There is great excitement – jubilation even – at the Met Office and its mainstream media publishing partners with the news that the U.K. is on track to record its ‘hottest’ year ever (well at least since records began about 150 years ago). Helped by a mild winter and autumn and a glorious summer, the average temperature in 2022 looks to come in at 9.99°C, up from the previous 2014 record of 9.88°C. But the overall global temperature, according to accurate satellite measurements, has not moved for over eight years. As we shall see, the Met Office increases in surface measurements would appear to owe something to increasing urban heat corruption, as well as some curious sitings of measuring devises.
There is no more curious placing of a measuring devise than half way down the runway of a military airbase that houses two squadrons of Typhoon fighter jets. The Met Office tells us that one of the weather extremes of 2022 was a high of 40.3°C on July 19th. Regular readers will recall that we have questioned this ‘record’ at RAF Coningsby, since the temperature held for only 60 seconds at 3.12pm and was preceded by a 0.6°C jump in the previous two minutes. By 3.13pm the temperature had fallen back to 39.7°C. The Met Office first explained that the sudden rise could have been due to cloud cover, but a satellite photo shows clear skies across Lincolnshire at that moment. The Daily Sceptic has since established that at least two Typhoon jets were operating at the base at the time. The Met Office has ignored all our subsequent questions about the claim.
The Coningsby incident is indicative of possible urban heat corruption over much of the Met Office surface temperature database. Airport sitings are common with temperature highs often reported at Heathrow and nearby RAF Northolt. Temperature recordings at airports are an easy source of data, since accurate measurements alongside runways are required for safe aircraft movements. But similar temperature corruptions are also to be found in towns and cities.
In recent ground-breaking work, two American scientists – Dr. Roy Spencer and Professor John Christy – working out of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, have separated the effect of urbanisation on temperature measurements. They used a satellite database of urbanisation change called ‘Built Up’ and found large corruptions across the urban record. Over the last 50 years, it was discovered that warming had been exaggerated by up to 50% across the eastern United States.
Spencer and Christy also checked out a number of U.S. airports, comparing the raw data from the U.S. weather service NOAA with their ‘de-urbanised’ figures. At Orlando International Airport in Florida, the NOAA data showed massive warming of 0.3°C per decade, but this fell to just 0.07°C when adjusted for urban heat. The two scientists have supplied similar findings for Canada and promise further country work in the future including the U.K.
In the U.S., NOAA’s surface data has been criticised on a number of scientific fronts. The American meteorologist Anthony Watts recently published a 10-year study calling the database “fatally flawed”. He found that 96% of U.S. temperature stations failed to meet what NOAA itself considered to be acceptable and uncorrupted placement standards. The findings must be a major concern since the U.S. record is a large constituent of global databases, including one run by the Met Office called HadCRUT. These global databases have been adjusted to show more recent global warming, a trend that is not immediately obvious in satellite or meteorological balloon records.
In light of this recent urban heat evidence, the Daily Sceptic has asked the Met Office if it intends to continue using raw data from airport and urban sites without making substantial recalculations to remove all non-climatic corruptions? As we have noted, the Met Office has failed to respond. But urban heat corruption must be a major consideration when analysing this heavily-quoted data. In the year of the hot summer of 1976, the average annual temperature was 8.74°C, compared with this year’s 9.99°C. But only 56 million people lived in the U.K. around 50 years ago compared with almost 69 million today. Over the last 50 years there has been considerable urban development, and many towns and cities have increased significantly in size and density.
It is reasonable to ask if average Met Office temperatures rising well over 1°C during this period solely reflect natural increases, or is around 50% of the warming a temporary feature of urban development? One day, the Met Office might tell us. Since 1979, the satellite record has shown warming across the globe of around 0.6°C. Temperatures have still to pass the last high point in 1998.
