Man has been warming the planet by puffing out CO2….since the 50’s…before that it was Mother Nature….apparently.
However these two graphs from the Met. Office are interesting:
This shows the UK annual sunshine….and you can make a direct relationship between sunshine and apparent global warming time frames…..and a leveling off at the end of the 90’s….
This one showing the UK summer sunshine is perhaps even more clear…the rise in sunshine from the end of the 70’s to the distinct drop off of summer sunshine at the end of the 90’s:
Are the oceans sucking up the missing heat as Harrabin (English graduate) insists…or is the heat just missing because the sun ain’t shining?
No doubt the answer will be…yes the sun has an effect but man has made it worse.
well well … “experts” on global warmy climate changey jiggery pokery are all in on BBC 5Lives R Bacon Show …
… prepare to be astounded
It took the alarmists four years of hand-wringing and in-fighting after Trenberth’s ‘We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t’ (Climategate, 2009) before they could agree on where the heat had ‘gone’.
And surprise, surprise, it’s just another bag o’ shite because up until the Argo project (completed 2007) they had no reliable historical temperature records for the deep oceans. Raymond Schmitt, putting forward his case for government spending on the project said:
‘While we have in place a system for monitoring El Nino, we have no such ability to observe the motions of thermal anomalies in the mid- and high latitude oceans. Nor do we monitor the salt content of ocean currents, to determine the potential for deep convection or to help understand the vast water cycle over the oceans. But new technology, the vertically profiling ARGO float (Figure 4 [not included].), promises to give us the data we need to begin to understand this largest component of the global water cycle. ‘
That’s right, ‘begin to understand’.
This is what the Argo floats do, followed by a summary of the scant and haphazard measurement that went before:
‘ARGO floats remain in the oceans for about 5 years, sinking down to 2000 meters and bobbing upwards to the surface every 10 days, recording while they ascend. The XBTs, on the other hand, were used once, falling to the end of the wires.
Samples using XBTs were taken during voyages by research vessels and by ships of opportunity. Therefore, measurements were only taken where the ships traveled, or, written another way, when and where the ocean temperatures were sampled depended on ship locations. The bottom line: there were no temperature measurements at depth for much of the oceans. Further, much of the sampling occurred in the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the tropics. That is, there are very few temperature measurements in the Southern Hemisphere south of the tropics before ARGO. That area represents roughly one-third of the global oceans, and there are few to no temperature measurements there before ARGO.’
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/
Not that you’ll hear any of this really, really complicated stuff on the BBC because it’s all a little bit – um – inconvenient innit.
And the connection with BBC bias is …?
Perhaps it’s how the BBC reports climate change and the causes of the pause…..hence the mention of Harrabin.
The connection with BBC bias is CENSORSHIP.
The below statement is from a submission to a Government committee by three Astronomers/Scientists.
“The decisions made by environmental activists at this BBC seminar, have influenced the censorship of science, scientists and scientific debate. Including the fact that not a single Climate documentary on the BBC has been presented by anyone with qualifications in causational climate science, climate science documentaries on the BBC seem to be presented by naturalists, geneticists, geologists and environmentalists, talking to temperature measurers, computer programmers, psychologists and comedians”
Exactly. Climatologists are not scientists but environmentalists with a smattering of knowledge. Prof Phil Jones of Climategate fame, for instance, obtained a B.A. in Environmental Sciences (1973) from the University of Lancaster.
Its impossible to be an expert in Climate science as it involves too many disciplines, each reach requiring a life time of study. Climate science is an oxymoron.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100257206/climate-science-is-for-second-raters-says-worlds-greatest-atmospheric-physicist/
‘Three things stood out for me: the bullying, bluster and arrogance of the committee’s chairman Tim Yeo; the unnecessary rudeness of John Robertson MP (“Not a lot of people agree with you. You’ve had your chance to sell your book,” he told Donna Laframboise who had flown over from Canada especially to testify); and the wearied patience teetering on the brink of Olympian contempt of Dr Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric physics at MIT……..
….Then Lindzen was asked what he thought of the “consensus” – at which point he got his manicured claws out:
“I think the majority of people working in climate science will go with the view that climate science is serious. I don’t think that would be surprising to anyone. There are very few people in any scientific field who say ‘My field is not serious’. Other than that there is so much penalty for saying that this is not an important problem that I don’t think people would go out on that limb, either.”
(Ouch!)
He went on:
“I’ve asked very frequently at universities: ‘Of the brightest people you know, how many people were studying climate […or meteorology or oceanography…]?’ And the answer is usually ‘No one.'”
And – warming to his theme:
“You look at the credentials of some of these people [on the IPCC] and you realise that the world doesn’t have that many experts, that many ‘leading climate scientists'”.
One trick used by alarmists is to quote the average. But as those graphs for sunshine indicate (and it’s true for rainfall too) – yearly values can fluctuate. It is the statistical quantity of “variance” that needs to be looked at too. For example: in 2012 the average (January) rainfall in the SW was below the average. But you didn’t hear forecasters stirring scare stories about how dry it was in January.
History will show the flooding problems are due to poor local managament of rivers caused by centralising control.
Richard North, of the EU Referendum blog has posted an explanation of the role of the EU, ably abetted by the last government and the EA, in the planned ‘re-wetting’ of the Somerset Levels.
Well as I have said before, the albedo of the Earth decreased from 0.32 in 1985 to 0.29 in 1997 showing a 6.5 percent decrease in cloud cover (Palle, E. (2004),) this produced the warming at the end of the last century. Also between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years, the last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years, the strength of the Suns magnetic field more than doubled, the cosmic ray flux fell by 11 percent and there was a 8.6 percent reduction in clouds. This is the Elephant in the room that points to why the Svensmark theory is the taboo answer that would destroy the Climate Change scam.
Tsk! Everyone knows the Albedo is 0.39.
In a 1950’s Encyclopaedia Britannica it has 0.4, and in Patrick Moors Guinness book of Astronomy, it is 0.36, but those values are for light, you get lower values for the total range of solar radiation. In the 1950’s they would have used Earthshine on the Moon’s dark side to calculate the albedo, but it was only when they started using satellites that it was realised that the Earths albedo was the most changeable albedo of all the planets. So the 0.39 would be an estimate for light, extracted from an old encyclopaedia. As far as I know, the morons use 0.36 as a fixed value in all those computer models.
We cannot say we weren’t warned about the reduction in sunshine– why, we heard about it all the way back in the 1960’s:
One BBC reporter at the site of that sinkhole in High Wycombe did offer an explanation: he thought it was caused by excessive rainfall.
Can we expect the BBC to tell us about the EU’s hand in flooding Somerset?
No doubt it is all due to ‘Tory Cuts’ in the BBC’s eyes.
I like the quote from DEFRA: they were “doubtful that all the pumping stations on the Somerset Levels and Moors are required for flood risk management purposes. Many pumping stations are relatively old and in some cases difficult to maintain. It is necessary to decide which ones are necessary particularly in the context of redistributing water“.
‘Redistributing water’ is, of course, code for planned flooding.
The short history of the BBC involvement in Climate Science (I agree its an oxymoron word). I believe we have been misled by the BBC for years, but it has taken years to call their bluff. I too was decieved by the BBC, at least we now know why (and how). Thank goodness for you guys to reset the planatary geography bias back to normal.
For me this link (below) helps explains how the politicians cruddy grasp of Science and nature is made worse by the BBC ‘leverage’ of biassed journalists who also have little understanding of either other than a PC ‘lobbying agenda’.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/how-the-bbc-became-a-propaganda-arm-of-the-uk-government-and-wwf/
Covering up for Jimmy Savile and others.
DAB radio – an outdated technology from the 1980s, dismissed by the rest of the world as as too expensive and obsolete.
Expensive IT projects costing millions that don’t work.
Left wing bias.
The BBC can never admit that it has made a serious mistake , the worse it gets, the more they spend and the more they dig in. Lying about global warming will eventually be one more to the list.