If you live in Central England and you thought the nights were exceptionally chilly last month, for April, the second month of Spring, then you would be right. There were numerous frosts throughout the month. I woke up to a hard ground frost on the east coast on St George’s Day and the grass was still frosted in the shade even hours after sun up. The days were cold too, but the nights were something special. So special in fact that April 2021 earns first place by a considerable margin for the coldest average April min CET since records began in 1878. April 2021 min CET = 1.0C. The next coldest April is 1917 at 1.4C, nearly half a degree warmer! That is really quite remarkable. April 1986, in terms of mean diurnal CET, was colder than April 2021 (5.8C vs. 6.4C) but the nights in 1986 were a lot warmer (2.2C vs. 1.0C), even though the days were colder. This undoubtedly comes down to the fact that April 2021 was also very sunny throughout the UK, raising daytime tempertures, but allowing them to plummet in the relentless northerly airflow, which brought cold air from the Arctic over the British Isles throught the entire month.
For the UK as a whole, the Met Office says that April 2021 saw the coldest average minmum temperatures for nearly 100 years:
April 2021 had the lowest average minimum temperatures for April in the UK since 1922, as air frost and clear conditions combined for a frost-laden, chilly month, despite long hours of sunshine.
It was very sunny:
Despite the low minimum temperatures and frosts, much of the UK has been basked in sunshine through April, with all UK countries currently reporting sunshine hours for the month in their top five ever recorded since 1919. This has provisionally seen Scotland and Wales break their existing records for sunshine hours in the month, with the two countries seeing 57% and 45% more sunshine than their long term averages. For Scotland, this would represent the second year running that April’s sunshine hours have broken the existing record, with 2021’s current figure of 211.5 topping 2020’s 204.6 to top the standings.
The final figures for 2021 don’t appear to be in yet, but April 2021 is definitely challenging 2020 as the sunniest month on record.
Currently the UK is experiencing its second sunniest April on record, with 218.8 hours. As the figures won’t include today’s sunshine totals, there is scope for this figure to rise further, potentially challenging the April record set last year with 224.5 hours. The UK saw 48% more sunshine hours than April’s average figure, and every country in the UK saw at least 40% more sunshine than the long-term average.
The irony here is that last year’s very sunny April – when the murderous sociopath Matt Hancock banned sunbathing and was threatening to ban all outdoor exercise for everyone because of a nasty bug going round – was also very warm, unlike this year of course. That was inevitably linked to climate change. Dr. Mark McCarthy, for example, wasted no time identifying a trend of warm Aprils due to the UK’s changing climate:
Dr Mark McCarthy is the head of the Met Office’s National Climate Information Centre. He said: “Although April 2020 will be remembered for being the sunniest April on record in England and the UK, along with the sunshine, the month was largely dry with mean temperatures well above average for most parts of the UK. The UK climate is warming, and it is notable that in a Met Office series from 1884 the Aprils of 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2020 are all in the top ten warmest.”
Strangely though, he hasn’t done the same this year! Global warming in the UK works in mysterious ways. It makes April sunnier and sunnier, and warmer and warmer, until suddenly it doesn’t and instead it makes April nights the coldest ever recorded going back to 1878, with the days not much better. Of course, real meteorologists know that the clue to this apparently bizarre weather is the changing spring jet stream configuration over the British Isles (and possible decadal trends in that configuration); atmospheric dynamics rather than simple thermodynamics. However, the all-singing, all dancing climate models don’t have much to say about that.
I once had a dog called Ellwood. He’d been horribly abused. He was a lot smarter than Tobias.
Conservative Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East and Chair of the House of Commons Select Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood, was invited onto the James Whale Show on Talk Radio to talk about the threat of climate change. Here he is from 11′ 40″ onwards. You have to watch it to believe it.
Here are a few juicy quotes taken from that erudite explanation by Ellwood of what climate change is and why we need to be concerned about it:
“So when we come to saying how can we change this, it all comes down to this hole in the ozone layer which is allowing the planet to heat up and we can actually close back this ozone layer if we’re a little bit more careful about CO2 emissions.”
Eh? Hole in the ozone layer? CO2 emissions? What’s that all about then? Well, according to science genius Ellwood:
“A lot of the stuff that we are burning today has been accumulated over millions of years, and coal and so forth and that is causing such a jump in CO2 emissions, it’s causing to burn a hole in the ozone layer.”
Ah, right, so CO2 from fossil fuels has ‘burnt’ a hole in the ozone layer and this is causing the planet to heat up. If you compare the Ellwood explanation of man-made climate change with Johnson’s explanation, this actually makes Johnson, who likens CO2 to a “great tea cosy in the sky”, seem like a Cambridge physics don.
Presenter: “It’s not burning holes in the ozone layer though is it, that was CFC’s, this is about greenhouse gases.”
Ellwood: “It’s the same thing, it’s the same thing, it’s causing our planet to heat up because the sun is able to have too much of an impact.”
Yep, Ellwoodian Fizzics basically states that if you burn a hole in the ozone layer with fossil fuel carbon dioxide, then the Sun is able to sneak through that hole and heat up the planet even more, so you’ve got to close the hole up in order to stop deserts growing, ice caps melting, crops failing and sea levels rising. Simples.
This is the man who is presumably highly influential in the UK’s defence policy folks. Sleep well. We’ve got a safe pair of hands there – minus the brain, of course.
‘Environmentalists’ have had their beady green eyes on your pet dogs and cats for years but they’re stepping up the assault now ahead of COP26 and also as they joyously surf the wave of economic and social destruction created by the fake ‘Covid crisis’, insisting that we must #buildbackbetter and #buildbackgreener. That process of ‘building back’ is to include dispensing with pets apparently, because their carbon pawprint is way too high and unacceptable to the High Priests of the Climate Action movement. This is very much an issue close to my heart, having currently two rescue German Shepherds and having spent more than half a lifetime in the company of animals, mainly rescue dogs, so I’ll try not to descend into incoherent ranting and keep to the facts, difficult as it is to resist the urge to verbally abuse these misanthropic, dog-hating, cat-hating freaks. You see, there I go already!
On GMB this morning, they invited Donnachadh McCarthy on to talk about the need to eradicate pets from the face of the planet in order to save wild animals from extinction and the environment from degradation:
‘Donna’, you may – or may not – recall is, according to his Twitter profile:
“Co-founder Stop Killing Cyclists. Author “The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Was Bought”. Eco-auditor. Eco-columnist for Independent.”
He’s also followed by Richard Betts, senior ‘climate scientist’ at the UK Meteorological Office, now a prominent advocate of Extinction Rebellion activists’ tactics and an apologist for the mythical ‘climate crisis’. I have no idea if Betts supports the gradual eradication of pets and dogs in order to ‘save the planet’ but the company kept by ‘climate scientists’ in their effort to convince us all that there is in fact a scientifically demonstrable ‘climate emergency’ is increasingly dubious of late.
In the video here, reproduced in The Sun newspaper, credit must be given to Susannah Reid who calls out ‘Donna’ on this issue, rightly pointing out that we, as human beings, also have a carbon footprint and, if we’re going to start getting rid of our pets by ‘not replacing them’ as loved family members, then when do we start getting rid of our kids – and ourselves? It’s one thing giving up an inanimate object like a car – as adored and as absolutely necessary as affordable personal transport is for millions of people – but it’s quite another thing to give up what most people consider a loved family member, albeit that they have four paws and a waggy tail. When Susannah points out that she ‘puts her kids and her pets before the planet’, Donna finds this ‘shocking’. He actually thinks that addressing the so called ‘extinction crisis’ is more important than our allegiance to our companion animals and our own children – who, in his eyes, are just useless, superfluous creators of excess carbon and thus shoud be gradually eliminated, i.e don’t breed and don’t have pets. This is a cold, callous, deeply misanthropic and cruel perspective which is sadly more and more typical of these neo Malthusian climate crisis freaks who think that the final solution to imminent man-made Thermageddon is drastic depopulation, not just of human beings, but their ‘useless eater’ companion animals as well.
