Sat tracking of ultraviolet light shows increase since 1979

Posted on by
Reply

“Sat tracking of ultraviolet light shows increase since 1979“. Another news release copy-and-paste from Anthony Watts, this time from NASA. You can read the abstract here at the Journal of Geophysical Research. I think he’s trying to “pad out” the denialist bunk with random “science”. Seeing these kinds of posts always makes me stop and wonder “what’s his angle?”

UV increase was greater at higher latitudes but leveled off in 1998. Unlike global warming.

Maybe Anthony thinks this information feeds into the “it’s natural!” solar theory of global warming, but the identified cause is decreased levels of UV-blocking stratospheric ozone. And it is not tracking the global temperature trends either:

After 1998, midlatitude annual average ozone amounts and UV irradiance levels have been approximately constant. Herman, J. R. (2010), Global increase in UV irradiance during the past 30 years (1979–2008) estimated from satellite data, J. Geophys. Res., 115

Another Look at Climate Sensitivity

Posted on by
3

“Another Look at Climate Sensitivity“. Willis Eschenbach, citizen-scientist, thinks that the “equilibrium value of the climate sensitivity [of CO2] (as defined by the IPCC) is certain to be smaller” than that agreed upon by experts in atmosphere physics.

Willis starts his pondering with a figure from an out-dated 1997 paper by Kiehl & Trenberth. Trenberth ‘famously’ said recently that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” (actually referring to the Earth’s energy inputs), but Willis thinks its good enough for noodling around and conclusively proving everyone wrong.

Willis' variation on Kiehl & Trenberth's figure.

Based on his imagining the Earth as a “blackbody” (aka “black body” in scientific literature), Willis calculates a natural warming effect of our atmosphere as 8°C. Wait, make that 20°C! Wait, make it 18°C! (There’s always a lot of revision based on comments in anything Willis posts.) Wikipedia tells us that the Earth’s average temperature of 14°C would be about -19°C without our atmosphere, a 35°C difference, but Willis knows better.

His conclusion? Somehow much less than 0.5°C, not to 2°C to 4.5°C for a CO2 doubling used by conventional scientists. Go to the post and let me know if you can figure out his reasoning.

Late in the comments, Willis lets this slip (italics mine):

CO2 is the only thing in the models that provides a mechanism for gradual modeled warming. Since the models are tuned to the past, if the temperature rise is overestimated, the effect of CO2 needs to be larger to mimic the temperature rise. This is true no matter the size of the UHI effect.

So I guess his theory is that climatologists are intentionally (and secretly) over-estimating the climate sensitivity of CO2 to make their evil climate models look scary. Good luck with that.

Rewriting the decline

Posted on by
3

“Rewriting the decline“. Anthony Watts’ friends have been down in their basement and found a 1976 issue of National Geographic with a temperature history chart of North America that looks different from current global temperature histories! Could there really be a decline in temperatures since the 1960’s that evil climatologists have tried to hide from us?

After admitting that “the global records are not available to check, it’s impossible to know how accurate or not this graph is” they proceed to make the usual speculations and accusations ( including the suitably Orwellian “history has been rewritten”) based largely on a digital photo of a squished magazine illustration. (The version I post here includes more of the original figure than the denialists revealed.)

Art illustrations as scientific evidence. Note: chart in the lower left, excluded from the discussion, is apparently NOT evidence.

The j’accuse comes pretty quick: “the data had been adjusted (surprise)“, backed by this supporting evidence:

But, as usual, the adjustments were in favor of the Big Scare Campaign, and the reasons and the original data are not easy to find.

So in other words, they have no idea why the modern, global, chart differs.

Anthony compounds this ignorance as usual by failing to understand the term “accuracy”, but he really got my attention with his sudden conversion to dendrochronology.

Many tree rings showed a decline after 1960 that didn’t “concur” with the surface records. Perhaps these tree rings agree with the surface records as recorded at the time, rather than as adjusted post hoc?  Perhaps the decline in the tree rings that Phil Jones worked to hide was not so much a divergence from reality, but instead was slightly more real than the surface-UHI-cherry-picked-and-poorly-sited records??

Anthony, do you really think that the temperature records were maliciously altered around the world to suit an implied political agenda? And that now we should trust the innocent, uncorrupted, tree rings?

Stanford: Urban CO2 domes mean more death

Posted on by
4

“Stanford: Urban CO2 domes mean more death“. Anthony Watts reprints a Stanford University press release about the local health effects of CO2 concentrations in cities (actual abstract here). Could this justify his fixation with urban/rural temperature variation? Nope.

Maybe this is just a random poke at “alarmist” conclusions.

Spencer: Direct Evidence that Most U.S. Warming Since 1973 Could Be Spurious

Posted on by
4

“Spencer: Direct Evidence that Most U.S. Warming Since 1973 Could Be Spurious“. Dr. Roy Spencer is like the Energizer Bunny on his sudden area of expertise, Urban Heat Islands. He just keeps going and going and going, and Anthony Watts just keeps printing it and printing it and printing it. A perfect symbiosis.

