Getting ready for more global warming: Heathrow airport triples snow clearance fleet

Getting ready for more global warming: Heathrow airport triples snow clearance fleet (2011-09-29). Anthony Watts drags out the hoary old “Snow! Somewhere!” post, this time trying to suggest that “snowier” weather in Britain means “colder” weather everywhere. Thus disproving Global Warming. Again. After-all the BBC tells us so!

Don’t believe the lyin’ BBC when they also report that “the average [UK] first flowering date has been earlier in the last 25 years than in any other period” or that “UK plants are flowering for a second time this year because of the unseasonably warm weather.”

I’m commenting this time because these kinds of posts are like an idiot’s meaningless drool and Anthony is just… so… dribbly.

Forget that regional weather is not an indicator of global climate. Forget that even the regional trend is actually a warming one. Forget that global warming is leading to higher atmospheric moisture levels and that warmer winter air is what produces snow. Forget that Heathrow airport might be investing in snow-removal equipment for business reasons unrelated to climate. Hell, forget that weather is not climate! (That’s kind of mandatory in Anthony’s bizzaro world.)

Just bob your head along to Anthony’s tuneless melody.

In the comments we see that the presence of winter boots in UK shops is proof that Global Warming isn’t happening, as well as wide agreement that the UK Met Office, like all government agencies, is corrupt and incompetent. I also love the always-pompous Smokey’s confusion over the failure of the UK December trend to match the global December trend. Clearly someone hasn’t faked the data carefully enough.

Government Funding of the National Weather Service: A Response to Our Critics

Government Funding of the National Weather Service: A Response to Our Critics” (2011-08-30). Anthony Watts accidentally admits that he’s part of the Competitive Enterprise Institute team. Or he’s such a sloppy blogger that he can’t even title his posts intelligibly.

Seems the CEI is sticking to their guns about the idealogical necessity of dissolving the National Weather Service if we are to trust Anthony’s copy-and-paste. Here’s the short version of the sputtering defense of their Pavlovian recent attack: All government services are bad because any collective effort makes individuals dependent! Except, not. Collective effort, whether it is weather services or armies, magnifies the contributions of individuals. Also, selling the NWS would give the government a one-time cash bump!

Such doctrinaire thinking, such short-sighted avarice.

I know, I know. Every libertarian is Chuck Norris and Charlton Heston rolled in to one. They fashion roads with their bare hands as they walk through virgin forest and can remove their own appendix without anesthetic. And, by God, no one will tell them what the weather’s going to be!

Hmmm. I wonder why the Competitive Enterprise Institute isn’t all over privatizing the US Military? No there’s an area with real impact on government costs. Maybe it doesn’t suit their prejudices though.

CEI misses the boat on the need for the National Weather Service

CEI misses the boat on the need for the National Weather Service” (2011-08-28). This doesn’t happen too often! Anthony’s pal Ryan Maue has to inch away from the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s lobbyists who choose to declare (during Hurricane Irene!) that the National Weather Service is merely a political tool and just another example of government waste.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) picks an odd time and a curious target for their latest missive pondering whether We Really Need a National Weather Service? Most of their arguments are not particularly persuasive and are easily dismissed by bringing a few background facts to the discussion.  While it’s undeniable that the Obama administration has used the National Weather Service and “satellite funding” for political purposes, questioning the continued need for the NWS stretches the imagination.

Fear not though, Ryan quickly adds that “The National Weather Service like ALL government agencies have bloated pensions and health benefits that require an ever increasing budget.” He’s a good gubmint-hater.

The comments seem to fall into three categories: all government spending is bad no matter what, maybe the NWS is barely acceptable, and Piers Corbyn can do it better.

The surfacestations.org paper – accepted

The surfacestations.org paper – accepted. (May 8, 2011)  Holy moly, Anthony Watts are a scientist! Well, “Corresponding Author” Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is a scientist. Anthony announces that Roger and he will have a paper in an upcoming American Geophysical Union publication. I guess the AGU forgot Al Gore’s instructions about maintaining “the consensus.”

Anthony’s even managed to avoid the taint of public funding by getting fellow citizen-scientists (aka blog readers) to cover the page charges. Anthony and Roger have used the color crayons for this one and that’s expensive.

I have to shake my head at the hate-on Anthony has for government grants and the real scientific community. Of course he’s still on the watch for double-crossin’ warmist sneaks:

If you are wondering why I blurred the [DOI] number, it is simply that given what has transpired, with preemptive strikes by NCDC, and the recent BEST ambush before Congress, I’m simply being cautious.

