Monday, August 13, 2018

Despite climate hype and green hysteria, Britain's heatwave failed to break temperature record

75F (23C) is hot???  That's a winter temperature where I live!  It is actually 24C as I write this -- in an Australian midwinter, with no heating on

How Britain's temperatures got above 75F for 47 days in a row during the prolonged heatwave

The top temperature somewhere in Britain reached over 75F (24C) for 47 days in a row during the prolonged heatwave.

Of those 47 days, some 29 saw temperatures of at least 85F (29.4C), while ten got all the way to at least 90F (32C).

However, the record ended yesterday when Plymouth in Devon was the hotspot, but only made it up to 74.1F (23.4C).

The hottest day of 2018 was broken six times within the period - including on four days in a row in June.

The lowest reading in the 47-day period was 75.2F (24C) on July 28, while the highest was 95.2F (35.1C) two days earlier.

This year's run of 47 days with temperatures over 75F (24C) was unusual for Britain - but just missed out on the record.

That is held by 1995 which saw a 53-day period from July 5 to August 26 when the mercury hit at least 75F (24C).

In comparison, the famous heatwave summer of 1976 saw 15 days in a row when temperatures hit at least 89.7F (32C).


An academic conference for climate skeptics

Designed to look at the REAL causes of climate change,  it will be from 7 September 2018 and takes place in the Portuguese city of Porto (also known as Oporto in English).  Porto is the second-largest city in Portugal after Lisbon and is located along the Douro river estuary in Northern Portugal.  Below is the conference programme

Day 1: Friday, 7 September 2018

09.00         Opening ceremony

09.30         Session 1: Changes in Climate and Weather

                    Chair: Pamela Matlack-Klein

09.30         Christopher Essex: Climate: like atomic physics where we are the atoms

10.20         Coffee break – with posters

11.00         Piers Corbyn: European weather in the last years – extreme or normal?

11.20         Nils-Axel Mörner: Atlantic Ocean circulation and Gulf Stream beat

11.40         Maria da Assunção Araújo & Pamela Matlack-Klein: Note on the Portuguese Sea Level Project

12.00         Michael Limburg: Can we trust time series of historical climate data?

12.20         Karl Zeller & Ned Nikolov: Earth + Solar system data and scientific method = New climate science

12.40         Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller: Implications of semi-empirical planetary temperature model for a new
                      understanding of Earth’s climate history

13.00         Lunch: break for 1.5 hour

14.30         Session 2: CO2, Climate Sensitivity and Greenhouse Effects

                    Chair: Jan-Erik Solheim

14.30         Francois Gervais: Cooling of climate sensitivity

14.50         Christopher Monckton: On an error in defining temperature feedback

15.10         Camille Veyres: Eleven facts you must know to avoid being deceived by the AGW

15.30         Edwin Berry: A fatal flaw in global warming science

15.50         Hermann Harde: How much CO2 and also the Sun contribute to global warming

16.10         Hans Jelbring: Regional greenhouse effects – based on observational evidence

16.30         Coffee break – with posters

17.00         Ray Garnett & Madhav Khandekar: Increasing cold weather extremes since the new
                      millennium: an assessment with a focus on worldwide economic impact

17.20           Albrecht Glatzle: Livestock’s role in climate change: Do we need a shift of paradigm? (poster)​

17:30         Philip Foster: Being wrong can have serious consequences /The Nile Climate Engine​

17.40         General discussion-1 including: Student's ask questions
                     Moderators: Nils-Axel Mörner, Pamela Matlack-Klein & Maria da Assunção Araújo 

19.00          End of Day-1

Day 2: Saturday, 8 September 2018

09.30         Session 3: Forcing functions in Climate Change
                     Chair: Thomas Wysmuller

09.30         Piers Corbyn: Mechanisms of weather extremes and climate changes (including long range forecasting)

09.50         Henri Masson: Complexity, causality and dynamics inside the climate system

10.10         Pavel Kalenda et al.: Calculation of solar energy, accumulated in the continental rocks

10.30         Don Easterbrook (ppt submission): The cause of Little Ice Ages and climate change

10.50         Roger Tattersall & Stuart Graham: Climate change: solar-interplanetary forces – not human activity

11.10         Coffee break – with posters

11.40         Jan-Erik Solheim: The length of solar cycle as predictor for local climate

11.00         Harald Yndestad: The climate clock

11.20         Nils-Axel Mörner: Planetary beat and sea level changes

11.40         Nicola Scafetta: Toward a better understanding of natural climate variability

13.00         Lunch: break for 1.5 hour

14.30         Session 4: Further observational facts, interpretations and geoethics
                    Chair: Karl Zeller

14.30         Thomas Wysmuller: The fall of IGCP’s sea-level rise

14.50         Antonio Silva: Relevance of present sea-level changes to coastal risk

15.10         Maria da Assunção Araújo: Greenland: some simple observations on ice retreat and climate evolution ​

15.30         Cliff Ollier (ppt submission): Ocean acidification is a myth

15.50         Peter Ridd (ppt submission): The Great Barrier Reef, climate change and science

16.00         David Block: Salt and albedo

16.20         Conor McMenemie: The Nile Climate Engine

16.40         Coffee break – with posters

17.10         Howard Dewhirst and Robert Heath: Letter to the Geological Society of London

17.30         Aziz Adam (ppt submission): The politics of global change

17.40         Benoit Rittaud: Some historical cases of erroneous scientific consensus

18.00         General discussion-2

                    Moderators: Nils-Axel Mörner & Pamela Matlack-Klein
​                    Jim O’Brien: Announcement

19.00         Closing: Christopher Essex & Maria da Assunção Araújo

                     Postlude: Christopher Monckton

​19.30         Cheese & Port Mingle


The global temperature is NOT sensitive to CO2 variations

Thai mathematician, Cha-am Jamal, reports a rigorous test of the CO2 theory.  Some focused excerpts below.  See the original for graphs and workings

Climate sensitivity described by Jule Charney as the expected temperature increase for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide assumes that surface temperature is responsive to atmospheric CO2 concentration in accordance with the so called “greenhouse effect”. Such responsiveness implies a linear relationship between surface temperature and the logarithm of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

In theory the Charney climate sensitivity, also called the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity or ECS, is a universal constant. In the ideal scientific process, climate models would use the radiative forcing computations to predict the theoretical value of ECS (as Charney has done) and the testable implication of theory, that surface temperature is responsive to the logarithm of the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the observational data at an annual time scale, should yield a value that is in agreement with the theoretical prediction of the climate model.

This procedure has not worked out very well for the ECS because of a wide range of ECS values both for theoretical predictions by climate models and for empirical tests with the observational data of global warming.....

 The ECS value estimates in the 60-year moving window vary from ECS<0 ecs="" to="">6, a much larger range than and inconsistent with the Charney/IPCC standard. The observed variance implies that empirical ECS estimates are unstable and a function of location within the data time series.

This intuition is confirmed in Figure 3 where the three columns marked BOTH are of interest in this discussion because they relate to global temperature. They display the results of a split half test for regression stability which compares ECS values for the full span, the first half of the span, and the second half of the span. The observed values are ECS=0.54 for the first half 1850-1933, and ECS=2.71 for the second half 1934-2017. From the results in Figures 2&3, taken together we may conclude that the OLS linear regression coefficient for temperature against atmospheric CO2 concentration is unstable.

Such instability implies an insufficient correlation exists at the time scale of interest for the further interpretation of the coefficient in terms of its information content. In other words, the regression coefficient does not contain useful information because an insufficient correlation exists between surface temperature and log(atmospheric CO2) at an annual time scale.

In a related study, the satellite temperature measurement era 1979-2017 are used in conjunction with Mauna Loa CO2 data. These data sources are considered to be the most reliable. The results show that the correlation in the observational data between surface temperature and the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 is spurious and an artifact of shared long term trends. 

When detrended, no evidence is found that surface temperature is responsive to atmospheric CO2 concentration at an annual time scale. The full text of this study may be downloaded from SSRN.COM  or from ACADEMIA.EDU. These results suggest that there is no empirical basis for the existence of an ECS climate sensitivity parameter that determines surface temperature according to atmospheric CO2 concentration.

That spurious correlations can lead to false causation conclusions is demonstrated in a parody of the ECS using data for homicides in England and Wales. The full text of this study may be downloaded from SSRN.COM or ACADEMIA.EDU


The Nazi Roots of Environmentalism and the Climate Change Fraud

With Rupert Darwall

Whose bright idea was that? EU will ban halogen bulbs at the end of the month - after encouraging us to buy them - making lighting our homes TWICE as expensive

Is there nothing so trivial that the pettifogging jobsworth Brussels Bastards don't want to stick their long interfering noses into it?

First, the EU controversially banned our traditional incandescent light bulbs and encouraged us to buy halogen bulbs.

Now, they're banning halogen bulbs and doubling the cost of lighting a home.

The European Union-driven ban on halogen lightbulbs comes into effect at the end of the month.

Householders will have to buy more expensive LED lights under measures designed to cut energy use.

The LED bulbs are at least twice as expensive as halogen lights, but advocates argue they are better value because the LED versions use a fraction of the electricity and have a much longer lifespan, potentially 15 years.

The new ban has gone under the radar in Britain, with a recent survey by lighting product company LEDvance finding that two in three Britons had no idea halogen bulbs were on the way out.

Despite the benefits of LEDs, even some supporters of the switch are questioning whether the EU should be forcing the change, warning it could lead to resentment against green policies.

Supermarkets sell halogens for about £2 each, while the equivalent LED versions are about £4 and can be as much as £7.

Buying new bulbs for the 34 lights found in a typical home would cost £68 if they were halogen, but doing the same with the LED versions is likely to be closer to £150.

The ban on the halogen lights has been driven by the EU, and backed by successive UK governments – and seems certain to come in despite Brexit.

The policy initially resulted in the ban on the import and manufacture of high-power traditional incandescent bulbs in 2009.

This was then expanded to other lower-power versions.

Families were encouraged to switch to alternatives, specifically halogens, which were promoted as green, but these will become obsolete with the adoption of the LED lights commonly used in offices, shops and lamp posts.

Historically, consumers have rejected LED lights because they were expensive and gave off a harsh, bright light.

There were also concerns they may not work in dimmer light fittings, which means they create a constant flickering or buzzing noise.

But prices have fallen significantly recently and it is now possible to produce warmer tones in more expensive LEDs.

At the same time, new lighting systems offer different levels of brightness and colours.

London's Conservative MEP Syed Kamall is positive about benefits of LED bulbs, but said: 'Forcing them on consumers and banning cheaper alternative lightbulbs will come across as heavy-handed and could lead to resentment over 'green' policies.'

The Energy Saving Trust says the move will help homes cut bills because the LED bulbs use about a fifth of the energy burned by halogens.

Stewart Muir, of consumer website, said: 'Lighting is an essential, and it tends to be one of the biggest consumers of energy, so the move to end the sale of the expensive halogens will be hugely beneficial.'




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: