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.
28 Comments
leave one →
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
tckev on How Climate Science Works Joe Public on Australian Warming Overestimat… QV on Met Office brainstorms UK bad… Brian H on How Climate Science Works Brian H on In Germany’s Green Wonde… Paul Burtwistle on How Climate Science Works tckev on How Climate Science Works Joe Public on How Climate Science Works G. Watkins on New Site For Real Time Electri… Petrossa on In Germany’s Green Wonde…
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
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.
Please do, Ed.
I’ll watch out for.
Coming soon!
Thank you.
Interesting climate blog!
Do you have an RSS feed enabled on your site?
Don’t worry worked it out.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/feed/
If you enable “meta” info in your side panel the RSS feed will be listed there. See an example here – http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/comparison-temperatures/
Cheers
Phil
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.
I only know of this site which gives daily electric stats.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
You can get daily CET data from the Met, here.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
Let me know how you go on. Might be worth a post!!
Thanks
Paul
Thanks – will have a look at those sites
It does look interesting – how can I email you a spreadsheet?
I’ll email you.
Thanks
On its way
I have created this site http://www.ukpowergeneration.info/ which shows demand compared to all power sources. My next step is too add CET as a clickable option to the graphs
I combined power output and temperature into plots which clearly show that you get more demand for power on cold winter days, but you also get less power from wind on colder days – in some cases close to zero.
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/
Thanks. I’ve just subscribed!
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.
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
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.
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
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
“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
Have you got the link?
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.
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
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.
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