Skip to content

Prof Williams, Jet Streams & Junk Science

October 4, 2017
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

Further to that ridiculous piece in the Telegraph about air travel and climate change, it is worth revisiting two of my posts last year about Paul Williams.

 

Most of the Telegraph article is centred around his claims about stronger jet streams and more turbulence.

Williams has received more than £700k since 2009 in taxpayer funded grants to research this nonsense. The first post looks at his claims that global warming is strengthening the jet stream. His claim actually flies in the face of basic physics, as a rapidly warming Arctic should reduce its strength.

And as we can see here, other junk scientists such as Dr Jennifer Francis say that it is actually slowing down:

 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/spot-the-scientist/

 

The second post deals with his claim that instances of turbulence are increasing.

We live in an increasingly litigous, bureaucratic and safety conscious age. It would be little surprise if more such incidents were now recorded.

Yet in 2013 even Williams himself could find no evidence that it was a growing problem.

Meanwhile the official data from the FAA showed no such increase in accidents from turbulence since 2003.

 

And to cap it all, evidence from a real pilot showed Williams’ claims to be no more than alarmist drivel.

 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/global-warming-causing-airline-turbulence/

 

We have here an all too familiar pattern.

Huge grants are handed out to incompetent scientists to hype alarm about global warming. Their work is given a sheen of credibility by a corrupt, pal review system.

In turn, their findings can then be reported via the compliant and frequently biased media as “scientists say” , and thus presented as gospel truth.

More grants naturally follow, and the whole cycle becomes self perpetuating.

 

 

20 Comments
  1. AlecM permalink
    October 4, 2017 10:06 pm

    Ay such behaviour – falsifying data – should be punishable by removal of grants. It is called being unprofessional.

  2. October 4, 2017 10:07 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “We have here an all too familiar pattern.

    Huge grants are handed out to incompetent scientists to hype alarm about global warming. Their work is given a sheen of credibility by a corrupt, pal review system.

    In turn, their findings can then be reported via the compliant and frequently biased media as “scientists say” , and thus presented as gospel truth.

    More grants naturally follow, and the whole cycle becomes self perpetuating.”

    THE nuts and bolts of the hysterical, “self-perpetuating” climate scam right there.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle permalink
    October 4, 2017 11:17 pm

    Much more likely that solar activity, or lack thereof, is causing a change in the recent behaviour of the jet stream.

    Back in 2010 when the UK winter was unusually intense Mike Lockwood linked that to jet stream blocking due to low solar activity associated with the depth of the solar cycle minimum that year.

    Low solar activity link to cold UK winters (Apr 2010)

    That same year there also were pronounced jet stream blocking events causing the Moscow heat wave and Pakistani floods.

    Solar F10.7cm radio flux is now back down to a similar level as in 2010 even though the solar cycle minimum is probably 4 or 5 years away. So we may be seeing more variation in the jet streams. Both the northern and southern jet streams do seem to be more sinuous lately, going on the real time maps. But that is just my impression.

    • October 5, 2017 8:27 am

      See also: Sleepy sun thickens the slow solar wind
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24851-sleepy-sun-thickens-the-slow-solar-wind/

    • dave permalink
      October 5, 2017 9:46 am

      http://www.spaceweather.com/

      “our latest measurements show that cosmic rays are intensifying with an increase of more than 13% since 2015…Why?…[1]…swinging toward a Solar Minimum…[2]..could be [a long-term] weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field…”

      The space-science establishment is beginning to get nervous about their earlier knee-jerk dismissal of suggestions of a prolonged sleepiness of the sun and its possible effects on earth’s climate. They are preparing their alibis. I suspect that they do not want to go down with the CAGW ship.

      .

  4. Broadlands permalink
    October 5, 2017 12:05 am

    How can research from “huge grants” (with or without friendly “peer” review) explain how our added CO2, if now removed by capture-and-store technology, can control the jet streams, volcanic activity, earthquakes, ENSOs, and other natural oscillations? We added CO2 during the “global cooling” Ice-Age concern in the 60s and 70s. Did we not add enough?

  5. October 5, 2017 12:50 am

    Eventually prophets of doom run into reality. The world does not end and people’s attention moves on. Just have to keep pointing out that the emperor has no clothes and that these scientists are very self serving.

  6. October 5, 2017 3:09 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  7. Bitter&Twisted permalink
    October 5, 2017 7:54 am

    Have a look at Prof Williams C.V.(http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~williams/cv/PaulWilliams_CV.pdf)
    Hard to believe that;
    1) He is a physicist by training, yet still (appears) to believe his own research
    2) Certainly likes everyone to know how bright and multi-talented he is, even down to his “Shotton Hall Comprehensive School: Sutherland Trophy for Music”, back in 1993.
    All a bit sad….

  8. Green Sand permalink
    October 5, 2017 8:34 am

    “More grants naturally follow, and the whole cycle becomes self perpetuating.”