Donna says that a Biosciences Journal study published in 2019 demonstrates that “the state of the carbon emissions from the average dog is equivalent to two household’s electricity emissions for a year”. What does this even mean? The study he mentions is probably this one: ‘The Ecological Paw Print of Companion Dogs and Cats’. As far as I can see, it mentions nothing about household electricity emissions. It compares the GHG emissions and “ecological paw print” (EPP) of cats and dogs in Japan, the Netherlands and China. This is what it says:
Meat-based diets require more energy and water and, therefore, have far greater environmental impacts than plant-based diets (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003, Reijnders and Soret 2003, Wirsenius et al. 2010, Okin 2017). For example, in China, commercial pet dry food has higher percentages of animal meat products than human foods. Therefore, the dietary EPP and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of companion dogs relying on commercial dry food was found to be much higher than the dogs relying on human leftover foods (Su et al. 2018b). If we look at differences between countries—assuming all companion dogs and cats eat commercial dry food—then the dietary EPP of all companion dogs and cats in China equals the dietary EF of between 70 million and 245 million Chinese people, in terms of homemade food (Su et al. 2018b). The carbon emissions resulting from the food consumption of these animals are equivalent to the emissions generated by the food consumption of between 34 million and 107 million Chinese people (Su et al. 2018b). Meanwhile, in Japan, companion dogs and cats may consume between 3.6% and 15.6% of the food eaten by Japanese people, and through their consumption, Japanese companions release between 2.5 million and 10.7 million tons of GHG per year (Su and Martens 2018).
The authors estimate the annual EPP in hectares (first column) and annual GHG emission in tons (second column) for the average sized dog (10-20kg), for dogs fed exclusively on dry kibble, as follows:
Per capita average-size dog
According to the Independent the average middle class family of four emits about 0.75 tons annually from electricity usage. Two families therefore emit 1.5 tons, which is indeed the same as the upper estimate of GHG emissions for a dog in China or Holland, but nearly twice the upper estimate for dogs in Japan. If we take the lower estimate, then the average dog uses less than half of just one family’s electricity in China and Holland and one sixth of a family’s average electricity emissions in Japan, therefore one twelth of two families’ emissions. So Donna’s assertion that your average pooch is the carbon criminal equivalent of two average families using electricity is stretching the truth somewhat, especially as your ‘average dog’ is probably not fed exclusively on a diet of industrially manufactured kibble.
But of course it stands to reason that dogs, being mainly carnivores, will be fed largely on a diet of animal protein and will therefore have an annual carbon footprint if that meat is produced commercially. Just as human beings eating meat (or even vegans) have a non negligible carbon footprint. Is this a valid excuse to abolish the age old human practice of keeping companion animals, especially canine companion animals? Because, you can be sure, it will never be enough. Once all the cats and dogs are gone, they’ll be coming for your children, demanding that you only have two, then one, then stop breeding. They’ll demand that you never eat meat again, then they’ll demand that you remove yourself completely from the gene pool in order to reduce your personal carbon footprint to zero. It will be the only way to prevent the ‘climate emergency’.
But back to dogs. What did dogs ever do for the human race? In response, it’ll be like the Monty Python sketch ‘What have the Romans ever done for us?’
The answers will be, throughout 40,000 years of co-evolving with domesticated wolves:
/ They helped us hunt wild prey
/ They gave us protection.
/ They gave us unconditional love
/ They protected our houses and our herd animals
/ They boosted our natural immunity via exposure to pathogens and by raising our oxytocin levels
/ By demanding walkies, they made us fitter and healthier, in mind and in body
/ Working in law enforcement and the military, they have apprehended criminals, kept us all safer and saved countless human lives
/ They have been the eyes and ears of disabled people and safe-guarded ill people by warning of e.g. imminent epileptic seizures
I could go on. The environmentalists want ‘rid of them’. The new breed of ‘environmentalists’ actually want rid of humanity as well. They are the ultimate misanthropists who would love to see the ‘virus’ that is humanity wiped out, along with every single one of their domesticated agricultural and companion animals. Net Zero = Net Zero human race. Only when ‘we’ are all gone will the planet be happy again. Of course, ‘they’ (the neo-Malthusian Greens) will be the last to vacate, because they have to oversee the cull, naturally.
