Wednesday, December 12, 2012

New paper finds a decrease in extreme weather in China from 1956-2000
A recent paper published in the Hydrological Sciences Journal examines precipitation in southern China from 1956-2000 and finds precipitation has become both less extreme and less variable. Contrary to claims of climate alarmists, the paper adds to many others demonstrating that global warming decreases extreme weather including extreme precipitation, floods, droughts, and cyclone activity.

Furthermore, the authors find that the primary determinant of precipitation variability is the Sun, stating, "the annual precipitation in every sub-region in Guangdong province correlates with Sunspot Number with a 3-year lag."
Honeybee deaths: Climate-change explanation floated by study.
scientists believe climate change may be causing all honeybee larvae to turn into workers instead of queen bees
People aren’t connecting extreme weather to climate change — at least, not on Google | Grist
Google is as close as we can get to gauging the public’s thinking. What we learn, then, is that extreme weather events don’t prompt an immediate, online connection to climate change; or, at least, no connection to the desire to learn more about the issue.
Neil Wagner: Climate Change Consensus Is Virtually Unanimous
Your odds of knowing someone who believes aliens walk amongst us disguised as humans are twenty times greater than finding a climate skeptic in a group of climate scientists. Seriously.

1 comment:

Doug Cotton said...

It is still obvious that the 13-month running average in Roy Spencer's November plot has been declining since 1998. This is totally as would be expected due to a roughly sinusoidal superimposed 60 year natural cycle, for which there is now compelling evidence. See for example, the linked references to such in my current paper about planetary surface temperatures, which is on the PROM* system at PSI for a month or so.

When you remove the effect of the 60 year cycle (with, for example, a trend for a 60 year running average) you get down to analysing the underlying long term trend which has periodicity of about 1,000 years, maybe a bit longer. This was the cause of fairly regular warming periods observed for at least the last 7,000 years, the most recent being the Roman and the Medieval W.P. which have both now been confirmed to have been worldwide and at similar temperatures to the present.

There is however still a slight incline in this long term natural cycle. About 100 years ago the mean rate of increase was around 0.06 C/decade, whereas in recent times it has declined, but only to about 0.05 C/decade. If it is also roughly sinusoidal we should see a maximum in about 200 years, probably less than 0.8 degree above the current trend. But of course, after that there would be 500 to 600 years of long term cooling, even though the superimposed 60 year cycle will continue to cause some alarm each time it rises for 30 years, as happened from around 1970.

Again, there is now compelling evidence that these natural cycles are the only "forcing" for our climate. There are links to evidence in my paper, and even to some evidence that the cycles are in some way controlled by planetary orbits, which makes sense because such orbits are the only "timing mechanisms" of such long duration in our solar system.

The reasons why carbon dioxide has no effect are explained in a radically new way in my paper. Nowhere else have I seen the hypothesis which brings together evidence from different sources into what I consider a cogent argument for a completely different explanation of planetary surface temperatures, not to be found elsewhere to the best of my knowledge. Yes, parts of the explanation are elsewhere, but it has not hitherto been coordinated to give an explanation based on correct physics.

For example, I contend that there is no other valid explanation for the surface temperature on the planet Venus. That surface receives less than 10% of the amount of Solar radiation which we receive on Earth's surface. It's not correct to assume that the CO2 atmosphere caused a massive GHE, because the surface could not have been heated in the first place to over 700K with so little energy being received through the thick and dense atmosphere. Nor was it heated by radiation from what is still an atmosphere that is at much lower temperatures, less than 230K at an altitude of 50Km, for example.

Until people come to grips with what I believe to be the correct physical mechanism which produced (and maintains) the temperature of the Venus surface, they will never correctly understand what is the same process working on Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune - all the planets in our solar system with qualifying atmospheres.

As I have said, the paper is up for worldwide open review on the PROM* system at Principia Scientific International. It has already been reviewed by several of our 150 members, but if you wish to submit any comments, criticism, rebuttal or support, you may do so through our CEO John O'Sullivan or our Chairman, Dr Timothy Ball, a retired professor of climatology. You may also contact me via the email address on my website which opens when you click my name above.

However, I will only respond to those who have clearly read and understood the whole paper, whether or not they agree with the conclusions reached.

(*Peer Review in Open Media.)