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!

New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon

New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon“. You know a climate denial book is on shaky ground when even Anthony Watts has trouble with the list of authors! Yes, “Iron Sun” kook Oliver K. Manuel is among this confederacy of dunces.

Windmills on the Moon and dragon-riding astronauts!

Still, Anthony’s happy to report that Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, available as an e-book only, has debunked the greenhouse gas theory. Funny how these devastating “refutations” of accepted science never seem to find their way into an actual scientific journal. Damn those cliquish scientists and their social networks!

Read the author’s modest description of their own work. Bemused emphasis mine.

Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.

Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.

By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.

This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.

Journeyman denialist and former professor of geography Tim Ball seems the only author with even faintly relevant scientific credentials…

During Cancun COP16 – calls for a return to WWII style rationing

During Cancun COP16 – calls for a return to WWII style rationing“. Anthony Watts loves to suggest that climate scientists want to install a World Government, tell Americans what to do, and make them live in caves. He finds an article in the Telegraph that lets him take this idea out for another ride around the block. Scientists want to start rationing! And Al Gore will be on the gas vouchers! Or something.

Hmmm. Dr. Kevin Anderson wrote an article in a special report by the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society that discusses the ineffectiveness of current Global Warming mitigation efforts, and the options for improving mitigation efforts.

From a mitigation perspective, the gap between the scientific and policy understanding of the challenge needs urgently to be addressed.

Where’s the “rationing”?

GHCN V3 temperature data errors spotted within a day of release

GHCN V3 temperature data errors spotted within a day of release“. Anthony Watts leaps on a claim that newly released data from Global Historical Climatological Network has quality control problems. Someone has plotted the difference between the old analysis software version and the new version, and they aren’t identical!

Perhaps it’s because there’s a problem with the beta release of their website’s charting software? Geez, it’s a beta. Let them finish it before you start howling.

Anthony, why can’t you just savor one conspiracy theory at a time? Well, at least we get to enjoy the bizarre spectacle in the comments of Steven Mosher defending climate data.

Dr. Ray Bradley’s amazing photo

Dr. Ray Bradley’s amazing photo“. Anthony Watts presents us with chilling evidence of scientific fraud: Professor Ray Bradley’s faculty website photo! Got him! And thus the grand conspiracy unravels.

Dr. Ray Bradley's Faculty photo, showing 'evidence of deception'.


Is a staff photo scientific evidence? No.

Does Anthony realise that this informal photo doesn’t even show the entire chart? That, cunningly, Dr. Bradley’s body is concealing some of the details? No. (That’s the clue that Anthony missed.)

1200 words about nothing at all, with even more in the comments praising Anthony’s revelation… Just another day at WUWT.

By the way, why is Dr. Bradley earning denialist attention? He’s the climate scientist that Dr. Wegman plagiarized and misrepresented in his 2006 Report and had the nerve to complain about it. Anthony and crew are looking for ways to make him uncomfortable.

Wegman responds to USA Today

Wegman responds to USA Today“. Another hollow denialist trophy – the politically driven, unqualified, lazy, plagiarized, misrepresentative, incompetent, padded, 2006 Wegman Report crumbles but Anthony Watts clings to it tighter than ever.

Recent, and damning, attention to it on the Deep Climate website and by John Mashey has dragged a defense from Dr. Wegman, four years after he promised to show how he “confirmed” the errors in Dr. Mann’s famous 1999 paper Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations (PDF here). That defense? Apparently it’s all just “conspiracy theory”. And he had to “work faster than [he] might like”. And he “never intended… …to take intellectual credit.” Yeah, that’ll stick. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Anthony.

So how did Dr. Edward Wegman get himself into so much trouble? In 2006 he produced a report for Congress at the request of Republican Congressman Joe Barton that supported Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre’s criticism of Dr. Mann’s global temperature reconstruction “Hockey Stick”. If Dr. Wegman used the same carefully selected starting points as McKitrick and McIntyre and the same un-released but evidently biased code he could, surprise, produce precisely the same “damning” trends they did. He also announced that there was evidence of cozy scientific relationships among “mainstream” climate scientists. This “social network analysis” was off-the-cuff conjecture ginned up to support resentful denialist claims of conspiracies. Attention-getting claims though, if he could make it stick.

Dr. Wegman’s report was widely criticized by knowledgeable people at the time and largely contradicted by a concurrent impartial analysis produced by the National Research Council. It nevertheless became a favorite denialist talking point as they could pretend that the report was peer-reviewed, that it ‘must be true because it was congressional testimony’, and the author was a real scientist (albeit a statistician without climatology expertise).

Unfortunately the Wegman Report has been shown to be a massive exercise in plagiarism, performed with such ham-fisted incompetence that it also revealed the author’s ignorance of the subject. It also contained crude attempts to twist the record to support his desired conclusion and frankly demonstrated a deep ethical lapse. Oh, and the “social network analysis”? Well if applied to Wegman, it shows that in direct contradiction to his statements, he was taking orders pretty much directly from Congressman Joe Barton’s staff.

What did Dr. Wegman’s Report say about man-made Climate Change? Nothing. How could it? He knows nothing about the subject and has proven it.

Here’s a comparison of the IPCC’s temperature reconstructions from their 2001 and 2007 Reports. Did the complaints of McKitrick and McIntyre or Wegman make any difference to the scientific reality? Nope. If anything the new reconstructions amplify the trend.

IPCC temperature reconstructions from AR3 and AR4 on the same time scale. AR3's chart is Mann, et. al. 1999, AR4 adds newer reconstructions, based on new data and techniques. Click to see (slightly) larger version.

You’ve hitched your wagon to a bolting nag, Anthony and you’re going to be dragged all over town.

Length of day correlated to cosmic rays and sunspots

Length of day correlated to cosmic rays and sunspots. See? Anthony Watts was right all along! It’s the Sun!

Thus, the [rotation of the] Earth (specifically the mantle), is accelerated or slowed according to the fluctuations of cosmic rays under the influence of solar activity through the zonal winds… (original article – in french)

Oh, the variations are on the order of a 10th of a percent. Well, it’s still all natural. The solar kooks come out in full force in the comments.

Walking the Plank-ton

Walking the Plank-ton“. More awesome marine biology insight from Willis Eschenbach. He waited until he had a chance to read the entire Global phytoplankton decline over the past century paper in Nature because he didn’t want to get it wrong. The paper’s claim is that our marine phytoplankton population has been cut in half since 1900 because of warming of the global oceans.

So what did Willis come up with to reject the paper’s conclusions? This:

The short answer is that I don’t know … but I don’t believe their results.

Botanist claims to overturn established ocean phytoplankton theory – cites global warming as a concern for new theory

Botanist claims to overturn established ocean phytoplankton theory – cites global warming as a concern for new theory. Whew. Anthony Watts can sleep again. Global warming has been disproved! Again. Somehow. In a paper by an Oregon State University botanist (Abandoning Sverdrup’s critical depth hypothesis on phytoplankton blooms). So Anthony instinctively copies and pastes the press release.


Eurekalert has a press release about Dr. Behrenfeld’s research, which suggests that phytoplankton blooms occur at a greater range of depths and seasonal than previously recognized. Well that settles it!

Uh oh, Anthony didn’t even understand the for-dummies press release:

The critical depth hypothesis would suggest that a warmer climate would increase ocean productivity. Behrenfeld’s new hypothesis suggests the opposite.

Book Review – Climatism

Book Review – Climatism“. Anthony Watts has discovered Climatism!, “a wonderful, extremely factual, and very timely book” by “engineer and former business executive” Steve Goreham. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, reviews it for him in four short paragraphs. Apparently it’s all down to “world government” and “political chicanery“. Okey dokey.