world is not ending. Arctic ice is going through its normal cycle. There is nothing to be concerned about. Nothing at all. But they have you all scared, which is what they want.
The Chicken Little [U.S.] / Chicken Licken [U.K.] brigade has you all frightened. That is their intention, and you fell for it. Now, open your wallet. Wide. Then you will feel much better!
The fact is that global ice cover is completely normal. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented about what you see. It has all happened before, and to a much greater extent.
So don’t let the scary people make you pucker up. Their reason is to separate you from more of your tax money, nothing else. You need to be able to discern motives, or you will just be their chump. You don’t want that, do you?

It truly is the 8% dismissives that Anthony Watts sells his wacky ideas to.  These days he doesn't bother to aim for an audience of rational, informed people.  He's targeting the scientific illiterati and hitting the bullseye.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Vendettas and denial on WUWT

Sou | 2:02 PM Feel free to comment!

Not much happening on WUWT in the past couple of days.  Here's a a rundown on a couple of articles.

Vendetta still being waged


Jim Steele, who I've written about before here and here, continued his lone vendetta against a biologist who he has a grudge against, using WUWT to do it (and to try to get someone to buy his book).  From those previous articles he has no credibility left and I'll not bother with him any further.


Global warming is real


justhefactswuwt and/or werner brozek put up a noisy monthly chart of RSS global temperatures starting at 1997 and says, look, no warming for 200 months.  Then proceeds to work out for how long there has been "no warming" by plotting monthly charts of different data sets - saying 23 years, 18 years etc.  Here's a long term chart from GISTemp, which makes their efforts to deny global warming look silly:

Data source: NASA

Fake sceptics go to an awful lot of trouble in their attempts to disprove global warming.  If only they put as much effort into figuring out how to address the problem.

Here is the RSS chart. It registered a very high anomaly for 1998, the year of the super El Niño.  What will happen the next time we get a super El Niño?

Data Source: RSS

Here is a decadal chart of RSS temperature anomalies.  The first and last decade are, of course, incomplete.

Data Source: RSS

What do you think?  Climate trends are much easier to see in years than in months, because months clog up the data with seasonal fluctuations and noise. Longer term climate trends are even easier to see in decades, because years have noise from year to year natural fluctuations, like ENSO.

Bear in mind, too, that RSS doesn't monitor temperatures right to the top of the poles.  It only goes as high as 82.5 degrees North and South.  So it misses out on some of the Arctic amplification.  Here is GISTemp showing also the temperature 64 degrees and north (the Arctic).

Data source: NASA


From the WUWT comments, lsvalgaard says:
August 25, 2013 at 10:06 am  RSS Flat For 200 Months (Now Includes July Data)
Thus no global cooling…

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Twisting Frames: WUWT is back to recycling old 36% geoscientist denier memes, calling them "new"

Sou | 1:14 PM Go to the first of 11 comments. Add a comment

Anthony Watts of WUWT is retrieving disinformation from the recycle bin, not even bothering to dress it up, and presenting it to his readers as "new".  Are his sales dropping or has he run out of new products?

Anthony Watts has a headline: New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

What would have been more accurate would have been a headline like:- even in Alberta - home of the tar sands, only 24% of geoscientists and engineers deny AGW.


It was 68% not 36% and deliberately targeting "deniers"
Anthony's headline is a bald lie.  Twisting the study to suit a denier meme.  Trying to reframe a studing on framing! In fact, if you read the 2012 paper you'll find the following:

  1. The main purpose was not to find out the opinions of petroleum geologists and engineers on the causes of global warming, it was to examine "the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures." (The researchers deliberately targeted that particular segment in that particular location, Alberta, in the hope of finding sufficient deniers to extract meaningful data.) 
  2. The 36% refers to the cohort of petroleum engineers and geologists who are adamant that humans are causing global warming and we need to take decisive action
  3. In the main study sample, there were 'only' 24% (Frame 2) who "believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth". 
  4. One group, the 'economic responsibility' frame (10%), included rampant deniers as well as people who thought that climate change is both natural and human caused.
  5. Other groupings (68% of respondents) included people who knew that humans are at least a partial cause of global warming, with a full 36% being adamant that "humans are the main or central cause" of global warming.


Does all that look familiar?  Yes, it should.  It's about a paper that was published back in November last year in a paper called Organization Studies.  Anthony didn't dig out the paper itself.  He dug out an old article by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute who writes a blog for Forbes.  Taylor's article isn't new.  It was published way back in February this year.

