Category Archives: Global Warming

Global Warming not causing extreme weather says Sage of Omaha!

Sounds like a banner headline for a tabloid newspaper. What does Warren Buffett know about Climate Change and extreme weather? Well quite a lot it would appear. In fact he has made rather a lot of money from this knowledge. In an interview with CNBC Buffett states things very simply “I think that the public has the impression that because there has been so much talk about climate, that events of the last 10 years, from an insured standpoint on climate, have been unusual. The answer is, they haven’t.” Buffett goes on to say that insuring against hurricanes in the U.S. has been a profitable venture in recent years as only a few storms have actually made landfall. This utterly contradicts President Obama’s claims that extreme weather is on the increase and is caused by manmade global warming. If you were to ask me who is the man with his finger on the pulse, I would say it is the one that puts his money, and not the tax payer’s, where his mouth is.

Source article

Advertisements

Occam’s Razor, the Null Hypothesis, and Anthropogenic Global Warming

A bit of a mouthful but the whole article makes excellent reading.

Here is the kernel of the piece which really makes you understand how unscientific the global warming alarmists methods are;

Consider the following tests:

(i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.

Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.

(ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4 deg 

C and 0.7 deg C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7 deg C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1.0 deg C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5 deg C/century.

In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.

(iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.

In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.

(iv) The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0 deg C/century.

In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.

(v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.

Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.

One of the 20th century’s greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that:

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.

It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

None of the five tests above supports or agrees with the predictions implicit in the greenhouse hypothesis as stated above. Richard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.


Curiouser and Curiouser

A much quoted line from Alice in Wonderland but I think appropriate when applied to the following graph;

If what this graph is appearing to indicate is true – then the increase in temperature in the past 60 years has declined while the CO2 concentration has increased. This is counter to everything we have been told by the Green brigade.

The implications are so significant that I need to undertake some independent verification. Watch this space.

Source article


One snow storm does not a ‘little ice age’ make, but…

It is important to remain vigilant in the world of scepticism – but we can still have a little fun. I love this article written by Mike Bastasch in “The Daily Caller” – “Top 5 ‘Snow Free and ‘Ice Free’ predictions”. This is not climate change – this is just cold weather. In the antipodes they are having record heat, that is ‘hot weather’. It happens. You would think the prophets of doom would get tired of being wrong.


“To Kill an Error”

I have just published a book entitled “To Kill an Error”. It is my attempt to popularise the sceptic view of Global warming. I have written it as a novel – a thriller (I like to think). There are any number of books around (I have read quite a few) that state a case for the sceptic point of view. They appeal to people like me with a knowledge of the subject. What I felt was missing was something that might appeal to the agnostic. In the factual books the subject matter can be very dry, I have wrapped the message up in a murder mystery that I hope stands alone but in addition gets across some of the darker side of the rush for Green Energy.

The title of the book is taken from a quote by Charles Darwin – “To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.”

Product Details


“Professional” Climate Hysteria

“The average world temperature is about as useful as an average number in a telephone directory.” That statement is particularly apt when applied to the current weather patterns in North America and Western Australia. Record cold v.s. record heat. In both locations the Climate alarmists leap upon the extreme weather conditions as proof of the existence of Global Warming.

You don’t believe me? I quote the Bureau of Meteorology climate expert Neil Bennett in an article from “Perth Now”

“It’s climate change. It’s warming. It’s staring you in the face,”

“This is crazy. This is madness, what’s going on now.”

“The climate doesn’t change like this. This is really remarkable.”

“This is really, really unusual.”

Mr Bennett said the climate models for “30, 40 and 50 years ahead” were also all “pointing upwards”.

Now contrast this with an article from the Guardian Environment Network quote “Scientists said the deep freeze gripping the U.S. does not indicate a halt or reversal in global warming trends, either. In fact, it may be a counterintuitive example of global warming in action.”

So there you have it, heads I win, tails you lose. Any sort of variation in the weather proves the existence of man made global warming. The theory of man made global warming, on the basis of these latest pronouncements is un-falsifiable. Falsifiability is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Sir Karl Popper take[s] falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations…  is unscientific.

I rest my case.

 

 

 


Let them eat cake

While the West and China and India gorge themselves on fossil fuels to power their industrial growth, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank expect, nay dictate, that Africa’s one billion inhabitance must power their industrial revolution by wind turbines and solar panels.

The UN’s “Sustainable Energy for All” initiative has aspirations of two light bulbs a fan and a radio. Well go Africa! Why not an air-conditioning unit, a chest freezer and a 2Kw kettle? No sod that, I would want a blast furnace an aluminium smelter and a glass bottle plant. Try powering those using wind turbines and solar panels. Heavy industry runs 24/7 the sun and the wind do not. At a time when Germany is building 10 new coal fired power stations these same Germans are telling Africans they will only lend them money to build power grids based on renewable energy.

The Centre for Global Development reports that $10 billion spent in Sub Saharan Africa on renewable energy projects will provide electric power for 30 million people. The same money spent on gas fired plants would provide power to 3 times that number.

Africa is entitled to its own Industrial Revolution. We in the West have had ours and it was powered by cheap coal. China and India are having theirs and it is also powered by cheap coal. Let Africa have its industrial revolution so that it can lift 100s of millions out of poverty and let them do it quickly using their abundant natural resources of coal oil and gas. Let them be spared the piety and holier than thou preachings of the ever so comfortable green movement.

Source article