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.

Happy pi day

March 14th is of course pi day...

Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science

https://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0

Feynman Chaser on scientific theory, can you see the failings of much of climate science?

Parts of London have higher TB rates than Iraq or Rwanda per BBC News

The BBC report that parts of London now have a rate of tuberculosis infection higher than Rwanda or Iraq. The BBC report is keen to persuade is not to blame this on immigration:

'The rate of infection among UK-born Londoners has risen, while among the non-UK-born it has fallen - and the report said it would be wrong to assume TB was a disease of migrants.'

Of course rates are not measures of absolute numbers and that last section isn't saying what the BBC wants you to think that it is. 

The BBC want you to think that line says that it would be wrong to assume TB was a disease caused by immigration. Whereas it actually means that TB is no longer a disease just of migrants because it has spread.

I read that BBC report and was reminded of a report I read back in the early 2000s that said that mass immigration from Eastern Europe was bringing with it TB, a disease that had all but been eradicated from the UK. I seem to remember that claim being dismissed as racist at the time and the fuss went away, unlike the TB.

Take a look at this New Scientist report  from January this year. Here's a section that needs wider attention:

'Russia and Eastern Europe still have high rates of MDR TB today. Spiro says that many of the cases he sees in London, the TB capital of Europe, can be traced back to those countries. "The control over treatment regimes out there is dreadful," he says. "It's chaos." The number of MDR cases has been rising in England from 28 cases per year in 2000 to 81 cases in 2012.'

So do you believe the, so far as I am aware, independent New Scientist or the decidedly pro immigration BBC? The choice is yours.

Awfully wet isn't it?

Fed up with the incessant rain in the UK the past 10 days or so?

It's very odd because I distinctly remember The Guardian reporting in 2006 as fact that (my emphasis):

"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 over 97% full on 20 March (the last day they report levels for), Ardingly Reservoir was 100% full on the same date. Now they might be lower now, they should be, but if South East Water aren't bothered enough to update their site then I doubt that there is a serious issue.

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 9 August. 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 74.9%. 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 weekly and you'll see that for the last nine weeks the figure hasn't dropped below 82.4%.

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 July and tells us that (my emphasis):

"Following on from a dry June, July was wetter than average, with rainfall totals across England at 144% of the long term average (LTA).

Soil moisture deficits decreased by up to 50mm across most areas during the month, with the greatest decreases in parts of Cumbria.

Monthly mean river flows decreased compared to June at most indicator sites, but remained normal or higher for the time of year at more than two-thirds of sites.

Groundwater levels decreased during the month at all but one indicator site. End of month groundwater levels remain normal or higher at half of the indicator sites.

Reservoir stocks decreased at all reported reservoirs and reservoir groups during July, and at the end of the month were normal for the time of year at most sites.

Overall stocks for England decreased to 82% of total capacity.'

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 groundwater is normal or higher at half of sites, where rainfall in July was 144% of the long term average and reservoir stocks are at 82% of total capacity.

Scientists know that '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.?'

I beg to differ.

Monty Python - The Universe song

Love this, makes me think as well...

An interesting variation of the Periodic Table

The Periodic Table with the country/countries of the discoverer shown for each.

Thhaks to The Smithsonian  for the image.

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.

'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.

Climate Science is settled, 98% of climate scientists accept that.

I keep being told that 'Climate Science is settled because 98% of climate scientists accept that.' this is  (I believe) a way of shutting down debate on man made climate change, the latest attempt being made by @lynnejones_exMP on Twitter, that's former MP Lynne Jones (whose views on climate change are as fixed and wrong as they are on Israel and the genocidal Islamist terrorists that want Israel destroyed and Jews killed) but I digress.

In January 2012, the American Meteorological Society surveyed its professional members and found that 52% believe global warming is happening and is mostly human-caused, while 48 percent do not. The survey also found that scientists with professed liberal political views were far more likely to believe global warming is human-caused than others.

The authors of the survey recommended that the American Meteorological Society should 'acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be "educated" about climate change; [and] continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.'

So is Climate Science settled? No of course not. And why does Lynn Jones want to believe it is? Maybe her left-wing views, not 'liberal' as there's nothing liberal about supporting the rights of genocidal Islamist terrorists over that over the democratic multi-cultural state of Israel, could provide a clue.

James Hansen - Two views

The BBC describe NASA's Professor James Hansen thus:

'Prof James Hansen, the Nasa scientist who has done perhaps more than any other academic down the years to raise the spectre of catastrophic climate change. '

Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes introduced Hansen as “NASA’s top climate scientist, credited with the earliest and most accurate projections on climate change.”

Peter F at Watts Up With That recalls something interesting:
'I recall Hansen’s 1988 testimony before Congress in which he predicted a warmer climate by 1.2°C in twenty years. Here in 2009, the global average is only 0.17 to 0.22°C warmer than the 20th Century benchmark. He then had the audacity to publish a paper with himself as the lead author extolling the virtues of the accuracy of his 1988 projections. Looking back, none of his three scenarios came even within 50% of being accurate, yet the ya-hoos over at RealClimate.org insist Hansen was and is spot on.'

The truth is out there...

The importance of the little qualifying words - part 1 - Polar ice

The BBC like to slip little qualifying words into their reports, words that slip by and when missed change the sense of the article. Here's an example, this report is headlined 'Record minimum for Arctic sea ice' but that's not the actual story. Here's what the report says:

'Arctic sea ice has reached its minimum extent for the year, setting a record for the lowest summer cover since satellite data collection began.'

'Since satellite data collection began' - so how far back does this record go? Let's see the first satellite, Sputnik 1, was launched in 1957 (55 years ago in a few weeks time) but the data collection of polar ice started in 1979. So we have a mimimum sea ice level for 33 years. 

Here are some more extracts from that BBC report:

'Scientists say they are observing fundamental changes in sea ice cover. The Arctic used to be dominated by multiyear ice, or ice that survived through several years.

Recently, the region is characterised by seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to completely melt away in summer.

The sea ice extent is defined as the total area covered by at least 15% of ice, and varies from year to year because of changeable weather.

However, ice extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past 30 years.

...

Some ships have already been cutting their journey times by sailing a previously impassable route north of Russia.'

Fascinating and scary, well no. I wonder how much sea ice there was at the North Pole during the Medieval Warm Period, that's the period that warmists ignore when they show you world temperatures increasing due to man's technology.

But you don't have to go back that far to find less sea ice at the North Pole, Watts Up With That has some photos of nuclear submarines in open water at the North Pole in 1958, 1959, 1962, 1987 and 1993. Here's three of the many photos, take a look at the full set, they are fascinating.

1958

1962

1987


What is always fascinating at Watts Up With That are the depth of knowledge of the commenters. Here's one comment that I think should be compulsory reading at the BBC and every school who teach the science/religion of Man Made Climate Change.

'” Claims of unprecedented warmth and abnormal melting of meltic arctic ice are unfounded if we look at history;

1 The following link describes the ancient cultures of the warmer arctic 5000 to 1000 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lithoderm/Inuit_culture

2 This relates to an Arctic culture thriving in warmer times 2000 years ago
From the Eskimo Times Monday, Mar. 17, 1941
The corner of Alaska nearest Siberia was probably man’s first threshold to the Western Hemisphere. So for years archeologists have dug there for a clue to America’s prehistoric past. Until last year, all the finds were obviously Eskimo. Then Anthropologists Froelich G. Rainey of the University of Alaska and two collaborators struck the remains of a town, of inciedible size and mysterious culture. Last week in Natural History Professor Rainey, still somewhat amazed, described this lost Arctic city.
It lies at Ipiutak on Point Hope, a bleak sandspit in the Arctic Ocean, where no trees and little grass survive endless gales at 30° below zero. But where houses lay more than 2,000 years ago, underlying refuse makes grass and moss grow greener. The scientists could easily discern traces of long avenues and hundreds of dwelling sites. A mile long, a quarter-mile wide, this ruined city was perhaps as big as any in Alaska today (biggest: Juneau, pop. 5,700).
On the Arctic coast today an Eskimo village of even 250 folk can catch scarcely enough seals, whales, caribou to live on. What these ancient Alaskans ate is all the more puzzling because they seem to have lacked such Arctic weapons as the Eskimo harpoon.
Yet they had enough leisure to make many purely artistic objects, some of no recognizable use. Their carvings are vaguely akin to Eskimo work but so sophisticated and elaborate as to indicate a relation with some centre of advanced culture — perhaps Japan or southern Siberia —certainly older than the Aztec or Mayan

3 This link leads to the Academy of science report of the same year regarding the Ipiutak culture described above
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1078291

4 This refers to the Vikings living in a warmer arctic culture 1000 years ago
People might be interested in reading a very interesting book about the Vikings called ‘The Viking world’. It is a very scholarly and highly referenced book running to some 700 pages and deals with all aspects of the Vikings. It is good because it does not have an axe to grind, but deals matter of factly with all aspects of Viking culture and exploration.
There is a large section on their initial exploration of Greenland, the subsequent establishment of their farms there, everyday life, how they gradually lost access to the outside world as the sea lanes closed through ice, a record of the last wedding held In Greenland and how trade dried up. It also deals with Vinland/Newfoundland and it seems that it was wild grapes that helped give the area its name, it being somewhat warmer than today.
This is one of a number of similar books that record our warmer and cooler past throughout the Northern Hermisphere. Al Gore wrote a good book in 1992 called ‘Earth in the Balance’ in which he explored the changing climate that devastated the civilisations in the Southern Hemishpere.
The book ‘The Viking World’ is Edited by Stefan Brink with Neil Price Published by Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 33315-3
I suggest you borrow it from the local library as it costs $250!

5 This refers to a warmer arctic 75 years ago recorded on Pathe newsreel by Bob Bartlett on the Morrisey during his journeys there in the 1920’s and 1930’s and reported in all the media.
http://boothbayharborshipyard.blogspot.com/2008/08/arctic-explorer-on-ways.html
Wednesday, 10th August 1932
The ship rolled heavily all night and continues to do so….
The glacier continues its disturbances. No real bergs break off but great sheets of ice slide down into the water and cause heavy seas. About noon, the entire face of the glacier, almost a mile in length and six or eight feet deep slid off with a roar and a rumble that must have been heard at some distance. We were on deck at the time for a preliminary report like a pistol shot had warned us what was coming. The Morrissey rolled until her boats at the davits almost scooped up the water and everything on board that was not firmly anchored in place crashed loose. But this was nothing to the pandemonium on shore. I watched it all through the glasses. The water receded leaving yards of beach bare and then returned with a terrific rush, bringing great chunks of ice with it. Up the beach it raced further and further, with the Eskimos fleeing before it. It covered all the carefully cherished piles of walrus meat, flowed across two of the tents with their contents, put out the fire over which the noonday meal for the sled drivers was being prepared, and stopped a matter of inches before it reached the pile of cement waiting to be taken up the mountain. Fortunately, in spite of heavy sea, which was running, the Captain had managed to be set shore this morning so he was there with them to help straighten out things and calm them down.”

The arctic has periodically warmed to greater amounts than today-there is additional data from the Royal society, The Hudson Bay co and many other sources illustrating that there seems to be a cycle of extensive warming every 80 years or so contained within a longer cycle of melt and cold. A tiny reduction in ice extent since 1979 ( A high point in ice levels) is of no consequence if you look at the historical record of this region
Tonyb'

The cherry picking of data and deliberate selection of start & end points for data comparison is an easy way to manipulate people's minds and is something that the warmists have been doing for years.

But 'scientists know' - so how could this be?

The BBC report on the 'Wettest summer for 100 years'. How odd, only a few years ago The Guardian reported 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.

Does a falling 'slinky' defy gravity?

The answer is apparently 'no' but it sure looks like it does!

Man Made Climate Change - Really?

Unprecedented global warming? Global warming due to man?

I think not.

This is a graph that you will not see on the BBC or in any of the rest of the 'warmist' media. For context take a trip to Watts Up With That.

Earth temperature over the years

The following are six graphs of earth temperature from JP Attitude. Look at each graph and see how why the warmists like to start their temperature records from 1850. JP Attitude have some excellent descriptions for each of these graphs.

Is there any chance of the BBC showing graphs such as these to put 'man made global warming' into context? I think we all know the answer to that question.

CO2 and coral

The BBC and their environmental allies have told us many times that the rise in CO2 levels in the seas is killing coral and that coral just will not survive in acid oceans. The trouble is that the science shows otherwise: Watts Up With That reports that 'The fishes and the coral live happily in the CO2 bubble plume'. Here's an extract:

'Willis Eschenbach’s post on lab work on coral response to elevated carbon dioxide levels, and The Reef Abides, leads to a large scale, natural experiment in Papua New Guinea. There are several places at the eastern end of that country where carbon dioxide is continuously bubbling up through healthy looking coral reef, with fish swimming around and all that that implies.

What that implies is that ocean acidification is no threat at all. If the most delicate, fragile, iconic ecosystem of them all can handle flat-out saturation with carbon dioxide, what is there to worry about?'

So why are the enviromentalists keen to push the threat? The same article suggests a possible reason:

'That lack of a threat is a threat to a human institution though – the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) based in Townsville, north Queensland run by Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

To quote Walter Starck (http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6171:png-coral-reefs-and-the-bubble-bath&catid=99:walter-starcks-blog&Itemid=123) – “A never ending litany of purported environmental threats to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has maintained a generous flow of funding for several generations of researchers. The “reef salvation” industry now brings about US$91 million annually into the local economy in North Queensland.

Although none of these threats has ever become manifest as a serious impact and all of the millions of dollars in research has never found any effective solution for anything, the charade never seems to lose credibility or support. The popular threat of the moment is ocean acidification from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

So AIMS mounted an expedition to Papua New Guinea to examine the large scale, natural experiment that was a threat to their livelihood. They reported in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n3/pdf/nclimate1122.pdf?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201106) that while the reefs they examined looked healthy, they didn’t like them. The threat has been averted for the moment, but maintaining funding requires constant vigilance.'

State of the art robotics - Honda's Asimo

Going through his impressive paces on BBC's QI programme.

Some Climate Change evidence video that you won't see on the BBC

Uploaded by http://www.climatescienceinternational.org, this is the December 15, 2011 climate science hearing before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU for a better version of this video. Professor Clark's slides are now embedded into his presentation video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM and Professor Veizer's now in his presentation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5zakcprRIs .

At last the Surface Stations report

I have blogged previously about the way that surface (weather) stations are located and how this may influence their readings. I have just noticed that Surface Stations  have produced a paper on this. I need time to read and absorb; so in the meantime, why not take a look yourself.