Not only is the study not "New" it doesn't find what the headline finds or what James Taylor says the study finds.  Nor did it set out to find what the headline suggests.

It's not "New" to WUWT either.  Anthony already posted an article about this same study six months ago! So if the date of Taylor's article (February 2013) or the publication date of the paper itself (November 2012) weren't a clue, Anthony would have known from the last time he put up an article about it (February 2013) that it wasn't a "new" paper and the headline misrepresents the study.

Why Anthony didn't just do a rerun of his previous article on the same subject I don't know.  Maybe he likes the way James Taylor of the Heartland Institute misrepresents the study better than how the malappropropriately named justthefactswuwt and International Business Daily misrepresents the study, like here on WUWT also back in February 2013.

To give an idea of what the paper was all about, here is more of what the researchers state:
How do professional experts frame the reality of climate change and themselves as experts, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?
To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy. Then, we describe our research design and methods.

Here is a segment from an article I wrote about this same study, back in February 2013.


1. Are engineers and geo-scientists who work in the oil sector less likely to accept climate science?


Um - yeah? No? Not quite the point of the research? And if it were true, what did you expect?

A recent study reported that 36% of geoscientists and engineers surveyed, most of whom are reliant on or whose work relates to the Alberta tar sands or petroleum sector in general, are adamant that humans are causing global warming and we need to take decisive action. (They "view the Kyoto Protocol and additional regulation as the solution").

That can be seen as equivalent to: thirty years ago 36% of engineers (not medical researchers) who develop the packaging for cigarettes being adamant that smoking is a health hazard and urging international agreements be put into effect to force people to quit.


The Lie


Poor denmor (probably all unknowing given that deniers rarely read let alone absorb scientific papers) quotes from a blog article that quotes from another article that refers to a research paper in the social sciences/management journal "Organization Studies". (No respectable denier - except Brad - would go straight to the source.) Let's be generous and say, because he was too lazy or incompetent to read the paper in question, denmor wasn't aware that he was spreading a lie. He also seems blissfully unaware that very few oil engineers and geo-scientists would be involved in climate research. All scientists and engineers probably look the same to him.

Looking at the categories ('Frames') in the paper, there were 'only' 24% (Frame 2) who "believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth". All other groupings (68% of respondents) included people who knew that humans are at least a partial cause of global warming, with a full 36% being adamant that "humans are the main or central cause" of global warming. (Eight per cent were unable to be categorised. One group, the 'economic responsibility' frame (10%), included rampant deniers as well as people who thought that climate change is both natural and human caused.)

Beknownst (or unbeknownst) to denmor, the researchers deliberately targeted an industry (petroleum) and locale (Alberta Canada) that is economically tied to CO2 pollution so they could get a big enough cohort across the full spectrum (including deniers). They were keen to find out more about how people of different viewpoints frame/rationalise their thinking within the context of organisational management.



Frames define the debate


Ironically, in trying to reframe the study, all the deniers are showing they know pretty well the following, as quoted by the researchers:

Frames define how ‘the debate … over climate change is determined by which actors are engaged, what kinds of problems are debated, how those problems are defined, and what kinds of solutions are considered appropriate’ (Hoffman, 1999, p. 1369; also see Hoffman & Jennings, 2011)



From the WUWT comments


The mods missed this one, but the commenters didn't.  With many turning on Vince and telling him in no uncertain terms that "I am a retired engineer and I don't believe in AGW and most of my friends are the same so therefore climate science is a hoax, so there! PS don't be so rude to us WUWT deniers."


Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) says:
February 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm

CAVEAT EMPTOR
The WUWT regurgitation machine is in full swing here, attempting to manipulate public opinion with smoke and mirrors and little else.
Firstly, Taylor has been criticized by the reports authors posted on the Forbes article, for using data that was not controlled in it’s collection. The survey targeted Geophysicists and engineers actively promoting the industry viewpoint. Walk into a meeting of alcoholics anonymous and you can find 100% of the people have been drinkers.
Secondly, of the 1077 surveyed, the majority believe warming is partly caused by man.
So, if you read this post and immediately think, I knew it, you are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. Read behind the headlines to discover the truth and don’t expect to find anything other than fraudulent disinformation from the likes of Watt Up With That.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Gotta give WUWT deniers credit...