Gosh, I thought it was hard to get papers confirming previous analyses published these days. Another myth demolished.

Will this paper be laced with accusations and faulty logic like his Science and Public Policy Institute pamphlets? Maybe it will just be, well, boring when he has to stay factual and reality-based.

Expect the denialosphere to kick into high gear over this regardless. I’m looking forward to it.

Zeroed out: NOAA Climate Service funding axed in budget CR

Zeroed out: NOAA Climate Service funding axed in budget CR. Anthony Watts and his readers gloat over successful Republican maneuvering to cut funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s new Climate Service. Funny, until they managed to grasp the levers of power the denialists chorus sang constantly of the need for more and better information. This of course required prolonged waiting.

Suddenly, ignorance is again bliss.

Next up, those communists at the EPA. How dare they tell us what’s safe? If we want lead in our drinking water and gasoline, or prefer to chew our air, we’ll do it! It’s how we raise new Republican voters.

Climate models go cold

Anthony illustrates Evans' science with cartoon of a CO2 molecule (or maybe deadmau5).

Climate models go cold. Hey, we’re golden! Anthony Watts assures us that “Carbon warming [is] too minor to be worth worrying about”! After-all, there’s a paranoid right-wing opinion piece by Australian crank David Evans in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper that proves it.

David Evans tells us that he’s “a scientist” (although not a climate scientist as he likes to imply) who used to be an “alarmist”. But he learned that the “whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s”? Wow! Did someone just hit the That Was Easy button?

Evans is mainly interested in muttering about political corruption, gravy trains and “the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome”. But here’s the core of Evans’ claim (note his inability to solve the equation 1 + 3 = x):

For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

So… if Evans can disprove the implied relative contributions to warming, which he has already got wrong, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down I guess. Evans sets to work. No tropospheric “hotspot”, as posited by climate science, was found in the upper atmosphere! [Except it was.] Evans says all that water vapor was turning into clouds that offset the warming. [Except it didn’t.] Those corrupt climate scientists never noticed the clouds, so they’re wrong! [Except clouds have always been part of climate modeling.]

With this very shaky underpinning, Evans proceeds to assure us that the reason climate scientists won’t admit their error now is because they want to keep their “well-paying jobs with lavish research grants” and are slavishly eager to offer “political power to their government masters.” Why, they “ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence” [nope], and they  are playing tricks with “the way they measure temperature” [a lame invocation of Anthony’s discredited science fair project], and they ignore the satellite record [you know, the ones they put up there].

Kind of confusing until you realise that this whole dissertation was made at an Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally, probably from Evan’s Perth, Australia front porch. The only science in his entire rant is Anthony’s addition of a Wikipedia CO2 molecule cartoon. There could be some nasty backlash over his inconvenient admission that CO2 has even a slight warming effect though…

2011-04-13 Update: Michael Tobis highlights Evans’ flim-flam at Only In It For The Gold.

Demented thinking: Copenhagen didn’t work – but taxes will

Demented thinking: Copenhagen didn’t work – but taxes will. Climate economist William Nordhaus says in the January 2011 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that carbon taxes are the best approach to achieve significant emissions reductions. Anthony Watts says “no way! Taxes are always bad!” and then posts the press release. Thus disproving Global Warming. Anthony’s readers supply the elaborate economic and political insights.

From the press release:

[William Nordhaus] says that it is necessary to raise the price of carbon to implement carbon policies so that they will have an impact on everyday human decisions, and on decision makers at every level in every nation and sector. At present, incentives and levels of involvement vary, and where some countries have implemented strong emission control measures, they only cover a limited part of national emissions. – Eureka Alert Press Release, Jan 5, 2011.

I really don’t know what the best political solution is for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but I’m willing to try anything that seems effective.

Funny, Anthony didn’t draw attention to this article from the same issue – Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Here’s the abstract:

The conversation on global warming started in 1896, when a physical chemist estimated that the mean global temperature would rise several degrees if the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was doubled. The topic eventually became one of the most passionate in the history of science. The author points out that climate experts were initially strongly skeptical of the theory of global warming; it took a variety of evidence to gradually convince them that warming due to human emissions was likely. The public, however, was guided away from this conclusion by a professional public relations effort, motivated by industrial and ideological concerns. Deniers of the scientific consensus avoided normal scientific discourse and resorted to ad hominem attacks that cast doubt on the entire scientific community—while disrupting the lives of some researchers. The author points out that scientists have failed to mount a concerted public relations campaign to defend their position. When trust is lost, he asserts, a determined effort is needed to restore it.