Wow! The Hockey Stick Admitted wrong by IPCC Co-Chair

October 18, 2019

We’ve known this for years. Now in a published discussion between Anthony Watts (whose open-sourced study of the world’s thermometers debunked the quality of their readings and led to detection of fraudulent data changes) and Steve McIntyre, founder and editor of the blog dedicated to analysis of climate data Climate Audit whose work showed Mann’s “hockey stick” was “is a result of a methodologically wrong statistical procedure, one that is guaranteed to produce a hockey stick even if you insert random-walk data as the input.”

In that audio discussion, they talk about how 2006, current IPCC co-chair Valerie Masson-Delmotte told McIntyre that she “agreed w. our criticism of Mann’s work” but asked that her name not be disclosed. She’s now granted that permission.  See

Also See Lubos Motl’s pithy comments:


The “climate doom” timeline | Watts Up With That?

September 29, 2019

The “climate doom” timeline | Watts Up With That?
— Read on

Anthony nails it.

How about a Bipartisan Treaty against the Criminalization of Elections? | National Review

September 29, 2019

How about a Bipartisan Treaty against the Criminalization of Elections? | National Review
— Read on

Andy McCarthy always writes eloquently. This “criminalisation” is going on not only in US but also UK. Perhaps it has always gone on but in today’s world where the media is so much more in everyone’s face spouting truths and in-truths without regard to any facts, it’s a warning sign about the direction we head.

More Proof That Climate Models Are Not Worthly

September 29, 2019

I don’t need to say it (but have been for years). Those pushing the so-called “Climate Emergency” have as their only “scientific” proof is these climate models. Computer programmes. There is nothing magic about computer programs. I’ve been there done that. Why we are using them as a basic of change to society beggars consideration. Or is there something else at work? Probably.

Wow. Look at This

May 12, 2019

Over at Chiefio, he/she has done a terrific analysis of global temperatures, with focus on “anomalies”.  Must see.


Looking at those graphs, I just can’t see any way to justify the claim that it is caused by CO2. CO2 is a slow gradual effect over decades (per the claims) and with stong DECAY of effect with concentration. It doesn’t “do nothing” until 2000 then give a 1 C to 2 C step change. It doesn’t “trim off the cold years” and only narrow the range of variability while not raising the warmer years in one country, while doing something quite different in the country right next door.

I’d like to think I gave him/her some pointers to move into Python, a database, etc. He/she didn’t (yet?) get into using Pandas for data analysis, but someday maybe.

Research Re-discovery of the Obvious

July 20, 2017

I get things in my RSS feeds. Most of the time interesting. Sometimes it’s “What the XXX?”.

Ocean Science Journal just published a peer-reviewed items “The “shallow-waterness” of the wave climate in European coastal regions” (Christensen, K. H., Carrasco, A., Bidlot, J.-R., and Breivik, Ø.: The “shallow-waterness” of the wave climate in European coastal regions, Ocean Sci., 13, 589-597,, 2017).

The Abstract (emphasis added by me):

In contrast to deep water waves, shallow water waves are influenced by bottom topography, which has consequences for the propagation of wave energy as well as for the energy and momentum exchange between the waves and the mean flow. The ERA-Interim reanalysis is used to assess the fraction of wave energy associated with shallow water waves in coastal regions in Europe. We show maps of the distribution of this fraction as well as time series statistics from eight selected stations. There is a strong seasonal dependence and high values are typically associated with winter storms, indicating that shallow water wave effects can occasionally be important even in the deeper parts of the shelf seas otherwise dominated by deep water waves.

Where to start?

  • The distinction between “deep” and “shallow” water waves is artificial. Water follows the laws of nature regardless of water depth. Mankind has invented mathematical equations of motions for waves. The depth of the water and the wave height (profile) are part of of those equations. For “deep” water the affect of water depth on the computed equations of motion is minor and can be disregarded. That is a fortuitous because the equations are so much harder (impossible?) to solve mathematically if the water depth is not ignored.
  • The use of the word “consequences” seems to be inflammatory. Certainly suggests “dangerous” to the un-informed. What are the consequences other than for the work to solve the difficult equations of motions?
  • Of course there are “seasonal dependance”! In some seasons the wind blows and make big waves. Sometimes the waves are small even in shallow water and thus can be assumed to be “deep water” waves. And if the wave heights are big enough so that the water depth effects are not minor, then by definition they become “shallow-water” waves! Of course. Where is the news in this?
  • These things seem to “important” only to those who are looking to use the easy wave equations to assume “deep” water when in fact the water is “shallow”.

I can’t figure out from the abstract why I should bother reading the paper. My bad.

I spent a couple of years in grad school and early career in the 1970’s trying to simulate shallow water waves and their affect on wave power machines, moored ships, etc.

I really wonder who funded this study and why

Naill Ferguson — Smart guy but needs a bit more Education and Training

June 5, 2017

In yesterday’s Sunday Times (4 June 2017) Nail Ferguson had an op-ed piece entitled “The Cool Logic of Trump trampling on Paris”.

He says

“My view on global warming has always been that I am not qualified to judge the science, but I can take a view on the most rational form and scale of insurance. The plausible costs in terms of flooding, harvest failure, and mass migration will end up being borne by our children and grandchildren more than by use. We need to pay an insurance premium on their behalf, and the obvious one is to invest in technology that reduces carbon emissions.”


  • His fears are those forecast by some scientists, but other scientists do not agree. Dr. Ferguson has apparently decided to pick his scientists based judging science, something he says he is not qualified to do.”
  • “Carbon” emissions are already very low. It is Carbon Di-oxide, another molecule completely, that some people are afraid of.
  • He wants to make the “American Way of Life” less dirty. (What “dirt”, specifically, is he referring to? The invisible carbon-dioxide gas?)
  • He things the “obvious way to go” is to live in solar-heated apartments, near our solar-heated workplaces, recycling all waste products, and covering longer distances in electric cars, preferably the safer, driverless variety. I would love to see the energy balance on that idea.
  • He says that “The Paris Agreement asks democracies to make sacrifices for future generations”. But what about asking non-democracies, despots, republics, and dis-functional nations to make same sacrifices? He does not explain how transfer of $billions from democracies to non-elected un-democratic trans-national global institutions fixes anything or demonstrate any facts about how that money will be spent.
  • He is wrong about dangerous rising sea levels are fixed by the Paris Agreement.

My view:

  • My view is that carbon di-oxide a trace gas essential for life on this planet and there is little real science, economics and engineering that can prove it worth to support any significant investment that the risk of removing carbon-dioxide compared to the risks of the cures either not having the intended result or unintended consequences we do not understand.
  • “Dirty” Pollution has significantly decreased in the last half century
  • As in American Thinker, “The futility of the Paris Climate Accord mirrors the futility of the EPA regulations and severe doubts need to be cast on both. As the Institute for Energy Research documents that while child asthma rates rose 131% since 1980, sulfur dioxide was down by 81%, nitrogen dioxide was down by 60%, and ozone was down 33%, Since 1990, Particulate Matter 10 was down by 34%, as child asthma was up 43%. Since 2000, Particulate Matter 2.5 was down 34% as the child asthma rate was flat.”
  • He has no understanding of the large percentage of the earth’s surface that must be covered with solar panels to achieve his goals.
  • If we are so afraid of climate change and rising sea levels, why not relocate everyone away from the seas to land where home and work heating is not required? What is the cost of that compared to the cost of driving everyone into poverty?
  • If we want to buy an insurance policy to protect against the risks of global warming, then buy a policy from an insurance company with terms clearly laid out on what the pay-back would be for, if used.

For more on the Paris Agreement, see “Not a Lot of People Know That”

Also see The Federalist write about Scott Adams 5 June 2017 at