Seeing What One Expects

By Kevin Kilty – Re-Blogged From WUWT

This morning I awoke to a mid-April morning temperature of -11F. The 1981 to 2010 climate normals indicate our average daily minimum temperature per this date as about 23F, and the standard deviation as 8F. Thus, our morning low temperature is a 4-sigma event. Surely something to evoke comment. Yet, it did not so far as I know.

This caused me to ponder something I observed  two months ago. Ten minutes from my home, in the mountains to my east, is great nordic skiing. It was at one time home to what we call, the Norwegian olympics. There was unusually good snow this winter, and people came from near and far to enjoy it. What I heard often in conversation in the parking lot in February was that we were having an “unusually warm” winter. I thought not. I have lived in this area, off and on, for 40 years, and I thought this winter was pretty typical, even possibly slightly cool.

Continue reading

Changing Climate, Changing Minds

By David Siegel – Re-Blogged From WUWT

How do we measure success in helping people understand the climate issue? I don’t think we can measure it by unique visits to WUWT or various videos that many of us know well. But they simply attract the same audience over and over. I think the only way to measure success is by somehow measuring minds changed. This is a quick announcement of a new video I recently released, my philosophy on how to change minds, and a request from the community to help me with some data science.

My name is David Siegel. In 1991, I wrote a book explaining how the greenhouse effect worked and how we have to cut back on CO2 emissions or suffer dire consequences. Then, in about 2014, a partner at a green fund told me “the science is settled.” That prompted me to revisit the subject, and I was surprised to find that the data didn’t support the “common wisdom” that I had believed for so long. So I started reading papers, blogs, and web sites like WUWT.

Continue reading

Finally, Some Good News: Warm Weather Shown to Slow Coronavirus Spread

By Foster Kamer – Re-Blogged From Futurism
Let the sunshine in.

In a moment when the world seems more desperate than ever for the slightest ray of hope, here’s some (literally) sunny news:

Warm weather has been correlated with a slowdown in the spread of COVID-19.

The paper comes from a squad of data scientists and economists at Beijing schools Tsinghua University and Beihang University, using data from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, related to 4,711 confirmed cases of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.

Continue reading

Drying The Sky

By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Eleven years ago I published a post here on Watts Up With That entitled “The Thermostat Hypothesis“. About a year after the post, the journal Energy and Environment published my rewrite of the post entitled “THE THUNDERSTORM THERMOSTAT HYPOTHESIS: HOW CLOUDS AND THUNDERSTORMS CONTROL THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE“.

When I started studying the climate, what I found surprising was not the warming. For me, the oddity was how stable the temperature of the earth has been. The system is ruled by nothing more substantial than wind, wave, and cloud. All of these are changing on both long and short time cycles all of the time. In addition, the surface temperature is running some thirty degrees C or more warmer than would be expected given the strength of the sun.

Continue reading

Two More Degrees by 2100!

By Vaughan Pratt – Re-Blogged From WUWT

An alternative perspective on 3 degrees C?

This post was originally intended as a short comment questioning certain aspects of the methodology in JC’s post of December 23, “3 degrees C?”. But every methodology is bound to have shortcomings, raising the possibility that Judith’s methodology might nevertheless be best possible, those shortcomings notwithstanding. I was finding my arguments for a better methodology getting too long for a mere comment, whence this post. (But if actual code is more to your fancy than long-winded natural language explanations, Figures 1 and 2a can be plotted with only 31 MATLAB commands .)

Judith’s starting point is “It is far simpler to bypass the attribution issues of 20th century warming, and start with an early 21st century baseline period — I suggest 2000-2014, between the two large El Nino events.” The tacit premise here would appear to be that those “attribution issues of 20th century warming” are harder to analyze than their 21st century counterparts.

Continue reading

Failed Serial Doomcasting

By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From WUWT

People sometimes ask me why I don’t believe the endless climate/energy use predictions of impending doom and gloom for the year 2050 or 2100. The reason is, neither the climate models nor the energy use models are worth a bucket of warm spit for such predictions. Folks concentrate a lot on the obvious problems with the climate models. But the energy models are just as bad, and the climate models totally depend on the energy models for estimating future emissions. However, consider the following US Energy Information Agency (EIA) predictions of energy use from 2010, quoted from here (emphasis mine):

In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that in 2019, the U.S. would be producing about 6 million barrels of oil a day. The reality? We’re now producing 12 million barrels of oil a day.

Meanwhile, EIA projected oil prices would be more than $100 a barrel. They’re currently hovering around $60 a barrel.

EIA had projected in 2010 that the U.S. would be importing a net eight million barrels of petroleum by now, which includes crude oil and petroleum products like gasoline. In September, the U.S. actually exported a net 89 thousand barrels of petroleum.

Continue reading

If You Put Junk Science In, You’ll Get Junk Science Out

By Chris Martz – Re-Blogged From WUWT

 

There are plenty of climate scientists in the world that I highly respect, many of whom I don’t share the same views with on climate change. However, these scientists are respectful towards others, they’re pretty honest with their data, and still have scientific integrity.

There are a select few scientists out there, however, whom I have lost all respect for - Dr. Michael Mann being one of them.

Continue reading