Open Mind

Arctic non-analysis

September 4, 2009 · 53 Comments

Anthony Watts has yet another post suggesting the ludicrous idea that the arctic isn’t really warming. He seems upset about the recent research on arctic temperature, and is all too eager to discredit it.

This one appears to be by Watts himself (I don’t see an attribution to another author) but is based on the same ERA-40 reanalysis data used by Steven Goddard. It also uses basically the same methodology: show graphs, draw the wrong conclusion, but do no analysis.

I don’t have time to get into a detailed analysis of the raw DMI data this morning as I have other duties, but I do have time to do a visual check that is just as telling.

Regarding recent arctic warming, Watts suggests:

That should easy to spot in the DMI graphs if it exists. So I animated the entire set of DMI graphs from 1958 to 2009.

You can see his animation here. Thing is, the warming is easy to spot, even just looking at graphs. One of his commenters notices it:

Neven (11:02:50):

This could be me, but eyeballing the gif you can see that up till the mid 90’s you see large spikes downwards (troughs?) when compared to the median. From then on you see mainly (very) large spikes upwards from day 0-150 and 250-end.

Neven has correctly identified that most of the temperature change north of latitude 80 deg. has occurred, not in the summer, but in winter/spring/fall. Watts however urges his readers to pay attention only to the summertime part of the graphs:

Watch the top of the bell curve above the blue line. See any big changes?

Of course you don’t. Summertime warming north of 80 deg. latitude has been minimal, especially when compared to the large warming in winter. Here, for example, is the difference between temperature anomaly for January and that for July, using the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data I used previously:


The estimated trend in July temperature is a mere 0.006 deg.C/yr, while for January the estimate is 0.092 deg.C/yr — warming 15 times as fast.

Watts analysis method: put your blinders on, urge your readers to ignore the part of the data that contradicts you, do no analysis at all.

Categories: Global Warming

53 responses so far ↓

  • Derecho64 // September 4, 2009 at 9:41 pm | Reply

    Watts uses that oh-so-precise instrument, Eyeball 1.0, to do his “analysis”. If he don’t see it, it ain’t there.

    Anything actually, well, *analytical*, is far beyond his capabilities.

  • dhogaza // September 4, 2009 at 10:12 pm | Reply

    Watts uses that oh-so-precise instrument, Eyeball 1.0, to do his “analysis”. If he don’t see it, it ain’t there.

    Don’t worry, when he has time to properly analyze it, he’ll photograph it …

  • Hank Roberts // September 4, 2009 at 11:48 pm | Reply

    What’s Watts’s green line labeled ‘climate’ supposed to show? It’s not smooth, but it never changes. Watch ‘day 0′ at the left margin.

    For those who don’t have Science access, the recent research Tamino links to there is discussed here with some quotes:

    [Response: The green line is the average (for each day of the year) from 1958 to 2002.]

  • Former Skeptic // September 5, 2009 at 1:30 am | Reply


    Don’t knock Tony Watts! He’s a PEER-REVIEWED AUTHOR and part of the world-renowned ROGER PIELKE RESEARCH GROUP!

    In fact, Roger Pielke the Elder notes that WUWT is an “excellent weblog” and, like his son ROGER PIELKE JR., castigates the biased reporting on this “cherry-picked” data to “influence the political process”!!

    Don’t forget – ROGER PIELKE SR knows everything about teh global warmingz and he must be taken seriously! What the hell does Tamino know about climate science compared to such a deity like ROGER PIELKE SR?


  • jyyh // September 5, 2009 at 3:35 am | Reply

    eyeballing a map of the arctic, 80-90 degrees N looks about the area where there’s been ice during the period in question. {sophism} maybe warming isn’t warming if it isn’t warming on the warmest month? should this part of ‘arctic warming’ be called ‘less cold above ice’? of course then someone might state that there’s no cold, and be correct of the physics. and maybe even exclaim that physicx is difficult, and be correct here too, there’s no physicx un- Ure familiar w/ it. Come to think of it, what areas are projected to heat up most during hottest months? Are there any? Amazonas doesn’t count, since there is no hottest month. And that’s for Central India too, there’s too hot anyway. Is the globe warming at all? I call for an international study on “less unwarm seasonal maxima of minimums in remote cold areas that possibly may have an effect to my or my family’s wellbeing and wealth during the next century or so’ (though we’re doing quite fine now, mind you), for better or worse. Can you guarantee the continuity of this, my line for a century?

