Wood Romances

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...

Tony Heller made the following mashup of two graphs intended to show that NASA lies about CONUS temperatures as part of a criminal conspiracy to fabricate global warming. It will be very easy to show that Tony Heller is the one lying.  It took about 5 minutes for me to document why the bottom graph is an improvement over the top graph, and there's nothing "inexplicable" about it. The information needed to explain the changes comes a  page on NASA's website that documents the developments and improvements to the GHCN station dataset over time. NASA isn't hiding anything. A subset of this network was used to form the USHCN dataset that was used by NASA and NOAA until 2014.  Here are some relevant updates introduced since the top 1999 graph: In 1999, USHCN was expanded from 138 to 1062 stations.[1] And NASA's methodology improved to account for station moves and to correct for unrealistic outliers. Areas with missing data were filled in, meaning that the area-we...