Climate Craziness of the Week: lighting up your windmill (June 18, 2010): Anthony Watts is giggling because an Australian power-generating windmill is illuminated by electric light!!!! That’s just crazy. Apparently. Why would a place that generates electricity use electricity? This got me thinking about restaurants: why would a place that sells food also buy food? Or how about water treatment plants: why on earth would they have running water in them?
Grave concerns by Pielke Senior: Nature duped with claim of independent surface temp data sets (June 18, 2010): Dr. Roger Pielke (Sr.) accuses Peter Stott and Peter Thorne of deliberately lying about the “independence” of global temperature data in their Nature article How best to log local temperatures? No, the USA doesn’t have their own set of thermometers scattered across Russia. Yes, the centers that generate global temperature analyses use different criteria and corrections. Next outrage please.
Hot Times in Antarctica (June 18, 2010): Time magazine reports that “Over the past 50 years, winter temperatures [on western edge of the Antarctic Peninsula] have shot up by an almost unbelievable 6°C” according to a paper in Science. Adélie penguin populations have plummeted while the chinstrap penguin population has increased. Steven Mosher brings this to our attention so we can all laugh.
Omaha schools pull Laurie David’s AGW book citing “major factual error” and DiCaprio video “without merit”. (June 18, 2010): A denialist worms their way on to an Omaha school board and uses the bogus ancient CO2 lags temperature argument to get a book removed from their schools. And maybe the book author Laurie David kissed Al Gore. Here’s the scoop: in the ancient natural world CO2 didn’t magically increase and cause warming. Something natural caused the initial warming, and when CO2 levels increased sufficiently they began magnifying the warming until the natural trigger faded. Modern warming is the immediate result of human CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions. Same physics, but different trigger. Get it?
Cold Times In Journalism (June 18, 2010): Ooooh, this one’s a laugh! Steven Goddard tries to take on Time’s Hot Times in Antarctica too, but does such an ignorant job of it that even Anthony Watts realises that he needs to pull the plug. “Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help.”
Antarctic Agreements and Disagreements (June 19, 2010): Willis Eschenbach blunders applying his “beginners mind” to try to re-slice the temperature data for the claim of a 6°C rise over 50 years on the Western Antarctica Peninsula cited by Time Magazine. What, the recording stations weren’t all staffed year-round? Toss them!
CSIRO has counter meeting to address “denialism” (June 19, 2010): Australia’s CSIRO hosts a meeting to discuss how to better explain the scientific basis of climate change science. Anthony Watts is annoyed that climate scientists want to communicate clearly.
The Electric Oceanic Acid Test (June 19, 2010): As noted in a comment here by Scott Mandia, Willis Eschenbach gets the science of ocean acidification completely, but confidently, wrong.
Tricky Sea Ice Predictions Call for Scientists to Open Their Data (June 20, 2010): With Arctic Sea Ice trends looking terrible for global warming deniers, they’re suddenly quick to clutch at NSIDC director Mark Serreze’s comments on Wired Science about over-interpreting short-term trends. Ah, hypocrisy.
Cuccinelli tells court former U-Va. professor’s academic freedom not threatened (June 20, 2010): Neo-McCarthyist Ken Cuccinelli is just looking out for everyone’s best interests! He simply wants to have a friendly little root through everything Professor Michael Mann has done as a kind of random inspection. Nothing to do with Cuccinelli’s vehement support for denialist causes. The Washington Post tells us so.
Firms paid to shut down wind farms when the wind is blowing (June 20, 2010): If the Telegraph says so it must be true! Just like “Amazongate”. Oh they still haven’t retracted that yet, have they. What is being “reported” is actually a test of how to manage a power overload.
Quote of the week #35 Nat Geo bangs the drum for the next solar cycle (June 20, 2010): Anthony Watts tells us that National Geographic are worrywarts to talk about how the sun’s electromagnetic storms can damage electronic devices. Nothing can harm us! Just ask solar non-expert David Archibald. But ignore that report from NASA.
Wott's Up With That? 
