Munich Snow   (28 Sep 02)

On 24th September,  snow fell in the Munich area of Germany. According to the Times of London, this is the first time that snow has fallen there, in September, since 1442. (Story).

(However, one of my regular correspondents reports that the German weather service emailed him to say it also snowed briefly in Munich in 1931 and 1954.)

This is consistent with the recent flooding incidents where low pressure systems were tracking further south than normal, an indicator of cooling rather than warming.

Greening Desert    (20 Sep 02)

According to a new report in New Scientist, the mighty Sahara Desert is receding (also reported by the BBC).  This latest example of climate change, cutting a green swathe right across what was previously arid parts of Africa has been going on since the mid 1980s and reverses the desertification trend which was active during the 1960s and 1970s.  Yet only a few weeks ago, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the parent body of the IPCC, claimed at the Johannesburg summit that over 45% of Africa was currently in the grip of desertification, with the Sahel worst affected. Now we find that claim was manifestly false, since it is precisely the Sahel region which is benefiting most from the greening.

The Sahara previously expanded south during a cool period globally, and is now retreating  again during a warmer period, an object lesson in the perils of cooler climate. 

A paper in Nature (Petit et al., v.399, p.429, 3 June 1999) presented Antarctic ice core data covering the last four ice ages, and in each one there was a big increase in dust deposits in the ice during those ice ages, carried there from thousands of miles away.  This dust could only be evidence of extreme aridity elsewhere in the world during these cold periods.  Once each ice age ended, the dust content fell to extremely low levels, indicating that vegetation was being re-established in previously arid regions.  In other words, `warm' equates to greening, `cool' equates to aridity. 

This latest evidence of the greening desert is good news for the people of the region who have borne more than their fair share of bad luck when it comes to climate.

Strangely absent from this news is any attribution that the change in Saharan climate might be human-induced a la `global warming' or even CO2 fertilisation.  The reason for this is quite simple - all human-induced climate change must be bad by definition.  If anything good happens, such as this greening of the desert, then it must be due to some other cause.  We don't want to confuse the `policymakers' do we?

Give Up Your Car !  (18 Sept 02)

According to the BBC ("UK Faces 'Global Warming Disaster' - 15 Sept 02"), a new report by the British Energy Savings Trust, commissioned by the British government, warns of devastating floods as global warming takes hold. They also warn that 180,000 businesses, 1.8 million homes, and 61% of grade 1 land in England & Wales is at risk, at a total cost of £222 billion.  They estimate that London would be especially hard-hit due to sea incursions.

Quite how they could calculate such an exact number as £222 billion beggars belief, given the scale of the catastrophe they are imagining.  £200 billion sounds too much like a wild guess, so they must have made it  £222 billion in order for it to sound more credible, more calculated.  The wild guess would have been more believable as damage on that scale could only be valued in very round numbers anyway.

The Trust routinely blamed recent and future floods on global warming, even though the very high population density of Britain (60 million people in an area no bigger than a medium-sized US state) and the continued building of housing developments and motorways, must progressively increase water runoff during periods of heavy rain.  In other words, the less land there is for rainfall to be absorbed into the ground, the greater is the tendency for increased runoff to result in flooding.  This is particularly applicable to the huge built-up area of London.

If the British government wants to address flooding issues, river dynamics should be the first problem to be dealt with.  The Trust also blames rising sea levels for some of these problems, but no-one seems to have told the Trust that southern Britain is slowly sinking due to Post Glacial Rebound, something for which there is no solution other than Dutch ones of enhanced sea defences.  The Kyoto Protocol will not prevent incursion by the sea by even a single millimetre in southern Britain.  Only sea walls and dykes can do that.  In other words, civil engineering, not social engineering, is the best solution to flooding problems. 

But the most sweeping demand the Energy Savings Trust makes is to call for Britons to `abandon their cars'.  They want the government to `encourage' this outcome.  We all know by now what that means - crippling taxes against car ownership, and ballooning bureaucracy to administer the `encouragement' programme.  As always with such programmes, it is the lowest income groups who would suffer most as they would bear the brunt of such taxes.

