2010/05/30
2010/05/28
Oh Dear 3 (with some older stuff) (updated)
The wonderful open minded watts strikes again:
Ed Darrell says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:44 am
Who is funding the CEI project for FOIA requests to NASA?
REPLY: I don’t know what the total makeup is, there are a lot of independent donations, I do know that. But I also know it won’t matter what the answer is, as you’ll simply write another hate filled post and blame “deniers” and “big oil”. Your MO precedes you. Blogging on school time and their network today? Tsk.
...-A
I.e. careful what you write I know your school and have proof of posting times.
He uses this tactic a lot to repress commenters! Is this why watts wants people to use their real names - yet more ammunition!
He must have had a bad week:
t . f . p . says:
May 28, 2010 at 5:17 am
[snip - I've warned you before about constantly posting under different names, Aka "Dick Chambers" aka "The Ford Prefect" pick one and stick with it, or don't post here again. I'm not interested in your games. -Anthony]
Who is Dick Chambers - it's not one of mine!!!
The new name was because he had banned the others!
Whad did I say:
Goddard claims the low ice area in the arctic is due to wind blowing the ice together. I simply pointed out an earlier post where Watts claims the minimum is caused by ice being blown out of the Fram Strait:
Previous claims have been:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/watching-the-2007-historic-low-sea-ice-flow-out-of-the-arctic-sea/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/jpl-missing-ice-in-2007-drained-out-the-nares-straight-pushed-south-by-wind-where-it-melted-far-away-from-the-arctic/
But certainly cannot be warmer temperatures!!!
Phil Clarke says:
May 28, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Steve,
The subject seems to be the compression of Arctic ice and the effects of winds upon ice extent. Here you go: Enjoy”
Here’s a puzzle. Back in 2008 a writer named Steve Goddard penned a piece for a UK IT News and gossip website named The Register on the topic of Arctic ice. It was largely based on an observational fallacy. Dr Walt Meier wrote in to correct the fallacy and added:
the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.
The puzzle is this: with that blot on one’s CV, how did one become apparently the inhouse authority on the topic of Arctic Sea Ice at WUWT?
REPLY: Phil, yes he made a mistake. By your reasoning then let’s make sure that any mistake ever made by anyone, follows them around forever, preventing them from ever doing anything elsewhere again. You are quite the arrogant load of bollocks, so unless you’ve never made a mistake in anything you’ve done and can document it, I suggest you bugger off. – Anthony
Still no better this week!
Wren says:
June 6, 2010 at 11:09 pm
...
If debunking is the purpose, credibility will be an issue.
I would expect some differences in absolute temperature from place to place in Orange County, but I doubt the trends would differ significantly.
REPLY: Heh, lectures on credibility from the anonymous coward, Wren.
==========================
click
I’m sure we’ll see an explosion from “Tamino” any minute now to refute this, oh wait, he’s gone on record as saying:
As for Steve McIntyre’s latest: I’m really not that interested. He just doesn’t have the credibility to merit attention. I have way better things to do.
OK then, one less angry, sciency, rant by an anonymous coward who won’t put his name to his own work to worry about. Talk about credibility. Sheesh.
==========================
click
Phil. says:
July 2, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I have extended Pielke’s analysis to the full period, it’s amazing how while most of the period was ‘Flat’ the sea level still managed to grow by ~50mm.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/pielke_slr.gif
REPLY: ah more snark from Princeton’s leading intellectual coward. Can’t meet Pielke on equal terms eh? – Anthony
==========================
click
Flanagan says:
July 13, 2009 at 8:42 am
Isn’t it strange that while the US is having a globally average temperature, all we can read here is about record colds? I mean, there must be record highs also in order ot have a globally zero anomaly for the US, so where are they? Florida, California? Why not mention them? ...
REPLY: “Flanagan” – I’m sick and tired of your European whining about what we report or don’t here in America....
If you don’t like what I report, visit other blogs, or get your own blog and report whatever you see fit. But please do shut the hell up on this issue. I just have no interest in your critiques nor opinion on the matter, especially from that of an anonymous coward.
=============================
click
Mattb says:
November 25, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Surely you could have found a still shot from classic UK sitcom “Men Behaving Badly” instead of US classic “Sinfeld”?
REPLY: I write for a mostly American audience, ... Tell you what – instead, maybe we’ll put up a picture of you riding a bike? With your previous uniformed comment about the use of “deniers” it is you who are now behaving badly, especially if you are using your university address (and the IP says you are) during work hours on the taxpayers dime? See the policy page – Anthony
============================
click
Gary Strand says:
July 5, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I do *NOT* represent NCAR in any way, shape or form. If you’ve gotten that impression, then you’re wrong. I’m here on my own time, and the only relevance that my position at NCAR has is that I’ve got some expertise and understanding of the issue of anthropogenic climate change.
I am not speaking officially in any sense.
REPLY: Then you should NOT use your NCAR email address in postings, because by doing so it does in fact become an official NCAR document. In all cases on WUWT you did in fact use your official NCAR email address. Also during many (but not all) of your postings you posted from the IP address 128.117.65.29 which resolves to NCAR.
[list of posting times]
Granted some came from addresses outside of NCAR and outside of NCAR office hours but many clearly show you spending time here on the taxpayers nickel. Busted. Happy to provide documentation here if you wish to dispute it.
My friendly advice; if you don’t want your communications to be regarded as coming from NCAR, don’t use the taxpayer funded NCAR system as the basis for communications, particularly when you have a webcam that shows you sitting at your office desk working at your computer.
[next post:]
As of right now, I happen to be on NCAR’s network, but on my own machine, on my own time.
REPLY: Still using the taxpayer’s dime when you use the NCAR network. Get your own private DSL like the rest of us. We don’t get free government access and a majority of people if using their business network for such things would get fired for breaching the acceptable use policy. – Anthony
===========================
click
Met Office says:
January 11, 2010 at 3:30 am
Reply: Based on the IP address of this post, it does not appear to originate from inside the Met office. Try again from the office and not your home computer if you are real.
...
~ ctm
===========================
click
Andrew P says:
February 21, 2010 at 7:10 pm
REPLY: Sir, if you wish to claim dishonesty for Mr. Goklany, you’ll need to put your full name and your University affiliation to your words. I won’t tolerate your anonymity when Mr. Goklany has put his name to his words. Academics such as yourself should do things in the open. Either retract or don’t post anymore.
- Anthony Watts
==========================
click
Rattus Norvegicus says:
July 10, 2010 at 8:00 pm
[snip - I won't allow you to insult Dr. Singer with such insulting words unless you have the courage to put your words to your name, and, I don't give a rattus norvegius butt if you don't like that. Otherwise clean it up and resubmit - Anthony]
Rattus Norvegicus says:
July 10, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Jeez Tony, is “delusional” that bad. Oh that’s right I insulted your “research
==========================
click
Phil. says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm
....
This from a man who has described himself as “a member of the Upper House of the United. Kingdom legislature,” and also “I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise” whereas in fact he was neither and has never been!
....
REPLY:And I find it rich that somebody who’s at a university but doesn’t bring their name to the discussion can criticize a man who has the courage to put his name to his words. What’s your title at your university Phil? Careful, or I’ll put you back in the troll box. ;-) -A
==========================
click
Steve Milesworthy says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm
In the UK we have a name for people like Watts who sycophantically defend Monckton’s “honour” from the hilarious attack by posters such as ice9 – lickspittle. I look forward to the article “Monckton Climbs Down” when the inevitable happens.
As to Monckton demanding you deluge the University with emails, he’s just a pathetic and shameful bully who hates free speech except by himself.
REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others? How pathetic. -A
You are a pathetic bully Anthony Watts. These are my personal comments done in my personal time using PCs that are provided for reasonable personal use by employees, contractors and visitors to the Met Office.
REPLY: Perhaps, but still on the government funded network, using taxpayer funded PC’s, at your place of work. Still not cool. Read the policy page. Can’t take the heat, then do it from home. -A
=========================
click
Mike says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:53 am
If you cannot argue, sue and censor. Many posters here criticized Mann for demanded his copyrighted image not be used in a video.
REPLY: And friends of Mann, like scumbag Kevin Grandia at the PR firm DeSmog blog, went ballistic when I made the same claim about my image, and my work being used in Climate Crock of the Week. Double stand, pot kettle and all that. Not impressed with your argument. -A
========================
click
Ed Darrell says:
September 15, 2010 at 8:00 am
Anthony, I’m very confused now.
Is it fair to say you repudiate the statements that Rachel Carson is a mass murderer?
If so, I apologize for assuming you supported the position of those you cite. I can make a more forceful correction, if you provide evidence it is a correction.
But if you support the claim, it would be dishonest for me to apologize for pointing it out.
REPLY: OK you had your chance to correct your libel by saying simply: “Anthony did not call Rachel Carson a mass murderer, I’m sorry for saying he did”. I don’t need to tolerate people (in my home on the Internet, see policy page) who put words in my mouth I’ve never written or said and then refuse to retract their error given ample opportunity.
You aren’t “confused”, you are dishonest, and you are now banned, permanently. – Anthony
=========================
click
RW says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Gosh, what a HUGE error! Saying “2nd” instead of “3rd” – how completely incompetent! How very worth an entire blog post!
