wuwt
gregladen | November 9, 2015Anthony Watts, the famous climate science denier, is all a titter that he is presenting at the upcoming American Geophysical Union meetings.
First, I want to say, good for you, Anthony. Nothing wrong with a science denier going to a major international meeting that includes a lot of climate science and giving a poster. That is how these things work, this is a place to challenge the science. The establishment will not attempt to keep you away because they want you to be there, to make a contribution. I hope you get a lot of great feedback, and enjoy your trip to San Francisco.
Also,…
stoat | June 5, 2012Well, with a headline like that you know I'm talking about denialist nonsense, and yes its WUWT again. What they are foaming at the mouth about is Jarvis Cocker: the iceman cometh but not the article, rather a factoid at the end:
Of the Arctic sea ice, 75% has been lost over the past 30 years. Last year saw sea-ice levels plummet to the second-lowest since records began. It is estimated that the North Pole could be ice-free in the summer within the next 10-20 years
Understanding this fairly simple piece of text proves to be beyond the Minds over there. 75% is a lot, and ice area or extent…
stoat | May 2, 2012Or, A child's garden of wikipedia, part 2.
I've been banned from WUWT, after exposing too many of his errors. Although naturally AW doesn't phrase it quite like that. Also, he didn't much like me not showing the adoration that he gets from his fanbois either. Indeed, presumably in an effort to pretend that there is no censorship, AW can't even bring himself to say "banned": instead preferring the Orwellian you have been dis-invited from further commentary here. Even that may disappear if it becomes too inconvenient, so you can see a webcited version here.
The cause of all this (dismissing as…
stoat | April 30, 2012What is it about GW that brings out such levels of stupidity in so many people?
Lets start with the easy bit. There's a paper Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature by Zhou et al.. It isn't very exciting, but it made into Nature Climate Change, probably because of the inevitable stupidity it would arouse. What it says is Our results show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72â°C per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to nearby non-wind-farm regions. This isn't ironic or even particularly surprising: the effect is due to mixing down of warmer air on…
stoat | January 22, 2012Browsing the crackpottery that is Unified Theory of Climate: Reply to Comments at WUWT ("Dr" Roy Spencer shreds it, if you care, which you shouldn't) I noticed fig 4, Antarctic temperatures, which is ripped off from wiki, and I drew that figure. Eurgh.
stoat | January 19, 2012There is an absolutely classic WUWT piece of stupidity up from Joe Bastardi (h/t QS, who has been annoying me with ZOD nonsense recently). Sometimes, it is nice to find a small simple easily understood issue which demonstrates how clueless the septics are.
And the quote is:
Nor am I going to question them as to why they believe a trace gas like CO2 (needed for life on the planet) with a specific gravity of 1.5 as compared to the atmospheres 1.0, was going to mix with air in a way to affect the earth's temperatures
(bear in mind that isn't all that is wrong with the article, only the stupidest…
stoat | January 16, 2012Tweaking the wackos refers. "James Pagett" wrote The Wonderful World of Wikipedia at WUWT complaining about the [[Soon-Baliunas controversy]] page. But despite the author knowing enough about wikipedia to have gotten himself topic-banned by arbcomm (which the post, oddly, doesn't have room to mention) the article does a very poor job of explaining how wikipedia works. Which isn't too surprising, as no-one outside does.
But because the post is at WUWT, and is about climate, and wikipedia, it doesn't take look for the wackos to start ranting about me, even though I don't feature in this story…
stoat | November 20, 2011Via Tamino (Tisdale Fumbles, Pielke Cheers) I find Tisdale at WUWT talking nonsense - nothing new there. Tamino points out the obvious flaw in the argument (if you can call it an argument; to be fair, it is hard to tell what Tisdale wants to say, other than "its all wrong"), and then Nick Stokes is kind enough to tell the Watties (I did wonder if any of them might be good enough to think of it for themselves, but no such luck). But! The knowledge does not fit their worldview, so even when presented with the obvious they are still unable to understand it.
Well, that wasn't very exciting, was…
stoat | November 4, 2011Via Eli I saw that there was some odd stuff at WUWT (nothing new there you might say). The weirdness is the ATI vs Mann case, or whatever it is called, and the ATI are complaining that Mann is allowed to be a party to a case about his own emails. Or something; the legalese is dull, obviously. The ATI counsel appear to have been doing some very dodgy things, like running the case whilst working for the EPA.
Anyway, I thought it would be entertaining to tweak them a bit, and did so for a while. What is funny (apart from their inability to count to 4) is the way they are happy to leap upon…
illconsidered | June 2, 2011"I agree. This is real science. But I have no idea what it means."
There is a reason science is not a democracy.
If you don't (understandably) want to wade through that whole "analysis", here is the crux of the (surprise, surprise!) conclusion that climate sensitivity to CO2 is almost nothing:
If we accept the IPCC/AGW paradigm and grant the climatological purity of the early 20th century, then the natural recovery rate from the LIA averages about 0.05 C/decade. To proceed, we have to assume that the natural rate of 0.05 C/decade was fated to remain unchanged for the entire 130 years, through…