Scientists know about climate change

As I sit in London watching the rain fall as it has for most of July, indeed as it did for much of many recent summers, I remember the certainty with which The Guardian reported in 2006 as fact that:

"Scientists know a lot about how events will unfold...which means that whatever we do, our climate destiny is fixed for the next few decades... Rainfall will decline in the summer and the increased deluges in winter will struggle to replenish thirsty reservoirs because much of the water will run off the baked ground."

Scientists know... climate destiny is fixed... Rainfall will decline in the summer..." It's all rubbish folks; most of these scientists are not predicting based on science, they are designing science to fit the desired predictions.

What about the second part of what "scientists know"? "Rainfall will decline in the summer and the increased deluges in winter will because much of the water will run off the baked ground."
Shall we take a look at reservoir levels in the baked South of England, the area with the biggest potential water problem as demand increases year after year as a result, largely, of population growth? South East Water report the levels at their two largest reservoirs: Arlington Reservoir was 82.9% full on 31 July  (the last day they report levels), Ardingly Reservoir was 85.6%% full on the same date.



What about the South West maybe they are faring worse? Well South West Water are not as up to date as South East Water and they report data up until the week ending 23 July. They report percentage data for their five reservoirs: Roadford, Colliford, Wimbleball, Stithians and Burrator. The figures show that the average storage levels across these five reservoirs was 73.26%. As a comparison it was around 65% in 1995; water shortage getting worse? Does it look as though there are problems replenishing thirsty reservoirs because of the declining rainfall that scientists know about?

How about Severn Trent? They report that for at 31 July storage levels of 71.9%.

I could go on and on but I think that the pattern will be similar across most of the UK regions.

So how about The Environment Agency the body that is so certain about Climate Change that they confidently state on their web site:

"It's an inescapable fact: our planet is warming up. Records show that temperatures around the world have risen steadily since 1900...

Climate change is the biggest environmental challenge facing the world today. We know the Earth's climate does change naturally over a long timescale, but the overwhelming majority of the scientific community now accepts that human activities are causing significant, rapid changes to our climate.

Over the past century, global temperatures have risen - the 10 warmest years on record have all been since 1990. The contribution to global warming from human activity is linked to increases in the amounts of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, less heat can escape from the atmosphere, making the Earth warmer. The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which is released by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

...

What will happen if we do nothing?

The latest data tells us that some climate change is already inevitable, so we will need to adapt to its impacts. We must plan for more extreme weather conditions: wetter winters with an increased risk of floods, and hotter, drier summers that put pressure on water resources. Sea levels will also rise, increasing the risk of flooding around our coastline."

Maybe these are some of the scientists who know what's going to happen to the climate in the UK. After all they also seem to know that we are going to experience "wetter winters with an increased risk of floods, and hotter, drier summers that put pressure on water resources". Let's look at the Environment Agency's own figures...

The Environment Agency publish their Water Situation for England and Wales figures on a monthly basis but the latest that I can find is for June 2017 not July 2017:

'Rainfall totals for  June were above the long term average (LTA) for the month in most parts of the country and particularly high in parts of northern England. For England as a whole, the June rainfall total was 140% of the 1961-90 LTA.

...

Reservoir  stocks  decreased  at  the  majority  of reported  reservoirs  or  reservoir  groups.  Overall  reservoir  storage  for  England  is  83%  of  total  capacity,  a  small decrease compared to May.'

So after years of knowing that reservoirs would not be replenished by winter rains we have a situation, as the rain pours off my roof, overall reservoir storage at the end of June is at 83% of total capacity.

Scientists know? I think not.

That's an interesting chart to choose

The BBC's report on Professor Brian Cox's appearance on Australian TV was accompanied by a deliberately chosen still of the aforementioned celebrity scientist holding up a graph showing rising temperatures.

That's an interesting graph as I have seen another version... Here shown superimposed onto Brian Cox's photo

For more debunking take a read here.

Global warming?

The BBC report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-37020327 through gritted teeth:

'Climbers have encountered deep snow on Britain's highest mountain while assisting in a scientific project on the peak.

It is not unusual for Ben Nevis to have coverings of snow all year.
 

However, snow expert Iain Cameron has described the depth of the white stuff on the mountain's North Face as "astonishing".'

