Search This Blog

Loading...

Saturday, October 25, 2014

A reality check of temperature for Wondering Willis Eschenbach

Sou | 10:21 PM 23 Comments - leave a comment

Addendum - see below for Reality Checks 3 and 4



Wondering Willis Eschenbach has an article at WUWT today (archived here, latest here). It's a lazy article. One of those silly articles claiming that the global surface temperature datasets aren't as reliable as the tropospheric temperature sets. Willis thanks the UAH duo for providing a reality check. He finished his article with this acknowledgement:
Finally, acknowledgement is due to the originators of the method of satellite temperature measurements, Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christie. It is thanks to them that we have a satellite-based atmospheric temperature record to act as a reality check for the oft-adjusted surface temperature record. Very well done, gentlemen.

This article is to provide Willis with not one but two reality checks.

Willis penned his article to feed Anthony Watts' readers some much needed doubt. The reason they need that doubt muchly at the moment is because this year is shaping up to be another hot one. Whether it'll turn out to be the hottest on record so far or not remains to be seen.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Sea level discussion

Sou | 12:14 PM 73 Comments - leave a comment

Graeme M (who also comments as Billy Bob) has asked if he could continue the discussion on sea level that began under the article about the new paper from Kurt Lambeck et al (2014). He wrote: "I'd really like to get to the bottom of why I am wrong in this one".

The discussion had shifted to the fact that the oceans are not flat, which is what Graeme M seems to be disputing. I'll start the ball rolling with some of my thoughts together with some of the basic science and observations (measurements).

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Captcha

Sou | 9:34 PM 15 Comments - leave a comment

Someone complained about Captcha changing and becoming more difficult to read. The reason I use it is to save work. I recently disabled it for a short time and got a huge amount of spam, more than I can cope with. And that was in only about four hours or so.

Thing is, I don't have any control over it. (I don't even see it.) Just the same, I'd be glad for some feedback. Let me know if it's worse than normal and I'll send a message to Google on the slight chance they'll read it and do something about the situation.

(If you're on the main page, click "read more" to send feedback.)

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

On Antarctic ice: The ongoing ignorance of deniers at WUWT

Sou | 4:55 PM 33 Comments - leave a comment

Some people will put down the disinformation spread by Anthony Watts to him being plain dumb and ignorant. Others will say that he's not really as dumb as he looks and sounds, he's just deceitful and has made a business out of conning the ignorant.

I don't know where on the idiot-liar scale Anthony Watts lies.



These past couple of days Anthony Watts has:

Now he's claiming (archived here) that John Cook at SkepticalScience.com said that Antarctic sea ice is the result of the Southern Ocean getting warmer. He even linked to the web page where John Cook gave the following reasons for the increase in Antarctic sea ice:
  1. the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica, resulting in stronger winds, which creates polynas, which freeze up and add to sea ice.
  2. a change in ocean circulation with top layer of the ocean being colder and fresher, which freezes more easily than more saline water at the same temperature. It's colder at the top because of more snow and rain as a result of warmer air temperatures.

Another blooper by Anthony Watts, on his supposed specialty - surface temperatures

Sou | 2:24 AM 6 Comments - leave a comment

Anthony Watts is throwing caution to the wind. He is so over that little dinner he had with scientists the other week. That's done and dusted. Today he's forgotten it even took place. He's put firmly behind him any notion of presenting science, let alone "presenting science together".

Anthony's just failed ocean chemistry, now he's failed surface temperature 101 (archived here). Anthony took a shot at Andrew Freedman for this tweet:

Anthony claims:
Gosh, “giant conspiracy”.
Um, Andrew, they all use the same base surface data. The Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) from NOAA’s NCDC. 

Except they don't all use exactly the same data. And what data they do share, they process independently.


Anthony Watts (and others) fail ocean chemistry - woefully!

Sou | 12:59 AM 17 Comments - leave a comment

I noticed Anthony Watts retweeted something the other day and wondered if he'd be dumb enough to copy and paste it at WUWT.

He is and he did.

Anthony loudly proclaims his ignorance of basic physics and chemistry, with the headline:

New paper debunks ‘ocean acidification’ scare, finds warming increases pH

He copied his article (archived here) from another denier blog that often makes scientific bloopers, the Hockeyschtick.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Denier Weirdness: "Why don't reporters get their science from the flat earth society?" wails WUWT!