An important new study has been published in the Earth and Space Science journal of the AGU, which establishes a close correlation between solar activity (namely, the end of solar cycles) and the transition from prevailing El Nino to La Nina conditions in the Pacific. Says one of the authors:
“Energy from the Sun is the major driver of our entire Earth system and makes life on Earth possible,” said Scott McIntosh, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and co-author of the paper. “Even so, the scientific community has been unclear on the role that solar variability plays in influencing weather and climate events here on Earth. This study shows there’s reason to believe it absolutely does and why the connection may have been missed in the past.”
The researchers looked at the 22 year Hale Cycle and established a statistically significant correlation between the well defined end of the Hale Cycle and sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific:
The 22-year cycle begins when oppositely charged magnetic bands that wrap the Sun appear near the star’s polar latitudes, according to their recent studies. Over the cycle, these bands migrate toward the equator—causing sunspots to appear as they travel across the mid-latitudes. The cycle ends when the bands meet in the middle, mutually annihilating one another in what the research team calls a terminator event. These terminators provide precise guideposts for the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next.
The researchers imposed these terminator events over sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific stretching back to 1960. They found that the five terminator events that occurred between that time and 2010-11 all coincided with a flip from an El Nino (when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average) to a La Nina (when the sea surface temperatures are cooler than average). The end of the most recent solar cycle—which is unfolding now—is also coinciding with the beginning of a La Nina event.
It appears to be very unlikely that the correlation is purely coincidental, with now six terminator events being simultaneous with a switch from El Nino to Lan Nina conditions:
In fact, the researchers did a number of statistical analyses to determine the likelihood that the correlation was just a fluke. They found there was only a 1 in 5,000 chance or less (depending on the statistical test) that all five terminator events included in the study would randomly coincide with the flip in ocean temperatures. Now that a sixth terminator event—and the corresponding start of a new solar cycle in 2020—has also coincided with an La Nina event, the chance of a random occurrence is even more remote, the authors said.
The study did not attempt to establish a causal mechanism, but critically it has established beyond all reasonable doubt that there must exist some causal relationship between major fluctuations in the solar magnetic field and climate variability on earth.
In the paper itself, the authors state:
A forecast of the Sun’s global behavior places the next solar cycle termination in mid‐2020; should a major oceanic swing follow [it has], then the challenge becomes: when does correlation become causation and how does the process work?
In the previous section, we have made use of a modified Superposed Epoch Analysis (mSEA) to investigate the relationships between solar activity measures and variability in a standard measure of the variability in the Earth’s largest ocean—the Pacific. We have observed that this mSEA method brackets solar activity and correspondingly systematic transitions from warm‐to‐cool Pacific conditions around abrupt changes in solar activity we have labeled termination points. These termination points mark the transition from one solar activity (sunspot) cycle to the next following the cancellation or annihilation of the previous cycle’s magnetic flux at the solar equator—the end of Hale magnetic cycles.
Correlation does not imply causation; however, the recurrent nature of the ONI signal in the terminator fiducial would appear to indicate a strong physical connection between the two systems. Appendix B discusses three statistical Monte Carlo tests that show the chances of these events lining up for five cycles are remote: in summary we may reject the null hypothesis of random cooccurrences with a confidence level p < 3.4 × 10−3.
What’s interesting is that the authors identify the past several decades as a ‘default El Nino like state’ when cloud cover in the Western Pacific has been depleted, coincident with a weakened Pacific Walker circulation and strengthened Brewer-Dobson circulation. During this period, they argue that ENSO has been uniquely sensitive to variations in solar activity:
Thus, over the past several decades the cloud pattern in the western Pacific has adopted an almost El Niño‐like default state, consistent with an observed eastward shift in precipitation in the tropical Pacific and weakening of the Walker circulation over the last century (Deser et al., 2004; Vecchi & Soden, 2007a), and which has been tied, via simple thermodynamics, to a warmer atmosphere.
Thus, it is entirely plausible that since changes in the (upper) atmosphere brought on by a strengthened Brewer‐Dobson circulation, weakened Pacific Walker circulation, and less cloudy Western Pacific, enables the relatively constant terminator‐driven changes to have sufficient “impact” to flip the system from El Niño to La Niña, independent of the actual mechanism that couples solar changes to clouds and ENSO.
The 2020 termination of the last Hale cycle, marked by the end of SC24 and beginning of SC25 is, according to Valentina Zharkhova, the beginning of a Maunder-like Minimum which will last from 2020-2053. If, as she suggests, global surface temperatures decline during this period, then we might expect the relationship between Terminator events and the switch from El Nino to La Nina to become less pronounced. The current progression of the Pacific to a La Nina may in fact be the beginning of a phase change from an ‘El Nino-like default state’ to a La Nina-like default state where, ironically, solar activity has less of an influence on central Pacific ocean surface temperatures. We shall see. All I can at this present time is that it’s extremely cold here in England at the start of April – it’s been perishing most days since January – and it certainly feels like a Maunder Minimum! Two very warm days at the end of March doesn’t quite convince me that global warming has not deserted the UK!
This means that, this month at least, according to UAH satellite data, the world is now no warmer than it was in 2012, at the end of the long global warming ‘pause’ from 1998 to 2012. In other words, all of the global warming in the El Nino years after 2012 has been reversed. If the current run of cool months continues, it will not be long before the running 13 month mean coincides with the new 30 year climate normal of 1991-2020. This may happen around November 2021, when the great and the good of UN IPCC and climate concerned world leaders meet in Glasgow for COP26. They’ll be discussing how to avoid man-made Thermageddon in a world which will have refused to warm significantly in 30 years, telling us all that we must give up our cars, our jet set lifestyles (which the fascist vaccine passports will probably already have severely curtailed), our gas boilers and any hope of selling our old houses because of the introduction of new green insulation standards which make them prohibitively expensive to upgrade.
Mike Hulme is a former climate scientist at UEA who has consistently, with integrity and honesty, resisted the siren call of climate alarmism. Most especially, when the extinction fanatics and climate emergency cultists came to the fore and commandeered the climate change social narrative in 2019, he wrote this very sensible and enlightening piece on his blog, which was covered by Paul Matthews at Cliscep here. Hulme says:
Yet I resist the current mood of ‘extinctionism’ which pervades the new public discourse around climate change. Talking about the future in this way is counter-productive. And it does a disservice to development, justice, peace-making and humanitarian projects being undertaken around the world today.
This rise in extinction rhetoric in (largely) English-speaking societies over the past 12 months is in part linked to the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5C Warming published last October. The slogan “we have only 12 years left” has somehow been extracted from this Report and feeds the rise of climate clocks such as this one from the Human Impact Lab in Montreal. But the IPCC Report offers neither scientific nor historical evidence for human extinction.
From this extinction fear arises the “panic” that Greta Thunberg has called for. Panic demands a response and one response is to declare an emergency. ‘Climate emergencies’ are now being declared in jurisdictions ranging from universities, the British Parliament and several local authorities in the UK.
But the rhetoric of extinction and emergency does not adequately describe the situation we find ourselves in. Declaring a climate emergency implies the possibility of time-limited radical and decisive action that can end the emergency. But climate change is not like this. The historical trajectory of human expansion, western imperialism and technological development has created climate change as a new condition of human existence rather than as a path to extinction.
It’s interesting that Professor Hulme identifies SR15 as the possible source of the climate emergency/climate crisis and extinction rhetoric, whilst at the same time denying that the science therein lent any credibility to such claims. But that’s what the IPCC do. They publish the science and then they promote an unjustified and somewhat alarmist interpretation of that science in the summary for policy makers. What is more interesting is that he implies that anthropogenic climate change, which is not an existential threat or an emergency, is something we must learn to live with and adapt to and presumably attempt to mitigate.
He also rejects the idea that we need a wholesale reorganisation of society and political structures in order to deal with climate change:
Nor does the rhetoric of climate and extinction help us politically. Simply ‘uniting behind the science’ or ‘passing on the words of science’ gets us no further forward politically. Even if climate science predicted the extinction of humanity, as Darrick Evensen explains climate change “raises a host of ethical, historical and cultural questions that are at most tangentially connected to any scientific findings.”
Bearing this in mind, it is perhaps not surprising to find that Mike Hulme also rejects the ‘Covid crisis’ narrative and is sceptical of the value of lockdowns, arguing for the restoration of our society and former political structures, stating that we must learn to live with this disease. Hulme rejects the simplistic narrative that mass vaccination will achieve a return to normality, as promoted by politicians and as naively believed by so many.