    That in a nutshell is the reason why the enigma that is “climate change” exists. It feeds scientists, polticians, officials, NGO’s and troughers of many hues including Royal ones.

    Not one of our scientists can show that today’s climate is unique, nor can they explain or predict with any confidence when the next ice age will occur. Yet they feather their own nest with more and more of our hard earned. Rant over! (for the morning)

    • dave permalink
      October 5, 2017 9:12 am

      Slightly OT (who, actually, is interested in that twerp, anyway?)

      “Death Spiral!” The release of this shock/horrow show has been delayed (again) due to awkward facts:

  9. October 5, 2017 11:34 am

    O/T tip re the SNP decision to ban fracking and its fishy consultation
    ..it contains info that Climate Changes causes earthquakes and tsunamis!

    Negative impact on climate change
    9.8 Many respondents who believed the development of an unconventional oil and gas industry would have negative impacts on climate change described climate change as ‘the biggest issue of our time’. They emphasised the scientific consensus that existed around the causes of climate change, and also its effects (droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, etc.). Respondents also focused on the extent to which climate change affected everyone – both current and future generations. The specific susceptibility of vulnerable groups – the poor, children, the elderly – to the effects of climate change was highlighted.
    [Source: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0052/00525464.pdf (page 51)
    Source page: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/10/9813/downloads ].

    • dave permalink
      October 5, 2017 12:37 pm

      Among the well-known effects of climate change, they missed out asteroid strikes.

      I imagine these people counting their beads frantically, while chanting mantras, and sporting charms against the evil eye of the deniers.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        October 5, 2017 12:59 pm

        Plagues of frogs and locusts too?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 5, 2017 1:00 pm

      A sensible source suggested it will cost them over 3000 jobs that will be created elsewhere – England most likely.

    • Tim Hammond permalink
      October 5, 2017 2:04 pm

      It is an extraordinary set of comments, many quite false. And how exactly do higher energy bills now help the poor, children and the elderly?

  10. October 5, 2017 1:51 pm

    Paul ends his commentary with the following:

    “We have here an all too familiar pattern.

    Huge grants are handed out to incompetent scientists to hype alarm about global warming. Their work is given a sheen of credibility by a corrupt, pal review system.

    In turn, their findings can then be reported via the compliant and frequently biased media as “scientists say” , and thus presented as gospel truth.

    More grants naturally follow, and the whole cycle becomes self perpetuating”

    This perfectly explains the US National Science Foundation’s granting policy for a number of decades. A friend was part of a panel at NSF in the 1980’s and was thought to be “one of them”. They were quite open about this procedure at the time.

    Of course, when a so-called “scientist” does not get grants if they fail to follow the puppet procedure, then they are broomed from academia and never hired again in a meaningful way.

    I believe the dissolution of tenure would be a boon to integrity in both the scientific community and academia by reducing the influence of the fluffy bunny left.

  11. October 5, 2017 5:20 pm

    Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) it does not depend on the speed of the jet stream. It is wind shear or difference in wind speed from one level or point to another that causes CAT, From information to given to pilots from the FAA linked below.

    “It is not the wind speed itself that causes CAT; it is the wind shear, or difference in wind speed from one level or point to another, that is turbulent to an aircraft as the atmosphere bounces in waves or actually overturns.”

    CAT is not something new. It has been in aviation weather books at least since the 1940’s. To prevent getting hurt, as a passenger just keep your seat belt done up at all times.

    Click to access AC_00-30C.pdf

  12. Flyingscot permalink
    October 6, 2017 8:08 am

    I am a mere pilot of 43 years experience – 21 in the military and the rest flying mostly around Asia and to and from Hong Kong. Is CAT increasing? Not in my experience. However, the number of flights is increasing and the experience levels on board, decreasing.

    Flying through a jet stream, at right angles, at the correct altitude produces a remarkable lack of turbulence. However, not choosing the correct path, for example flying through a bend in the JS, will always produce turbulence. In addition, I have observed on many occasions mainland Chinese aircraft flying into known areas of severe turbulence AND thunderstorms because their ‘rules’ in Chinese airspace do not allow them to deviate and avoid. My get-out is to declare an emergency and fly the path I want.

    The advent of GPS-driven navigation systems and 1000ft vertical separation might also have a role in the increase in turbulence encounters: the wake vortex from an aircraft is very energetic and can produce some quite dramatic turbulence as it drifts downward at ~1000ft per minute yet most of the world’s pilots are happy to let their aircraft fly directly underneath an opposite one, with the (less than desired) resultant effect. I fly 1-2 miles upwind to avoid the sinking wake. Most of the time the trails are visible yet they still insist on sitting in the ‘cloud’; goodness knows what they do when the contrail levels are way below cruising levels!

    I have a very long list of airlines that I would never set foot on…

    • Flyingscot permalink
      October 6, 2017 10:28 am

      I think what I am trying to say is ‘rubbish in rubbish out’. If these people only use a small subset of the global data set they will, of course, eventually end up with the(ir) desired result!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: