Cold Winter 2013/14 in United States - "Global warming? What global warming?" (Monckton)

The topic probably seems to be out of place a bit for the ones who live in the Northern Hemisphere, considering the current summer weather outside in many places of it. However, I still have seen it popping up as talking point presented by AGW-"skeptics" at various places. The following quote is exemplary:

"The last U.S. winter colder than this one was in 1911/12, before the First World War.
Thank you, America! Most of Britain has had an unusually mild and wet winter, for you have had more than your fair share of the Northern Hemisphere’s cold weather this season.
Global warming? What global warming?"
(Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, March 26, 2014, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/26/coldest-u-s-winter-in-a-century/)

What global warming? Apparently, it is being suggested that the surface temperatures of the winter 2013/14 were about the same as about 100 years ago, and this would refute global warming. Leaving aside for the moment that it already is scientifically not justified to take the weather pattern of a single season to draw conclusions about the longer-term climate trend, here is the global temperature anomaly and its geographical distribution for the winter (December, January, February) 2013/14 relative to the average winter of the reference period 1951-1980, based on the NASA GISS surface temperature analysis:

Some people may have felt cold in United States during the winter 2013/14. However, the global picture reveals something else. The larger part of the globe had a positive temperature anomaly during this winter compared to the reference period 1951-1980, and the globally averaged temperature anomaly amounted to plus 0.56 deg. C. The temperature anomaly in North America during the high winter season did not even deviate substantially from the average winter temperature of the reference period in a large part of the continent, except for Alaska where it was more than 2 deg. C above the reference period.

Many people in US perceived the winter 2013/14 as cold, because they have not been used any more to an average 20th century winter, due to the warming trend of the recent decades. The following figure shows the geographical distribution of the temperature anomaly for the average winter of the last 20 years compared to the average winter of the reference period 1951-1980:

Now, how does the winter of the year 1911/1912, which was mentioned by Monckton as pretext to deny global warming, looks like in comparison? Here is the geographical distribution of the surface temperature anomaly, again relative to the average winter of the reference period 1951-1980:

It looks very different to the winter 2013/2014. Whereas the winter surface temperatures 2013/2014 in United States were a regional cold anomaly within a generally warmer planet, the surface temperatures of winter 1911/1912 in United States do not stand out compared to the rest of the world. The anomaly is small relative to the reference period again, but large parts of the globe were colder during that winter than the average winter of the reference period. Thus it rather was relatively warmer in the United States than in many other parts of the planet, with respect to the magnitude of the anomaly. The globally averaged temperature anomaly relative to the average winter of 1951-1980 amounts to -0.45 deg. C.

Climate change is a change in the statistical properties of climate variables between different time periods, i.e., a change in the average of a variable (e.g., of temperature, precipitation, sea level, sea ice extend, etc.) or a change in other statistical moments (e.g., variance) of the variable over a time period, which should be sufficiently long. Data from only single years do not allow any conclusions whether climate has changed. This would be just weather, which can be quite variable from one year to the next. Therefore, I am going to show next how the average winter changed from the 29-year period 1881-1910 (it starts with winter 1881/1882 and ends with winter 1909/1910) to the 29-year period 1985-2014:

Here we have the global warming, denied by Monckton. The globally averaged increase in the winter surface temperature is 0.78 deg. C between the two 29-year periods. There has been a general surface temperature increase which is nearly global over the last century, with some regional exceptions. The magnitude of the temperature increase is not globally uniform. The Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere on average. There is an Arctic amplification, with the surface warming amounting to more than 4 deg. C in some Arctic regions. Land areas have warmed more than ocean areas on average. I have to mention a caveat here. The graphic presentation does not show, where the temperature change between the two time periods is statistically significant. There are likely some regions where it is not.

In short, any claims that the colder winter 2013/2014 in United States refuted global warming taken place over the last century are absolutely baseless.

The story of my visit at Bob Tisdale's blog "Climate Observations"

Bob Tisdale is a little bit a strange fellow. He has a very odd belief that global warming, including the one of the oceans is caused by the El Nino-La Nina (or ENSO - El Nino Southern Oscillation) cycle. El Nino is characterized by a strong ocean heat and sea surface temperature anomaly in the Central and Eastern equatorial Pacific ocean. La Nina is the counterpart, characterized by a negative heat and sea surface temperature anomaly. The equatorial Pacific produces El Ninos and La Ninas every few years, with global reach through the atmospheric circulation, leading to temperature and precipitation anomalies even in remote regions of the planet, mediated through so called teleconnections. Sometimes warm or cold phases occurs in a row only interrupted by neutral conditions. It is a major mode of internal chaotic variability in the ocean-atmosphere system. Bob Tisdale understands as much. However, he does not seem to understand that El Nino-La Nina cannot generate by itself a global ocean warming trend, because the ocean does not heat itself. A net influx of energy into the oceans is needed to cause a secular warming trend of the whole body of ocean water. The energy must come from somewhere. Bob Tisdale cannot explain where it comes from. The axiom here is, like for all the AGW-"skeptics", global (ocean) warming cannot, never ever, be caused by the radiation effect of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases. All the arguments are built around this axiom.

This figure (added to the post after original posting) shows the increase in the ocean heat content since 1955, for which needs to be explained what the energy source for all the heating of the   oceans is:

(Source: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/)

I paid a visit at Bob Tisdale's blog, because I accidentally had seen that he had written and published on his blog an open letter to Daily Show host Jon Stewart who had made fun of AGW-denialism (here and here). After introducing himself, what an important personality he was, in the AGW-denial blogosphere, who even publishes at such an important blog as wattsupwiththat, Bob Tisdale explained to Jon Stewart how utterly wrong established climate science was regarding anthropogenic global warming.

Well, I had had the impression before that Bob Tisdale was someone among the AGW-"skeptics" with whom one at least could talk and who is able to maintain civility, damn was I wrong. What a bully and jerk, filled with delusions of grandeur, and at the same time with the need of getting reassured from his comrades. He very quickly started to show the usual reaction of fake skeptics, when they are losing the argument. He resorted to ad hominem attacks and other evasion tactics. Apparently, when he felt that the lack of physical soundness in his "theory" was pointed out too much and confronted with the inconvenient reality of empirical data, it turned out he is just another one who can't take it when he is being contradicted:

 

The third time is the charm and the anti-science blog wattsupwiththat.com

Previously, I had reported here that I had been declared "persona non grata" on Anthony Watts' anti-science blog wattsupwiththat.com (WUWT). The story then developed with Anthony Watts posting a comment on the blog here to the previous posting on July 7, 2013, where he retracted the announcement previously made on his blog (here is a screenshot of the previous announcement once more),

and where he also made a pathetic attempt to present it as if the banning had been only in my head. Later, he also publicly claimed that the statement about my banning were "unsubstantiated facts on display", despite the evidence above to the contrary. But he basically said I was allowed to comment again at WUWT.

So, I went back to WUWT. It lasted only as long.

I am usually trying to reply with polite words, even when faced with the most vicious and hateful attacks or with displays of extreme ignorance, although I may not have always been successful with my tries. However, I have some problems with diplomatic approaches. I rather tend to speak my mind, sometimes up to a fault, which can escalate situations, and it has caused me some troubles and scary moments in the past, e.g., in the country where I came from.

There have been several instances, when commenters on WUWT articulated their wish that violence was applied against climate scientists, including me as a person. For instance, the late Robert E. Phelan who even was a moderator at WUWT, wrote on April 14, 2012, addressed at me, "When the peasants come for you with their pitchforks and torches, you will have brought it on yourselves."

Yesterday (July 10, 2013), some other commenter, posting under the alias Allencic, from the anti-science crowd on WUWT articulated a similar wish, (combined with the delusional notion that the AGW deniers were in a situation like Jewish scientists in Nazi-Germany. The articulation of the wish for violence against climate scientists needs a strong rationalization to justify it), even though the commenter claimed later it just had been irony.

"God help us from these fools who claim to be climate scientists. When this finally blows up and the public realizes how badly they’ve been had you might want to invest in pitchforks and torches and tar and feathers."

Anthony Watts is growing a quasi-religious anti-science cult with his blog. And he is not the only one who makes propaganda against the findings of climate science and against climate scientists, using a combination of disinformation, junk science, inciting accusations against scientists and outright lies. There are other anti-science blogs and groups who are publicly agitating (e.g., the Heartland Institute) in the same way. If Watts does not do it himself, he tolerates it when it comes from his guest authors or followers. Therefore, I consider it very possible that some AGW-denier fanatics are going to use violence against climate scientists and scientific institutions, equally motivated, for instance, as religious fanatics are attacking abortion clinics. The grounds are laid. The hate is there, the viciousness is there.

I am a peaceful person, but I am not a pacifist. I am in favor of the right to self-defense, including armed one, if someone tries to apply violence against climate scientists (or any other innocent people). I articulated this on Watts' blog, although not as elaborated and with different words. Now, I am banned again. Permanently.

Censored at Donner + Doria (partly in German)

Following reply to user Lollobrigida's comment got censored at the German "climate skeptic" blog "Donner + Doria", hosted by Die Welt journalist Ulrich Kulke, in the thread "Einheits-Klimaforschung - Teil 2: Das UBA Papier". It is not the only one of my comments that got censored over there. Even the ones that got finally posted needed more than one try. Here, we have another example for how informed comments that debunk fake skeptic claims are not liked at blogs of fake skeptics. The censorship happened after Mr. Kulke had written a long lamentation about how only a "unified" opinion was allegedly allowed in climate science, how critical opinions were allegedly suppressed, and he requested an "open discussion" instead. How ironic.

----- snip -----
In der Tat hatte ich die Namen von Herrn Kulke und Herrn Vahrenholt falsch geschrieben. Aber zumindest hatte ich das konsistent in dem ganzen Kommentar gemacht. Zu meiner Entschuldigung moechte ich vorbringen, dass ich mich mehr auf den Inhalt konzentriert hatte, so dass mir das nicht aufgefallen war. Es war keine Boeswilligkeit. Ich werde versuchen, die Namen in der Zukunft korrekt zu schreiben.

Sie behaupten:

"Es bleibt dabei: Das Ausmaß, inwieweit der Mensch an der Klimaerwärmung beteiligt ist, ist eben nicht unumstritten, da klaffen die einzelnen Studien weit auseinander."

Ihre Behauptung ist nun auch nicht sehr konkret. Wie weit ist denn "weit auseinander"? Wieviele Studien gibt es denn, die infragestellen, dass die globale Erwaermung real sei und die hauptsaechliche Ursache der statistisch signifikanten globalen Erwaermung der letzten Jahrzehnte menschliche Aktivitaeten, insbesondere Treibhausgasemissionen waeren? Gibt es mehr als den sehr kleinen Anteil an Studien, der auch von Cook et al., (2013) festgestellt wurde? Wenn Sie das behaupten, auf welche Belege stuetzt sich Ihre Behauptung?

"Selbst der Entwurf für den nächsten Assessment Report des IPCC, der im September herauskommt, geht inzwischen von nicht mehr als 50 Prozent als gesichert heraus, und das will schon viel heißen."

Abgesehen von der Ethik-Verletzung, die der/diejenige begangen hat, der/die den Entwurf oeffentlich verbreitet hat, wuerde ich doch gerne mal die Quelle wissen, wo Sie diese Behauptung herhaben. Ich vermute, von irgendeinem "Skeptiker"-Blog. Denn da sind Sie einer Luege aufgesessen, und Sie haben es anscheinend nicht fuer noetig gehalten, die Aussage zu ueberpruefen. Der draft report sagt naemlich etwas anderes. Der sagt aus, dass es extrem wahrscheinlich sei, dass mindestens 50% der globalen Erwaermung seit Mitte des letzten Jahrhunderts durch menschliche Aktivitaeten verursacht worden sei, und dass der Beitrag der Treibhausgase zum Trend von ca. 0.6 K von 1951 bis 2010 sehr wahrscheinlich zwischen 0.6 K und 1.4 K betraegt (Seite 10-3).

"Dabei sind darin noch nicht einmal die letzten Studien berücksichtlgt, die feststellten, dass die CO2-Sensitivität offenbar deutlich zu hoch bewertet wurden".

Relevant waeren fuer die Frage des Konsenses unter den Wissenschaftlern, ob AGW real ist, wenn es neue relevanten Studien zur Klimasensitivitaet gabe, die genau aus diesem Konsens herausfallen. Ansonsten gab es schon immer einige Studien mit niedrigeren Schaetzungen zur Klimasensitiviaet und andere mit hoeheren Schaetzungen. Es ist ja nicht so, dass da bisher nur ein einzelner fixer Wert als gueltig angesehen worden waere. Auch die neueren Schaetzungen werfen vorherige Aussagen, z.b im IPCC Report 2007 nicht ueber den Haufen, selbst wenn der Wert, dem die hoechste Wahrscheinlichkeit zugeschrieben wird, etwas niedriger ausfaellt.

"mal abgesehen von den Studien, die zwar eine menschliche Beteiligung konstatieren, aber den Ruß/Albedoeffekt deutlich in den Vordergrund rücken."

Worueber reden Sie? Es gibt keine Studien, die zu dem Ergebnis kommen, dass der Soot-Albedo Effekt auf das Klima groesser sei, als der Effekt der anthropogenen Treibhausgasemissionen, nicht mal gleich so gross. Es sei denn, ich habe da was uebersehen. Dann muessten Sie mir die Studie nennen, die zu so einem Ergebnis gekommen sein soll. Die Angabe des doi-keys genuegt.

"Hier eine Einheitlichkeit vorzugaukeln, wirkt reichlich hilflos."

Wer behauptet denn diese "Einheitlichkeit" bzgl. jeden Aspektes zur globalen Klimaaenderung? Oder ist diese Behauptung ueber die angebliche Behauptung einer "Einheitlichkeit" vielleicht nur ein Strohmannargument? Diejenigen, die das Wort "Einheitlichkeit" gebrauchen, sind doch auch nur Herr Kulke und Sie und vielleicht Ihnen gleichgesinnte Personen.

Dass bestimmte zentrale Aussagen in einem wissenschaftlichen Fachgebiet mit der Zeit den Status eines Paradigmas bekommen, ist nicht das gleiche wie "Einheitlichkeit" zu allen Fragen.

