“Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.”
Jeremy Grantham….Bob Ward’s boss and also that of Lord Stern.
‘Something funny’s happening to the weather’.
Just some things to consider when reading BBC exclamations that man made climate change is here…
What to believe eh?
No Arctic ice?…and yet ice is increasing….drier, colder winters?…..and yet winter is warm and wet……drought in the summer? and yet the summers are wet……..it’s the Jetstream?…or is it 4% more moisture in the atmosphere…….or disturbed weather patterns over Indonesia… .or trade winds…or ocean heat sinks….or or or….?????
Funny old world……they admit there’s been no global warming for at least 15 years and yet they claim a bit of extra winter rain one year, never mind the winter droughts, is due to global warming…..and yet the warming decades running up to 1998 were getting drier…..only since global warming stopped has it got a bit wetter in places.
Groundwater levels timeline 1970 0nwards…click on the timeline at the bottom left to run show.
From the Met Office 2013/14:
Confidence in the forecast for precipitation across the UK over the next three months is relatively low. For the December-January-February period as a whole there is a slight signal for below-average precipitation. 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%).
Decreasing amounts of ice in the far north is contributing to colder winters and drought, chief scientist Julia Slingo tells MPsThe reduction in Arcticsea ice caused by climate change is playing a role in the UK’s recent colder and drier winterweather, according to the Met Office.
Speaking to MPs on the influential environmental audit committee about the state of the warming Arctic, Julia Slingo, the chief scientist at the Met Office, said that decreasing amounts of ice in the far north was contributing to colder winters in the UK and northern Europe as well as to drought.
A rising trend in rain?
Record rainfall?
Stormier weather?
The recent storms and floods in the UK – new report
9 February 2014
As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change in the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.
Heavier but shorter bursts of rain will lead to flooding…right?
The 
says:
The most notable feature of the January rainfallwas its persistence – the highest number of rain days (>1mm) registered for January in the NCIC record for southern England (from 1961).
So persistence of the rainfall…ie the number of days it falls is the important factor here…..
Which contradicts exactly what Roger Harrabin peddles:
‘The issue is the way it falls in sudden bursts not the amount of rain.‘
or
“There’s evidence to say we are getting slightly more rain in total, but more importantly it may be falling in more intense bursts” — Julia Slingo, Met Office, 3 January 2013
No sign of any unnatural increasing trend in rainfall here:
No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office’s most senior experts
- Mat Collins, Exeter University Professor in climate systems, said storms driven by jet stream that has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual
- He told The Mail on Sunday there is ‘no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter’
Em……
Prime Minister climate change opinion not backed up by science, says Met Office
“It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change.”
or….em…
Paul Davis, chief meteorologist for the Met Office said that very strong winds much of the UK experienced which was caused by jet stream.
“December has been the windiest spell since 1969, but unprecedented perhaps not. It probably feels unusual because the last few winters have been fairly settled and cold and we haven’t had the story conditions that just experienced.”
or…em….
Direct from the Met. Office: There’s currently no evidence to suggest that the UK is increasing in storminess.
So we can expect wet winters due to climate change can we?……..
Drought predicted till Christmas
- Published on Monday, 16 April 2012 09:19
- Written by Scott Buckler
Seventeen counties in South West England and the Midlands have moved into official drought status, after two dry winters have left rivers and ground waters depleted.
Experts are now hoping for a steady rainy winter in 2012/13 to restore rivers and groundwaters, but the Environment Agency is working with the water industry to put plans in place now to deal with the prospect of a third dry winter. Water companies are looking at where they may be able to get more water, options to share water across company boundaries and how they can reduce leakage further. The Agency is urging all water users to save water now, to help prevent more serious shortages and environmental impacts next year.
Why are we in drought?
13 03 2012
Rainfall amounts across many parts of the UK have been below average for the last two years. Importantly, this includes two dry winters – the periods when we would normally expect our rainfall to replenish river, reservoir and groundwater levels.
