A UHI Tale of Two Cities

Posted on by
1

“A UHI Tale of Two Cities“. Anthony Watts, the “old faithful” of thermometer-haters, spouts again. We get a lovely tour of Anthony’s weather station photo album and a few wiggly charts, such as this one:

Temperatures (apparently) from two different places!

Anthony (and fellow obsessive Steven Goddard) talk about what’s happened in Fort Collins but they have nothing to say about their “comparable” station in Boulder. Still, they’re comfortable concluding:

We have two weather stations in similarly sited urban environments. Until 1965 they tracked each other very closely.  Since then, Fort Collins has seen a relative increase in temperature which tracks the relative increase in population. UHI is clearly not dead.

Real conclusion: Temperatures from two different places will be different. So what? UHI is not the only explanation of that variation unless it is the only one you allow yourself to consider. Regardless, the effect of UHI in the temperature records used for climatological research has been proven to be completely irrelevant.

Big G panics

Posted on by
Reply

“Big G panics“. Harold Ambler makes an “if wishes were fishes” analogy between the biblical Goliath and the “higher-ups of the AGW movement”. The “higher ups” are the conspiracists who have risen to Imperial Wizard rank, I guess. (Or are they Grand Marshals? I’m so bad with org charts.)

Harold tosses in sullen assertions about how skeptic scientists “maintain their intellectual freedom at significant risk” and face “ad hominem attacks of the most vicious variety”. I would suggest that he’s actually describing the literal treatment that Dr. Phil Jones has received and that denialist scientists get a free ride. They can play the “teach the controversy” card and can rely on libertarian cranks like Glenn Beck or Senator Inhofe to spin and accuse on their behalf.

I suppose an Old Testament analogy plays well with his audience.

The global economy carbon yin yang

Posted on by
Reply

“The global economy carbon yin yang“. Anthony Watts tells us that it’s all China’s fault, which suggests that the USA doesn’t have to do anything. Anthony strangely doesn’t mention that industrial CO2 emissions only account for about 15% of the total.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, “A new study by scientists at the Carnegie Institution finds that over a third of carbon dioxide emissions associated with consumption of goods and services in many developed countries are actually emitted outside their borders.”

The manufacturing exports of China certainly contribute substantially to global industrial carbon emissions. But that’s the purpose of the various carbon taxes, Cap and Trade, etc. Make the carbon emissions directly impact the cost of goods and encourage industries to adapt!

Paleo-clamatology

Posted on by
1

“Paleo-clamatology“. Anthony Watts disparages scientific studies until he finds one that suits him. Incomplete data, cherry-picking, needs confirmation, wait for new data, they “don’t share”, whatever he can come up with to brush  inconvenient research aside. But if he likes the conclusion the paper is immediately the Holy Grail.

In the case of this report from Nature about oxygen-18 isotopes in molluscs as paleoclimate indicators, Anthony thinks it will “surely stick in the craw of many who think we are living in unprecedented times of warmth“. He also ‘cautiously’ declares “the data resolution is incredible.” Good skepticism there, Anthony.

Now this kind of data is very interesting. It will be exciting to watch the study’s reception by knowledgeable scientists and how it develops under further scrutiny and deeper analysis. I hope to hear a lot more about it.

But a few things stick out in the context of Anthony’s praise: First, the data is from a single Icelandic bay. Not a global signal. Second, the author says “What we’re getting to here is palaeoweather.” Weather ain’t climate, right Anthony? Third, the presented data stops at 1600 AD, well before reliable direct temperature measurements were available or the onset of what some people call Global Warming.

Clams in Iceland whisper to Anthony that there is no Global Warming. Well, in one bay in Iceland anyway. Psst. See that downward trend on the end? It's 400 years ago. Click to enbiggen.

I bet Dr. William Patterson is about to find he has some creepy new friends that will be hard to shake.

Spencer: Global Urban Heat Island Effect Study – An Update

Posted on by
6

“Spencer: Global Urban Heat Island Effect Study – An Update“. More tortured charts and explanations from Dr. Roy Spencer, merely producing a deeper hole. When he said “I don’t know the reason for this, but I suspect that a little thought from Anthony Watts, Joe D’Aleo & others will help figure it out.“, well… I realized that even by Anthony’s standards I’d wasted five minutes of my life.