"Wo fangen eigentlich die "Skeptiker" an, und wo ist man noch im erlaubten Bereich? Und ab wann ist man "falscher Skeptiker", kein richtiger mehr?"

Das ist gar nicht so schwer auseinanderzuhalten, wer ein wahrer und wer ein falscher Skeptiker ist. Das haengt nicht davon ab, welcher wissenschaftlichen Hypothese oder Theorie man skeptisch gegenuebersteht, sondern davon, welche Form von Argumenten bzw. Pseudoargumente man gegen die Hypothese oder Theorie vorbringt. Man erkennt die falschen Skeptiker an der Methode. Wahre Skeptiker verwenden wissenschaftliche Argumente, und wenn sie eine Hypothese oder Theorie ablehnen, dann stellen sie eine alternative Hypothese auf, und testen diese mit der gleichen wissenschafltichen Rigorositaet, die sie von anderen Wissenschaftlern erwarten. Skeptizismus gehoert zum beruflichen Profil eines Wissenschaftlers.

Falsche Skeptiker greifen die wissenschaftlichen Hypothesen und Theorien, die von ihnen abgelehnt werden, mit unwissenschaftlichen Argumenten an, z.b, indem sie stattdessen persoenliche Angriffe auf die Wissenschaftler fahren, die diese Hypothesen oder Theorien in ihren Publikationen veroeffentlichen, oder sie bedienen sich logisch trugschluessiger Argumente, cherry picking, oder sie verbreiten schlichtweg tatsachenwidrige Behauptungen. Oft kommt das auch mit Verschwoerungsfantasien auf Seiten der falschen Skeptiker daher. Und aufgrund der stark politischen und ideologischen Motivierung, die viele der falschen "Skeptiker" antreibt, sieht man auch haeufig, dass politische und ideologische Argumente gegen die wissenschaftlichen Hypothesen und Theorien vorgebracht werden.

Sie, z.B., bedienen sich einer fuer falsche Skeptiker typischen Argumentationsfuehrung, in Ihrer Entgegnung auf meine Aussagen zu der angeblichen "Pause in der Klimaerwaermung". Waehrend ich inhaltliche Argumente dazu gebracht habe, wie mein Verweis auf die logisch und methodisch falsche Schlussfolgerung, die aus fehlender statistischer Signifikanz der Temperaturaenderung in der Troposphere ueber die letzten 15 Jahre gezogen wird, und mein Verweis auf andere Indikatoren dafuer, dass sich die globale Erwaermung fortsetzt, bedienen Sie sich des logisch trugschluessigen Arguments des Appells an die (angebliche) Mehrheitsmeinung, um meine Argumente vom Tisch zu wischen. Und mit extremer Wahrscheinlichkeit koennen Sie Ihre Behauptung, dass meine Argumente eine Aussenseiteransicht unter den Klimawissenschaftlern waere, auch gar nicht mal belegen.
----- snip -----

What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 10

The purpose of the post is merely to document the censored reply I gave to one of the participants in the thread. It was the repeated, and yet futile try to explain what institution employs me and which one does not. One could be astonished about the notorious refusal of many of the fake skeptics to let in anything that is in contradiction to their preconceived views, if it was not just another example of the usual modus operandi of this crowd, which can be observed at many occasions. I frankly admit that I may not be fully informed about all the nuances employment contracts can have, but I am pretty sure that if there is no contract that states an employment relationship between two parties, then there is no employment relationship in legal terms. The following is not particularly exiting. It is just for the record, since I was prevented to reply at the location where the claims were made.

----- skip -----
J. T. Jones wrote on April 8, 2013 at 7:16 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/#comment-1269733

If they were a contractor doing the work the government contracted them to do, it would be entirely legal and relevant to refer to them as being employed by the government as they (or the company that hired them) would indeed have a government employment contract. on the other hand, It wouldn’t be legal or relevant to refer to them as a federal employee, as they are not directly employed by the government.

You haven't answered my question whether you have an employment contract with the federal agency, and whether you could make legal claims against this federal agency regarding your employment. If you work for a company that has a contract with the federal agency to provide specific services to the federal agency, your employment contract is not with the federal agency. It's with the contracting company instead. You are employed with the contracting company. Or please explain to me based on what legal document you are claiming you were employed with the federal agency.

The simple facts of the matter is NASA is footing the bill for work that you do on their behalf. That is what is called employment.

No, employment is a legal contract between two parties. But it doesn't even work in the way you think regarding the relationship between Columbia University and NASA. It's not like the relationship between contractors who provide services for NASA (e.g., IT services) and NASA, and the contractors then employ people who do this work. Instead, it's a collaboration between Columbia and NASA to the benefit of both parties in the collaboration. The Columbia scientists working at GISS aren't even necessarily paid with money coming from NASA. They are paid from federal grant money like most researchers at Columbia, coming from various federal agencies, based on proposals that are submitted by the researchers and Columbia to the federal agencies, like NSF, DOE, NOAA, and also NASA, but not necessarily NASA. There is nothing in my contract that says I was employed to provide services to NASA. My legal status and my contract as a Columbia employee is not different to any contract of any other Columbia researcher who works in any other lab on the Columbia campus.

