Global Temperature

Despite $trillions of spending predicated on a change in “global temperature”, there still remains no measurement of this figure. Most of the globe has no measurement at the surface particularly over the sea and the centre of large continents like Africa and S.America. Satellites provide a broader coverage but as yet there is no satellite crossing the poles.
The current measurement system is wholly inadequate and it is criminal that after 20 years of calling global temperature “the worlds greatest problem”, that we still don’t even have the basic measurement of global temperature.

Global Temperature Trend

To assert there is a trend when we don’t have the basic figure of global temperature is wrong. Instead all we can say is what the various ad hoc measures suggest. Unfortunately, after a period when the temperature was shown to have “paused” (in these measures) rather than look for errors in the predictions that forecast warming, those involved with the ground measurements have sought to find ways to make their metrics compatible with the models. These now lack credibility and all we can say with any confidence is that there is no reason not to believe we are still in the pause.
The other set are satellite measurements. Again these show the pause continuing – albeit without data for the poles.

Climate models & effect of CO2

Given the continuance of the pause, no climate model now has credibility. It is time that this issue was addressed by going back to basics and rethinking the presumed role of CO2 in the 20th century warming.
It now appears very likely that the scale of presumed feedbacks in the climate are much smaller than believed. There may even be strong negative feedbacks present. However, until more evidence is available it is recommended that future modelling and policy be based on the effects of CO2 alone with no feedbacks. This suggests a rise of about 1C for a doubling of CO2.

Natural Variation

It now appears very likely that most of the warming in the 20th century was caused by a period of natural warming. As such, there is a strong possibility we will see modest cooling within the next few years.
However, there is also a strong possibility we will see warming or cooling that is not currently predicted. Therefore climate policy should consider both strong warming and cooling to be possible.

Effects on Extreme weather, droughts floods.

Given we appear to be in a period of “pause”, it is not surprising that there appears to be no trend in extreme weather, global droughts, floods etc. It is therefore difficult to say what linkage, if any, exists between global temperature. However as CO2 levels continue to rise, there is no evidence for adverse effects caused by CO2.

The Effect of CO2

Whilst there is no evidence that CO2 has a direct impact on the climate except that  theoretically a rise in CO2 should see a rise in temperature (although far from being confirmed), we do expect rising CO2 to causes changes. The biggest of these is to increase the availability of atmospheric carbon to plants and to aid plant growth. This effect is predicted to have most impact on dry areas, and we are seeing evidence of a “greening of the desert”.

Sea & Land Ice and impact on ocean levels

There has been evidence for growing ice in Antarctic and diminishing ice in the Arctic. The cause of this is unclear and cannot at this stage be linked to rising CO2, although as ice-sheets will tend to lag in their response to rising temperature, there are good theoretical reasons to believe the 20th century temperature rise may be continuing to have an affect on polar ice-caps.
However, historical accounts, whilst far from being quantitative, do suggest qualitatively that similar changes in ice-sheets have occurred before. It would therefore seem prudent to ensure the state of global ice-sheets is known.
However, as yet there is no evidence to show an increased rate of sea level rise (sea level has been rising naturally since the last ice-age).

Regional & short term forecasts

Whilst much effort has  gone into the unsuccessful long-term forecasts with a massive waste of public money, very little has gone into the areas of short-term regional forecasts where there is a real chance of dramatically improving the forecast models with a huge potential for life saving and improvements to standard of living.
Moreover, if we cannot predict the climate/weather in the short-term it is ridiculous to believe we can predict it in the longer term. Therefore we should “cut our teeth” on the relatively simpler task of regional and short-term forecasts where we can more easily validate models.

