New study suggests global warming could be mostly an urban problem
By Paul Homewood
A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases.
The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century.
It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. While urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas. For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects. In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.
Source: Maps taken from NOAA Climate.gov.
The study also found that the IPCC’s chosen estimate of solar activity appeared to have prematurely ruled out a substantial role for the Sun in the observed warming.
When the authors analysed the temperature data only using the IPCC’s solar dataset, they could not explain any of the warming since the mid-20th century. That is, they replicated the IPCC’s iconic finding that global warming is mostly human-caused. However, when the authors repeated the analysis using a different estimate of solar activity – one that is often used by the scientific community – they found that most of the warming and cooling trends of the rural data could actually be explained in terms of changing solar activity.
The lead author of the study, Dr. Willie Soon, of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-Science.com) described the implications of their findings,
“For many years, the general public has been assuming that the science on climate change is settled. This new study shows that this is not the case.”
Another author of the study, Prof. Ana Elias, the Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina, explained:
“This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.”
This study finds similar conclusions to another study that was recently published in a separate scientific peer-reviewed journal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. This other study involved many of the same co-authors (led by Dr. Ronan Connolly, also at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences). It took a different approach to analysing the causes of climate change – using an additional 25 estimates of solar activity and three extra temperature estimates.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Urban heat island, anyone….That’s what John Sebastian was singin about in the sixties.
Lovin’ Spoonful: Summer in The City
Hot town, summer in the city
Back of my neck getting dirty and gritty
Been down, isn’t it a pity
Doesn’t seem to be a shadow in the city
All around, people looking half-dead
Walking on the sidewalk, hotter than a match head
Dr Soon has always been one of the good guys, little good its ever done. Another report that will not be mentioned in ‘polite circles’, publisher to drop and renewed efforts to ‘cancel’ the good doctor.
I haven’t heard of Dr Soon in many years now so I thought he must be dead or murdered or cancelled so he became invisible. Good to hear he’s still working.
There are many people who won’t want to hear this as they have too big a stake in the game, both reputational and financial.
Politicians in particular will be loathe to have to change their mindset.
Who has the intellectual and personality traits to reform the current situation?
Politicians have a route out by saying that they were lied to by the scientists and very unusually for politicians, they would be telling the truth.
I liked Judith Curry’s comment when asked why scientists went along with AGW and lied.
‘Fame and fortune’.
‘New study suggests global warming could be mostly an urban problem’
Problem?
‘by 37 researchers’
I am skeptical of papers with more than 3 or 4 authors. Why 37?
Politics.
‘this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.’
So Dr Soon et al know the global mean temperature in 1850?
Dr Soon is a good guy, but he is just playing their game. You can’t win playing someone else’s game.
I would accept that the volume of work covering 18 countries required a lot of people. What is dodgy is alarmist papers that feature a ‘star name’ to give kudos to their drivel who has likely only met them once – Michael Mann for example.
Volume does not add truth.
In general I agree with the maxim that the quality of papers is inversely proportional to the number of authors, but this is clearly a collaboration and the author list is a very interesting and strong smorgasbord of anti-climate establishment figures including:
Willie Soon
Sallie Baliunas
Ronan & Michael Connolly
Willian Briggs
Marcel Crok
Ole Humlum
David Legates
Patrick Moore
Nicola Scafetta
Jim Steele
Fritz Vahrenholt
A smorgasbord – not the word I’d choose. All of these well known contrarians have zero credibility in the global scientific community. I’m guessiing your handle ‘ThinkingScientist’ is just that – a handle.
Zero credibility compared with the likes of “Hokey Schtick” Mann, do you mean?
OKAY GC any ideas what the f+8k is going on? As well as Tony Heller disappearing, the whole article on which you pointed that out has gone awol now.
Looks like something/someone is on the attack.
As I have often said..
“Do not confuse me with the facts, My mind is already made up”
Why are there any temperature readings at all from urban areas? It’s like trying to measure the temperature of your garden using a thermometer inside the house, then applying a correction factor to allow for various heating variables like radiators, people, electric devices, etc. The temperature data from urban areas are worthless.
Very good analogy, David.
When weather stations were set up there was just a desire to provide information. Weather stations at airports and airfields are there to provide information to pilots. There was no expectation that the data would be taken and used to try to prove a flawed idea hatched by leftists wanting an excuse to have a fascist World Government.
I have always said that city thermometers are measuring civilization, not temperature. All activities performed in a city release heat – breathing, driving, braking, electric motors etc.
Brendan from Birmingham can be heard saying, Wott? not ANOTHER one ?
We’ve been saying this for years. … Warmest Nights in Rural Scotland (north) have been only NOW ( last night – rising in the partial moonlight) to give us 18C this morning @ 6am and ONLY 24 (POINT) eight at lunchtime, now. 30C daytime and 3C nighttime does not give us a HOT SUMMER.
“The lead author of the study, Dr. Willie Soon … ”
Well, that’s it then! Gotta be rubbish if he had a hand in it, dunnit?! Stands to reason ……
Climatologist Dr. Reid Bryson…1976:
“Today’s cities-which are built on the use of fossil fuels-absolutely pour such heat into the atmosphere. Take New York City, for example. The heat produced by human activity in New York during the winter is greater than the amount of heat the city receives from the sun.”
That’s why Hansen et al. wrote this in 1999….Urban Effects on Global Temperature…
“We test for anthropogenic influence on our global temperature as follows: We use… source data… (1) only rural stations, (2) rural and small-town stations, (3) all stations, with no homogeneity correction; and (4) all stations, with urban stations adjusted using nearby rural neighbors. We use the definition of Peterson et al. [1997] for these categories; that is, rural areas have a recent population less than 10,000, small towns between 10,000 and 50,000 and urban areas more than 50,000. These populations refer to approximately 1980.”
And that’s why the thousands of USHCN stations do not include major cities…like New York. For those places, the older temperatures are lowered, some times by a full degree F…Spokane, WA.
Thus, it’s not simple to sort out the effects of people on climate, other than to know that “we” can cause AGC as well as AGW, or can affect local climate change by living bunched up together and even out in rural areas.”
Notice that older temperatures were lowered for major cities. Pretty clever.
Funny how all those so-called scientists have poor English and also don’t know what ‘Global’ means.
“The study also found that the IPCC’s chosen estimate of solar activity appeared to have prematurely ruled out a substantial role for the Sun in the observed warming.”
The IPCC have also ‘prematurely ruled out’ the warming caused by the average healthy human body and the increase in human population to 8 point something billion.
I think you’ll find that last statistic irrelevant.
I have no idea what the total volume of the atmosphere is but since the human race only occupies about 16 billion cubic metres of it I doubt if our mere presence on the planet is noticeable.
If you want another statistic, every living human being could have as “personal space” one-fifth of an acre of land and still not fill Australia.
Mike, equivalent to 8. something billion 200-250 watt electric fires ALL being on at the same time. In addition humans die from cold and God in His careful design of our planet arranged for it to be winter for at least three months somewhere. Then on top of that, places we think of being hot, eg. Sahara desert, get very cold at night times and need a fire for people to survive. Australia = big country.
The IPCC clowns have a great proclivity for leaving out unhelpful to the narrative data sources, or tweaking data to fit their narrative
Even the most uneducated alarmist knows that big sunny hot thing in the sky warms the earth and we miss it when it’s not there to keep us nice and warm and the garden lovely and green (winter)
They also know local temperatures are higher in cities and towns than rural spots – that localised heat is a product of all that clumped together concrete, tarmac, steel, buildings and systems, traffic etc
Even MSM weather commentators will reference lower temperatures in rural areas – it may be 10degC in central London, but it’s also -3degC in the highlands, at the same time – funny that!
Or at least 2° warmer in central Edinburgh than in rural Midlothian as I had cause to notice frequently when I worked/lived there.
Mike, I recognise the UHI of London when I visit. Leave home early in morning, sleeveless fleece gilet or a full fleece jacket on. Get to outskirts of London, shed the gilet or jacket. Reach central London and the sweater is also going in my backpack.
“For many years, the general public has been assuming that the science on climate change is settled.”
No, for many years the general public has been instructed to believe that “the science is settled” by so-called “climate scientists”, despite a fundamental property of science being that it is NEVER settled.
Urban centres are where the votes are. Obviously. So these liars get away with their scam.
Greenland hasn’t a UHI problem at the moment.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
Urban areas are anomalously warming. They cover a small but not insignificant amount of the world’s surface.
The Baltic Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, the Sea of Japan, Lake Tanganyika, etc etc are warming at up to three times the average rate of the open ocean. Has no-one noticed this? Investigate anomalies, that is where the explanations are. Or, if you’re pushed for time, you could look at the post entitled ‘Are we smoothing the way to global warming?’ at the TCW Defending Freedom blog.
Our civilisation is polluting enormous swathes of the oceans with oil, surfactants, and feeding the oleaginous plankton ecosystems with nutrient run-off, dissolved silica from poor farming practices, sewage etc.
It’s not just AGW. It’s also Anthropogenic Pollution Warming.
Not convinced? Look up the recent history of the Sea of Marmara.