----- skip -----

Update Regarding My Posting Status at wattsupwiththat.com

As reported before, I had been banned from posting comments at the AGW-"skeptic" blog wattsupwiththat.com. Yesterday, I was able to publish some comments again. However, this was only until last night. Since then, none of my comments I submitted there have appeared. I take from this that I am stilled banned from posting at the blog by default. Publishing some comments submitted by me yesterday seems to have been at a whim of Anthony Watts, which apparently did not last long. This prevents me from sending rebuttals to claims made over there by some of the fake skeptics, including the ones about my person, which have reached a new level of absurdity. I am not going to try again and again to find out when I am allowed to post something and when I am not. If Anthony Watts does not want me to write at his blog so be it.

I am going to publish a couple of the censored comments at this place here later.

What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 8

And yet another thread where a comment by me got vanished at wattsupwiththat.com. The topic to which I replied are accusations against late climate scientist Stephen Schneider to have promoted lying to the public. The accusations have been stated by fake skeptics for years, mostly based on a falsified quote from an interview Stephen Schneider gave to the magazine Discover in 1989.

In my comment I replied to comments by four other participants. This is the comment that was seemingly disliked:

----- snip -----
Mark Bofill wrote on February 11, 2013 at 10:27 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222361

something.

Bofill, you just have crossed the line. You don't need to further pretend that you were seriously interested in a discussion with me.

richardscourtney wrote on February 11, 2013 at 7:41 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222238

something.

Every time when Courtney is exposed to have spread falsehoods or supporting falsehoods, like when he is exposed to make false claims about the NOAA Report from 2008, or here, he is shouting "Liar!" over and over again. He behaves like the thief who is loudly shouting, "Stop the thief!" to deflect the attention from himself.

D.B. Stealey, on February 11, 2013 at 10:44 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222375

requests that I apologize to Gail Combs. Ridiculous. What for? I should apologize, because she posted a falsified quote? Anthony Watts may have tried to display this here as an innocent mistake, because the falsified quote had been spread before by some newspapers (and in the fake skeptic blogosphere). Only, this explanation is not believable to me, since Gail Combs provided a link together with the quote, which pointed to a correct version of the quote. Thus, she must have known about the not falsified version. Nevertheless, she presented the falsified one.

Bruce Cobb, on February 11, 2013 at 8:10 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222268

expressed his regret that Stephen Schneider wasn't around anymore to tell climate scientists what he really meant.

However, that is not a problem, since he had done that already when he was still alive.

For instance in here:
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf

Go to page 5, Stephen Schneider writes there:

"Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating threats. Their “evidence” comes from partially quoting my Discover interview, almost always -like Simon - omitting the last line and the phrase “double ethical bind.” They also omit my solutions to the double ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both urgency and uncertainty (pg. xi of Ref. 3) and (2) produce an inventory of written products from editorials to articles to books, so that those who want to know more about an author’s views on both the caveats and the risks have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to which they can turn.3,4,5 What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was my disdain for a soundbite communications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the “ends justify the means” philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their audiences that “what to do” is a value choice as opposed to “what can happen” and “what are the odds,” which are scientific issues (e.g. p. 213 of Ref. 3). I also urge that scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish which are objective which are subjective, as well as what is the scientific basis for any probability offered. For such reasons I was honored to receive, in 1991, the AAAS/Westinghouse Award for the Public Understanding of Science."
(Stephen Schneider, Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial, APS News, 1996, 5(8), p. 5, http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf)

----- snip -----

What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 7

More than a week has already passed. Thus, it is safe to assume my following comment to the smear post by Anthony Watts against William Connolley got vanished back then after submission to Watts's blog. Here is my comment:

----- snip -----

Anthony Watts wrote:

"Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again"

"in the news again" means here, Kopp-online, one of worst garbage publishers, which is known for spreading esoteric and pseudo-scientific views, conspiracy fantasies and outright lies, in the German language online world, published some dreck about Connolley, an opinion article filled with lies, filled with assertions not backed up with anything, filled with innuendo and conspiracy fantasy. Then the author quotes and references his own Kopp-article in his own blog, which then is quoted and referenced by Anthony Watts here. And soon, it likely is going to be further spread all around the "skeptic"-blogosphere. This is how some "news" are being created.

Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team.

I’m not sure how accurate the translation is, but it suggests he was somehow part of the IPCC “short list” team.

What is "the IPCC 'short list' team"? The central committee of the evil "AGW hoax" conspiracy?

