Wood Romances

The graph above (and similar versions of it) is circulating widely on social media and promoted as evidence that the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) between 5000 and 10,000 years ago was warmer than today. The graph originates from Javier Vinós' self-published book. In the graph above the black "b" time series is reported to be variability of global temperatures since the beginning of the Holocene. This particular version also shows Marcott et al 2013 as the "a" time series and Earth's obliquity as the "c" time series. My interest here has to do with the data tampering Vinós used to generate the black "b" time series, so I'm going to refer to this as the "Vinós time series." The Vinós time series is fabricated by tampering with Marcott's proxy data. In his self-published book and various blogposts, he has told us how he fabricated it. To see how he did so, we must first look at a version of this graph in which the Vinós t...

NOAA has released their December 2024 results for both nClimDiv and USCRN US temperatures, and 2024 turned out to be the warmest year for CONUS on record (records beginning in 1895). NOAA's website reports CONUS for 2024 as 55.51°F. Below I show several graphs for nClimDiv, with monthly temperatures, a 12-month running mean, and a 10-year running mean. ERA5 for CONUS is also out, and to make apples to apples comparisons, I changed nClimDiv to Celsius and set it to a 1951-2000 baseline. USCRN began recording CONUS temperatures in 2005, so the end of 2024 marks the 20th year for that dataset. Below I show graphs comparing USCRN to both nClimDiv and UAH-TLT for CONUS. Here's how USCRN compares to ERA5, with the scale switched to Celsius to match ERA5. Since USCRN only goes back to 2005, I can't give you 30-year trends, but CONUS is warming so rapidly, that the last 20 years is already statistically significant. Since 2005, CONUS trends were: USCRN: 0.451 ± 0.241°C/decade (2σ) ...

If you've participated in discussion about climate change, you've probably come across the slogan "Exxon Knew." This came out as private, internal communications from within Exxon (and other fossil fuel companies) revealed that their scientists had been investigating potential catastrophic consequences of fossil fuel emissions, and they made predictions that turned out to be pretty accurate. To what extent Exxon is culpable for this is difficult to determine. However, what is clear (to me) is that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies ought to be held liable for knowingly promoting misinformation when their own scientists were telling them that there were valid concerns that continued fossil fuel emissions would have harmful consequences for humanity. Papers were published in 2021[1] and 2023[2] that evaluated the accuracy of the scientific work that Exxon knew by evaluating the internal studies that have now been made public. The above graph has been popularly shared...

Even though there is no theoretical basis for the Beer-Lambert formula, ∆RF = αln(C/Co), it has been accepted by the scientific community as a reasonable approximation. In this paper we propose an improved mathematical approximation that... has no theoretical basis. ~ H. Douglas Lightfoot A paper was published in Energy & Environment by Lightfoot & Mamer back in 2014 (LM14)[1] arguing that we should toss out decades of research establishing a theoretical basis for and quantifying the logarithmic relationship between changes in CO2 ( ∆CO2) and radiative forcing ( ∆RF ) for no good reason. In it's place, they sought to replace it with the results of a curve fitting exercise for no good reason except to generate an equation that would conform with a climate myth that was conclusively refuted in the 1950s. A theoretical basis for the near-logarithmic relationship between  ∆CO2 and  ∆RF was established beginning in 1896 with Arrhenius' landmark paper. Arrhenius quantified ...

If you follow climate discussions on X, you're bound to see John Shewchuk and/or Tony Heller show graphs that reportedly show that NOAA is tampering with temperature data to fabricate global warming with spurious warming trends. I've gone over many of the reasons why this is nonsense before in posts about bias correction and so-called  ghost stations . I think it's good to show what's actually going on with the graphs they present as "proof" of data manipulation, though. I think it can be easily demonstrated here that it's actually Shewchuk and Heller that are tampering with data. Shewchuk (Top) and Correct (Below) Above are two graphs. The top graph shows what John Shewchuk claims shows that NOAA is manipulating data. It shows USHCN "raw" and "altered" Tmax data for 1900 to 2023. The bottom graph above is the correct plot of NOAA's published data from the current and correct dataset (nClimDiv) with a 5-year running mean to match S...