Skip to content

About

The more I look at climate issues, the more I realise that we cannot always rely on what the climate establishment tell us.

I hope that, in my own small way, I can help to put that right.

 

48 Comments leave one →
  1. February 19, 2012 6:09 pm

    Hi Paul, I am interested in using an extract from your article the CCA for a briefing to MPs – is the okay? Contact me fay@repealtheact.org.uk

  2. Ed Caryl permalink
    February 23, 2012 6:10 pm

    Paul,
    Your article on Reykjavik prompted me to look at many arctic stations for which I had stored data last year. May i use the comparison figure in your article in mine? I will be putting it on TheNoTricksZone. I didn’t happen to store Raykjavik.

  3. May 24, 2012 8:05 pm

    Interesting climate blog!

  4. pcopeland permalink
    June 11, 2012 12:02 am

    Do you have an RSS feed enabled on your site?

  5. December 31, 2012 2:54 pm

    Hi Paul,

    Have you ever seen or created – or do you know where the data is to do it – a scatter plot of power generated by wind (or % of capacity) against winter temperature? I assume the dynamics could well be different in summer.

    The whole idea of a power generation technology which does not actually produce power when it is most needed is fascinating.

  6. Jeffery permalink
    January 17, 2013 6:00 pm

    Paul,

    Great stuff, always useful. Have you seen the NIPCC site? This is not spam, I’ve been reading along and forwarding your pertinent (and often “pert”) questions to my AGW zombie friends. NIPCC generally has some pretty interesting links along similar lines culled from science publications. Great that there are places to find polite but serious questions about catastrophic AGW.

    http://nipccreport.org/

  7. February 11, 2013 4:20 pm

    ClimateDepot.com links to your site’s Feb 8 blog. If I may, please allow me to point one other largely unreported facet of AGW, namely the baseless accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the issue. I wrote an exclusive for ClimateDepot nearly two years ago titled “Climate Depot Exclusive: “Smearing Skeptic Scientists: What did Gore know and when did he know it?” ( http://ow.ly/hC4C6 ), and the rest of my pieces on this narrow topic are here: “The ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists” http://tinyurl.com/cjn9tv6

    Folks like me having no science background at all can contribute to a wider understanding of the politics surrounding the issue, at least.

  8. Ebeni permalink
    February 25, 2013 4:07 pm

    Is there a “tutorial” for lay people (albeit with an appreciation for science) that explores the AGW/CAGW controversy? My thought is an easily followed map that, step by step, follows the scientific method and general principles. One that shows how the science has been corrupted through each step of the scientific method and associated principles and continues to be supported with unfounded assertions and logical fallacies. Perhaps a tutorial that has citations and proof statements to support the assertions. I have a big file of papers/blogs etc on various positions on AGW/CAGW, I can grasp much of it but have limited capability to discuss it other than in generalities. Does such a tutorial exist or can someone write it up–again for the lay person with a grasp of scientific method.
    Regards and Thanks

    • February 25, 2013 5:23 pm

      From the scientific point of view, the debate seems to revolve around two main issues:-

      1) What will feedbacks be?
      2) What will be the effects of a slightly warmer planet?

      There are certainly wide disagreements between scientists themselves about both these questions, but I am not aware of any write up that summarises everything.

    • January 9, 2014 2:57 am

      Ebeni, I my page “Observatorio ARVAL – Climate Change; The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate”, at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm I begin with:
      After the alarm caused by Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006, these are my findings about the drivers of Earth’s global climate.

      I try to present this science in this long page.
      It is all about science published by well-known scientists, with links to the original works.
      As you can see below, I’m not a climate scientist, far from it. That’s why I had to do this research; To find out what happened, what is happening and maybe what could most probably happen. I hope you’ll find it interesting.

      Andres Valencia
      Electronics Engineer, Solid State Physics

  9. March 13, 2013 3:00 pm

    New Anthony Watts Interview Just Published: Climate Change without Catastrophe (News Tip)

    Dear Shub,

    I just wanted to send you a quick mail to let you know that we have just conducted a very interesting interview with the well known figure in the climate debate Anthony Watts.
    It’s a very interesting chat and whether you agree or disagree with his comments I thought you and your readers would find some value in taking a look

    A few of the topics we discussed are:

    • The difference between “global warming” and “climate change”
    • Why CO2 is partially responsible but oversold
    • Why recent major weather events cannot be linked to CO2
    • Why we should be more worried about another ice age
    • Why carbon taxes won’t have any effect on the whims of Mother Nature
    • How the climate debate has taken on religious proportions
    • Why the Keystone protests are all for show
    • Why Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of truth
    • What we should and shouldn’t be doing to address global warming
    • Why “climate change” has become a favorite bogeyman
    • Why scientifically we’ve only scratched the surface of climate change

    You can read the full interview at: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Climate-Change-without-Catastrophe-Interview-with-Anthony-Watts.html

    I hope you find the interview interesting.

    Best regards,

    James Stafford

  10. May 1, 2013 1:22 pm

    Be careful posting anything about The Environment Agency (Wrong Type of Rain etc.) – they’ve got a large calibre scatter gun to deal with uppity bloggers.

    We were just missed by one blast that hit of all places Narrowboat World and prompted us to investigate how much media control a single UK government agency indulges in

  11. alf permalink
    June 2, 2013 6:21 pm

    “Because if you look at satellite data at the top of the atmosphere, you clearly see we have an excess of energy, more energy going into our planetary system then what is going out.”

    comment by a physicist quoted in a post on the NoTricksZone blog under the post title; Puzzled Schellnhuber: “Not At All Surprised” Short Term Models Are Wrong…But Insists Long-Term Models Are Correct!” Would you have any comments.

    alf

  12. June 3, 2013 11:37 am

    Hello Mr. Homewood,
    I did some datamining on a few British coastal weatherstations to see if the Atlantic Ocean is still warming.
    I’ve written an article about that subject on my own blog:
    http://cassandraclub.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/hoe-zit-het-met-de-opwarming-van-de-atlantische-oceaan-deel-2/
    It is in Dutch, but the graphs speak for themselves.

  13. alf permalink
    June 3, 2013 3:50 pm

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/02/puzzled-schellnhuber-not-at-all-surprised-short-term-models-are-wrong-but-insists-long-term-models-are-correct/

    here is the link –just wondering if in fact the above statement is true.

    alf

    • June 3, 2013 5:14 pm

      Thanks.

      I don’t know where he gets his data from, but Lindzen & Choi came to the opposite conclusion.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

      There is certainly much debate about whether they are right or not, but I think it shows just how far away scientists are in being able to measure and understand such things.

      But the bottom line is that if Scnellhuber is right, the added heat would be measurable at the surface, which it is not.

  14. alf permalink
    June 3, 2013 6:54 pm

    I would assume that it is easier to measure outgoing radiation then incoming due to cloud cover and other factors. thanks for the link

    alf

  15. Joseph Yates permalink
    June 27, 2013 11:55 am

    “The more I look at climate issues, the more I realise that we cannot always rely on what the climate establishment tell us.

    I hope that, in my own small way, I can help to put that right.”

    Well, Paul, that’s an admirable goal, but I have a couple of questions.

    1) Who are you – what are your credentials?

    2) Have you published anything in any peer-reviewed scientific publication?

    3) What is your academic background?

    4) What professional certifications, if any, do you possess?

    Don’t take this as a personal attack. It’s just that if I was going to have brain surgery, I’d really want to know that the surgeon who was going to perform the surgery was actually qualified to cut on me. It is no different with respect to the search for expertize in any field, for instance, in Climate science. And so I think you owe us a little information on your background.

    • June 27, 2013 6:50 pm

      Thanks for the question, Joseph, and I appreciate the reasons for it.