This report is an object lesson for Canadians who are still deciding whether or not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.  It is but the thin end of the wedge toward depriving ordinary citizens of their hard-won mobility.  The future agenda beyond the immediate Kyoto period (which expires in 2012) is clearly laid out by this new proposal from Britain.

Witchcraft (20 Sep 02)

It's not often a historian gets involved in climate change issues, but an intriguing paper by Wolfgang Behringer of the University of York titled "Climatic Change and Witch-Hunting"  associates the persecution of witches in Europe during the Middle Ages with the deterioration in climate known as the `Little Ice Age'.

According to Behringer, - "The Age of Witch-Hunting thus seems pretty congruent with the era of the Little Ice Age. The peaks of the persecution coincide with the critical points of climatic deterioration."

As a historian, the reality of the Little Ice Age was not an issue for Behringer. Presumably he had never heard of the IPCC's denial of it, or the `Hockey Stick'.   
(Thanks to Timo Hämeranta for the intel.)

In 1905 ... (11 Sept 02)

In 1905, a July heat wave in New York killed around 100 people.
In 1905, a yellow fever epidemic afflicted New Orleans, and reached as far north as Indiana. Yellow fever is a tropical disease.
In 1905, there were severe summer storms and flooding in Ireland.
In 1905, on 1st September, the town of Algonquin, Illinois, recorded its all time highest temperature either before or since, - 117°F.
In 1905, the Artic sea ice had receded so far that explorer Roald Amundsen was able to traverse the Northwest Passage in a ship in uncharted waters, the first person to do so.
In 1905, CO2 and other greenhouse gases were at or near their pre-industrial level.

1905 and 2002 do share one unique thing in common. Both are El Niño years, and both are solar maximum years. The conjunction of El Niño and Solar Maximum (both tending to warm the planet) is rare, and 1905 was the last such occasion until this year.

More 1905 weather events here

Just something to think about when reading the next weather headline.

To Russia With Love     (14 Sept 02)

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), is a key economic modelling organisation, the Australian government being its main client.  After the COP7 climate conference in Marrakech, ABARE undertook an analysis of the economic implications for Australia of the Kyoto Protocol, using three possible scenarios.

The first scenario modelled what would happen economically if Australia joined in the Kyoto process, but without  U.S. participation as per current US policy.  On page 9 of the report, it becomes quite clear why Russia was so quick to announce at Johannesburg that they would ratify the protocol.

According to the analysis, Russia stands to gain $8.1 billion in carbon quota purchases from the West by 2015.

And who would pay this undeserved largesse?

Had the USA remained part of the protocol, their contribution would be about $15 billion, based on a population comparison with Canada.  The other two scenarios assumed non-participation by Australia.

Even at $532 million, the Australian government thinks it's just not worth it and has decided to join the USA in not ratifying the protocol.  However, Canada is still in the process of deciding whether to ratify or not.  Based on ABARE's analysis for the Australian government, it is clear that the protocol would result in a massive wealth transfer from Canada to Russia - with nothing in return other than some worthless `carbon credits'.    

Perhaps the Russian politicians will be able to ride around in their imported Mercedes limousines with the following message emblazoned along the sides of the cars - `From Canada with Love'.

The Rule of Lawyers    (9 Sep 02)

One of the less publicised events at the recent Johannesburg `summit' was a signed declaration by 127 senior judges from over 60 countries, with the grandiose title `Johannesburg Principles on the Role of Law and Sustainable Development'.

The judges included Lord Woolfe, (Britain's Lord Chief Justice), and Chief Justice Clifford Wallace of the US Court of Appeals.  Woolfe is reportedly seeking to sign up all the chief justices of western Europe to the `principles'.

The declaration basically commits the judges to become shills for the environmental movement when it comes to making judicial decisions.

The US Constitution reserves the making of treaties to the President of the United States acting with the `advice and consent' of the Senate.  It does not permit the making of international agreements by its judicial officers outside the ambit of the President and Senate.

