Well worth an hour of your time.
Well worth an hour of your time.
I tried to take the test but it doesn’t work well on my Android phone meaning I was unable to answer some questions.
Most is common sense stuff but I fail to see knowing how much energy comes from costly, unreliable renewables makes you ‘Fit for the Future’. Regressive comes more to mind when you consider that the ‘danger’ is a theoretical one that exists only in computer models built around the group think assumptions of Guardian reading eco geeks
‘It seems that our current mitigation efforts seem to be producing no vast improvement in carbon emissions – in fact an increase in our carbon footprint – burning more coal, increased fuel poverty, driving investment away from this country to elsewhere where power is cheaper, raising the prospect of blackouts and general environmental damage.’
IPCC lead author and Professor of Economics Richard Tol, who wanted his name removed after political interference with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), said this today
Both climate change and climate policy hit the poorest the hardest.
But then again what do we conspiracy theory addled neanderthal skeptics know?
More than Guardian reading eco-gits anyday
With such a high degree of statistical significance, we must act to stop the ‘dirty’ aliens 😉
Between 1979 and 2011 the number of UFO reports has been increasing right along with the average temperature of the upper 700 meters of ocean:
The correlation between UFO reports and ocean temperature is over 0.95, clearly better than the correlation between that boring old carbon dioxide and ocean warming:
Read the rest here
Erika Johnsen at HotAir has a good summary of the whole PR exercise that is the latest IPCC report
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally did their big reveal on Sunday of the already-leaked third installment of their four-part climate-change report jointly composed by every big-wig climate scientist, progressive economist, and globalist politician they can scrape together, and surprise: It includes just about every type of dire warning and urgent recommendation we’ve been hearing for decades on decades now. Nutshell version: The world is only a matter of years away from all-consuming calamity, but if every country could just bite the bullet and immediately commit to aggressively decelerating their own domestic economies in concert with global standards, things just might work out for humanity. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/14/united-nations-its-not-too-late-to-save-the-planet-but-only-if-everybody-immediately-does-everything-we-tell-them-to/
Whilst to some extent there are reasons for hope, the language is still coated with the kind of repeated alarmist fantasies wheeled out from time immemorial only instead of existing in chicken entrails they exist in computer models programmed by those paid by the prophesy – presumably the more ‘alarming’ the report the higher the fee. This from the beeb report…
“Driven by a global increase in population and economic activity, global surface temperature increases will be between 3.7C and 4.8C in 2100 if no new action is taken.”
Since coming out of the LIA over a hundred years ago we have warmed by roughly~1C and in the past ~30yrs the rate is 0.35C (roughly +1.2C/century) whilst CO2 emissions continued to rise. This is in contrast to low end computer predictions of 1.5C per century, so to warm to the rate of 3.7-4.8C per century is the same as a politician repeatedly barking on about ‘green shoots of recovery in the middle of an economic recession – or running around telling everyone the sky is falling. The failure of the models is evident as shown in Dr Roy Spencer’s chart (above) and the failure of logic is that it is not unprecedented or alarming. Lord Monckton of Brenchley points to the ‘global warming’ trend from 1663 to 1762
The rate of warming was 0.9 Cº, and that rate occurred over 100 years rather than the 124 years 1880-2013 covered by Lovejoy’s statement that 0.9 Cº was a “huge” temperature increase. And it was entirely natural warming. As Professor Lovejoy might put it, it is 99.9% certain that we were not to blame.
Hubert Lamb said in 1958 [my emphasis]
We in Britain do not (most of us) live near the climactic margins of our type of civilisation.The changes of the figures in the climactic tables from one period to another do not look very impressive . Nevertheless, they are significant in various respects, affecting for instance the geographical limits of cod and herring and birds and the thriving of crop plants and trees. With some of these the response to climactic shifts is very quick. The winter climate in Finland in the 1930s was no severer than that of Denmark in the last century. The winter climate of London in 1780-1820 was about the same as that of the Rhineland in our times. The summer climate of southern England (as far north as the line from the Fens to Hereford) in the early Middle Ages was similar to that of the Paris-Touraine region of northern France nowadays : between 1930 and 1949 our summer climate again approached this level (and I believe peach trees and other southern varieties did well accordingly) but since 1950 the figures in summer, as in winter, are back to late nineteenth century standards. We do not know whether the latest turn in our climactic fortunes, since the optimum years of the 1930s, marks the beginning of a serious downward trend or whether it is merely another wobble – one more of the semi-regular oscillations on a time scale of 20 to 60 years. There have been other striking ‘ameliorations’ before – even during the Little Ice Age : the mild periods around the 1630s, 1730s, 1770s and 1840s must have been quite impressive. 
Adding the 1990s to the above we have a further striking ‘amelioration’ – that coincided during a time of rising CO2 levels. We now appear to be heading into a period of global cooling, although to what degree is uncertain. The problem with believing CO2 is the controlling factor in climate clouds the mind to having any degree of perspective. If CO2 controls the climate you can ignore all the other factors, something which time and again has bitten the Met Office hard in the ass. It means you ignore the ocean oscillations and the Jetstream, which you later rely on as a get out clause for your failed predictions/projections – which everyone else not deluded with CO2 mania already knew. I repeat a quote by Hubert Lamb from a previous post [again my emphasis]
The great period of warming, at least in the northern hemisphere, was during the first 40 years of the 20th century (especially the first and fourth decades), but in the 1950s and 1960s when the CO2 was increasing more rapidly than ever before the prevailing temperatures were falling. Callendar himself was worried by this discrepancy and contacted both me and Professor Gordon Manley about it. There seem, in fact, to have been a number of shorter runs of sometimes up to 50 years with either rising or falling temperatures often setting in suddenly, and with no clear correspondence to changes in the atmospheric CO2 content. We also see that account must be taken of psychological reactions—even in the influential research community—to the variations towards greater or less warmth as and when they occur. […] in spite of the sharp turn towards warming after 1987-8, and the undeniably very warm years 1989-91 and 1995, one must feel uneasy about the confidence with which global warming has been publicised as the verdict of science in official pronouncements from many quarters.The erratic course of the changes experienced through the 20th century surely suggests that there are processes at work which are still not adequately understood and possibly even some influences that have not yet been identified.
Probably the key message we should be taking, one that is well lost in the race to throw more money on ‘limiting’ carbon emissions, providing vast subsidies for unreliable renewable and preparation for a warmer, drier Mediterranean climate in Northern Europe that never came, is believing the ‘amelioration’ would continue and basing our lives on that assumption. In April it is often warm and sunny, so a visitor to these Isles may be fooled into leaving the jacket at home, whilst those of us with more experience rarely leave the home without it to hand. Lamb makes an interesting observation that lies at the heart of how we should base our future planning for our changing climate;
I have always thought it a misfortune that the general introduction of plumbing into British homes coincided with the quite unusual run of mild winters between 1896 and 1936. And possibly some of the modern glass architecture and the hill-top sites with an open south-west aspect which became so desirable a few years ago seem less to be recommended in the 1950s. 
 HH Lamb – The Changing Climate (Routledge Revivals): Selected Papers Note – the paper was ‘The changing climate, past and present; which appeared in Weather, October 1958, Vol 145, pp. 299-318
The following passage is by former Met Office supremo Hubert Lamb. Published at the height of the global warming scare – ironically just before the onset of ‘The pause [which] is a grand ‘whodunnit’ at the edge of our scientific understanding – Lamb made the polar opposite view of current Met Office Chief Scientist, Julia Slingo. Remember this when we are told the debate is over and you find your voice is censored.
In 1896 the Swedish scientist, Sv. Arrhenius, professor of physics first at Uppsala and later in Stockholm, published his suggestion that increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as was already happening relentlessly, should be expected to warm world climates because of its absorption—i.e capture—of long-wave radiation that continually goes out from the Earth and so create a sort of ‘greenhouse effect’. And in 1938 in England G S Callendar seemed to show in a paper in the Royal Meteorological Society’s journal that the observed warming of surface temperatures over the Earth by about half a degree Celsius from around 1890 to the 1930s should be about right to be attributable to the radiation trapped in the atmosphere in this way. But there are some difficult points. Water vapour, which is abundant in the atmosphere except over the coldest regions of the Earth and in the stratosphere, also absorbs radiation and on almost al the same wave-lengths that the carbon dioxide absorbs.
Difficulties, too, beset attempts to show how variations in the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past fit the theory that warm periods in world climate can be attributed to a greater CO2 content and cold periods to a lower CO2 amount. The CO2 content at various past times is presumably indicated by the gas trapped in bubbles in ice-sheets and glaciers. This does show less CO2 in glacial times, and during warmer interglacial periods the CO2 amount were greater. But, since carbon dioxide is more soluble in water—in the oceans for example—when temperatures are lower, the smaller amounts of CO2 in the bubbles in the ice sheets in ice age times could be just a result of the colder climates then prevailing. And, even within our own times, the suggestion that the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be presumed to be the cause of the warming does not fit at all well with the sequence of observed values.
The great period of warming, at least in the northern hemisphere, was during the first 40 years of the 20th century (especially the first and fourth decades), but in the 1950s and 1960s when the CO2 was increasing more rapidly than ever before the prevailing temperatures were falling. Callendar himself was worried by this discrepancy and contacted both me and Professor Gordon Manley about it. There seem, in fact, to have been a number of shorter runs of sometimes up to 50 years with either rising or falling temperatures often setting in suddenly, and with no clear correspondence to changes in the atmospheric CO2 content.We also see that account must be taken of psychological reactions—even in the influential research community—to the variations towards greater or less warmth as and when they occur.
In the 1880s and 1890s, as a recent American meteorological investigator was the first to be able to show, world temperatures were lower than they had been since around 1850. That was just when Arrhenius came out with his suggestion that the man-made increase of carbon dioxide should be warming the Earth. And at that time the suggestion made little impact. When Callendar promoted the same idea 40 years later, however, it was in a warmer world, though very soon the bitter war winters came and implanted themselves in folk’s memories. And when G N Plass again put forward the CO2warming theory in papers published in 1954 and 1956, world climate was once more entering a colder phase, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Interest in the theory soon waned. It only revived after a run of up to 8 mild winters in a row affected much of Europe and parts of North America in the 1970s and 1980s. There then came a tremendous preponderance of publications on global warming, dominating the research literature, although over-all temperature averages in some regions, particularly in the Arctic, were still moving downward.
So, in spite of the sharp turn towards warming after 1987-8, and the undeniably very warm years 1989-91 and 1995, one must feel uneasy about the confidence with which global warming has been publicised as the verdict of science in official pronouncements from many quarters. The erratic course of the changes experienced through the 20thcentury surely suggests that there are processes at work which are still not adequately understood and possibly even some influences that have not yet been identified.[1997, p217-19]
Met Office winter forecast December-January-February issued 21st November 2013
The probability that UK precipitation for December-January-February will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 25% and the probability that it will fall into the wettest category is around 15% (the 1981-2010 probability for each of these categories is 20%).
Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: December 2013 – February 2014
Issue date: 21.11.13
As discussed in the temperature section, forecast models favour a negative NAO pattern this winter, with high pressure areas more likely to be centred over or close to the UK. As in all seasons, this pre-dominance of anticyclones is likely to lead to drier-than-normal conditions across the country.
The weakening of the prevailing westerly flow means that the normally wetter western or northwestern parts of the country may see a significant reduction in precipitation compared to average, while the east or southeast may be closer to average. However uncertainty in this regional pattern of precipitation is large.
With colder-than-normal conditions being favoured, as indicated in the temperature section, the probabilities for precipitation falling as snow and for occurrence of ice this winter will be higher than the climatological values.
The forecast is now put into context.
[UPDATE: I have slightly rearranged this post so the Met Office winter 2013/14 is at the head. The rest of the post is quite lengthy detailing several previous years of forecasts but is an easy read. It has several images also so may take time to load on slower devices.]
The purpose of this post is to show things as they stand ahead of a very active period of weather, which subscribers to Weather Action have know of since mid November. Piers Corbyn said
falls in our new R5+ period [top level warning] so we expect it will be more significant and potentially damaging [intense] compared with normal conditions than the storm of 23-24th Dec for example and we expect significant snow [Northerly flow] in it’s wake
N.B. I aim to revisit this in the New Year to see how the forecasts and models compare.
Currently Continue reading
The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.
The Met Office response is to ehun observation and double down their conviction in the flat earth models Continue reading
There is an argument that too many and too broad warnings desensitise the public. However a yellow warning is just that – a warning to be aware. Yes, the weather can be hit or miss, often over a distance of a few miles, but at least you are prepared. Knowledge is power. Expressing uncertainty in the forecast models is not an admission of weakness, it’s useful guidance* – although clearly it is not in the Met Office’s interests to show any weakness when their long term forecasts include pushing a social engineering experiment on the British public.
Many areas highlighted in the following BBC report were not under any warning.
Electricity North West said 2,500 homes in parts of Cumbria and Lancashire are without power due to wind damage to overhead lines.The worst damage is in west Cumbria around Seaton and Workington. Power has been restored to almost 900 homes in Aberdulais in the Neath Valley after a main electrical cable came down. West Midlands Ambulance Service said the incident in Warwickshire happened on the A45 between Stretton-on-Dunsmore and Rugby at about 18:00 on Wednesday.
A spokeswoman said: “The large tree had fallen onto a car, travelling on the A45, and had smashed the windscreen. The driver and the rear seat passenger, both men in their 40s and 50s, were said to be ‘walking wounded’ and had suffered minor injuries.” The front seat passenger, a 19-year-old man, sustained face and head injuries as well as suspected chest injuries.” The man was taken to University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire. The driver of the car was also taken to the same hospital as a precaution.”
The Championship football match between Sheffield Wednesday and Wigan at Hillsborough was abandoned early in the second-half due to a waterlogged pitch. The [sic] was also a delay in the Capital One Cup quarter-final between Stoke City and Manchester United because of a heavy hail storm.
Clearly an extended yellow warning was needed.
The American warnings, here taken from weather.gov seem more far extensive and far more complex. I am not sure how useful or accurate they are in practice.
Maybe if the Met office stopped wasting their time and money on extreme climate scenarios – based upon a dubious theory – in the far distant future they could get down to the bread and butter of forecasting the here and now.
if the Met Office were a secondary school, it would be subject to special measures and intensive monitoring. Instead its directors shower praise on themselves. ‘Our successes during the past year form a strong base from which we can go forward,’ they write in their annual report. Say it often enough, and people will believe you.
Rupert Darwall, Forecast failure: how the Met Office lost touch with reality
Ideology has corrupted a valuable British institution
That’s the argument of propagandists not scientists.
* There is an interesting case from 1984, Honour Brown et al. vs. U.S. that highlights why forecast uncertainty should be expressed.