We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Friday, November 30, 2012

PM Gillard, Illegalities and "slush funds."


Sleeze and Smear.
Michelle Grattan, in the Sydney Moaning Pravda, writes (Link) inter alia:
  • Accusations of criminality are over the top;
  • That the PM said the association wasn't a union. … It obviously wasn't

Accusations of Criminality

hat the PM said the association wasn't a union. … It obviously wasn't.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-winged-but-still-flying-20121129-2aimg.html#ixzz2DfZijwcS
That the PM said the association wasn't a union. … It obviously wasn't

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-winged-but-still-flying-20121129-2aimg.html#ixzz2DfZpjPhO
hat the PM said the association wasn't a union. … It obviously wasn't.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-winged-but-still-flying-20121129-2aimg.html#ixzz2DfZijwcS
Dictionary.com defines a slush fund as
a sum of money used for illicit or corrupt political purposes, as for buying influence.
World Dictionary:
a fund for financing political or commercial corruption.
Even the Not-so-reliable Wikipedia:
a slush fund can have particular connotations of illegality, illegitimacy.
A fine string of words:
  • illicit, 
  • corrupt,
  • illegality,
  • illegitimacy.
 So, before Sue Butler from the Macquarie Dictionary redefines "slush fund" in  PM Gillard's favour, the overwhelming feeling is an illegal fund.

The 34 y.o. young and naive Ms Gillard, in her Slater and Gordon exit interview, described the AWU Workers' Reform Association as a slush fund - an illegal fund.

Strike One! 

The association wasn't a union!


When questioned about working for Wilson or the AWU,  MS Gillard said that she believed, in working for Wilson who was a union official, she was working for the union. (link)
Gillard yesterday seemed still in two minds, saying that when it came to establishing an association that bore the name of the AWU, her client was Wilson and his associate Ralph Blewitt as representatives of a team of union officials who would run together for re-election - not the AWU. But she also appeared to place weight on the fact she had kept the AWU informed, through Wilson and Blewitt.
"The people I was dealing with - Mr Blewitt and Mr Wilson - were both office holders of the AWU," the Prime Minister said.
"My client in creating the Workplace Reform Association was Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt acting as representatives of a team of officials who were going to run together for election in the trade union. But did I separately advise the AWU that this was occurring, well of course I didn't. 
Of course she didn't!

On the other hand,  (link) Slater and Gordon thought they were two different entities:
Slater and Gordon said in its statement it acted for both the AWU and (then) union official Mr Wilson.
“In acting for the official, Slater and Gordon obtained information: i) that was confidential to the official; and ii) the disclosure of which to the union would have represented a conflict between the interests of the union and the interests of the official.”

However, (writing to the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner - link)
Julia Gillard enabled the incorporation of a union slush fund from which her then boyfriend later stole hundreds of thousands of dollars by formally denying to authorities that it was a trade union organisation.
So Ms Gillard's claim that the association was set-up for the union and under instructions from the union has been negated by her own submission to the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner.

Strike 2!

Officer of the Court.


The lawyer practises law as an officer of the Court. The lawyer’s role is both to uphold the rule of law and serve the community in the administration of justice.” 

These are the opening words of the Statement of Ethics proclaimed by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales on 20 November 1994. (pdf)


Did the young and naive lawyer, Ms Gillard, an officer of the court, mislead the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner by writing that the association was for workplace reform when she knew that it was a slush fund?

Three Strikes....You're out!

Cold Heat!


Headline:

Heatwave strikes eastern Australia

Parts of eastern Australia are sweltering as heatwave conditions take hold today.
Temperatures have passed 40 degrees across regional areas today, with the latest weather observations from the Bureau of Meteorology showing tops in excess of 44 degrees in some places.

Watch the alarmist doomsayer come running with cries of
  • the end of the world is nigh
  • prepare ye for the end;
  • We'll all be doomed.

Before the doomsayers start their screaming tirades, a quick reminder from NOAA. (Link) Until these records get corrupted, massaged, manipulated, Australia's record high temperature (probably caused by Jumbo Jets and rampaging SUVs) was 53.3ºC on 16 January, 1889. (link)  

Continent by Continent, the record highs were all recorded before pre 1945, ie pre the major industrialisation push, with the exception of the coldest continent on Earth, Antarctica. When, in the mid seventies, the alarmists were saying we were heading for the next ice age, Vanda Station, Scott Coast Antarctica recorded 15ºC.