Sou | 11:08 AM Go to the first of 45 comments. Add a comment

They all agree on one thing...it's a conspiracy!!!


Update: I've added a bonus for returning readers and latecomers.


WUWT deniers can't agree about what is happening to the climate (it's the sun, it's natural, it's not warming, it's cooling, we're heading for an ice age, it's thunderstorms, there is no greenhouse effect, it's cosmic rays, it's warming, it's not warming, it's ENSO, it's an ice age) - but when it comes to conspiracies they all agree that climate science is a hoax! A conspiracy! A scam! A SECRET scam!

Ooh, look - another conspiracy.  On that famous science-spying blog wattsupwiththat, justthefactswuwt has found that secret countries from every secret continent all around the globe have secretly conspired with the secret UK Met Office and secretly made the world warmer! Well, some places warmer(and only some cooler.)  That proves it! (Not sure what it proves but whatever it is, it PROVES it!)

Just like before, the latest secret changes to HadCRUT and CRUTem are secretly published (huh?) on the secret UK Met Office website here and here, and all these secret places are part of the secret hoax...

Norway
Australia
Brazil
Antarctica
St Helena
Bolivia
South East Asia
Germany
Poland
Uganda
USA
Canada

Did I mention how secretive they are? I mean, justthefactswuwt found that in some places the temperature chart was adjusted UP (mind you) and not for every year and not for every place, but in some years and some places by a whole 5 one hundredths of a degree.   That's right, not one hundredth, not two hundredths but a whole FIVE one hundredths of a degree!!! That's bordering on criminal, that is.  Look here and you'll see what I mean:



As one commenting auditor from WUWT cannily observed:
Peter Wardle says:
May 12, 2013 at 6:04 pm  Isn’t this a clear case of fraud? If so how can they get away with it? Perhaps I might rethink my next tax return.


Net Result of the Secret Changes on the Met Office Hadley Centre website

Here is the net result of all those dastardly secret changes on the HadCRUT global surface temperature dataset.  Good grief it's gone up by nearly TEN THOUSAND one millionths of a degree in parts (as Reginald Perrin might say) :

Only available to bona fide Climate Cultists who have the Secret URL


Look how HUGE10,000 one millionths of a degree is compared to no change. (Note: it's really MUCH bigger than it looks here.  I had to shrink it so it would fit on the blog.)


A bonus for latecomers: More words of wisdom from those who swear they aren't gullible.  Brad, if I deduce correctly from his reference to "Republicans", believes the UK Met's Hadley Centre and the UEA Climatic Research Unit are funded by the USA.  He bemoans the secrecy surrounding this data, which is only available to those who have the secret URLs of the websites here and here, and says:
May 12, 2013 at 7:04 pm  When will the funders, our elected officials, wake up to this? If only the Republicans take this up it could make things worse as it will look like more anti-science stuff. How do we get the truth out?
Cute, eh! Republicans only make it worse with 'more anti-science stuff'.  I guess the message is spreading...

Wanna be a SPY?

To secretly spy on previous updates to CRUTem and HadCRUT see this secret discussion on RealClimate.org, which refers to a secret paper published by Jones et al.

Ha, you can't pull the wool over deniers' eyes - they are sharp and onto every secret move!



Saturday, April 27, 2013

More WUWT Denier Weirdness: Long Time Passing...

Sou | 2:08 PM Go to the first of 10 comments. Add a comment
Or...Where have all the "warmists" gone? 
justthefactswuwt says:
April 26, 2013 at 8:41 pm
dbstealey says: April 26, 2013 at 8:15 pm  I would save that excellent and fun question to sandbag the next presumptuous Warmist commenter pretending to pass himself off as a climate expert....It would be even better asked in person!
I can’t even get a Warmist to comment on my threads these days, there has to be someone out there who can explain how this all ties back to anthropogenic CO2 emissions… I wonder if the Warmist blog troll funding is drying up…


Sandbagging? Warmist blog troll funding? Paranoid conspiracy theorising much?

jtfw only needs to ask Smokey/dbstealey or Anthony Watts.

Everyone who has the temerity to make a sensible, knowledgeable comment about climate science is automatically banned from WUWT.  If not immediately, then eventually.  Usually with the most scathing comment Anthony's little mind can come up with, viz: "Anonymous Coward".  But the Anonymous Coward tag is a last resort when, despite his best googling efforts, Anthony can't find and post their name, current employment and personal contact details as he bans them.