No, it means something else here. It's a sports metaphor, through which it is asserted that Connolley lacked objectivity as an author or administrator of Wikipedia because of his former Green Party membership and because "he openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC".

"he openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC". This statement is obviously derogatorily meant, but it comes as pure innuendo. What is this even supposed to mean? What are the alleged "views of the controversial IPCC", with which he "openly sympathizes"? The scientific views on climate change of mainstream climate science, as compiled and synthesized in the IPCC report? Or what else is meant?

So, people who agree with the mainstream views in a scientific field should not write or edit articles about topics in the field in an encyclopedia? And if they do anyhow, it's just "unbelievable"! How dare they!

It's really an irony that the crowd here is ranting about Wikipedia, and at the same time is taking something at face value, which comes from a garbage source like Kopp-online, as soon as it seems to confirm the preconceived views. Anyone who values science and truth should stay far away from such a source, though.

----- snip -----

What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 6

This time a comment of mine, which I had submitted on January, 24, 2013, in reply to the posting "Burt Rutan: 'This says it all and clear'" got vanished or never appeared at Anthony Watts's blog "Watts Up With That?". My reply listed some major flaws of the posting. It is one of the many examples how fake skeptics lie using cherry picked data and flawed statistics. I addressed this pseudo-scientific approach also in the post "How to create a false 'global warming standstill'".

Here is the comment:

----- snip -----

Three major flaws in the post:

1. Cherry picking of data intervals and the data set to support the desired message.

2. Drawing scientifically invalid conclusions from changes in limited data, which are not statistically significant.

3. Straw man argumentation, where something is being "refuted" that is not being stated (as if any climate scientist has claimed that CO2 was the only factor influencing the global atmospheric or surface temperature record, and that there was a linear relationship between CO2 emission or CO2 mixing ratio in the atmosphere and observed temperature record).

But the crowd here is generally applauding. So much for the skepticism of "skeptics".

I don't know for what purpose Mr. Watts posted this. But if the purpose has been to expose what I am seeing here, it is a full success.

----- snip -----

How to create a false "global warming standstill"

1. One choose a data set of global tropospheric (e.g., UAH, RSS) or surface temperature estimates (e.g., NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC, HadCRU), preferably one that has the strongest bias to the cool side.
2. One finds a time interval in the data set, which is sufficiently short enough so that a statistical trend estimate does not provide any statistically significant warming trend. The large variability within the data on the short time interval makes sure of this. Even better, if the statistical estimate of the trend is close to Zero or negative. In latter case, one can claim "global cooling!" Statistical significance does not matter in this case. It only matters, if it comes to denying a global warming trend.

I have done this exercise for the RSS data of the lower troposphere temperature. And voila! There has not been just one global warming "standstill". There has been even two over the last 34 years, I have discovered using the woodfortrees tool.

According to this, the first "global warming standstill" occurred from 1979 to 1993 (inclusive). The statistical estimate (using this neat trend calculator at the Skeptical Science blog, which is based on [1]) of the trend is 0.012 Kelvin/Decade. The 2-sigma (about 95%) confidence interval is +/-0.229 Kelvin/Decade. As one can see, it is quite large. Then there is the recent "global cooling" from 1997 to today with a trend of (-0.003+/-0.229) Kelvin/Decade. No statistically significant cooling, but what "skeptic" is going to care about that, as long as "cooling" can be claimed.

What about the small interval between the "global warming standstills"? The positive trend estimate in this small time interval is not statistically significantly different from a Zero-trend either: (0.164+/-1.689) Kelvin/Decade. Therefore, since none of the separate time intervals shows any statistically significant global warming, the brave "skeptic" concludes, there has not been any global warming for 34 years at all! It is all a lie, a big global warming hoax! Invented by sinister forces for their own mean purposes.

What now? Now we repeat the statistical trend estimate for the whole time interval from 1979 to today:

The statistical estimate for the trend over the whole time interval is (0.133+/-0.073) Kelvin/Decade. There is a clear global warming trend, which is statistically significantly different from a Zero-trend by more than 3-sigma, which means that the probability to have a false positive signal relative to the noise in the data within the time interval is less than three out of a thousand.

No global warming and presence of global warming cannot be both true at the same time. A statement and its negation cannot be true at the same time. One of the two approaches must be wrong. And it is not the second one.

What does this teach us?

1. One can get easily fooled by noise, if one chooses too short time intervals of the data in time series analysis. In any time series, once always can find a time interval short enough, for which the noise becomes so large it masks any trend in the data series.
2. A failure to find a statistically significant trend in a time series does not refute the hypothesis of the presence of such a trend, since one cannot logically exclude the possibility that the lack of statistical significance is only due to a too small sampling size of the data.
3. Empirical, statistical evidence for a true global warming "standstill" or at least for a trend change could be provided by showing that the trend over the recent shorter time interval is statistically significantly different from the statistically significant warming trend that has been observed over the whole of the recent decades. This is not the case for the RSS data set above (and neither for any of the other mentioned ones). The 2-sigma interval for the RSS temperature data since 1997 is +/-0.229 Kelvin/Decade. The multi-decadal trend from 1979 to today lies well within its boundaries. Therefore, claims about a "global warming standstill", using too short time intervals from these data sets and flawed conclusions from statistical trend analysis, do not have any scientific validity.