Inconvenient?

"Scientists know" - yet another reminder

As I sit in London watching the rain fall as it seems to have done for the whole of June this year, I remember a post that I made back in July 2009.

'As I sit in London watching the rain fall as it has for the last few July days, indeed as it did for much of the summers of 2007 and 2008, I remember the certainty with which The Guardian reported in 2006 as fact that:

"Scientists know a lot about how events will unfold...which means that whatever we do, our climate destiny is fixed for the next few decades... Rainfall will decline in the summer and the increased deluges in winter will struggle to replenish thirsty reservoirs because much of the water will run off the baked ground."

Scientists know... climate destiny is fixed... Rainfall will decline in the summer..." It's all rubbish folks; most of these scientists are not predicting based on science, they are designing science to fit the desired predictions.

What about the second part of what "scientists know"? "Rainfall will decline in the summer and the increased deluges in winter will because much of the water will run off the baked ground."
Shall we take a look at reservoir levels in the baked South of England, the area with the biggest water problem? South East Water report the levels at their two largest reservoirs: Arlington Reservoir was 89% full on 16 June (the last day they report levels), Ardingly Reservoir was just under 97% full on the same date.

What about the South West maybe they are faring worse? Well South West Water are somewhat more up to date than South East Water and they report data up until the week ending 19 July, well done South West Water. They report percentage data for their five reservoirs: Roadford, Colliford, Wimbleball, Stithians and Burrator. The figures show that the average storage levels across these five reservoirs was 88.7%. As a comparison it was around 65% in 1995; water shortage getting worse? Does it look as though there are problems replenishing thirsty reservoirs because of the declining rainfall that scientists know about?

How about Severn Trent? They report that for July - "Current water storage levels in the Severn Trent region are at 87.3% of capacity".

I could go on and on but I think that the pattern will be similar across most of the UK regions.

So how about The Environment Agency the body that is so certain about Climate Change that they confidently state on their web site:

"It's an inescapable fact: our planet is warming up. Records show that temperatures around the world have risen steadily since 1900...

Climate change is the biggest environmental challenge facing the world today. We know the Earth's climate does change naturally over a long timescale, but the overwhelming majority of the scientific community now accepts that human activities are causing significant, rapid changes to our climate.

Over the past century, global temperatures have risen - the 10 warmest years on record have all been since 1990. The contribution to global warming from human activity is linked to increases in the amounts of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, less heat can escape from the atmosphere, making the Earth warmer. The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which is released by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

...

What will happen if we do nothing?

The latest data tells us that some climate change is already inevitable, so we will need to adapt to its impacts. We must plan for more extreme weather conditions: wetter winters with an increased risk of floods, and hotter, drier summers that put pressure on water resources. Sea levels will also rise, increasing the risk of flooding around our coastline."

Maybe these are some of the scientists who know what's going to happen to the climate in the UK. After all they also seem to know that we are going to experience "wetter winters with an increased risk of floods, and hotter, drier summers that put pressure on water resources". Let's look at the Environment Agency's own figures...

The Environment Agency publish their Water Situation for England and Wales figures on a monthly basis so the latest report is for June and tells us that:

"At the end of June stocks were normal or higher for the time of year at three quarters of reservoir or reservoir groups. Stocks at six reservoirs were below normal and notably low at one reservoir (Vyrnwy)."

So after years of knowing that reservoirs would not be replenished by winter rains we have a situation, as the rain pours off my roof, where three quarters of UK reservoirs have higher than normal stocks...

Scientists know? I think not.'

 So how are the reservoirs looking in 2016?

South East England - interestingly not updated since March so I presume the levels haven't dropped.

 South West England - Up to date and higher levels than last year

And The Environment Agency

Summary for May 2016

Although May has been considerably drier than April, especially in the north and west, the average rainfall for England has been above average for the 7th consecutive month.

Monthly mean river flows have decreased at all indicator sites, but remain normal across much of England.

Soil moisture deficits increased across most of England, as expected for the time of year.

Groundwater levels decreased at the majority of indicator sites, but remain normal or higher at all but one of the sites.

Reservoir stocks decreased at just over two-thirds of reported reservoirs and reservoir groups during May.

