Reports from the Guardian Climategate Debate: Surprise, surprise. In Anthony Watts’ report of the debate on the Climategate false controversy hosted by the Guardian newspaper, climate scientists are “devious” and “appallingly bad” but denialist Steven McIntyre, who spoke from behind a lectern to give him more ‘authority’, gets “the largest applause”.
Here’s a different view of the panel’s performance:
- Prof. Davies said the CRU has learned about the need for public engagement in the scientific discussion.
- Steve McIntyre sidestepped the challenge that “any competent individual could reproduce a temperature series from publicly accessible data”. Slippery as always, but an embarrassing exposure of his grandiose claims.
- Bob Watson said the reviews had high integrity and robust conclusions, accused the media of getting carried away with “skeptic” allegations.
- Doug Keenan claimed that “bogus fraudulent research is rife throughout science.” and “AGW is a fraud.” Clinging to his paranoid denialist views I guess.
- Fred Pearce, looking for a way to climb back down from his gullible reporting, called the saga is more a tragedy than a conspiracy and said that the CRU inquiries were well conducted.
Nothing like getting the spin in as fast as possible… Three inquiries (four if you count the tangential Penn State inquiry) completely clear the CRU climate scientists of any deception and yet the volume and fervor of the denialist accusations of “whitewash” and conspiracy simply rises.
The louder you say it the righter you are Anthony?
“Concentration vs. Extent“. Steven Goddard plays word games to try to slip out of his unsupported Arctic Sea Ice claims. He’s nothing if not intransigent!
Steven used to argue about ice extent (surface area) but the ice volume facts completely undercut his position. Now he’s talking about ice “concentration”. This is pretty much just a variation on volume, but it lets him slip away from his claims about extent.
To do this though Steven has to baldly claim that his chosen model, PIPS 2.0, is the proper one to use because it’s the only one that he can use to claim that “concentration” is not collapsing too. The better model is PIOMAS, but unfortunately it doesn’t support his claims.
Funny how quickly the outrage over using “models” disappears when denialists like Steven find one that they think they can exploit.
How ’bout the numbers? Arctic sea ice extent is currently about 270,000 km² lower than the “record low” of 2007. Arctic sea ice volume is also down since then, by about 300 km³.
“More on the Beeville, TX weather station“. Anthony Watts’ friends continue to nitpick the Beeville temperature records and not talk about the false report of a Beeville grade school science project that “disproves global warming” being given a national award.
Apparently if you remove the temperature data corrections (i.e. re-introduce error) you can tell yourself that there’s been no global warming. Nice!
All this whining about “adjustments” (which a commenter goes to the unwelcome trivial effort of looking up and finds simple explanations for) suggests that Anthony wants to obscure difference between using temperature records for weather purposes vs climate purposes. When we’re interested in the weather, we want to know the actual temperature. When we’re interested in the climate, we want to remove local variability so we can use those records to see longer regional trends. Temperature records can’t be used for climate analysis without adjustments!
“Dr. Richard Lindzen’s Heartland 2010 keynote address“. In a room full of balding libertarians, Dr. Richard Lindzen tells it like he wishes it was. No doubt his actual remarks will be discussed shortly.
“Now it’s lizards going extinct due to climate change“. Anthony Watts has found another press release, in this case Study documents widespread extinction of lizard populations due to climate change from Villanova University, to which he adds some dumb photos (unless you agree with Anthony that posting Godzilla photo is clever) and even dumber remarks. Anthony scratches his head over the puzzler of how warmer might not be ‘gooder’ for a lizard. Too bad he lost interest before the fourth paragraph:
Although the lizards normally bask in the sun to warm up, higher temperatures exceeding their physiological limits keep them in the shade, restricting their activity and preventing them from foraging for food. The researchers used these findings to develop a model of extinction risk based on maximum air temperatures, the physiologically active body temperature of each species, and the hours in which its activity would be restricted by temperature. The model accurately predicted the disappearance of Mexican lizards and was then extended globally to lizards in 34 different families on five continents and validated by comparing the predicted results with actual local extinctions.