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100617/NEWS01/100619733
This is the news story about the Omaha pull. Apparently the authors did mislabel a graph but their premise is correct. CO2 and T are closely linked. Before the Industrial Revolution T changed first due to changes in the Earth’s tilt and orbit and then CO2 changes amplified the warming or cooling. Those natural changes took many thousands of years.
Today, CO2 is driving T and there is essentially no debate about that. This point is where the article shows what is really going on. Several key people in that school district are claiming that there is scientific debate about the role of CO2 and T. Completely untrue and the movie is still valid.
Keep in mind that for the past millions of years, CO2 levels have varied between 190 ppm and 290 ppm. Today the value is 393 ppm and climbing 2 ppm per year in the past decade. And it is climbing 80 times faster than the “quick rates” during post-glacial melt periods.
It is absurd to think that these high levels are not driving global warming!
BTW, I emailed the writer of that news story and never heard back. Sigh.
“TheImportance of Concentration” (WUWT, July5,2010)
CONCLUSION……….For a proper test of Steve’s objection to Cryosphere Today’s high resolution sea ice concentration map, watch his animation (Comment, Jul5,2010 11:15am) at a slower speed, and beyond his self-serving June6,27,2010 cut-off, here. ‘Set Animation Speed’ at slowest position.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html
Note the ‘green concentration’ sea ice thickening as it is pushed against Canada’s Arctic
islands, June23 – July1.
Steve would object: “(High resolution concentration graph’s) precision is much higher than their accuracy.” (Comment July5,2010 10:32pm)…???
Obviously, the issue is eminently testable: MODIS, wind direction, etc. For me, my little example of reasonableness is sufficient.
CONCENTRATION COMPARISON 1980 v 2010………. Steve is becoming more careful in making outrageous comparisons. From June14,2010: “(2010) Ice looks healthier than 30 years (1980) ago.” Now (July5,2010) it is “Compare…vs 1980, when (its) ice was considered very “healthy.”
Of course 1980 ice was thick, and extensive, and able to survive the summer. Today’s ice is thin, and it is diminishing, summmer by summer.
A concentration comparison is, in polite terms, an irrelevancy.
Ah the problems with Antarctica!
Chen has revisited his work in 2009 and using new additional information. The land ice on both sides on the continent is measurably decreasing, whilst the floating sea ice is in part increasing. Part of the floating sea ice increase can be attributed undoubtedly to the additional ice mass breaking off and floating away and caught up in the surface current. The Antarctic has very special unique set of climatic conditions including a continental circumpolar current. The unfortunate skeptics no listen when told about the gigatones of ice now declining from both sides of the continent. Instead they concentrate on the much thinner floating sea ice, and literally ignore the inconvenient truths about declining mass and volume. Also Satellite temperature data indicates these southern oceans are warming much faster then the northern counterpart. Sadly all the so called ersatz skeptics and Pat Michaels continue to ignore all the new land ice mass data coming from a satellite called GRACE, sigh!
“Now its CO2 killing Nemo” (WUWT, July 7, 2010)
THE ANTI-SCIENCE WEBSITE AWARD:………WUWT’S NUMBER ONE………. The world needs another award, and another award ceremony. Senator Proxmire’s Golden Fleece awards got publicity from humor, and the apparent misuse of public funds. For this award the humor may be darker, since the first criterion is the ‘consequence’ of the scientific misdirection.
WILLFUL IGNORANCE………. gets high marks. As in this article (and in coming rebuttals), for Anthony to offer it up to general condemnation without reading it ($10.00 for two days access to full article). Such high-mindedness gets high scores in Anti-Science circles.
TOLERATION……….The comments exhibit a high level of Freedom of Understanding.
At a more regimented science website, the commenters may have been forced to read some stodgy Ocean Acidification explication: that it is independent of AGW, and that ‘acidification’ is a direction (of decreasing pH).
But this is a more democratic place, where there is no pressure to conform (ex AGW).
BIG TENT ACCEPTANCE………..ranks very high in Anti-Science circles.
In contrast, I’d mention one of the more obvious other contenders for the award: anti-evolution Creation Scientists. They will accept any personal objection to the theory of evolution, but there’s the implied expectation that everyone eventually joins together to accept the explanation in Genesis.
