The last sentence in that article is interesting:
The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modelling rather than observational evidence.
Coal! Welcome back.
Thank you.Coal! Welcome back.
Bear in mind the GWPF is a lobby group founded by Nigel Lawson..
A link here:A stalled high pressure area over India is baking the citizens with 110 F or 43 C.
People in India are finding it very hard to carry on normal lives.
Climate change is causing weak steer currents.
It is very interesting, however a little research links him to oil and gas money:
....So four “representative concentration pathways”, RCPs, were developed: RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.51. They were, roughly speaking, a highly optimistic scenario regarding emissions, two middling scenarios, and a highly pessimistic one. RCP 8.5 was there as a realistic worst case. Even at the time, it was viewed as unlikely. But two unfortunate things confused that picture.
First, of the four RCPs, only 8.5 imagined a world with no climate policy. And second, its authors described it as “a high-emission business as usual scenario” – meaning that it was at the high end of emissions for business as usual, but which was taken to mean in some quarters that high emissions were business as usual.
So RCP 8.5 became synonymous with “business as usual”. There are dozens of studies published every year describing it as such: this one says that “Business-as-usual will lead to super and ultra-extreme heatwaves in the Middle East and North Africa”. It is a mainstream part of climate science.
RCP 8.5 is not business as usual, though; it’s an unlikely worst case. This means a large fraction of the public debate on climate change mitigation is driven by an increasingly implausible scenario, which was unlikely when it was proposed, and is even less so now.
...we’re probably looking at a situation of 3°C warming above pre-industrial levels,
From my perspective he makes some valid points, but somewhat avoids the central issue of the trillions of tons of C02 and methane we have sent us into our atmosphere in a short space of time (whilst of course benefitting from living in an industrial and postmodern era). I'm in my 50s and Spring has got earlier (ask any farmer!) and frost and snow days fewer, so change is happening right here as the planet warms. Then there are the alarming droughts, wildfires and floods taking place in Australia and Canada on a scale not seen before.Is his data accurate and correct?
So, is his data accurate and correct?From my perspective he makes some valid points, but somewhat avoids the central issue of the trillions of tons of C02 and methane we have sent us into our atmosphere in a short space of time (whilst of course benefitting from living in an industrial and postmodern era). I'm in my 50s and Spring has got earlier (ask any farmer!) and frost and snow days fewer, so change is happening right here as the planet warms. Then there are the alarming droughts, wildfires and floods taking place in Australia and Canada on a scale not seen before.
I do not believe everything the climate crisis lobby come out with, they are pursuing a political agenda in many cases, but our planet is warming, we are partly responsible and have accelerated this, and there is also sadly a mass extinction underway.
Yes, it's amazing how statistics can be used to bend an argument.Hottest/Coldest/Windiest/Sunniest/Rainiest blah blah blah 'on record'.....
Okay.....so how far back does your record go?
I find that mostly the alarmism usually conveyed by these sorts of reports is down to the fact that either the period with which current data are being compared to, is limited deliberately to just a certain period to support whatever point is being put forward (eg - 'since 1950'), or we find that the officially measured record only goes back as far as when records were actually being kept accurately with reliable equipment - usually no further than the early 1900s, or late 1800s, sometimes a bit further, depending on what you're measuring, and with what.
Before that the 'records' are 'observational', as in they depend upon observations made by the amateur, or 'armchair' expert (Victorian gentleman explorers with too much time on their hands and a yen for travel), and/or by looking at a historical record that has been laid down naturally in stuff like 'tree rings', 'glacial deposits', 'geology' and the like. We find that from looking back through those naturally created records there have been many periods in history (and 'pre-history') in which the current highest/lowest etc were exceeded many times.
The use of the phrase 'on record' therefore, without clarification of the period referred to, renders whatever else is said worthless.
Yesterday was the longest, hottest, coldest and sunniest, May day on record!
(my record starts on January 1st 2022)
Does anyone recall the Met Office putting out old records for digitising early in the lockdown?Yes, it's amazing how statistics can be used to bend an argument.
Record-breaking Victorian weather has been revealed from millions of archived rainfall records.
Record-breaking Victorian weather has been revealed after millions of archived rainfall records dating back nearly 200 years were rescued by thousands of volunteers during the first Covid-19 lockdown.
Notable details uncovered by Rainfall Rescue volunteers include:
- The driest year on record is now 1855 (786.5mm), thanks to the new data
- For many regions, the driest May on record was May 2020 (England 9.6mm), when some volunteers were still helping confirm the Rainfall Rescue transcriptions. In doing so they shifted those records back to May 1844 (England 8.3mm)
- November/December 1852 were confirmed as exceptionally wet months – December 1852 now being the third wettest month on record in Cumbria (364.9mm) and November 1852 being the wettest month on record for large parts of southern England. Floods are known to have occurred in a number of locations at this time, and are known as the Duke of Wellington Floods as they started around the time of his state funeral in London