REPLY: Ah yes, illuminating prose from the troll coward. Of course if it was “I” who made such an error, in reverse, you and your troll masters would never let me hear the end of it. But, hmmm, looks like they’ll have to make another adjustment, no? – Anthony
UPDATE: Hey guess what? Foaming your snark to the level of spot check was useful. Besides being a snark, you’ve violated policy and have been for some time. Your IP address resolves to “University College London”, but the domain used for your “email” resolves to Shinagawa-ku, Japan, plus your email bounces. So per the policy page, which requires a valid email address to comment here, sayonara!
- Anthony
=============================================
click
Virveli says:
September 19, 2010 at 9:11 am
I researched a bit into this:
From the minutes of the Narrogin Shire Council, where Mrs Thomson sits as a Councillor, May 17, 2007:
REPLY: “Who are in the “Thompson Family Foundation” that registered the internet domain of “the Coalition of Agricultural Productivity” that shares your postal address? ”
Ah “Virvelli”, this is typical FUD of anonymous cowards like yourself. Smear other people with their public info from the safe comfort of anonymity yourself. Despicable. But you have proven an important point, that website speaks out about global warming as it relates to agriculture, and the Thompsons had the integrity to put their name on it their words, unlike you. So it’s “ok” for the Environmental Defenders Office of Western Australia to have a website talking about global warming, but not Matt and Janet, and for them to do so, you imply is wrong. Double despicable. They are fighting for their life, doing it in the open, with words, deeds, and education, while you fight from the shadows. How noble.- Anthony
========================================
Anthony Watts says:
September 30, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Mr. Gould, since you seem to be so fond of defending this video (on the government payroll no less) I’m wondering if perhaps you may be affiliated with any of the organizations mentioned? Are you a part of 1010, Greenpeace, WWF, or similar NGO?
Most of us are trying to understand why you act as you do.
Anthony Watts says:
September 30, 2010 at 8:32 pm
To David Gould: No, I just find the video juvenile and disgusting – and badly thought out, much like the polar bear falling out of the sky and planes swarming NYC videos produced by other NGO’s trying stupidly to make some point about carbon. If the were going to try to emulate the famous Monty Python skit where the fellow who kept hiding behind a bush gets blown up, they failed with the design. Gore, especially graphically presented Gore, is never funny.
I find your wasting taxpayer funded time on it bothersome also.
And, since you aren’t with an NGO, did you have something to do with the video production of this?
=========================================
Andrew W says:
October 4, 2010 at 8:02 pm
The presenter said: “What happens next is even more horrifying than what you just saw.”
I think the bit Fox broadcast was the easily the worst of it, does anyone want to argue that the following two scenes are “even more horrifying”?
REPLY: No, we don’t want to argue about it, bugger off. – Anthony
==========================================
Anthony Watts says:
October 5, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Reply to RW, James Allison said it pretty well above.
Since you’ve refused to answer to the ugly issues related to the “you and your ilk” comment you made, and because you repeatedly insult people, and want to run the discussion on your terms, then shape-shift them when they don’t suit the moment, I’ve decided it is best for you to leave my living room. You join a small but illustrious group of angry cowards that have been dis-invited from WUWT. Congratulations.
Go waste the taxpayers money of the UK funding your university position day job someplace else. You’ve been dis-invited from my “home on the Internet” as a bad dinner guest.
Moderators have been advised.
===========================================
A Gem:
Smokey says: March 25, 2011 at 5:53 am
David UK,
No problem. The denizens of the realclimate and climate progress echo chambers tiptoe out occasionally to try and make a difference here, but all they’re really doing is adding to the amazing traffic stats of WUWT: over 70 million unique hits, and more than 560,000 reader comments in only four years.
People like to comment here because they know that their opinions will be read by many thousands of interested readers, instead of languishing in endless realclimate censorship/moderation. WUWT’s zero-censorship pollicy is a major reason that it has won the Weblog Awards category for “Best Science” site twice in a row.
Ed Darrell says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:44 am
Who is funding the CEI project for FOIA requests to NASA?
REPLY: I don’t know what the total makeup is, there are a lot of independent donations, I do know that. But I also know it won’t matter what the answer is, as you’ll simply write another hate filled post and blame “deniers” and “big oil”. Your MO precedes you. Blogging on school time and their network today? Tsk.
...-A
I.e. careful what you write I know your school and have proof of posting times.
He uses this tactic a lot to repress commenters! Is this why watts wants people to use their real names - yet more ammunition!
He must have had a bad week:
t . f . p . says:
May 28, 2010 at 5:17 am
[snip - I've warned you before about constantly posting under different names, Aka "Dick Chambers" aka "The Ford Prefect" pick one and stick with it, or don't post here again. I'm not interested in your games. -Anthony]
Who is Dick Chambers - it's not one of mine!!!
The new name was because he had banned the others!
Whad did I say:
Goddard claims the low ice area in the arctic is due to wind blowing the ice together. I simply pointed out an earlier post where Watts claims the minimum is caused by ice being blown out of the Fram Strait:
Previous claims have been:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/watching-the-2007-historic-low-sea-ice-flow-out-of-the-arctic-sea/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/jpl-missing-ice-in-2007-drained-out-the-nares-straight-pushed-south-by-wind-where-it-melted-far-away-from-the-arctic/
But certainly cannot be warmer temperatures!!!
Phil Clarke says:
May 28, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Steve,
The subject seems to be the compression of Arctic ice and the effects of winds upon ice extent. Here you go: Enjoy”
Here’s a puzzle. Back in 2008 a writer named Steve Goddard penned a piece for a UK IT News and gossip website named The Register on the topic of Arctic ice. It was largely based on an observational fallacy. Dr Walt Meier wrote in to correct the fallacy and added:
the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.
The puzzle is this: with that blot on one’s CV, how did one become apparently the inhouse authority on the topic of Arctic Sea Ice at WUWT?
REPLY: Phil, yes he made a mistake. By your reasoning then let’s make sure that any mistake ever made by anyone, follows them around forever, preventing them from ever doing anything elsewhere again. You are quite the arrogant load of bollocks, so unless you’ve never made a mistake in anything you’ve done and can document it, I suggest you bugger off. – Anthony
Still no better this week!
Wren says:
June 6, 2010 at 11:09 pm
...
If debunking is the purpose, credibility will be an issue.
I would expect some differences in absolute temperature from place to place in Orange County, but I doubt the trends would differ significantly.
REPLY: Heh, lectures on credibility from the anonymous coward, Wren.
==========================
click
I’m sure we’ll see an explosion from “Tamino” any minute now to refute this, oh wait, he’s gone on record as saying:
As for Steve McIntyre’s latest: I’m really not that interested. He just doesn’t have the credibility to merit attention. I have way better things to do.
OK then, one less angry, sciency, rant by an anonymous coward who won’t put his name to his own work to worry about. Talk about credibility. Sheesh.
==========================
click
Phil. says:
July 2, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I have extended Pielke’s analysis to the full period, it’s amazing how while most of the period was ‘Flat’ the sea level still managed to grow by ~50mm.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/pielke_slr.gif
REPLY: ah more snark from Princeton’s leading intellectual coward. Can’t meet Pielke on equal terms eh? – Anthony
==========================
click
Flanagan says:
July 13, 2009 at 8:42 am
Isn’t it strange that while the US is having a globally average temperature, all we can read here is about record colds? I mean, there must be record highs also in order ot have a globally zero anomaly for the US, so where are they? Florida, California? Why not mention them? ...
REPLY: “Flanagan” – I’m sick and tired of your European whining about what we report or don’t here in America....
If you don’t like what I report, visit other blogs, or get your own blog and report whatever you see fit. But please do shut the hell up on this issue. I just have no interest in your critiques nor opinion on the matter, especially from that of an anonymous coward.
=============================
click
Mattb says:
November 25, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Surely you could have found a still shot from classic UK sitcom “Men Behaving Badly” instead of US classic “Sinfeld”?
REPLY: I write for a mostly American audience, ... Tell you what – instead, maybe we’ll put up a picture of you riding a bike? With your previous uniformed comment about the use of “deniers” it is you who are now behaving badly, especially if you are using your university address (and the IP says you are) during work hours on the taxpayers dime? See the policy page – Anthony
============================
click
Gary Strand says:
July 5, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I do *NOT* represent NCAR in any way, shape or form. If you’ve gotten that impression, then you’re wrong. I’m here on my own time, and the only relevance that my position at NCAR has is that I’ve got some expertise and understanding of the issue of anthropogenic climate change.
I am not speaking officially in any sense.
REPLY: Then you should NOT use your NCAR email address in postings, because by doing so it does in fact become an official NCAR document. In all cases on WUWT you did in fact use your official NCAR email address. Also during many (but not all) of your postings you posted from the IP address 128.117.65.29 which resolves to NCAR.
[list of posting times]
Granted some came from addresses outside of NCAR and outside of NCAR office hours but many clearly show you spending time here on the taxpayers nickel. Busted. Happy to provide documentation here if you wish to dispute it.
My friendly advice; if you don’t want your communications to be regarded as coming from NCAR, don’t use the taxpayer funded NCAR system as the basis for communications, particularly when you have a webcam that shows you sitting at your office desk working at your computer.
[next post:]
As of right now, I happen to be on NCAR’s network, but on my own machine, on my own time.
REPLY: Still using the taxpayer’s dime when you use the NCAR network. Get your own private DSL like the rest of us. We don’t get free government access and a majority of people if using their business network for such things would get fired for breaching the acceptable use policy. – Anthony
===========================
click
Met Office says:
January 11, 2010 at 3:30 am
Reply: Based on the IP address of this post, it does not appear to originate from inside the Met office. Try again from the office and not your home computer if you are real.
...
~ ctm
===========================
click
Andrew P says:
February 21, 2010 at 7:10 pm
REPLY: Sir, if you wish to claim dishonesty for Mr. Goklany, you’ll need to put your full name and your University affiliation to your words. I won’t tolerate your anonymity when Mr. Goklany has put his name to his words. Academics such as yourself should do things in the open. Either retract or don’t post anymore.
- Anthony Watts
==========================
click
Rattus Norvegicus says:
July 10, 2010 at 8:00 pm
[snip - I won't allow you to insult Dr. Singer with such insulting words unless you have the courage to put your words to your name, and, I don't give a rattus norvegius butt if you don't like that. Otherwise clean it up and resubmit - Anthony]
Rattus Norvegicus says:
July 10, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Jeez Tony, is “delusional” that bad. Oh that’s right I insulted your “research
==========================
click
Phil. says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm
....
This from a man who has described himself as “a member of the Upper House of the United. Kingdom legislature,” and also “I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise” whereas in fact he was neither and has never been!
....
REPLY:And I find it rich that somebody who’s at a university but doesn’t bring their name to the discussion can criticize a man who has the courage to put his name to his words. What’s your title at your university Phil? Careful, or I’ll put you back in the troll box. ;-) -A
==========================
click
Steve Milesworthy says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm
In the UK we have a name for people like Watts who sycophantically defend Monckton’s “honour” from the hilarious attack by posters such as ice9 – lickspittle. I look forward to the article “Monckton Climbs Down” when the inevitable happens.
As to Monckton demanding you deluge the University with emails, he’s just a pathetic and shameful bully who hates free speech except by himself.
REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others? How pathetic. -A
You are a pathetic bully Anthony Watts. These are my personal comments done in my personal time using PCs that are provided for reasonable personal use by employees, contractors and visitors to the Met Office.
REPLY: Perhaps, but still on the government funded network, using taxpayer funded PC’s, at your place of work. Still not cool. Read the policy page. Can’t take the heat, then do it from home. -A
=========================
click
Mike says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:53 am
If you cannot argue, sue and censor. Many posters here criticized Mann for demanded his copyrighted image not be used in a video.
REPLY: And friends of Mann, like scumbag Kevin Grandia at the PR firm DeSmog blog, went ballistic when I made the same claim about my image, and my work being used in Climate Crock of the Week. Double stand, pot kettle and all that. Not impressed with your argument. -A
========================
click
Ed Darrell says:
September 15, 2010 at 8:00 am
Anthony, I’m very confused now.
Is it fair to say you repudiate the statements that Rachel Carson is a mass murderer?
If so, I apologize for assuming you supported the position of those you cite. I can make a more forceful correction, if you provide evidence it is a correction.
But if you support the claim, it would be dishonest for me to apologize for pointing it out.
REPLY: OK you had your chance to correct your libel by saying simply: “Anthony did not call Rachel Carson a mass murderer, I’m sorry for saying he did”. I don’t need to tolerate people (in my home on the Internet, see policy page) who put words in my mouth I’ve never written or said and then refuse to retract their error given ample opportunity.
You aren’t “confused”, you are dishonest, and you are now banned, permanently. – Anthony
=========================
click
RW says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Gosh, what a HUGE error! Saying “2nd” instead of “3rd” – how completely incompetent! How very worth an entire blog post!
REPLY: Ah yes, illuminating prose from the troll coward. Of course if it was “I” who made such an error, in reverse, you and your troll masters would never let me hear the end of it. But, hmmm, looks like they’ll have to make another adjustment, no? – Anthony
UPDATE: Hey guess what? Foaming your snark to the level of spot check was useful. Besides being a snark, you’ve violated policy and have been for some time. Your IP address resolves to “University College London”, but the domain used for your “email” resolves to Shinagawa-ku, Japan, plus your email bounces. So per the policy page, which requires a valid email address to comment here, sayonara!
- Anthony
=============================================
click
Virveli says:
September 19, 2010 at 9:11 am
I researched a bit into this:
From the minutes of the Narrogin Shire Council, where Mrs Thomson sits as a Councillor, May 17, 2007:
REPLY: “Who are in the “Thompson Family Foundation” that registered the internet domain of “the Coalition of Agricultural Productivity” that shares your postal address? ”
Ah “Virvelli”, this is typical FUD of anonymous cowards like yourself. Smear other people with their public info from the safe comfort of anonymity yourself. Despicable. But you have proven an important point, that website speaks out about global warming as it relates to agriculture, and the Thompsons had the integrity to put their name on it their words, unlike you. So it’s “ok” for the Environmental Defenders Office of Western Australia to have a website talking about global warming, but not Matt and Janet, and for them to do so, you imply is wrong. Double despicable. They are fighting for their life, doing it in the open, with words, deeds, and education, while you fight from the shadows. How noble.- Anthony
========================================
Anthony Watts says:
September 30, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Mr. Gould, since you seem to be so fond of defending this video (on the government payroll no less) I’m wondering if perhaps you may be affiliated with any of the organizations mentioned? Are you a part of 1010, Greenpeace, WWF, or similar NGO?
Most of us are trying to understand why you act as you do.
Anthony Watts says:
September 30, 2010 at 8:32 pm
To David Gould: No, I just find the video juvenile and disgusting – and badly thought out, much like the polar bear falling out of the sky and planes swarming NYC videos produced by other NGO’s trying stupidly to make some point about carbon. If the were going to try to emulate the famous Monty Python skit where the fellow who kept hiding behind a bush gets blown up, they failed with the design. Gore, especially graphically presented Gore, is never funny.
I find your wasting taxpayer funded time on it bothersome also.
And, since you aren’t with an NGO, did you have something to do with the video production of this?
=========================================
Andrew W says:
October 4, 2010 at 8:02 pm
The presenter said: “What happens next is even more horrifying than what you just saw.”
I think the bit Fox broadcast was the easily the worst of it, does anyone want to argue that the following two scenes are “even more horrifying”?
REPLY: No, we don’t want to argue about it, bugger off. – Anthony
==========================================
Anthony Watts says:
October 5, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Reply to RW, James Allison said it pretty well above.
Since you’ve refused to answer to the ugly issues related to the “you and your ilk” comment you made, and because you repeatedly insult people, and want to run the discussion on your terms, then shape-shift them when they don’t suit the moment, I’ve decided it is best for you to leave my living room. You join a small but illustrious group of angry cowards that have been dis-invited from WUWT. Congratulations.
Go waste the taxpayers money of the UK funding your university position day job someplace else. You’ve been dis-invited from my “home on the Internet” as a bad dinner guest.
Moderators have been advised.
===========================================
A Gem:
Smokey says: March 25, 2011 at 5:53 am
David UK,
No problem. The denizens of the realclimate and climate progress echo chambers tiptoe out occasionally to try and make a difference here, but all they’re really doing is adding to the amazing traffic stats of WUWT: over 70 million unique hits, and more than 560,000 reader comments in only four years.
People like to comment here because they know that their opinions will be read by many thousands of interested readers, instead of languishing in endless realclimate censorship/moderation. WUWT’s zero-censorship pollicy is a major reason that it has won the Weblog Awards category for “Best Science” site twice in a row.
2010/05/12
Nuclear Power Stuff
Interesting book on UK nuclear history
http://www.waltpatterson.org/goingcritical.pdf
An interesting edition of Engineering and Technology 24th April 2010 vol 5 iss 6 (a professional magazine of the IET institute of Engineering and Technology)
Dr Ian Fairlie believes unborn babies are particularly susceptible to so-called spike radioactive emissions that occur at nuclear power plants when their reactors are opened, typically once a year, to replace nuclear fuel. This could explain the cancer increases in under five-year- olds living near German nuclear power stations.
“This temporarily large increase in radionuclide concentration could reach foetuses and embryos,” he explains. “Embryos lay down cells at a rapid rate of knots and foetuses get bigger every day; these cells could have the [radionuclides] in them, which doesn’t go away. By the time the babies are born, they have raised concentrations in them:’ Fairlie now questions whether pregnant women and women of child-bearing age should actually be advised to move away from nuclear facilities. “This is anecdotal and there’s no published data but German women of a child bearing age are already moving away from nuclear power stations,” he adds. “I’ve heard this at conferences, am when I ask if this were true, they [fellow delegates] say ‘yes of course’
From the same magazine
After almost 25 years in the planning and almost £90bn wasted, the United States has abandoned its plans for a high-level nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. So where does that leave the future for storage of nuclear waste? Sean Davies reports
The nuclear industry would argue that the volume of HLW is small, but to the layman the numbers will seem quite staggering. At present there are some 270,000t of HLW around the globe, stored in storage pools at the reactor sites. Each year another 3,500t is added that burden.
In terms of radioactivity, HLW is the major issue, arising from the use of nuclear reactors to generate electricity. Highly radioactive fission products and transuranic elements are produced from uranium and plutonium during reactor opera- tions, and are contained within the used fuel.
A 2MW “windmill” will cost around £1.5M and give about 600kW average.