In the meantime, it is full speed ahead with weather catastrophisation stories designed to promote the Net Zero political agenda. In the latest bout of climate Armageddon preaching, the BBC subbed up the Met Office press release and listed this year’s “extreme” events. Obviously, the Coningsby triumph was mentioned (see above), but so was the mild autumn. Also “extreme” was the brief winter cold snap in early December (nobody saw that coming, did they?) and three storms In February. Depressions often follow one another in the middle of winter off the Atlantic, so why this should be considered “extreme” is a mystery. Tinder-dry conditions are said to have “gripped” the U.K. during August. Again, dry periods in the middle of summer – it’s almost beyond understanding.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Stop Press: Tom Slater has written a good piece for Spiked on the rise of the eco-cult.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
An unproven (and unprovable) scientific hypothesis is now more popular than the Bible.
The Christianity is a system of faith based on the Bible.
Man made global warming does not even have a holy book.
No holy book, but an endless supply of self-appointed saviours.
Those self-appointed saviours are so obvious that nobody pays them any attention except for fellow believers seeking perhaps to put them on a League Table for their anti-scepticism.
The original Holy Book was Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth which made his wealth shoot up from $1 million to $350 million, at which point he bought an enormous beach front mansion, along with with every other high priest of climate change who’s also terrified of rising sea levels.
It was publicity around that book of Gores which first brought MMGW to my attention but I immediately downloaded a well informed DVD that repudiated every one of his arguments.
I still have it but it’s at home on a disc where I’m not (should have put it on The Cloud though “they” might have detectrd the disc and either deleted the file or disrupted it). All 15 or 20 years or so ago I think.
My attention was also drawn to Gores newly acquired seaside mansion you mention, Malibu from memory.
Don’t forget Di’Caprio’s giant beachfront resort in Belize and Obamas massive beach front pile on Martha’s Vineyard. The list is endless.
The Maldives are currently building 15 brand new airports across their ‘underwater’ islands. This is to compliment the giant extended international runway they built next to the beach in 2018 with their UN Climate Rescue Fund..
You denier!
These aren’t airports, they are submarine ports as well you know.
Say 12 hail Greta’s by way of repentance.
Assuming the address I found was correct, Al Gore’s ‘beachfront’ property is several hundred feet up a hill overlooking the sea.
His book didn’t make him all that money, his investment fund which closed at £5Bn and traded in carbon credits (probably the wrong description) made him his money.
He was also from a family of tobacco farmers and despite the condemnation, refused to stop the practice until something appeared to replace it, then climate change came along. I don’t know if he’s still farming.
The real climate hypocrite though, is Obama who bought a $14m estate on Martha’s Vineyard, a mere 3m above sea level. He’s also in the process of building a true beachfront property in Hawaii. Judging by the photographs it only just avoids being flooded at high tide.
Sure, it might be slightly up a hill but when Al Gore is sponsoring and endorsing films that deliberately terrify kids into thinking New York is going to look like a giant ornamental duck pond in 10 years time with skyscrapers barely poking the surface, I don’t think several hundred feet really comes into it.
Maybe we could get Smokers’ Lives Matter to go after him.
Carbon credits; today’s equivalent of the Catholic indulgences, and equally as abomnible, or more so.
It is interesting to note that when Gore was setting up his “Climate Credits” scam his partner was Ken Lay.
…and travelled by private jet so he didnt have to mix with the great unwashed
Don’t besmirch the prophet Greta.
Aren’t the IPCC Reports the Holy Gospels? And aren’t the COP meetings the Synods of the High Priests and acolytes of Climatism?
MMGW doesn’t even have any logic, whereas Christianity does.
Climate change?
It changed before any humans were here, and it’ll change after we’re gone.
Apparently long after Climate Change has erased most traces of human existence, some of the things most likely to survive as evidence are engine cylinder blocks long after the tower blocks and bank vaults have gone.
I grew up in a district of North London called Crouch End (terribly fashionable these past 30 years). I used to have some nice pics illustrating what follows but Google Images ain’t what it used to be.
Crouch End is a distinct valley, like an inverted version of your illustration, surrounded on three sides by Alexandra Palace (early BBC broadcast location because it’s it on a hill), Muswell Hill, Highgate Hill and Hornsey Hill.
The operative word being “Hill” because Crouch End, also known as Hornsey Vale, marks the terminus of the last Ice Age with the surrounding hills being Terminal Morains. The open, north facing, mouth of the valley is wide enough, 1/2 mile perhaps, to host the London to Scotland main railway lines.
This makes Croucj End more interesting than most Londpn locations which usually consist of a subway/tube station and a few shops.
Growing up there made me well aware of the shifting sands of time and geographic consequences well before humanity appeared on the scene.
A lovely description Karen, sounds like an ideal place to grow up in.
Yes it was, I’m tempted to say it was ruined by yuppies/hipsters but why shouldn’t they enjoy what I had?
I used to spend time close to Crouch End in the Hampstead Heath area. I think the highest point in London is in Hampstead Heath? It’s hilly terrain around there.
Nearby Highgate tube station has the deepest fallback staircase on the London underground. Best avoided when the IRA were threatening disruption.
I’m completely sick of it, the utter climate bollocks. It’s children’s level fairy tale stupid. It epitomises the bottomless pit of idiocy into which the West has fallen. I wish we could just stop hearing about it and having to talk about it. People are insane. Have a pleasant day.
There are two topics that I have been banging on about for over forty years much to my family’s dismay:
The pits will have to be reopened.
There is no national food policy in this country.
These two issues are shortly going to be daily news items.
And the same fairy tales were adopted for the Rona
They’ve been playing the same old trick since before recorded history.
Just last night I came across a WW2 documentary in which ‘leading experts’ predicted an Allied death toll of 500,000 in the event of some landing or other.
The actual number of deaths was ‘only’ K20, sad indeed but it resulted in a war winning outcome.
They do the same with dropping 2 atomic bombs to end the Japan war. Ignoring the tens of thousands of Allied four engine bombers, which won the war in Europe, heading her way and which have caused far more death and destruction for the country that started the war.
We need a study to explore the consequences of Putin nuking everyone on the climate. I’m sure it will be catastrophic, everything is.
Perhaps Ferguson can do the model.
Jobs and livelihoods rely on this lie. Lots of jobs and livelihoods. Asking them to give it up and tell the truth is pretty pointless. This will go on for generations until it gradually fizzles out. Don’t think ‘Watergate’, think ‘Protestant Reformation’…
I’d rather think Krakatoa – with all those folking CC cultists holding hands around it, singing Kumbaya.
It’ll go on until the old money has complete control of the worlds spending with carbon tax.
Unless you’re part of the club, then you can keep your private jet and mullti-Billion Carbon Credit CBDC Yacht and spew as much as you like.
Without wishing to appear cruel or prejudiced, the same could be said for Christianity as a whole. At least the European version which is surely on its last legs.
Welibaby is doing his best.
He certainly isn’t helping, this from someone with happy memories of early High Church CofE and with a much loved CofE Nun(?) for an Auntie.
I meet a lot of students: the young generation (Z) grows up totally sold to this. They only can call it “climate catastrophe” and trying to question anything about it is like trying to question Christianity in a conversation with Holy Inquisition.
v 1.0. Global warming
v 2.0. Climate change
v 3.0. Climate catastrophe
v 4.0…?
Answers on a postcard to the IPCC.
v 4.Climate gotternamerung (if it fits).
v5. The heat death of the universe.
It’s been laughing at these tossers since before they got flooded out during COP (?) @ Coppenhagen sobmany years ago.
I am not normally a supporter of strikes, but a climate research one is something I can get behind with enthusiasm.
If the science is settled, maybe the research departments can now be disbanded.
‘Nobody knows how much the atmosphere warms if CO2 levels are doubled’
You can boil the entire subject down to this one sentence: ‘Nobody knows… ‘ Some ‘scientists’ allege 8.5 C, some 1.5 C.
Coe et al, in a 2021 paper, put the figure at 0.5 C, and estimated the entire contribution of human-emitted CO2 to global warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution at 0.25 C.
Look in vain for any MMS coverage of the climate contrarian viewpoint, anything that counters the climate emergency narrative. The parallels with the vaccine-injury blank-out are not coincidental.
Heat-pumps are coming, massive increases in domestic energy bills, the end of cheap travel, mandatory veganism, and… de-population.
All on the strength of …’Nobody knows…’
The parallels with the vaccine-injury blank-out are not coincidental.
I agree, and when you include social scientists, (the very definition of an oxymoron), computer modellers, and ’emergency’ rhetoric, I get a very strong feeling of déjà vu.
This piece from The Highwire, regarding the suppression of Ivermectin and the influence of money on academia, is both illuminating and troubling.
https://thehighwire.com/watch/
Nothing changes. I did a similar exercise about 15 years ago. Medical doctors, vets, social anthropologists, and so on heavily outnumbered atmospheric physicists.
The chairman of the IPCC at the time, Rajendra Pachauri, was a railway engineer. Nowadays the high priestess of the religion is an autistic teenager with no qualifications whatsoever but the true believers hang on her every utterance. If only Monty Python could make a film about The Life of Greta.
Same here, nothing changes. We had this same discussion 10-15 years ago and confirmed the same Sceptic conclusion.
To be honest I don’t have the time or inclination to go through it all again.
Lok, the whole 30 year scam has been predicated on saying ‘We have seven gears in this car – every five years we put it into the next gear higher’.
All the words on likelihood/probability have been ramped up in exactly this manner. No evidence for its justification is ever, ever given.
The IPCC has no legistative legitimacy, it is in effect a ‘Think Tank’ or a ‘Pressure Group’, depending on how you see it.
Like most think tanks, it lives in a bubble rendering it incapable of responding to conditions which refute its central dogmas.
But like most pressure groups, it has sufficient funding to start to blackmail politicians and to collude with billionaires who understand how to make fortunes by utilising its mantras, false or otherwise.
The IPCC was relegated to ‘junk status’ in my personal ‘Moodys ratings of political organisations’ about 5 years ago. It’s not been investment grade at any time in my rating system.
To name just one, how many times has Prince Charles predicted the end of the world because MMGW in X days, months or years yet they are still with us.
When I opened my Yahoo email account 12 or more years ago I put my location as Tuvalu since it was supposed to be sinking beneath the waves, yet likewise they are still with us.
The biggest indictment is that we are at COP 26 (of 26 so far), and COP 27 and COP 28 are already scheduled. So much for this is our last chance.
No doubt we will hear the same rhetoric, perhaps using slightly more hysterical hyperbole, but essentially the same voices giving the same forecasts of doom that yet again we have our last and final chance to do something, like we can control the climate of the planet as easily as we do our domestic heating thermostat. Still, nothing comes..
The worrying thing is that, in order to cover up the global malfeisance over COVID they’re happy to start a nuclear war. So what will they have left when the climate change scam becomes obvious (apart from saying that it would have been too hot if nuclear winter hadn’t got in the way)?
I grew up with the constant threat of Global Cooling, new Ice Age and all that. Didn’t worry me too much as I was living within a Glacial Morrain (see earlier post today).
I only had time to check one of Morrison’s claims.
Marie-Fanny Racault has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of East Anglia.
No she doesn’t. She has a PhD but not in philosophy. Her thesis subject was:
“The impact of climate on phytoplankton phenology in the global ocean (2010). “
I suggest Morrison gets someone to review his articles for accuracy before publishing.
Presumably a confusion with “Doctor of Philosophy” which is what PhD means.
I would hope that Morrison knows the difference between a PhD and a degree in philosophy.
You lie. You desperately tried to find an inaccuracy. Well done, can’t win the argument so go for the man.
So which bit of what I wrote was false?
So you ‘only had time to check one of his claims’, but it seems you had enough time to attempt to make a desperate straw clutching smear festival out of it.
How about the rest of his claims? Like the Earth has warmed barely 1 degree in the past 200 years? That the Great Barrier Reef is in great health? That the Earth’s temperature has barely moved for almost 8 years? And the fact that all of these ‘studies’ and climate models are made by people with skin in the game? All during one of the lowest overall periods of CO2 in the Earth’s history.
Care to ‘check’ any of those?
I pointed out an error – in what sense is this a “ a desperate straw clutching smear festival”. It is relevant because Chris Morrison doesn’t seem to spend much effort checking his articles. E.g .this article which, as many of the sceptical commenters pointed out, suggested there was no warming trend when clearly there was. Compare Morrison to Mike Hearn who also contributes to DS. His articles are researched in detail and are always worth taking seriously. On the one occasion he made a factual error he recognised it and immediately asked for critical review to make sure it didn’t happen again.
The rest of Morrison’s claims have been made many times before and I have responded to some of them in the past.
