Wood Romances

NCA5 Analysis of Historical and Future CONUS Warming (I'd like to show you the Climate Working Group version but there isn't one) In his 1974 commencement address delivered at Caltech, Richard Feynman warned against scientists "fooling themselves" by doing what superficially looks scientific, but lacks rigorous and critical analysis. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, ...

I was just made aware today of a paper published in 2019 by  Robert Ian Holmes on the Relationship Between TSI and Temperature at 1-Bar Pressure. The paper claims to be able to "predict" planetary temperatures at 1-bar pressure on the basis of TSI values of rocky planets and moons with a surface pressure of 1-bar or higher. The logic is that if you calculate the relative TSI between two planets (rTSI) you can multiply ∜rTSI by the 1-bar temperature of one planet to get the 1-bar temperature of the other. We can summarize his math as: T1 = ∜rTSI*T2 There's no way to derive this equation from any known relationships; Temperature relates only to the absorbed fraction of TSI; the reflected fraction has no impact on T. There are three rocky planets and moons that have as surface pressure of 1-bar or higher. Here they are with Holmes' values for their 1-bar temperatures: Venus (340K), Earth (288K), and Titan (85-90K). Holmes shows his calculations below. This superficially ...

The Keeling Curve I sometimes hear claims that our measurements of CO2 concentrations, especially as recovered in ice core data, are unreliable indicators of variability in CO2 concentrations, often stating that CO2 may have varied by far more than scientists are letting us know about. The implication is that scientists are covering up evidence for the variability of atmospheric CO2 concentrations to sell a narrative that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2. There are at least two forms of lines of argument here, one arguing that ice core data is unreliable and the other arguing that other measurements of CO2 contradict the ice core record. 1. Zbigniew Jaworowski It appears that even in the 1990s there were attempts by contrarian scientists to undermine the reliability of the empirical data extracted from ice cores to reconstruct background CO2 concentrations over the last several hundred thousand years. One such paper, Jaworowski 1994[1], argued that the CO2 data was unreli...

The graph below from John Shewchuk is intended to show that models predict too much warming compared to satellite data. Shewchuk claims that the red line is the average of 102 IPCC CMIP5 model runs for the surface through 50K feet. In all likelihood, this is just lifted from graphs of model-observation comparisons that John Christy has plotted in the past. Shewchuk claims the blue line is UAH satellite observations for the total troposphere layer (TTT). The problems with this graph are numerous, and many of the problems are inherited from Christy's graph (problems with his comparison are well-documented ). The two time series are separated from each other even in 1980 to exaggerate the differences between the two (even if the trendlines do intersect at 1980). The 102 model runs are not shown, only the model mean, and the 95% confidence interval is also not shown, so we have no idea what the spread in the model runs might be. But Shewchuk has added his own dishonest twist to this g...

If you follow popular discussions about AGW, you'll likely see many claims that climate scientists have been making terrible predictions and climate models invariably run too hot compared to observations. If you investigate these, almost all of so-called "predictions" of climate scientists turn out to be some combination of misinformed assessments by media personalities, reporters and politicians or claims by scientists that have been misread by contrarians. And while it's true that some climate scientists have said some things that have not panned out, this is clearly the exception, not the rule. In fact, overall, climate scientists have been slightly conservative with their predictions, and climate model have performed quite well.[1] In fact, Zeke Hausfather has done a pretty good job of tracking how model predictions compare to observations, and overall, they've done quite well. So given all the rancor from contrarians about the predictions of climate scientist...

Stossel's second video about climate myths has been published, continuing the shoddy journalism from Stossel and fake research from Lueken. Like my last post , I'll first show the flaws in their rhetorical strategy and then look at the individual myths. I'll then provide a bibliography of the research on each of these subjects so you can check up on me and see for yourself that the actual research does not support Stossel's claims. Rhetorical Strategy The same tactics of taking soundbites out of context continues here. In fact, Stossel reuses the "We don't have decades; we hardly have years" clip in this video. He also shows a soundbite from news story reporting that extreme drought conditions exist in the northeastern US, but he doesn't show that the story attributes that to climate change (as his "myth" 5 claims). And he's still enlisting the help of Linnea Lueken to give scientific credibility to his shoddy journalism. But he adds an ...