JF
‘Our civilisation is polluting enormous swathes of the oceans’
We are pissants. We can’t do “enormous.”
We are nothing. Mr Flood, you fail to comprehend the scale, Earth vs Man.
Please look for TCW Defending Freedom blog and my reply here to catweasle.
JF
Mr Flood, you want me to go look for your reply?
Not my job, Mon.
Forgive me if that fact doesn’t cause me concern.
JF
With reference to Gamecock, here is a link to Julian’s article to have a look at.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/are-we-smoothing-the-path-to-global-warming/
Whilst I do not know Julian personally, I certainly know of him and pay close attention to someone of his professional qualification standard. That’s not an appeal to authority but in my book the UK’s youngest ever Vulcan Bomber Captain (when just 24 ) deserves serious respect. His suggestions regarding ocean surface smoothing also deserve serious consideration.
Julian is unlikely to blow his own trumpet so I will for him.
Vulcan Bombers are incredibly scary monsters – the last one I saw fly over (bomb doors open) was very low indeed over Headcorn Aerodrome in Kent – two girls near me fainted with the shock and a large part of the huge crowd couldn’t hear anything at all for several minutes after.
Youngest? I’ve heard people say that but I’ve never bothered to check — there was a whole batch of us in the early seventies. But what a machine! JF
I cycled to the Farnborough Air Show, from Esher, in the mid 60s I think! My friend and I positioned ourselves along the runway and marvelled at the aircraft on display. The highlight of the show was a mock ‘scramble’ of all three
V-bombers, the Vulcan in the lead, the Valiant and Victor following close on the Vulcan’s wing tips.
They lifted off just before us and opposite us they climbed vertically on turbo re-heat. The noise made the ground vibrate and we were deaf for hours afterwards! The nearest equivalent was walking past Heathrow’s southern runway while Concorde was taking off to the west. A mere bagatelle by comparison.
The Vulcan could generate a lot of “lift” for a quick take-off, particularly if low on fuel. This became part of the script for later airshows: Vulcan howl -> short take-off run -> max rate of climb.
EE Lightning for the best airshow displays, IMO.
Some perspective:
71% of the Earth’s surface – around 139 million square miles is covered to an average depth of 2.3 miles with water, giving about 328,680,500 cubic miles of water.
The Sea of Marmara contains about 810 cubic miles.
Nope, I’m not convinced.
Weasel, look up the Benjamin Franklin experiment on Mount Pond in 1770(ish). He smoothed it with a teaspoon of olive oil.
If you like sums then calculate the amount of oil needed to smooth say, ten percent of the North Atlantic using his numbers. Let me know how it works out, I keep getting lost in all the zeroes.
Then look at the SeaWifs data on the amount of light oil being spilled onto the oceans — it’s the tiny thin layer at the surface that alters albedo and evaporation rates so the bulk of the water is not involved. The Sea of Marmara warmed at twice to three times the usual rate because of pollution.
If you go to TCW Defending Freedom blog you’ll find a post “Are We Smoothing the Way to Global Warming?” with a fuller explanation.
JF
Looks like previous reply didn’t send.
read the TCW post “Are we smoothing our way to Global Warming?2and you’ll get a better idea of what I’m talking about. The smooth is created by a microscopically thin layer on the surface, it doesn’t involve the bulk of the water.
JF, the oily layer atop oceans is also produced via phytoplankton as a by-product, so quite a lot.
Was great to see a Vulcan over Edinburgh ’08. Bitd, Strathallan, Leuchars airshows and Lightning – over tannoy… ‘…the Lightning is currently off Northumberland… then streaking right through the Firth. Brilliant!
You’re comparing 139 million square miles of ocean with huge currents, massive overturning circulation like the AMOC, huge currents shifting billions of tons of water, waves tens of feet high and winds up to 100+ MPH with a POND?
Right…
Molecules thin surface pollution, no depth. Try to concentrate on that. Look up Lord Rayleigh’s oil drop experiment. Come on, it’s not difficult to understand.
JF
Just molecules thickness? Humm, like a layer of paint. And remember the Braer incident? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42577914, what was the outcome ? Just saying! ( ie NO POLLUTION after all )
The Braer oil was ripped if the sea surface by exceptional winds. Interestingly enough that seemed to thin the cloud downwind from the spill.
JF
oil was ripped OFF the sea surface ? yes ?
You know sea spray being torn from the waves during storms? Like that.
JF
Perhaps this link to the education piece from the Royal Society of Chemistry may help explain the issue.
https://edu.rsc.org/in-search-of-more-solutions/franklins-teaspoon-of-oil/574.article
Actually Julian you are forgetting a major component of oil on the surface of the ocean – natural seepage. Oil companies actually search for it to detect potential source rock activity in prospective areas. Current estimates are that close to 50% of all surface contamination of the oceans with hydrocarbons is natural.