In this regard, Wallace has exceeded his authority and raises questions as to conflict of interest on his part in the event he has to hear appeals involving environmental issues.  The fact he has signed this compact  with foreign judges could provide sufficient grounds for his disqualification from such cases.

In all western democracies, it is the role of judges to act impartially and interpret the law as it exists.  They have no mandate to make their own policies, let alone enforce them, or make binding compacts with foreign judges outside the legal framework of their own jurisdictions.

To become so manifestly partisan as these `principles' imply, would result in public loss of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

We do need the Rule of Law. We don't need the Rule of Lawyers.

Future Shock for Britain  (7 Sep 02)

A premonition of what the Kyoto Protocol will be like in the future for those developed countries foolish enough to ratify it, is now being played out in Britain.

Britain's biggest electricity generating company, British Energy,  is facing insolvency unless immediate financial help from the British government is forthcoming (see BBC story).  It made a loss of £518 million in its latest annual accounts and is reported to be heavily in debt.  What's worse is that British Energy runs eight nuclear power stations, the primary means by which the European Union expects to meet their greenhouse gas targets - by substituting nuclear power for fossil fuels.

Part of the problem for British Energy is that the electricity market in Britain has become more competitive, with the more expensive nuclear option at a cost disadvantage, while the British government's `Climate Levy' has proved to be an albatross around the neck of industry.  What is particularly galling for British Energy is that they too have to pay that levy even though they do not emit greenhouse gases.

The government is now considering exempting British Energy from the controversial `Climate Levy', a blanket tax designed to fund a futile fight against `climate change'.  If they do grant the exemption, it won't be long before other industries in trouble start calling round to No.10, demanding the same favoured treatment.  Once the Kyoto Protocol starts to take effect in Europe, we can expect many more such disruptions to normal economic activity, an object lesson for other developed countries like the USA, Canada, and Australia, to steer well clear of Kyoto.  It will do much harm to otherwise healthy economies, swell unemployment, and do absolutely nothing for the climate.

BassLink (5 Sept 02)

After all the self-righteous grandstanding by environmental groups and third world dictators in Johannesburg, the world should be aware of a gross example of Green hypocrisy here in Australia, one which beggars belief, given their trumpeted support for `renewable energy' and crocodile tears over `climate change'.

Here in Tasmania, 100% of our electric power comes from hydro, a unique system built up over many decades. `The Hydro' (as we call it) is now building wind farms in north-western Tasmania to supplement the hydro-based power, mainly because our island lies right in the path of the `Roaring Forties' with plenty of wind to power the turbines most of the time. With hydro and wind, Tasmania is unique in having a large surplus of renewable energy, both developed and potential.

All our power is renewable - but no thanks to the Greens. Historically, they fought tooth and nail over every hydro scheme that was built here. But now, in an era of alleged `climate change', the obvious step would be to share that renewable energy resource with our neighbour state across the sea - Victoria, which mostly uses coal for power. This means big boilers have to be kept fired up to full capacity there just to meet peak loads. How much more efficient and saving in greenhouse gas emissions if the Victorians could make do with a lower base-load level (therefore less CO2 emissions) and get their peak needs met by someone in Tasmania simply turning a water valve on and off. Meanwhile, how much more efficient it would be for Tasmania to conserve its hydro resource during the dry summer and simply share in some of the surplus base load power produced by the Victorians.

To achieve that, and save on lots of CO2 emissions, we need an undersea electricity cable across Bass Strait between Tasmania and Victoria - `BassLink'.  And guess who is fighting tooth and nail to have BassLink stopped? You guessed it - the Greens. One spurious and discredited argument after another has been used, but they still keep stirring up opposition to it. When the cable goes ashore in Victoria, it will need overhead transmission lines for about 50 miles across country to link up to the main Victorian grid. That too is being bitterly opposed - because the transmission lines will be `unsightly'. To put them underground would involve unacceptable energy wastage due to the effect of `Ohm's Law'  (a basic law of physics that even the Greens cannot change). Yet apparently, hundreds of wind turbines on pristine coasts all over the world are enthusiastically supported by these supposed lovers of landscape, turbines which look much more unsightly to such coasts than some pylons running over fairly ordinary farming land.