Sou | 4:23 PM 1 Comment so far

The denialists at WUWT are up in arms that no serious environmental news reporter will go to science deniers and the flat earth society for their science stories (archived here). The WUWT commenters agree: "it's a conspiracy" they all cry out as one paranoid voice.

Anthony Watts posted this video Q&A with two science journalists and a documentary producer.



The panel of three was (left to right) Seth Borenstein of The Associated Press, Craig Welch of the Seattle Times, and documentary producer Steve Sapienza.

Anthony Watts highlighted a snippet at 45:35, where he misquoted Craig Welch, who actually said:
"Nobody in my newsroom quotes people who don't believe climate change is real, that I know of.  And if I find out about it, I will go talk to them myself. But I also work in a newsroom where my managing editor used to be an environmental reporter, so there's never been ... I mean he understands what we're doing so..."

Anthony added the word "who" between "newsroom" and "quotes", which messed up the meaning a bit and confused his readers, not one of whom was capable of listening to the spoken words (at the time of writing this).

Monday, October 20, 2014

How WUWT missed the memo about the IPCC WG2 report

Sou | 2:10 AM 6 Comments - leave a comment

I suppose it's because deniers don't like the UK Guardian and don't follow the right people on Twitter. Whatever the reason, Anthony Watts at WUWT missed the memo.

Today he's got an article (archived here) about how the Final Report of the IPCC AR5 WG2 is now out. Someone noticed how some changes, which were inserted into the Final Draft without advising expert reviewers, have been dropped.

Bob Ward wrote about this at the Guardian the other day. By his account, it was Richard Tol's chapter where some words were added into the Final Draft after the last but final went to reviewers. So nobody saw them until the Final Draft was released. The changes that were made were reverted, once it was acknowledged by all that they were in error.

If you are still confused, go and read what Bob Ward has to say about it. It's been discussed publicly ever since the final draft came out. I'm surprised that WUWT didn't know about this.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

The insanity of denialists at WUWT: On the impact of natural gas on global warming

Sou | 6:57 PM 32 Comments - leave a comment

I couldn't pass up some gems of denialist thinking I came across today. It was in response to a new WUWT article, about a paper in Nature. The paranoia runs deep at WUWT.

The paper itself is the result of a study looking to see if abundant natural gas substituting for coal would help mitigate CO2 emissions. The answer was "probably not". Another article in Nature News and Views, which was describing the research, gave three main reasons. From ScienceDaily.com:
  • Replacing low-carbon sources: Natural gas replacing coal would reduce carbon emissions. But due to its lower cost, natural gas would also replace some low-carbon energy, such as renewable or nuclear energy. Overall changes result in a smaller reduction than expected due to natural gas replacing these other, low-carbon sources. In a sense, natural gas would become a larger slice of the energy pie.
  • More total energy used: Abundant, less expensive natural gas would lower energy prices across the board, leading people to use more energy overall. In addition, inexpensive energy stimulates the economy, which also increases overall energy use. Consequently, the entire energy pie gets bigger.
  • Methane escape from production and distribution: The main component of natural gas, methane, is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. During production and distribution, some methane inevitably escapes into the atmosphere. The researchers considered both high and low estimates for this so-called fugitive methane. Even at the lower end, fugitive methane adds to climate change.

Speaking of "natural", naturally, the WUWT article only provided one of the three reasons - that of the lower energy prices leading to more energy being used overall (archived here). Once again, the article was by Eric Worrall - about the only person left (I mean, remaining) who is providing denialist fodder for Anthony Watts' blog these days.

The Red Cross World Disasters Report that you won't find at WUWT

Sou | 4:14 PM 1 Comment so far

The Red Cross has released this year's edition of its annual publication, The World Disasters Report 2014. This year the focus is on culture and risk.

Table 10 of the report shows that in the past ten years, almost two million people have been affected by all disasters (technological and natural), with more than 95% of these people being affected by "climato-, hydro- and meteorological disasters". Of the people reported killed in disasters in the past decade (Table 6):
  • 329,000 (31%) died as a result of climato-, hydro- and meteorological disasters
  • 651,000 (61%) died as a result of earthquakes and tsunamis
  • 80,000 (8%) died as a result of technological disasters (eg industrial and transport accidents).