Wood Romances

In the past I've shared how Tony Heller lies about bias correction procedures applied to CONUS temperatures and as well as by using simple averages of station data with no gridding, meaning that he fails to accounting for station moves and closures. I've also been shown these graphs from him below (located on his blog here ) that he uses to support both of these lies. This graph is intended to show that scientists are conspiring to fabricate global warming through bias correction. In his words, "the data is being tampered with precisely to match the increase in atmospheric CO2." To make his case, Heller shows difference of USHCN final - USHCN raw "temperatures" (it's actually not temperature; see below) plotted with CO2 concentrations. Since the plot shows a roughly linear increase with CO2 concentration, Heller suggests this is evidence that scientists are just engaging in criminal fraud by manipulating USHCN final temperatures to fabricate a warming tr...

Chris Martz decided to make a point about extreme temperatures by posting a map with the hottest August temperatures ever recorded in each state of the US. Martz asks : Did you know that 33 U.S. states set their “all-time” August high temperature records before 1955?  Of those, eight Midwestern states set their August records in 1936 alone while seven set theirs in 1918. Here's the map he shared. Chris Martz's Map on X This I suppose would be interesting if we were considering when outliers appear to clump up. There's probably something meaningful in the fact that 8 states had their warmest August record temperature in 1936 and 7 had their warmest August record in 1918. We all know about the Dust Bowl, during which human activity was responsible for causing extremely high daily maximum temperatures (Tmax) during the summer months, especially in the Midwest. GHG-induced warming causes Tmax to increase but it causes Tmin to warm even more rapidly. Human activity made the Dust...

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...

You often hear contrarians repeating mantras about there being "no consensus in science" or that "science is never settled," two related claims that I take to be nearly synonymous. Many examples could be given, but I'll offer a few (with links to the source so you can check up on me): "There is no consensus science. Consensus is group-think and is very dangerous in science. During the Little Ice Age, there was a consensus that witches caused bad weather, and so climate justice resulted in witch killings."  ( John Shewchuk ) "There is no consensus in science … science is about facts" ( John Coleman ) "Science is never settled." ( Matthew Wielicki ) "The minute you hear the science is settled, you know something is wrong. Science is never settled." ( Richard Lindzen ) It's common enough that sometimes you see it dressed up in pretty memes, like this one with a quote from Michael Crichton. I haven't decided yet if i...

The DOE climate assessment report was published a month ago, and already hundreds of scientists have written responses criticizing the handling of the scientific evidence regarding AGW , including 85 scientists who compiled a 400+ page rebuttal  and associated press release . In response, the authors of the DOE report appear to be on a PR campaign for damage control, and so Koonin wrote an op/ed for WSJ and Judith Curry took to her blog . Her blogpost attempts to defend her mistakes about sea level rise and acceleration in the DOE report by highlighting a paper that was published this year. The paper claims to show that 95% of tide gauges do not show any statistically significant acceleration, and the remaining 5% have non-climatic explanations for their observed acceleration: Approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cau...

One of the more fun aspects of debunking pseudoscience claims is finding humorous ways to replicate the logical flaws of crank theories. The crank theories of Nikolov and Zeller (NZ) are among my favorites, and I just found what I think is a fun illustration of how their thinking can be so wrong while superficially looking convincing to the unskeptical. Simply stated, NZ took some data points about several rocky planets and moons and performed a curve fit for "Relative ATE" as a function of mean surface atmospheric pressure. It looks like this. Since they got the curve fit to work without including the impact of greenhouse gases (GHGs), their conclusion is that atmospheric composition and concentrations of GHGs are irrelevant to the global mean surface temperature on any rocky planet or moon. They then developed a model that reports to be able to predict the mean surface temperature of any rocky planet or moon with just three data points: TSI, albedo, and mean surface atmosp...

Nikolov and Zeller (NZ) published a "paper" ( this link downloads a pdf) in 2011 that claims to be a "unified theory of climate" (UTC). In it they offer the nuts and bolts of what they think is an alternative explanation for the greenhouse effect (GHE). Instead of greenhouse gases (GHGs), they argue that long-term climate changes are caused by changes in atmospheric mass that change atmospheric pressure. The change in pressure changes global temperature via the ideal gas law (IGL). This concept has already been debunked ; there's nothing resembling a working theory here. They seem very confused about the fact that it's work applied to compressing a gas that increases its temperature (and pressure); at hydrostatic equilibrium, pressure doesn't do work, and so pressure doesn't cause temperature to increase. If pressure could perform work to increase temperature, it would violate conservation of energy. Pressure changes as a result of the work that inc...

This is a follow up to a post about Nikolov & Zeller here , updated on 4/14/2025. In a recent manuscript [1] "published" on the so-called Science of Climate Change blog, Nikolov and Zeller (NZ) articulate how they believe that the Earth's temperature remains warmer than its effective temperature. Without getting into whether that amount should be considered 90K or 33K, it's clear that for them the long-term baseline temperature of earth is determined solely by total solar irradiance (TSI) and atmospheric pressure (P). Here it is in their words: NASA planetary data indicate that the radiative “greenhouse effect” does not exist in reality. That’s because, across a wide range of planetary environments in the Solar System, the long-term (baseline) global surface temperature on rocky planets and moons is fully determined by the mean Total Solar Irradiance (i.e. distance from the Sun) and total surface atmospheric pressure. Variability on this long-term baseline temper...