Dr. Spencer does finally admit that his analysis “is meant more for stimulating thought and discussion, and does not equal a peer-reviewed paper.” Let’s just say that the “could” in his report title leaves a lot of wiggle room, especially in light of his final words: “Caveat emptor.”

I particularly enjoyed this bit of ‘hard science’:

There is a clear need for new, independent analyses of the global temperature data…the raw data, that is. As I have mentioned before, we need independent groups doing new and independent global temperature analyses — not international committees of Nobel laureates passing down opinions on tablets of stone.

He manages to call for delaying action, imply that the data has been tampered with, and cast wild accusations against science in just two sentences! Someone’s wound a bit tight.

Indianapolis wind power contract canceled

Posted on by
1

“Indianapolis wind power contract canceled“. So what, Anthony? Does he want readers to think that alternative energy projects are being abandoned because there is no global warming? Each project has its own costs and benefits and should be judged on that basis.

Response to Ravetz and post-normal science

Posted on by
2

“Response to Ravetz and post-normal science“. Professor Jerome Ravetz’s ‘post-normal science’ posts on Anthony Watts’ blog have elicited another obtuse response, this time from professor Jaap Hanekamp (advisor to several denialist/libertarian entities such as Heidelberg Appeal Nederland and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow).

His conclusions (I think)? Politics restrict the areas of study, CO2‘s role as the primary cause of climate change is a political simplification, the push for regulation of CO2 is “undemocratic” repression, deception is practiced and justified by climatologists because of the perceived environmental risks, the scientific “majority” are hindering relevant theories, the worldview of climatologists is distorting their science, climatologists are arrogant.

Dr. Hanekamp flash of insight is this:

theories should be accepted only in the light of considerations that involve transparent and reproducible empirical data, other (accepted) theories, and cognitive epistemic values such as consistency, simplicity, transparency, and descriptive, explicatory and predictive power. Worldview (political and ideological) considerations, but also appeals to authority, consequences, force, and popularity – to name some of the argumentation fallacies – are illegitimate ways of deciding between theories.

Welcome to “Science” Jaap! This is how it is already done. The problem we face is denialist resistance to climatology because they find the implications politically unacceptable. Your 5,200 word departure from reality is a collection of accusations and mischaracterizations that end in a demand for current scientific practices to continue!

Dr. Hanekamp does have some useful admissions to make though (Anthony Watts take note):

Bloggers have a similar obligation as scientific experts, at least if they want to enter or be part of the debate with the focus on scientific content instead of rhetorical contentment.

Corned grief: biofuels may increase CO2

Posted on by
Reply

“Corned grief: biofuels may increase CO2“. Well here’s something that I agree with Anthony Watts on! The American biofuel industry is to my eye more of an agricultural subsidy for corporations with large biomass resources that a real energy strategy. For me, the best case is partial replacement of hydrocarbon fuels, but at a high production cost. It is however something politicians of both stripes are happy to play along with as they can pass on benefits to their corporate supporters.

Anthony assigns this to the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t department”. So I guess he’s treating this as another bullet-point for the denialist tactic of that didn’t work, so we should stop trying.

If this report in BioScience is true, maize-derived ethanol may produce more CO2 than simply burning hydrocarbons! This estimate is largely due to land-use changes. There are possible technological breakthroughs that may make this economical, but the real numbers just aren’t there yet.

McIntyre accused by University of Queensland Prof of CRU break in

Posted on by
2

“McIntyre accused by University of Queensland Prof of CRU break in“. Anthony Watt’s favorite Aussie crank ‘journalist’ Andrew Bolt tries to throw the “smear” accusation back at political scientist John Quiggin, who dares to complain that “Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the fact that they are ethically constrained to be honest, whereas their opponents lie without any compunction.”

Prof. Quiggin accuses Steven McIntyre of orchestrating the Climategate leak. Where’s the evidence, cries Andrew Bolt. Anthony joins in with some practical ethics – “Somebody needs to educate Quiggin on the CRU ftp security blunder that was “the mole”. Anthony, even if your description of the ‘method of acquisition’ is correct it is still theft to take a wallet from an unlocked car.

Guess which photo Anthony chose to depict the despised Prof. Quiggin?

Ever-helpful Anthony concludes by pointing his readers to Prof. John Quiggin’s contact information to aid their harassment.

Academics fight back on climate issues

Posted on by
6

“Academics fight back on climate issues“. Hoping it sticks in his reader’s throats, Anthony Watts copies and pastes a statement from mainstream academics calling for “credible science, rather than invented hyperbole”.

Guess what? His readers are enraged at the thought… Cue the flooding of in-boxes and harassment of administrative assistants.