Yes, Dr. Spencer’s charts have lines on them. What is lacking is an objective basis for the station pairings he has settled on. Or a cogent theory explaining them.

Dr. Spencer, you have jumped the shark.

IPCC announces “independent” review

Posted on by
1

“IPCC announces “independent” review“. Surprise, surprise: Anthony Watts is treating this as simultaneously proof that the “mainstream” is going to whitewash all the errors (two? three? five?) in AR4 and that the repeatedly declared sea-change in public opinion against the corrupt climatologists is underway.

Because this news wasn’t instantly displayed on the IPCC’s home page, Anthony knows that the IPCC is trying to slip something by the public. Read the IPCC PDF here.

When the IPCC disappeared the Medieval Warm Period

Posted on by
2

“When the IPCC disappeared the Medieval Warm Period” Frank Lansner offers a limp implication of conspiracy theories against the IPCC. Anthony Watts thinks it’s good stuff. Frank’s own website is “Hide the Decline”, so you can see the debunked starting point that he’s coming from…

Where's the warm spot Frank? 1000 - 1400 can be colder or warmer even among your "selected" data sets. How is this IPCC manipulation?

It’s funny that we have to keep saying this, but the “IPCC” doesn’t do any climate research, they gather independent scientific conclusions and amalgamate them. The whole point of each revision of the IPCC reports is to merge new evidence and better understanding of existing evidence.

But Frank thinks that accusing the IPCC of differences between reports(!!!) is the same thing as proving manipulation. I think Frank would have better luck with his position if he stopped hunting for charts that he can spin to suit his bias and focussed on what actually drove the updates. You know, things like when new data was available or if a more correct interpretation of old data was found or perhaps the introduction of an improved error correction. But as nothing remotely like this is apparent in his post, we must assume that he’s incapable of doing it.

Himalayan Hijinks

Posted on by
Reply

“Himalayan Hijinks“. Hijinks is right. Willis Eschenbach grabs some numbers from the rural Mukteshwar Ku surface station in the Himalayas and launches into the kind of rant about “data quality” that Anthony Watts loves. Naturally he manages to select some temperature readings that prove that there has been no warming.

Although Willis demonstrates that he is ignorant of the station history, he’s quite willing to charge that the Mukteshwar Ku temperature records have been badly adjusted. This kind of ill-defined random nit-picking accusation seems to serve as a comfort mechanism for denialists who feel their adrenaline levels are dropping too low.

The grudging money quote? “Does this invalidate the GISS global temperature record? No.”

Wrong way econometricians

Posted on by
1

“Wrong way econometricians“. Anthony Watts is happy to draw attention to a Dutch denialist “science writer” finding fault with a report from last Fall by two Dutch econometricians predicting 4°C warming by 2050. They conclude that aerosols have masked some of the warming produced by greenhouse gases and that this blocking effect will decline. But they used a CRU data set that isn’t optimized for detecting man-made climate change! What noobs! Even Ross McKitrick can take them down! Climatologists are such liars.

Wait a minute, they’re not climatologists, they’re econometricians. Anthony loves economists (as long as they bring the proper right-wing bias like Indur M. Golkany).

Wait a minute, their prediction of 4°C warming by 2050 is in line with other published predictions. Here’s a Washington Post article from last year for instance.

Wait a minute, they’re not trying to detect man-made climate change, they’re extrapolating from existing trends.

Quiet day, huh Anthony?

Former Apartheid Spy Appointed to Head UN Climate Change Effort

Posted on by
Reply

“Former Apartheid Spy Appointed to Head UN Climate Change Effort“. Charles “the Moderator” doesn’t like the political background of Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the South African politician who is a candidate for head the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, so he links to a right-wing pundit’s blog about it.

Marthinus van Schalkwyk, UNFCC candidate and former South African Minister for Environmental Affairs & Tourism.

I have no opinion on the Mr. van Schalkwyk or the reasoning for his nomination, but I’d have thought that the Denialists would be smart enough to hold their fire until after the election and complain about whoever is actually chosen. Criticizing now just dilutes their “anger”…