This is going to be fun.... https://YouTube.com/watch?v=grtV811cURU
David interviews Piers on his thoughts about what lies ahead. https://YouTube.com/watch?v=JRyi_tVWZ2I
While evidence clearly implicates El Niño, we found this climate cycle had a very large accomplice: the moon.In our study, published in Science Advances today, we mapped the expansion and contraction of mangrove forest cover over the past 40 years, and found clear evidence that the moon’s orbital wobble had an effect.Our mapping also shows … Continue reading What caused the world’s largest die-off of mangroves? A wobble in the moon’s orbit is partly to blame
By Paul Homewood h/t Dave Ward Every week, the people who trade electricity in the UK get to quiz the managers of the national grid for an hour. The conference call, which anyone can monitor, offers an insight into what the men and women on the front line of the power … Continue reading Listening to European Electricity Traders Is Very, Very Scary
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.H. L. Mencken https://youtube.com/ watch? v=XiFGaUEDPUU
A narcissist will always think everything is about them. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Cyqhww-U36Y
In a normal world, this would prompt scientists to conclude that the models were faulty and that perhaps the science and a priori assumptions which are built into them need to be re-examined. Or they would ask themselves, did some other factor or factors contribute significantly to this event? But no, in the world of post-normal, post Enlightenment ‘science’, the conclusion is that the models are right, but not right enough, in that they underestimate how bad heatwaves are getting, so then we get the inevitable siren call of alarmists everywhere: “Arrggghhh, it’s much worse than we thought! Urgent action is now super-urgent! Act now or we’re all going to die!”
Nevermind that extremes of temperature and/or precipitation were seen in the 1970s as a sign of global cooling. Nevermind that Piers Corbyn predicted this over a decade ago, as have many working on the solar influenced aspect of climate, including the magnitude of this event, which was preceded by a new moon and a strong flux in solar activity (correlation ≠ causation).
Or it could be natural variability, the swings of which our climate has shown time and time again it is more than capable of on short and long time scales. However, just like my childhood doctor, who diagnosed sausages (or any meat if you’d foresaken sausages) as the cause of every tummy upset, these quacks diagnose the gas of life as an excuse whatever the weather (except when the weather is quite ordinary they suddenly go silent).
We narcissistic humans think everything is caused by us, that we are the deities of this planet. Humility is a concept beyond cultists. Don’t be a ClimateQuack™️. Be humble.
That’s the basic message fromWorld Weather Attributionwho have – of course – run off a quick-fire, non peer-reviewed attribution analysis of the two day ‘heatwave’ which affected the UK on July 18th and 19th which – of course – concludes that it was man-made climate change wot dunnit.
Here’s what they say about their study, which we’ll look at in detail in Part II:
- The likelihood of observing such an event in a 1.2°C cooler world is extremely low, and statistically impossible in two out of the three analysed stations.
- The observational analysis shows that a UK heatwave as defined above would be about 4°C cooler in preindustrial times.
- To estimate how much of these observed changes is attributable to human-caused climate change we combine climate models with the observations.It is important to highlight that all models systematically underestimate the observed trends. [My emphasis]…
View original post 691 more words
Hubert Lamb wrote of the discrepancy between the documented cold period of the 60s and 70s and the continuing rise of CO2.
As Ned highlights, it had to be removed. They made sure the awkward moment of discovery never happened.
That’s how the party keep power – rewriting history and language.
This GWPF report covers Lamb’s work during that period:
Once again it’s my pleasure to publish a new paper by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller at the Talkshop. In this study, we see the presentation of a climate conundrum, and recent surface solar radiation data which helps shed new light on the questions surrounding the ongoing adjustment of global temperature datasets. This new study applies theory developed in Ned and Karl’s previous paper to enable quantification of the global temperature drop during the “1970s ice-age scare”. This won’t be the last word on the topic, but it offers a solid grounding for further research.
Implications of a New Gridded Dataset of Surface Solar Radiation
for the Evolution of Earth’s Global Surface Temperature Since 1960
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. and Karl Zeller, Ph.D.
It is a matter of conventional wisdom now that the Earth was significantly cooler during 1960s compared to the 21st Century. Similarly, no one…
View original post 6,113 more words
I wonder how the polar bears coped with all that heat…
The oldest known polar bear fossil is a 130,000 to 110,000-year-old jaw bone, found on Prince Charles Foreland in 2004.
By Paul Homewood
Jørgen Peder Steffensen is an Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen and one of the world’s leading experts on ice cores. Using ice cores from sites in Greenland, he has been able to reconstruct temperatures there for the last 10000 years. So what are his conclusions?
- Temperatures in Greenland were about 1.5 C warmer 1000 years ago than now.
- It was perhaps 2.5 C warmer 4000 years ago.
- The period around 1875, at the lowest point of the Little Ice Age, marked the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.
- Other evidence from elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere confirms this picture.
His final comment is particularly telling :-
I agree totally we have had a global temperature increase in the 20thC – but an increase from what? ..Probably an increase from the lowest point in the last 10,000 years.
We started to observe meteorology at the…
View original post 31 more words
Nailed it! https://youtube.com/watch?v=N7H_UZmaImA
Like NetZero in the UK, if they want it they have to vote for it, but they can’t do that because no one but the zealots and predator class wasn’t it. Instead they used legislative fiat and got rumbled.
Verdict [image credit: coindesk.com]
Democracy overseeing the flow of EPA climate edicts? A ‘huge blow’, say alarmists, as over-the-top reactions from some of the usual suspects pour in.
– – –
This means Congress will now have to pass off on any climate regulations, says Energy Live News.
In what’s been considered a blow to climate mitigation in the US, the Supreme Court has ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This means the EPA will now be limited in how it can regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and help stave off global warming in the country.
View original post 183 more words
As Hubert Lamb observed in 1994
“there has been too much theory and not enough fact in predicting the future.
Computer models are a rather expensive example of that error.
Is more computing power just getting us the wrong results from overheated models faster?
– – –
Outside of their academic fascination, looked at in terms of their contribution to climate policy, it seems that we may have reached the useful limit of computer climate modelling, says Dr. David Whitehouse.
The first computers built in the 1950s allowed climate scientists to think about modelling the climate using this new technology.
The first usable computer climate models were developed in the mid-1970s.
Shortly afterwards the US National Academy of Sciences used their outcomes to estimate a crucial climate parameter we still calculate today – the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) – how much the world would warm (from ‘pre-industrial’ levels) with a doubling of CO2 — and concluded that it had a range of 1.5 – 4.5°C.
View original post 333 more words
What’s bothering many scientists is that their go-to climate simulation models that tend to get conditions right over the rest of the globe predict more El Ninos, not La Ninas, and that’s causing contention in the climate community about what to believe
Encapsulated in that one sentence is everything wrong with climate
religionscience. Maybe if data hadn’t been so persecuted for not confirming to the beliefs of Gaia’s devout..?
When observations show modellers ‘the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change’, it’s surely time to revisit their assumptions. Meanwhile, much head-scratching.
– – –
Something weird is up with La Nina, the natural but potent weather event linked to more drought and wildfires in the western United States and more Atlantic hurricanes, says Phys.org.
It’s becoming the nation’s unwanted weather guest and meteorologists said the West’s megadrought won’t go away until La Nina does.
The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month and is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not quite unprecedented third straight winter. And it’s not just this one.
View original post 363 more words
Ben Pile (@Clim8Resistance) skewers the green troughers behind the global energy crisis (hunt it wasn't the Russian Hitler). https://youtube.com/watch?v=IwvGlF9_fpw
A 'Climate Expert' inspects the latest CHIMP6 output for clues as to how it's all the fault of the peon masses. You’ve maybe heard of extreme weather attribution, where ‘scientists’ attempt to attribute a heatwave, storm or flood etc. to man-made climate change, some time after the event. You’ve heard of rapid extreme weather attribution where they fall over … Continue reading Jaime Jessop ‘Met Office Attribution Study – Reading Chicken Entrails Might be the More Reliable Method’
UK oil and gas producers pay tax at a much higher rate than the rest of UK industry. In particular:
They pay Corporation Tax at a rate of 30%, instead of the standard rate of 19%.
They also have to pay a Supplementary Charge of 10% on profits
“But it’s a subsi..reeeeeeee”
By Paul Homewood
There has long been a concerted effort by the green lobby to persuade the public that they are paying billions in subsidies to the nasty fossil fuel industry, particularly in the UK. The above comment exemplifies this.
He quotes the OECD, who are of course at heart a political organisation, just like their subsidiary, the IEA. The OECD simply follow their masters wishes, that is the governments who make it up. The OECD’s position on climate change is exactly the same as its member governments:
As Rafal comments, the OECD regard “tax reliefs” as “subsidies”. They are no such thing, and the OECD is deliberately misleading people in claiming so.
View original post 542 more words
We have campaigns against blood diamonds due to the human misery they extract but silence from the same virtue signallers when it comes to anything labelled green. There's nothing quite so galling as the western green imperialist. https://youtube.com/watch?v=RFHvq-8np1o
I was listening to a Delingpod earlier this week and the Co2 leads temperature canard came out. I immediately thought of Salby’s work and the geological record, but with the smoothing and difficulties with precision for icecores it’s nice to see something with real time data to see it in effect (even if the adjustments to the temperature record are a bit disconcerting).
A fascinating post. Great work Ron.
The IPCC doctrine which has long been promoted goes as follows. We have a number over here for monthly fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and a number over there for monthly atmospheric CO2. We don’t have good numbers for the rest of it-oceans, soils, biosphere–though rough estimates are orders of magnitude higher, dwarfing human CO2. So we ignore nature and assume it is always a sink, explaining the difference between the two numbers we do have. Easy peasy, science settled.
What about the fact that nature continues to absorb about half of human emissions, even while FF CO2 increased by 60% over the last 2 decades? What about the fact that in 2020 FF CO2 declined significantly with no discernable impact on rising atmospheric CO2?
This post is about proving that CO2 changes in response to temperature changes, not the other way around, as is often claimed. In order to do that we need two datasets: one for measurements of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time and one for estimates of Global Mean Temperature changes over time.
Climate science is unsettling because past data are not fixed, but change later on. I ran into this previously and now again in 2021 and 2022 when I set out to update an analysis done in 2014 by Jeremy Shiers (discussed in a previous post reprinted at the end). Jeremy provided a spreadsheet in his essay Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too posted in January 2014. I downloaded his spreadsheet intending to bring the analysis up to the present to see if the results hold up. The two sources of data were:
View original post 1,362 more words