Meanwhile, up in the Northern Hemisphere, as previously pointed out in these pages (here)

Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years

  • Temperatures to plummet to minus 3°C this week and could fall as low as 20°C in December
  • Fears that snow blizzards could close roads and shut down rail networks as winter takes hold

-->
Britain will shiver tonight as temperatures plummet in the first taste of what promises to be one of our coldest winters for a century.
The cold snap is expected to last until the end of the week, creating dangerous conditions on the roads and adding to the misery of those already battling floods.
Temperatures could fall to as low as minus 3°c (27°f) in some places, with snow already falling in the Pennines. In Saltburn, North Yorkshire, northerly winds have become so strong that they are pushing water back up a cliff.
Britain will shiver tonight as temperatures plummet in the first taste of what promises to be one of our coldest winters for a century.

The cold snap is expected to last until the end of the week, creating dangerous conditions on the roads and adding to the misery of those already battling floods.

Temperatures could fall to as low as minus 3°c (27°f) in some places, with snow already falling in the Pennines. In Saltburn, North Yorkshire, northerly winds have become so strong that they are pushing water back up a cliff.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239556/UK-weather-forecast-Britain-faces-coldest-winter-100-years-Big-Freeze-follows-flood.html#ixzz2DemzJuwL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  Global warming? or Global Cooling?  Or, perhaps just Earth's natural cycles....
  • Temperatures to plummet to minus 3°C this week and could fall as low as 20°C in December
  • Fears that snow blizzards could close roads and shut down rail networks as winter takes hold


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239556/UK-weather-forecast-Britain-faces-coldest-winter-100-years-Big-Freeze-follows-flood.html#ixzz2DemYlHtC
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Thursday, November 29, 2012

A conspiracy to silence any and all dissent challenging the alarmist mantra of human-induced climate change.

A conspiracy to silence any and all dissent challenging the alarmist mantra of human-induced climate change.


Andrew Montford of Bishop Hill fame has published a book, or as he describes it, a pamphlet titled Institutional Bias. (LINK)

Andrew describes it:
In 2007, the Energy Group of the Institute of Physics (IoP) agreed to invite the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson, to speak to them about his new book on global warming. While all the members of the group's committee were enthusiastic about the idea of hearing from someone so prominent, their decision unleashed a bizarre sequence of retaliatory actions, which left the Energy Group in tatters.

Told through the eyes of group chairman, Peter Gill, this new pamphlet reveals how one learned society has attempted to deal with dissenting voices on the global warming question and paints a disturbing picture of intolerance and bias.
Get it here.
John O'Sullivan writes (link)
In his startling new pamphlet, ‘Institutional Bias’ Montford lays out the evidence selected from a vast body of leaked internal emails. Two whistleblower insiders were the source, Peter F. Gill, formerly the chairman of the IoP’s Energy Group and Terri Jackson (MSc Mphil), former science adviser to Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Rev. Ian Paisley and Founder of the IOP’s Energy Group.

The incredible correspondence details a conspiracy to silence any and all dissent challenging the alarmist mantra of human-induced climate change. Self-serving senior figures within the IoP are shown to have harassed and harangued every attempt for a grassroots debate among members over the global warming controversy.
Constantly, the supporters of the AGW hoax maintain that every or most etc of the major scientific bodies say that climate change is real.... eg Karl Kruszelnicki (LINK.)  

Well, "Institutional Bias" shows how the British Physicists' Group was hijacked.

What about the American
Physicists' Group?  We know that Nobel Prize Winner Ivar Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society because he disagreed with their statement:
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
We also know that the oldest scientific body in the world, the Royal Society, was forced to change its policy after 43 senior fellows disagreed and said (they were) not representing the views of all of the members. They pushed and the Royal Society issued a new report. (LINK)

All the scientific institutions should run a poll of the view of their members on man-made climate change and publish the results.

Then and only then will we know the true position of these scientific bodies.

 


Peer-reviewed: No increase in multi-day temperature variability in Austria following 20th Centurywarming

From CO2 Science (Link)

Reference
Hiebl, J. and Hofstatter, M. 2012. No increase in multi-day temperature variability in Austria following climate warming. Climatic Change 113: 733-750. 
(Link) Cover Date     2012-08-01     DOI     10.1007/s10584-011-0389-x


Background
Is earth's weather getting more extreme and variable in response to the warming that plucked the planet out of the chilly grip of the Little Ice Age? Climate alarmists claim that it should have been doing so; and in a review of this significant question, Easterling et al. (2000) go even further, stating that data in support of this proposition "would add to the body of evidence that there is a discernible human effect on the climate."


Starting from a low level of temperature variability around 1900, the two Austrian researchers report there was a slow and steady rise in variability during the whole 20th century. However, they also indicate there was a "period of persistently high variability levels before 1900," which led them to say that the "relatively high levels of temperature variability during the most recent warm decades from 1990 to 2010 are put into perspective by similar variability levels during the cold late 19th century."


What it means
Hiebl and Hofstatter conclude that concerns about "an increasing number and strength of temperature extremes in terms of deviations from the mean state in the past decades cannot be maintained," according to their study; and, therefore, they state that related "exaggerated statements seem irresponsible." 
 

Read More at CO2 Science (Link)


Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Censorship: the usual Brown crap


Censorship: the usual Brown crap.
by Anthony Cox
H/T to Bob Cormack for his observations about the Essenhigh and Cawley papers mentioned in the article.

I placed the following comment at the conversation in response to a typical article by Michael Brown:


Brown is a particularly arrogant and condescending advocate of the lie of AGW; he takes a dim view of ‘underlings’ and those who he considers his inferiors having a say about the despicable lie of AGW. He has had a hand in censoring me before:


Anyway here is the comment which was removed from Brown’s article; I can only assume it was at Brown’s request since there seems to be no other reason for it being removed, at least by the site’s own “community standards”:

CENSORED COMMENT

Real climate science is critiqued here


A more detailed analysis of some of the papers from the extensive bibliography at Jo's

is here:


The dominant issue remaining is whether human emissions of CO2, ACO2, are the primary or only cause for the increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, or whether natural emissions are.

The issue is complex because there is a bulk and flux component.

The bulk component, the change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, was looked at in Knoor's paper.

The Knoor paper is here:


Knoor found the airborne fraction of ACO2 has not changed in 150 years. That must mean that non-ACO2 emissions are contributing to the increase in the bulk CO2 concentration.

The reason for this is the principle of a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2.

Knoor has been supported by the Gloor et al paper:


The other part of the issue of whether ACO2 is contributing to all of the increase in CO2 levels is based on the annual fluxes.
The annual fluxes are shown by Figure 7.3 of AR4:


This shows that of the annual CO2 flux, ACO2 is 8Gt out of the total of 218.2Gt or 3.67%. US Department of Energy [DOE] figures put this % at 2.91% but for argument's sake it does not matter.

DOE shows that approximately 98.5% of the total flux is reabsorbed in sinks, predominantly natural although cropping would add a miniscule amount.

If one assumes that the same proportion of ACO2 of the total flux is NOT reabsorbed but adds to the bulk atmospheric concentration the simple formula of how much ACO2 adds to the atmospheric increase would be annually:

3.67/100 X 1.5/100 = 0.000552

That is one ACO2 has a 1 in 1811.594203 of still being in the atmosphere after 1 year.

After 2 years the probability would be 1 in 120772.9469 chance of remaining.

Clearly on this basis ACO2 would not be contributing to the increase in CO2.

But this is what caught Alan Jones out; it does so because it confuses the residence time of a molecule of ACO2 and the time required for the atmosphere to adjust to the ACO2 emissions adding to the atmospheric bulk.

This issue has been dealt with in 2 papers, one by Essenhigh and the other by Cawley.

The Essenhigh paper is here:


The Cawley paper here:


Cawley asserts that the "one-box model of the carbon cycle used in ES09 [Essenhigh] directly gives rise to (i) a short residence time of ~4 years, (ii) a long adjustment time of ~74 years".

Effectively, this means that while one ACO2 molecule does not remain long the effect of all the ACO2 on the atmospheric bulk is long-lasting and therefore supports the idea that ACO2 is the main reason for the increase in CO2.

However, Essenhigh uses a "one box" model in which flux from the atmosphere has a linear relationship with the concentration [bulk] of CO2. Essenhigh expresses this as:

F=k*C, where F is the flux from the atmosphere to the environment, C is the atmospheric concentration, and k is a proportionality constant.

Cawley changes this to F=k*C +F0, where F0 is a constant flux independent of atmospheric concentration.

This assumption by Cawley contradicts Henrys Law and would mean that when there is zero CO2 in the atmospher (C=0) there would still be a finite flux (f0) of CO2 from the atmosphere!