    on the other hand, it could be the STATIC DEVELOPMENT of summer temperatures is due to the ENERGY DRAIN by the ice melting. {/sophism}

  • CapitalClimate // September 5, 2009 at 5:16 am | Reply

    I’ve collected some of the more respectable links to press coverage of the latest study.

  • gp2 // September 5, 2009 at 9:37 am | Reply

    Little summer warming (particularly june-july) is not a surprise, a mixture of melting ice/water maintains 2m temperature close to 0°C as heat is used to melt sea ice….

    “As the climate warms, the summer melt season
    lengthens and intensifies, leading to less sea ice at summer’s end. Summertime absorption
    of solar energy in expanding open water areas increases the sensible heat content of the ocean. Ice formation in autumn and winter, important for insulating the warm ocean from the cooling atmosphere is delayed. This promotes enhanced upward heat fluxes, seen as strong warming at the surface and in the lower troposphere. Arctic
    amplification is not prominent in summer itself, when energy is used to melt remaining
    sea ice and increase the sensible heat content of the upper ocean, limiting changes
    in surface and lower troposphere temperatures. Loss of snow cover contributes to an
    amplified temperature response over northern land areas, but this temperature change
    is not as pronounced as over the ocean.”

  • mauri pelto // September 5, 2009 at 11:14 am | Reply

    gp2 Good reference, as a reviewer of this paper I thought of it right away. The final version is out at the two key sentences with respect to reduced summer response are
    “Arctic amplification is not prominent in summer itself, when energy is used to melt remainingsea ice and increase the sensible heat content of the upper ocean, limiting changes
    in surface and lower troposphere temperatures.” and “Summer, by contrast, has seen a recent increase in the net surface heat flux (an increased net heat gain” by the ice-ocean column). This is understood in that ice melt
    (phase change) and heating of the ocean mixed layer have limited the increase in the surface temperature and hence the upward longwave flux. You have a big drink in a warm room, and you prevent the liquid from warming as much by continuing to melt the ice cubes.

  • David Cassatt // September 5, 2009 at 11:41 am | Reply

    Interesting – Watts seeks to discredit a paper he hasn’t even read because it’s behind a paywall. The author of the #1 science blog does not have access to Science? Couldn’t he have gotten a pdf from one of his friends or asked a reference librarian? But I guess his forte is performing original research.

  • John P // September 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Reply

    Anthony Watts is a “television meteorologist” from Fox News. He does not have a bachelor’s degree. His website is a corral for morons who don’t know enough science to get a ‘C’ in physics 101. The fact that his website is so popular is a sad statement about the level of scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills on the web and in society at large.

    I urge anyone posting comments about to post Watt’s “credentials” when commenting on the bilge he spews onto the www.

    Climate science is hard. Too hard for some to comprehend the nuance and mathematical sophistication required for proper analysis of the complicated data sets involved. Thanks for your lucid posts, Tamino.

    A Scientist
    PhD, physics and mathematics

  • Marcus // September 5, 2009 at 6:16 pm | Reply

    I disagree with the comment about emphasizing Watt’s credentials: I don’t think that’s the right way to appeal to anyone who is legitimately trying to figure out the science. Speaking of science, I think an interesting question is raised by this issue, which is might there be a reason to care more about summer temperatures than winter temperatures?

    For example, we care more about summer sea ice retreat than winter sea ice retreat for 2 reasons: 1) the feedback effect of exposing darker ocean water to sunlight is not operative during winter. (in fact, it might even be a negative feedback effect in winter) 2) I presume that losing summer sea ice is worse for charismatic megafauna like polar bears. Unfortunately, we see more summer sea ice retreat than winter retreat, which can probably be explained due to the feedback effect.