£90G would have provided 36GW of averaged power (about 10% of us requirements)
Energy from Uranium
http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/Energy%20from%20Uranium%20-%20July%202006.pdf
Nuclear power the energy balance
http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/
National Grid report:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/EF5C0829-1C5E-4258-8F73-70DC62C43F49/36936/SQSS1320Reportv10_final.pdf
National grid Sizewell+longannet trip report
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/DC83D60E-14F4-432A-8D5C-AA9A24271E48/27568/27_May_2008Event_final.pdf
Cancer Clusters
http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/documents/COMARE11thReport.pdf
Nuclear power stations
5.3 The results for nuclear power stations are unambiguous and, as might be expected from their very low discharges, there is no indication of any effect on the incidence of childhood cancer (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2). For leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphomas there were only three sites with marginally higher than expected numbers and ten where the numbers were less than expected. None of these was remotely significant from a statistical point of view. For solid tumours, there were five sites with very slightly raised values and eight sites with lower values. Again, none of these exhibited statistical significance. Moreover, within the 25-km circles there was no evidence of any trend for rates to be higher nearer to the sites. We can, therefore, say quite categorically that there is no evidence from this very large study that living within 25 km of a nuclear generating site within Britain is associated with an increased risk of childhood cancer.
Other nuclear sites
5.4 The situation with the other nuclear sites is more complicated. For leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Table 5.3) there are four sites where there is some evidence of a raised incidence close to the installation, namely Sellafield, Burghfield, Dounreay and Rosyth. Each of these sites has been identified previously as having a possibly increased risk in the vicinity. The most important finding in this new analysis is that none of the other sites in this
group has a significantly increased rate of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Five of these other sites have registration rates slightly higher than the expected value, whereas six sites have slightly lower rates than this value.
Wind turbine synchronisation:
The are 2 main (only?) types of turbine.
1. Synchronous machines that have to rotate at fixed speeds to create 60/50Hz waveforms to couple into the grid. Once phase synchronous to the grid coupled power is supplied. These machines require gearboxes and the blades in a farm all rotate together.
2. non sychronous generator creating DC (through rectification usually) is coupled into an electronic circuit that creates the required grid synchronous frequency (The turbines by enercon do not contain gearboxes - a useful life extender!):
Netzintegration_Windpark_eng.pdf
Even when synchronised in this type the rotor speed is not fixed. It is allowed to rotate at a speed that generates optimum wind power converion.
When the wind speed reaches maximum for rated power then the blades are progressively feathered to maintain this power. At this point all turbines in a farm may appear to have the same rotational speed.
A broken turbine is feathered and brakes are locked to stop rotation
A synchronous type turbine running fast or slow is broken and not grid connected
An electronic grid connection allows a variable rotational rate but still has to be speed limited.
If you read the Enercon info you will see that the electronics actually allows the turbine to do useful (to the grid) work when a grid fault occurs.
UK wind power:
http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf
IET document Wind power
http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/energy/wind.cfm?type=pdf
Energy sources compared:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/wind_energy_en.htm
A survey of world fuel resources and their impact on the development of wind energy
http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Plugging%20the%20Gap%20full%20report%20final.pdf
Leaking DoughNut
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/20050701-jaf-ucs-brief-leaking-torus.pdf
India Point Leak
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/20100623-ip2-ucs-edo-refueling-cavity-leak.pdf
Davis Besse leak:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/20100405-db-ucs-petition-pressure-boundary-leakage-1.pdf
Nuclear Tightrope
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_tightrope_report-highres.pdf
Calendar of Nuclear Accidents
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
http://www.waltpatterson.org/goingcritical.pdf
An interesting edition of Engineering and Technology 24th April 2010 vol 5 iss 6 (a professional magazine of the IET institute of Engineering and Technology)
Dr Ian Fairlie believes unborn babies are particularly susceptible to so-called spike radioactive emissions that occur at nuclear power plants when their reactors are opened, typically once a year, to replace nuclear fuel. This could explain the cancer increases in under five-year- olds living near German nuclear power stations.
“This temporarily large increase in radionuclide concentration could reach foetuses and embryos,” he explains. “Embryos lay down cells at a rapid rate of knots and foetuses get bigger every day; these cells could have the [radionuclides] in them, which doesn’t go away. By the time the babies are born, they have raised concentrations in them:’ Fairlie now questions whether pregnant women and women of child-bearing age should actually be advised to move away from nuclear facilities. “This is anecdotal and there’s no published data but German women of a child bearing age are already moving away from nuclear power stations,” he adds. “I’ve heard this at conferences, am when I ask if this were true, they [fellow delegates] say ‘yes of course’
From the same magazine
After almost 25 years in the planning and almost £90bn wasted, the United States has abandoned its plans for a high-level nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. So where does that leave the future for storage of nuclear waste? Sean Davies reports
The nuclear industry would argue that the volume of HLW is small, but to the layman the numbers will seem quite staggering. At present there are some 270,000t of HLW around the globe, stored in storage pools at the reactor sites. Each year another 3,500t is added that burden.
In terms of radioactivity, HLW is the major issue, arising from the use of nuclear reactors to generate electricity. Highly radioactive fission products and transuranic elements are produced from uranium and plutonium during reactor opera- tions, and are contained within the used fuel.
A 2MW “windmill” will cost around £1.5M and give about 600kW average.
£90G would have provided 36GW of averaged power (about 10% of us requirements)
Energy from Uranium
http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/Energy%20from%20Uranium%20-%20July%202006.pdf
Nuclear power the energy balance
http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/
National Grid report:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/EF5C0829-1C5E-4258-8F73-70DC62C43F49/36936/SQSS1320Reportv10_final.pdf
National grid Sizewell+longannet trip report
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/DC83D60E-14F4-432A-8D5C-AA9A24271E48/27568/27_May_2008Event_final.pdf
Cancer Clusters
http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/documents/COMARE11thReport.pdf
Nuclear power stations
5.3 The results for nuclear power stations are unambiguous and, as might be expected from their very low discharges, there is no indication of any effect on the incidence of childhood cancer (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2). For leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphomas there were only three sites with marginally higher than expected numbers and ten where the numbers were less than expected. None of these was remotely significant from a statistical point of view. For solid tumours, there were five sites with very slightly raised values and eight sites with lower values. Again, none of these exhibited statistical significance. Moreover, within the 25-km circles there was no evidence of any trend for rates to be higher nearer to the sites. We can, therefore, say quite categorically that there is no evidence from this very large study that living within 25 km of a nuclear generating site within Britain is associated with an increased risk of childhood cancer.
Other nuclear sites
5.4 The situation with the other nuclear sites is more complicated. For leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Table 5.3) there are four sites where there is some evidence of a raised incidence close to the installation, namely Sellafield, Burghfield, Dounreay and Rosyth. Each of these sites has been identified previously as having a possibly increased risk in the vicinity. The most important finding in this new analysis is that none of the other sites in this
group has a significantly increased rate of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Five of these other sites have registration rates slightly higher than the expected value, whereas six sites have slightly lower rates than this value.
Wind turbine synchronisation:
The are 2 main (only?) types of turbine.
1. Synchronous machines that have to rotate at fixed speeds to create 60/50Hz waveforms to couple into the grid. Once phase synchronous to the grid coupled power is supplied. These machines require gearboxes and the blades in a farm all rotate together.
2. non sychronous generator creating DC (through rectification usually) is coupled into an electronic circuit that creates the required grid synchronous frequency (The turbines by enercon do not contain gearboxes - a useful life extender!):
Netzintegration_Windpark_eng.pdf
Even when synchronised in this type the rotor speed is not fixed. It is allowed to rotate at a speed that generates optimum wind power converion.
When the wind speed reaches maximum for rated power then the blades are progressively feathered to maintain this power. At this point all turbines in a farm may appear to have the same rotational speed.
A broken turbine is feathered and brakes are locked to stop rotation
A synchronous type turbine running fast or slow is broken and not grid connected
An electronic grid connection allows a variable rotational rate but still has to be speed limited.
If you read the Enercon info you will see that the electronics actually allows the turbine to do useful (to the grid) work when a grid fault occurs.
UK wind power:
http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf
IET document Wind power
http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/energy/wind.cfm?type=pdf
Energy sources compared:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/wind_energy_en.htm
A survey of world fuel resources and their impact on the development of wind energy
http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Plugging%20the%20Gap%20full%20report%20final.pdf
Leaking DoughNut
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/20050701-jaf-ucs-brief-leaking-torus.pdf
India Point Leak
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/20100623-ip2-ucs-edo-refueling-cavity-leak.pdf
Davis Besse leak:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/20100405-db-ucs-petition-pressure-boundary-leakage-1.pdf
Nuclear Tightrope
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_tightrope_report-highres.pdf
Calendar of Nuclear Accidents
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
2010/05/02
AMSU Temperature Change per year
plotting the variation in temperature per year for each day produces this plot:
Interestingly the t-rise is not a constant over the year but has a pronounced dip at the beginning of May for lower air temp.
The sea surface temperature is practically flat. There is a peak during the NH summer. Why is this? Isn't the SH ocean bigger and therefore more likely to show an increase during it's summer when averaged globally. Is evaporation producing a stabilising effect which is less effective over the NH?
Interestingly the t-rise is not a constant over the year but has a pronounced dip at the beginning of May for lower air temp.