BassLink will happen, but let no-one delude themselves into thinking that Greens really care about `climate change', the environment, or for people. Real environmentalists would embrace BassLink with open arms, but not our Greens. Their goal appears to be impoverishment for millions of people, with posturings of environmental concern being merely the cynical means to achieve that darker goal.

That is why they support wind turbines on pristine coasts, but oppose transmission lines across fairly ordinary countryside. That's why they support `renewable energy' but oppose the means to produce or even deliver that energy. Such policy positions are so contradictory that one can only assume that the real policy is something very, very different and much more far-reaching - something they are not even prepared to admit to in public. They are purists and fundamentalists, similar in many ways to the Taliban. Like the Taliban, the real ambition of the Greens is to take us all back to the Middle Ages and beyond. Only that interpretation can explain their contradictory and duplicitous behaviour.

BassLink Update   (13 Sept 02)

ScramJet   (30 Jul 02)

Amid all the alarmist talk about what CO2 levels will reach in 100 years time, it is often conveniently forgotten that 2100 is 100 years away, and technology is likely to advance by leaps and bounds in that time.

100 years ago, Marconi had just invented radio. 100 years ago, the internal combustion engine was in its infancy. 100 years ago, there were no airplanes, no electronics, no computers, no satellites - and no mobile phones ....

So for the next 100 years, if environmentalists were serious about CO2, they would campaign for research funds to be spent on de-carbonisation technology, not endless and fruitless research with money-hungry climate models.

On that note, University of Queensland researchers have just announced the world's first launch of a Scramjet rocket at the Woomera rocket range in South Australia. It happened at 11.37am (CST) Today.

And what is a scramjet? It's a new type of engine which uses the rapid flow of air through the engine casing, mixing with hydrogen, to combust spontaneously and drive the vehicle forward at 8 times the speed of sound. This would cut the travelling time from Sydney to London from 20+ hours to merely 2 hours. As for the by-product - no CO2, just water - what you get when hydrogen and oxygen combust.

Go forward in time 20, 30, 40 years perhaps and we could all be flying on scramjet driven aircraft 8 times faster than we do now, with no CO2 emissions. Not because of Kyoto, not environmental romanticism, not  climate models, but merely the inexorable march of technology into newer and better things.

For those who, in spite of the information on this site, are still worried about CO2, then drink a toast to today's Woomera test. That's where the future lies, not in a luddite retreat back into a bleak medieval past.

Greens Rebound   (20 July 02)

Today was election day in Tasmania, our new state Parliament and government being elected by the people.

The result was a massive landslide for the incumbent Labor Party (ALP), gaining 53% of the poll and giving them majority government in their own right with 14 seats in the 25-seat Tasmanian state Parliament.

The Liberal opposition crashed out, gaining only 7 seats compared with 10 in the last Parliament.

The big shift in the political landscape was the vote for the Greens which doubled from their performance at the last election, now gaining 18% of the total vote and 4 seats in the new Parliament, compared with only 1 seat in the last one. 

NYT Retracts - Sort of... (15 Jul 02)

The New York Times was caught out recently with a story on Alaskan temperatures, dated 24th June 2002, claiming a warming there of 5 to 10°F. However, the Alaska Climate Research Center denounced the NYT story and pointed out that the warming at the selected locations  was only one third of that claimed by NYT. (See original `stop press' story here) 

The NYT then `corrected' the story on 11th July, but instead of coming completely clean with the public, they essentially `split the difference' by now claiming a  warming of 5.4°F instead.

This has resulted in an update to the original rebuttal by the people who should know - the Alaska Climate Center, who point out that the NYT's `corrected' figure is still double the proper figure. 