      However, I deal in facts. If you think I have made any factual errors, or misrepresented any issues, I would be delighted to discuss them with you.

      As I am sure you would agree, Climate Change is an enormously important area of public policy and debate, and I believe that the more facts that are out in the public arena, then the better.

      One more point, and perhaps the most important. I always encourage people to do what I have done, and check the facts for themselves, rather than simply believe what they are told. So I usually try to provide links etc for readers to do just that.

      (BTW – I am an accountant)

  16. Camburn permalink
    August 8, 2013 2:11 am

    Paul: here is an interesting discussion I had with a few folks tonight.

    The hottest year in the U.S. was 1921. 1934 was second. The average temperature for the 48 contiguous states in 1921 was 55.6°F. To confirm this one can read the first paragraph of THE WEATHER OF 1940 IN THE UNITED STATES (W.W. Reed) or THE WEATHER OF 1942 IN THE UNITED STATES (J.L. Baldwin).
    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/069/mwr-069-02-0049.pdf
    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/070/mwr-070-12-0271.pdf
    The average temperature in 1934 was 55.1°F. The original temperature measurements published each month for each state for those years by the U.S. Weather Bureau will add up correctly.

    BTW… Two-thirds of the state record high temperatures in the U.S. were recorded before 1955. More than half were recorded from 1921-1934. Few have been recorded since 2003. Yes, it is warming today, but it also did so during the first half of the last century… and at about the same rate

    OK. Here are some numbers. The first column shows weighted monthly temperatures for the 48 contiguous states (no Hawaii or Puerto Rico) derived from the original 1921 US Weather Bureau monthly reports… the Tables in the Condensed Climatological Summary. Example: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/049/mwr-049-12-0684.pdf
    The average temperature (°F) for each state is given in these official reports. Only the contiguous 48 are used. The second column gives the temperatures from the NCDC-NOAA 1895-2009 US database where, presumably, the same historical information is given for each state, each month. The third column is the amount that the NCDC has lowered each temperature.

    JAN 36.0 33.8 2.2
    FEB 38.5 35.9 2.6
    MAR 49.5 47.5 2.0
    APR 53.7 52.2 1.5
    MAY 61.9 60.5 1.4
    JUN 72.1 70.8 1.3
    JUL 76.1 75.3 0.8
    AUG 73.0 71.6 1.4
    SEP 69.0 67.7 1.3
    OCT 56.4 54.9 1.5
    NOV 44.7 42.9 1.8
    DEC 36.7 34.5 2.2

    YEAR 55.6 53.9 1.6

    Note that the annual average for 1921 has been lowered by 1.6°F. This lowering has the net effect of removing the year 1921 from its position as the warmest year on record in the US… as the Weather Bureau observed in several annual reports I cited earlier. The same pattern of lowering can be found in other years. I’ve checked 1934, 1938, 1940. All of the original Weather Bureau temperatures have been systematically changed and all have been lowered. The winter months have been lowered more the summer months…every time….WHY?

  17. Joe Lalonde permalink
    November 12, 2013 3:22 am

    Paul,

    There is not much actual physical facts being used in climate science.
    They just have been following temperature data for the last 150 years and tweaking in garbage and calling it a model.

    Facts are completely irrelevant.
    Hunting for any pattern to call a trend in a system that is in completely unique every moment and every place. Never to find that exact pattern. All of this is irrelevant to the many processes and material differences in play on a rotating planet that has many different velocities with many different pressure differences on an ORB.
    Any mathematical equation is pure horseshit as they all assume a single point that does not interact or move. PI(3.14159) was never designed for motion and every rotation after the first distorts due to the equation being open ended.
    We have NEVER measured distances of a fantastic amount of planetary data that gives some understanding to how this planet actually mechanically operates. The gas of nitrogen being 80% interacts against water vapor and does so much more to moving water vapor in creating snowflakes and keeping water vapor separated and changes density with the cold.

    In simple terms…

    Our planet is getting colder due to the suns inactivity which gives off great amounts of material that our atmosphere has lost catching in the last decade to insulate the planet with the gases by the thickness. We are in constant loss of material including water vapor over 4.5 billion years.

    There is vast amounts material and questions to understand by pure facts. All the answers ARE here, just our scientists have gone on a different direction and will protect the garbage to the bitter end and keep the citizens ignorant.

  18. December 9, 2013 5:30 pm

    Paul,

    Your graphic on 97% and 52% about the AMS survey is great. May I use in in presentations, citing you of course?

    By the way, I would like to connect with you. Please send me an email.

    Steve Goreham

    • December 9, 2013 8:27 pm

      Please do, Steve.

      BTW – the graphic came from Anthony’s, not sure where he got it from!

  19. Dave Ellerby permalink
    January 8, 2014 11:16 am

    Dear Paul,
    1) thanks for your site which has become my 1st visit on most days, usurping WUWT, mainly due to your UK emphasis.
    2) it may be my workstation today, but I note that comments aren’t available and also you appear to have lost your google ranking from my search protocol in that I do not get your site offered when searching on ” not a lot of..” where previously those four words initiated a direct link being offered. Hmmm – do these indicate some google-filtering? Could be worth a check.
    3) I live in Morayshire, Scotland. The Scottish Government have adopted even more banzai climate madness policies than their UK/English & Welsh counterparts. Should you ever have time, it would be interesting to have a column or posting dealing with Scottish issues – especially as the looming referendum draws near.
    4) Happy New Year!
    Yz
    Dave

    • January 8, 2014 11:31 am

      Thanks Dave

      I use Yahoo search and that works fine. I have just tried Google , and it finds it typing the full “Not a lot of people know that” in.

      Even comes top of the list! So there’s probably nothing to worry about.

      I have had other comments today, but please let me know if you still get problems.

      Thanks

      Paul

  20. Steve permalink
    January 14, 2014 4:58 pm

    Paul,
    You might be interested in the text on page 156 of the linked document (in the public domain) that talks about the effect of climate change on aircraft safety. Extract: However, greater weather changes are anticipated as a result of global warming, with lightning implications.
    http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2011_03.pdf

    Regards
    Steve

  21. dave ward permalink
    January 22, 2014 1:06 pm

    Paul – your post about the EADT article I tipped you yesterday has created a bit of an opportunity. One of my friends has emailed the editor and linked to your article. He particularly challenged the use of “Carbon” pointing out that it was a meaningless term, that they should have used CO2, and how this was only a tiny percentage of the atmosphere.

    He’s just had a response from the editor inviting him to submit a reply or article, and thinks you would be able to produce a far better answer than he could. As I can’t find a direct contact on your site, would you be good enough to email me (at the address on this post) and say if you are prepared to help? If you are, I will put you in touch with my friend and he can pass on the correspondence so far.

    Many thanks in anticipation.

  22. dave ward permalink
    January 22, 2014 1:14 pm

    Sorry – I meant at the email address you should have from my comment in your logs. I don’t wish to post it in public, to avoid being hit by spammers!

  23. January 22, 2014 6:01 pm

    Paul – As you have posted regarding Kevin Anderson and Tyndall recently you may be interested in an appearance last night on an Irish television programme, Eco Eye. I think you can view the RTE player in the UK (I could in Australia, but it may be country specific. Here I can view theChannel 4 player but not the BBC player, other than for radio. The URL is http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10244927/

