The Realists Take on Climate Change
Sorted by: Date Posted
Wednesday, April 3rd 2013, 6:11 PM EDT
A research paper in a prestigious journal that claimed to show a dramatic increase in global temperatures in the 20th century caused huge headlines around the world.
There’s just one problem. It’s not true.
“Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years,” blared the New York Times on March 7. The Times was reporting on what it called “the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures,” contained in a study published March 8 in the journal Science by Shaun Marcott, Jeremy Shakun, Peter Clark and Alan Mix.
However, once other scientists began looking into the data in the study, called “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” the reconstruction began to look far less than meticulous.
The authors of the study quietly admitted last weekend that their claim of surging temperatures can’t be supported by their data.
Tuesday, March 19th 2013, 7:20 AM EDT
Oh, the The Mail on Sunday. Is there no limit to your denial of climate change?
The Mail on Sunday is a sister publication of the UK tabloid Daily Mail, and has a history of running ridiculously misleading claims downplaying the reality of climate change. Probably the worst offender is David Rose, who has been constantly hammering the idea—despite all the evidence against it—that the Earth has not been getting warmer for the past 16 years. To make this claim he has to egregiously cherry-pick his data, choosing where to look on a graph of temperatures to make it look like warming has slowed.
I’ve shown just how Rose is so fast and loose with reality in previous posts, when he first came to my attention for claiming warming had stopped (and then tried to show that the Sun’s lack of activity would cool the Earth, a claim for which there is essentially no good evidence), and then again when he posted a graph so wrong it would mean getting an F in ninth-grade math. You can also read debunkings of Rose’s ridiculosities from the UK Met Office, the national weather service for the United Kingdom, which regularly has to issue articles debunking the nonsense posted in The Mail.
Tuesday, March 19th 2013, 10:27 AM EDT
In October last year I had a play about with a Solar Cycle graph from informthepundits.wordpress.com, and added an overlay to show three solar cycle periods (SC12, 13 & 14), that as far as I know are not given any "minimum" status as the period was not identified as being "COLD". No, I'm not looking for any recognition about this period, and as far as I know neither is Piers Corbyn....but hey don't let that stop anyone from calling it "The Gabriel Near Minimum":)
I have now added another overlay to the original chart and also extended it with three fictitious shaped solar cycles (SC24, 25 & 26). All of these cycles are forecast to be lower then SC 23, and SC 24 is expected to be the highest of the three, be it the lowest one for 100 years! SC 25 WILL be lower then SC 24 as per latest estimate from NASA. SC 26 Is entered as similar level to SC 25 (my guess). This should bring the period up to around 2050, as you can see from above, this WILL BE A COOL/COLD period and NOT HOT as per the Met Office and the IPCC.
See below a rare photo from the winter of 1911, near the end of solar cycle 14, it makes a very good point about the "Gabriel Near Minimum".
Saturday, April 6th 2013, 4:43 PM EDT
I had been waiting to post the above WeatherAction.com "Red Warning" chart for April starting from the first "R4" period, due to commence on the 9th, and not for the first time the period before this event held a higher "QV" warning. This "new" style of forecasting from Piers certainly throws my understanding of these ratings out.
I tend to look for the highest "R" rating and post accordingly, however on the past two occasions it was the "R3" rating that had the higher "QV" period and it has come up with a higher then average magnitude Earthquake...see below the result for the past two months for these "R3" events and you will see what I mean.
Sunday, March 17th 2013, 5:01 AM EDT
No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?
The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.
The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.
Steadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Wednesday, December 12th 2012, 6:28 AM EST
This Weather Documentary for the UK Climate during 2012 made by Channel4, puts a predictable emphasis on "man made" climate change". As far as I'm concerned it shows how powerful some of the recent solar events have been, namely the Wettest Drought and the December of 2010. One day in the future (sooner then later I hope) when it is common knowledge that the Sun is responsible for extreme weather changes to our climate, we will be able to look back on these documentaries and see how silly people thought co2 was the cause of these events - NOTE This Documentary may not be available outside the UK and there is a time lock after 30 days...
In Britain we love to moan about the weather. And over the past decade we have experienced some extraordinary weather conditions, with 2012 no exception.
It has led many people to wonder if our weather really is getting worse.
The year started with storms and gale-force winds tearing across much of the UK, before our driest spring in a century left 35 million people in the UK suffering from drought.
Monday, January 7th 2013, 9:00 AM EST
Well, as an example, let's look at their rainfall forecasts they made during 2012. Remember, their forecasts are based on information from observations, several numerical models and expert judgement.
On 23rd March, they predicted “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April/May/June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months.”
RESULT – RAINFALL TOTALS WERE 176%, 94% AND 203% OF NORMAL IN APRIL, MAY AND JUNE RESPECTIVELY.
On 24th August, their forecast for September “weakly favours below normal values”.
RESULT – RAINFALL WAS 117% OF NORMAL IN SEPTEMBER.
Tuesday, April 2nd 2013, 1:21 PM EDT
Emergency services in Poland are trying to clear icy roads and restore power to thousands of homes after heavy snow over Easter.
Polish national radio says more than 100,000 homes had no electricity on Monday, after trees collapsed on some power lines. Poland's central and eastern provinces were worst hit.
There were hundreds of domestic fires at the weekend, many caused by faulty heaters. Five people died in blazes.
Tuesday, April 2nd 2013, 5:34 PM EDT
With an excellent discussion underway, unfortunately - but not surprisingly - Anthony Watts abruptly closed comments on his latest article attacking Principia Scientific International (PSI). From his readers’ feedback it is clear Mr. Watts went off half cocked with his mischaracterization that PSI had “misinterpreted” a revealing NASA press release about CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere.
Mr Watts is probably aware that he has no valid response to many of the points made by PSI members in various papers and articles. PSI doesn't shut down debate so, for those interested in debating the issue, all are very welcome to come do so on our own forum thread here.
Beyond doubt, as Douglas Cotton pointed out in his prompt rebuttal article to the WUWT piece, Mr. Watts has missed the elephant in the room. Cotton writes, “So, clearly the atmosphere acts as an umbrella during sunlit hours, and yet Anthony Watts and many climatologists like to play down this cooling effect, if they even mention it.”
Working overtime to hide that elephant with its umbrella is climatologist, Dr.Roy Spencer. Not only did a world-leading expert in thermodynamics, Dr. Pierre R Latour, point out Spencer’s errors with his ‘No, Virginia’ rebuttal to Spencer’s ‘Yes, Virginia’ blog post we’ve seen many other highly-respected scientists disagreeing with Dr. Spencer.
UC Berkeley Discredits Spencer's Infinite Heat Sink
A look at a thermodynamics physics text from UC Berkley proves, using standard physics, that cold does not heat up warm even in the presence of “backradiation.” Problem #1023 shows that a radiation shield does not cause a source to become hotter if its radiation is trapped, and Problem #1026 shows that a sphere surrounded by a shell simply warms up the shell until the shell emits the same energy as the sphere, without requiring the sphere to become hotter and with the presence of backradiation. What Spencer, Watts, Willis, et al mistakenly believe, is that in order for something warm to heat up something cool, the warmer thing has to heat up itself! As absurd a proposition as an ice cream licking itself.
Monday, April 1st 2013, 7:29 PM EDT
Monckton: 'The racketeers of the WWU faculty either know they are wrong or are ignorant and pretending to know they are right. Either way, they are guilty of deliberate misrepresentation of the objective scientific truth...[WWU's warmists professors] ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves but are too politicized on the far Left to have the grace to blush. And the Bellingham Herald should have known better than to publish their poisonously pietistic libel of Dr. Easterbrook, who deserves a handsome apology both from these grasping leeches and from the Herald. Shame on the lot of you'
Lord Monckton: (March 31, 2013)
Dr. Easterbrook, to whose excellent book of scientific papers on global warming I had the honour to contribute a couple of years ago, has been libeled. It is the rent-seeking global-warming profiteers of the WWU faculty, not Dr. Easterbrook, who are guilty of misrepresentation.