The Improving State of the World

The Improving State of the World. Indur Goklany’s back to tell us that his new think-tank book explains how we can grow our way out of any problem. Free trade solves everything! And the more energy we use the better. Just look at the numbers for the “objective measurement of human well-being”! And that’s the end of the tunnel up there, not an on-coming train.

Goklany’s thesis is true if you think getting ready for the weekend is long-range planning, but its classic think-tank myopia. It also feeds into Anthony Watts’ theme that the crypto-communist greenies are trying to force us to live in caves eating raw potatoes.

Wasted Opportunities

Wasted Opportunities. Thomas Fuller steps up to the plate for Anthony Watts again. He thinks it’s a shame that so much effort has gone into renewable energy sources: solar, wind and biofuels (no love for hydro or tidal?). We should be using cogeneration! Ah, if only we all lived beside a power plant.

Oh, wait, we are using cogeneration! 7% of energy in the US, even more in some Scandinavian countries. So, Thomas’ point is what exactly? Use more somehow? He also claims cogeneration “gets little attention from environmentalists”, but doesn’t really put much effort into the accusation. This post is just Fuller filler.

A new must read paper: McKitrick on GHCN and the quality of climate data

A new must read paper: McKitrick on GHCN and the quality of climate data“. Economics professor Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph has performed a comprehensive review of the GHCN surface and sea temperature data set! It’s published in… Oh, it’s a vanity publication by his denialist friends at The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Anthony Watts’ associates keep trying to repackage the accusation that the temperature data sets are untrustworthy and hence there is no Global Warming, but they can never make it stick. This time McKitrick even tries to slide in a few “Climategate” e-mails for support. Let’s look at the two excerpts that Anthony posts:

1.2.3. Growing bias toward lower latitudes – This actually biases against warming. McKitrick tries to float the idea that “this implies less and less data are drawn from remote, cold regions and more from inhabited, warmer regions.” In fact it’s well established that the warming anomaly is more pronounced at higher latitudes. Either McKitrick is uninformed or he’s trying to mislead readers.

2.4. Conclusion re. dependence on GHCN – Another canard from Ross, claiming that “All three major gridded global temperature anomaly products rely exclusively or nearly exclusively on the GHCN archive”. Guess what? There aren’t large overlapping collections of weather stations around the world. What climatologists interested in historical temperature trends do is select stations from the larger group that meet their analytical requirements. Good morning Rip Van Winkle.

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.

Phytoplankton

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.

Comment of the week

Comment of the week: Anthony Watts thinks a goofy comment about the vileness of “academia” is worth making special note of. Note the incorrect punctuation and embrace of stereotype when Alexander Feht says:

I completely understand, why Christopher Monckton felt a need to make an example of a typical reprehensible representative of modern Academia.

So Watts Up With That is now officially anti-academic? An odd perspective for a “science” website.

Funny though, it’s Monckton’s response to Prof. Abraham’s analysis that is full of arm-waving bluster.

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.

Does money grow in wind farms?

Does money grow in wind farms?” Charles Rotter tells us that a right-wing UK journalist thinks that “wind turbines are a poor way to harness energy – but a very good way to generate public subsidies“. Damn business interests sucking up government money! Wait, aren’t denialists almost universally in favor of letting business solve all environmental problems by being profit-oriented?

Poudre River Sets A Record

Poudre River Sets A Record“. Steven Goddard wants us to know that a flooding river in Colorado is proof that last winter was cold. Therefore there has been no Global Warming. Thanks for settling that once and for all Steven!

Oh, wait. We don’t rely on local short-term weather patterns to understand climate trends, do we?

Lessons from the Gulf blowout

Lessons from the Gulf blowout“. Anthony Watts posts an article by right-wing pundit Paul Driessen (from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise). What can he teach us about the Deepwater Horizon blowout?

  • The oil company workers were “heroic”.
  • There is “cause for optimism” about the oil spill.
  • “We still need to drill” offshore.

Thanks Paul! Glad that’s cleared up. Lesson learned, back to work everyone!

Venus Envy

Venus Envy“. Steve Goddard tries once more to explain how Venus’s surface temperature is strictly the result of atmospheric pressure. Um, nope.

Steve’s confused about transient temperature changes that occur with changes in pressure. Like a good denialist he’s clinging to this belief in spite of clear explanations of why he’s wrong.