[1] Foster, G. and Rahmstorf. S, 2011, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environ. Res. Lett. 6(4), 044022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 5

Anthony Watts, host of wattsupwiththat.com has launched an outrageous attack against the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) by publishing an article, "NASA GISS caught changing past data again - violates Data Quality Act", in which scientists working at the institute are accused of forging the data that are used for the GISS surface temperature analysis, and of violating federal law. These are serious accusations of scientific misconduct, and if they were true, this wouldn't not just destroy the reputation of the scientists, it would lead to the end of their scientific careers with high probability. The scientists could even face criminal prosecution. In a world of reason, logic, and law one does a thorough research of the facts first before stating these kind of accusations, since those would require hard evidence that could stand up in court. Not so in the fake skeptic universe where Anthony Watts and his friends reside. There, the bar is much lower. Some assertions and conjecture based on insufficient information due to lack of proper research of the facts, are considered as sufficient to make severe accusations and for his followers to believe them to be true, as one can see in the comment section.

There are some voices of reason among the commenters, but they are being ignored or ridiculed. My replies to these accusations got vanished by Anthony Watts, one can say as usual now. After they got vanished some funny guy under the name Louis Hooffstetter had the nerve to call me personally out to reply to the accusations, although he should have seen that my replies get snipped.

I didn't save the first one of my censored replies, which is mentioned in the second one. The first one was shorter and contained the question whether the author had checked with the scientist who maintains the GISS surface temperature analysis and who got praised not long ago on Mr. Watts's blog for promptly responding and correcting a mistake when it was detected. So, now the same scientist is being accused of being a big fraudster? He is still the same with the same high integrity as before. The accusations against him are baseless. I also asked whether accusations are posted first, before thorough fact checking was done. And I wondered whether this has been the purpose from the beginning.

Here is the second one:

----- snip -----
Anthony Watts wrote in
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/26/nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violates-data-quality-act/#comment-1089990)

[snip - Sorry, I'm just not interested in your smear and accusations. As a NASA scientist who works with Hansen, you are in a position to demonstrate why/why not the charge of post facto data change if true. Instead you whine, and I'm just not interested in that. Do something substantive other than whining. - Anthony]

What a rubbish. Not every scientists working at GISS is involved in the temperature analysis. Why is every scientist at GISS supposed to be responsible for it? By mere association? Who is involved can be found at the website or taken from the author list of the related scientific papers. These are the people to be asked, if one wants to know specifics about the analysis. As for the alleged smear and accusations in my comment. Well, no one of the readers can check now what those outrageous "smear and accusations" and "whining" were, allegedly, right? However, the real smear and accusations are to be found in above article posted on Mr. Watts' attack web site. Accusations of evil manipulations and violations of the law allegedly done by GISS scientists are made without proper fact checking first, e.g., whether there is just some innocent explanation for it, if it is really true that data have changed.

Here I offer an explanation without the need to resort to accusations of sinister and fraudulent manipulation against the scientists at GISS who do the analysis.

Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using the current adjusted GHCN-v3 and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months.
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

The source data which are going into the analysis are not produced at GISS. They are coming from somewhere else. Always the current version of those data is used, and the data are updated every month. When something changes in the source data it has a ripple effect on the analysis done at GISS.

The "Updates to the Analysis" on the website refer to changes in the methodology of the analysis done at GISS, not to changes in data points of the source data sets.

-----  snip -----

Update, 10/28/2012: On the Updates to Analysis page of GISS, the conundrum about the changed results from the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis is being has been solved now. NOAA/NCDC the institution where the data used for the GISS analysis come from have switched to a new version of the data set, from GHCN v3.1 to GHCN v3.2. This has the according ripple effect on the GISS analysis. The change is explained by NOAA/NCDC here.

This confirms that once more Anthony Watts posted assertions and accusations on his blog against GISS scientists without doing proper research first whether those assertions and accusations were correct.