CSIRO on Sea Levels    (15 July 02)

In a brochure titled `The Facts: Global Sea Level Rise',  Australia's CSIRO Marine Research Division presented `facts' about Australia's sea level history in such a way as to prop up IPCC claims about global sea levels having already risen 10-20 cm during the last 100 years. 

The CSIRO said in part, "In Australia the rise of sea-level relative to the land (June, 2001) at Fremantle is 1.38 mm/year with more than 90 years of data, and at Sydney 0.86 mm/year from 82 years of data. (Corrected for land motion, the rate of sea level rise at these two locations is estimated to be about 1.6 and 1.2 mm/yr respectively.)"

To use only two stations like this is grossly misleading and scientifically untenable, because there are actually 23 long-term tide gauges around Australia, not two, the data for which is summarised in a report by the National Tidal Facility (NTF) in Adelaide. The NTF concludes there has been a long-term sea level rise rate of only +0.3 mm/year (or +3 cm if stretched over a century). NTF also points out that two of those gauges, both at Adelaide, are anomalous due to local land subsidence from ground water withdrawal, so excluding these two gauges leaves an average of merely +0.16 mm/year, or +1.6 cm for a full century. That's fully one tenth of the IPCC estimate.

What of Fremantle, the longest record in the set, and the one which CSIRO highlighted? Their claim of a sea level rise there of +1.3 mm/year over 90 years (1.6 mm/yr - when `corrected' for land motion) puts the sea level rise there squarely in the middle of the IPCC estimates, exactly the point and purpose of the brochure.

But their claim about land motion is quite wrong. Geodetic data at Perth (only 20 miles away), on 5 different measurement procedures, shows it to be subsiding by an average of -2.08 mm/year since 1996. In other words, if that rate of land subsidence has been going on over an extended period of time, then the measured sea level `rise' at Fremantle of +1.38 mm/yr is occurring against a backdrop of land sinkage of -2.08 mm/yr, suggesting a real sea level FALL of -0.7 mm/yr.

Supporting this conclusion, two long-term tide gauges either side of Fremantle, Bunbury to the south and Geraldton to the north, show a sea level change of +0.04 mm/yr and -0.95 mm/yr respectively, consistent with a falling or stable sea level at Fremantle itself, not the rise claimed by the CSIRO.

The CSIRO are well aware of the 23 long-term tide gauges, and of the geodetic trends recorded at Perth, yet presented data to the public and policymakers in a highly selective way such as to prop up the IPCC line on global sea levels. Coincidentally, the lead author of the latest IPCC report on sea levels, Dr John Church, is also a leading scientist with the same CSIRO Marine Research Division. 

To compound the spin even further, the CSIRO also gave brief mention to the Isle of the Dead 1841 sea level benchmark on the Isle of the Dead in Tasmania (which shows absolutely no sea level rise in the last 120 years) claiming a sea level rise there of 0.9 mm/yr based on unpublished and unreviewed information, flawed statistics, and selective evidence.  There is no evidence whatsoever of a sea level rise at the Isle of the Dead during the 20th century.

In recent years, the CSIRO has spent much of its time bleating in public about lack of funding from government. Maybe they should take a hard look at themselves and their own deficiencies before they demand more public  money. The taxpayer (who funds the CSIRO) deserves better treatment than the kind of amateurish spin served up this brochure.

Caught Red-Handed !   (7 July 2002)

The discredited `National Assessment', and the USCGRP which produced it, have been caught red-handed, not just metaphorically speaking but also literally, splashing red and orange all over their maps and charts to convey a false impression of warming in regions where the models cited showed little or none.  

This practice was first revealed  in a story run on Tech Central Station but further investigation by Miceal O'Ronain has shown that the use of tint and colour has become a much more sophisticated form of deception involving drastic changes in colour coding of maps and charts from their original colours calculated to convey a `hot' perception of future climate.

The colour red is the most favourite colour used by these scientific artists, where even the `no change' parts of the maps are coloured in a warm orange. 