The sea surface temperature is practically flat. There is a peak during the NH summer. Why is this? Isn't the SH ocean bigger and therefore more likely to show an increase during it's summer when averaged globally. Is evaporation producing a stabilising effect which is less effective over the NH?
2010/04/30
Latest Arctic Sea Ice plot
So far this years sea-ice is as predicted. If you plot the linear curve fit for each day of the year from AMSRE 2002-present you get this plot.
2010/04/23
Volcanic Dust?
Volcanic Dust????
UK south west. most dust fell within a period of about 3 days!
Note the new layer on the window
Many cars exhibit this fine buff coloured dust. In sunlight there are reflective bits visible.
Is it volcanic origin?
any way of telling?
If volcanic then the dust is not all above 16000ft. Planes fly through many layers on take off.
Engines suck a lot more air that a windscreen! turbine blades are cooled by through flow air. Turbine blades reach temperatures where glassification can occur.
cooling channels closed by glassified dust will lead to overheat and EVENTUAL failure (see the NASA experience http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/volcanicash/03_NASADC8AshDamage.pdf )
From the document:
SUMMARY
In the early morning hours of February 28, 2000, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) DC-8 Airborne Sciences research airplane inadvertently flew through a diffuse plume of volcanic ash from the Mt. Hekla volcano. There were no indications to the flight crew, but sensitive onboard instruments detected the 35-hr-old ash plume. Upon landing there was no visible damage to the airplane or engine first-stage fan blades; later borescope inspection of the engines revealed clogged
turbine cooling air passages. The engines were removed and overhauled at a cost of $3.2 million. Satellite data analysis of the volcanic ash plume trajectory indicated the ash plume had been transported further north than predicted by atmospheric effects. Analysis of the ash particles collected in cabin air heat exchanger filters showed strong evidence of volcanic ash, most of which may have been ice-coated (and
therefore less damaging to the airplane) at the time of the encounter. Engine operating temperatures at the time of the encounter were sufficiently high to cause melting and fusing of ash on and inside high-pressure turbine blade cooling passages. There was no evidence of engine damage in the engine trending results, but some of the turbine blades had been operating partially uncooled and may have had a
remaining lifetime of as little as 100 hr. There are currently no fully reliable methods available to flight crews to detect the presence of a diffuse, yet potentially damaging volcanic ash cloud.
So:
it's invisible to normal instrumentation
Not seen in normal inspection
Not instantaneously disasterous but severely limit the engines life
If ice covered will not abrade windscreens
There have been few eruptions in european crowded airspace. This may be the first example?
Planes cannot detect dust with radar (it is tuned for water molecules)
Planes cannot therefore steer around a cloud. They would have to use the info from the met models. These have been claimed to be inaccurate!
The met office predicts the path and height.
The met office does not say it is unsafe to fly.
The met office does not fly planes to test the dust cloud.
Who wants 400 deaths on their conscience
UK south west. most dust fell within a period of about 3 days!
Note the new layer on the window
Many cars exhibit this fine buff coloured dust. In sunlight there are reflective bits visible.
Is it volcanic origin?
any way of telling?
If volcanic then the dust is not all above 16000ft. Planes fly through many layers on take off.
Engines suck a lot more air that a windscreen! turbine blades are cooled by through flow air. Turbine blades reach temperatures where glassification can occur.
cooling channels closed by glassified dust will lead to overheat and EVENTUAL failure (see the NASA experience http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/volcanicash/03_NASADC8AshDamage.pdf )
From the document:
SUMMARY
In the early morning hours of February 28, 2000, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) DC-8 Airborne Sciences research airplane inadvertently flew through a diffuse plume of volcanic ash from the Mt. Hekla volcano. There were no indications to the flight crew, but sensitive onboard instruments detected the 35-hr-old ash plume. Upon landing there was no visible damage to the airplane or engine first-stage fan blades; later borescope inspection of the engines revealed clogged
turbine cooling air passages. The engines were removed and overhauled at a cost of $3.2 million. Satellite data analysis of the volcanic ash plume trajectory indicated the ash plume had been transported further north than predicted by atmospheric effects. Analysis of the ash particles collected in cabin air heat exchanger filters showed strong evidence of volcanic ash, most of which may have been ice-coated (and
therefore less damaging to the airplane) at the time of the encounter. Engine operating temperatures at the time of the encounter were sufficiently high to cause melting and fusing of ash on and inside high-pressure turbine blade cooling passages. There was no evidence of engine damage in the engine trending results, but some of the turbine blades had been operating partially uncooled and may have had a
remaining lifetime of as little as 100 hr. There are currently no fully reliable methods available to flight crews to detect the presence of a diffuse, yet potentially damaging volcanic ash cloud.
So:
it's invisible to normal instrumentation
Not seen in normal inspection
Not instantaneously disasterous but severely limit the engines life
If ice covered will not abrade windscreens
There have been few eruptions in european crowded airspace. This may be the first example?
Planes cannot detect dust with radar (it is tuned for water molecules)
Planes cannot therefore steer around a cloud. They would have to use the info from the met models. These have been claimed to be inaccurate!
The met office predicts the path and height.
The met office does not say it is unsafe to fly.
The met office does not fly planes to test the dust cloud.
Who wants 400 deaths on their conscience
2010/04/16
Unprecedented Data Word Purge At CRU ClimateAudit
From an exchange on CA
Wow good going McIntyre The whole blog sanitized of fraud claims.
Just searched and found none - I though perhaps I had misjudged/misread this blog
all the palinizations removed!
but then...
Google - fraud site:http://climateaudit.org/ gets 464 hits
didnt check them all but most surprising link to no text found or sometimes inconsequential use of the word.
However google cache tells a different story. Don't know when you sanitised but it was not quick enough to miss google caching! I expect the wayback machine would reveal this.
Steve: As I told you, I don’t make such allegations myself and blog policies ask commenters not to as well. I moderate after the fact and ask readers such as yourself to advise me if I’ve missed comments that breach blog polices.
thefordprefect
Posted Apr 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | ReplyThis is Google’s cache of http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/14/the-boulton-hockey-stick/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 7 Apr 2010 20:54:42 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
9 references to fraud on 7th April
0 ref to fraud on 16 April
page posting date 14 February 2010
For 2 months the post refered to fraud. It was used in response to your inline posts. I suppose you could have missed it!
----------------
Even better:
This is Google's cache of http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 13 Apr 2010 01:40:29 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime
3 frauds on 13 April 0 frauds on 16th April
page post date 22nd Nov 2009
-------------------
Does he actually now think Fraud is not relevant when talking about climate change?
Updated 2010-04-16
Wow good going McIntyre The whole blog sanitized of fraud claims.
Just searched and found none - I though perhaps I had misjudged/misread this blog
all the palinizations removed!
but then...
Google - fraud site:http://climateaudit.org/ gets 464 hits
didnt check them all but most surprising link to no text found or sometimes inconsequential use of the word.
However google cache tells a different story. Don't know when you sanitised but it was not quick enough to miss google caching! I expect the wayback machine would reveal this.
Steve: As I told you, I don’t make such allegations myself and blog policies ask commenters not to as well. I moderate after the fact and ask readers such as yourself to advise me if I’ve missed comments that breach blog polices.
thefordprefect
Posted Apr 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | ReplyThis is Google’s cache of http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/14/the-boulton-hockey-stick/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 7 Apr 2010 20:54:42 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
9 references to fraud on 7th April
0 ref to fraud on 16 April
page posting date 14 February 2010
For 2 months the post refered to fraud. It was used in response to your inline posts. I suppose you could have missed it!
----------------
Even better:
This is Google's cache of http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 13 Apr 2010 01:40:29 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime
3 frauds on 13 April 0 frauds on 16th April
page post date 22nd Nov 2009
-------------------
Does he actually now think Fraud is not relevant when talking about climate change?
Updated 2010-04-16
2010/04/15
Monkton
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14856887
But, in their emails to Bickmore over the past few weeks, Monckton and Ferguson accuse the scientist at LDS Church-owned BYU of personal attacks, and both threaten him.
Ferguson ends a Thursday e-mail by hinting there might be repercussions through their shared faith.
"I trust you are gentleman and Christian enough to not bear such false witness," Ferguson concludes. "If not, I will seek both professional and ecclesiastical redress for 'conduct unbecoming'."
In an exchange a week earlier, Monckton said that Bickmore's "unjustifiable and gratuitous remarks about my habitual mendacity are to be drawn to the attention of the President of the University... to be investigated as a disciplinary matter." Monckton also said he had spoken with "some of the University's leading supporters" about Bickmore's role in the university's decision not to host Monckton's climate-change speech.
"This, too, I understand, is to be referred to the University as a disciplinary matter, since the University prides itself on allowing academic freedom," Monckton wrote.
Bickmore said Friday he is not aware of any investigation or disciplinary action. And university spokesman Michael Smart said none was in the works.
...
Meanwhile, the information office at the British House of Lords responded to Bickmore's inquiry about a question that had been dogging him: Why does Monckton, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, describe himself as a member of the House of Lords? He'd made the claim to members of the U.S. Congress and also in an April 1 e-mail to Bickmore, where Monckton asserted: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise."
The official response on Thursday said: "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."
Debunked
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2010/0409/20100409_103701_Monckton_Mystery_Solved.pdf
But, in their emails to Bickmore over the past few weeks, Monckton and Ferguson accuse the scientist at LDS Church-owned BYU of personal attacks, and both threaten him.