But WUWT is totally open to all ideas: from any ‘ology’ or any religion, from whomever, or based on doubt or a rain dance. Anyone with the anti-AGW ticket is welcome under the Big Tent.
TONE……….Kudos, Anthony, for having the pluck for a scornful opening, on a paper that you haven’t read. The mere presence of control groups might have cautioned a less confident critic.
Disrespect for other scientific disciplines gets you extra credit in Anti-Science-dom. This is given in partial compensation for the loss of scientific respectability elsewhere.
“Colorado Summer Trends” (WUWT, July 9, 2010)
THE FIRST GRAPH……….Steve mis-describes. From the 1975 starting point of a CO2-AGW discussion, the slope is upwards.
THE OTHER GRAPHS……….are the ‘Annual mean of Monthly Mean Maximum Temperature.’ Obviously some of the global warming, that raised nighttime minimum temperatures wouldn’t be included. How else do they differ from the usual average?
Here is what I sent that Watts person to challenge his assertion of Archibald being a gentleman in his “A sincere note of thanks” post. Obviously pro-statements without basis are allowed to be made on his website, but not anti-statements that are supported by evidence.
I think that woman who he complained about who was asking about his electric car interests was onto something.
see below:
A dear friend looking to set part of the record straight says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 5, 2010 at 12:58 am
I have never heard of your website before, but I was at a dear friend’s house and she was disposing of everything that was related to your friend, David Archibald. Almost anything he touched was thrown away. One of these “things” was a google alert for David Archibald, which I removed for her. I clicked on one of the links and it came up with this blog. I was surprised to see you declare him a gentleman. In fact it incenses me.
When my partner and I first met Archibald, we both immediately sensed that he would not make an effort for anyone who could not benefit him. While I am sure you found Archibald an obliging host, I think you should consider the implications of that “gentleman” statement. I believe it to be completely wrong.
The last time my friend, who was Archibald’s girlfriend at the time, ate at his house, there were two other guests. Archibald had her bring some ingredients for a lamb dish, which he knows she can not eat. My friend asked him if there would be anything that she could eat as she has a stomach condition which precludes red meat. Having dated for nearly two years, Archibald was well aware of this. Archibald said he would give her chicken so she was happy. When the meal was served there was no chicken or anything else that she could eat. Not one thing. My friend brought dessert. Archibald had four massive servings of lamb while she sat there with an empty plate, very hungry during all of that time until he said she could serve the dessert. He later told her he was angry because she earlier was confused about whether the tablecloth on the table was the new one or if it needed to be changed. He decided to have an oversight about the chicken and teach her a lesson because of this tablecloth. She felt could not protest in front of the other guests without causing a scene.
Every time I have every seen Archibald eat, he has always made a pig of himself, but for any person to eat four servings while his girlfriend is not only hungry but ill and in front of an empty plate with nothing to do but wait is, in my opinion, not exactly a gentleman.
I am sure that Archibald made sure you had plenty of food that would not be immediately rejected by your body and did not make you sit with an empty plate while he gorged himself and others ate. But then again, he is riding your coat tails, hoping you will get books sold for him. Promote him. That is what you are doing. Do you think a gentleman would serve food to everyone but his girlfriend?
On the day Archibald left Perth for your Climate Sceptics Party speaking tour, he handed my friend something and then instantly ripped it out of her hand, causing a long cut which got badly inflamed and infected. She now thinks it was because it contained evidence he was being disloyal to the political party to which they both belong, by promoting another political party. He was made aware of this cut and said nothing. Not an apology or anything.
Archibald has taken things from charity bins (for those of you from America, that is where you drop off items no longer needed so that they can be sold in second hand stores to benefit charities.) Signs clearly say this is stealing. Archibald has taken things from at least one other boat in the Swan River here in Perth. Archibald did not buy a gift or get a card for my friend’s last two birthdays, last two Valentine’s Days, their anniversary or this last Christmas. According to my friend, he frequently orders gifts from Amazon.com for his friends around the world, but would never buy her the smallest thing. She said in a way that was good, because there was less to throw away now. He took a whole kilo of cheese from her once without asking, as well as who knows what else.