2010 was the eleventh-driest year in the series from 1910 and the driest since 2003
This emphasises why there are concerns about drought in parts of England and Wales.
There is no one reason for the dry weather over the last few years; it’s all part of the natural variability of the UK climate.
Spelman: Water reform needed to tackle threat of future droughts
Britain faces a future of water shortages, and lasting environmental damage, with some rivers running dry, unless attitudes to water use change, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman cautioned today.
Is it climate change causing more moisture in the atmosphere leading to rain…or the Jetstream?
From the BBC 2012:
Why, oh why, does it keep raining?
The jet stream and its path is the cause of the repeated flooding being suffered during a British summer that has so far been one of the most miserable on record.
Normally, we would expect the pattern of the jet stream to keep shifting, for its shape to switch every few days and for our weather to change as a result.
Instead for week after week – and possibly for weeks ahead too – the meanders of the stream are sticking to the same shape so repeated rainstorms have become the norm.
The big unknown is why this current pattern is so static. The high-altitude winds that make up the stream are themselves still racing along but their path remains stuck in place so our battering continues.
“More than 60 years later scientists are still wrestling with the question of how the jet stream operates and what shapes it”
This is one of the major puzzles for weather specialists and the science behind this is fairly young.
The jet stream, a massive but mysterious driver of our weather, usually passes along a steady path from West to East across the Atlantic – sometimes a bit to the North of us, sometimes a bit to the South.
As a relatively small island, on the borderline between the Atlantic Ocean and the European continent, the precise location of the stream matters hugely to us and right now we’re on the wrong side of it.
Oh wait…here’s the Met Office in May 2012:
While the jet stream may be an influence, there is nothing unusual about its current position and it regularly behaves in this way.
With that in mind, it’s possible to go a step further and say there is nothing unusual about the UK’s weather over the last few weeks.
That may sound odd on the back of a record-breaking wet month, but we do expect to see records broken and they do topple fairly regularly for one area or another.
The past April fits into this expectation – it was exceptionally wet, but only slightly wetter than the previous record set just a few years ago in 2000 and there are several years close behind.
Dredging doesn’t help to stop floods?
On the Thames, centuries of history tell a less apocalyptic flood story
In the modern era, the disastrous 1947 flood stimulated a river engineering programme (including channel realignments, dredging and improvements in weir design) to increase the capacity of the Thames, particularly through its middle and lower reaches. When completed, the river could accommodate more than 30% more flow within its banks. Thus, while peak flows exhibit little trend, peak river levels – the primary cause of flooding – decreased appreciably through the 20th century.
How Somerset Levels river flooded after it was not dredged for decades
Photograph taken in the 1960s shows a wide expanse of water passing through Burrowbridge with plenty of room for water levels to rise
10 Lefty Lies About The Floods Which Have Devastated Britain
Breitbart London’s new Executive Editor James Delingpole looks at the ten ‘best’ lefty lies about the UK flooding… then debunks them:
| Winter Year | Precipitation mm |
|
| Oct – Nov | 1929/30 | 521 |
| 1960/61 | 454 | |
| 2000/01 | 474 | |
| Nov – Dec | 1911/12 | 458 |
| 1929/30 | 608 | |
| 1959/60 | 468 | |
| 2001/01 | 456 | |
| Dec – Jan | 1929/30 | 484 |
| Dec – Jan | 2013/14 | 451 |
And oh yes:
And remember this:
Bob Ward & Climate Fraud
If who finances who is so important you might be justified in asking who funds Bob Ward? Bob Ward doesn’t want you to ask that though…because the answer ain’t pretty…it’s Big Oil…….
Ward works for the Grantham Research Institute, a “research department” at the London School of Economics (LSE)funded by an American hedge-funder called Jeremy Grantham and headed by the economist and former treasury official Lord Stern.
This is what Jeremy Grantham, Bob‘s ultimate boss (and Stern’s) and paymaster said about how he makes money:
Jeremy Grantham on how to feed the world and why he invests in oil
On whether there’s any conflict in him (via GMO and/or his foundation) investing in oil and gas companies?