    The other main interviewee was one John Gibbons, who has earned a mention at Bishop Hill. I’ve earlier this week posted at http://oneillp.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/gibbons/ on a blatant misrepresentation of IPCC projections by him, and by An Taisce, the Irish National Trust, which has as President an IPCC AR4 lead author and review editor, who has, in my opinion, unwisely said nothing. As for John Gibbons it is nothing unexpected – I filled in someone else recently that the Irish Times allows columnists such as John Gibbons write pseudo-scientific nonsense and rarely prints corrections or dissenting opinions. (To be fair, John Gibbons does also sometimes make sense, although on those occasions I usually find myself checking if I’ve missed something. Surprisingly, he is prepared to support a nuclear option when this in anathema for virtually all Irish ‘environmentalists’. He is also thorough
    when it comes to ‘disappearing’ blog posts which have become embarrassing by revealing a very poor scientific understanding, although he has not been able to purge these when reproduced elsewhere. It may help to judge the state of Irish Climate Science when you know that one of his past gems (“First, the science bit. Global average temperatures have increased by 0.8 degrees since industrialisation began. This translates to a world that has
    become 6.5 per cent warmer”) is still carried without comment on the website of Professor Sweeney’s ICARUS (Irish Climate Analysis & Research Units) unit at NUI Maynooth!

  24. John Crasige permalink
    January 30, 2014 3:18 pm

    H Paul
    I noticed when reading your article about the bad weather in England on Anthony’s blog that
    in the comments section you referred to a blogger by the name of Carbon500 who had a comment regarding your article. I would like to get in touch with this person re this as I think
    he could help me in relation to ongoing battle I am having with the local FOE group. Of course
    only let me have contact details if he is willing to let you release them.
    Many thanks
    Regards
    John Craige

  25. February 14, 2014 9:22 am

    Dear Paul,

    Your site is fascinating – thank you for all your work, and for my education.

    I have a question about the recent UK rainfall articles you’ve written using Met Office data.

    The articles are very clear as always, but can the data tell us anything about rainfall intensity, by which I mean lots of rain falling in a very short time?

    This is always the response to the argument that rainfall totals are not all that exceptional. It’s also where the Met Office seem (to me) to be going (i.e. that the new improved models show increasing and more intense regional weather effects).

    Clearly the effects of a given total of rainfall will be very different if spread over three months rather than one, but presumably a really wet year like 1929/30 must have had rainfall at least as intense as we’re now experiencing?

    Is it just as simple as saying that “rainfall intensity” is directly related to the amount of rainfall in a period, therefore that it cannot really be varying as is incessantly claimed? Flash floods and local geography (Boscastle/Seaton) excepted of course.

    Regards,

    Steve Brown

    • February 14, 2014 10:20 am

      The Met Office do keep rainday data, so you can work out daily averages. However, this only starts in 1961, which coincided with an unusually dry couple of decades. Therefore, any trends are unreliable.

      I did do an exercise that used daily rainfall data on the England & Wales series, that records it since 1931. The exercise showed quite clearly the dry interlude (with fewer heavy rainfall days), and suggested that the last decade was no different to 1931-60.

      http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/corinne/

  26. April 8, 2014 7:32 pm

    Hi Paul
    Had a couple of thoughts that I can’t find the answer – wondered if you might know!
    1. What is the cost to maintain a wind turbine?
    2. I am assuming that wind turbines are subsidized in a similar manner as solar pv and that the subsidy only lasts for 25 years. At the end of that time the wind “farmer” I presume, get the going rate per kwHour at wholesale rates (solar pv get 4.5p per kw). If so what is the actual average output of a turbine and will it be sufficient to cover the maintenance costs?
    3. I just have a vision of lots of broken wind turbines in 25 years time that have become uneconomic to be fixed and that the wind farmers will just abandon them and build another turbine nearby to get the green subsidy again for another 25 years.

    Wouldappreciate your thoughts/figures?

    • April 9, 2014 10:52 am

      Alec

      The subsidy for wind turbines will be for 15 yrs, under the new strike price contracts.
      I don’t know mtce costs, but such marginal costs would bge fairly low – most of the cost is the upfront capital cost.

      In theory, the planning process should ensure that they are properly decommissioned, but in practice what will happen if the operator just walks away?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: