No Climate Change In Glasgow!
By Paul Homewood
With COP26 coming up in Glasgow later this year, virus permitting, Neil Catto has been looking at 22 years’ worth of weather data that he has been collecting for the city:
For the last 22 years we have been told by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NGOs, green environmentalists and politicians and the media:
• CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere
• CO2 increases temperature
• Temperatures will increase by 1.5-5.0 Deg C
• Storms will become more frequent and more severe
• Drought will occur more frequently and be more severe
• Floods will occur more frequently and be more severe
• Sea levels will rise by meters
.
During November 2021, between 10,000 and 20,000 delegates, politicians and media will fly in from all over the world into Glasgow, Scotland to attend the COP26 conference
COP26 is taking place to discuss climate change and the policies the human race has to adopt to "save the planet".
We have collected weather data for Glasgow airport (EGPF) daily (48 observations per day), for the last 22 years. Raw weather data includes:Pressure max, min, mean; Temperature max, min ,mean; Dew point max, min, mean; Relative Humidity mean; Wind Speed max, min, mean; sunshine total; rainfall volume; and rainfall duration and computed a Weather Index; Raw data is in METAR format and put into spreadsheets daily from 05Oct1998 to present. There has been no homogenisation (human adjustments).
The weather charts will be updated monthly in the run up to November.2021.
.
Analysis of each of the 7 tenets follows:
The full data can be seen here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I would like to know who is paying for these fanatics to meet in Glasgow. I would bet it’s not them!!
I guess we are through our taxes
It would strengthen the argument to check that there has been no equipment/location changes for the Glasgow Airport station. If there has been then that provides a very powerful anti-aircraft gun that might be deployed to shoot-down these conclusions.
Shouldn’t you be using global mean temperature instead of glasgow temperature?
chaamjamal, Ii must be embarrassing for them to be holding their COP26 in an exact place Glasgow, where non of their predictions are happening.
It might also help others to argue the empirical facts side against the AGW nonsense
But to test the theory of AGW we would have to test what AGW says and not something we made up.
chaamjamal, in the run up to COP26 we are getting bombarded by the media telling us AGW is causing x,y and z.
Where is the Mediterranean climate we are supposed to be having in the UK ?
Where are the “out of the normal” droughts, floods, storms they tell us about?
The point is, it is not happening in the UK and specifically where the IPCC are holding their meetings in Glasgow.
The two main points: First NOAAs OCO2 satellite launched in 2014 showed CO2 is not a well mixed gas in the whole atmosphere. The second point is in Glasgow the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 22 years is negative, and therefore CO2 does not increase temperature. .
Both of these points show the IPCC hypothesis about CO2 is wrong.
Chaam if you look at their weather research website you’ll find articles where they have done global analysis. This is just a subset to expose the Glasgow climate to the Glasgow conference.
https://www.weather-research.com/weather-and-climate
Thanks
Always nice to see facts instead of propaganda
“The fact there is empirical evidence that CO2 does not increase temperature and is not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, means there is no climate crisis or emergency in the whole world. Natural cycles control the weather and hence the climate. ”
This was demonstrated by Guy Callendar in his classic 1938 paper on the greenhouse effect. His carefully selected data (200 stations) from ~1900 to ~1938 showed a clear and positive relationship with atmospheric CO2. However, from 1938 until 1975 the trend reversed and temperatures declined as CO2 continued to rise, well-mixed or not. There is also no correlation between the ENSO, or volcanic activity and Mauna Loa CO2. Natural variability controls the Earth’s climate.
Absolutely
Broadlands, your statement about lack of correlation is not correct, but the correlations that exist are entirely consistent with your final sentence so my comment may appear to be somewhat semantic.
There are two primary components to the Mauna Loa CO2 observations. First, the seasonal cycle: I don’t think anyone would argue that this is not a natural feature (though there is some debate as to whether it is driven mainly by vegetation or by the oceans, or a combination thereof). The second characteristic is the longer term growth. There is an excellent correlation between CO2 atmospheric growth rate and ENSO. However, the key point is that ENSO-related temperature changes lead the consequential CO2 changes by several months. Since ENSO is a natural phenomenon, the CO2 changes are also natural. Finally, the eruption at Pinatubo correlates with a period of low CO2 growth rate so again we see that the CO2 response is due to a natural event. But there are correlations!
What is the significance of “well mixed”? Is the idea that if the gas is more concentrated at some places then trying to measure the _word-wide_ changes becomes much harder? (Or maybe impossible?)
Just asking – not trying to make some subtle point.
Think of it like the difference between the duvet being evenly spread over the bed and what happens when your wife pinches it on a cold night. She isn’t much warmer, but you’d be quite a bit cooler.
The problem is eco alarmists will have access to these people and people or organisations with other views will not.
That reminds me of the Climate Assembly and the latest bbc poll.
Glasgow is a big city, but the population has hardly increased since 1998.
The population of London has gone up almost a third (well over 2 million people) in the same time – the super-UHI area of Hayes/Heathrow is one result.
The CO2 climate change signal always appears more obvious in areas of rapid population/building with all the extra waste heat and land changes!!!
Yes would not be at all suprised if the entire global warming concept is concluded to be entirely based on artificial UHI-influenced temperatures as well as deliberate manipulation of data.
On COP26 isn’t it very likely now that it will not take place at all in UK in person?
There have been numerous analyses done of unadjusted temperature records in so many areas of the world showing no warming trend, in many cases showing a cooling trend. Are there really many areas of the world that show a real consistent genuine unadjusted warming temperature trend? If not, how can the “global” temperature be claimed to warming? And if there’s no genuine “global warming” then clearly there’s no concern at all about atmospheric CO2. And there’s still no real conclusive evidence that atmsopheric CO2 has any effect alt all on temperature, weather or climate. There’s plenty of evidence that atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly be the sole cause of “climate change” as UN/IPCC “scientists” keep telling us.
Surely if all these a**sholes who are flying in to Glasgow had any self respect or actually believed in their supposed “cause” they would only take part in COP26 virtually? In which case there is no need to even hold it in Glasgow. Or else go to Beijing to demonstrate in belief of their “cause”. These people make me puke!
Of course, these delegates will NOT be burning fossil fuels as they travel to Glasgow!
Impressive detail here Neil, thankyou.
Your charts and summaries for both Glasgow and the UK made me smile.
But its no laughing matter when 20,000 disciples gather in November at someone else’s expense to propose a collection of bankrupting policies for a non existent emergency.
Neil, lots of good weather data here, but I think there may be a weakness in your CO2 argument. On the one hand, you conclude that CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere, but you then show a graph of temperature at Glasgow plotted against a CO2 trend which looks to me very like it is the data from Mauna Loa, Hawaii (seasonal cycle removed). Happy to be corrected.
Jim, The OCO2 Sat pic shows CO2 is not a well mixed gas.- NOAA then hid it. But their hypothesis and all their analysis is using Mauna Loa data. So I use that data to show the effect in Glasgow which shows the opposite of of their view.
I understand your rational, but there are no other real measurements with that length of time.
And they call the science is settled!
Neil, I certainly agree that the science is not settled and I am very sceptical about the source(s) of atmospheric CO2 growth. Having said that, I am also of the view that atmospheric CO2 is fairly well mixed as demonstrated by the following plot of direct measurements:
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/global_stations_co2_concentration_trends.html
Surface measurements in urban environments are generally dominated by the daily (diel) CO2 cycle and are not directly representative of the free atmosphere at that location.
I can give some empirical evidence that Co2 is not well mixed in the air of Glasgow. But my data comes from the 19th Century. I’m using the book “Air and Rain” by Angus Smith published in 1872 available to download (for free) from this link:
https://archive.org/details/airrainbeginning00smitiala/page/n6
In the book Co2 is referred to as ‘carbonic acid’. CO2 levels are given as percentages, so have to be multiplied by 10,000 to convert to parts per million (ppm).
The average CO2 level in Glasgow was 502 ppm, based on a couple of dozen readings at various locations covering a range from 314 ppm to 716 ppm measured in 1869 (pages 61 and 62).
The book also gives a few dozen readings taken in 1865 for rural and hilly area locations in Scotland. CO2 at these sort of locations would correspond to a ‘background CO2 level’. The average was 336 ppm, and varied from 300 ppm to 361 ppm over the locations (pages 59 and 60).
But it should be pointed out that “the Science” requires historical CO2 measurments made before Charles Keeling came on the job in 1958 to be ignored. The idea of measuring CO2 in urban areas seems to have been dropped. The official line is that background CO2 was 270 or 280 ppm in the 19th Century.
The climate in Glasgow isn’t down to the mix of CO2 in the atmosphere – it’s the Irn Bru – Jimmy!
Dave, a very interesting link, thank you. I have not studied it in detail yet, but I note that there is a significantly larger range in Glasgow than in rural spots. This is a probably a consequence of the more pronounced nighttime temperature inversion over the city. In terms of reflecting the free atmosphere, it is the minimum values, not the averages, that will be closest.
O/T Paul, I know you’ve already given Hairbrain a bit of a kicking this week but check out his latest epistle on the Beeb website bemoaning the Cumbrian coal mine decision. Particularly amusing is the quote at the end of the article from his pals at Greenpeace viz a vis the example it sets their chums in China. Absolutely hilarious.
Mack, after the recent post from our host about Hairbrain (love it!) Twitting a Greenpeace activist to ‘Call me’ – I feel we should call him Ishmael.
Thanks for that recorded input, Neil C. I’m about maybe a VEI 4 away across here under Ochil hillfoots.Yes, it’s been abnormally wet for the period last Aug – present but prior that for two summers it’s been distiinctly dry. And the birds love it (minus woodpeckers up the slopes), increasing geese numbers spending easied time on the flat fat grasslands – yeah, just before they bomb up overnight to Greenland and Iceland and Faroes…
Imagine a BBC/SKY/ITN or any globalised network ever displaying the colossal abundance that seasonally shifts north into Arctic climes and waters. Take that back 10,000 years ago when our last deep freeze thawing got going and sea level rise was measurable. Where did the 650′ of gouged Forth glaciation go to? Water, maybe? And salmon? Ah, but that’s what once was called ‘open science’ until the geneticists (qv. funded rats) got about it. ‘Real science’ nowadays is an increasingly rare beast. / end rant.
I would so like to know what happens at these conferences. has anyone been to one? Do the 20,000 delegates attend for the whole 2 weeks? What exactly do they do? How many of them actually contribute to the activities of the conference? Are there debates? Why do the press report so little of what goes on? Etc.
If you can recall some of the photos from the Spanish fiasco a couple of years ago, they were all eating at Bürger King!!! 🍔
It’s amazing how many individual stations seem to be immune to global warming.
Evidently, from my own observations of the retreat of glaciers in Grindelwald region of CH over 30 years past and from more “scientific” analyses of multiple data sets, there has been climate change, warming, even in that short time, warming of snow and ice.
However, surely, as we retreat from the little ice age, that is within the expected natural range of climate changes.
Q: Why invoke AGW?
A:To follow the money!
BUT, most greenhouse gases come from China, India etc., whence the majority of manmade CO2 hails.
Conclusion: financial and industrial own goals in the West threaten us much more than AGW.
I am not qualified to judge Mr. Catto’s work from a scientific point of view . I am pretty certain though that not one of those 20,000 delegates ( who will all have walked or cycled , obvs. ) will have any interest at all in anything that risks upsetting their cartload of putrid festering apples . From politicians ( and princes ) afraid of losing face , through businessmen looking for more subsidy – harvesting opportunities to whitey – haters of all skin colours , every delegate there will have a vested interest in AGW business as usual . And in twenty years , when the Climapocalypse hasn’t happened , it will be ” because we took radical action in time . We can’t afford to let down our guard now ” .
So here’s the plan to get their interest David.
Hire a large furniture van and stick a giant graph on one side in full colour, same on the other side and the rear.
Suggest Neil’s Glasgow charts 3 + 4, and a temperature graph from his UK weather report.
Show titles in bold and a short phrase eg ‘go home’, ‘why are you here?’ or ‘nowt to see here’.
Drive said van around for two weeks and position it as a backdrop for any street interviews on TV.
Fancy restaurants and escort agencies do well when a COP conference hits town. Please come back, they all say.
“between 10,000 and 20,000 delegates, politicians and media will fly in from all over the world into Glasgow”
If they are so worried about CO2, why do they all want to meet in Glasgow and emit loads of CO2 on the way flying there? Can’t they set up some digital conference like the rest of the world is doing now?
Peter, I had exactly the same thought!
Let’s show some leadership – cut the carbon footprint of these boondoggles by:
> reducing delegates to, say, 3 per country – max.
> 1 from each NGO
> no meat
> accommodation to be local to the conference with bikes provided
> heating set to frost protection
I hope Mr Sharma is thinking along these lines……
I would like to add some other suggestions:
– eat locally produced food
– two people to a room
– sailboat instead of air plane
Iseem to recall a post from a Scot. farmer on this site some months ago,where he remarked that Scottish farmers were complaining of the seven month long winters that they were experiencing.
I myself have noted over the last few years,watching the daily weather forecasts,that the first frosts are recorded in September,and the last ones in May/June,the following year.
Not much of a Summer oop north;certainly not a Med. one.
The comments page in my daily paper has had several posts about this, one of which carried this link about the function of the IPCC. Worth a watch.