WUWT
Our man in Davos has reported in:
This year we have had record amounts of snow in Switzerland. The
railway line is closed to Davos.because of danger of avalanches. The
road has only limited capacity.
Davos, normally 10.000 inhabitants, is guarded by 7000 – police and Swiss army and airforce. "
Tuesday, 23 January 2018
Predictions Of Snowless Winters Go Down In Flames As No. Hemisphere Gets Buried Under Ice
NoTricksZone
With frigid temperatures and heavy snows gripping much of the Northern Hemisphere, this is a quite an embarrassment for climate experts who earlier confirdently claimed snow would become rare due to global warming. Furthermore not only has snow returned with a vengeance, also global surface temperatures over the past 20 years have risen insignificantly."
With frigid temperatures and heavy snows gripping much of the Northern Hemisphere, this is a quite an embarrassment for climate experts who earlier confirdently claimed snow would become rare due to global warming. Furthermore not only has snow returned with a vengeance, also global surface temperatures over the past 20 years have risen insignificantly."
Global warming theorists are tripping over themselves to explain America's cold winters
There was a delightful example of this on our letters page last week, when that well-known propagandist for global warming, Bob Ward, tried to challenge what I had written about the recent series of unusually cold winters in North America.
Mr
Ward is employed by the Grantham Institute at the London School of
Economics, sponsored by a climate change-obsessed billionaire, and
challenges anyone who publicly questions global warming orthodoxy."
Friday, 12 January 2018
BOM Hiding The Decline In New South Wales
RealScience
The average maximum temperature at Bourke, NSW this year has been 105.8F, with a peak of 113.7F. The years 1896, 1906 and 1939 were all much hotter, with peak temperatures of 120 degrees in 1896 and 1906. BOM hides all the pre-1910 data which wrecks their global warming scam. "
--------------------------------
ED: Worth a look here too ( Bourke Climate): weatherzone.com.au
The average maximum temperature at Bourke, NSW this year has been 105.8F, with a peak of 113.7F. The years 1896, 1906 and 1939 were all much hotter, with peak temperatures of 120 degrees in 1896 and 1906. BOM hides all the pre-1910 data which wrecks their global warming scam. "
--------------------------------
ED: Worth a look here too ( Bourke Climate): weatherzone.com.au
Coldest Start To A Year On Record In The US
RealScience
Afternoon temperatures during the first week of January have been declining in the US for a century, and have dropped more than ten degrees during the last decade. .......
But January wasn’t always cold like this in the US. During January 1790, Philadelphia was having temperatures over 70 degrees. "
Afternoon temperatures during the first week of January have been declining in the US for a century, and have dropped more than ten degrees during the last decade. .......
But January wasn’t always cold like this in the US. During January 1790, Philadelphia was having temperatures over 70 degrees. "
The Frozen U.S. Is Paying a Terrible Price for Green Lies
Breitbart
"The North-Eastern U.S. is experiencing record-breaking cold. Even the very sharks are dying as they swim."
Happily the New York Times is here to put it all in context. It’s all further evidence of global warming, of course!
All is ‘explained’ in a story headed “Why so cold? Climate Change May Be Part of the Answer” ...
.........The facts need not detain us here – because there aren’t any. It’s just speculation – “could”, “may” – gleaned from conversations with tame “experts” at institutions like the notoriously alarmist and fervently left-wing Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. And there’s plenty more nonsense where this came from, as Thomas Williams reported here earlier....."
"The North-Eastern U.S. is experiencing record-breaking cold. Even the very sharks are dying as they swim."
Happily the New York Times is here to put it all in context. It’s all further evidence of global warming, of course!
All is ‘explained’ in a story headed “Why so cold? Climate Change May Be Part of the Answer” ...
.........The facts need not detain us here – because there aren’t any. It’s just speculation – “could”, “may” – gleaned from conversations with tame “experts” at institutions like the notoriously alarmist and fervently left-wing Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. And there’s plenty more nonsense where this came from, as Thomas Williams reported here earlier....."
Germany drops carbon target
JoNova(Australia)
Compare the outrage: Germany abandons carbon target, but stays in Paris agreement. US abandons Paris, but makes actual “carbon” cuts. One of these nations is a global pariah.
Compare the outrage: Germany abandons carbon target, but stays in Paris agreement. US abandons Paris, but makes actual “carbon” cuts. One of these nations is a global pariah.
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany’s would-be coalition partners have agreed to drop plans to lower carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, sources familiar with negotiations said on Monday –
And this is a problem, how?
– a potential embarrassment for Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Oh.? Well, it’s only dates and numbers anyway:
Instead, they would aim to hit the 40
percent target in the early 2020s, the sources said, adding that both
parties are still sticking to their goal of achieving a 55 percent cut
in emissions by 2030.
Which is more important, paper promises you don’t keep, or lower outputs of “planet destroying gas”? Nevermind about CO2."