    So, for the impact of temperature change: I think it is clear that increasing temperature during melt season should lead to faster melt. This would be anytime the temperature is over -2 degrees C for any portion of the day (not just average daily temperatures). But how much of an effect does changing temperature in January have? In the middle of the ice cap, I wouldn’t think there would be much effect at all, because the ice serves as a good insulator. At the edges, I think you’d see some heating of the exposed water, both increasing heat storage in the arctic and reducing the amount of freezing compared to the counterfactual. Presumably, we could test this with a good sea-ice climate model, and try changing January temperature by 5 degrees and compare it to changing July temperature by 5 degrees. My gut says that the July shift will have more impact, but… I don’t know. Ideas?

  • Neven // September 5, 2009 at 6:55 pm | Reply

    Tamino, thank you for referring to my work. ;-)

    I don’t have the right kind of brains to assess climate science (I try to follow the arguments, read between the lines and thus judge people’s trustworthiness). But sometimes even I can see it when something isn’t right. The fact that this happens quite regularly on WUWT should speak volumes. It does for me. That’s why I’m still a warmist who goes back to WUWT every now and then in the hope he’ll be convinced that AGW isn’t real.

  • Scott A. Mandia // September 5, 2009 at 6:57 pm | Reply

    Anthony Watts (retired) holds the AMS Seal of Approval for television forecasters. He has seal #676.

    A degree in meteorology is not required to have this seal and the seal was discontinued in 2008.

    He does not hold the Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (CBM) Program seal. See:

    According to the AMS, the Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (CBM) program was established to raise the professional standard in broadcast meteorology and encourage a broader range of scientific understanding, especially with respect to environmental issues. The goal of the CBM program is to certify that the holder meets specific educational and experience criteria and has passed rigorous testing in their knowledge and communication of meteorology and related sciences needed to be an effective broadcast meteorologist.

    In order to acquire a CBM, new applicants must hold a degree in meteorology (or equivalent) from an accredited college/university, pass a written examination, and have their work reviewed to assess technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills. All CBMs may retain their certification and display the CBM logo as long as they pay their membership and renewal fees each year and complete a 28 point professional development requirements every five years.

    I also find no source that can credit him with a degree in meteorology. He is merely a weather forecaster…among other things.

    Often the terms meteorologist and weather forecaster are used interchangeably but they are distinctly different. A meteorologist is an atmospheric physicist while a weather forecaster, is well, just that.

  • dhogaza // September 5, 2009 at 7:51 pm | Reply

    Anthony Watts is a “television meteorologist” from Fox News.

    Actually he was a “television meteorologist” with a Fox News *affiliate*, after stints as a radio weather newsreader …

    A meteorologist is an atmospheric physicist while a weather forecaster, is well, just that.

    And typically they’re just subscribing to AccuWeather or parroting the NWS anyway …

  • Ray Ladbury // September 5, 2009 at 8:01 pm | Reply

    Marcus, Credentials are not crucial, but experience and education are. Watts has neither. He is a living demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    As to your suggestion that summer temperatures matter more than winter ones, consider the following:

    Winter is when new sea ice forms. If it forms under very cold temperatures, it will likely be thicker and will last longer into the Summer. Warmer winter temperatures mean thinner sea ice lasting shorter times and longer times when the polar oceans (with their lower albedo) are absorbing sunlight and warming. Warmer oceans mean less CO2 absorption and sooner eventual degassing. So, I would contend January temperatures are critical.

  • DBA // September 5, 2009 at 8:09 pm | Reply


    There are all kinds of rigorous tests in place to ensure that professors are ‘bees knees’. But I am sure your experience tells you that they must often fail.

  • Derecho64 // September 5, 2009 at 8:14 pm | Reply

    Watts is a joke. If he gets mad, he uses the information WTFWT has about posters there to harass them.

  • DBA // September 5, 2009 at 8:15 pm | Reply


    Why don’t you address the serious comments about Kaufman et al broached on CA?

    Are you not interested in the real science?

    [Response: Yes I'm interested in the real science; that's why I don't pay attention to CA.

    It looks like you're not just "DBA," you're also "Dave A" and "Dave Andrews." I guess you've joined the sock-puppet brigade.]