What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 3

"The reason is that WUWT does not censor comments like alarmist blogs do. It allows true freedom of speech, thus the grain of truth is winnowed from the chaff of propaganda; readers can make up their own minds, and arrive at reasonable conclusions based on the facts presented."
(Smokey aka David B. Stealey, moderator of the blog wattsupwiththat.com, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/comment-of-the-week-2/#comment-754850)

I continue my series that documents comments that are apparently not liked, and therefore vanished at the opinion blog wattsupwiththat.com, which is presented by blog host Anthony Watts as "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change" and which promotes denial of anthropogenically caused global warming. The comment was in reply to the claim by regular guest author Bob Tisdale, made in his posting "Tisdale asks: Hey, Where'd The El Niño Go?". Mr. Tisdale asserts global warming was caused by the natural phenomenon El Niño.  The El Niño/La Niña pattern (or ENSO - El Niño/Southern Oscillation) is a major mode of ocean variability in the tropical Pacific. It influences the weather in many parts of the world through so called teleconnections. Here is my comment to this claim. The comment also included a couple of questions for Mr. Tisdale:

----- snip -----
How is El Nino supposed to cause global warming? El Nino/La Nina is a major mode of natural variability with warm and cold phases, but global warming is a long-term trend. And the temperature of the upper ocean layers is not an independent climate driver. It's a dependent variable, so it can be the first cause that explains global warming. Claiming a warming of the upper ocean layers was the cause of global warming is just circular reasoning, since warming of the upper ocean layers is part of global warming.

Here are the annually and globally averaged anomalies of the surface temperature according to the GISS analysis relative to the average of the reference period 1951-1980:

For the decade of 1991 to 2000:
0.36, 0.14, 0.15, 0.25, 0.4, 0.3, 0.42, 0.59, 0.34, 0.36; mean+/-std = 0.331+/-0.133
For the decade of 2001 to 2010:
0.49, 0.58, 0.57, 0.49, 0.62, 0.56, 0.59, 0.44, 0.57, 0.63; mean+/-std = 0.554+/-0.061
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt)

What El Nino events are supposed to have caused and how are they supposed to have caused it that the 10 year average of the global temperature anomaly of the period 2001 to 2010 was 0.22 K higher than the 10-year average of the period 1991 to 2000? How does El Nino cause the long-term increase in the ocean heat content?

----- snip -----

Update 09/25/2012, at 9:27 AM:  The statement above, "It's a dependent variable, so it can be the first cause that explains global warming", was supposed to say "It's a dependent variable, so it can't be the first cause that explains global warming" (h/t Al. Thank you for spotting this and notifying me). Comments still don't work.

Update 09/25/2012, at 9:32 AM: Posting new comments actually works. Old comments have not been imported yet.

Fake Skeptics Versus True Skeptics

Since I have previously used the term Fake Skeptics, perhaps some explanation is required what is meant with this term. I am distinguishing between fake skeptics and true skeptics regarding scientific debates, based on the form of the arguments and the motivation behind the arguments. The phenomenon of a, if not necessarily large, but the more noisy group of people who act as fake skeptics is for instance particularly present regarding the findings in the field of climate science, since those findings have become highly politicized due to their implications for the human civilization and economics and politics all over the planet.

Fake Skeptics do not argue on the grounds of science, they mostly use non-scientific arguments to attack the findings of science. They misrepresent the science, use logical fallacies, acknowledge and interpret empirical data only very selectively, e.g., by cherry picking those, insofar those appear to be in support of their views. The thinking is governed by cognitive biases too a large degree. The driving force is not primarily scientific curiosity, and the motivation for arguing against findings of science is mostly not just some scientific disagreement. Findings from scientific research are rejected, because those findings are in contradiction to preconceived economical, political, ideological, or religious views. Consequently, since the scientific arguments are lacking, fake skeptics often resort to attacks not just against the results from research, but also against the scientists who have presented those results. Scientists who are presenting results from research which are not liked are being defamed and smeared. Accusations, insinuation, or the use of innuendo against those scientists, asserting or suggesting fraud and malicious manipulation of data and results from scientific studies are common. Resort to conspiracy theories fantasies is common too, which is explainable. How else can the worldview be made whole, if most scientists who work and publish in the field say something else? The ones who act as fake skeptics are mostly people who are not directly involved in the area of research the findings of which are being rejected. Since scientific arguments and rigorousness are lacking, fake skeptic arguments are usually not presented in scientific publications in specialist journals of the field due to the filter mechanism of the peer review process. Instead, they are mostly found in other venues, nowadays especially in Internet opinion blogs, since it is not mandatory in those to uphold strong scientific standards.

True Skeptics are, in contrast, driven by scientific curiosity and they wish to acquire knowledge about the cause-effect relationships that govern the workings of the object or system that is being studied and debated. They argue based on science. If they do not agree with findings presented by scientists, they do this using scientific arguments. They embrace the scientific method and test alternative explanations, if they hypothesize those, against empirical data. True skeptics present their alternative hypotheses and theories, once they have been worked out sufficiently, in the peer reviewed specialist journals of the field, i.e., they uphold for themselves high scientific standards. Personal attacks against scientists who are presenting alternative, competing hypotheses and theories are not being considered as legit arguments against those hypotheses and theories. Professional scientists need to be true skeptics in their daily work. It is part of their professional profile.