3% of Earth’s landmass is now urbanized

3% of Earth’s landmass is now urbanized. Anthony Watts goes back in time to 2005 for some fresh insight: 3% of the Earth’s landmass is urbanized. This means about 1% of the Earth’s surface. For Anthony, this is proof that all temperature readings are corrupted by the dreaded Urban Heat Island effect, and thus there is no Global Warming.

People! In places! Source: Earth Institute

But what do the satellite readings say Anthony? Oh, not so useful. Too bad your surface-stations project blew up in your face too.

Step one: copy and paste (in this case a 2005 report from Columbia University’s Earth Institute).
Step two: insinuate (in this case about the temperature record quality).
Step three: profit!

Where Did I Put That Energy?

Where Did I Put That Energy? More Christmas Guest pudding. Willis Eschenbach is always good for a snort, but before I even caught up to this post he’d admitted a factor of 10 calculation error…

Willis is trying once more to misrepresent Kevin Trenberth’s “travesty“‘ statement that “we can not account for what is happening in the climate system” (he was talking about simple data collection issues, not that the evidence disproved Global Warming). This time he tries to include the oceans in his argument. Why not, eh? They do cover 71% of the Earth’s surface.

Willis’ complicated equation for solving the puzzle is ∆Q (change in energy added) = ∆U (change in energy lost) + ∆Ocean (change in energy in/out of ocean). He substitutes surface temperature “T” divided by the climate sensitivity “S” (conventionally estimated as 0.8) to get this: ∆Q = ∆T / 0.8  + ∆Ocean  (Joules/year). Nuanced, isn’t it?

As always, Willis’ only path to enlightenment is through crappy Excel charts. He theorizes (let’s be generous for a moment) that:

because energy cannot be created or destroyed. If we add extra energy to the system, it has to either leave the system via increased radiation or get stored in the ocean. There is no “lag” or “in the pipeline” possible.

This lets him assert that any discrepancy is proof that the mainstream climatologists are wrong. Handy that, although it doesn’t show any awareness of what Trenberth’s real concern was: that there were areas of the ocean that are inadequately monitored, with potentially unaccounted energy flows.

Still, Willis races on to his profound insight:

I make no hard claims about any of this, as I don’t know where the missing energy really is. I don’t even know if this is the missing energy that Trenberth was talking about. My theory is that the energy is not missing, but that Equation 2 is wrong. My hypothesis is that the earth responds to volcanoes and other forcing losses by cutting back on clouds and thunderstorms.

Sorry dude, a climate hypothesis isn’t something pulled out of your ass, it’s something that uses a real physical mechanism to accurately explain measured values. Changing thermodynamics to suit your interests doesn’t pass muster.

Confirmation of Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day

Confirmation of Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day. December 23rd gave us Anthony Watts’ first Christmas Guest, and Paul Vaughn (M.Sc.) served up a delightful slice of Dunning-Kruger pudding. There’s nothing a denialist likes more than a new and obscure correlation to (briefly) divert the conversation… Causation is for sissies.

Paul wants to show that Earth’s Length of Day is influenced by cosmic rays, which slightly affect atmospheric density. Hence, using the power of wishful thinking, all Global Warming is natural and will reverse itself. Eventually. Paul gives us lots of cluttered stock promoter-style charts, spreading a tiny proportional change over a full chart range. You’d think an analytical genius like, perhaps, Steve McIntyre would call him to task on it wouldn’t you?

Yes, atmospheric and oceanic angular momentum impacts Length of Day. Trivially. This influence, measured as being on the order of one millisecond out of 86,400,000 over a period of months, is significant? Try again. Cue the ignorant arguments about magnetic fields in the comments.

The Story Told by the Southern Oscillation Index

The Story Told by the Southern Oscillation Index. David Archibald guest-posts on Anthony Watts’ blog, trying to make the case that the Southern Oscillation Index, which supposedly influences the Pacific Ocean’s El Niño currents, proves that Global Warming is all just a natural wobble.

Except the “The Story” boils down to arm-waving over very noisy data (with a side reference to Climategate) and concludes with “for some as yet unknown reason.”

Now that’s blog science, Anthony-style…

Has Charles Dickens shaped our perception of climate change?

Has Charles Dickens shaped our perception of climate change?” Anthony Watts re-posts a massive indigestible lump of old nonsense from the Air Vent by Tony Brown. Apparently the novels of Charles Dickens prove that the thermometers all over the world were wrong! Uh huh.

Yup, snow in winter proves that there’s no Global Warming.

Testing … testing … is this model powered up?

Testing … testing … is this model powered up?” Willis Eschenbach guest posts on Anthony Watts’ website and mentions about Judith Curry’s “excellent blog”, where she has apparently been talking in her usual vague way about a subject that she seems to have only a superficial understanding of. In this case about “verifying and validating” climate models.

After drowning us in a deluge of Excel charts derived from a variety of old (6+ years) climate models and using a conveniently short 20-year span, Willis tells us that generalized climate models don’t mirror the specific fluctuations of real temperature trends well enough. This, somehow, is a surprise to Willis. Apparently all the climate models must be discarded now.

Newsflash: “general” is not “specific”. The impact of one-time events will never be predicted. Regardless, I guess we can’t trust any of them sneaky climate computer models, can we Anthony?

Sea Level Rise and Solar Activity

Sea Level Rise and Solar Activity“. Anthony Watts posts Australian denialist David Archibald’s latest insights about how it’s all due to the Sun. Thanks?

See where the Sun affects seal-level rise? Which is flat by the way. Original by David Archibald, 2010.

Let’s file this one away for a laugh:

Our prediction of a 2° C decline in temperature for the mid-latitudes over Solar Cycles 24 and 25 suggests that sea level will stop rising, and should start falling at some point prior to 2032.

Nothing like giving yourself twenty years of wriggle room!