Response to Dr. Meier’s answer #9 – coin flips in the context of climate modeling

Posted on by
Reply

“Response to Dr. Meier’s answer #9 – coin flips in the context of climate modeling“. Steven Goddard finds fault with Dr. Walt Meier’s example of coin flipping as an analogy for long-term prediction.

We know that weather models are very accurate for about three days, and then quickly break down due to chaos. There is little reason to believe that climate models will do any better through successive iterations.

His proof? Some seasonal weather predictions that weren’t as accurate as he thinks they should be. Nice try. Steven still feels smugly comfortable concluding thus:

I don’t see much theoretical or empirical evidence that climate models produce meaningful information about the climate in 100 years.

Maybe Steven should open his eyes a bit more. Skeptical Science talks about the success of climate models a bit here.

Lindzen: “Earth is never in equilibrium”

Posted on by
8

"Whenever I see that smiling face, I have to smile myself"

Lindzen: “Earth is never in equilibrium”. Denialist favorite Dr. Richard Lindzen has published an opinion piece in Fredericksburg, Va’s renowned Free Lance-Star and Anthony Watts wants you to know about it! I guess this is a close as it gets to peer-reviewed denialist science.

Here’s some samples of the Professor’s argument.

“we experience temperature changes of tens of degrees in a single day”. We shouldn’t worry about a permanent 2° rise I guess.

“no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years”. I guess Lindzen hasn’t got the bulletin on that boner yet…

“The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear.” and “It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities.” Ah, Gore Derangement Syndrome and conspiracy theories! Always good for a chuckle.

There’s similar misrepresentative bunk scattered throughout. He finishes with a sneer:

Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.

An error in the pole hole assumption

Posted on by
Reply

“An error in the pole hole assumption“. Even Steven Goddard chokes when the lunatic right-wing web site “The American Thinker”, which presumably he finds otherwise agreeable, tries to add to their roster of birther/muslim conspiracy theories by claiming that the decline in the Arctic sea ice extent has (naturally through a “trick”) been deliberately overstated.

Yes, the satellites for reasons of orbital mechanics can’t overfly the real north and south poles. No, that doesn’t mean that there are large stretches of open water concealed from our view at the north pole in the dead of winter.

Classic “Tea Party” mentality, which is so, so close to the denialist mentality.

  1. Choose desired conclusion (government is evil/earth not warming).
  2. Find something that you think might support your desired conclusion.
  3. Cling to it in spite of all contrary evidence and logic.

NSIDC’s Walt Meier responds to Willis

Posted on by
2

“NSIDC’s Walt Meier responds to Willis“. Dr. Meier takes up Willis Eschenbach’s challenge and responds to the self-serving “questionnaire” about climate with a rational discussion.

From the sound of minds clanging shut in the comments, I don’t think Anthony’s readers are buying it.

Nice try,Walt…

Climate change and “The Birds”

Posted on by
Reply

Climate change and “The Birds”. Anthony Watts mocks the Canadian Wildlife Service for reporting erratic bird behaviors in the Arctic. Apparently “only MSNBC could be relied upon to report such scary science news”. MSNBC link here. Sober reportage about Obama’s crypto-muslim background comes, of course, from Fox.

Not sure what drew out this latest juvenilia, other than resentment of MSNBC. Whatever.

Cryo-sat launch successful

Posted on by
2

“Cryo-sat launch successful“. Anthony Watts posts a press release from the European Space Agency about the launch of CryoSat-2, a satellite that will be monitoring polar sea ice thickness.

Whoosh! Beep... Beep...

Anthony’s readers will now presumably discount all sea ice reports and predictions until this satellite has gathered, say, ten year’s worth of new data…

Arctic Sea Ice Reports: who to believe?

Posted on by
3

“Arctic Sea Ice Reports: who to believe?” Anthony Watts implies deception about Arctic sea ice extent because different organizations (the EU’s “Arctic ROOS” and The National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado), using different comparison periods and different methodologies, have slightly different ice extent graphs.

Anthony actually discusses the differences between two methods of calculation, which you’d think would be a starting point for realising that they’re different. But he prefers to lazily imply ulterior motives with statements such as this: “Of course we know that NSIDC director Mark Serreze is very active with the press.”

You know that when Steven Goddard comes in to offer expert commentary the argument is profoundly flawed but he pops up here to declare that the chart below, to which I have added a 27-year  trend line, is good news for denialists! Go to the NSIDC link and compare the maps of the >2 yr. sea ice extent, shown as green pixels, for Sept. 2009 and Mar. 2010 and tell me what you think of Steven’s claim…

Ignore the 27-year trend, look at that blip in 2009!

Anthony finishes by trying to turn around criticism of his own earlier statements:

Don’t be fooled though. “Decreasing ice is climate. Increasing ice is weather.”

Anthony’s the one who tried to use a short-term increase in sea ice as a global warming disproof. Nothing that happens over a day, a month, a year, even a few years is “climate”, the denialists are the only ones who try to claim otherwise.

“It really shows what’s been going on in the Arctic – it’s falling apart.”

Posted on by
14

“It really shows what’s been going on in the Arctic – it’s falling apart.” Anthony Watts tells the kids to get off his lawn, and no they can’t have their baseball back. I’m not sure why Anthony has such a bug about people going to the Arctic and reporting on what they see, but it does seem to make him grouchy.

Stupid 15 year-olds! Photo provided by GE and Scott Draper

15 year-old Parker Liautaud is skiing to the North Pole and naturally tweeting and blogging about it en-route. Somehow this disgusts Anthony. He has reposted Tom Nelson’s blog posting “Another warmist in the Arctic: GE sponsors 15-year-old to promote climate hoax“.

It’s full of snide remarks such as this:

Of course, anybody can go to the North Pole, and blog about it, by paying a tour guide like this one that is with the 15 year old right now.

Anthony Watts and Tom Nelson need to grow up.

Conservamentalism

Posted on by
Reply

“Conservamentalism“. Anthony Watts thinks that Willis Eschenbach dime-store ethics demonstrates a commendably virile approach to the environment.

It is not often that I turn a comment into a complete post, but this comment from Willis Eschenbach on the Trust and Mistrust article today, merits such a promotion. – Anthony

It seems Willis caught some flak in the comments from the “Tea Party” battalion for daring to express some “environmental” perspectives. How un-American.

Willis is quick to reassure every one of his manly credentials and propose a suitably red-blooded name for is perspective. No namby-pamby crying over sea pups for him. Kill what you eat, and eat your kill! He just wants to use resources efficiently.

Does Conservamentalism combine conservative with fundamentalism? No, conservation and environmentalism.

Faint young sun paradox explained by Stanford – greenhouse effect not involved

Posted on by
Reply

“Faint young sun paradox explained by Stanford – greenhouse effect not involved“. Anthony Watts wants us to know the two billion years ago, the Greenhouse effect was not responsible for keeping the Earth warm in spite of the Sun’s lower energy output. Therefore, Global Warming is a scam.

This is actually a Stanford University press release about a study of ancient banded iron formations (which are fascinating sediments). Apparently a “vast ocean” managed to absorb and retain enough heat to stay liquid.

As always, Anthony the ‘critical thinker’ jumps straight in because it can be spun towards denialist beliefs. I’m not so sure that I accept this yet, but it’s interesting science. Were the early oceans really that much larger than present?