Oh, maybe Anthony should have kept quiet on this one. The comments are full of idiotic remarks about how many lizards are in this or that backyard. Deep thinking going on over there.
“WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #4“. Steve Goddard returns from Venus to make snide remarks about the Catlin Arctic Expedition before offering us his Arctic Sea Ice Extent analysis. Everything’s “normal” as far as Steve’s concerned, so there’s no Global Warming.
Except Arctic temperatures appear to actually be running several degrees C warmer than “normal”. Also the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is currently dropping about twice as fast as it did in 2009. Look for WUWT’s Arctic Sea Ice News updates to be quietly discontinued in a few weeks.
“Pielke Sr. on Revkin’s question“. In spite of abundant evidence to the contrary, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is more convinced than ever that NO! is his answer to a question posed in 2005 by journalist Andy Revkin: “Is most of the observed warming over the last 50 years likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations?”
He now says that Dr. Spencer’s assertion that it’s all because of a reduction in cloud cover, in a somehow on-going 50 year pattern, explains it. Especially since he still thinks the “missing heat” statement by Kevin Trenberth last month was an admission that the heat “wasn’t there” rather than that it can’t be identified by current instrumentation.
Dr. Pielke backs his assertion with a collection of references to debunked denialist fellow-travelers and right-wing “conferences”. Confirmation bias in three, two, one, now.
[Note: In the comments Dr. Pielke thanks the WUWT readers for editorial corrections. My god, sloppy typing as well as sloppy thinking!]
AGW to reach…”The Edge of Wetness”… Super-hip Anthony Watts references the Johnny Carson Show to attempt a put down a press release about a paper (An Adaptability Limit to Climate Change Due to Heat Stress) that suggests the following:
Despite the uncertainty in future climate change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation.
Maximum wet-bulb temperatures from a climate scenario with mean temperature 12°C warmer than 2007. Land areas >~34°C exceed the wet-bulb limit of potentially lethal heat stress. (Purdue University/Matthew Huber)
Here’s Anthony’s snappy comeback in its entirety: “Apparently it’s not just the heat, but the humidity too.” Now that’s what I call critical thinking. How is considering the possible impact of a particular level of warming a bad thing?
“Scripps plans for saving the planet“. Anthony Watts posts a Scripps Institute press release about a proposed approach to limiting global warming.
Recommended steps include stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and fashioning warming-neutral pollution laws that will balance the removal of aerosols that have an atmospheric cooling effect with the removal of warming agents such as soot and ozone. Finally, the authors advocate achieving reductions in methane, hydrofluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases that remain in the atmosphere for short periods of time. The authors write that aggressive simultaneous pursuit of these strategies could reduce the probability of reaching the temperature threshold to less than 10 percent before the year 2050. [Quote from original press release, italics mine.]
These proposals outrage Anthony’s readers, who pick through it for sentences they can pour scorn on. The best solution is, of course, to do nothing.
“Butterfly study: a case study in confirmation bias“. Anthony Watts wants us to know that there is a bias against skeptics in the scientific literature. Marc Hendrickx, denialist Australian blogger and “part time consulting geologist”, submitted a Comment on a paper on Biology Letters called Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming. It was rejected for basically lacking any basis.
Poor Hendrickx, a denialist geologist trying to attack a biology study, then asks Anthony’s readers for help improving it! Talk about the blind leading the blind.
Hendrickx presents his full Comment and the text of his rejection. He’s so deep in Dunning–Kruger that he badly misconstrued this bemused complete response by Referee 2 (italics are Hendrickx’s oblivious addition):
In the short intro, the author writes twice “phonological changes”. I guess that would be “phenological changes”? (MH based on this I take it that Ref 2 was generally happy with the manuscript)
Perhaps Anthony thinks this is an example of insightful research unjustly rejected because of the alleged bias against skeptics in the scientific literature? If so it’s Anthony with the ‘confirmation bias.’