I Hope The IPCC Is Correct About Warming Because Cooling Is a Bigger Problem

Watts Up With That?

Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball

Mae West famously said,

“I’ve been rich, and I’ve been poor. Believe me, rich is better.

As a historical climatologist, I can paraphrase that to say about climate,

“It’s been warm, and it’s been cold. Believe me, warm is better.”

I think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that human CO2 is causing warming is wrong. They created the result they wanted, which wasn’t designed to deal with warming but to stop economic development and reduce the population. They selected the data and mechanisms necessary to prove their hypothesis and manipulated the data where necessary, including rewriting climate history. The wider evidence, which is only examined when you move outside their limited definition of climate change, is that the world is cooling.

The major rewrite of history involved elimination of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). One of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang…

View original post 1,769 more words

The Anatomy of a Wind Farm Contract – Part 1

The Law is my Oyster

wind prisoner

I am often approached by people asking me to explain just how a wind farm contract works. I usually evade these questions either by honestly pleading ignorance or less honestly, by using the well-used cop-out employed by lawyers: “It’s difficult to answer that conclusively, as it all depends on the circumstances and I would need to see the contract”.


I attended one of those overpriced legal workshops back in 2012 offered by some or other firm of solicitors on renewable energy contracts. A generic precedent of a wind farm contract was supplied in our packs.  I thought I might, over the next few weeks, take some of those clauses and do my best to explain what they mean. Things might have moved on a bit since then, but unless there is a wind farm owner out there who is prepared to publish his or her contract, the 2012 model…

View original post 1,984 more words

The IPCC has been Deceiving the Public about the Carbon Cycle from the Start

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Ari Halperin

Many people hold the opinion that the early full reports of the IPCC Working Group I were scientifically wholesome, at least for some time. This might be true for some parts of the reports, but their treatment of the carbon cycle was fraudulent from the start, i.e., from the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR, 1990).

The claim that man-released CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years was necessary for the alarmist case. It was required to justify the notion of “commitment” to the temperature rise that might happen few hundred years in the future according to the alarmist computer models. It allowed to exaggerate future CO2 concentrations, and to demand premature action (a typical high pressure selling tactic – act now, regret later). And IPCC pulled out all the stops to justify such claims. It tried to create the impression that…

View original post 2,853 more words

Bill Nye @TheScienceGuy and Al Gore, ‘not even wrong’ on CO2 ‘Climate 101’ experiment according to paper published in AIP Journal

Watts Up With That?

From the department of  “I told you so and I have an experiment that precedes this to prove it” comes a paper that proves Bill Nye’s faked ‘greenhouse effect’ experiment is also based on the wrong ‘basic physics’. Remember when I ripped Bill and Al a new one, exposing not only their video fakery, but the fact that experiment fails and could never work? Well, somebody wrote a paper on it and took these two clowns to task.

The Hockey Schtick writes:

Oh dear, the incompetent & faked attempt by Bill Nye to demonstrate the greenhouse effect for Al Gore’s Climate “Reality” Project has also been shown by a peer-reviewed paper to be based upon the wrong “basic physics” as well. According to the authors, Nye’s experiment and other similar classroom demonstrations allegedly of the greenhouse effect:

View original post 672 more words

Wood Pellets are 3x to 4x More Expensive Than Coal And Produce More CO2.

Yes – biofuels are more polluting than either coal or petroleum.

sunshine hours

UPDATE: See 1.5 year old numbers for coal versus wood in USA at bottom

I’m not a big fan of coal. But I do oppose stupidity. Switching from coal (which produces CO2 and particulate matter when burned) with wood pellets (which produces CO2 and particulate matter when burned) that kill forests seems kind of dumb.

How much CO2 and particulate matter is hard to find out. This post suggests wood pellets produce more CO2 than coal when you account for all of the transportation costs.

This article suggests wood pellets costs 150 to 200 a ton when coal is going for 51$ a ton.

“Wood pellets are much more expensive, about $150 to $210 a ton, compared to about $51 for coal in Newcastle, Australia, the global benchmark. Lyra wouldn’t provide a price for sugar-cane pellets, though he said they’re “competitive” with wood.

These products don’t compete on price

View original post 473 more words

Erasing The 100% Consensus

Real Science

In the 1960’s and 1970’s there was a 100% consensus that the Earth was cooling

Screenshot 2016-03-14 at 05.32.59 AM-down

9 Oct 1974, Page 25 – at Newspapers.com

The National Academy of Sciences showed this in their 1975 report.

Screenshot 2016-03-14 at 06.00.56 AM

The New York Times began reporting on this in the early 1960’s.

Screenshot 2016-03-14 at 06.15.37 AM-down


This doesn’t fit the current needs of NASA, so they simply altered the data to make the cooling disappear.

Fig.A (2)

Fig.A.gif (656×446)

Over the last 15 years, NASA has doubled 1880-2000 warming, by replacing rural stations with UHI infected ones.


2001 version : Fig.A.ps

Global warming has very little to do with science, and very much to do with politics.

View original post

Flaws discovered in Gavin Schmidt’s new climate paper, not so ‘marvel’ous after all

Watts Up With That?


Bishop Hill writes:

Over at Climate Audit, Nic Lewis has outlined the latest developments in the saga of the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is low, but appeared to have a whole series of problems, not least of which that it had got its forcing data mucked up, leaving out land-use changes entirely.

In a typically erm…robust article at RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt ignored all the evidence Lewis had presented showing that land-use change had been overlooked, and said that Lewis’s critique was made…without evidence. However, it now seems that he has decided that this position is not tenable, at the journal at least,and a correction has been issued admitting that land-use was indeed missing.

The historical instantaneous radiative forcing time series was also updated to reflect land use change, which was inadvertently excluded from the forcing originally calculated from ref…

View original post 188 more words

Monday Mirthiness – hilarious hate mail

Another hypocrite. They expect others to be respectful while displaying a total lack of respect themselves. *SMH*

Watts Up With That?

People send me stuff. Today I got one of the most ridiculous pieces of hate mail, ever, from some fool in Belgium who can’t seem to figure out that what he’s ranting about has already been claimed. On the WUWT contact page it says this, apparently he can’t/won’t read.


So, here is what he sends.


Great way to convince somebody of your position, huh?

100% proven? Apparently he hasn’t seen all the “science is settled” claims made about AGW. Dude, get with the program.

View original post

Historical Note: Greenwich, England Mean Temperature, 35-yr Daily Averages 1815-1849

Watts Up With That?

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen

While researching for a future essay tentatively titled “Whither Original Measurement Error?”, I have been reading up on the origins of the modern meteorological thermometer. Fascinating stuff, those early scientific instrument makers and their creativity and engineering skills.

I came across an interesting little [e]book that was just the sort of thing I was looking for, written by John Henry Belville in 1850, who started work at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Kent, England, in 1811 as a meteorologist and was still at it 35 years later. Here I reproduce the Title Page and Preface from his book:

View original post 244 more words

Watts Up With Nuuk?

Watts Up With That?

As regular readers know, I have more photographs and charts of weather stations on my computer than I have pictures of my family. A sad commentary to be sure, but necessary for what I do here.

Steve Goddard points out this NASA GISS graph of the Annual Mean Temperature data at Godthab Nuuk Lufthavn (Nuuk Airport) in Greenland. It has an odd discontinuity:

Source data is here

The interesting thing about that end discontinuity is that is is an artifact of incomplete data. In the link to source data above, GISS provides the   Annual Mean Temperature (metANN) in the data, before the year 2010 is even complete:

View original post 3,282 more words