A further technique is to use blended colour tones to mask significant differences between models.  To allow the public to see the real differences between them would result in loss of public confidence in climate models generally, thus the not-so-subtle misuse of colour to mask those differences as far as possible.

This scandalous manipulation of scientific information directed to the general public has been unearthed by Miceal O'Ronain who writes a full report in the Guest Papers section.

See his report here.

Flower Power   (29 June 02)

In central England, the alarm bells are ringing - 385 plant species are flowering about 4½ days earlier in the year than they did back in 1950s. That's what a new paper in Science (Fitter & Fitter., `Rapid Changes in Flowering Time in British Plants', v.296, p.1689, 31 May 02) says. They attribute the flowering changes, predictably, to `climatic warming'

The authors mainly relied on data from a single observer in a single location in central England which they claim is `rural' - the village of Chinnor in Oxfordshire (51°42'N 0°42'W). They further claimed Chinnor "has not experienced substantial land-use change in recent years".

According to the Chinnor website - "The population of Chinnor grew from 800 in 1801 to 1,300 in 1941, continuing to increase to 1,950 in 1961 and 4,417 in 1971. The population today is approaching 7,000. Chinnor is now one of the largest villages in Oxfordshire."

In other words, we have a classic emerging heat island there contrary to the bland claim by the authors.  In addition, the very busy M40 motorway (a massive heat corridor) passes only 3 miles away (it did not exist in the 1950s), while there are a ring of large cities less than 15 miles away in different directions. London itself (8 million people) is only 30 miles away. This hardly fits the profile of an unchanged greenfield site suggested by the authors.

Also ignored by the authors was the developing Fertiliser Effect of enhanced atmospheric CO2 which has particular impact on woody plants, the very plant types which flowered earliest.

A third flaw in their reasoning was the effect of their choice of start and end dates, namely comparing the 1950s with the 1990s. The 1950s were part of the post-war cooling, and therefore earlier flowering now would be both natural and predictable based on simple climatic recovery from that cold period.

By ignoring these external variables, fashionably focusing only on `climate change', the authors failed a basic test of science.

Having it Both Ways (24 June 02)

A recent paper in Science titled "Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor" (Soden et al. v.296, p.727, 26 Apr 02) set out to prove the `mountain out of a molehill' approach to global warming adopted by the IPCC (where an initial CO2 warming of less than 1°C blows out to nearly 6°C when `feedbacks' are applied, especially feedbacks from water vapour, a greenhouse gas).

The reasoning was that since the Pinatubo eruption of June 1991 caused reduced energy to the lower atmosphere, thus cooling it, then the magnitude of that cooling could be used to test the degree to which water vapour magnified that cooling. If it did, then we could also expect it to magnify warming from CO2 over and above the basic ~1°C warming from CO2 doubling.

We already know what the reduction in received energy was after the Pinatubo eruption - 2.7 watts per sq. mtr. (wm-2) (Minnis et al. Science v.259, p.14, 5 March 1993). Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, that translates to a temperature reduction of -0.5°C without feedbacks. In other words, if water vapour was to have the feedback effect claimed for it by the models, the peak Pinatubo cooling would have to exceed -0.5°C.

The world did cool, briefly, by -0.7°C., according to the satellite record, seemingly supporting the `water vapour did it' hypothesis promoted by Soden et al.

But there was just one little catch - the surface record, favoured by the IPCC, showed a cooling slightly less than the required 0.5°C not more. In other words, if the surface record were to be believed, water vapour feedback had absolutely no effect at all. In that situation, the models really were making a mountain out of a molehill with no physical evidence to support their alarmist global warming claims.

So the authors  resorted to using the satellite record instead of the surface record. It showed a larger cooling of 0.7°C, the additional increment of 0.2°C being promptly blamed on water vapour feedback, thus barely supporting their water vapour feedback hypothesis. Even using the satellites, the water vapour feedback only added an extra 40% to the cooling, not the 500% which the IPCC says might happen with a basic CO2 warming of around 1°C. But the use of the satellites in this way opens a new can of worms.  If the surface record shows no evidence of feedback and resort to the satellites is made to demonstrate even a small feedback, then how does the IPCC explain the overall 23-year satellite record, which suggests an eventual warming of only a few tenths of a degree?

