Press release for our recent, “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate” paper:
A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance.
Imelda and Michael in downtown Boston (Massachusetts, USA) during a visit we made in February 2015 to northeast USA to discuss our research with other scientists. According to current climate models the heavy snowstorms that occurred at the time (and which took several months to fully melt) should not have been occurring in 2015. In this post, we summarise the main findings of our 2019 peer-reviewed paper, “Northern hemisphere snow-cover trends (1967-2018): A comparison between climate models and observations” that was published in the scientific journal, Geosciences. We show that the current climate models are completely unable to explain actual trends in snow cover for all four seasons.
In this post, we summarise the key findings of our 2020 paper “How much human-caused global warming should we expect with business-as-usual (BAU) climate policies? A semi-empirical assessment” published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Energies.
In this post, we briefly summarise some of the main findings of our 2015 paper with Dr. Willie Soon, “Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century”, that was published in the journal, Earth-Science Reviews. This summary is adapted from a similar post from 2019 on the CERES-science website.
In this post, we review how the UN’s highly influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that climate change since the 1950s is “mostly human-caused”. We argue that this conclusion was premature and scientifically unjustified. This essay was originally published on Medium.com on 23rd September, 2019.
In this post we briefly summarise some of the progress we have made in our atmospheric physics research (based on the analysis of more than 20 million publicly available weather balloon soundings) since our 2014 papers.
It is widely believed that “90-95% of scientists agree on climate change”. This is technically true if you define “agree on climate change” to mean “agree that the climate is changing”. We would be included in that 90-95% of scientists. Indeed, the very subject of this website is about climate change.
However, many people mistakenly assume that 90-95% of scientists agree that recent climate change is “mostly human-caused”. The reality is that there is a wide range of views among the scientific community about the causes of recent climate change. Many scientists agree with that view, but many do not!
In this post, we explain how this mistaken idea became embedded in the public conscience, and what is known about the true views of the scientific community on climate change.
In this post, we look at the popular “Merchants of Doubt” conspiracy theory promoted by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their 2010 book. They claim to have proven, “how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming”.
Oreskes & Conway’s conspiracy theory is remarkably popular among those trying to dismiss anybody who disagrees with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s statements on climate change. The book is even cited favourably in academic publications. However, as we discuss in this post, it is remarkably illogical and inconsistent and doesn’t stand up to critical scrutiny.
This essay was originally written as a guest post for the Watts Up With That blog, which was published on 13th June, 2018. It is a summary of the findings of our 2018 “Comparing the current and early 20th century warm periods in China” paper.
The press release for our 2020 “Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018” paper, in which we investigate the pros and cons of renewable energy sources.