The only warming trend is a mild temperature increase over 200 years of barely 1 degree – the difference between the upstairs and downstairs of your house. There hasn’t been any statistically significant warming since 1998 and nothing over the past 7 years. Anything else is computer modelling done by those whose careers depend on grants given specifically to find problems to justify more grants. And every one of these climate models has been proven wrong by reality every time.
Between the 1940s and the 1970s the global temperature fell significantly leading to media hysterics throughout the 70s of a global ice age. That’s all now been conveniently forgotten.
According to overwhelming historical temperature data, the Earth has been warmer at many points in the past without the intervention of anthropogenic CO2 and the “cancer” that is the human race [credit D. Attenborough]. Also established ice core data clearly shows a historic pattern of CO2 increases occurring after temperature increases, not the other way round – so it turns out the dog wags the tail after all.
Which part of all this is still keeping you up at night?
Nailed it. 👍
“Suggested there was no warming trend”. Suggest you read the article properly, rather than throw mud on the basis of what you think I have written.
You only had time to check one “scientist”, out of a list of 13, but it just happened to show something you believe to be inaccurate.
You’re as big a fraud as the climate change argument.
OK. Here is more detailed account of what I did.
I looked at Morrison’s list starting at the beginning. The first three appeared to have qualifications that were vaguely scientific but he seemed to be implying Marie-Fanny Racault was a philosopher not a scientist at all – I was about to go out (now back) so I knew I only had time to check out one case so I selected this one. It turned out Morrison had got it wrong and she is a scientist. Think of it as a sample of one out of thirteen. What is fraudulent about that?
You appear to have locked yourself into a ‘details war’ with other commenters. While details are clearly important, we need to keep the big picture in mind as well. What matters here, in my opinion, is whether the factual inaccuracies that you have pointed out, change the overall conclusion about the constitution of the IPCC? I can’t see that they do.
Fair enough. I was concentrating on the detail of an error because of what it illustrated about Morrison’s journalism. Turning to the overall constitution of the IPCC. The list of authors comes from working group two which assesses the impact of climate change and is divided into areas such as ” Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and their services”. It seems to me that you would expect the majority of experts in these areas to be things like oceanographers and ecologists looking at systems rather than physicists and chemists.
If you look at the authors of working group 1 report (Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis) there are plenty of “pure” scientists involved e.g the first UK author listed is Prof Edward Hawkins who has a Ph D in astrophysics. The second is a native German working at the University of Edinburgh: Professor Gabriele Hegerl whose PhD was (translated from the German):
You’re easily impressed.
Some of them may be scientists in the broadest possible definition but that doesn’t mean they’re not A: immune from groupthink and corruption. B: Talking demonstrable horse shit.
So years ago they claimed that 14k Scientists supported a California University report bigging up MMGM until it was revealed that half of the signatures were from journalists and most of the rest Uni students.
It doesn’t surprise me. They try to fix everything because their arguments are so weak and they cannot handle alternative views.
They’re the sort who deliberately registered false signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration just to undermine its whole premise and distract from the eminent people who fully supported it.
Uni of East Anglia? There’s a surprise, the home of Global Warming scams and lies (“hide the hockey stick/medieval warm period” or somesuch).
University of East Anglia; it bounces off the tongue just like….oh ….
Imperial College, London.
Are they by any chance related?
She’s got a PhD in what? Basket weaving?
The title did not come out clearly in my post – so I will repeat it:
Numerical solution of the compressible two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in a time-dependent domain using energy-reducing boundary conditions
Doesn’t sound like basket weaving to me.
What does it sound like to you then?
The only inaccuracy was writing “doctorate in philosophy” instead of doctor of philosophy. He also says her PhD is in environmental science. You make a rather sweeping condemnation of the man for what is basically a typo.
Fair enough. For some reason the sentence about her PhD being in environmental science escaped my notice when I first read the article.
However, surely to write “she has a doctorate in philosophy” is a bit more than a typo? If he just meant to state she had a PhD, most people would have written either “she has a PhD” or “she has doctorate” not “she is a doctor of philosophy”. Anyway – why write that she has a PhD? That is true of many of the authors.