NYT Foot in Mouth - Again ! (18 June 02)

The New York Times have repeated the debacle they suffered two years ago with their discredited `water at the North Pole' story, this time with a new story on alleged soaring Alaska temperatures.

In an artilcle by Timothy Egan, titled `Alaska, No Longer So Frigid, Starts to Crack, Burn and Sag', he claims - 

"In Alaska, rising temperatures, whether caused by greenhouse gas emissions or nature in a prolonged mood swing, are not a topic of debate or an abstraction. Mean temperatures have risen by 5 degrees in summer and 10 degrees in winter since the 1970's, federal officials say."

`Federal officials' can mean anything he wants it to mean and hardly amounts to an authoritative source. He includes lots of hearsay quotes about changes in the physical environment of Alaska, most of them clearly originating from Green sources.  A survey of Alaska weather stations on this site shows nothing like the warming claimed above. 

Some of the claims look so far fetched that they appear to be based on modelled future predictions of climate rather than of present climatic conditions.

The EPA, not known for its caution when it comes to climate matters, said in this report - "warming in interior Alaska was as much as 1.6ºC (about 3ºF)". That claim covers the last 100 years. That's a lot different to the NYT's `think of a number and treble it' approach with their 5-10°F claim, spanning only the last 30 years.

A value of 3ºF claimed by the EPA is also consistent with the 2.6°F reported by Dr. Sue Ann Bowling  which occured in 1976-77, mainly due to a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) at that time.

But the real nail in the NYT story comes from Prof Gerd Wendler of the Alaska Clilmate Research Center which presents this rebuttal to NYT. The center finds that warming in four dispersed Alaska weather stations shows a warming since 1971 of an average of just over 2.5°F., not the 5-10° claimed by NYT.

Since this is the second time NYT have shot from the hip - and missed, we can clearly dismiss them as a reliable source of climate change information.

(thanks to Miceal O'Ronain for the intel.)

Records Tumble  (18 June 02)

My storm-chasing activities in the U.S. were almost ruined by unprecedented weather across much of the eastern U.S.A. during May.

100-200 year old records were tumbling all across the mid west and the east, snuffing out potential thunderstorms.

But it was not warm weather which was the culprit, but COLD weather lasting about ten days, so cold that some 300-odd `cold' records were broken in many locations.

This was hardly evidence of global warming. Just when I needed global warming the most, nature dished up a record cold snap instead.

However, the cold weather eventually gave way to warmer weather, enabling me to catch a few storms before my trip was done.  In fact, soon after all the cold records had tumbled, several warm records were broken, mainly in the southwest where a drought was in progress.

Which just shows that broken records in themselves are meaningless.  They are merely weather events, not indicators of climate change.

The Weather Channel   (18 June 02)

Cable TV in the U.S. is mainly an exercise in watching endless TV commercials, occasionally interrupted by brief periods of programming.

But the `Weather Channel' is an outstanding exception and stands apart from the rest.  Although based solely on the weather, and running 24 hours a day, it is an excellent source of weather information across the country.

It also provides educational material on the background causes of weather and climate without being pompous, boring, or verbose.

I found it an invaluable resource during my U.S. trip and commend the producers for their work who managed to impart a lot of information without patronising or `talking down' to their viewers and listeners.

Contrast that with that other channel with a 24-hour devotion to one subject, namely CNN and its 24-hour news. CNN could hardly tell the difference between news and entertainment, it's `Crossfire' and other segments being merely sensationalism for its own sake, not serious debate. Watching CNN, one would end up two months completely ignorant of what was going on in the rest of the world.

Thankfully, the `Weather Channel' did not go down the road of trivialising their subject as done by CNN, and deserve great credit for  educating and informing the public about weather and climate.