“The first point is that each fund we have at GMO – maybe 80 or so – is run by its own team. I don’t think that money management can easily have too many rules coming down from the top. Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.”
Another day of BBC censorship of science, scientists and scientific debate, also a woman from the Royal Meteorological Society seemed to have ignorance about deep ocean thermal inertia. An ignorance that has become as beneficial to the scam as ignorance of cloud albedo changes.
The censorship on the BBC was of both home grown and Dutch drainage experts, as regards the 500 years of expertise that existed before the environment agency brought in scientists to make the science fit the wishes of the left-wing morons.
Firstly, why do you equate meteorology with politics. Do you do the same for cake making by any chance?
In respect of your other comments, do you not expect scientists to have differing views? In relation to the jet stream no one knows or I doubt can predict the meanders of this system because chaos has an important bearing on fluid flows and therefore will retain high degrees of uncertainty.
If you want to validate something for yourself place an iron bar in the oven at reglo 7 and then remove it with your bare hand after a hour. When it burns your hand it will demonstrate that when energy absorbed is greater than energy radiated the object will heat up. The agents responsible for global warming ,like the oven, were were identified and their characteristics demonstrated over 50 years ago.Not without a considerable debate I might add. I believe the scientists involved were all right wingers to boot.
Perhaps you could outline the ‘scam’ of cloud albedo and why you feel it to be so.
In relation to drainage of rivers this was ,as I understand it curtailed in some cases because it was estimated to have little impact. In other cases were it was highlighted as a benifit action wasnt sanctioned by the treasury because of the Conservatives disbelief in climate change and Osbournes unwillingness to invest.That is despite reports from the select committe on the environment,about a decade earlier ,that up to £750M needed to be added to the then current budget.
Apart from rare exceptions such as the Royal Society of Chemistry. Most scientific bodies have been perverted by left-wing politics into supporting left-wing ideology, by the use of committees, to select the science to fit the ideology. That is why Government Committees are sent goons like that woman who upset Lilly.
Piers Corbyn can predict Jet stream movements from at least 40 days, and I do remember most of the thermodynamics that I was taught about.
To outline the ‘scam’ of cloud albedo at the Met Office, you would have to find any comment from the Met Office about Clouds other than “We don’t know?” and then look up any scientific paper from Palle.
The last bit is about science being perverted by left-wing ideology, and if the Tories are in any way to blame, then yes, not all Tories are as intelligent as UKIP supporters, for instance I still believe that the upper class twit of a Prime Minister is still fooled by left-wing ideology when it comes to the science of climate change.
“Piers Corbyn can predict Jet stream movements from at least 40 days”
No he can’t. And if he can what’s his latest prediction? And “log in and pay and he will tell you” won’t cut it. Data to back up your statement please.
All the BBC has to do is collect all his past forecasts, note the date it was issued, and then check with the subsequent weather. Harrabin seemed to be starting to do that, but the moron got all mixed up, and tried to create a highly complex bureaucratic nightmare.
This is as much as the Space special interest group of Mensa can dissect from Corbyn’s trade secrets.
Sudden Stratospheric Warming events at other times (they occur twice every three years on average) also cause the upper-tropospheric winds to slow, become stationary, reverse and or change direction. These blocking patterns typically exist over the same location for three to five days and on rare occasions may persist for weeks. Watching these events develop and then comparing these events with weather patterns in the past and the position of the Moon in its 19 year Metonic cycle comprises part of the Solar Lunar Action Technique of the long-range weather forecaster Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction who correctly predicted the last three cold winters.
It needs a special kind of talent for a long-range forecaster to issue, on the 10 Feb, a forecast to cover 10-12 Feb.
Piers Corbyn has that talent.
He updated his 16 Jan forecast on 6 Feb. In Jan he forecast lots of newsworthy snow, but in Feb he realised it was all about lots of newsworthy storms, so duly obliged.
But unfortunately this 6 Feb forecast still needs a tweak. As he puts it, “the Ireland-Scotland frontal battle ground in these original maps is moved ~300 miles SE”. Strangely enough this now matches the MetOffice forecast of another storm coming to visit the south-west.
Edit:
Piers says that his 10-12 Feb forecast can be shared publicly, but ‘may only be reproduced (in whole or part however small) with acknowledgement to “WeatherAction long range forecasters”‘ and must include the sentence “The Govt should cease relying on the Met Office charlatans for any long-range or more than a week ahead forecast advice.”
So I have obliged.
I have been told that you can get an analysis of Weatheraction forecasts on the themaverickman.com website, they use forecasts, and then check with subsequent weather.
My experience of dodging bad weather for bike rides and the experience of my colleagues as regards the winters, is that Weatheractions long range forecasts are vastly superior to those of the Met Office.
His forecasts seem to start from a sudden solar magnetic blast from a coronal hole, and the position of the Moon, in front, back or at the side of the Earth, when a solar storm hit’s the Earths magnetosphere.
But it does look as if themaverickman.com is undergoing a lot of cyber attacks.
“Corbyn predicted it would be the ‘Coldest May for 100 Years’. Taken absolutely this claim was 100% wrong, but it would, perhaps, be fairer to say it was 75% correct” Top analysis!
‘Firstly, why do you equate meteorology with politics. Do you do the same for cake making by any chance?’
So what are the ‘mitigating actions against climate change’ if not Agenda 21 if not a thinly-disguised eco-socialist agenda to destroy capitalism and re-distribute wealth?
‘In relation to drainage of rivers this was ,as I understand it curtailed in some cases because it was estimated to have little impact.’
Did you not even bother to look at the photos in Alan’s piece for God’s sake? Do you stick your fingers in your ears when the people who have managed the water systems in these areas for centuries are telling us dredging, and keeping sluices and ditches clear, are crucial?
‘In relation to drainage of rivers this was ,as I understand it curtailed in some cases because it was estimated to have little impact. In other cases were it was highlighted as a benifit action wasnt sanctioned by the treasury because of the Conservatives disbelief in climate change and Osbournes unwillingness to invest.’
You really are a confused little bunny, but coincidentally you parrot the Labour line. Get your timelines right: when did dredging stop, exactly? What was the then chairman’s quip ‘just add water’ about, do you think?
Reading your concluding posts on the ‘Everyday Global Warming Thread’ I note you don’t seem to be familiar with Climategate e-mails, specifically ‘hide the decline’, or with the positive feedback effect built into the IPCC models (which is one reason they have failed spectacularly with their predictions), or it seems with Michael Mann’s appallingly concocted ‘hockey stick’ graph which the IPCC gladly used for many years in those reports you keep praising. Frankly, if you have the interest in the subject you claim to have, this is quite a staggering admission. Best if you go back to square one and research the subject properly.
Look, agentsmith, if you want to go on believing we are all going to hell in a handcart unless we give all our money away to the third world whilst at the same time signing a death warrant for western economies which will take us back to the dark ages in every aspect of our lives – you go ahead. Alternatively you could rejoice that real world evidence shows nothing of the sort is happening so we can all relax and our scientists can concentrate on discovering genuinely renewable sources of energy that will keep mankind going for centuries to come.
But I think I know where you really stand – firmly in the anti-capitalist eco-socialist camp. Good luck with that when your heating and light disappears and your hypothermic granny is shouting and screaming at you for being such a pigheaded c***.
P.S. And this should help you understand the IPCC’s ‘positive feedback’ assumptions. Digest at your leisure….
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/example-issue-positive-feedback
P.P.S. Excerpt:
‘This is not some weird skeptic’s fantasy. This two-part description of catastrophic global warming theory is right out of the latest IPCC report. Most of the warming in the report’s forecasts actually results from the theory of positive feedback in #2, not from greenhouse gasses directly.
One of the most confusing issues for average people watching the climate debate is how one side can argue so adamantly that the science is “settled” and the other can argue just the opposite. The explanation lies in large part with this two-part theory.There is a high degree of consensus around proposition1, even among skeptics. I may disagree that the warming is 0.8C or 1.2C, but few on the science end of the debate would argue that CO2 has no effect on warming. When people say “the science is settled” they generally want to talk about proposition 1 and avoid discussion of proposition 2.
That is because proposition 2 is far from settled. The notion that a long-term stable system can be dominated by very high positive feedbacks offends the intuition of many natural scientists, who know that most natural processes (short of nuclear fission) are dominated by negative feedbacks. Sure, there are positive feedbacks in climate, just as there are negative feedbacks. The key is how these net out. The direct evidence that the Earth’s climate is dominated by strong net positive feedbacks is at best equivocal, and in fact evidence is growing that negative feedbacks may dominate, thus greatly reducing expected future warming from greenhouse gasses.’
I did some work with an email group trying to use Mars as a proxy for calibrating CO2 warming on the Earth, I seemed to be the only Brit on the group. Mars has 16 times or 4 times doubling of CO2. Whatever you do, positive feedback is essential to fit the results for the Earth, but then if the feedback in negative, then the whole theory must be bullshit, when you then try to look at Venus, then this proves that the whole idea of using feedback and the black body temperature, to produce a greenhouse temperature of 33 Kelvin, must be a fiction.
But then we have now got a solution, (Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Gerhard Gerlich, 2009) established the problems, and then we have the solution. It was known that there was a remarkable coincidence as regards the temperature on Venus at the altitude that has identical pressure to that on the Earths surface, it being 1.176 times the Earths average surface temperature. The radiating temperature of Venus is 1.176 times that of the Earth. I think it was from this that two wiz kids produced what is to Climate science, what the theory of relativity is to Physics.
The paper (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) shows that the average surface temperature divided by the grey body temperature gives you the Greenhouse Effect, which is in fact a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement or Thermal Inertia which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition.
This solves the problem of explaining the temperatures in all parts of the atmospheres of all the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth and the carbon dioxide atmospheres of Venus and Mars.
From this the calibration of carbon dioxide warming for the 20th century is estimated to be about 0.007 Kelvin for the 100ppm or 0.1 millibar increase in CO2, using the “Unified Theory of Climate”.
As far as I know, Piers Corbyn is very familiar with the implications of this theory, this is why he is justified in insulting the Met Office.
I cannot see how the man-made ideological mindset of the Met Office committee set up, could ever be forced out of its head in the sand mentality over this as regards the most expensive scientific fraud in history.
But if the government replaced the Met Office with Weatheraction, it would be an improvement.
Piers Corbyn’s Weatheraction predicted the current weather trend, presumably using science, checked with correlations with weather trends just before the last mini-ice-age.
I do not know much about weather trends of less than one Orbit, but I believe that if you take into account a cooling of the Arctic, then according to the Met Office theories, then the Met Office could have got the predictions correct if they put the observations of the Arctic, above the outdated assumptions that an Arctic warming trend would continue for ever and ever more.
But then as we see with Global Warming, the morons at the Met Office are highly resistant to politically incorrect facts and observations.
At last! Piers’ 2014 predictions. On video! “There will be some very hot parts and some very cold parts”
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/wild-weather-22278414
I’m not surprised you think he’s a genius Richard. You both have a similar grasp of climate science.
Delingpoles article about Lefty lies and the floods is a masterclass in bullet points and brevity..
Noted VD on Newsnight scorn the author of “The Hockey Stick Illusion” last night when she said he was not a scientist.
Yet when he said in reply that the bloke she puffed up as some “Climate Change Professor” from Manchester Uni wasn`t one either-just “an engineer”-the deathly silence and lack of riposte holed the Newsnight cabal right in the Concordian hull.
Bet there was trouble after that one…I`m guessing half these “climate change” professors were only seconded from the dead weights of compulsory redundancy in “proper old faculties”…give a pair of bike clips, given state help to get a cycling proficiency test…and then given the “Climate Change Seat” at Oxford…or on Oxford Road Manchester if they fell into their cones on testing.