Priorities for the future

1. To eradicate the “make do and mend” culture of those compiling the climate metrics in which they attend to turn a pigs ear into a silk purse, taking data from instruments wholly unsuited for the purpose they are now being used for. It is an absolute priority that we urgently replace both the instruments and organisations and replace them with people and equipment up to the job. This may involve a global investment in monitoring sites, or alternatively methods of calibrating satellite data as well as launching a new satellite(s) to cover the poles.
2. We must urgently reconcile the discrepancy between “global temperature” and the climate models, no as has been the habit in the last decade, by changing the method of compiling the temperature data to “shoe-horn” it into the models, but instead by critically evaluating the failures of all models to predict the pause”.
3. We must continue monitoring climate, and indeed, should be aiming for more global coverage of key metrics.
4. There should be a particular drive to understand the linkage between climate and polar ice-sheets.
5. The main research focus should move to short-term climate/ long-term weather prediction at a regional scale. This will have the dual benefit of increasing the knowledge of climate as well as making long-range weather forecasts more accurate.
6. We must move to depoliticise climate science and particularly climate advice given to global governments and instead focus on credible empirical measurements. As such it is recommended the IPCC is split into two organisations. The first should be solely concerned with creating a “state of the global climate” review using quality metrics. It would need to employ its own staff to compile these metrics This organisation should focus on data and as such would not tolerate any climate activism of any form.
7. In addition, there should be a secondary organisation, entirely separate from the first, and filled with those knowledgeable about the climate, economics and industrial & agricultural impacts (from both private and public sector). They should be tasked with taking the available data, creating forecasts for climate as a whole: meaning possible cooling and warming, and developing cost projections for various policies and contingencies. Again climate activists would be barred from taking part. It is further strongly suggested that those giving their advice should be paid.

As I was replying to some of the comments on the article on the development of farming, the subject of the development of fire came up. And I was lamenting the “fact” that no one ever lets chimps play with fire. However, after making the comment I thought I should check and lo and behold:





###

When academics describe the development of any technology, they tend to portray it as some “lightbulb” moment, whereby Mr Ug suddenly has a brainwave and thinks: “if I planted this thing I could farm it”.
But farming wasn’t some great innovation, instead, it was a skill developed when we were still hunter gatherers able to wonder around the “garden of Eden”, which later became a necessity as population levels rose so that it was no longer possible to rely on unprotected widely distributed food resources and we were forced to settle down and work the soil. Continue reading →

At noon local time (5 PM GMT) on January 20, Donald Trump will take the Oath of Office and be sworn in as America’s 45th president. I’ve got fed up trying to work out how long that is, so I’ve created a count-down timer. It’s now 29days and 17 hours.

What a year! First Trump, then Brexit, then I spent five nights in hospital with some unknown illness – not knowing whether I’d come out again. Of course it started with the massive El Nino warming, and as I predicted, we then had massive global cooling. Then we had the comical events watching those people who claimed the massive El Nino was “man-made” then attacking us when it cooled for pointing out it proved it was just natural El Nino. And to top it I’ve worked out what causes “climate change” and “global warming” (no it’s not solar cycles). However, it needs a bit more work before I can publish (End of 2017/early 2018 with luck). Continue reading →

2017, the Global Warming scam will be torn apart by Trumps appointees in the US. And like many projects Global Warming has been through different phases. The last but one I’d describe as “disillusionment and lost of public belief”; The final phase is legal action and the size will be absolutely massive.
Why? Because the whole scam (at least in the UK) was based on a new idea: commercial obligations not taxation. Continue reading →

I read today the Daily Mail Headline:

Glee to gloom: Climate and the ‘Trump effect’

Was this I thought, “someone like Rose celebrating the resurgence of science against the pseudo science of global warming” ….or was it “someone like AFP pushing pseudo-science claptrap”.
And that’s what I love about the Daily Mail. Because whilst I hate papers like the Guardian that are just an rag mag for climate activists, I’d also hate to see any paper that (like the Guardian) spent its time regurgitating fake news supposedly supporting sceptics.
Because science is science because it is tested thoroughly and stands up to scrutiny. And if the Daily mail were to just print one side of the argument – even if it’s the only sensible side of the argument – however daft the insane ideas of alarmists like AFP, they might one day (almost by mistake) make a valid point which might cause sensible people to re-examine the science. And that would be progress.
Because unlike people like AFP, sceptics want to know the actual truth – even if it is unpalatable to us.

As for the Article

I went off it as soon as it said the US had ratified Paris. Nothing of the sort has happened. You ratify treaties and treaties cannot be ratified just by a president. Instead all Obama has done is the equivalent of a facebook “like”. And what has been done by one president can be easily undone by the next. To be blunt, the US can simply pull out the Day Trump arrives – there will be howls of protest, but there is no legal process that can force the US to comply when countries were told it was illegal under US law.
There’s not much else in the article.  They lie about severe weather, go on about Arctic ice – but ignore e.g. growing Greenland ice. Obviously ignore the pause, etc.
Can I be bothered to dissect such trash, when in a very few weeks, Trump will be tearing up all the pseudo-science and everything Obama has built on it?
And the fact they don’t allow comments on AFP’s articles (and who is AFP?) really shows that it’s just a filler piece – low content

In this article I disprove the whole of modern science (at least the version taught in academia). I disprove much of the belief system present in modern academia and I show that global warming is natural variation. But accepting what I say, really amounts to “common sense”. It’s not that science is wrong – it’s that when applied with “common sense” it is right – it’s just that recently academia has given up on common sense.
In academia, there is a strong belief in the theory of causality, that is to say if we have a stimulus A then it will cause an effect B such that

A→B.

This implies that if A is present, then B is present whereas if A is absent then B is absent.

However, the theory of causality (at least for the purposes of this argument) is that if we have an effect B, there must exist a cause A. Or to put it into simple terms: if we see a warming in the late 20th century, then there must be a “cause”.
The theory of non-causality is so simple that it is known to everyone intuitively and so academia doesn’t have to teach it, instead they have to try to get people to adopt the theory of causality. And in so doing, they constantly portray the theory of non-causality as “bad”, “not-thinking-properly”, etc. etc.
And it is best to use a few examples: Continue reading →

There are three simple stats that show life is unfair to us men:

1. Men die earlier
2. Far more men than women commit suicide
3. Far more men than women are in jail.

If we then used the feminist assertions that we must enforce equality, then we would need to:

1. Spend far more on men’s health than women’s so that men lived longer
2. We would need to make men’s lives more worthwhile living (and thus women’s less worthwhile)
3. We’d have to have far more draconian penalties for any women breaking the law.

So, why are these not seen as “fair” whereas the all pervasive “equality” for women is? The reason is that women demand “fairness” where it provides them benefits, and quietly ignore precisely the same arguments when it would overwhelmingly harm them. So, e.g. we hear demands for positive discrimination for women in the work place … but no demands for “positive discrimination” for women in prison places.

Discrimination against males is far subtler than that against females

However, what I want to discuss today, is a way in which society discriminates against males that no one seems to discuss. The argument is as follows:
In any society, we must have rules. As the number of prison places show, it is overwhelmingly men that break the rules and it is right that those that break the rules go to prison. However, let us suppose that a parliament dominated by women decide that they personally would prefer much stricter rules than most reasonable people in society. It therefore follows that because men break the rules more often … that it will be men who are overwhelmingly penalised by having rules much harsher than necessary.
Thus the “nanny state” or the “cotton wool state” overwhelmingly restricts men far more than it restricts women. As such it is extreme sexism, in that it is  men that suffer overwhelmingly  from an excessive state.
Similarly, it is widely known that men are the “less refined” sex in terms of social etiquette. Thus, when society or organisations within society create meaningless Politically Correct rules, it is men who find themselves overwhelmingly caught and repressed by those Politically Correct rules. As such, these extremist social prescriptions are overtly sexist, only mildly affecting women, but having a massive affect on men.
The difference of course, is that whilst women are highly effective and manipulating the rules of society to benefit their sex … men just grumble and die earlier.