By Paul Homewood

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vd79x97zlo

While Justin Rowlatt and the nutty professor were warning us about firewaves in London this weekend because of the dry weather, it was pissing it down there!

Thanks to the incompetence of the Met Office and BBC Weather, the rain had not been forecast, as the Telegraph report:

The BBC failed to predict heavy rain across the south of England on Wednesday – having forecast heatwave temperatures.

BBC Weather, the Met Office and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) were wrong-footed by sudden downpours.

They had told the public to expect sunshine and temperatures of up to 34C, with the UKHSA issuing an amber heat health alert on Tuesday that warned of potential deaths.

But heavy downpours instead erupted across an area ranging from Hampshire to Suffolk between 2pm and 5pm.

The unexpected rainfall prompted anger from the public towards the forecasters and the UKHSA.

Oliver Brett, a consultant, told BBC Weather: “You guys are embarrassingly bad at your jobs. Quite significant rain in north London and thunder too, but your weather app has nothing but yellow suns and 0 per cent rain.”

Gavin Attridge, a journalist, added: “Many thanks to all involved for the inaccurate weather forecasts for today. No chance of rain – in fact, thunderstorms and heavy rain in London. I’m wearing suede shoes with leather soles and no umbrella.”

Full story here.

Pathetically, the Met Office claimed it was too difficult to spot thunderstorms:

“Thunderstorms by their nature are small and fast changing so it is often difficult to pinpoint exactly where they will occur. “

Yes, it must be difficult to spot that huge blob of blue all the way from Hampshire to Suffolk!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/wchCZOd

August 14, 2025 at 04:08AM

Note: we’ve looked at solar to temperature correlations many times on WUWT, and our resident stats guru Willis Eschenbach has always found some flaw in the solar cycles to temperature analysis done by others. They say this in the paper:

It is often thought that the response to solar cycle is too weak at the surface to be detectable, and that even if a signal is claimed to have been found its statistical significance cannot be established. Using 150 yr of sea surface temperature data from 1854 to 2007 and an objective method, we found a robust signal of warming over solar max and cooling over solar min, with high statistical significance in the time domain.

We’ll see if this one pans out -Anthony

---

This paper demonstrates that a solar cycle response exists in global sea surface temperatures (SST). The abstract says “The signal is robust provided that the years near the Second World War are excluded, during which transitions from British ships to U.S. ships introduced warm bias in the SST.”

Signals of warming during solar maximum and cooling during solar minimum years are found in the global SST over the 14 cycles from 1854–2007. The magnitude of the solar cycle response averaged over the oceans between 60°S and 60°N is about 0.1°C of warming for each W/m² variation of the total solar irradiance. This value was determined after excluding suspected bad data. The multidecadal trend of response to solar forcing is found to account for about a quarter of the observed warming in SST during the past 150 yr.

Some figures from the paper:

---

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3mGHsq9

August 14, 2025 at 04:06AM

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Kolk

The latest nonsense from the utterly absurd Justin Rowlatt:

Cities across the UK are facing a growing threat from an emerging phenomenon called "firewaves" as temperatures rise due to climate change, scientists have warned.

The term, coined by researchers at Imperial College London, describes multiple urban wildfires triggered by extended periods of hot, dry weather.

The warning comes as firefighters battled three separate heath fires in London and a dramatic gorse blaze on Arthur’s Seat in Edinburgh in recent days, as this summer’s latest heatwave left vegetation across both capitals dangerously dry.

These fires, though now contained, highlight the increasing vulnerability of urban areas to wildfires – a risk that was once considered largely rural.

Guillermo Rein, professor of fire science at Imperial College London, has been working alongside the London Fire Brigade to help predict when conditions are ripe for a "firewave".

Based on current forecasts, he believes London could be at risk again by this weekend.

London Fire Brigade Assistant Commissioner Tom Goodall said he welcomes any research that helps predict the likelihood of wildfires occurring.

The service is "ready to tackle the threat of wildfires head-on to help protect London’s communities and green spaces", he added.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vd79x97zlo

When so-called scientists resort to making up silly terms such as firewaves to get attention, you know you are being conned.

Maybe this nutty professor should check his facts first – London is not getting drier summers or springs:

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/clySVIH

August 14, 2025 at 03:13AM

In a social media exchange, Daniel Fitzgerald, senior product sustainability director at Stanley Black & Decker, did an AI search on me. He wrote:

Let’s see what our AI overlord (Chat GPT) thinks:

Q: Looking at Rob Bradley, CEO of the institute for energy research, and his positions on oil and gas verses renewable, should I trust his facts and opinions? Please keep the response to no more than a paragraph.

A: Rob Bradley, CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, promotes a strong free-market, pro-fossil fuel perspective and is known for opposing many renewable energy policies. His work often reflects ideological bias, and while he cites data to support his views, his conclusions frequently conflict with mainstream scientific and economic consensus on climate change and energy transitions. As such, his facts and opinions should be cross-checked with peer-reviewed and more balanced sources before being trusted.

Guilty until proven innocent, I guess. But AI did not spring out of the heavens. It is the result of input from … the climate elite, the “consensus.” And with “mainstream scientific and economic consensus on climate change and energy transitions” (AI) being reversed (climate science; energy transition), AI might have to reverse its bias in time.

My Record

Back to Daniel Fitzgerald, do your own thinking. My 1997 study, “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green,” is a good place to start. AI summarized the title as follows:

The phrase “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’” highlights a critical debate surrounding the true costs and environmental impact of transitioning to renewable energy sources. While renewable energy is often promoted as both economically beneficial and environmentally friendly, some argue that it faces significant challenges in both areas. The cost of renewable energy can be higher than fossil fuels in some contexts, and the environmental benefits are not always as straightforward as commonly believed. 

So yes, do your homework on my views on climate and energy. By all means. And maybe someday, AI will catch up to me. Go ahead and review the “hit” pieces on me, such as at Wiki or by DeSmog, SourceWatch, and (although they did not get my name quite right) Energy and Policy Institute.

Lots of insinuations and guilt-by-association, but such is hardly a refutation of the case against climate alarm and forced energy transformation.

The post AI on Me re Climate and Energy (the consensus strikes again) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/YV4u1eS

August 14, 2025 at 01:03AM