The scientists who believe in Climate Change DEMAND climate lockdowns, which would wreck lives and economies, The scientists who do NOT believe in Climate Change do NOT want climate lockdowns which would wreck lives and economies
I don’t think there’s a serious scientist who doesn’t believe in climate change.
It’s the cause that’s the question, and the IPCC has studiously failed to include the Sun in any of its pronouncements.
But they do believe in the fees to be gained by airing MMGW views in print and on the air. They get f*ck all offering opposing opinions in print or on the telly.
Nothing changes, same theses past 20 years or more but I haven’t recently spoken with a member of the public who had the slightest interest. Most prefer just to change the subject rather than risk disagreements.
“I don’t think there’s a serious scientist who doesn’t believe in climate change.”
You are talking Billy Bollox.
If I was Chris Morris (DS article contributor) I might be disappointed that this was Lead Item for just one hour this morning.
Desolate – completely ruined my breakfast. There are just too many good writers on the Daily Sceptic.
😀
🤩
They couldn’t give a stuff about the planet except the financial benefits, as they alone use more of its resources, I’m guessing private jets for a couple of people don’t have emissions, they would love us locked up, to use the planet as their own playground.
Does anyone know how many volcanoes and fissures expelling CO2 lie on the seabed of the worlds Oceans?
I’ll give you a clue. In 2018 ninety one volcanoes were ‘discovered’ under the Antarctic ice. How many years has the Antarctic been explored by scientists?
Blaming humans for CO2 emissions, even if it did make much difference to the climate, is simply childish fantasy.
One must always remember that science is more often wrong than right, otherwise there would be no need for the scientific method and experiments. We would just go straight from a hypothesis (a guess) to a scientific theory avoiding all that wasted hard work in between.
Even scientists don’t believe their own work, if they are honest. That’s why we have scientific theory, the culmination of, often, years of hard work, that exists only to be falsified. That’s why it’s not called a scientific fact.
Howmany scientists … a scientist is someone who is sceptical until they have tested the evidence to prove something. The IPCC reports are totally alarmists BS where science is a thin veneer to camouflage their political rantings. So, no scientists would ever get involved in it.
Scientists don’t “prove” anything, they develop falsifiable theories.
The one positive to come out of the Covid debacle is that teams of so called “experts” have been shown not only to be totally wrong in their predictions, but also that they are utterly blinkered to anything outside the tight parameters of their subject matter, leading to disastrous consequences as a result of their policies.
I can only hope that these climate change fanatics are gradually pushed to the sidelines before they cause even more harm to our future.
Scientists are more often wrong than they are right. Even they don’t believe themselves, or shouldn’t.
Ah no, you’re referring to old science there, recently replaced by “The Science” where there is only one definitive truth, and anybody who dares to question it is smeared or censored.
Agreed. Certainly with Covid, as actual experience has shown, computer models have proven to be wildly inaccurate – and information that quietly leaked out has confirmed that the modellers were only interested/instructed to model “worst-case scenarios”, which would appear to be the case with climate modelling too. One hopes that from now on hysterical predictions of “climate catastrophe” will be treated with a truck-load of salt by reputable scientists and reporters.
Wishful thinking unfortunately.
Humans ‘think’ in images and stories, not words and reason. The IPCC has picked a few random ‘observations’, labelled them as facts, and presented the resulting ‘Climate Model’ as an apocalyptic tale. At present, Meteorologists, running their models on the fastest supercomputers, can’t predict the ‘weather in the UK’ five days from a front forming in New York – let alone model the ‘climate’. So, what to do? Proper science will need to measure and model many variables: the full range of electromagnetic intensities incident upon our little rock from that Big Yellow Ball in the sky; the absorption of these rays; the re-radiated spectrum; the various components that provide this absorption; how relative changes in the concentrations will change equilibrium temperatures in the atmosphere; and so many other variables that I am sure we can all think of given thirty-seconds of thought. When this ‘proper’ science has been completed, and quantum computing becomes available, a model using these many variables may be able to predict a range of possible scenarios. Only then will we have a proper model of the ‘climate’ (probably many models). Until then, I am not sure how to counter the hysteria the IPCC (and others) have created within the political/media classes. I do know that counter arguments should be through images, stories, and emotions about the appalling costs of moving to ‘Net Zero’ – and not by countering the ‘facts’ – as these sadly don’t yet exist.
I imagine there will be a vaccine to cure globl warming problem or is that the one they just pushed out?
Professor Parmesan is obviously a big cheese, though s/he may have tanked.
Maybe Professor Richard Betts’ prophecy may come about but for a quite different reason. The armed gangs he was referring to might be the last dregs of the human race left after an atomic WW3.
globel warming, you suffer so the elite don’t have to.
Fringe science informed the Covid lockdown, the Green loons would shut down society too if they could. Meanwhile this collection of worried social scientists are making a mint. It may be one minute to midnight for a while yet.
Forecasts aka projections, in the financial world known as pious hope, are not and never will be science.
In the old days they might have been a hypothesis tested against facts.
Since most have failed the test against reality they have no credibility whatsoever
When politicians and journalists hear someone is a “scientist” they seem to believe that they have the knowledge and right to proclaim expertise in a far wider field than they are likely to have in practice. Virtually all scientists spend their lives researching in an extremely narrow compass. A “climate” scientist for example may specialise in fluid dynamics, ocean currents, solar radiation, cloud formation, atmospheric chemistry, land use, thermodynamics, orbital dynamics, particulates, weather patterns, satellite telemetry etc (and possibly in even narrower sub-fields) . They will have little more expertise outside their specialism than most interested, well educated “generalists”. In reality then, there is no such thing as “climate science” other than as a portmanteau term or as a useful misdirection for journalists and politicians who are told modelling is science. A climate modeller has to make decisions how to incorporate the most appropriate recent reportage from the many and varied papers published within each of these specialisms, make judgements about their contribution, often neglect new research or data (sometimes deliberately) and predict how they will all inter react. The modeller must then incorporate all relevant forcings (with their own often activism driven and erroneous assumptions eg RCP 8.5 is BAU) into a statistical model than can supposedly forecast a chaotic climate for decades ahead. The modeller cannot possibly be an “expert” in the dozens and dozens of specialist fields that are contributing to climate research. Just look at how well Covid models did in modelling a few months ahead.
We all love a politically motivated computer model on DS, don’t we?! Will “lessons have been learned” re trusting these skewed, la la land distopian models and their authors? Probably not, when the b.s. they churn out suits the WEF globalist narrative. Viva common sense scientists and politicians!
Chris
Another great article. I’m a full blown climate change sceptic-in fact, I’m sure it’s all nonsense on stilts.
However-could we have a scientific comment on the satellite temperature graph? It appears to be sloping upwards, though in the commentary it’s said to show a standstill.
“Nobody knows how much the atmosphere warms if CO2 levels are doubled.”. The null hypothesis must be that the number is ZERO, and as stated, no evidence to the contrary exists.
So 14% of species will become extinct due to a 0.3deg C increase?
It is worth noting that for every 150Km nearer the Equator the temperature rises by 1deg C.
So 0.3deg C is what can be expected by travelling south 50Km.
So just more alarmist claptrap.
To summarise Para A.1.2. from the IPCC ‘Summary for Policymakers‘:
In other words, there has been no significant increase from 2001-2010 to 2011-2020. A tenth of one degree is well within the margin of error. Yes, the planet has warmed by 1 degree since the ending of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, which is hardly surprising. It has nothing to do with increasing CO2 and temperatures were warmer in 1300 AD. The increase in CO2 may be due to slight warming of the oceans and increased burning of fossil fuels, but has encouraged additional greening of the planet – more food and more oxygen from green plants.
Its happening all the time that those scientists who have taken a different and quite probably a more accurate view from those claiming a climate emergency are being shut down or shut out from putting the alternative case by people who have no knowledge of the subject, but just want to max,-up the popular belief by the ignorant. This has happened in so many issues recently that it seems in the intersets of the main-stream media to promote hysteria in as many things as they can.
Dear Chris Morrison, it’d be interesting if we understand what is the route by which some ‘scientist’ qualifies as a scientist for a government or an agency.
I believe, networking is far more relevant than scientific contribution.
Is this something we could explore more? The reason I’m asking is that I don’t get access to actual data.