Three of four of Archibald’s adult children refuse to speak to him. His wife apparently claimed abuse, which he denies. Archibald is also estranged from both his parents and his siblings. How does a gentleman become so roundly and completely despised by almost all of those closest to him?
I am relieved my friend is no longer seeing him. In fact, everyone she knows is relieved as he appears to be unable to handle intimate or family relationships and he showed his true colours when he cut her and refused to apologise or take any notice of the wound.
I doubt you will publish this as it runs counter to your experience. I challenge you to either publish it or remove the word gentleman from your web site when you refer to Archibald. If you are going to state how wonderful Archibald is, then you should allow others to state their own experiences which clearly run counter to yours.
Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry.
Ooops! Orlowski has not done his homework. Dr Brian Iddon is a distinguished organic chemist and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Des Turner holds a Doctorate in Biochem.
And I’m not sure that Stringer has a PhD, Wiki only lists his BSc (gained 39 years ago) and the report always has him as plain ‘Graham Stringer’, whereas all the other Doctors are shown as such.
However I’m sure the rest of the piece shows more respect for the truth.
Seeing as how WUWT has posted up a Dilbert …
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/global_warming__3.html
Yep – you got it T.O. I just knew that Archibald tosser was into petrol sniffing.
Kanga,
I don’t know about petrol sniffer, but there is a reason(s) why this man has no one who really knows him who can also maintain respect for him. Taking things out of charity bins! Shame! Both his children and his parents will not allow contact. Wow. What a winner. David Archibald, Clmate Change “expert”, life skills “loser”. He is not a doctor of anything by the way, but apparently won’t correct anyone who calls him that. Watts is a hypocrite in my opinion.
Worst Climate Paper Ever, Anywhere, Ever.
1. Guess the author.
2. Guess the ‘journal’.
No prizes.
“Rocky Mountain Highs” (WUWT,July11,2010)
NUMBER OF EXTREMELY HOT SEASONS………. “…equally as intense as the hottest season ever recorded from 1951-1999…” can be read from the three given decadal maps in the Diffenbaugh&Ashfaq(2010) Press Release.
NUMBER OF INTENSE HEAT WAVES……….was also studied by Diffenbaug&Ashfaq. But “heat wave” maps were not included in this press release. The text description suggests that (presumed) corresponding “heat wave” maps would be darker colored, particularly in the central US.
HEAT HEALTH……….”It can take only 48 hours of uninterrupted exposure to intense heat before the body’s defenses begin to break down…The longer a heat wave continues the more susceptible the body becomes to illness. Just a few hours of relief can break the cycle, which is why increased temperatures at night are so dangerous and why air conditioning is a lifesaver” (Stanford School of Medicine blog)
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HEAT INDEX PROGRAM………. “…the NWS has devised the “Heat Index”…(sometimes referred to as the ‘apparent temperature’). The HI, given in degrees F, is an accurate measure of how hot it really feels when relative humildity…is added to the actual air temperature”
Heat wave definitions vary from region to region, based on local history. I presume that relative humidity gets accounted for in this local history.
“MORE INTENSE,MORE FREQUENT,AND LONGER HEAT WAVES IN THE 21st century” (Meehl&Tebaldi,2004)……….is outside a paywall, for a presentation of some of the issues involved here. They lookd at both nighttime minima, and daytime maxima. And, duration is important.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5686/994
WUWT?……….The author is using historical data to criticize the forecasts in a months-old paper.
Dr. Keen has erroneously assumed the the press release’s ‘Hot Seasons’ maps are ‘Heat Wave’ maps. I haven’t myself paid the $10.00 for 2-day access to the full article. But obviously he should have.
Regarding his two graphs, Dr. Keen doesn’t mention that it is only the post-1975 temperatures (which are increasing) that are relevant in a CO2-AGW discussion. And WUWT commenters have noted that in the second graph, his 30-year running mean is wrong.
Sorry, That post should read David Archibald, Climate change “expert”. Not Clmate.
“BAD NEWS FOR HOLLAND” (July 12,2010)
NEW? OR NEWS?……….This was not about new research when it was published in New Scientist 3 years ago. It is a popular article with a general discussion, that doesn’t mention any specific research papers. The principle theme bracketing the meltin-of-ice-sheet discussion is the reticence of scientists.
CONSIDER……….There is obvious acceleration in sea level rise just between the two graphs.
01.85mm/year for the 20th century has increased to the more recent 03.2mm/year.
Global temperatures continue to increase.
Polar amplification continues.
Current sea level rise is already at the top of the best case AR4 projection. (0.18 to 0.59 meters, excluding dynamic losses thru calving by 2100)
Pfeffer(2008) included calving glaciers to get between 80cm and 2meters by 2100.
Rahmstorf(2007)’s estimate was 0.5 to 1.4meters by 2100.
Vermeer(2009) looked only at the overall relationship between temperature and sea level rise. The 2100 range was 0.75 to 1.90meters.
The palaeoclimatology paper (Kopp, 2009) found that when polar temperatures were 3-5oC higher, that sea levels were (eventually) 6-9meters higher.
Greenland ice sheet loss is accelerating.
West Antarctica’s ice sheet loss is accelerating.
Ocean heat content is still high.
The albedo effect from decreasing Arctic sea ice will lead to increasing warming in the Arctic Ocean.
QUESTION……….Addressed to any skeptic who accepts any of these arguments for the current rate of sea level rise to increase. What do you think of Steve’s calculation simply projecting the current rate into the future (0.29meters by 2100)?
This calculation is a deceptive way to minimize sea level projections, and it is the core of the article. How does a skeptic who knows better feel about WUWT’s distribution of misinformation to others?
“Greenland Hype Meltdown” (WUWT, July12,2010)
CHERRYPICKING………. “…because GISS shows that Greenland has not warmed at all over the last 90 years.”
It is cherry picking to go from the 1920’s warm period to after the 2003-2007 warm period.
“…generated their 3C/decade(sic) trend by very carefully cherry picking their start and end points.”
The obvious starting point, for measuring a warming period, is at the beginning. This also corresponds to the beginning of CO2-AGW concerns. In other words, ignoring the 1940’s warm period in the Arctic is comparable to ignoring the 1940’s warm period in global temperature discussions.
The obvious end point is the up-to-date one.
“Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE”………..
“We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from…GRACE…to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009…
“In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002-2003 to 286Gt/yr in 2007-2009…
“In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104Gt/yr in 2002-2006 to 246Gt/yr in 2006-2009…”
Velicogna Oct,2009 paper here
Click to access increasing-rates-of-ice-mass-loss-from-the-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-revealed-by-grace.pdf
“Spread of ice mass loss into northwest Greenland observed by GRACE and GPS.”……….
“Greenland’s main outlet glaciers have more than doubled their contribution to global sea level rise over the last decade. Recent work has shown that Greenland’s mass is still increasing. Here we show that the ice loss, which has been well-documented over southern portions of Greenland, is now spreading up along the northwest coast, with this acceleration likely starting in late 2005……
“southeast Greenland still appears to be losing ice mass at a much higher rate than it was prior to fall 2003.”
Khan,Wahr,Bevis,Velicogna&Kedrick (2010) abstract
GRACE IN GREENLAND……….”The seasonal cycle of increased mass loss during the summer and growth during winter is clearly captured”
“The new results also capture more precisely where changes are taking place, showing that the losses of ice mass are occurring in the three drainage systems where other studies have reported increased glacier flow and ice-quakes in outlet glaciers.”
NASA 10.19.06
Steve’s objections to GRACE were basically that inland Antarctica is too cold for melting or movement. “Amazing Grace” is discussed in the comments of Wottsupwiththat’s “WebsiteNews” (2010/06/25).
“Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier Retreat” (WUWT,July13,2010)
The obvious reconciliation of meltwater with sea level rise would include ocean heat content.
“Robust warming of the global upper ocean”………. “The majority of the Earth’s total energy uptake during recent decades has occurred in the upper ocean, but the underlying uncertainties in ocean warming are unclear, limiting our ability to assess CLOSURE OF SEA-LEVEL BUDGETS, the global radiation imbalance, and climate models.”
Lyman et al, May,2010, abstract emphasis added
“The ocean is warming, isn’t it”……….Trenberth discusses the matter in the same issue.
And Skeptical Science covers both here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=202