The Sun and Water (Solid, Liquid & Gas) controls the weather and climate – NOT carbon dioxide
By Paul Homewood
Neil Catto has been looking at the statistical relationship between sunshine hours and British weather:
Fig 1 Daily UK Sunshine hours, mean Relative Humidity and maximum Temperature from 05Oct1998 to 31Jan2021
There are some interesting correlations between these three weather parameters, the strongest relationship is between Relative Humidity (RH) and Sun (S) [UV radiation] -0.76, the next strongest relationship is maximum temperature (Tx) and Sunshine (S) 0.53, and the weakest but still significant relationship is RH and Tx -0.42. Relative Humidity provides an indication of the amount of Water Vapour.
Relationships between Sunshine, RH and Temperature:
Given the very strong relationship between water vapour/RH and sunshine -0.76, this shows incoming UV radiation is significantly blocked by water vapour/RH including clouds, hence a large negative relationship. In other words, higher RH, less sunshine, lower RH, more sunshine.
Full post here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
this shows incoming UV radiation is significantly blocked by water vapour/RH including clouds
Yes, but that’s daytime only. What about night-time?
Water vapour acts as a blanket at night to help hold heat in hence what we experience in the summer in the UK when we have those muggy nights when you can’t sleep. And what deserts experience going from intense heat to cold, sometimes freezing.
Which suggests day and night effects may well cancel out in the long run. But one suspects climate models don’t see it that way 🤔
I’ve suggested to Neil that he extends the exercise to mean temps
But but, Surely all that CO2 is keeping the desert warm at night, after all there must be lots of reflected radiation from the hot day to be absorbed by the CO2 greenhouse. Thus deserts can’t get cold at night according to CO2 religious theory. Oh, it does get cold – so all the CO2 greenhouse claptrap doesnt happen in reality? Surely not !-)
OT..But it is good news for freedom of speech in academia – Dr Peter Ridd has posted that the High Court will hear the case against the James Cook University with a view to hopefully overturning the verdict of the appeal court. He expects it to be mid-year.
“The Sun and Water (Solid, Liquid & Gas) controls the weather and climate – NOT carbon dioxide” is obvious to any physicist who is worth his salt.
It’s slightly alarming that Weather Research either can’t spell or doesn’t check spelling before publication. “cabon” I presume means “carbon”.
Typo – fixed thanks
The link gives me a 404 error. I’m sure it’s nothing personal …
My bad I think Mike
Fixed now
Mike; Try here:
https://www.weather-research.com/articles/the-sun-and-water-solid–liquid-and-gas-controls-the-weather-and-climate—not-carbon-dioxide
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/11/uk-temperature-falls-lowest-level-decade-extreme-freeze
“Mercury drops to -22.9C in Scotland, the coldest temperature recorded in UK in more than 25 years”
damned inconvenient this global warming. Even the Guardian cannot spin this
You would think they would at least try to claim that the cold has been caused by global warming.
Oh do keep up Gerry, global warming is so yesterday.
If you’re not ‘woke’ (always thought that was a Chinese cook pan with a posh accent), you’re part of the problem !!!
That’s why it’s “climate change”, covers all bases.
I see that the Guardian don’t mention that the (coldest since) 1995 minimum (-27.2C Altnaharra) matches the record low of all time at Braemar in 1982 and 1895. Can’t have a record low mentioned in the global warming era can we!
And that they also have a wildfire issue at the same time in W.Scotland – so much for heat being responsible for fires.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-56021899
Wildfires are nothing new in Scotland, at least they weren’t. I grew up in Perthshire and can remember several fires over and above the annual spring burning to encourage heather growth. One started in late summer, it wasn’t a particularlydry summerad re-ignited several times, the other major fire started in the spring and burnt a large area of peat over the summer.
The annual spring burning of heather relied on it being an averagely wet winter, but with a dry winter or dry late winter then there was a danger of fires getting out of control. Those years there was a bit of work for school students as fire prevention operatives. It was only in periods of rain when fires didn’t actually take hold. If there has been a build up of combustible material because it’s bad for the environment to remove it, especially a ban on burns, then fires are inevitable.
In fact multiple weather station cold records were smashed.
https://more.talktalk.co.uk/news/2021/02/11/record-low-february-temperatures-recorded-at-weather-stations-across-the-uk
Still evading the fact that the UK all time low -27.2C was matched as recently as 1995.
What’s the betting they’ll say it’s an example of Britain’s “increasingly wild weather”, come the end of the year!
And now Dartmoor has wildfire!
https://more.talktalk.co.uk/news/2021/02/11/large-fire-breaks-out-on-dartmoor
I get a 404 error as well
I’ve fixed now thanks
Where are the adjustments, any climate theory or observation needs adjustments.
Yes – but some will say CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore must have some affect on temperatures AKA weather.
“There is no empirical evidence of CO2 increasing temperature that I have found. The above is empirical evidence that carbon dioxide does NOT increase Temperature.”
In 1938 Guy Callendar demonstrated quite well that temperatures had increased as CO2 increased. The problem he encountered was that right after his greenhouse publication temperatures dropped for about 37 years. Obviously, without CO2 and water vapor this planet would be frozen. And without the oxygen from the Sun’s UV destruction of water vapor and loss of hydrogen to space our ozone screen wouldn’t exist, and we wouldn’t be here.
Is it not true that the interacting variables, only incompletely known and understood, are likely to be too complex to stop the GIGO problem?
Present analyses, both the present one and the allegedly predominant CO2 influence are inevitably incomplete and bedevilled by the “unknown unknowns”.
Why the Western Estabishments, especially that of the UK are backing the CO2 theory is, to me, impossible to understand.
The Paris non-compliers are right, as was Donald Trump.
Those who accept the CO2 villainy story, from HRH Prince Charles to Joe Biden are blo*dy fools.
The present analysis makes more sense to me than the fashionable greenhouse gas theory.
Moreover, there is NO empirical evidence that decarbonisation could be useful.
“….there is NO empirical evidence that decarbonisation could be useful.” But, there is plenty of evidence that it is useless, expensive and risky to try and capture and store in any meaningful amounts the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere and currently being added in huge amounts annually. Even one ppm is too large to remove permanently.
The lack of empirical evidence will not stop any of the Green nonsense. They will carry on wrecking the economy and lives in pursuit of their insane goals of net zero and decarbonisation and nothing short of another ice age (or revolution) will stop them. Even another ice age would be attributed to CO2. We have to keep up the fight and thanks to Paul for not giving up, but how can we get the mass of people to understand what is being done to them when MSM all sing from the same hymn sheet?
Try looking at UK sunshine hours seasonally:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
Have you seen this Ulric?
” Minimum temperature is negatively correlated with sunshine in the winter..”
Is it? there seems to be an upward trend in winter sunshine hours and in mean minimum temperatures since the mid 1990’s. There must be an AMO influence.
Low altitude air pollution will raise maximum temperatures, especially when coincident with higher sunshine hours. Like in the record warm 21-27 February 2019, and in the record warm Easter 2011. Both had very high levels of air pollution drift in from Europe. 21-27 February 2019 had much lower than normal humidity, minimum temperatures were near freezing. Other examples, the hot English summer of 1783 with dense volcanic fumes and dust from the Laki eruption, and thick forest fire smoke in the 2010 Moscow heatwave.
It simply means that night temperatures drop lower when skies are clear
The lower humidity allows the night time minimum temperatures to drop even lower.
This is what the Met Office published:
“In February 2019 strong anticyclonic conditions brought warm tropical maritime air over western parts of the UK. These conditions alone can raise UK winter temperatures over 20°C, even without the effect of human influence on climate.”
Which cannot be true as the humidity fell through 21-27 Feb 2019. I don’t see anyone else making the connection between the record high daytime temperatures and the heavy air pollution event.
I agree with the observations.
I created a simple one-pager a while ago and had the details confirmed by my colleague Douglas Lightfoot with a recently published peer-reviewed paper – the links are
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r6swmn8rhp7yjxm/Arrow%20of%20Causality-CO2.pdf?dl=0
Click to access IPCC-3-errors-CO2.pdf
Gerald, the final sentence of your page sums it up. CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s not about the science though, it’s all about forcing a political ideology of command and control upon us all through fear.
The result may be correct but there is some very illogical reasoning to get there:
– why use the term ‘sunshine (UV)’ – what has UV (ultra-violet) got to do with it? Sunshine would have been sufficient, or to be more scientific, electro-magnetic radiation. I cannot see why UV has been incorporated.
– there is a large section dedicated to proving that CO2 is not a well-mixed gas. It IS! Ozone and water vapour are clearly not. The fact that there is a variation of a few ppm between seasons attests to the reactivity of CO2, not to its mixing, the variation seen at measuring sites actually attests to its being a well mixed gas.
– the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 does not imply that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2. We are talking about seasonal variation, which is more in line with weather than climate. To make any conclusions one needs to look at climate rather than weather, and thus the argument given completely breaks down.
I find the logic used incompatible with the knowledge one assumes from someone having worked with the met office and understanding the science behind the Earth’s temperature. .
Various photographs from the OCO2 satellite show that CO2 is not a well mixed gas.I did not file them so cannot verify,but they will be around somewhere.
What infer you from that?
A typical map of CO2 distribution from the OCO2 satellite can be found here:
https://www.livescience.com/49196-nasa-satellite-oco2-carbon-maps.html
The range in CO2 concentration is around 10ppm, which is an extremely small amount, considering the reactivity of CO2. I would say that the map suggests that CO2 is extremely good at mixing, that is it reacts very quickly to even out its distribution.
Link doesn’t work Paul
Howard Dewhirst
Sent from my iPhone
Try this:
https://www.weather-research.com/articles/the-sun-and-water-solid–liquid-and-gas-controls-the-weather-and-climate—not-carbon-dioxide