Wood Romances

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...

In another post , I covered some of the many reasons why scientists have concluded that urbanization biases are not responsible for any significant fraction of global warming. In order to avoid too much duplication with that post, I'll only briefly summarize the reasons: Homogenization Corrects Urbanization Bias. While cities are warmer than rural areas, they warm at about the same rate as rural areas. The bias is caused by urbanization. That is, as rural areas become more urban, they will warm at a faster rate than rural and urban areas. This bias is effectively removed by homogenization. Very Rural Stations Warm at Least as Rapidly as All Stations. Wickham et al 2013 compared the most rural land stations globally and compared them to all land stations. The study found that "very rural" stations were warming at least as rapidly as all stations. If urbanization biases were making a significant contribution to global warming, then the most rural stations would warm more sl...

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...

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 ...

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...

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a period of time beginning about  56 million years ago. Temperatures increased by 5–8°C[2][4] due to a large excursion of biogenic carbon. Temperatures increased extremely rapidly, and the perturbation of the carbon cycle led to ocean acidification and a mass extinction of benthic foraminifera. The warming event occurred suddenly, geologically speaking, perhaps in as little as 10,000 years[12], making it one the most rapid warming events detected in the Phanerozoic. The extreme warmth of the PETM lasted less than 220,000 years before returning to "normal" Eocene levels. The rapid warming warming associated with the PETM makes it a good analogue to current warming, so I think it would be helpful to cover this event as well as provide a bibliography for further reading on the subject. The PETM is also one among many examples in geologic history where it is clear that GHGs were driving global warming. CO2 led (and drove) the warmin...