Anthony Watts has a video out where he lists ten tests that to his way of thinking prove that the scientific community's collective considered and educated opinion should be rejected and that we have nothing to fear from global warming.
Interestingly comments to Anthony's video have been disabled. Add to that all the folks Watts has banned from his WUWT blog and it seems the man certainly has a fear of facing the information educated scientists have shared. But then, what can you expect from someone who believes Earth Sciences are supposed to bend to economic policy desires.
That's why I believe calling what Anthony Watts' does "Science in a Vacuum" is an applicable description.
To underscore my point I present the following review of "The Ten Tests to Determine Whether You Should Be Concerned about Global Warming"
I've listed his claims followed by authoritative sources of information that share the other side of this story, the one that Anthony and his crowd are doing everything they can to ignore or out-shout.
There is quite a contrast between the ex-TV weatherman turned libertarian political activist - and the scientists who have spent a life time learning and studying this stuff up close and in detail.
You decide:
The Ten Tests to Determine Whether You Should Be Concerned about Global Warming
1. The temperature Trend So Far - NOT ALARMING
2. Amplifications and Feedbacks - NOT EVIDENT
3. The Role of Aerosols - ISN'T SIGNIFICANT
4. Arctic Sea Ice Decline - ISN'T GLOBAL. MAY BE SOOT
5. Failure of the Models to Predict "the pause" - CONFIRMED
6. Climate Sensitivity - IS LIKELY LOW
7. Adaptation to Changing Climate - IS POSSIBLE
8. Climate and Future Generations - MAY NOT NEED OUR HELP
9. Reducing Emissions _ ISN'T BEING DONE WORLDWIDE
10. The Integrity of the Surface Record -CREATES ALMOST A DOUBLING OF TEMPERATURE TREND
1. The temperature Trend So Far - NOT ALARMING
To begin with, even given the relatively mild increase of about a degree C over the past century, we have already experienced dramatically increasing, infrastructure damaging, extreme weather events and considering that greenhouse gas driven trend is not going to reverse itself (physics is physics after all), we can be sure these trends will continue and become more pronounced as time passes.
Here are some graphs from climate scientist Joe Romm PhD
Tornadoes, Extreme Weather And Climate Change, Revisited
BY JOE ROMM ON MAY 21, 2013
Tornado data is a bit more ambiguous... but keep in mind mother nature is just beginning to warm up.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This "InfoGraphic" offers a little more detail:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/extreme-weather-climate-change.html
Extreme Weather and Climate Change
- What's the connection between global warming and extreme weather? When it comes to heat waves and coastal flooding, the scientific evidence is clear: Human-caused climate change is increasing these extreme weather events.
- Other forms of severe weather are also closely linked to climate change, including a rise in extreme precipitation events in some regions and increasingly severe droughts in others.
- The effect of climate change on tornadoes and hurricanes is an active area of research. Scientific confidence with observed data is currently low, though the underlying mechanisms of climate change are expected to play a role.
The Science Behind the Infographic
The Extreme Weather & Climate Change infographic is based on an evaluation of theSpecial Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), the latest authoritative assessment (2012) by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- Learn more about the methodology and assumptions behind the infographic.
Check out the story behind this information
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
There is also this interesting read from more real climatologists.
http://www.climatecommunication.org/new/articles/extreme-weather/overview/
A Small Increase in Average Temperature Leads to Big Changes in Extreme Weather
Small changes in the averages of many key climate variables can correspond to large changes in weather. Substantial changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme events can result from a relatively small shift in the average of a distribution of temperatures, precipitation, or other climate variables.
Link to the story
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2. Amplifications and Feedbacks - NOT EVIDENT
Watts claims there's no evidence, implying that basic physics can be ignored.
Please consider some basics. To begin with, we are turning what used to be our summer Arctic Ice Cap into a heat absorption medium, with most of the sunlight that used to be reflected back into space going into the ocean, warming it and setting in motion dynamics such a evaporating water and sending moisture, energy and convection patterns into the Arctic atmosphere and markedly disrupting circulation patterns in a way that hasn't been experienced in many many millennia. These changes are impacting our jet stream.
Arctic/Polar Amplification Effect
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here's an excellent summation of what is known from http://takvera.blogspot.com
Arctic amplification, the Jet stream and Extreme weather in Northern Hemisphere
Learn about how it works from Michael Lemonick:
~ ~ ~
And another couple articles from Andrew Freedman:
~ ~ ~
This second article reports on a very recent study, that claims to dispute these findings, but upon closer examination doesn't seem to succeed in it's over-stated claims - though it is a piece of valid science who's true veracity won't become clear until a bit of time and review has had a change to pass.
Arctic Warming May Not Be Altering Jet Stream: Study
Stay tuned, because September 12th, the National Academy of Science plans to hold a workshop to review all the new scientific findings related to ties between Arctic Warming and midlatitude weather patterns.
~ ~ ~
How does the Jet Stream Work?
Jennifer Francis PhD
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3. The Role of Aerosols - ISN'T SIGNIFICANT
Watts claims that aerosols have not stunted global warming as leading scientists claim.
For his evidence he says there have been no major volcanic eruptions since El Chichan and Mt. Pinatubo, conveniently ignoring:
Soufriere Hills Volcano According to the USGS, the first eruption of the Soufriere Hills Volcano on Montserrat in the West Indies came in 1995. Pyroclastic flows forced evacuations and destroyed the capital city of Plymouth.
Chaiten According to NASA's Earth Observatory, Chaiten's 2008 eruption produced a plume of ash and steam that rose up to 16.76 kilometers (55,000 feet) into the atmosphere. Ash blanketed the town of Chaiten, in Chile, 10 kilometers away, but no deaths were reported.
Eyjafjallajökull The Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland erupted for almost four months in 2010. The heat from lava quickly melted glacier ice above, and mud, ice and meltwater running off the volcano resulted in floods. Expanding gases produced a plume of steam and ash almost 11 kilometers into the atmosphere that drifted across the North Atlantic Ocean to Europe, leading several countries to close their airspace for several days.Tip of the Hat to: http://www.ehow.com/list_7793285_volcanoes-erupted-last-100-years.html#ixzz2d1BFwDoH
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
also see
From the Abstract"During the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull on Iceland in April/May 2010, air traffic over Europe was repeatedly interrupted because of volcanic ash in the atmosphere. This completely unusual situation in Europe leads to the demand of improved crisis management, e.g. European wide regulations of volcanic ash thresholds and improved ash dispersion forecasts. ..."
From the Abstract"During the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull on Iceland in April/May 2010, air traffic over Europe was repeatedly interrupted because of volcanic ash in the atmosphere. This completely unusual situation in Europe leads to the demand of improved crisis management, e.g. European wide regulations of volcanic ash thresholds and improved ash dispersion forecasts. ..."
I would call this another example of "Science in a Vacuum," but it's worse than that. Watts neglected to mention any other contributors to atmospheric aerosols - such as industrial pollution sources, biomass combustion, wind-blown dust and various natural sources.
Please notice Watts gives us only enough information to make his own claim and ignores everything else. Would you buy a used car from someone like that?
For more authoritative information:
~ ~ ~
Want science? Check out the MACC Project website.
Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate
http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/news/
Aerosol radiative forcing products
~ ~ ~
http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/news/radiative_forcing/
Aerosols and Incoming Sunlight (Direct Effects)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4. Arctic Sea Ice Decline - ISN'T GLOBAL. MAY BE SOOT
Watts brings out the sea ice extent graph, pointing out that recently there have been greater oscillations then in the past, yet never mentions that we understand why that is. Namely the ice pack has thinned so much that it melts easier and of course winter does come to the Arctic so it's no surprise that large areas of open water will refreeze.
Watts opines that he believe ice has reached a new steady state... but neglects to mention the warming of the ocean water under that ice pack, making such a claim a bit naive. You'll also not hear a word about the thinning ice pack
see: "Arctic Ocean feels the heat"
~ ~ ~
Arctic Sea Ice Blog
see: "Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets"
~ ~ ~
Then Watts claims it's all about soot, in fact in his world soot seems to be the cause of global warming... again forgetting that physics does not care about our opinions and that CO2 is still a greenhouse gas who's thermo properties are well understood. But, he leaves all of that out of his talk.
Watts then takes us to Greenland, making an outrageously inaccurate statement about what scientists are claiming. He goes on to explain that Greenland's ice sheet is in a bowl and isn't going anywhere, neglecting to mention that this "bowl" has some major cracks in it and that glaciers are flowing through those gaps at an ever increasing rates.
Watts goes on to blame soot for our problems. Perhaps that's because soot is a short lived atmospheric component and locally produced, so there's no problem... right. Here again Watts' "Science in a Vacuum" doesn't go beyond a cute anecdote upon which he bases his belief that it's mainly soot's fault.
Here's a series of links that touch on various aspects of this section of Watts' talk, starting with a link to Professor Jason Box's website, who happens to be a real scientist that studies the soot's impact on the Greenland icesheet and a source of some solid science based information:
Greenland Reflectivity
https://sites.google.com/site/jboxgreenland/greenland-reflectivity~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
Antarctic Sea Ice Grows as Result of Warming
~ ~ ~
Why is southern sea ice increasing?
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5. Failure of the Models to Predict "the pause" - CONFIRMED
Watts boldly states that: "Clearly models and reality don't match" . . . as if that's some revelation. Here (23:30) Watts let's down his pant and reveals his real motives: concern over short term economic interests and preserving the status quo as though that's more important than honest learning and recognition of the important climate facts and their implication that we do understand with a high degree of certainty.
Can we be clear that climate models are tools, sort of like maps, none of them are the actual landscape, they are tools for understanding and getting oriented. Denialist ignore this little fact and erect a phony expectation that climate models are supposed to achieve engineering standards of accuracy something that is clearly impossible.
At about 24:00 Watts points out other historic dips in temperatures that occurred without CO2 increases, ignoring all the other natural factors that go into temperature fluctuations, concluding with "what changed the temperature?" - but never offering that information. Again, ask yourself, would you buy a used car from a salesman of such superficiality?
Watts relies on Dr. Roy Spencer for his claim that climate models are "failing". But, Mr. Spencer has quite the checkered history himself. Allow me a few links that will give an in depth look at this "authority" (and his work) Anthony relies on - but whom serious climatologists increasingly dismiss.
Mathematical analysis of Roy Spencer's climate model
~ ~ ~
Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1, 2, 3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
About climate models:
3. The simplicity of the forced climate response
~ ~ ~
Climate Models and Accuracy
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Now about that "pause":
The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes?
~ ~ ~
Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
~ ~ ~
British scientists offer explanations on global warming pause
~ ~ ~
Why has global warming stalled?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
6. Climate Sensitivity - IS LIKELY LOW
Here's an example of the misdirection folks like Anthony have turned into an art form. Watts states that, "Observed sensitivity is lower than projected." For this he relies on Patrick J. Michaels - the scientist who promised that 1998-2008 would reveal a "statistically significant cooling trend" that never happened (instead it was the warmest decade to date) - Pat is also the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute (and here, here). Is he objective?
Take a look at Cato's mission statement: "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues"
Not a word about pursuing science or objective learning about Earth processes, so although Pat Michaels is a scientist it's fair to suggest the man is biased towards putting political interests above full spectrum learning if it interferes with economic desires.
As for the veracity of his science:
Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
At 25:50 Watts makes another false claim about the scientific consensus. Climatologists don't claim that there is a "linear" relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures. He also uses the IPCC AR5 report that hasn't even been released yet, though working drafts have been pilfered and are being served around as though they are the final report.
His basic claim is that taken collectively climate sensitivity studies average a little under 2°. In great salesman fashion, Watts ignores the published IPCC AR4 (2007): "The likely range[1] for equilibrium climate sensitivity was estimated in the TAR to be 1.5°C to 4.5°C."
Read more at: 8.6 Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks and please note the detailed attention given to defining the various uncertainties scientists are grappling with.
The sleight of hand is that we don't know enough to judge exactly what impacts a 1.5°C vs 2.0°C vs 3.0°C actually means in terms of disrupting the climate. But, we do know that even the modest warming witnessed over the past half century - whatever it's actual climate sensitivity number - has set in motion serious disruptions of historic natural patterns and that it guarantees further infrastructure damaging disruptions, as we are witnessing with ever greater frequency.
Mind you the denialist mantra of "climate has always changed" ignores the rest of the story. Namely, that climate change has always radically disrupted and damaged the systems and populations that have been adapted to the previous climate regime.
At 25:45 Watts used salt and soup to describe the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 won't make a difference since we are at a saturation level, where more CO2 won't make any more difference. Besides an inaccurate analogy, I tried it, the premise itself is rejected by climatologists who point out that it ignores the depth and 3D circulation patterns in our atmosphere - for details please check out the following sources:
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
A Saturated Gassy Argument
CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Eight – Saturation
(don't let the blog's title scare you, this is one of the most serious blogs going "Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science" and in fact it requires some scientific background to keep up with their thorough posts.)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
6. Climate Sensitivity - IS LIKELY LOW
Here's an example of the misdirection folks like Anthony have turned into an art form. Watts states that, "Observed sensitivity is lower than projected." For this he relies on Patrick J. Michaels - the scientist who promised that 1998-2008 would reveal a "statistically significant cooling trend" that never happened (instead it was the warmest decade to date) - Pat is also the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute (and here, here). Is he objective?
Take a look at Cato's mission statement: "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues"
Not a word about pursuing science or objective learning about Earth processes, so although Pat Michaels is a scientist it's fair to suggest the man is biased towards putting political interests above full spectrum learning if it interferes with economic desires.
As for the veracity of his science:
6. Climate Sensitivity - IS LIKELY LOW
Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
At 25:50 Watts makes another false claim about the scientific consensus. Climatologists don't claim that there is a "linear" relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures. He also uses the IPCC AR5 report that hasn't even been released yet, though working drafts have been pilfered and are being served around as though they are the final report.
His basic claim is that taken collectively climate sensitivity studies average a little under 2°. In great salesman fashion, Watts ignores the published IPCC AR4 (2007): "The likely range[1] for equilibrium climate sensitivity was estimated in the TAR to be 1.5°C to 4.5°C."
Read more at: 8.6 Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks and please note the detailed attention given to defining the various uncertainties scientists are grappling with.
The sleight of hand is that we don't know enough to judge exactly what impacts a 1.5°C vs 2.0°C vs 3.0°C actually means in terms of disrupting the climate. But, we do know that even the modest warming witnessed over the past half century - whatever it's actual climate sensitivity number - has set in motion serious disruptions of historic natural patterns and that it guarantees further infrastructure damaging disruptions, as we are witnessing with ever greater frequency.
Mind you the denialist mantra of "climate has always changed" ignores the rest of the story. Namely, that climate change has always radically disrupted and damaged the systems and populations that have been adapted to the previous climate regime.
At 25:45 Watts used salt and soup to describe the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 won't make a difference since we are at a saturation level, where more CO2 won't make any more difference. Besides an inaccurate analogy, I tried it, the premise itself is rejected by climatologists who point out that it ignores the depth and 3D circulation patterns in our atmosphere - for details please check out the following sources:
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
A Saturated Gassy Argument
CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Eight – Saturation
(don't let the blog's title scare you, this is one of the most serious blogs going "Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science" and in fact it requires some scientific background to keep up with their thorough posts.)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
7. Adaptation to Changing Climate - IS POSSIBLE
Watts assures his audience that "Adaptation is easier and less expensive than resisting." Sounds a like, "Why save for retirement I'll adapt when I get there."
With a child's innocence (or a salesmen's dishonesty) Watts goes on to state that "inundation of sea level rise is probably not a big worry.(29:20) Hmmm, tell that to the folks in the path of Hurricane Sandy... or people living in any other coastal region, or islands, of the world:
Sea Level Rise and the Vulnerability of Coastal Peoples
~ ~ ~
Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts Viewer
~ ~ ~
Global Sea Level Rise Map
~ ~ ~
What Could Disappear (A closer look at the East USA Coast)
~ ~ ~
IPCC: Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
The Climate Impacts: Global and Regional Adaptation Support Platform
~ ~ ~
Sea Level Rise & the Coastal Environment
~ ~ ~
'Groundwater Inundation' Doubles Previous Predictions of Flooding With Future Sea Level Rise
~ ~ ~
Effects of global warming on South Asia
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8. Climate and Future Generations - MAY NOT NEED OUR HELP
Watts begins with the question: "Did past generations worry about financing future climate and should we?" Talk about erecting a strawman. How about asking did past generations invest in the welfare of future generations? Seems to me the glory cry for the past two hundred-fifty years has been to build a better world for our children... but Watts and his boosters, would have us believe it's all about us and now and to hell with the future we leave behind for our children and their children.
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION’S
CLIMATE CHANGE & EXTREME WEATHER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
FRAMEWORK
~ ~ ~
Transportation Impacts & Adaptation
~ ~ ~
US Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center Environmental Program on Climate Change
Abstract - The United States Navy has a long record of responsible environmental stewardship covering many areas such as environmental planning, regulatory compliance, site clean-up, and protection of natural resources. The Navy is now beginning to appreciate the potentially devastating potential of a new set of environmental issues related to climate change. There is a growing recognition that the Navy will need to perform its national security mission in a changing global environment characterized by:
- Rising sea levels that threaten the viability of Navy coastal installations
- Increasing extreme weather events that threaten Navy shore installations and air and sea operations
- Climatic shifts in temperature and precipitation with attendant problems such as disruption in water resources, reductions in
- food supply, and increase in disease vectors
~ ~ ~
National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces
~ ~ ~
Disastrous Spending: Federal Disaster-Relief Expenditures Rise amid More Extreme Weather
~ ~ ~
Monitoring and Understanding trends in extreme storms State of Knowledge
~ ~ ~
NOAA - National Climatic Data Center
~ ~ ~
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
~ ~ ~
NOAA - Climate.gov - science and information for climate-smart nation.
~ ~ ~
Energy Sector Vulnerable to Climate Change, U.S. Department of Energy Report Says
~ ~ ~
National Security and the Threat of Climate Change
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
9. Reducing Emissions - ISN'T BEING DONE WORLDWIDE
The sick joke here is that it isn't being done worldwide because American (the world's leader) business interests and their politician pets, have been doing everything in their power to stonewall any and all meaningful proactive confrontation of this problem.
For example 191 nations signed onto the Kyoto Protocol (also see here) but thanks to reactionary Republican interests, USA never ratified it, instead ridiculing it and leaving it to shrivel and die.
Watts asked "Why should we run to green power?" which seems like cowardly avoidance of today's facts of life - namely, that carbon based fuels are beginning to do great harm not just to the prospects of future generations, but to the prospects of the young people walking around today!
Then Watts goes on to justify continued inaction by blaming Chine when in fact they are ahead of the US in addressing this issue {Incidentally, had USA and world only taken population control a fraction as seriously as China did decades ago, we would not be in near the hot water we are}. But, more to the point:
China leads the US on climate-change action
~ ~ ~
New Drivers of US Climate Action? The Politics of Extreme Weather and Adaptation
~ ~ ~
China's first carbon-trading program shows commitment to address climate change
~ ~ ~
Chinese Business Representatives Commit to Address Climate Change
Sign of things to Come. In China – Wind Surpasses Nuclear in Energy Production.
Watts claims he doesn't want us to shut down or stunt our economy, yet a realistic assessment shows that our economy is in deep trouble and not in a position to keep up with increasing extreme weather caused infrastructure damage:
FEMA’s Budget Disaster
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/27/fema-s-disaster-budget-becomes-political-issue.html
~ ~ ~
FEMA's Disaster Relief Funds Drying Up
~ ~ ~
NATIONAL SECURITY
FEMA Weighs Options for Stretching Disaster Budget
~ ~ ~
Not surprisingly the Republican/Libertarian solution is to run away from the problem:
Republicans Introduce Bill to Abolish FEMA
~ ~ ~
Admittedly part of FEMA's problems are political, but the increasingly severe infrastructure damage will obvious become an ever greater burden on our economic well being.
The World Bank
Sign of things to Come. In China – Wind Surpasses Nuclear in Energy Production.
Climate change is a fundamental threat to sustainable economic development and the fight against poverty. The World Bank is concerned that without bold action now, the warming planet threatens to put prosperity out of reach of millions and roll back decades of development.
World Bank: Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World
Must be Avoided
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
10. The Integrity of the Surface Record -
CREATES ALMOST A DOUBLING OF TEMPERATURE TREND
This claim is patently wrong as a review of the evidence makes clear.
Anthony Watts claims his surface temperature program {surfacestations.org} "suggests significant biases in the temperature record" though the scientific community disagrees - information that Watts continues to ignore, instead preferring to imply a grand global conspiracy of climatologists.
This willfully ignoring what actual experts say is the backbone of the climate science denial industry. But, for those who seek learning and understanding the information is out there.
What are we to think about people who insulate themselves so thoroughly that they can refuse to look at or learn from what actual experts have to say. As I've said before "one directional skepticism equals denial."
NOAA Climate Services, July 6, 2009
Talking Points related to concerns about whether the U.S. temperature record is reliable
~ ~ ~
The video that Anthony Watts does not want you to see: The Climate Denial “Crock of the Week”
~ ~ ~
Sinclair vs Watts
~ ~ ~
Did Watts’ surfacestations.org paper show that surface temperature trends are unreliable? No.
~ ~ ~
Hot Dog Bites Skeptical Man: Koch-Funded Berkeley Temperature Study Does “Confirm the Reality of Global Warming”
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
Posted on 31 August 2009 by John Cook
~ ~ ~
On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Posted on 22 January 2010 by John Cook
~ ~ ~
Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?
Posted on 28 April 2010 by John Cook
~ ~ ~
Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Posted on 4 November 2011 by logicman
~ ~ ~
Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
Posted on 4 August 2012 by John Hartz
~ ~ ~
It's microsite influences
~ ~ ~
Are surface temperature records reliable?
Other lines of evidence for rising temperatures
The surface temperature trends are also confirmed from multiple, independent sources:
- Surface temperature analysis by NASA GISS finds strong agreement with two independent analyses by CRU's Global Temperature Record and NCDC.
- Weather balloon measurements have found from 1975 through 2005, the global mean, near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.23°C/decade.
- Satellite measurements of lower atmosphere temperatures show temperature rises between 0.16°C and 0.24°C/decade since 1982.
- Ice core reconstructions found the 20th century to be the warmest of the past five centuries, confirming the results of earlier proxy reconstructions.
- Sea surface temperatures, borehole reconstructions and ocean temperatures all show long-term warming trends.
Reanalysis data sets also show the same warming trend. A ‘reanalysis’ is a climate or weather model simulation of the past that incorporates data from historical observations. Reanalysis comparisons by Vose et al. (2012) and Compo et al. (2013) find nearly identical global surface warming trends as in the instrumental record (Figure 2).
~ ~ ~
And short video from Peter Sinclair:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For a look at who our Mr. Willard Anthony Watts is:
http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts
~ ~ ~
For a general summation of what we know:
Peter Sinclair | Mar 26, 2012
~ ~ ~PS. USHCN =
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/2012-state-climate-report-released
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://climate.nasa.gov
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/real-climate
4 comments:
Top effort, CC. You've done a great job not just in exposing his "wrong" claims, which is a brilliant effort, but in sitting through the video!
(Tweeted.)
Yes, a great effort.
Fascinating insight in the mind of Watts.
Nice job! As always, Anthony counts on his volume of bullshit to deter counter-arguments.
Post a Comment