Ferguson ends a Thursday e-mail by hinting there might be repercussions through their shared faith.
"I trust you are gentleman and Christian enough to not bear such false witness," Ferguson concludes. "If not, I will seek both professional and ecclesiastical redress for 'conduct unbecoming'."
In an exchange a week earlier, Monckton said that Bickmore's "unjustifiable and gratuitous remarks about my habitual mendacity are to be drawn to the attention of the President of the University... to be investigated as a disciplinary matter." Monckton also said he had spoken with "some of the University's leading supporters" about Bickmore's role in the university's decision not to host Monckton's climate-change speech.
"This, too, I understand, is to be referred to the University as a disciplinary matter, since the University prides itself on allowing academic freedom," Monckton wrote.
Bickmore said Friday he is not aware of any investigation or disciplinary action. And university spokesman Michael Smart said none was in the works.
...
Meanwhile, the information office at the British House of Lords responded to Bickmore's inquiry about a question that had been dogging him: Why does Monckton, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, describe himself as a member of the House of Lords? He'd made the claim to members of the U.S. Congress and also in an April 1 e-mail to Bickmore, where Monckton asserted: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise."
The official response on Thursday said: "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."
Debunked
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2010/0409/20100409_103701_Monckton_Mystery_Solved.pdf
2010/04/14
Prediction(!!!) of future temperature using "cycles" + trend
This is an update of an earlier post and is just a "fun" thing
Get HADCRUT3V global temp record
Average over 6 months to remove some of the "noise"
Create a series of narrow band filters on the resultant temperature plot.
Tune each filter manually to isolate peaks in the output.
These SHOULD show peaks wherever there is a signal of, say, Scarfetta's 60 years.
Take the output of each narrow band filter and generate a cosine wave that is as near as possible the same amplitude and phase as the filtered signal.
Do this a number of times isolating each frequency.
Add together the generated cosines. Multiply the result by a factor (approx 3 in the plot below). If there is a suitable long period - low frequency - signal isolated the resultant should match the original signal. IT DID NOT so a trend was added.
y = 2.44231E-07x^3 - 1.36387E-03x^2 + 2.53884E+00x - 1.57576E+03 (not good as it deviates before 1850.
This is what I got :
Note
No 60 year signal
No massive TSI signal (there is some!)
The significant signals are all around 2 to 6 years
The plot shows prediction for the next few years!!!!
Get HADCRUT from CRU website
Get Excel from microsoft
Get bandpass filter from
http://www.web-reg.de/index.html
in general set the bandwidth to months/150 (e.g. period start 21.19 end 21.29 months ie. months/200 in this case)
Get HADCRUT3V global temp record
Average over 6 months to remove some of the "noise"
Create a series of narrow band filters on the resultant temperature plot.
Tune each filter manually to isolate peaks in the output.
These SHOULD show peaks wherever there is a signal of, say, Scarfetta's 60 years.
Take the output of each narrow band filter and generate a cosine wave that is as near as possible the same amplitude and phase as the filtered signal.
Do this a number of times isolating each frequency.
Add together the generated cosines. Multiply the result by a factor (approx 3 in the plot below). If there is a suitable long period - low frequency - signal isolated the resultant should match the original signal. IT DID NOT so a trend was added.
y = 2.44231E-07x^3 - 1.36387E-03x^2 + 2.53884E+00x - 1.57576E+03 (not good as it deviates before 1850.
This is what I got :
Note
No 60 year signal
No massive TSI signal (there is some!)
The significant signals are all around 2 to 6 years
The plot shows prediction for the next few years!!!!
Get HADCRUT from CRU website
Get Excel from microsoft
Get bandpass filter from
http://www.web-reg.de/index.html
in general set the bandwidth to months/150 (e.g. period start 21.19 end 21.29 months ie. months/200 in this case)
2010/04/07
SW LW radiation in oceans
Harry Lu (20:11:48) :
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions!
So we have the top few cm heated by sw and lw and a few 10s meters down heated by UV
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Global_Vegetation_Monitoring/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22217_EN.pdf
So the surface cm is absorbing a percentage of the SW (as does each cm of the deeper water except the percentage is of a progressively smaller maximum) plus all the LW re-radiated from GHGs.
The surface is also receiving LW from the layer under the surface and radiating LW down to this lower layer. Because the surface is hotter this will average out to an energy transfer downwards.
So the hotter the surface the less the lower water energy will be radiated (lost) into the atmosphere. Less loss with the same SW TSI heating the lower layers will mean a hotter temperature.
Of course the surface is loosing heat via conduction in all directions radiation in all direction, and forced air convection upwards (sideways!)
However, The surface layer heating must effect the lower layer cooling in my books.
According to your diagram of energy buget:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/trenberth_mine_latest_big1.jpg
Only 169 w/m^2 of SW radiation gets absorbed (198w/m^2 hits the ground)
The back radiation from GHGs is 321 w/m^2 absorbed by the ground.
If 321W/m^2 is absorbed in the top layer and 169w/m^2 is absorbed in 10s meters the the top layer will be much warmer than the lower layers.
So is it not true that this top layer must control the temperature of the lower layers?
“”" Harry Lu (20:11:48) :
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions! “”"
Haven’t forgotten a thing Larry; you obviously didn’t read my post very closely; or alternatively I didn’t write it very well.
My post dealt with one very simple 8th grade high school science concept.
# 1 the incidence of solar spectrum radiation (UV to IR) on the deep ocean surface; at approximately 1000 W/m^2 max (sun directly overhead no clouds).
#2 the incidence of LWIR thermal radiation from the atmosphere (or from cloud reflections) in the range of perhaps 6-100 micorns on that same ocean surface at 324 W/m^2 according to Trenberth.
That is ALL that my post was about; those two electromagnetic radiation sorces of energy; both of which are treated by “climatologists” as “forcings”; so many Watts per square metre. As if somehow they are the same thing and produce the same results given their relative surface irradiances.
Of course they are NOT the same thing because of the things I clealy stated in my original post.
Nothing in my post suggested that there were NO OTHER physical processes of any kind going on as well; so my post contained nothing about quantum chromodynamics, or starlight, or backside thermal radiation from the moon, or anything else.
If you wish to contribute something about conduction (why didn’t you include convection) to the discussion; please do so; but don’t go thinking that I didn’t include that in my post because I forgot about it.
Obviously you didn’t understand the nature of the difference between solar spectrum radiation and its water absorption curve, and LWIR thermal radiation and its very differnet water absorption curve. That alone is what my post was about; not a complete treatise on global thermal physics.
Harry Lu (13:14:53)
Mr E. Smith, why so angry!?
your comment said:
” so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. ”
I simply suggested that this would also propagate downwards by conduction and would not remain at 10um – and I don’t thinc convection works upside down at temps above 0C approx.?
I then suggested that if there was a hot water layer (even very thin) it would enable the underlying thermal structure heated by SW radiation to heat more since the energy loss is effectively stopped. energy radiated down into layer 10um below 10um surface hot layer is greater than the energy transported from the lower lay to the upper. i.e. there is a net flow downwards.
The fact is the sw radiation looses energy to the water at reducing amounts from the surface down. Each molecular layer absorbs some (say A%*169) energy and the rest passes through to the next layer (169-A%*169). This layer absorbs A% of what it receives (169-A%*169)*A% etc The surface layer therefore absobes most LW and a bigger quantity of the SW than subsequent “layers”. As you say it will be much hotter than layers below without any mixing or conduction.
This must stop the lower layers losing heat??
If you can convince me otherwise I am willing to listen.
Harry Lu (15:01:02)
“anna v (21:31:50) :
Re: Harry Lu (Apr 7 13:14),
The inside layers of the water, supposing there is no convection, will lose heat by conduction only. … LW in water can travel less than a micron before being absorbed, so it cannot get out as long wave except from the few microns of the surface. It will reach the surface through conduction.”
If I am understanding you, then 1um below the surface will not radiate to the air but heat will conduct to the surface and then radiate/conduct/evaporate to the air.
This is the same as I understand it.
but I also assume that radiation will go in all directions from each heated molecule. Some will heat the 1um towards surface. some will heat the next 1um down the 1um down will also radiate in all directions but will be at a lower temperature. Hence there will be less radiation to surface than the surface radiates down.
There will be a net frow of energy from surface downwards by radiation.
The conduction I assume is also equal to all connecting molecules so conduction from the surface hot molecules will conduct to the lower cooler molecules and the cooler molecules will conduct to the hot molecules but at a lesser rate.
Hence there will be a net flow of energy downwards.
Convection will cause energy to flow in the direction of the molecular gross movement. At normal (non freezing) sea temperatures the surface will be made up of less dense warm water and the lower layers will be more dense cold water
Hence convection will not occur? there will be mixing by molecular motion but again this will favor heating the cool layers.
TSI SW will penetrate the depths warming them but as I pointed out 198W hits the surface, less hits each succeeding molecule as it passes downward therefore more energy will be absorbed by the surface layers (assuming homogeneous water absorption). the surface 1um will also receive the back radiation (LW) 321W.
As far as I can see the hot layer will control the loss of energy from the depths. Hot surface = hotter depths
/harry
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions!