Essenhigh's model is to be preferred and means that Knoor's bulk analysis is correct; that is most if not all the increase in CO2 is not coming from ACO2.
Even if there were not considerable evidence that AGW science is wrong, if it is the case that the increase in CO2 is not due to ACO2 then humans are not causing AGW.
END of COMMENT

This comment is obviously relevant to Brown’s topic and raises what is the biggest straw man of all: that the CO2 which is blamed for AGW may in fact not be coming from human emissions.

This basic concept is the Achilles heel of the AGW lie; with the rest of the AGW ‘science’ in tatters the allegation that ACO2 is responsible for the increase in CO2 is all the AGW believers have left.

Whoever censored my comment, Brown, or some other propagandist, is smart enough to know this and obviously wants no discussion about it to occur.

Typical.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

THE REAL CLIMATE

 NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 301

by Dr Vincent Gray

NOVEMBER 22ND 2012

THE REAL CLIMATE

In several recent newsletters I have attacked the plausibility of the basic climate model promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.)

Its assumptions include the following:
  • The Earth is flat;
  • The sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity;
  • Energy interchange in the climate is almost entirely by radiation;
  • Energy flow parameters are constants with no variability;
  • Energy flow is "balanced" with input equal to output;
  • Change in this system is entirely caused by increasing human-induced trace gases in the atmosphere.

These assumptions are completely at odds with meteorological science which finds that energy changes in the climate are

  • Energy absorption from the sun to the surface in an irregular fashion, exclusively  by day
  • Immediate cooling of the heated surfaces by
  •               Heat transfer to the surface,
  •               Convection by the atmosphere and
  •               Evaporation of water.
  • Transport of warmed air and water by complex circulation patterns whose accurate prediction is confounded by our poor understanding of fluid flow, referred to as "chaos"

Energy is returned to space from all surfaces and from every level of the atmosphere by infra red radiation.

No importance has been established for an influence of so-called greenhouse gases.

A Greenhouse is a device for continuing to receive solar radiation, but protecting a small patch of The Earth from the "chaos" of air movement and precipitation  outside it.  Internally the absorbed radiation is received and cooled in the same way as outside, by convection and by evaporation of water. The convected air cannot mix with the rest of the atmosphere so the internal atmosphere is above the outside. As greenhouses are not insulated it cools by conduction from the air to the frame which is in turn cooled by the outside "chaos" which becomes dominant when the sun does not shine. There is no role for trace gases, although carbon dioxide may be supplied to enhance growth.

The so-called "greenhouse effect" thus has nothing to do with the behaviour of a greenhouse.

The IPCC chooses to deal with only part of the total climate, by what it calls "the climate system."

This is defined as follows:
"The Climate System is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere, the biosphere and the interactions between them"

This does not include the other components of the real climate, which are the sun, the Earth and outer space. The Real Climate is a heat engine.

Input energy is radiation from the sun and the exhaust is infra red radiation to outer space. In the process the sun's energy increases its entropy.

The "Climate System" is only part of this complete system so it cannot comply with the conditions for thermodynamic equilibrium, that only apply to systems isolated from all inputs and outputs of energy. There is therefore no reason to assume that the claimed balance between input and output energy should mean that it is subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that "back radiation" deriving from the Stefan/Boltzmann radiation law cannot exist which some try to claim.

The most important function of this engine is to maintain all living organisms on earth. This is achieved by various biological mechanisms which are able to change the absorbed radiation energy into chemical energy which can be used to provide all the pathways by which all organisms exist. The most important mechanism is the use of chlorophyll by plants which by absorbing radiant energy enables them to synthesize carbohydrates from atmospheric carbon dioxide and water. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is thus the source of almost all life on earth, yet some seem to think it is a pollutant.

It is possible to derive a model of the real climate by an ilustration which shows one or more of the following features:

A rotating earth which comes under the influence of increasing intensity of the sun's ray from dawn to noon each day, with a decline from noon to dusk. All of the energy received from the sun arrives in this way, sequentially each day.  The surface is then cooled by these processes.

Conduction of part of the energy absorbed into the surface layer, both solid and liquid.

Conduction of part of the heat to the layer of air next to the surface, its removal as it rises and its replacement by another layer. This is called convection and its influence is enhanced by turbulence particularly over land and by the development of complex air movements which carry the air around the entire air and convey the heat up into the atmosphere. This responsible for the Lapse Rate, as the temperature declines all the way to the tropopause as the additional energy in the atmosphere is progressively radiated outwards.