NOAA estimates in North American waters natural seeps contribute 160,000 tons annually (about 1,2 million barrels per year). Global estimates are between 200,000 to 2,000,000 tons per year – that upper estimate would be 15 Million bbls per year.
Hydrocarbons are natural, organic and biodegradable. Seeps are widespread and, over time, significant in active petroleum basins. Take a wander along the UK Jurassic Coast – active seeps at Osmington Mills, historical bituminous shale fires at “Burning Cliff” and if you walk down the slipway onto the beach in Lulworth and go right to where the lovely sand beds are exposed you will see horrible brown, tarry stuff in the rocks. Not “pollution” but entirely natural biodegraded oil seeps. There’s more in Stair Hole behind.
Or take a walk down to Kimmeridge Bay to see the main source rock for the North Sea in outcrop. Organic content is as high as 15% so try breaking off a fresh piece. As the BGS say on their website description: “You can see, or perhaps more easily smell, the oil content in the Kimmeridge Clay Formation on fresh exposures of the rock.”. You can burn Kimmeridge Clay, as you can the Bencliff Grit from the Jurassic coast. Kimmeridge clay burns with characteristic “gassy” flames so it contains a lot of volatiles.
And as a final aside, never forget the largest onshore oil field in Europe is Wytch Farm – sitting under Poole Harbour and Sandbanks (the most valuable real estate around). 170 wells drilled including long reach horizonatals (BP held the world record previously with a well drilled here), right under the harbour and out to sea – with about 20% hydraulically fractured. And no-one even notices its there. Not even the red squirrels on Brownsea Island.
https://wessexcoastgeology.soton.ac.uk/Oil-South-of-England.htm
No, not forgetting, but I don’t see a way of quantifying seeps which will vary in amount and location. I’ve seen the oil blobs on my feet after paddling in Clearwater Bay, and the smooths running out to the horizon off Tenerife towns. Smoothing happens, both natural and man made. The SeaWifs data is online.
If you’d like a bit of real handwaving you might try and correlate the evolution of oily phytoplankton with major warming periods, but that would be a bit of fun. More realistically there might be a connection between Tom Wigley’s blip and the Battle of the Atlantic.
I find it strange that people get so emphatic denying that sea surface pollution might be a contributory factor to sea surface warming. Just from first principles it seems possible, even likely, and the way heavily polluted water bodies warm should make a study simple. I thought that was how science is done, observation, collect data, form hypothesis, compare data with predictions of the hypothesis. Apparently not.
JF
New study … repeating what has been known about for at least a decade. Next there will be w study telling us that the fiddling of the temperatures on the basis of max/min thermometers is just a fiddle. Or even, that reducing SO2 in the 1970s, stopped the cold inducing clouds that led to London smog.
Or are we about to see the wheel turn fool circle and go back to the global cooling circus?
There are “country dwellers” in the UK who will tell you that UK “urban dwellers” create many of the UK’s problems.
Dear Mr Homewood,
I attach a paper which I came across today, but may be more than 10 years old. However I found it relevant and well written. You may have already reviewed it in the past, but better to be safe than sorry. I enjoy your daily updates, Thanks Dr Stuart M Barlow
Just learnt about the site of Moray 3500 metres in altitude in the Andes. SW of Cuzco. A series of circular terraces up to 30 metres deep.
There can be a temperature difference of 15’C from the top to the bottom.
One theory is that it was used to develop new varieties of crops.
They took advantage of the Terrace Heat Island effect.
I’ve been there and my theory is that it was originally a water filter. There are clear signs that heavy rainfall has repeatedly cut through the escarpment. Looks like they dug out a massive hole to keep the water in and built up the sides with the overburden.
When it becomes flooded the the water filters through to a natural springs a couple of hundred metres away and they have year round filtered water.
The terraces are an added bonus where they can plant crops that benefit from the water retention.
Clever people these Incas. And all without the benefit of super computers and climate models!
They did. The Aztecs terraced their mountain terrain and were able to grow different crops at each level. They developed an irrigation system that took water from high mountain streams and channeled it onto each level of their terraces. You can still see this feat of engineering today and on some levels it is still working. A remarkable race of people. Alas, what did for them was climate change.
Interesting thanks, I’d love to know more…..
Sorry to read this bickering because in the end it will make not one jot of difference since the planet will continue to wiggle its orbit closer then away from the sun and ice ages will come and go, unlike humankind, who will just – well -go!
OK, Hugh – will post a link.
I was trawling through this to brush up on weather disasters
https://www.onthisday.com/events/date/1887
and was astonished to see that Gamecock won the Grand National that year!
Jan 21 Brisbane receives a daily rainfall of 465 millimetres (18.3 inches), a record for any Australian capital city.
Jan 28 In a snowstorm at Fort Keogh, Montana, the world’s largest snowflakes are reported, being 15 inches (38 cm) wide and 8 inches (20 cm) thick.
Mar 25 49th Grand National: Bill Daniels aboard 20/1 chance Gamecock wins by 3 lengths from Savoyard
Sep 28 Yellow River or Huáng Hé floods in China, killing between 900,000 and 2 million people, one of the deadliest natural disasters in history
No relation.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone mention AIR CONDITIONING!! At thousands of office buildings and every airport terminal, the HEAT OUTPUT of Air Con is enormous.
What? like 3 to 4 ( THREE 2 FOUR, – for the modern soshul users hoo cant figure out real numbers) , 3 – 4kW HEAT for every 1kW electricity burnt ?… Yep! that’ll be about right.
During July, we planned a camping holiday in Belgium and the Netherlands. The day before we left, the weather was pleasant, sunny and warm. In the evening the BBC (Bigotry Broadcasting Corporation), featured a meteorologist, I think from the Met Office, who said that the weather was getting to get dangerously warmer. On the continent, it would be worse, with temperatures reaching very high temperatures.
The following morning it rained heavily and the temperature dropped. For the next three weeks in Belgium it rained heavily and the temperature dropped. It felt like a wet winter on muddy ground and the local river changed from a gentle stream into a torrent.
I now, and not just from this incident, believe that the Met Office is as corrupt as NASA. The BBC is beyond redemption, and not just for their climate propaganda.
The journal Climate is a pay to publish ‘journal’ published by well known predatory publishing outfit mdpi (google it). The editor of Climate is Ned Nikolov who has only one climate paper indexex in Web of Science to his name, the others being in other predatory journals. The author list of this paper contains a long list of well known contrarians. The contents is a rehearsal of long debunked denialist themes. It wouldn’t get published in a reputable journal.
Those wanting to know more about climate change could begin by looking at the websites of NASA, NOAA, WMO, UK Met Office, Royal Societ, Institute of Physics or really any independent professional scientific organisation. They will all have overviews of AGW and the NASA website is particularly nice to look at.
You lose all crdibility when you talk about “contrarians”
From what he says in his posts , he never had any credibility .
What would you know about climate science Paul you’re an accountant who runs a pseudoscience blog.
Well, you certainly know about ad hominem attacks don’t you? Perhaps you’d indulge us with your qualifications for your slur?
This website has more science and engineering than you can shake a stick at and an accountant is an ideal person to deal in facts.
Here’s an excellent overview of current understanding of AGW. It’s a review ofwork published in reputable journals with extensive list of primary source references at the end. It’s not an easy read in any sense but well worth it from the Geological Society of London founded 1807.
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/documents/policy/Statements/Geological%20Society%20of%20London%20Scientific%20Climate%20Change%20Statement%202020.pdf?la=en
For those asking me about climate science here why ask a random person online when you can go to the websites of scientific organisations and read what leading scientists think?
Devon Boy Blue: “Well, you certainly know about ad hominem attacks don’t you? Perhaps you’d indulge us with your qualifications for your slur?
This website has more science and engineering than you can shake a stick at and an accountant is an ideal person to deal in facts.”
This website is a disinformation blog. This is the science. That link to the Geol Soc was too long this is shorter. It’s a summary of the science:
https://tinyurl.com/36pp7bhu
You can also find many climate scientists on Twitter eg Gavin Schmidt, Andrew Dressler, Richard Betts ad many more.
My qualifications are actually irrelevant and of course I could claim anything here and it probably couldn’t be verified. It’s what’s in the published literature that matters. But for what it’s worth my first degree is in mathematics and my master’s was in studies in the history and philosophy of science studying various things including scientific controversies. I am sufficiently clued up to recognise pseudoscience when I see it. I have recently spent time studying disinformation online of which this blog is a prime example. You’re welcome.
And for the nth time I explain that pointing out that people do not have any relevant expertise is not an ad hominem attack. Saying someone is wrong about science because they have smelly feet is an ad hominem attack.
Passing readers please read what scientists say, the clock is ticking.
You will notice how remarkably open and tolerant we are on this site. You have chosen to gratuitously insult the blog’s author and yet were not deleted. Conversely, as an example, I have been deleted from numerous “warmist” style fora for nothing more than having the temerity to question data accuracy by providing hard verifiable facts.