So we have the top few cm heated by sw and lw and a few 10s meters down heated by UV
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Global_Vegetation_Monitoring/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22217_EN.pdf
So the surface cm is absorbing a percentage of the SW (as does each cm of the deeper water except the percentage is of a progressively smaller maximum) plus all the LW re-radiated from GHGs.
The surface is also receiving LW from the layer under the surface and radiating LW down to this lower layer. Because the surface is hotter this will average out to an energy transfer downwards.
So the hotter the surface the less the lower water energy will be radiated (lost) into the atmosphere. Less loss with the same SW TSI heating the lower layers will mean a hotter temperature.
Of course the surface is loosing heat via conduction in all directions radiation in all direction, and forced air convection upwards (sideways!)
However, The surface layer heating must effect the lower layer cooling in my books.
According to your diagram of energy buget:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/trenberth_mine_latest_big1.jpg
Only 169 w/m^2 of SW radiation gets absorbed (198w/m^2 hits the ground)
The back radiation from GHGs is 321 w/m^2 absorbed by the ground.
If 321W/m^2 is absorbed in the top layer and 169w/m^2 is absorbed in 10s meters the the top layer will be much warmer than the lower layers.
So is it not true that this top layer must control the temperature of the lower layers?
“”" Harry Lu (20:11:48) :
” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”
Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions! “”"
Haven’t forgotten a thing Larry; you obviously didn’t read my post very closely; or alternatively I didn’t write it very well.
My post dealt with one very simple 8th grade high school science concept.
# 1 the incidence of solar spectrum radiation (UV to IR) on the deep ocean surface; at approximately 1000 W/m^2 max (sun directly overhead no clouds).
#2 the incidence of LWIR thermal radiation from the atmosphere (or from cloud reflections) in the range of perhaps 6-100 micorns on that same ocean surface at 324 W/m^2 according to Trenberth.
That is ALL that my post was about; those two electromagnetic radiation sorces of energy; both of which are treated by “climatologists” as “forcings”; so many Watts per square metre. As if somehow they are the same thing and produce the same results given their relative surface irradiances.
Of course they are NOT the same thing because of the things I clealy stated in my original post.
Nothing in my post suggested that there were NO OTHER physical processes of any kind going on as well; so my post contained nothing about quantum chromodynamics, or starlight, or backside thermal radiation from the moon, or anything else.
If you wish to contribute something about conduction (why didn’t you include convection) to the discussion; please do so; but don’t go thinking that I didn’t include that in my post because I forgot about it.
Obviously you didn’t understand the nature of the difference between solar spectrum radiation and its water absorption curve, and LWIR thermal radiation and its very differnet water absorption curve. That alone is what my post was about; not a complete treatise on global thermal physics.
Harry Lu (13:14:53)
Mr E. Smith, why so angry!?
your comment said:
” so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. ”
I simply suggested that this would also propagate downwards by conduction and would not remain at 10um – and I don’t thinc convection works upside down at temps above 0C approx.?
I then suggested that if there was a hot water layer (even very thin) it would enable the underlying thermal structure heated by SW radiation to heat more since the energy loss is effectively stopped. energy radiated down into layer 10um below 10um surface hot layer is greater than the energy transported from the lower lay to the upper. i.e. there is a net flow downwards.
The fact is the sw radiation looses energy to the water at reducing amounts from the surface down. Each molecular layer absorbs some (say A%*169) energy and the rest passes through to the next layer (169-A%*169). This layer absorbs A% of what it receives (169-A%*169)*A% etc The surface layer therefore absobes most LW and a bigger quantity of the SW than subsequent “layers”. As you say it will be much hotter than layers below without any mixing or conduction.
This must stop the lower layers losing heat??
If you can convince me otherwise I am willing to listen.
Harry Lu (15:01:02)
“anna v (21:31:50) :
Re: Harry Lu (Apr 7 13:14),
The inside layers of the water, supposing there is no convection, will lose heat by conduction only. … LW in water can travel less than a micron before being absorbed, so it cannot get out as long wave except from the few microns of the surface. It will reach the surface through conduction.”
If I am understanding you, then 1um below the surface will not radiate to the air but heat will conduct to the surface and then radiate/conduct/evaporate to the air.
This is the same as I understand it.
but I also assume that radiation will go in all directions from each heated molecule. Some will heat the 1um towards surface. some will heat the next 1um down the 1um down will also radiate in all directions but will be at a lower temperature. Hence there will be less radiation to surface than the surface radiates down.
There will be a net frow of energy from surface downwards by radiation.
The conduction I assume is also equal to all connecting molecules so conduction from the surface hot molecules will conduct to the lower cooler molecules and the cooler molecules will conduct to the hot molecules but at a lesser rate.
Hence there will be a net flow of energy downwards.
Convection will cause energy to flow in the direction of the molecular gross movement. At normal (non freezing) sea temperatures the surface will be made up of less dense warm water and the lower layers will be more dense cold water
Hence convection will not occur? there will be mixing by molecular motion but again this will favor heating the cool layers.
TSI SW will penetrate the depths warming them but as I pointed out 198W hits the surface, less hits each succeeding molecule as it passes downward therefore more energy will be absorbed by the surface layers (assuming homogeneous water absorption). the surface 1um will also receive the back radiation (LW) 321W.
As far as I can see the hot layer will control the loss of energy from the depths. Hot surface = hotter depths
/harry
2010/04/03
The full Video Set
A collection of videos:
Higher definition versions are available as a download here:
amsre arctic.avi
sst arctic.avi
sst global 25.avi
sst nindian.avi
sst1e.avi
sstAgulhaBenguela.avi
sstgulfstream.avi
Atlantic North - A few years of sea surface temperature video
MW_IR Gulf of Mexico
Global
Arctic AMSRE from Jaxa
North Indian Ocean
Agulha and Benguela currents
Gulf Stream
Higher definition versions are available as a download here:
amsre arctic.avi
sst arctic.avi
sst global 25.avi
sst nindian.avi
sst1e.avi
sstAgulhaBenguela.avi
sstgulfstream.avi
Atlantic North - A few years of sea surface temperature video
MW_IR Gulf of Mexico
Global
Arctic AMSRE from Jaxa
North Indian Ocean
Agulha and Benguela currents
Gulf Stream
2010/03/31
MWP - Greenland Today + 700s-900s weather in words
meieval warm period eat your heart out!
http://www.greenland-guide.gl/reg-south.htm
During the summer, South Greenland fully lives up to its Danish name, Green Land, as this is the most fertile part of the country. In fact most of the flora of Greenland grow in this particular region. The winter climate is relatively mild, and summer temperatures reaching 16-18°C are not uncommon. Because of these conditions, the economic life of this area is also very different from the rest of Greenland, with sheep farming and agriculture playing an important part. If you take a boat trip along the fjords you will see isolated sheep farms, some of which have paths and rough roads leading to them, while for others the only contact with the outside world is by boat or radio transmitter.
The sheep are rounded up in September, and some 20,000 lambs are taken on flat-bottomed boats to the slaughterhouse in Narsaq, one of the three sizeable large towns in South Greenland.
Many sheep farmers have built cabins near their farms, in which guests can stay for a day or two before they continue on foot to the next farm.
The abundant fertility of this region was also the reason why Eric the Red chose to live in South Greenland in around 985 AD, after he was outlawed from Iceland.
================
Your first encounter with large animals in Greenland usually takes place very soon after arrival. More than 3,000 musk oxen live in the area around Kangerlussuaq Airport and some of them can be seen in the immediate surroundings. A one-hour guided tour of the area will most likely include an encounter with these large, sedate animals.
Reindeer live all over the ice-free parts of Greenland, and you may be lucky to see a herd. Reindeer hide is very insulating, and if you decide to go on a dog-sledge tour you will have the chance to dress in clothes made from reindeer hide.
=====================
wiki
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China [1] New Zealand [2] and other countries [3] [4][5] [6] [7][8] lasting from about AD 950–1250.[9] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age.