Have stuffed my head into a watermelon, which I shall now proceed to use as a crash helmet…and have banned myself from talking on the radio, as a self-certifiable “denier”…
Delingpole is better than any BBC journalist because he asks question directly to the scientists concerned.
BBC journalists are either environmental activists themselves or obtain information filtered by environmental activists at the Met Office, Greenpeace or the many government and university climate change agencies.
I find that the more irrelevant the qualifications a scientist has, and the more left-wing they are in politics, then the more convinced about the fraud they have become.
This combination of left-wing thought and scientific ignorance pervades the BBC and its arts and humanities qualified environmental advisors.
The seminar of “the best scientific experts“ who gave advice to the BBC about climate science where comprised of only two scientists, environmental activists qualified in measuring the temperature, the seminar was without a single causational or attributional climate scientist present, not a single atmospheric physicist or solar scientist was present at that seminar.
If you look back at BBC climate science documentaries, you will find that they are presented by naturalists, geneticists, geologists and comedians talking to environmentalists, temperature measurers, computer programmers, psychologists and George Monbiot.
Delingpole’s interview with Richard Bacon was an absolute peach. Bacon’s empty-headed BBC global warming bluster met by fact upon fact from Delingpole, a man on top of his brief. It’s been posted on here before, but for anyone who hasn’t listened to it here it is (in two parts):
Beautiful.
On the contray the BBC and other media outlets are advised on climate science by some of the best Arts graduates going.
Prof Phil Jones of Climategate, was awarded a BA in Environmental Sciences, University of Lancaster (1973).
Not Physics or engineering – the “hard” sciences, but a softy subject.
The Met Office’s ‘pitiful’ forecasts were under fire last night after it was revealed it told councils in November to expect ‘drier than usual’ conditions this winter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564358/Could-Met-Office-wrong-Just-floods-secret-report-told-councils-Winter-drier-normal-especially-West-Country.html
Rising rainfall?
Record rainfall?
Alan, the problem with the figures you quote is that they cover the whole of England. As the map in this article shows it is where the rain has fallen that caused the problem.
UK floods: January rain breaks records in parts of England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25944823
Hmmm, pretty high in Lincolnshire and the Fens too, eh?
Funny, drove through there last week and saw no signs of floods but happily observed plenty of healthy, well-drained and swift-flowing drainage ditches.
In other words, compare and contrast (you too, agentsmith).
Yum, cherry picking.
Look carefully at Somerset. The northern half is not badly affected. Guess what? It is still drained, not properly but better than the southern half that is inundated.
That might have been because he isnt ‘just an engineer’ is he.
The other guy is a chemist and then went on to become a chartered accountant. The thing that gets me is that everyone talks as if no-one else has said anything. Both these guys should have argued each others points out. Really bad news as always.
‘The thing that gets me is that everyone talks as if no-one else has said anything.’
Love the self-mocking irony.
Not a lot of people know that:
‘The most well-known example of climate change communication, An Inconvenient Truth, takes its title from Al Gore’s description of the difficulties facing climate scientists engaged in public communication. In the film, Gore states that
Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it . . . I’ve seen scientists who were persecuted, ridiculed, deprived of jobs, income, simply because the facts they discovered led them to an inconvenient truth . . . that they insisted on telling. (Guggenheim, 2006, 1:14:38).’
Click to access Russill%202010.pdf
Spot the irony.
There was some idiot on the radio the other day going on about earthquakes being due to climate change. FFS !
The zeitgeist is: “What isn’t caused by climate change?”
Readers might find this article enlightening / useful:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189491/28-gates-later-the-bbcs-nightmare-gets-worse-and-worse/
Anyone aware that aliens from outer space have teamed up with Al Gore,the BBC and Greenpeace?
http://www.examiner.com/article/nasa-report-says-space-aliens-could-invade-earth-to-stop-global-warming