  • John P // September 5, 2009 at 9:26 pm | Reply

    Dear Marcus,

    I don’t want to emphasize Watt’s credentials – I want to point out that he has none. He’s not a scientist, he’s a nonscientist with a political agenda. His “analysis” would get a D or an F in any class I taught. His TV credentials prove he can read and stand in front of a blue screen while waving his hands.

    Has he passed a single course in science at an accredited institution? Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed journal? I would love to see him address an audience of real scientists. That would be fun. Does he attend meetings of climate scientists? Evidence is lacking, but then wattsupwiththat is not big on real evidence.

  • Scott A. Mandia // September 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm | Reply


    Of course, one does not need a degree to be able to read the literature and understand the information. For example, I hold an M.S. of Meteorology (Go Nittany Lions) and I do discuss climate change on my Website and in blogs for the general public but I am certainly NOT an expert because I have no peer-reviewed literature on this topic. However, I have enough schooling to understand and to communicate what the experts are saying in the literature.

    This latest post by Watts is fairly typical. He does NOT read the journal article but he still attempts to discredit it. He posts the abstract but then, in his own words with a reply to RW, he states that he is really criticizing the press release of the article where there is an obvious typo (mid 1990’s instead of mid-1900s). Furthermore, his analysis is flawed – a common occurrence on WUWT.

    He has no real interest in the truth. Everything Watts does is to promote himself. A perfect example is his work which has attempted to discredit the global temperature record. NOAA’s analysis of Watts 70 reliable stations even proved that Watts’ claims were false because the rising tide of AGW lifted all boats. Does this NOAA paper appear on on his site?

    Watts is doing is a huge diservice to his readers because the implications of climate change are so immediate and so important. Confusing the public on this matter borders on being “soul-less”.

    • RWD // September 11, 2009 at 4:21 am | Reply

      Re: Scott A. Mandia, Sept.5.
      Hi Scott,
      On June 24/09 WUWT had a post with the title, “NCDC writes ghost “talking point” rebuttal to surface stations project”.
      Other than the title I haven’t read it, but possibly this relates to the NOAA paper you were referring to.


  • Gareth // September 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm | Reply

    On Arctic amplification: Serreze et al provide a nice overview at this NSIDC page, and the first chapter in WWF’s new Arctic report (by Serreze & Stroeve) puts the effect into the context of NH atmospheric impacts.
    The WWF report is well worth an hour or two of anyone’s time: the chapter on methane hydrates is the clearest exposition on the subject I’ve seen. (I blogged it here).

  • Kevin McKinney // September 5, 2009 at 9:40 pm | Reply

    Thanks, Tamino. This turned up on this morning. I saw what Neven saw (tip of the hat, N!) and characterized the post as an “own goal.”

    Haven’t gotten back to see where it’s gone from there.

  • Former Skeptic // September 5, 2009 at 10:21 pm | Reply


    McI and his fellow Frauditeers can’t even understand basic meteorology even if it were a pink elephant sharing the elevator with them; you think they can understand “real” science?

    Other former “skeptics”, such as TCO, realize that once McI stops his statistical self-jerkoff sessions (e.g. we’ve been plagiarized! Hockey Stick/Steig et al are STILL wrong! UHI = global warming!) and publish something meaningful (what is it, TWO *cough cough* peer-reviewed papers on climate in the past 5 years?), he would be taken more seriously by all and sundry. Until then, CA will still be regarded as the joke that it is.

    Jim: Thanks. Have a good long weekend :)

  • DrC // September 6, 2009 at 5:58 am | Reply

    Tamino, the Kaufman et al paper in Science is recon of decadal summer temps, correct? But you show essentially no summer change above using the NCEP reanalysis data (0.006 deg.C/yr). The Kaufman paper indicates the standard 1+ deg. C/100yr in the 29th century (or thereabouts) as has been shown by a raft of land recons for the NH (of which MBH is most well known). So what gives? Are the NCEP data meaningfully different than the data used in the paper? Just curious…

    [Response: I haven't read the Kaufman et al. paper, so I don't know whether or not it's a reconstruction of summer temperatures only.