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/751_999.htm
759/760 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) [ Some accounts have this as 761 .. usual dating problems ]. 1
763/64(Winter & later) The winter is noted as being 'severe' .. and was followed by a " long and terrible drought " .. in the spring/summer of 764: suggests abnormally persistent blocking / high pressure situation (at least, 'abnormal' in length of persistence in the same 'phase'), with the primary jet perhaps shunted well to the south. Some sources note 'great snow', with an 'intense' frost. In 'London Weather' entry, .... "one of the severest winters known in history". (Probably affected large areas of continental Europe, again suggesting a 'Scandinavian High' situation.) 1, 8
~770 - ~800 A period of higher frequency of cold winters (note: not necessarily every winter). This leads to the suggestion of blocking of the main Atlantic, westerly flow by often slow-moving, intense anticyclones, or an increased frequency of east or northeast flow with higher pressure to the north of these islands. This would tie in to a certain extent with the idea that Scandinavian exploration / raids were assisted by lack of 'westerly-storminess'. 1
798 (Winter) Ireland: snow - men & animals died. LWH
~800 (December) December 24th (original recorded as the 'Eve of Christmas', so presumably we must regard this as an 'Old Style' dating. Also, the exact year is subject to the same uncertainty as other events so long ago): gale: Great SW or W wind. Cities destroyed (!); Lamb has this comment in ref. 23: " The first recorded one of a series of storm floods .. which reduced the size of the island of Heligoland by more than half by the year 1300." LWH, 23
804 (March) March 17th: Ireland - Tornado(?): thunder, wind & lightning. '1010 men killed'. [ I wouldn't normally detail all 'tornado' events, but the death-toll warrants mention, and I do wonder given that over a thousand died, whether this was in fact a 'storm' event due to a major depression rather than a small-scale tornadic event.] LWH
817 (Winter) December 25th (presumably logged as 'Christmas Day'): Ireland - snow: many rivers & lakes frozen to February 22nd. [ Although only tied to Ireland, given the severity & length of the event, Britain must also have been affected. ] LWH
821/822 (Winter) A severe winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
827 Possible severe winter. Thames frozen for nine weeks. 8, LWH
844/845 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
850
855/856 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb); Great ice & frost until Jan. 7th - rivers & lakes froze. 1, LWH
856 Ireland: gale: very great wind; woods felled. LWH
859/60 (Winter) A severe winter in England. 1, 8
873/874 (Winter) A cold winter. (according to Easton, in CHMW/Lamb); Scotland: specifically a cold winter - great frost from November to April; thaw brought floods. 1,LWH
880/881 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
892(?) (November) 11th November: Ireland - gale, many trees and houses fell. LWH
908 Possible severe winter. Most English rivers frozen for two months. 8,LWH
910 - 930 Extended droughts with regularity: also thought that the summer half-years were warm or very warm more often than not - some notably hot summers. 1
912/913 (Winter) A severe winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
917(Winter) Ireland: severe winter - Great snow. Lakes frozen. [ As elsewhere, implies a blocked pattern, with occasional 'Atlantic' incursions. Must have affected Britain as well I would have thought.] LWH
923 Possible severe winter. Thames frozen for 13 weeks. Year may be 928 or 929. 8,LWH
927/928 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
939/940 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
941(Winter) Ireland: cold - Lakes & rivers froze. [ I wonder if this belongs to the winter noted above? ] LWH
944 Possible severe gale/storm in London; many houses destroyed. 1500 houses "fell" (destroyed?): affected the whole of England. 8,LWH
946 - 948 England: drought - 'no rain for 3 years' (unlikely to have been "no" rain - more likely a marked shortage of rainfall / winter snowfall). LWH
955 (Summer) Wales: Hot summer. [ Must surely have affected other parts of Britain - indeed, the heat may have been 'exceptional', if the summer was notably hot as far west as Wales.] LWH
973 Thames flood in London. 8
974/75 (Winter) Probably a severe winter across Britain .. usual doubts about dates etc. Severe winter over whole of Europe until March 11th (OS). 1, 8, LWH
990's Extended droughts with regularity: also thought that the summer half-years were warm or very warm more often than not - some notably hot summers. 1
992 Ireland: Storm flood - tempest (high wind?) submerged island fort in one hour Wicklow. [ The way this is written up suggests that this was a 'storme surge' event, rather than necessarily due to heavy rain - though the latter may have played a part.] LWH
995(Summer) Summer cold throughout Europe; severe frost & ice (quite remarkable if true in July as given on this site!) LWH
998 Possible severe winter. Thames frozen for five weeks
===============================
Then LIA
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1650_1699.htm
Many hot summers.
http://www.greenland-guide.gl/reg-south.htm
During the summer, South Greenland fully lives up to its Danish name, Green Land, as this is the most fertile part of the country. In fact most of the flora of Greenland grow in this particular region. The winter climate is relatively mild, and summer temperatures reaching 16-18°C are not uncommon. Because of these conditions, the economic life of this area is also very different from the rest of Greenland, with sheep farming and agriculture playing an important part. If you take a boat trip along the fjords you will see isolated sheep farms, some of which have paths and rough roads leading to them, while for others the only contact with the outside world is by boat or radio transmitter.
The sheep are rounded up in September, and some 20,000 lambs are taken on flat-bottomed boats to the slaughterhouse in Narsaq, one of the three sizeable large towns in South Greenland.
Many sheep farmers have built cabins near their farms, in which guests can stay for a day or two before they continue on foot to the next farm.
The abundant fertility of this region was also the reason why Eric the Red chose to live in South Greenland in around 985 AD, after he was outlawed from Iceland.
================
Your first encounter with large animals in Greenland usually takes place very soon after arrival. More than 3,000 musk oxen live in the area around Kangerlussuaq Airport and some of them can be seen in the immediate surroundings. A one-hour guided tour of the area will most likely include an encounter with these large, sedate animals.
Reindeer live all over the ice-free parts of Greenland, and you may be lucky to see a herd. Reindeer hide is very insulating, and if you decide to go on a dog-sledge tour you will have the chance to dress in clothes made from reindeer hide.
=====================
wiki
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China [1] New Zealand [2] and other countries [3] [4][5] [6] [7][8] lasting from about AD 950–1250.[9] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age.
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/751_999.htm
759/760 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) [ Some accounts have this as 761 .. usual dating problems ]. 1
763/64(Winter & later) The winter is noted as being 'severe' .. and was followed by a " long and terrible drought " .. in the spring/summer of 764: suggests abnormally persistent blocking / high pressure situation (at least, 'abnormal' in length of persistence in the same 'phase'), with the primary jet perhaps shunted well to the south. Some sources note 'great snow', with an 'intense' frost. In 'London Weather' entry, .... "one of the severest winters known in history". (Probably affected large areas of continental Europe, again suggesting a 'Scandinavian High' situation.) 1, 8
~770 - ~800 A period of higher frequency of cold winters (note: not necessarily every winter). This leads to the suggestion of blocking of the main Atlantic, westerly flow by often slow-moving, intense anticyclones, or an increased frequency of east or northeast flow with higher pressure to the north of these islands. This would tie in to a certain extent with the idea that Scandinavian exploration / raids were assisted by lack of 'westerly-storminess'. 1
798 (Winter) Ireland: snow - men & animals died. LWH
~800 (December) December 24th (original recorded as the 'Eve of Christmas', so presumably we must regard this as an 'Old Style' dating. Also, the exact year is subject to the same uncertainty as other events so long ago): gale: Great SW or W wind. Cities destroyed (!); Lamb has this comment in ref. 23: " The first recorded one of a series of storm floods .. which reduced the size of the island of Heligoland by more than half by the year 1300." LWH, 23
804 (March) March 17th: Ireland - Tornado(?): thunder, wind & lightning. '1010 men killed'. [ I wouldn't normally detail all 'tornado' events, but the death-toll warrants mention, and I do wonder given that over a thousand died, whether this was in fact a 'storm' event due to a major depression rather than a small-scale tornadic event.] LWH
817 (Winter) December 25th (presumably logged as 'Christmas Day'): Ireland - snow: many rivers & lakes frozen to February 22nd. [ Although only tied to Ireland, given the severity & length of the event, Britain must also have been affected. ] LWH
821/822 (Winter) A severe winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
827 Possible severe winter. Thames frozen for nine weeks. 8, LWH
844/845 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
850
855/856 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb); Great ice & frost until Jan. 7th - rivers & lakes froze. 1, LWH
856 Ireland: gale: very great wind; woods felled. LWH
859/60 (Winter) A severe winter in England. 1, 8
873/874 (Winter) A cold winter. (according to Easton, in CHMW/Lamb); Scotland: specifically a cold winter - great frost from November to April; thaw brought floods. 1,LWH
880/881 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
892(?) (November) 11th November: Ireland - gale, many trees and houses fell. LWH
908 Possible severe winter. Most English rivers frozen for two months. 8,LWH
910 - 930 Extended droughts with regularity: also thought that the summer half-years were warm or very warm more often than not - some notably hot summers. 1
912/913 (Winter) A severe winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
917(Winter) Ireland: severe winter - Great snow. Lakes frozen. [ As elsewhere, implies a blocked pattern, with occasional 'Atlantic' incursions. Must have affected Britain as well I would have thought.] LWH
923 Possible severe winter. Thames frozen for 13 weeks. Year may be 928 or 929. 8,LWH
927/928 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
939/940 (Winter) A cold winter. (Easton, in CHMW/Lamb) 1
941(Winter) Ireland: cold - Lakes & rivers froze. [ I wonder if this belongs to the winter noted above? ] LWH
944 Possible severe gale/storm in London; many houses destroyed. 1500 houses "fell" (destroyed?): affected the whole of England. 8,LWH
946 - 948 England: drought - 'no rain for 3 years' (unlikely to have been "no" rain - more likely a marked shortage of rainfall / winter snowfall). LWH
955 (Summer) Wales: Hot summer. [ Must surely have affected other parts of Britain - indeed, the heat may have been 'exceptional', if the summer was notably hot as far west as Wales.] LWH
973 Thames flood in London. 8
974/75 (Winter) Probably a severe winter across Britain .. usual doubts about dates etc. Severe winter over whole of Europe until March 11th (OS). 1, 8, LWH
990's Extended droughts with regularity: also thought that the summer half-years were warm or very warm more often than not - some notably hot summers. 1
992 Ireland: Storm flood - tempest (high wind?) submerged island fort in one hour Wicklow. [ The way this is written up suggests that this was a 'storme surge' event, rather than necessarily due to heavy rain - though the latter may have played a part.] LWH
995(Summer) Summer cold throughout Europe; severe frost & ice (quite remarkable if true in July as given on this site!) LWH
998 Possible severe winter. Thames frozen for five weeks
===============================
Then LIA
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1650_1699.htm
Many hot summers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
