Wood Romances

IPCC 1990, Figure 7.1c is a Replica of the Lamb 1965, Figure 3a, "Analyst's Opinion" In the IPCC's First Assessment Report, published in 1990, three schematics were published that were labeled, "schematic diagrams of global temperature variations." The third (c) schematic was labeled, "the last thousand years" with a dashed line that "nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century." The graph is below. IPCC-FAR 1990, Figure 7.1c "Schematic diagram of temperature variations over the last thousand years. The dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century." I think it may be fair to say that the biggest mistake the IPCC has ever made was using the word "global" with reference to the (c) schematic, because that objectively is not the case. It was a replica of Hubert Lamb's reconstruction of Central England temperature (CET), where Central England is ...

Frequently I'm told that climate-related papers are fraudulent, usually because the person revaluating the paper is 1) predisposed to deny any data they don't like and/or 2) completely illiterate about what they're reading. In discussing these papers, I often find that wading through the details of the analysis can go so far over contrarians' heads that they don't even bother reading either the paper or my corrections to their claims about the paper. Brandolini's Law gets the win most of the time for two reasons: it takes an order of magnitude more time to refute nonsense than it does to create it, and those those who create the nonsense frequently lack the literacy to read the rebuttal (a point I make here ). Occasionally there's a congruence of two conditions that can allow rational discussion to proceed. In my experience, these are: 1) the paper can be replicated/evaluated with a spreadsheet (reducing the time commitment to evaluate the paper) and 2) the ...

Two new studies were recently published quantifying ice mass lost from the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) and the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AnIS)[1] and mountain glaciers.[2] The GrIS/AnIS study is important because it combines 43 independent estimates of ice mass changes, from satellite measurements to arrive at estimates of ice sheet mass balance changes from 1972 for the GrIS and 1979 for AnIS. Combines, the two ice sheets "lost 11,309 ± 565 billion tonnes of ice between 1979 and 2023, with glacier dynamical imbalance driving 84% of the ice loss and surface mass balance the remainder." This change in total mass balance (TMB) equates to 31.4 ± 1.6 mm (1.24 ± 0.06 in) contribution to sea level rise since 1979. Now 1.24 in may not seem like a lot, but we have to remember that this accounting does not account for contributions from ice loss from mountain glaciers or other freshwater contributions to sea level rise. It also does not account for thermal expansion of the oceans. Accountin...

A couple days ago, someone on social media shared with me one of their favorite crank theories about why the greenhouse effect isn't real using data from a couple planetary bodies. The person is not well-known, and who the person is doesn't really matter, so I'm not going to mention the name. I'm not so much interested in refuting this person here as I am in showing the thought processes that went into making the crank theory. It was a very good illustration of how crank theories come to be and how pseudoscience works. Here's a screenshot of the post: So this person (we'll call him/her "J") multiplied planetary outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) by the molar mass of the atmosphere (M) for Venus and Earth and came up with the same number. The thinking here is that because OLR · M came up with the identical value for two planets, the temperature of planets must depend on the molar mass of the atmosphere, not the greenhouse effect. Even before considering ...

It looks like Wielicki is now generating and/or promoting AI-generated memes that misrepresent climate science . I saw this from him on X earlier today  (an alternate version from him is  here ). AI-generated Meme from Wielicki Wielicki's meme misrepresents and/or fabricates multiple lines of evidence. Let's look look at each of these supposed lines of evidence to see if he's made his case that "Natural variability produced temperatures like these before, so we should expect it to contribute to temperatures like these again... regardless of CO₂." Temperature Stripes The climate stripes in Wielicki's meme is attributed to Büntgen et al 2020 [1]. This paper was explicitly not limited to Europe. It included extratropical NH temperatures with distinct treatments for Eurasia (EA) and Eurasia/North Atlantic (EA+), and even the EA reconstruction is significantly larger than Europe. The paper is intended both 1) to parse out the role of volcanic forcings during th...

A couple days ago I saw the following post on X from Dr. Matthew Wielicki , who has decided to double down on some terrible math that I (and many others) corrected over a year ago (see here  for his terrible math and rebuttal). Dr. Wielicki Attempts math The errors in this post are numerous. Let's summarize them: It's wrong to calculate the amount of warming by subtracting one annual value from another. Wielicki should calculate the rates of warming by calculating proper trends. His approach completely ignores the natural variability that he says matters in this post. The trends for the two time frames are below. The difference between the two is statistically significant. The central trend for 1915-1936 is ~2.7x more rapid than 2005-2025 (not 3.6x), though the 2σ CIs are large.      1915 - 1936: 0.79 ± 0.5°C/decade (2σ) or 1.73°C warming over 22 years.      2005 - 2026: 0.29 ± 0.4°C/decade (2σ) or 0.64°C warming over 22 years.  Wielicki is cl...