The surface is also cooled by evaporation of water, mainly from the oceans, thus removing latent heat. This heat is recovered, warming the atmosphere as the air reaches the dew point temperature higher in the atmosphere, Some of it will form liquid water, snow or hail, whose precipitation will, by day, further cool the Earth surface which is warmer than the region of the clouds. By night the precipitation may even warm the cooling surface, or there may be deposition of frost or dew which also warms the surface.

Finally, the surfaces radiate heat to space, and by night, cool until the next dawn, Also each layer of gas radiates to space. The Stefan/Boltzmann law states that radiation from gas goes in all directions, so there is "back radiation" which gets incorporated with the rest. Also the Law states that the emission energy is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. This means that most outwards radiation is from daytime surfaces, particularly from the tropics, and radiation from the atmosphere is greatest in the layer closest to the earth. This is the layer that constitutes our weather and is the basis of our weather forecasting system.

It is possible that changes on the so-called "greenhouse gases" may play a role in this system, but there is currently no evidence to support a belief that such an influence could be important despite the tremendous amount of effort that has been put in the attempt to show it. It would in any case largely involve water vapour, as another influence in addition to its vital role in latent heat transfer.

An influence of trace gases is currently covered up by the vagaries of the chaos: associated with air and ocean movements. The main object of the rather absurd IPCC model is that it avoids the influence of "chaos" by pretending it does not exist.

I have tried to provide a diagram of the Real Climate I describe but I am no good at all at using computer draw programmes. I hope this might inspire one or other of you to provide a convincing diagram of the real climate.

I also attach a diagram of the lapse rate which is actually a very useful supplement to any diagram of the climate based on the realities I have described.

Cheers

Vincent Gray






Saturday, November 24, 2012

Let's rid the airwaves of this bile.

Despicable comment.
There was much of a stir when Alan Jones made a flippant (although despicable) comment. Surely, we will see a similar reaction to a despicable comment by Robyn Williams?

As Jo Nova writes (with H/t to Graham Young)
This morning on the “science” show Robyn Williams equates skeptics to pedophiles, people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers. Williams starts the show by framing republicans (and skeptics) as liars: “New Scientist complained about the “gross distortions” and “barefaced lying” politicians come out  with…” He’s goes on to make the most blatant, baseless, and outrageous insults by equating skeptics to people who promote pedophilia, asbestos and drugs.
Let's hold Williams' outbursts up against the New Scientist standards.  On the Science show site (link)
If 95, 96 or 97% of scientists say that human activity is driving the world temperature higher, why is it that some people reject the view of the overwhelming majority? Stephan Lewandowsky  has studied scepticism. In the field of climate science the so-called sceptics he says are not sceptical, they are rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view. 
Let's disregard the unscientific "IF" in the first line....
95, 96 or 97% of scientists say that human activity is driving the world temperature higher, why is it that some people reject the view of the overwhelming majority?
First, the 97% was arrived at by a flawed poll. Surely you know that, Mr Williams? It has been exposed here, here, here etc
why is it that some people reject the view of the overwhelming majority?
Well, perhaps because a consensus is not science, Mr Williams. You can push a hypothesis as much as you like, but once it has been falsified, it just becomes yesterday's idle thoughts. As Einstein said:
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

When Marshall and Warren went against the consensus (that the cause of  peptic ulcers was lifestyle)
they met the same derision that realist scientists are experiencing from the alarmists. Marshall and Warren scientifically showed that peptic ulcers could be treated with antibiotics. It has also "led to an increased understanding of the connection between chronic infection, inflammation, and cancer," according to a Nobel Prize news release.  (Link)

The item then quotes Stephan Lewandosky (See also Lies-damn-lies-and-stephen-lewandosky.)
In the field of climate science the so-called sceptics he (Lewandosky) says are not sceptical, they are rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view.
I will put this to you  Mr Lewandosky (and Mr Williams)
In the field of climate science the alarmisists are not scientific, they are rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view.


Real Green Energy Break-throughs



H/t Kathleen

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Are we heading in the right direction?

The alarmists are trying to scare us by saying the planet, in the next 90 years, might get 2-4ºC warmer. (During the last 150 or so years, coming out of the Little Ice Age the planet has warmed less than 1º.)

Is it better to be warmer? Or to be colder?

Generally speaking NCTCS blogger would say warmer is better.

NCTCS blogger took the photo at right on Saturday November 3. It is a section of the Great Wall of China and the temperature that day reached around 15ºC.

The next day, blizzard conditions hit that area of Northern China. Tragically three Japanese tourists perished on a section of the Great Wall on the Sunday.

Three Japan tourists die in Great Wall storm

THREE elderly Japanese tourists died after being trapped in sudden heavy snowstorms during a visit to the Great Wall of China, officials in Beijing and Tokyo said on Monday.

The bodies of two women, aged 62 and 68, were found on Sunday evening while the body of a 76-year-old man was retrieved on Monday afternoon.
The UK Mailonline informs us that (link)
More than 2,500 people in England and Wales are likely to perish from cold in the week leading up to Christmas, experts said today.
The forecast from the Faculty of Public Health and Met Office comes amid renewed concern over the plight of the poor and vulnerable during cold snaps.
Each winter, a larger proportion of Britons die because of unseasonable cold weather than in either Finland or Russia.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-204541/Deaths-cold-hit-2-500.html#ixzz2CwKozbiS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook 
More than 2,500 people in England and Wales are likely to perish from cold in the week leading up to Christmas, experts said today.

The forecast from the Faculty of Public Health and Met Office comes amid renewed concern over the plight of the poor and vulnerable during cold snaps.

Each winter, a larger proportion of Britons die because of unseasonable cold weather than in either Finland or Russia.
An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. The team was led by Professor Jan Esper

Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time 

"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods." 

The new study has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change

 "This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."
The Alarmists should be preparing us for colder times ahead.





More than 2,500 people in England and Wales are likely to perish from cold in the week leading up to Christmas, experts said today.
The forecast from the Faculty of Public Health and Met Office comes amid renewed concern over the plight of the poor and vulnerable during cold snaps.
Each winter, a larger proportion of Britons die because of unseasonable cold weather than in either Finland or Russia.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-204541/Deaths-cold-hit-2-500.html#ixzz2CwKozbiS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

More than 2,500 people in England and Wales are likely to perish from cold in the week leading up to Christmas, experts said today.
The forecast from the Faculty of Public Health and Met Office comes amid renewed concern over the plight of the poor and vulnerable during cold snaps.
Each winter, a larger proportion of Britons die because of unseasonable cold weather than in either Finland or Russia.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-204541/Deaths-cold-hit-2-500.html#ixzz2CwKozbiS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
More than 2,500 people in England and Wales are likely to perish from cold in the week leading up to Christmas, experts said today.
The forecast from the Faculty of Public Health and Met Office comes amid renewed concern over the plight of the poor and vulnerable during cold snaps.
Each winter, a larger proportion of Britons die because of unseasonable cold weather than in either Finland or Russia.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-204541/Deaths-cold-hit-2-500.html#ixzz2CwKozbiS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

C.I.A. Closes Its Climate Change Office

Walking away from the hoax?
The New York Times reports that the C.I.A. has closed their Center on Climate Change and National Security.   (Link) Article By JOHN M. BRODER

 Does this mean that they have done some examination and discovered that man-made global warming is a scam and the greatest hoax inflicted on mankind?

The Central Intelligence Agency has disbanded its Center on Climate Change and National Security, a unit formed in 2009 to monitor the interplay between a warming planet and intelligence and security challenges.

Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, has been the most vocal critic of the C.I.A.’s climate change work. He welcomed the closing of its office.
“Closing the Climate Change Center at the C.I.A. was the right decision,” Mr. Barrasso said in a statement. “I offered an amendment on the Senate floor to eliminate the center because it was unnecessary, wasteful and totally out of place. It’s critically important for the C.I.A. to focus its resources on preventing terrorism and keeping Americans safe.”

Sunday, November 18, 2012

The Cat's out of the bag! The science does not exist to make detailed forecasts for temperature.


The UK Met Office, as a partner in the Strategic Science Group (SSG) of the JWCRP: Joint Weather and Climate Research Programme wrote in a preparation (link)
Science strategies are being developed by the SSG;
  • Weather: To reduce the consequences of high impact weather in the UK and globally through provision of more accurate, more detailed, and longer lead time forecasts to the public and government agencies.
  • Monthly to Decadal: To enhance the skill and reliability of near term climate predictions through research into drivers on timescales out to a decade.

And also



Science plans developed over the year :


Mathematical formulation of weather and climate prediction models
This all sounds good, because the UK Met Office is a contributor to the forthcoming IPCC Assesment Report 6.
BUT! The UK Met Office has let the cat out of the bag. On the Met Office’s own news blog (link)
The science does not exist to make detailed forecasts for temperature and snowfall for the end of this month, let alone for December or even the winter as a whole with these types of forecasts only able to provide an indication of how our weather might change

H/t Tom Nelson