November 1, 2019
This topic has been covered extensively in the the last decade or more, but does not get a lot of attention by those who chose to consider CO2 as the lone taxable and/or social change pollutant causing climate change and future certain death and destruction.
But there is yet another report on the impact of cloud cover on the “climate” of the earth, i.e. temperature.
The climate models in use by Climate Scientists [sic] consider cloud cover an “output” of the model caused by climate change; whereas data and logic suggests that cloud cover has a direct impact on air temperature and hence on the “climate”. Anyone spending time at the beach on a sunny day that suddenly turns cloudy can attest to this physical behaviour.
See the summary on Jo Nova’s outstanding web site New study settles it: Global Warming and the pause was driven by changes in cloud cover, not CO2
Climate models do not have alogrithms for cloud creation since they do not understand how clouds are formed. however, there is much science which suggests there are explainable physical mechanisms for how clouds are formed with influence from the sun, solar magnetic field, and cosmic rays:
Cloud cover changes could be caused by changes in the solar magnetic field, which may drive cloud seeding via its effect on the cosmic rays that bombard Earth (see Henrik Svensmark). But clouds could also be affected by the solar wind or by solar spectral changes, neither of which are included in GCMs. Clouds could also be driven by changes in aerosols due to volcanoes, bacteria, and plankton. Clouds could also form differently with changes in jetstreams or ocean currents. Meandering jet streams put huge “fingers” of cold air into warm air zones — surely a recipe for more cloud formation.
Global Climate Models have no chance of predicting cloud cover. They assume cloud changes are a feedback, not a forcing. So, right from the start, the models don’t even recognise that some outside force might be independently changing cloud cover. In 2012, Miller et al. reported that models got cloud feedbacks wrong by 70W/m2 — an error that’s nearly 20 times larger than the total effect of CO2. What a farce.
November 1, 2019
There is an interesting article out on Watts Up with That which shows again how data is represented can be used to give the preferred narrative. An example is how some Climate Scientists [sic] like to show the data in a way which most easily scares people.
See the link, but in summary notice when graphs the temperature anomaly vs. just showing the data.
There are so many ways to “Lie with Statistics“.
September 29, 2019
The “climate doom” timeline | Watts Up With That?
— Read on wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/29/the-climate-doom-timeline/
Anthony nails it.
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”.
“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 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” https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/alarmists-twist-data-to-save-paris-agreement/
Also see The Federalist write about Scott Adams 5 June 2017 at http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/05/scott-adams-explains-pivot-climate-change-argument-absurd-sides/
March 4, 2014
Last evening I attended an enjoyable presentation on ocean dynamics at the Royal Society of Edinburgh by Professor Peter Davies, Professor of Fluid Dynamics, University of Dundee.
He spoke about “internal gravity waves” which propagate due to water density stratifications. While I was aware of such waves from my days a grad school studying ocean waves, I was not aware of their power as discussed by Professor Davies. He also told us about “dead water”, caused by internal waves, in which a boat may experience strong resistance to forward motion in apparently calm conditions. I was unaware of such a phenomenon.
I was pleased that not once during his presentation he mentioned those two words “global warming”. That is unusual for a presentation at the RSE. It took until the third question during Q&A for someone in the audience to ask if global warming had any affect. Using many words, Professor Davies basically said “no”. That didn’t stop a second follow-up question by someone else who prefixed that question with something about “global warming, which has melted the polar ice caps …”.
At that point I decided to leave. Perhaps I missed the next big risk to civilisation–huge and larger anthropogenic internal ocean waves.
June 19, 2013
The press, television news, and even some people in UK are all aflutter about the “unusual” weather in UK.
My take is that it has been cool but dry, based on my attempts to use my global HQ office in the back garden and the state of our lawn (many brown patches of thirsty grass).
The problem is so big that the UK Met Office convened a conference to discuss why this “unusual” weather is happening. This meeting also received a lot of attention from the press and television news.
Neil Catto has written a guest essay on Watts Up with That about the “unusual” weather at a “southern UK location”. Well worth a read. Sort of what I notice without doing the number crunching.
“… 14.5 years of perfectly normal very stable weather.”
Update: Bishop Hill and “Commentors” comment here.
November 5, 2011
Fascinating and simple idea. See http://iceagenow.info/2011/11/ice-ages/. They start with snow. It’s snowing now.