Climate Denier David Does It Again

Evidently David Rose can’t help himself. He just keeps it coming (scroll down to see his bit about “Now SECOND set of data …”).


This time he’s protesting that he wasn’t cherry-picking, because the surface temperature from the authoritative (his description) Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit (HadCRUT4) also shows a decline after the recent el Niño peak.

Duh.

When is he going to get it? This is not news. And it does not, in any way, mean that global warming — the upward temperature trend from man-made climate change — wasn’t behind the recent el Niño being more than just a peak. It was a record-smasher.

David Rose wants you to think that now the el Niño has subsided, everything has gone back to the way it was before. And, he wants you to think that the global warming trend had nothing to do with the fact that this el Niño broke the record, beating the crap out of all those previous el Niño events.

That’s a little hard to swallow when you look at his own graph (of HadCRUT4 data) and compare the 2015-2016 big el Niño to the 1997-1998 big el Niño:

rosegraph

How stupid does he think you are?

I’ll make the comparison easier for you, by zooming in on the two el Niño events and superimposing them on top of each other. I’ll even show you a little bit of what happened before 1997:

rosey

Notice how, other than Feb. 1996 vs Feb. 2014, everything about this recent el Niño, including the lead-up, the peak, and even the afterward decline, all exceed the previous el Niño?

That’s because of global warming. The trend.

David Rose insists that he doesn’t deny the trend. But he keeps on saying stuff like this:


“Our story showed that these record high temperatures were triggered by naturally occurring but freak conditions caused by El Nino — and not, as had been previously suggested, by the cumulative effects of man-made global warming.”

The record high was due to man-made global warming: it made the latest el Niño peak hotter than it ever got before. But David Rose just denied that the record high was due to man-made global warming. That’s why I call him a denier.

And by the way, did you notice that David Rose shows you surface temperature from HadCRU, but his graph doesn’t start until 1997? Doesn’t he want you to see what else has happened? I’ll show you a lot of what happened before 1997:

hadcru

Starting at 1997-1998, so starting with the previous big el Niño gives a misleading impression of the trend — what with the context removed — is one of the top climate denier tactics. That’s why I accuse David Rose of cherry-picking.

And, of course, David Rose keeps repeating his nonsense about “… the Met Office said it [el Niño] contributed ‘only a few hundredths of a degree’ to the record heat.” They were talking about 2015, not 2016, and they were talking about the yearly average, not the monthly values. That’s why I say that David Rose is either woefully ignorant or deliberately misleading.

Every time he does this, I get to show what reality looks like. And reality is: the recent record-breaking heat is because of the man-made global warming trend. Keep ’em comin’, David.


This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at Peaseblossom’s Closet.

Advertisements

23 responses to “Climate Denier David Does It Again

  1. David B. Benson

    Pine Island Glacier Has Melted Beyond Tipping Point, Study Says
    e370 . yale . edu

    Already backed off the grounding line in the 1940s. The big crack keeps growing.

  2. You just can’t talk to deniers. Well almost. I used to be a denier, so I know it’s not impossible to get through to them but it is almost impossible. Once you understand what’s happening, though, it takes real science to shake that understanding. Until then David Rose will continue to feed you lines because deniers act like idiots.

  3. The late Andrew Slater of NSIDC had a slew of climate-related graphs on his website. Some of the scripts are still working – such as the Sea Ice Concentration and Extent Difference Maps. Others have fallen by the wayside.

    I’ve attempted to resuscitate one of them – the Accumulative Freezing Degree Days. I’m using just the DMI temperature set for N80. David Rose ought to take a look at that and try to explain what’s going on.

    N80 warmth this freezing season per DMI is already at an anomaly of -800 FDDs. Only the most recent 5 years have reached that at any point during the entire freezing season. 2016-17 has reached -800 FDDs two and one-half months earlier than the next warmest year (last year).

  4. The unfortunate aspect of this is that David Rose has the eyes and minds of the dumbfounded, who will lap up what ever he puts in print.
    I honestly do not know how to explain to people that the information you are reading in the low level press is pure drivel.
    Their eyes glass over and they ignore my trying to explain.
    I am not qualified, however the evidence is abundant to me a layperson.
    At least this xmass i will be among about 20 educated people, who understand exactly where we are headed, most of who i am afraid, could not be bothered to waste their time talking to people about the subject the usual comment ” It is a total waste of my valuable time”

  5. With his nose for cherrypicking, David Rose has found another dataset with coverage bias, that in Oct 2016 resulted in a large cooling bias.
    Just watch this map:

    Hadcrut4 cover all cold regions quite well, but there are big holes in the warm regions; Arctic, Antarctic, the interior of Africa and South America, etc..

    We can also put figures on this cooling coverage bias by comparing Hadcrut4 with the infilled version by Cowtan and Way:

    Hadcrut4: Down from 0.712 C in September to 0.587 C in October.
    C&W: Up from 0.752 C in September to 0.775 C in October

    For those who missed it, unlike other satellite products “RSS land” does not include Antarctica south of 70S and the Tibetan plateau, areas that were quite warm in October. This adds to the cool bias for that month..

    • does he really have the knowledge to know where these obscure datasets are, what they show, how to interpret them etc

      or is he just a willing patsy – and fed them via a sophisticated denial machine

    • The warming of the air over now the sea ice reduced Arctic ocean is a part of the warming, which is underestimated by most datasets, not only by Hadcrut4. Simply compare the sea ice cover in 1997/98 and 2015/16. The surface air temperature, which was -10°C, -20°C, or -30°C (depending on month) over the sea ice, has now the temperature of the open water. If the dataset does not include that, it will underestimate the global temperature anomaly and the warming trend.

  6. Another thing, David Rose has a chart in his article where he labels the 2015-2016 el Nino peak “Very strong”, whereas the 1997-1998 el Nino peak is only “strong”:

    This must be utterly wrong. In all relevant measures; MEI, SOI, detrended NINO 3.4, Warm water volume, etc., the 1997-1998 Nino was stronger than the recent one
    Thus, a peak-to-peak comparison between these two strong el Ninos should not be unfair with regards to a potential “warmist bias”.
    If we define the Nino peak as the 12 month running mean peak, the peak to peak change from 1998 to 2016 is:

    Gistemp loti: 0.37 C (0.20 C/decade)
    Gistemp dTs: 0.43 C (0.24 C/decade)
    Era-interim: 0.43 C (0.24 C/decade)

    These peak to peak trends are quite similar to the relevant CMIP5 rcp8.5 model average trends for the period; SST/SAT blend 0.21 C/decade, pure SAT 0.24 C/decade
    Hence, NO pause and NO pause vs models is suggested by the peak to peak change..

  7. Davey Rose is plainly aware that he was being accused of presenting a seriously stupid and untrustworthy account of global (land) temperature in his November 26 comment. His latest comment ends sayiing:-
    “Yet bizarrely, the fiercest criticism was reserved for claims we never made – that there isn’t a long-term warming trend, mainly caused by human emissions.”

    Now it is true that back in early November, the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy (The GWPF are a bunch of happy-chappies that trouser taxpayers money by posing as an educational charity, educational probably because they call out “That’ll learn ya!!” as they trouser the cash.): the GWPF put out a piece that employed just such a method to obscure the untruth of their words.
    Unfortunately, dullards that they are, the next GWPF piece (the one that inspired Rosey) headlines the claim that there has been no AGW in recent years. “This decrease has reinstated the so-called “pause” in lower atmosphere temperature.”
    This is the point where Rosey jumps in to assist his GWPF chums with their messaging.
    So did Rosey claim or make clear in his Nov 26 comment that “there isn’t a long-term warming trend”? Or did we dream it?

    He tells us:-

    “Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming. Others (that is blog-mom Judy Curry & GWPF hack Whitehouse) have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans. The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.”

    So the Nov 26 item Rose did indeed say the record temperature was nothing to do with human GHG emissions which rather shows the lie in his latest ‘protests of innocence’.

    And just to put on record how fickle Rosey, how reliable his comment: we all remember how often this twit would proclaim from the pages of the Daily Rail that there hasn’t been any global warming since 1997 or 1799 (or some other suitable date). I’m sure we all remember.
    Well apparently that was all a big lie.
    In this latest piece Rose now tells us “It is true that the massive 2015-16 El Nino – probably the strongest ever seen – took place against a steady warming trend, most of which scientists believe has been caused by human emissions.” But it is a little soon to go all Luke 15:7. The man is a serial liar and we wouldn’t want to be accused of cherry-picking, would we!!

  8. Looking through the comments below Rose’s article I get the sense that he’s facing more opposition from Daily Mail readers than used to be the case. If so it’s good news because the DM is the paper of choice of the least rational right in the UK and very influential.

  9. Mike Roberts, what was it that got through to you?

    • Raff, it was a friend who repeatedly asked me to look at the science, rather than believe what I read in the popular press. Mind you, I didn’t read that much then (this was probably around the turn of the century) but used my own internal reasoning (non-reasoning, as it turned out). Anyway, we used to talk about a lot of serious stuff and I eventually decided to examine the science. I’ve never looked back. I can’t go back now.

      Thing is, we liked to talk about serious stuff rather than celebrities and superficial tit-tat, so perhaps I was primed for persuasion. The dumbing down of the population has continued apace since then so I guess it will be far harder these days. Friends I talk to now don’t really want to listen to serious stuff. Consequently, I don’t talk to them much!

  10. Comparing Oct 2016 with March 2016 shows just how rapid the change has been.

    So yes the underlying warming trend remains about 0.16C/decade, but I don’t think Rose was ‘denying’ that. He was reacting to the hyping up of the record temperatures recorded early on in 2016.

    [Response: What he was really trying to do — and still is, consistently — is claim that the record heat had *nothing to do* with the global warming trend, that it was *all* because of el Nino. He has said that explicitly. He’s so obviously wrong, that it has been a major embarrassment for him.]

  11. Amazing… I’m sitting in the DMV office in Columbia, SC, and just watched a perfect little Rosean “Global temps fall with end of NATURAL El Nino warming cycle” propaganda piece. It’s not from a news agency, apparently, the video crawl is in-house. There’s either a very diligent PR guy outside, or a denialist vigilante inside, the media department, apparently. Wow.

  12. If you’re interested in watching a recent video recording of Mr. Rose asserting that “of course.. there’s a long term warming trend” be my guest:

    Post-Truth Global and Arctic Temperatures

    I’ve also taken the liberty of moaning at The Mail’s Managing Editor about his organ’s channeling of Mr. Rose’s propaganda. “No answer!” is the stern reply thus far: