Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

Can You Explain UAH6? (Now Includes September Data)

by Werner Brozek, November 6, 2017 in WUWT

At Dr. Roy Spencer’s site, regular commenter Des posted a very interesting analysis with respect to September 2017 on UAH6 and the Top 10 first-9-months-of-the-year. Des has graciously allowed me to use their work. Everything that appears below is from Des until you see the statement “Written by Des.” below:

Top 10 Septembers on the record:

1. 2017 (+0.54)
2. 2016 (+0.45) … EL NINO
3. 1998 (+0.44) … EL NINO
4. 2010 (+0.37) … EL NINO
5. 2009 (+0.27) … EL NINO
6. 2005 (+0.25) … EL NINO
7. 2015 (+0.25) … EL NINO
8. 1995 (+0.22) … EL NINO
9. 2012 (+0.22)
10. 2013 (+0.22)


What You Won’t Find in the New National Climate Assessment

by Dr Pat Michaels, November 3, 2017 in WUWT

Under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the federal government has been charged with producing large National Climate Assessments (NCA), and today the most recent iteration has arrived. It is typical of these sorts of documents–much about how the future of mankind is doomed to suffer through increasingly erratic weather and other tribulations. It’s also missing a few tidbits of information that convincingly argue that everything in it with regard to upcoming 21st century climate needs to be taken with a mountain of salt.


Again And Again: Experts And New Findings Show No Link Between European Storm Activity And CO2

by P. Gosselin, October 31, 2017 in NoTricksZone

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

This month two major North Sea storms have hit Europe rather severely, and not surprisingly the usual climate ambulance chasers were out in force to try to pin the blame on man’s activity, and in doing so ignored the climate history that provides us with the proper perspective. We look at some analyses of past German storm activity.

Some Failed Climate Predictions

by Javier, October 30, 2017 in WUWT

Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

An Informative Interview with István Markó

by Istvan Marko (1956-2017), October 28, 2017 in WUWT

This interview was published by Breitbart News Network, in an edited version, on 28 October 2017. Here is the complete version.

István Markó (1956 – 2017) was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université catholique de Louvain. Prof. Dr. Marko was an outspoken defender of the skeptical view on the issue of human-caused/anthropogenic global warming, appearing in numerous French-language media on the Internet, in public debates and diverse English-language blog postings. He also joined with Anglo-Saxon climate skeptics, publishing several articles together on Breitbart News.

Second interview (part 2) here

Al Gore’s Apocalyptic Fantasy Lecture at Rice University

by Andy May, October 24, 2017 in WUWT

As promised, I attended Al Gore’s climate change lecture at Rice University last night. Rice University is one of the most beautiful university campuses I’ve ever seen, so it was a delight to see it again. The architecture is outstanding, and the buildings are placed in a garden-like setting. It was lovely to walk from the parking lot to the fieldhouse. The speech was held in a packed Tudor Fieldhouse which seats 5,750. By the time the Rice University Provost was introducing Al Gore, there were no empty seats that I could see, see Figure 1.

Lies and Manipulation: The Sorry State of Global Climate Alarmism

by Vijay Jayaraj, October 24, 2017 in WUWT

As a citizen of a third-world country, I bring a different perspective about climate change from that held by most people in wealthy countries. While they fret about possible tenth-of-a-degree changes in global average temperature, I think about how a billion of my fellow Indians and I will obtain the food, water, health care, and other things we need that our richer neighbors take for granted.

See also here

The effect of giant lateral collapses on magma pathways and the location of volcanism

by F. Maccaferri et al., October 23, 2017 in NatureCommunication

Open Article

The results reveal that a lateral collapse can trigger a significant deflection of deep magma pathways in the crust, favouring the formation of a new eruptive centre within the collapse embayment. Our results have implications for the long-term evolution of intraplate volcanic ocean islands.

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

by Pat Frank, October 23, 2017 in WUWT

Regular readers at Anthony’s Watts Up With That will know that for several years, since July 2013 in fact, I have been trying to publish an analysis of climate model error.

The analysis propagates a lower limit calibration error of climate models through their air temperature projections. Anyone reading here can predict the result. Climate models are utterly unreliable. For a more extended discussion see my prior WUWT post on this topic (thank-you Anthony).

All the major nations are failing to meet their Paris targets says Nature paper

by JoNova, October 18, 2017

The Magnificent Paris deal was rubbery-theatre, make-of-it-what-you-will, and with rare diligence here is Naturepublishing a paper where a team bothered to check progress. (If only Nature held scientific research as accountable as political deals. MBH98 anyone — where Mann’s hockeystick was accepted by Nature, but not the corrections?)

60 scientists call for EPA endangerment finding to be reversed

by  Anthony Watts, October17, 2017 in WUWT, Press release

Electricity Consumers Fully Support Scientists’ Letter to EPA Calling for Immediate Reopening of its GHG Endangerment Finding

 Key Points: This Letter from over 60 highly credentialed scientists states that: “We the undersigned are individuals who have technical skills and knowledge relevant to climate science and the GHG Endangerment Finding. We each are convinced that the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding is fundamentally flawed and that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is in order.”