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 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.
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.
This essay was originally written as an invited guest post for Dr. Judith Curry’s “Climate Etc.” blog. A slightly abridged version was published there on 16th August 2017.
In this essay we summarise the findings of our 2017 “Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records” paper.
We haven’t had a new post since 2014, but while the blog hasn’t been very active, we have been very busy continuing our climate research. So, in case anyone is wondering how our work is going, here’s a short progress report of what we’ve been doing since 2014.
In this essay, we summarise the results of our three “Urbanization bias” papers, which we have submitted for peer review at the Open Peer Review Journal.
Urban areas are known to be warmer than rural areas. This is known as the “urban heat island” effect.
This is a problem for analysing global temperature trends, because the widespread urbanization since the 19th century has introduced an artificial warming “urbanization bias” into many of the weather station records around the world. As a result, much of the “unusual global warming since the Industrial Revolution” which has been reported is just an artefact of urbanization bias.
Several groups have claimed that urbanization bias has already been taken into account in the global temperature estimates, and that they’re sure the unusual global warming is due to man-made global warming. However, in our three papers, we show that those claims are invalid.
Urbanization bias has seriously biased the current global temperature trend estimates. When we properly account for this bias, it turns out that it was probably just as warm in the 1930s and 1940s!
In this essay, we summarise the results of our “Has poor station quality biased U.S. temperature trend estimates?” paper, which we have submitted for peer review at the Open Peer Review Journal. The recent Surface Stations project has revealed that about 70% of the U.S. stations used for studying temperature trends are currently located near artificial heating sources, e.g., concrete surfaces, air conditioning units, parking lots. We found that this poor station quality has increased the mean temperature trends of the raw records by about half.
It has previously been claimed that these biases have been removed by a series of data adjustments carried out by the National Climatic Data Center on these station records. However, we found that these adjustments to be inappropriate. The adjustments spread the biases uniformly amongst the stations, instead of removing them.
It appears that poor siting has led to an overestimation of U.S. temperature trends. It is likely that similar siting problems exist for the rest of the world. This means that the amount of “global warming” which is thought to have occurred since the 19th century has probably been overestimated.