Perhaps an apology may be in order as without one you will likely be held in severe disregard by any and every reputable person whatever their views on this subject.
You will be judged by your own actions.
I think that maybe ‘Mr Hugh Peters’ may be one of those A1 Chatbots?
Did you opt to read and respond to my post to you? Your ongoing behaviour does neither you nor any argument you may be attempting to put forward any favours.
Mr Peters, define “climate change.”
Read the links I posted.
Nope. I asked for your definition.
Not links to someone else’s definition. Have you even thought about it? Ever?
Heh, “denialist” eh?
So you conflate AGW scepticism with Holocaust denial, do you?
Charming!
As to your conception of what constitutes a “climate scientist”, well…
In any case, your precious AGW hoax is rapidly approaching extinction.
On yer bike sunshine, you wouldn’t recognise science if it scuttled under your bridge and bit you on the snout!
🤣🤣👍
Clueless reply. Read some science.
climate.nasa.gov or w/site of an independent professional scientific organization. Read science not crank blogs
Caz, I think we can consign https://twitter.com/NdabaningiMoyo to Coventry. A fully paid up Mann lover.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/documents/policy/Statements/Geological%20Society%20of%20London%20Scientific%20Climate%20Change%20Statement%202020.pdf?la=en
So Ndabaningi, you have no intention of apologising for your gratuitous rudeness. Fine speaks volumes for the paucity of your attempted arguments.
Perhaps try learning some science some time rather than twattering around on X all day. Heil Hitler
I asked him for his definition of ‘climate change.’ He had to go ask someone else. When you have to ask someone else what you believe . . .
Zombie.
Oh dear I do seem to have upset some people here who have all kinds of batty beliefs about climate science, climate scientists and no doubt all kinds of things. Pointing out that people are spreading disinformation is apparently gratuitous rudeness, even whern they are doing it either knowingly or in the full knowledgew of their own ignorance of the subject matter. Climate change is one of the biggest threats facing the human race, along with air pollution, species loss, water shortages and many other things …… and people here are wibbling on about rudeness. Disinformation costs lives as it did in the pandemic and responsible moderation of comments forums means removing it where possible.
What I would suggest is that people are upset when you tell them things they don’t want to hear so they effectively stick their fingers in their ears. They would rather invent some daft conspiracy theory that virtually the entire global scientific scientific community is involved in to deceive the general population. A real conspiracy, Watergate, involved fewer that 100 people and unravelled in less than 2 years. Michael Mann apparently is a bogey man, when in fact climate scientists routinely receive death threats and abuse for talking about their work. Someone above even signed their gormless comment with a Nazi slogan. Climate science deniers often share views with anitvaxxers and other crank conspiracy theorists.
For passing readers who are interested I have posted links in previous comments above to scientific institutions and material. Here’s more.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change
royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/12/28/207253/simple-rebuttals-to-denier-talking-points-with-links-to-the-full-climate-science/
Or you could sstick your fingers in your ears…..
“What I would suggest is that people are upset when you tell them things they don’t want to hear so they effectively stick their fingers in their ears,” he says while looking in the mirror.
You have proved many points. Firstly you have neither been moderated nor deleted on here in any way despite your unpleasant attitude to the owner of this blog. Consider this, if I had attempted to post on your beloved newspaper, The Guardian, (you reference it regularly on X) that Katherine Viner knew nothing about climate science because she was just some unqualified journalist type, the comment would be deleted. Repeating such lines would disable commenting ability….but you haven’t been…..So why not prove your case and answer Gamecock’s question in YOUR own words? And also apologise for your gratuitous rudeness.
Secondly a tip, you are not aware of the nature, qualifications, general standing etc of the posters on here are you? Most on here are actually very qualified in their fields and many either currently hold, or have previously held, positions of authority in government, military, business, oh and of course education – particularly tertiary education. It never pays to upset too many people in life unecessarily – especially when you don’t know who they are – think about it.
An excellent, considered response.
“…answer Gamecock’s question in YOUR own words?” Why would I want to use my own words when I could refer readers to scientists who have spent their careers studying climate science? Any way to be honest Gamecock seems a bit err…. well of course I don’t want to be rude to anyone do I, people here seem to value obsequious deference over relevant knowledge here
“A tip… standing…. positions of authority…. military, business…. It never pays to upset too many people in life unecessarily – especially when you don’t know who they are – think about it.”
Are you ok Ray? Is Dad’s Army coming for me?
Good bye.
@ Hugh Peters. There is no scientific proof to support a belief that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change.
There are some people who share a belief that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change. A consensus = a shared belief e.g. religion.
