Our snowiest winter

Having lived in our current house for about 20years, like many people who live pretty ordinary lives, I’m able to reasonably accurately judge what has been happening to the weather in our locality.

We’ve had longer periods of ice – that is snow turned to ice and that did not melt, we’ve had a larger single deluge of snow, but there has not been a winter where we have had so many episodes of falling snow throughout the winter. And it is only mid February! AND the Met Office are now warming of “sudden stratospheric warming” which they say tends to lead to colder conditions.

What is different this winter, is that rather than one episode of snow (of varying scale) – which then goes away with no repetition, this winter “normal” amounts of  snow (perhaps just an inch or two) has been a regular feature. And before any alarmists suggest that snow occurs when it’s warmer – we’ve also had numerous days of ice. Instead, what has been happening is that the WARMER days of precipitation have been cooler.

Is that a trend? No. If I ignore what has occurred this winter, I do not think there has been any trend. However if something similar occurs again next winter it may be.

But whether or not it is part of a trend, I am officially declaring this the snowiest winter I have seen in this house (and there’s still a lot of the winter still to go).

(What prompted this post is that it’s start to snow again).

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Ball wins: All it took was a few decent people willing to stand up against tyranny.

When the history of these times are written it will be said that a few decent people stood up to a deluge of delusion and won.

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

On the nature of scepticism: Sceptic versus science

How many times have we heard various people proclaiming that we sceptics are “anti-science”. For those of us taught science at a time when we were taught to be sceptics: to doubt everything until it is proven by experiment, this seems the bizarrest form of insult. Because surely the science is based on the scientific method and therefore to be a good scientist you must be a sceptic?

As a result many sceptics have repeatedly asserted that alarmists are not real “scientists” that they have fallen by the way and are not on the true path of science.

However, what I would like to propose is that whilst science means “knowledge” and scepticism means “doubt” and so they may appear to be contradictory, that scientific knowledge is created through scepticism or doubt as such that they should be seen as complementary not contradictory.

Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 4 Comments

Does this paper prove there is virtually no CO2 greenhouse effect?

By a strange path (reading adverse comments by alarmists in a paper I don’t mention) I came across this paper by Robert Ian Holmes which on the face of it would seem to disproves the Greenhouse effect as commonly stated:

Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity

Stunningly it suggests a climate sensitivity for the doubling of CO2 of about 0.03C.

The change would in fact be extremely small and difficult
to estimate exactly, but would be of the order -0.03°C. That
is, a hundred times smaller than the ‘likely’ climate
sensitivity of 3°C cited in the IPCC’s reports,

The approach is brazenly simple. It starts with the ideal gas law:

PV = m/M RT

If converted to density this becomes:

ρ = P/(R T/M)

rearranged this becomes:

T = P /(R ρ/M)

The author then uses the figures from NASA (space) of surface pressure (P), the gas constant R, near surface atmospheric density and the near surface mean molar mass to calculate the Greenhouse temperature for the following:

Planetary body Calculated temperature Kelvin Actual temperature Kelvin Error
Venus 739.7 740 0.04%
Earth 288.14 288 0.00%
South Pole of Earth 224 224.5 0.20%
Titan 93.6 94 0.42%
Mars (low pressure) 156 218 28.44%
Jupiter 167 165 1.20%
Saturn 132.8 134 0.89%
Uranus 76.6 76 0.79%
Neptune 68.5 to 72.8 72 1-5%

The correlation is excellent as shown by the following actual versus calculated greenhouse effect:

PVNRTThe only substantial error is with the Greenhouse Temperature of Mars.


Although this paper does not refer to them, this confirms the finding by Nikolov and Zeller in which they show that atmospheric pressure is the largest factor affecting Greenhouse temperature. But it then expands on their work to show that several other factors are alos important as well these being the molar mass and density.

One caveat I would have, is that these different parameters may not be independent, and particularly for the less well known planets & bodies some of the parameters may be back calculated so that a match is certain. However this argument will not apply to the better known planets.

Another caveat is that the formula clearly fell down with Mars, but the author rightly highlights that Mars is the body with the lowest pressure.

Taken at face value, the suggested 0.03C greenhouse effect for a doubling of CO2, does does seem to drive a cart and horse through any idea that CO2 could be a problem. However it may not be so simple. I need to think about it and do some analysis.

But at the very least, I will be very surprised if this paper doesn’t cause waves.


After a bit of thinking, I’m wondering whether what we have here is that the temperature is setting other parameters. Pressure is set by the mass of the atmosphere divided by planetary surface area, however it may be that in effect the density and molar parameter are being affected by temperature. In which case it should be a perfect fit.

In other words it’s just a restatement of PV=nRT  in the form P=ρ (R/M) T (where ρ is density & M molar mass). In other words the ratio of pressure to density (P/ρ) =  (R/M) T.

Posted in Climate | 40 Comments

For a long time I’ve been suggesting that reductions in the level of pollution from the 1970s clean air acts was likely to have caused some if not all the warming from the 1970s to the point that clean up effectively came to an end which is around 2000.

And if you look at almost every early picture of the past (before 1970s), what you will see is a clear smog haze created from the burning of coal high in sulphur.


It is hard, not to miss the obvious impact of pollutants in the past, unless that is, you are intentionally ignoring them because your real agenda is not to clean up pollution, but to destroy the modern industrialised economies of the West.

When looking at global temperatures I discovered what is clearly the smoking gun in that the warming from 1970-2000s occurred, not globally as would occur for CO2, but in regional hotspots about 3days downwind from the large 1970s economic zones as shown below.@RegionalWarmingBut this issue has become very problematic for those trying to ignore the massive changed due to the clean air acts of the 1970s. Because as the pause continues year after year, and the public just aren’t buying their made up data with the “added warming” flavour, on the one side alarmists want to use the recent increase in Chinese pollution to explain the lack of recent global warming – so a lot of work has gone into proving “it was the Chinese wot done it”. But by the same token, if Chinese pollution could stop warming now, then the reduction in pollution in other areas would cause warming.

So it’s great to see that Climate Depot have understood that 1970s pollution is a perfectly viable explanation of much of recent climate:

  • Up to 1970s we saw increasing economic activity with associated pollution and we saw the global cooling scare
  • From 1970-2000 concerted efforts were made by the advanced countries to clean up pollution and as a result we saw the cooling-pollution removed which resulted in a very predictable and short-term increase in temperature
  • From 2000 not only was the effect of 1970s clean air acts coming to an end but there was increasing pollution from countries like China – and we saw the Pause.

And the alarmists ask? “How can you explain 20th century warming without CO2?” The real problem is how do you explain 20th century climate and the very regionalised nature of 1970-2000 with CO2!

The New/Old Consensus?! Pollution is ‘helping to cool the climate’ – Cleaning Up Air Pollution May Strengthen ‘Global Warming’

Continue reading

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Bored of the snow – critical angle of snow

I was supposed to be going to visit in laws today, but looking at the weather we had to call off the visit again – and it’s not like we live somewhere remote – the journey is largely on motorways and what is not is heavily used suburban roads of Glasgow and Edinburgh.

So I went onto twitter – and there what did I read? Yet more rubbish about the “warmist year evah” based solely on the bogus non global temperature metrics they invented when they couldn’t keep denying the pause.

Eventually after contemplating even cleaning the oven, I remembered I wanted to see whether if like sand there was an easily produced critical angle for snow.

Here’s the angle on sand:

And here is what I managed to produce with snow:
Oops how did that get there?

No this is what I managed to produce for snow:
From this experience there are several learning points:

  1. That it’s really difficult to photo a white snow pile on a snowy path. (And that recycling bins, whilst entirely useless, do seem to make good backdrops for photos).
  2. That it takes a very long time to build even a small pile of snow using a small trowel (I didn’t want to artificially compact the snow using a large spade).
  3. That it does form the critical angle
  4. Snow is cold and it’s precipitation and it’s a bit stupid going outside without a coat as it melts and runs down your neck.


Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Beryllium-10: The volcanoes triggered the interglacial.

Beryllium-10 is a radioactive isotope of beryllium most scientists believe is formed in the earth’s atmosphere by cosmic rays. It has a half life of 1.39million years. I therefore follows that whilst an increase in Cosmic rays will increase the percentage Beryllium-10, even a total absence of cosmic rays will cause only a very mild and gentle decline in the concentration of Beryllium-10 in the atmosphere.

Below is a plot of the percentage of Beryllium-10 found in Greenland ice-cores running from 22,000 to 10,000 years before present (third line up).  together with O18 (a possible proxy for temperature) and a “normalised” flux. Note the time scale is right to left. The method for normalising isn’t outlined, but I assume it must be something that removes the the massive DECREASE in Beryllium-10 seen at 14,700BP.

From Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum  Adolphi et al.2014

Note time right to left. From Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum Adolphi et al.2014

Continue reading

Posted in Caterpillar, Climate | Leave a comment

Why the CO2 “heat trapping” or Greenhouse “blanket” model is wrong

If you look at any explanation of the “Greenhouse effect” you will undoubtedly find it explained in simple terms as CO2 acting to “trap heat” in the atmosphere like a blanket. That is provably false and this article explains why.

The “heat trapping” or “blanket” model invariably goes along with the following type of diagram.Atmospheric Energy Diagram This diagram is not “wrong” in the sense it largely correctly accounts for the various heat “flows”, but it is wrong as a physical model of the greenhouse effect because it doesn’t even mention the critical factor which is the temperature of the atmosphere. And without knowing that the model is nothing but a set of meaningless numbers and any explanation using it is complete twaddle.

Do Academics believe the heat trapping model?

Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 14 Comments

Acid Rain and 1970-2000 Global warming

For a while I’ve known that the 1970-2000 warming which caused the Global warming scare was a result of 1970s moves to reduce atmospheric pollution. This is clearly shown by the strong correlation between the areas with most intense warming and the areas with SO2 emissions (which I use a a proxy for industrial activity).@RegionalWarming

However, when I compare these with areas of acid rain (timescale unknown – I couldn’t find anything which clearly showed the areas subject to acid rain and gave a timescale)

Mapa_lluvia_acidaIt seems that the areas of acid rain are between the areas of emission, and highest rise in temperature (in other words greatest reduction in 1970s cooling causing pollution).

From this it is possible to conclude:

  1. That the process is not the direct formation of cloud by sulphates
  2. That the process takes longer to affect the weather than the simple formation of acid clouds

I have no doubt that the 1970-2000 warming was due to the reduction in pollution. However the exact nature of what was causing the cooling in the 1970s remains a mystery. It still seems likely to be cloud, and I wonder whether it could be stratospheric cloud, but to put it bluntly … it is very difficult researching something that went away in the 1970-2000 before much of the more modern monitoring and about 40 years before anyone even considered it a driver of global temperature.

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Mann: if the model does not fit the data, change the data

In any subject a culture can be created, and that culture may make some things permissible that otherwise would not as well as making taboo that which would normally considered acceptable.

For years, having seen the protestations of self-styled “Climate scientists”, it’s been clear to me they had completely wondered off the scientific path and were indulging in fantasies not science. However, by chance I came across this tweet from Michael Mann in which he makes it very clear that his working methods, and so presumably the culture in climate “science” is to change the data to fit the model. That’s not science.


Here is the original source, but given Twitter is now censoring content and blocking users it disapproves of, and given this is such a clanger by Mann, it may not remain available

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments