Nigel Lawson to Climate Morons ‘Cool it’

Lord Lawson takes direct aim at Slingo [my emphasis]

The unusual persistence of heavy rainfall over the UK during February, which led to considerable flooding, is believed by the scientists to have been caused by the wayward behaviour of the jetstream; and there is no credible scientific theory that links this behaviour to the fact that the earth’s surface is some 0.8ºC warmer than it was 150 years ago.

That has not stopped some climate scientists, such as the publicity-hungry chief scientist at the UK Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, from telling the media that it is likely that “climate change” (by which they mean warming) is partly to blame. Usually, however, the climate scientists take refuge in the weasel words that any topical extreme weather event, whatever the extreme weather may be, whether the recent UK rainfall or last year’s typhoon in the Philippines, “is consistent with what we would expect from climate change”.

So what? It is also consistent with the theory that it is a punishment from the Almighty for our sins (the prevailing explanation of extreme weather events throughout most of human history). But that does not mean that there is the slightest truth in it. Indeed, it would be helpful if the climate scientists would tell us what weather pattern would not be consistent with the current climate orthodoxy. If they cannot do so, then we would do well to recall the important insight of Karl Popper — that any theory that is incapable of falsification cannot be considered scientific.

read the rest here.

climate change’ is the exact opposite of what the Met Office predict and whatever the weather we experience – especially the bits not within a Goldilocks definition of what it should be – we’re going to get more of it and YOU’RE TO BLAME.

Rinse and repeat the excuses whatever the weather.

https://craigm350.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/uk-met-office-cheaters-never-prosper/

also check out Paul Homewood’s inconvenient finding on 1929 – The Year The Met Office Tried To Cover Up

I found similarities also in the wet winter of 1876/7, which was remarkably similar and a year of ‘global weirding‘ extremes. 1877 was a ‘bit windy‘, as Paul Homewood noted.

Then there’s the winter of 1976/7 in the UK (post on 76/7 in the works), which featured a displaced polar vortex over North America and followed a similar hot summer.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/comparison-of-the-summers-of-1976-and-2013/

You could even look back further

https://craigm350.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/floodplains-the-clue-is-in-the-name/

https://craigm350.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/climate-change-realism/

Watch “Piers Corbyn: The Reality of Long Range Weather and Climate Forecasting | Electric Universe 2014”

Some of the comments;

Robert W. (subscriber, Toronto, Canada)

Excellent presentation on Thunderbolts Piers, comedy gold

Steve Devine (subscriber, Essex, England)

informative and amusing as ever

Maria (subscriber, Ireland)

Great vid Piers, i appreciate your work  […] I think I learnt more in that video (watched twice may need to watch again 🙂 than an entire school year in science and geography class!-) loved the humour too and really just the real approach to evidence based facts makes for better understanding…

And special thanks to Richard (subscriber, East Midlands) for highlighting the video itself;

u might get a statue outside the Royal Society in 300 years 🙂

Full comments/reaction, latest news here and here

CO2 – A Cycle of Excuses

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]

h/t Enthusiasm, Scepticism and Science / Bishop Hill

UK Met Office – Cheaters never Prosper

wpid-storagesdcard0PicturesScreenshotsScreenshot_2014-02-16-00-47-062.jpg.jpg

Met Office winter forecast December-January-February issued 21st November 2013

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/m/8/A3_plots-precip-DJF-2.pdf

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%).

CONTEXT:
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.

HpaWinter_DJF_13_14

Winter 2013/14 daily pressure values (local station).
Figures for the South and West coasts will be considerably lower
[N.B. standard normal sea level pressure (SLP) is 1013.2 millibars]


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.

2014_1_Rainfall_Anomaly_1981-2010

Rainfall as a percentage of average for January 2014
Image UK Met Office

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.

2014_1_GroundFrost_Anomaly_1981-2010

The deeper the red the less days with ground frost.
Image UK Met Office

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.]  

Continue reading

Nick Brown Smelled BS

A long read but worth the time for a *very illuminating* window into the world of academic backslapping. Scientists are, after all, human and can he as pig headed as the rest of us. When any of us are lauded and upheld the last thing we want is someone telling us our theory, our life work, our livelyhood is a ‘croc of shit.’ We can chose humility and accept being wrong is a part of learning. Or we can just call everyone who disagrees #deniers.

mann-crockey-stick

Josh on form

One of the insights in the climategate emails was perhaps how poisonous Michael Mann’s involvement was, for the niche area of the paleo science community (ego due to IPCC and Hockey Stick)? This tweet from earlier this morning (now deleted, only a text version survives -Anthony) shows the immediate labeling of “denier” for another scientist who disagrees with his paleo work.Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMannCloset #climatechange #denier Rob Wilson, comes out of the closet big time: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/21/wilson-on-millennial-temperature-reconstructions.html … #BadScience #DisingenuousBehavior

Anthony also points out a tweet that would have led to Indignant moral outrage had a Republican said it. We really do need to move beyond the traditional left/right paradigm in the climate debate.

Full story: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/21/paleoscientist-manns-recent-work-was-a-crock-of-xxxx/

Climate Audit

View original post