March Modeling Madness

March Modeling Madness“. Steven Goddard cherry-picks his way around Climate Central’s new interactive depiction of average US March temperatures.

He does this by picking a location that is not predicted to rise above freezing and then claiming that charts confirming this are proof that the models are wrong. He also picks a juicy starting point and uses a scale that obscures any trends that aren’t blindingly large to assist denialists in looking past them.

Next, Steven will prove that water is wet.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing“. In spite of hearing explanations of why the Arctic sea ice extent is currently higher that trend (it’s called “weather”, the increase is entirely due to localized conditions in the Bering Sea), Anthony Watts reports after a mere two days that it’s still high-ish and that anything is possible.

Thanks Anthony.

Modeling the big melt

Modeling the big melt“. Anthony Watts reports that Minnesotans are going to love global warming. We know this because of a press release about a Climate Central interactive climate page that Anthony found on Eurekalert and pasted into his blog.

Well the joy of Minnesotans in the year 2090 is postulated and of course is excised from any complaints about probable drought conditions.

Sunny days ahead!

Such scientific nuance from The Great Explainer-Awayer.

Congressional Tipping Point: Not an April Fools Joke

Congressional Tipping Point: Not an April Fools Joke“. Anthony Watts pokes fun at a Democratic Congressman who has cognitive damage from hepatitis and then initially deletes comments that point this out.

It’s way more fun to indulge in some partisan mockery of poorly expressed environmental questions about Guam. Now that’s science!

If Global Warming Kills Us, Blame the Weatherman?

If Global Warming Kills Us, Blame the Weatherman?” Anthony Watts tries to spin a copy-and-pasted BNET article about George Mason University’s recent study of TV Weathercasters with his own newly-minted ‘maxim’: “Climate doesn’t kill people, weather does.

Just six words, but he still manages to get it wrong. I’d like to hear Anthony actually explain that one.

Science at work?

The gist of the article is that TV Weathercasters are the most visible and (sadly) trusted “scientific” information source for most Americans, but they are poorly qualified and predisposed to resist evidence of Global Warming. 27% of TV Weathercasters actually think Global Warming is “a scam”! The credentials and actions of dear Anthony Watts make him a poster boy for this assessment…

Chico’s new sustainable firefighting idea

Chico’s new sustainable firefighting idea“. Anthony Watts has a bug in his ear about fire hydrants in particular and municipal politics in general. The fact that local “Chico State University has a large sustainability group that tries to impose all sorts of experimental ideas on local citizens” undoubtably gets under his skin. These hydrants have a “sustainable” rationale, so they must be another experimental idea being imposed on the local citizens…

Naturally Anthony misrepresents the issue by posting a photo of a ‘low-flow’ hydrant with a garden hose attached by what is obviously an adapter for a standard fire-hose connection. Shades of the goofy surfacestations.org project?

Why does the "low-flow" hydrant have a garden hose?

I feel sorry for the Council Members, newspaper editors and Rotary Club members that he’s apparently been pestering.

Trust and Mistrust

Trust and Mistrust“. Willis Eschenbach claims he’s “weary of the vague statements that characterise many of the discussions about climate change”, but he has no problem making them himself…

This post is 14 questions Willis poses to himself so he can plant his flag on a series of unsupported, and in many cases conclusively debunked, statements. Thanks for going ‘on record’ with your intellectual manifesto Willis, this will make great ‘claim-chowder’ in the future.

New paper – AGW sooners, stake your “drill baby drill” ice free claims now!

New paper – AGW sooners, stake your “drill baby drill” ice free claims now!” Anthony Watts pastes the abstract of a presumptuous paper that shows policy analysts are thinking about the territorial implications of climate change in the Arctic: After the Ice Melts: Conflict Resolution and the International Scramble for Natural Resources in the Arctic Circle.

They aren’t as scientifically careful as climatologists because they aren’t climatologists. I bet statements like this get under Anthony’s skin: “It is a well-known fact that global warming is melting the Arctic ice cap.” I urge Anthony to send a strongly worded letter to the author.

Arctic Sea Ice about to hit ‘normal’ – what will the news say?

Arctic Sea Ice about to hit ‘normal’ – what will the news say?” “Hah!” says Anthony Watts. The Arctic sea ice is about to recover all the way to “normal”. That’ll show those Catlin Arctic Survey folks with their tents and sleds!

Arctic sea ice extent on March 29, 2010. Anthony ignores that the variability is mostly in summer. Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System.

Actually it appears that Arctic sea ice is about to reach average extent, which has quite a different meaning. There is little mention of the fact that the meaningful changes are in the summer ice extent. They do bury this quote from Dr. Walter Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center deep in their post though and then wave it away:

This has very little implication for what will happen this summer, or for the long-term trends, since the Bering Sea ice is thin and will melt completely well before the peak summer season.

Carbon Emissionaries

Carbon Emissionaries“. Willis Eschenbach has another stab at discrediting carbon trading.

Can you believe that the trading value for carbon credits has fluctuated? Actually, I believe that’s how commodities markets naturally work.

Carbon credits are really low right now, so the whole thing’s a failure! So traders are waiting out some regulatory issues that will affect the future value of carbon credits. Big deal.

Do you realise that per capita carbon emissions in the EU, where they have a few carbon credit markets in operation, have risen while in the US, where they don’t have carbon credit markets, they have fallen? If you actually look at Willis’ charts you’ll see that the EU’s per capita fuel use has climbed substantially, but the carbon emissions? Not so much. So in effect they’re getting more industry out of each tonne of CO2 (increasing efficiency) but because they seem to have higher industrial activity the CO2 has actually increased a bit too.

I’m not going to embrace this because the “intensity-based” way of setting CO2 targets is really just a dodge (see my own Canadian government’s position for example), but it looks like the EU is managing to moderate the effect of industrial activity. Two steps forward but one step back is better than standing still.