WATN, 2015

as A successor to Where Are They Now, 2014.

First and foremost, and although not quite in 2015 I shall ignore that, was David Bowie.

2015 was the year I finally kicked the habit of reading denialist blogs - well, nearly - which was a good idea, but it does mean I'm not as in touch as I used to be, since I now get it second hand from Sou mostly.

The only new thing I can think of that died in 2015 was The Pause. A somewhat shameful episode in climate history, as I said in my review of the year. Other than that, we're onto the probably-still-dead things from 2014.

Pattern Recognition in Physics remains dead; the current issue is from 2014. Lennart Bengtsson, Salby and Sue-Me Monkers, who all made 2014, faded into obscurity this year. In LB's case I'm sure he'll be pleased.

Sou found tentative signs of life from the Open Atmospheric Society in June. On July 20, 2015 they were "Seeking applications for the Board of Directors", and said "A vote of the membership will be convened within 30 days". That seems to be about it. There's a fb page; I left them a friendly message and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

The headless corpse of Force X from Outer Space is, to my surprise, still being propped up by Jo Nova and David "Rocket Scientist" Evans. But everyone else ignores it.

AW's epoch-making paper appeared pretty dead in 2014, though there were possible signs of life in June 2015 and it then burst into glorious, if perhaps only partial, re-birth as an AGU poster and promise of a paper; or see VV. However, as I pointed out at the later and which EJ rather unsubtely failed to explain, they're not publishing the draft paper this time.

If you've read all the way to the end, you likely want to know that Denial Depot is back, hurrah!

Speaking of denial, a late update: Robert Carter has kicked it; see comment #12 [update: and post].

Note to self: next year, don't forget the GWPF's "review". See-also Moyhu.


* Fake Sceptic Awards for 2015, Sou.
* Trains set free to roam as they please
* Ingenious Pursuits: 2016 - the year ahead

More like this

I wander thro' each charter'd street, Near where the charter'd Thames does flow. And mark in every face I meet Marks of weakness, marks of woe. In every cry of every Man, In every Infants cry of fear, In every voice: in every ban, The mind-forg'd manacles I hear Over the year a number of things…
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan! Did you know that "Antan", though it now means "yesteryear" (which was itself coined to translate "antan") formerly meant "last year", as a contraction from the latin "ante annum"? Fascinating, eh. But not as fascinating as poking at the innards of dead things.…
So says the Onion, Germany's finest news source. This has so many shades of "Chinese academy endorses NIPCC report". The back story: Lennart Bengtsson, sounding somewhere between very naive and emeritus, joins the GWPF, talking the usual nonsense (I believe most serious scientists are sceptics)…
Words carefully chosen, as you'll discover. The back story: Lennart Bengtsson has a paper rejected by ERL0 because, amongst other failings, the "overall innovation of the manuscript is very low". In a huff, he joins the GWPF1, which is much trumpeted by the Dork Side. His colleagues point out this…

In cyber space no one can hear you scream, but I think I heard an echo at the empty AOS Facebook page.

(Have added my comment.)

[Ah good. I'm sure if everyone adds a friendly comment it will help them -W]

By Victor Venema … (not verified) on 16 Jan 2016 #permalink

WNC, further to #2 above, Tamino projects when he calls others "cherry-pickers". He pretends to refute the 18-year pause by insisting on a 40-year baseline so it is he who cherry-picks. I myself take the "pause' only from 2004 because the 1998 El nino should be excluded -- 12 years ain't bad. Once the current El Nino passes it will be interesting to see what happens next -- I think we can agree on that much.

[You need to read what Tamino - and indeed the others - actually wrote. Clue: he doesn't insist on a 40 year baseline. Clue: starting at any given year you insist on is cherry picking -W]

There is a sound statistical reason that WMO defines climate as at least 30 years of data.

By David B. Benson (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

NZ Willy:

Tamino projects when he calls others “cherry-pickers”. He pretends to refute the 18-year pause by insisting on a 40-year baseline so it is he who cherry-picks. I myself take the “pause’ only from 2004 because the 1998 El nino should be excluded — 12 years ain’t bad.

Heh. You're missing all the pauses, and even coolings, that have occurred during that 40 year baseline. Yet somehow the long-term trend is ever upward.

Did somebody tell you that "global warming" was only real if each year was hotter than the year before, NZ Willy? Or that satellite data were more credible because they weren't "adjusted"? Shouldn't you be more skeptical ;^)?

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

As DumbScientist has written in the comments at ATTP's:

Gary and Keihm 1991 showed that natural variability in only 10 years of UAH data was so large that the UAH temperature trend was statistically indistinguishable from that predicted by climate models.

Hurrell and Trenberth 1997 found that UAH merged different satellite records incorrectly, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Wentz and Schabel 1998 found that UAH didn’t account for orbital decay of the satellites, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Fu et al. 2004 found that stratospheric cooling had contaminated the UAH analysis, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Mears and Wentz 2005 found that UAH didn’t account for drifts in the time of measurement each day, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

What I find especially troubling, vis a vis Spencer & Christy, is that the problems with *their* dataset had to be pointed out to them by others. They should have known their data better than anyone and understood the possible errors and structural uncertainties better than anyone. They didn't. They insisted their data was correct. It wasn't.

NZ Willy probably doesn't understand that RSS was essentially created because science no longer trusted S&C to produce a scientific product. Now, with version 7, UAH is almost identical with RSS. Yet the RSS team as exemplified by Dr Mears make no claims their dataset is somehow superior. Indeed, Mears has usually pointed to the surface temperature datasets as being better. Contrast that with S&C who have been consistently wrong.

By Kevin O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

Mal: arguing with pseudoskeptcis is a waste of time. Big Moton's Demons are too strong in fending off unwanted facts..

By John Mashey (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

John Mashey:

Mal: arguing with pseudoskeptcis is a waste of time.

Sure, John. But mocking them is fun 8^D!

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

"Founding membership has now been extended to December 31st, 2015, due to the length of time that it took for 501c3 tax exempt status to be granted. Founding Members will get a permanent certificate of membership suitable for framing sent to their postal address." -- Open Atmosphere Society

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

Anyone know the funders?
"The initial setup of The OAS was made possible by a grant from Stephen and Dr. Mary Graves. "

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

RIP Bob Carter, foe of creationists and friend of GW deniers.
Gorn emeritus since 2002.

Deceased, according to his former employers at The Heartland Institute – but can they be trusted?

[Lubos is in touch with the wackosphere; in this I think I'd trust him. I helped a bit -W]

dave s, do you not mean Ian Plimer when you say "foe of creationists"?

Marco, you're right. I was giving Bob Carter undue credit, and the somewhat younger though still well emeritus Ian Plimer appears to be live and promising a radio appearance on 26th January.

My apologies for confusing the two.

I thought that after I retired from NOAA I would feel freer to engage on denialist blogs. Instead, I too gave up reading them in 2015 as pointing their readers towards reality doesn't seem to change their opinions. Besides, I expect all my comments would essentially just be repeated stating something like: As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, "If your Personal Beliefs deny what's objectively true about the world, then they're more accurately called Personal Delusions."

By Thomas Peterson (not verified) on 20 Jan 2016 #permalink