Wood Romances

WNA Heat Dome from Bercos-Hickey et al 2022 In preparing my previous post on my initial response to the DOE report, I stumbled on the report's assessment of Western North America heat dome in June 2021, and I discovered several ways in which the authors misrepresented the scientific research they used to support their position. It turns out in many ways I was just scratching the surface of the problems with their analysis of this event. Their assessment comes from pp. 96 and 97 of the DOE report, and it is structured as a rebuttal to a "rapid attribution analysis" that was published in Philip et al 2022.[1] This is their summary of that analysis: The WWA team generated international headlines with their analysis, which provided the following attribution statements (WWA, 2021; Philip et al., 2022): Based on observations and modeling, the occurrence of this heatwave was virtually impossible without human-caused climate change. The event is estimated to be about a one in 10...

Accounting for Climate Forcings Puts ECS Near 3 °C From ClimateBrink The so-called "Climate Working Group," hired by the Department of Energy to write what Roger Pielke Jr termed a "red team" response to climate science  (my initial response is here ) is predictably critical of the central scientific estimate for ECS. The first ECS estimate I know of was calculated by Arrhenius, who concluded that 2xCO2 would cause between 4-6°C warming. This value was revised downward by Gilbert Plass in the 1950s to ~3°C, and since the 1970s this has become the standard estimate. The IPCC currently says the likely range is 2.5-4.0°C, largely as a result of Sherwood et al 2020 (S22),[1] which is still to date the most comprehensive assessment of ECS (Sherwood's likely range was 2.6-3.9°C). There is a growing body of scientific literature arguing that recent observational evidence is more consistent with an ECS closer to 4°C, suggesting that the IPCC may be a bit conservative on...

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 decided to have some fun with a thought exercise to respond to claims I've been seeing about a paper published a few years ago by Robert Holmes. What I'm going to do below doesn't technically "predict" temperatures on other planets but it does show a simple model that explains why surface temperatures differ on planets in moons given both ASR and the GHE. Here I'm building on a  previous post  where I debunked a silly paper from Holmes that claimed to be able to calculate the 1-bar temperatures of a planet knowing only the ratio of the TSI values for the two planets and the 1-bar T for the second planet. Holmes' used the following equation. T1 = ∜rTSI*T2 I showed that this equation doesn't work because it ignores both the GHE and albedo. It gives the superficial appearance of working if you calculate 1-bar T of Earth from Venus and vice versa, since Venus has both a strong albedo and GHE. But even then it only "works" if you use 340 K for V...

What Remains of Agassiz Glacier in GNP Sometimes well-meaning people shoot themselves in the foot. Somebody at Glacier National Park put up signs indicating that all the glaciers in Glacier National Park would be "gone by the year 2020." Sign at GNP The strange thing about this is that the statement wasn't accurate even when the signs were made. The  reference to "computer models" refers to a paper published in 2003[1] that made predictions under two scenarios regarding a subset of the glaciers in the Blackfoot-Jackson Basin of GNP, with one scenario "based on carbon dioxide–induced global warming and the other on a linear temperature extrapolation."  The Area for the Modeling Study To evaluate how well this model has performed, it's important here to understand how these two scenarios were defined. I'll quote the paper's definition of each. Scenario 1: "The carbon dioxide–doubling scenario, is based on the US Environmental Protection...