There seems to be no reply option at the foot of Micky R’s comment, so it’s here. This thread is full of people pronouncing on what they think science is or isn’t, it’s never settled, consensus isn’t science, climate science is a cult etc. etc. Science is based on evidence not on belief like religion.
A consensus among scientists is not at all like an agreement among friends. A scientific consensus emerges as the evidence for something piles up, among many different kinds of evidence, and is replicated, and as the theory succeeds in explaining many different phenomena using the same ideas. Consilience, coherence and an emerging consensus.
Proof is for mathematics and alcohol, not science. Science doesn’t prove things, but evidence accumulates until some things are beyond reasonable doubt on any human timescale. Curiously the people who doubt climate change don’t seem to trouble over particle physics, plate tectonics, gravity, or other big theories. But when science tells them something they don’t want to hear, it suddenly becomes a conspiracy to remove their freedom, control them etc. Very odd. Atmospheric physics doesn’t negotiate or respect what people would like to vote for. AGW is real and it’s time to take action. See links I posted in previous comments above.
There is no scientific consensus that humans have any effect on climate .https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/30/97-consensus-what-consensus/
The vast majority believe it is not true
.Look at the Doran Zimmerman papers and the Cook Et Al papers claiming a 97% agreement , total lies as the Oregon petition proved it was under 1%.
But anyone who believes in the Guardians rubbish will no doubt be completely taken in by the propaganda and lies .
You cannot seriously expect people to read WTFUWT. It is another of a number of well known, dismal crank blogs.
Updates from scientists: https://www.carbonbrief.org/
WUWT will actually report proven facts , like the fact that the 97% claim is a total load of lies . Shown many times over by different sources from around the world .
As opposed to ” Carbon Brief ” which has been shown over and over again to just come out with loads of lies .
So that tells everybody that all of your rubbish is just lies and AGW propaganda .
I give up. You can’t tell the difference can you?
A chatbot programmed by the AGW fraternity would produce a more nuanced commentary than your repeated denial of empirical evidence. Have you ever heard of the saying “It’s better to keep quiet and let people think you are stupid than to open your mouth and prove the point.”
You really haven’t a clue, have you?
“On yer bike sunshine, you wouldn’t recognise science if it scuttled under your bridge and bit you on the snout!”
You’re not very…. um… well I don’t want to be unkind catweazle666.
Child, I acquired my first science qualification in the mid 1960s and have spent my entire life as an engineer depending on science and mathematics in their various aspects to make a comfortable living as a consultant working for companies whose names in some cases are household words, not hiding in some academic backwater or other like an overgrown schoolboy.
I doubt could tell an entropy-enthalpy diagram from an hysteresis loop if your life depended on it.
Now have a nice drink of warm milk and get off to bed, your mummy is waiting to tuck you in.
@ Hugh Peters.
Science is supposed to be built on published scientific theory, which is supposed to be based on repeatable experiments or accurate models based on empirical evidence. Where is the published scientific theory to confirm that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change?
For general use, the word “proof” is generally more understandable than the phrase “published scientific theory” . In general use, “theory” can mean “hypothesis” or “guess” ; obviously very different to the use of the word “theory” within the context of “published scientific theory” .
I don’t generally have a problem with other people’s beliefs, as long as they don’t try and enforce their beliefs on others, perhaps by claiming that a combined belief (a consensus) is sufficient justification to enforce a belief on others.
One wonders if this isn’t Stephen Bailey back with a pseudonym.
No Stephen Martin Frederick Bailey is owner of the Outdoor Group of companies. Basically a small online retailer of camping and associated goods based in Bournemouth England.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/MnIrr48oEd79537cmaGNb864XvM/appointments
He is a harmless enough and probably a well meaning but misguided small business man.
On the other hand Ndabaningi Moyo/Robert Hugh Peters is an employee of a state funded/education instituion in a position to potentially unduly influence younger and more impressionable people…..for now.
“Stephen… Bailey [is]…. a… small businessman.”
And seems to have made a memorable impression on people here. I like the sound of him.
But how do you know he is small? Have you met him?
I see your email links keep changing Hugh.
This one is skeptical science, and the previous one was climatebrief.
Please stick to one
” One wonders if this isn’t Stephen Bailey back with a pseudonym. ”
There is a hint of extensive “copy and paste” about Hugh Peter’s posts, as there was with some of Stephen Bailey’s posts.
My guess (no proof ! ) is that there is a wider audience.
There have been a range of responses to my posting here what actual published science says about AGW. There have been catweazle’s hardly compelling and comically macho eructions:
“Child… your mummy is waiting to tuck you in.”
“I’ve had more hot dinners than you…” (or something) and a feeble variation on the cliché to the effect that
“Research scientists just mince around pretending to know things, I’m an engineer and I go out in the world, get my hands dirty and do the real work.”
Catweazle assures us he is very clever and correct and tells us himself IN HIS OWN WORDS so it must be true and therefore AGW is a scam. Got it ok?
There has been a reference to ‘authority fallacy’ – which doesn’t mean that a reference to people who actually know what they are talking about is a fallacy – complaints about cancelling of dissident views and, by contrast, someone telling me I should be careful who I upset because there are some Very Important People using pseudonyms on this forum.
Then there is also an anodyne aside about the word theory followed by a reversion to the idea of ‘belief’. Science has nothing to do with belief and atmospheric physics will follow the laws of science whether you ‘believe’ in it or not. You will have no vote or choice of any kind about what happens as the atmosphere and oceans continue to heat up. See links below found in 10s of googling.
All of the responses above amount to diddly squat. Unsurprisingly, not one of these posts contains any reference to a professional independent scientific organisation or an article in a reputable journal.
And finally I don’t know who Stephen Bailey is but he sounds like a kindred spirit i.e. doesn’t get his ideas from blogs like PEOPLE THAT KNOW NOT A LOT. As for a wider audience, the only possible reason for posting here is that people who are unclear about AGW and its dangers might read the links. The small group commenting here are not going to change their minds here and seem to be about as numerous as the viewers of GBeebies News.
Another link to the Institute of Physics, evidence to UK Parliament 2021 about climate change and WMO tweet about warming:
https://www.iop.org/policy/promoting-physics-based-climate-change-evidence-week
” Science has nothing to do with belief ”
Where is the proof (or published scientific theory) that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change?
A consensus is a shared belief, which must be ignored because “Science has nothing to do with belief ” .
Why don’t you read the links I have put up? Are you just going to keep asking “Where’s the evidence” whatever anyone shows you? This online behaviour is called sealioning. Read the words I have posted and try and understand them. e.g. concept of sscientific consensus above.
@ Hugh Peters. I’ve not asked you for evidence, I’ve asked you for the proof or the published scientific theory to confirm that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change.
If the believers had either the proof or the published scientific theory then they would shout it from the rooftops.
” concept of sscientific consensus ” . Consensus = shared belief. Religion is a shared belief.
Micheal Crichton (author) in a lecture at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 ” …. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Reply to Devon: Michael Crichton is not an authority on climate science nor onwhat is or isn’t science. He was a filmmaker and writer. He studied English literature but later graduated in biological anthropology. He started but didn’t finish med school. He has no scientific papers to his name, just novels and films.
Micky: you’ve basically repeated the same post with various forms of question and misconceptiions three times now. I explained about evidence and the irrelevance of the idea of proof. You are sealioning and I can’t help you.
I would advise you to read “Heaven And Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science” by Ian Plimer; Australian geologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Melbourne. Who, unlike your snide attack on Michael Crichton, has the same thing to say regarding the ‘consensus on climate science’. However, on reading your posts, I doubt if you have an open enough mind and are wedded to your ‘AGM climate catastrophe’ beliefs. Next you’ll be telling us that Covid was a a killer pandemic, the lockdowns were a proportionate response and the ‘vaccines’ are safe and effective!
You clearly subscribe to a number of common conspiracy theories, which is entirely consistent with my experience of science deniers in general. Plimer is a crank and I wouldn’t waste my time.
https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/15/plimer-suffers-from-crank-magn
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
@ Hugh Peters. The reality is that there is no proof or published scientific theory to confirm that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change. That’s why the believers have to rely on the power of a shared belief, just like a religion.
If you click on the logo to the left of Mr Peter’s name, it takes you to the NASA website – a superb effort. However, if you look at the suggested ways in which climate change might be tackled, they strangely do not mention that a slight tilt of the Earth’s orbit would solve the problem. Bingo – a symmetrical orbit and no ice ages.
Looking at that NASA page , it is so full of lies and propaganda that if he actually believes in that , it is not surprising that his posts make no sense and are just so much rubbish .
I like the positivity in this reply. So we get a few strong people up in spacce to heave the Earth’s axis over and Bingo!! – our climate problems are fixed? Have you written in to NASA and suggested this? Pity this is such a serious subject and this is the kind of response we see here. Oh well….
” … this is the kind of response we see here ”
“We” ? How big is your audience ?
“We” ? How big is your audience ?”
I don’t know.
Paul Homewood complained I am posting too many different website addresses here which he probably doesn’t like. But it seems to be working – ppl are looking at them. And one poster even conveniently boosted my tweets on X to reach a wider audience so it’s all good as far as I’m concerned.
In which case all of your posts will be be spammed except for your original email address!