Sydney before “climate change” — over 50C, 122F recorded at Windsor Observatory, 1939
JoNova(Australia)
Penrith may have recorded 47.3C for at least one-second this week, but Windsor is only 23 km north-east of Penrith, and on January 13th, 1939, it recorded 122F or 50.5C with an old fashioned liquid thermometer, not a modern noisy electronic one.
Apparently, climate change makes our extreme heat less extreme.
Furthermore, this was not measured on a beer crate in someones back-yard, but on the historic Windsor Observatory which was built in 1863 by John Tebbutt F.R.A.S who had discovered The 1861 comet, and published many scientific reports in Astronomical Journals. His meteorological observations are published at Harvard in 1899 (among others). Tebbutt died in 1916, so it’s not clear what instrument the 122 F was recorded on in 1939, but a Stevenson Screen had been installed around 40 years earlier, and the measurement was made by Mr Keith Tebbutt, presumably his son."
Penrith may have recorded 47.3C for at least one-second this week, but Windsor is only 23 km north-east of Penrith, and on January 13th, 1939, it recorded 122F or 50.5C with an old fashioned liquid thermometer, not a modern noisy electronic one.
Apparently, climate change makes our extreme heat less extreme.
Furthermore, this was not measured on a beer crate in someones back-yard, but on the historic Windsor Observatory which was built in 1863 by John Tebbutt F.R.A.S who had discovered The 1861 comet, and published many scientific reports in Astronomical Journals. His meteorological observations are published at Harvard in 1899 (among others). Tebbutt died in 1916, so it’s not clear what instrument the 122 F was recorded on in 1939, but a Stevenson Screen had been installed around 40 years earlier, and the measurement was made by Mr Keith Tebbutt, presumably his son."
Sydney “hottest ever” mistake generates fake news
JoNova(Australia)
The BOM announced it was the hottest ever day in Sydney today, then realized it had it wrong, but not before headlines spread across the country. For a million dollars a day you’d think the BOM would check their own “high quality” database. A scientific agency would take great care before announcing “historic all time records”for a city of five million people. A shameless PR agency might see that sort of mistake as an advantage.
The BOM announced it was the hottest ever day in Sydney today, then realized it had it wrong, but not before headlines spread across the country. For a million dollars a day you’d think the BOM would check their own “high quality” database. A scientific agency would take great care before announcing “historic all time records”for a city of five million people. A shameless PR agency might see that sort of mistake as an advantage.
It’s careless, piled on rank neglect
Even if the day had been “a record”, the temperatures are often artificially inflated due to site changes, thermometer changes, and the one-second-record effect thanks to the introduction of electronic thermometers, all of which are a product of careless BOM management and analysis. And even over and above that, past temperatures have been adjusted or homogenised downwards — often years after they are recorded — and by secret methods that the BOM will not disclose. I’ll have more information soon on changes at Sydney Observatory, that the BOM don’t make any allowance for."In tomorrow’s WSJ – a tale of climate cash, collusion, and apparently, corruption
WUWT
Are foundations running state energy policy without transparency?
With President Trump putting economic growth above climate alarums, green activists are turning to progressive states to press their regulatory agenda. Governors from 15 states have formed the U.S. Climate Alliance, for example, to enforce the Paris Climate Agreement despite Mr. Trump’s withdrawal. Fair enough if it’s all above board, but records we’ve obtained suggest that foundations are steering policy behind the scenes without transparency or clear public accountability."
Are foundations running state energy policy without transparency?
With President Trump putting economic growth above climate alarums, green activists are turning to progressive states to press their regulatory agenda. Governors from 15 states have formed the U.S. Climate Alliance, for example, to enforce the Paris Climate Agreement despite Mr. Trump’s withdrawal. Fair enough if it’s all above board, but records we’ve obtained suggest that foundations are steering policy behind the scenes without transparency or clear public accountability."
‘The 97% climate consensus’ starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it
WUWT
Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.
According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe."
Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.
According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe."
On Science and Nonscience
WUWT
....In the world of scientific journals, there is a quality control mechanism known as peer review. The idea is that a number of independent experts scrutinize a proposed paper, check its correctness and its utility, and suggest changes where necessary. But peer review doesn’t always catch issues with papers before they are published. This is a particular problem when the reviewers work or have worked closely with the authors, and share their conceptual framework. Indeed, where a group of experts on a subject have formed a clique, it’s easy for groupthink to develop. In such a situation, only those ideas with which clique members are comfortable are likely to pass muster and get published."
....In the world of scientific journals, there is a quality control mechanism known as peer review. The idea is that a number of independent experts scrutinize a proposed paper, check its correctness and its utility, and suggest changes where necessary. But peer review doesn’t always catch issues with papers before they are published. This is a particular problem when the reviewers work or have worked closely with the authors, and share their conceptual framework. Indeed, where a group of experts on a subject have formed a clique, it’s easy for groupthink to develop. In such a situation, only those ideas with which clique members are comfortable are likely to pass muster and get published."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)