The new math – IPCC version

Posted on by
1

“The new math – IPCC version“. Yet another copy-and-paste job from Anthony Watts. This time its an anonymous analysis from a sites.google.com page.

Wisely detaching themselves from their argument, they chose to confuse real-world temperature trends with synthetic sinusoidal data and declare that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report is a lie(!!!!!!) because the synthetic trend changes with the number of cycles that are included.

If you measure over different distances, you get different slopes! Wow.

Well, duh. Of course it’s comical to suggest that the real-world temperature trends are better represented by a synthetic waveform.

Where are the sine waves???

Let us know when you get out of high school, anonymous!

Levy walks, solar flares, and warming

Posted on by
3

“Levy walks, solar flares, and warming“. Once more with conviction: there is no link between solar flare cycles and global temperature trends. A statistical analysis by Martin and Kristoffer Rypdal, discussed at Physorg.com here, puts the solar climate theory of Scafetta and West to bed.

No correlation between Solar Flare Index and Climate. This would be a better presentation if the time scales matched...

You know that a “disproof” of AGW is pretty stinky when even Anthony Watts is reluctant to use it. His readers seem less picky though and are fighting over whether they can still cling to it.

To quote the paper authors:

A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses. If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence.

This remark seems to also have relevance to the recently discussed amateur climate theories of Stephen Wilde…

Dr. Jerry Ravetz – on Willis, epidemics, rough & tumble debate, and post normal science

Posted on by
3

Dr. Ravetz, captured

“Dr. Jerry Ravetz – on Willis, epidemics, rough & tumble debate, and post normal science“. Dr. Ravetz returns to the politics of Anthony Watts’ blog, but after some self-referential meanderings only manages to stick his other foot in his mouth while trying to ingratiate himself into the denialist good books by making an unsupportable reference to the “corrupted science of the CRU“.

Dr. Ravetz, please keep you mouth shut unless you know what you’re talking about! Better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it.

One more thing to worry about – undersea supervolcanoes

Posted on by
Reply

“One more thing to worry about – undersea supervolcanoes“. Anthony Watts copies and pastes a National Science Foundation press release entitled “Scientists explore origins of ’supervolcanoes’ on the sea floor, Ancient goliaths blamed for multiple mass extinctions“.

Why? So he can float the faulty logic of we have so many things to worry about, why restrict our “freedoms” because of trivial old AGW.

Pilgrimage to Montana

Posted on by
Reply

“Pilgrimage to Montana“. Steven Goddard takes on the glacial retreat at Glacier National Park. It’s all natural, of course.

Now that Arctic ice area is normal , Antarctic ice area is normal , sea level rise is failing to accelerate , temperatures are below all of Hansen’s scenarios , and the IPCC has proven itself to be untrustworthy – where can the CAGW religion go?  Simple … Montana!

Steven tells us that the glaciers in Glacier National Park started declining before there were SUVs. How could that be? Also, its snowy in Glacier National Park right now (early April).

Now it’s a fact that most Montana glaciers reached their recent maximums about 150 years ago and have been in retreat since but what has the recent trend been? Steven of course doesn’t tell us, but try this quote:

As recently as 1975, many North Cascade glaciers were advancing due to cooler/wet weather during the 1944-1976 period. However, by 1987, all North Cascade glaciers were retreating. However, since 1976 these glaciers have receded rapidly. Between 1984 and 2007, they have lost an average more than 12 m in thickness and 20 to 40% of their volume.[10].

I also love how Steven tries to manipulate charts. On two charts, of Montana summer temperature and winter precipitation, he slaps a big horizontal line (the “average”) to help people miss inconvenient statistical trends. Thus “proving” that there has been no local climate change that could be linked to the glacial retreats.

Visualizing Changes In The Arctic Summer Minimum Since The 2007 Low

Posted on by
1

“Visualizing Changes In The Arctic Summer Minimum Since The 2007 Low“. Guess what Steven Goddard has for us to digest? The summer ice extent minimum in 2009 was higher than the record low summer ice extent minimum 2007!

That’s how minimums work. Good sleuthing, Steven.

WIRED Science: Tipping Point Not Likely for Arctic Sea Ice

Posted on by
Reply

“WIRED Science: Tipping Point Not Likely for Arctic Sea Ice“. Anthony Watts gets cranky about how popular magazines, in this case Wired, use the phrase “tipping point” when talking about Arctic sea ice. It might be gradual, not with a sudden collapse!

Bering Sea ice.

Easier than talking about the summer melt trends if you’re a denialist I guess.

Visualizing Changes In Arctic Ice Since the 2007 Record Low

Posted on by
1

“Visualizing Changes In Arctic Ice Since the 2007 Record Low“. Steven Goddard says that the Arctic sea ice extent is about one million square km larger now than it was at the 2007 low point, but has no choice but to mutter “weather” as the explanation for it.

Curiously, his graphic is hosted on a blog called Climate Insiders, which appears to be a private denialist coordination point. The Denialist “Team” conspiracy is revealed! Or is it just Steven trying to start his own clubhouse?

Climate Craziness of the Week: British lawyer urges UN to accept ‘ecocide’ as international crime on par with genocide

Posted on by
Reply

“Climate Craziness of the Week: British lawyer urges UN to accept ‘ecocide’ as international crime on par with genocide“. Oooh, Anthony Watts hates a do-gooder. Especially if he can link them to the secret world government, one of the many tentacles of which is known to you and I as “The Club of Rome”. Evil! Evil!

There’s a Guardian article about the proposal that has been submitted to the UN.

What’s wrong with industries being required to compensate for the environmental damage that results from their activities? It’s basic Capitalism that the cost of goods should be based on the cost of production. Otherwise, someone’s stealing from someone else.

Or is the principle that nothing should be allowed to get in the way of a business’ profit? I get it muddled up sometimes.

My Thanks and Comments for Dr. Walt Meier

Posted on by
3

“My Thanks and Comments for Dr. Walt Meier“. Now it’s Willis Eschenbach’s turn to pick at Dr. Walt Meier’s response to Willis’ “questionnaire”. This is just the trap that Willis hoped to spring on Dr. Meier. After some self-congratulatory remarks about civil discussion and the like, he can now nit-pick, throw out cherry-picked counter examples, argue over word choices, casually repeat denialist memes, and generally posture and enjoy the superficial connection to a “real scientist”.

Dr. Meier finds the denialist welcome depicted in this stock photo used at WUWT contains a surprise.

This goes on for about 7300 words. Two points from his “conclusions” bear comment:

1. Reading Dr. Meier’s answers to the questions has been very interesting and very productive for me. It has helped to identify where the discussion goes off the rails. [Implying that it’s Dr. Meier that :”goes off the rails”, not Willis. The departure is in Willis’ head, refusal to accept basic science is why the denialists fail to understand the evidence of Global Warming.]

7. Since the null hypothesis that the climate variations are natural has not been falsified, the AGW hypothesis is still a solution in search of a problem. [This chance to make this unsupported claim is the entire point of Willis’ extended debating exercise. In fact, no scientifically honest climate models can’t match historical climate trends without human factors.]

It feels like Anthony and his associates are chasing their own tails in ever-tightening circles.