So when you next hear the BBC / Guardian report that a scientific expert knows what the climate will do, remember this:

"Scientists know a lot about how events will unfold...which means that whatever we do, our climate destiny is fixed for the next few decades... Rainfall will decline in the summer and the increased deluges in winter will struggle to replenish thirsty reservoirs because much of the water will run off the baked ground."

Experts?

Study proves urban heat islands exist, even in the Arctic per Watts Up With That?

The BBC often report that temperatures in the Arctic are rising, but are they really?

Watts Up With That have an interesting report http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/study-proves-urban-heat-islands-exist-even-in-the-arctic/

'A novel form of the "urban heat island" effect might contribute to why the far north is warming faster than the rest of the globe, a study of five Arctic cities finds.

Sunlight can heat dense building materials. When night falls, buildings will release some of their solar energy into the air. This helps explain why urban centers tend to be a few degrees warmer than nearby rural areas.

"We decided that our Russian Arctic cities should also show this phenomenon," says Mikhail Varentsov, a climatologist at Lomonosov Moscow State University. But indoor heating — not the sun — would be the major heat source, at least in winter, when the sun shines little if at all. To test that idea, he and colleagues set up weather stations to collect data in the five cities north of the Arctic 

Circle for about a week during the polar night (with 24 hours of darkness). Apatity, with a population of about 59,000, showed the strongest effect. Its city center was up to 10 degrees Celsius warmer than outlying areas. Murmansk, with more than 300,000 residents, showed a similar, but smaller, in-town increase of about 3 degrees Celsius. Varentsov shared his team's findings January 28 at the international Arctic Frontiers conference.'

Fascinating and definitely not what the warmists at the BBC will report.

Final draft of #COP21 reached – with a 1 year “opt out” clause per Watts Up With That?

The opt out clause is interesting but more so is this:

'Don't let anyone tell you this isn't about wealth redistribution, and these two paragraphs clearly show, it's nothing more than a handout from rich to poor which will probably end up getting diverted and used for anything but the intended emissions reductions, especially in corrupt regimes of Africa

"53. Decides that, in the implementation of the Agreement, financial resources provided to developing countries should enhance the implementation of their policies, strategies, regulations and action plans and their climate change actions with respect to both mitigation and adaptation to contribute to the achievement of the purpose of the Agreement as defined in Article 2;

"54. Further decides that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;'

Read more here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/12/final-draft-of-cop21-reached-with-a-1-year-opt-out-clause/ because you won't on the warmist BBC.

Global Warming, look at the data

What's that graph? Well it shows the changes in temperature data between 2009 and 2014, not the change in temperature but the changes in the raw GISS temperature data.

'In the graph... the blue dots are the differences in hundredths of a degree C for the same months between GISS data as of May 2014 versus GISS data as of August 2009. GISS provides data as an integer representing hundredths of a degree C. The blue (1880-1909) and red (1910-2005) lines show the slope of the adjustments for the corresponding periods. Hundredths of a degree per year equal degrees per century. The slopes of the GISS adjustments are…

• 1880-1909 -0.520 C degree per century
• 1910-2005 +0.190 C degree per century'

In plain language, over the last five years the temperature data for the last 125 years has been adjusted down by an average of 0.52 degrees Celsius per century for the period 1880-1909 and up by 0.19 degrees Celsius per century for the period 1910-2005. I am sure that there is a perfectly innocent explanation for this but I can't think of one.

There's more, much more, about this at  Watts Up With That, including this:

'In 7 years (December 2005 to December 2012), the rate of temperature rise for 1910-2005 has been adjusted up from +0.6 to +0.8 degree per century, an increase of approximately 30%.'

I recommend that @RussellCorbyn  and @BlakeAnselmo have a good read of that linked article as from their recent tweets to me they desperately need a reality check.

Marc Morano on global warming

Global warming or airplanes?