    But I do know (from their abstract) that Kaufman et al. look at the area 60N-90N while the data in this post are for Lat. 80N-90N ('cause that's what Watts did). The NCEP/NCAR data for 60N-90N show greater warming in July than the 80N-90N data, at 1.0 deg.C/100yr, but they also show less January warming, a "mere" 3.9 deg.C/100yr. And even though the July warming 80N-90N is muted (due to the phase change from melting ice), it still turns out to be significant at 0.6 +/- 0.5 (2sigma) deg.C/100yr.]

  • Gavin's Pussycat // September 6, 2009 at 11:31 am | Reply

    Having read the Science article what I liked is their finding of the ‘Holocene Arctic Summer Barbeque’ effect as predicted by Milankovich theory.
    Apparently proxies and PCA get some things right…

  • Scott A. Mandia // September 6, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Reply

    After trolling WUWT quietly for several months, I decided to wade in on Pielke Sr.’s essay titled Pielke Senior: Arctic Temperature Reporting In The News Needs A Reality Check.

    I am not very popular over there now. Well, I will say that I was treated far worse by the folks at American Thinker when I walked into that snake pit of politicos. It never ceases to amaze how folks cannot separate their politics from their science.

    Politics and science should not be mutually exclusive but it appears that the Republican Party believes so.

    • Derecho64 // September 6, 2009 at 9:57 pm | Reply

      Be very careful if you choose to post at WTFWT. Watts will use the information (IP address, e-mail address, etc.) that you leave behind to harass posters who get him upset. I know. His attempts were indicative of his maturity and integrity, which is to say that he has neither.

  • Scott A. Mandia // September 6, 2009 at 11:04 pm | Reply

    I have very thick skin.

    My hope is that some lurkers there might actually think about what I have posted and maybe, just maybe, they will consider changing their minds.

    We cannot stop trying…..

    • Derecho64 // September 7, 2009 at 1:52 am | Reply

      Thick skin doesn’t prevent Watts’ going into the gutter and playing all the nasty tricks he can when he’s been shown to be a buffoon. He clearly cannot tolerate dissent, or having his views proven wrong, and he pulls out all the stops to harass posters who have embarrassed him.

      IMNSHO, Watts is garbage.

  • Phil. // September 7, 2009 at 12:14 am | Reply

    And even though the July warming 80N-90N is muted (due to the phase change from melting ice), it still turns out to be significant at 0.6 +/- 0.5 (2sigma) deg.C/100yr.

    80ºN-90ºN is the area which still is almost all ice covered at minimum, until that changes the summer Tmax will not go significantly above 0ºC. If you look at the minimum maps for the last 30 years you’ll see that it’s the area outside of 80ºN that has seen the most change. Once the ice cover north of 80ºN starts to go then the maximum will start to rise.

  • Michael hauber // September 7, 2009 at 1:34 am | Reply

    Watts has gone to a lot of effort to bag climate models, and to bring up issues around the quality of our temperature series.

    And then ironically puts some significant focus on the DMI data. It is not a direct measurement but a ‘reanalysis product’ which from what I can gather is the output of a computer model after the real mesaurements are ‘massaged’ (can anyone explain further?).

    And the data in question is restricted to 80 deg north. The number of actual thermometers in this part of the world is probably tiny (Alert Candada and any others?). And it is only a quite small proportion of the Arctic overall.

    Quite ironic that even with such a problematic data set it doesn’t even say what he would like it to say, unless he further restricts it to summer only.

    I recall that when NSIDC did an update on summer melting and wanted to show the effect of warm air they didn’t use the surface temperature map, they used something like the 900hp layer to show warmer air above the Arctic. Warmer weather in Arctic summer usually involves a high pressure system with warmer air descending to the surface. It can get above freezing while descending above the surface (at least in the GFS model runs I’ve been watching this summer), but one it hits the mix of ice and water it will tend quite strongly to be cooled to zero, unless all the ice is melted. In other words Arctic temperature measurement has one very large siting issue….