A fascinating comment at Biased BBC

The Old Bloke

September 23, 2015 at 10:10 pm

A bit busy at the moment, moving house. But as we all know the BBC and pretty well all of the U.K. Media and Met office, went orgasmic when on July 1st 2015, a record temperature was set (for July…hottest eva) at Heathrow airport, London. I have pinned a photo of the site to show everyone just why there was this so called record temperature. You will see in the photo a pix of a BA747 on a runway heading west. Directly above the 747 is the Met Office recording site, (that little cluster of a building and artefacts which borders the grass and just to the right of a defunct taxiway) and a stones throw from the airport perimeter road. To the right of the 747 you will see a curved taxiway off the runway, where a jet exhaust gas plume points directly at the recording station. On the day in question, an easterly wind was blowing (from London) so aircraft arriving would be pointing in the opposite direction to the shown 747. Open up the throttles to clear the runway as quickly as possible and hey bingo, a record temperature in the U.K. for July. All down to Climate Change of course.
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?cp=51.479112%7E-0.450563&lvl=17&style=o&dir=0&trfc=0


Here's that image for you

I wonder what the warmists at the BBC would say to this?

How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists

How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists

Read here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11763272/How-Arctic-ice-has-made-fools-of-all-those-poor-warmists.html but not on the warmist propaganda spreading BBC

The economics of the madhouse from Watts Up With That?

Watts Up With That have a wonderful piece by Christopher Monckton that you should read in full, here's an extract... 

'Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto's electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric car is also 27%. However, the electric car requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.CO2 emissions from domestic transport account for 24% of UK CO2 emissions, and cars, vans, and taxis represent 90% of road transport (DfT, 2013). Assuming 80% of fuel use is by these autos, they account for 19.2% of UK CO2 emissions. Conversion to electric power, 61% of which is generated by fossil fuels in the UK, would abate 39% of 19.2% (i.e. 7.5%) of UK CO2 emissions 

However, the battery-weight penalty would be 30% of 19.2% of 61%: i.e. 3.5% of UK CO2 emissions. The net saving from converting all UK cars, vans, and taxis to electricity, therefore, would be 4% of UK CO2 emissions, which are 1.72% of global CO2 emissions, abating 0.07% of global CO2 emissions of 2 ppmv yr–1, or 0.00138 ppmv. Assuming 400 μatm concentration at year end on business as usual, forcing abated by the subsidy for converting all UK cars to electricity would be 5.35 ln[400/(400-0.00138)], or 0.00002 W m–2, which, multiplied by the Planck parameter λ0 = 0.31 K W–1 m2, gives 0.000006 K warming abated by the subsidy.

The cost to the UK taxpayer of subsidizing the 30,000 electric cars, vans, and taxis bought in 2012 was a flat-rate subsidy of $8333 (£5000) for each vehicle and a further subsidy of about $350 (£210) per year in vehicle excise tax remitted, a total of $260.5 million. On that basis, the cost of subsidizing all 2,250,000 new autos sold each year (SMMT, 2013), would be $19.54 bn.Though the longevity of electric autos is 50% greater than that of internal-combustion autos, the advantage is more than canceled by the very large cost of total battery replacement every few years. No allowance for this extra cost is made. Likewise, the considerable cost of using renewable energy to bring down the UK's fossil-fueled generation fraction from the global mean 67% to 61% is not taken into account, though, strictly speaking, an appropriate share of the cost of "renewable" electricity generation should be assigned to electric vehicles.

Dividing the $19 bn annual cost by the warming abated gives a unit abatement cost of $3400 tn K–1. Abating the 0.013 K projected warming over the study period by global methods of equivalent unit cost would thus cost $45 tn, or approaching $6500 a year per head of global population, or almost two-thirds of $71 tn global annual GDP.'

Global Warming Study Ridiculed After Temperatures DROP

'A UK Met Office study that predicted temperatures would rise by up to half a degree centigrade over the past 10 years faces ridicule after it was revealed that temperatures actually dropped over that period.

The peer-reviewed study by Doug M. Smith et al, entitled "Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model" – and which featured in the journal Science – also incorrectly predicted that several years over the past decade would see record heat.

The paper says:
"…predict further warming during the coming decade, with the year 2014 predicted to be 0.30° ± 0.21°C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)] warmer than the observed value for 2004. Furthermore, at least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record."

However, now we are able to analyse the data on how temperatures really changed, we can see that there was actually a cooling of 0.014 degrees over the past 10 years, which is below even the lowest estimate.

Also, not a single year was warmer than 1998, despite the paper predicting that at least three years would be.'

You can read more here http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/26/Study-that-Warned-of-Global-Warming-Over-Past-Decade-Ridiculed-After-Temperatures-Drop but not at the biased, warmist, BBC.

Some questions that the American Physical Society is asking but that the BBC will not be reporting

'A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?

The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"

And at the APS, "Climate Change Statement Review." In a nod to the likelihood that nature, not man, calls the shots, another APS audit question asks the panel: "What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (i.e., sunspot activity) in about a century?"'

More at Investors.com but not on the warmist BBC.

Is the current rain in the UK caused by 'climate change'?

'Truly, AGW is a magical theory that explains absolutely everything – including diametrically contradictory phenomena, lack of logic and absence of evidence – whenever people observe profoundly, ‘Something funny’s happening to the weather’.

I have another theory to explain the current deluge. It is Galileo, Newton and Einstein weeping uncontrollably from above.'

More here from Melanie Phillips
https://www.embooks.com/blog/single/a-truly-magical-theory

U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming

“... virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data.” 

I'm not that surprised, but if you still believe in Man Made Climate Change you should read this article... http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17500-u-s-agencies-accused-of-fudging-data-to-show-global-warming

'When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message…'

'When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message… [bold added; click here for the full, unedited version]'

These are the words of one of the world's most distinguished physicists, Pierre Darriulat. For nearly 50 years, his professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN – one of the world’s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories.
The biography included with his submission tells us that Darriulat was spokesperson for

one of the two experiments that simultaneously discovered the weak bosons and gave evidence for quarks and gluons being produced in the form of hadronic jets.

This is bracing, no-nonsense talk from someone well equipped to understand what’s going on. In Darriulat’s opinion, when scientists write IPCC summaries not only are they are engaging in “a highly subjective exercise,” they’re blatantly  “ignoring basic scientific practices.” Not mincing words, he declares that “Such behaviour is unacceptable.”

In his opinion, the conclusions presented in the IPCC’s recent Summary are “far from robust.” He thinks the IPCC “should consider it a duty to answer scientifically” a number of concerns that have been raised by its critics, but says the new IPCC report fails to do so. Instead, he says, it sometimes appears to be “eluding rather than facing embarrassing questions.”

Darriulat’s submission is worth reading in full (online here, PDF here). Near the end, he directly addresses questions posed by the committee’s Terms of Reference.

Keeping in mind Gore’s claim that nothing more complicated than high school physics is involved, here’s what an actual physics virtuoso thinks:

Committee: Has [the IPCC's latest report] sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?

Darriulat: Of course not, how could it? One can only suggest hypotheses. The coming decade should help us with understanding much better what is most relevant.

 More at the marvelous No Frakkin Concensus but definitely not on the warmist BBC.

BBC News - Concentrations of warming gases breaks record

The BBC report with all seriousness that:

'According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), atmospheric CO2 grew more rapidly last year than its average rise over the past decade.'

They seem less keen to report that despite this rise in 'global warming gases' temperatures have not risen for 15 years.

BBC article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24833148

Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” | Watts Up With That?

'It's important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a "grand minimum" such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.'

Much more here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/ but not on the warmist BBC.

What is the true aim of Climate policy?

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

More at Watts Up With That

Arctic Ice Cap Growing at Tremendous Rate

Putting the truth of climate change into the public arena.

'Six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic, due to global warming, would be ice-free by this summer. That, clearly, has not happened. What has happened, instead, is that the Arctic ice cap has grown at a tremendous rate, by almost a million square miles. In other words, it has grown by a whopping 60%, due to constantly repeating periodic ocean cycles.

What explains the rapid growth of the Arctic ice cap?

The Arctic summer has been a chillier than usual one, which has helped the ice cap rebound from its record low just a year ago in 2012.

This is the time of the year when the fall refreeze of the ice occurs, but already, an ice sheet that is over half the size of Europe extends between the Canadian Islands to the northern shores of Russia.
Pack-ice has blocked the Northwest Passage the entire year. Over 20 yachts that had planned to traverse it haven't been able to, as they've been left ice-bound. Some of the yachts are stuck at the passage's eastern end located in Prince Regent Inlet. The other yachts are stuck at Cape Bathurst, further to the west.'

More here http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/arctic-ice-cap-growing-at-tremendous-rate/ but not on the warmist believing BBC.