  • Ray Ladbury // September 7, 2009 at 2:43 am | Reply

    You must not only have a thick skin–you’ve got a pretty strong stomach, too. I’m afraid I don’t hold out much hope for anyone to whom micro-Watt’s idiocy is not obvious.
    These are people who will continue to believe climate change is a hoax even when the oceans are lapping at their doorsteps and the polar ice caps are a distant memory. They are not just stupid, but proudly so. The learning curve doesn’t have a positive slope.

  • Bernard J. // September 7, 2009 at 3:57 am | Reply

    As the crowd at WUWT always pull my posts down post-haste, I haven’t been able to get any sense to the questions I have posed.

    So, perhaps I might elicit a response by posting here…

    Watts, during his [hissy-fit]( about the [news that the Arctic is warming](, says:

    Since the Earth is still moving away from the sun — it’s about 0.6 million miles further during the Northern Hemisphere summer solstice than it was in 1 B.C. — it appears greenhouse gases began “overriding” the natural cooling of Earth in the middle of the last century, said Professor Gifford Miller of CU-Boulder’s Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, a study co-author. “We expect the Arctic will continue to warm in the coming decades, increasing land-based ice loss and triggering global increases in sea-level rise,” he said.

    I’m not yet sure where Watts found the quote from Miller, and so I cannot say at this point if Miller himself said “it’s about 0.6 million miles further during the Northern Hemisphere summer solstice than it was in 1 B.C.”, but someone with half an attogram of scientific nouse should have queried the rate of 0.6 million miles in 2 000 years.

    Given that the rate at which the Earth is moving away from the sun is about [15 cm/year](, after 2 000 years the Earth would only be “about” 300 metres further away from the sun “during the Northern Hemisphere summer solstice [or at any other time of the year] than it was in 1 B.C.”

    Watts’ figure is 3.2 million times greater than the reality appears to be.

    What’s up with that?

  • ChrisC // September 7, 2009 at 5:06 am | Reply

    Scott A. Mandia:

    “Often the terms meteorologist and weather forecaster are used interchangeably but they are distinctly different. A meteorologist is an atmospheric physicist while a weather forecaster, is well, just that.”

    Dude, I can’t let this one slide. I’m a meteorologist, with post graduate qualifications in the field AND a former weather forecaster (before I made the jump into research).

    Without exception, the numerous forecasters I worked with in a reputable meteorology agency, were meteorologists. Every single one of them had training in atmospheric physics, fluid dynamics and other related sciences, most to MS level, some to PhD level. The organisation we worked for, the agencies we submitted forecasts to, and the government that ultimately was responsible for the decisions we made demanded it.

    Do not disparage forecasters. It’s a very difficult job, that requires an extremely good understanding of atmospheric science to do correctly.

    Watts however, is not a meteorologist. He’s a former TV weather guy… the type who would bungle to carefully prepared forecasts that I and my former colleagues would send them. Now THESE are not interchangeable.

  • boulder solar // September 7, 2009 at 5:40 am | Reply

    Showing the mistakes in posts at WUWT is like shooting fish in a barrel for a scientist like Tamino. The commentary at ClimateAudit, however is at a much higher technical level. Steve McIntire’s posts about Kaufman’s et al paper has, to me, pointed out some significant issues. I would very much like Tamino to take on their critique despite his opinion of SM.

  • Bernard J. // September 7, 2009 at 5:56 am | Reply

    With respect to my previous post, it seems that Watts has difficulty explaining the difference between [precession]( and real increase in orbital distance…

  • Scott A. Mandia // September 7, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Reply


    My post was in no way an attempt to disparage meteorologists that also happen to be weather forecasters. I use the term TV meteorologist if one has the degree and weather forecaster when one does not have the degree. I guess the way I said that was confusing.

    I worked as an intern at CBS in Boston, MA and always thought I would be a TV meteorologist. Once I beagn teaching at the college level I found my true calling (and much better job security).

    The lab portion of my course where almost all students are not science majors consists of weather forecasting. I train these students how to read FOUS, MOS, NAM, GFS, etc. and they do a pretty good three day forecast. Sometimes they end up beating me for the semester!

    I truly enjoy weather forecasting and I greatly admire those that are professionals in this field.

    Check out my Weather Page at:

  • Bernard J. // September 7, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Reply

    Erm, my “previous post” seems to have disappeared into the aether. It was repeated though on the open thread at deltoid, referenced above.

  • Derecho64 // September 7, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Reply

    A more-accurate description of Watts given his lack of a degree would be “weather presenter” – you know, the same thing as when the sports guy has to do the weather because the regular presenter is ill.

  • Mark // September 7, 2009 at 4:18 pm | Reply

    “Steve McIntire’s posts about Kaufman’s et al paper has, to me, pointed out some significant issues.”

    Pity that Macca doesn’t point out any of the significant issues about HIS work. And refuses to listen or condone any thought that there are any errors in his work if they are pointed out to him.

  • caerbannog // September 7, 2009 at 4:26 pm | Reply

    A more-accurate description of Watts given his lack of a degree would be “weather presenter”

    Actually, I prefer “weather bunny”: (skip 90 seconds into the video to a female version of Anthony Watts).

  • caerbannog // September 7, 2009 at 4:27 pm | Reply

    Re: previous post: That should be “(skip 90 seconds into the video to *see* a female version…)”

  • TomG // September 7, 2009 at 5:09 pm | Reply

    Scott A. Mandia and ChrisC…thank you for your little exchange about meteorologists.
    I can’t recall reading critiques of Watt’s abilities by those directly involved in meteorology before your comments.
    These comments drove home to me the fact that Watt’s expertise on climate change is no greater than my own, which is to say, not too great.
    The difference seems to be that I pay attention to the real experts and try to understand what they are saying, whereas Watt pretends to be an expert and merely tells people what they want to hear.

  • Hank Roberts // September 7, 2009 at 5:26 pm | Reply

    > The green line is the average (for each day
    > of the year) from 1958 to 2002.

    Ok, — do I recall someone earlier trying to prove that there is no trend over that 35-year-period if you compare each day of the year to the same day of other years? Or is Watts just asserting there’s no change over that time span and labeling it “climate”?

  • david // September 7, 2009 at 10:39 pm | Reply

    The scariest thing about Watt is that he actually believes what he writes.

  • caerbannog // September 8, 2009 at 12:17 am | Reply

    The scariest thing about Watt is that he actually believes what he writes.

    Actually, what’s even scarier is that he has a multitude of fans who believe what he writes! In fact, he has so many fans that his web-site won the “Best Science Blog” award in the 2008 Weblog awards competition. Now *that’s* some scary s**t!!

  • bouldersolar // September 8, 2009 at 2:50 am | Reply

    “Pity that Macca doesn’t point out any of the significant issues about HIS work. And refuses to listen or condone any thought that there are any errors in his work if they are pointed out to him.”

    Can you show me some examples of that?

  • Hank Roberts // September 8, 2009 at 7:37 am | Reply

    > the average (for each day of the year)

    Ah, I was thinking of Goddard — X-axis graph of days of the year, claiming no difference, but as Tamino showed, that did show a difference.

  • Mark // September 8, 2009 at 11:07 am | Reply

    boulder, I take it you’re talking about errors in HIS work, not evidence of him not condoning any reports of errors, yes? Because it’s hard to prove absence.

    In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published “Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series” in the (JCR-unlisted) journal Energy and Environment 14(6) 751-772, raising concerns about their ability to reproduce the results of MBH. The IPCC AR4 reports that “Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data.” [4] In 2004 Mann, Bradley, and Hughes published a corrigendum to their 1998 article, correcting a number of mistakes in the online supplementary information that accompanied their article but leaving the actual results unchanged.

    From the Wiki page.

    This page too:

    And more on RealClimate about how they reduced their datapoints to inapplicability and used the wrong PCA metrics:

    Now go look at ClimateAudit for any reworking of the errors to fix them…

    • TrueSceptic // September 9, 2009 at 9:05 pm | Reply

      ” which is ran by Steve McKitrick and a others” (from logicalscience).

      That is depressingly sloppy. I suppose Ross McIntyre is the other half of MM?

  • Jim Bouldin // September 9, 2009 at 12:13 am | Reply

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


Leave a Comment