There is a naïve assumption that mass vaccination will allow social life in the UK to return to normal. It is far from obvious that this is so. As the authoritarian regulation of public life extends and continues, the erosion of collective and individual freedoms will only be reversed if citizens demand it.
He criticises the misguided belief in science as the saviour of society and the sole arbiter of policy:
Science is sustained on the promise that its enterprise not only yields greater knowledge about how the physical world works but, crucially, that this knowledge offers more certainty about the future. And that with more certainty about the future, science therefore enables better (‘more rational’) decisions to be made about how to secure policy goals.
The political rhetoric regarding the progression of the coronavirus pandemic and the development of vaccines has certainly leant heavily on this promise. Those whose guiding light is premised on science, therefore remain suspended between finding ways of living a worthwhile life amidst deep uncertainty and waiting for science to deliver on its promise.
But such a prospectus mis-sells science. And it underestimates the complexity of how physical and social worlds interact to create the future. The more scientific knowledge is gained about the physical world, the more it is realized what is still not known. The exploratory frontier of science never closes; indeed, it continues to expand. This is what history teaches us, not least with respect to infectious diseases and vaccines.
The vaccine rollout will not, cannot restore what has been lost through lockdowns:
Now don’t mis-read me. I am most definitely not anti-science and vaccines are good things. Absolutely. The world needs them, desperately. But we deceive ourselves badly if we think that the mass roll out of vaccines will by itself put back together our broken social and economic worlds. The biggest danger in the roll-out of vaccines is that in the public mind they are interpreted as white horses riding out to save us.
This is a mirage. Vaccines will reduce case fatality rates and the incidence of serious side-effects. But transmission will continue, albeit at lower rates but with occasional spikes. SARS-CoV-2 will still be with us. We need to find better ways of living with the risks this virus will continue to pose to life and health than by suspending individual and collective freedoms through shutting down society (lockdown).
He is obviously very concerned at the loss of liberty and the social and psychological harms inflicted upon us as a result of lockdowns:
These restrictions are deeply worrying, whilst also appearing disarmingly mundane.
Worrying for those who hold to a certain view of western liberal democracy are the following: the abandonment of the right of assembly; unprecedented state restriction on personal freedom of movement; the forcible incarceration of elders in care homes (keeping them alive so that they may die lonely and alone); the isolation of the mentally ill in hospitals; the enforced schooling of children at home; the suspension of the right to trade; the expansion of state surveillance; the enlargement and intrusion of police powers into private life.
Who could disagree? Quite a few, apparently, which is worrying in itself.
He says what I have been saying myself for many months. The only way to end this nightmare is for us, the people, to stand up and re-assert our right to live life normally again. The government is not going to give us back what it has taken unless we demand it. Meekly acquiescing to a coerced mass vaccination campaign which mainly benefits people like Bill Gates will not get us back to normal. Quite the opposite in fact. It will inform the government that it can dictate to us even what we put into our own bodies. That is an extremely perilous thing to do.
The simple belief that securing the mass roll out of vaccines will automatically reverse the state’s appropriation of unprecedented powers, manifest in the large and small ways summarized above, is dangerous in both its naivety and passivity. Vaccines of course do not have the agency to return rights and freedoms that have been suspended, but neither can we expect politicians or medical experts to automatically restore them. The totalizing hold that the central state now has on British political and social life will only be relaxed by citizens demanding the return of those liberties and freedoms that have been withheld.
There is hard political, psychological and social work to be done in re-constructing the basic elements of a free and sociable society that have been so badly damaged. Three things are necessary in the weeks, months and years ahead to achieve what the vaccines on their own cannot achieve — the re-socialisation of society.
Mike advises of the need to dispel the irrational and damaging fear which has been deliberately generated and engineered by alarmist academics and psychologists at SAGE, the media and by the government itself:
Finally, Mike advises us that we must learn to live with the risk of death or disease from SARS-CoV-2. Just like the ever present risks of climate change must be normalized, managed and incorporated into our existing social and political structures sensibly and rationally, which means not kowtowing to the demands of extinction rebellion fanatics and hysterics at the Graun screaming that we must radically alter our society, our behaviours and our modes of governance in order to avert an existential climate crisis.
And, third, it is necessary to accept that COVID-19 and its threats to human life and health will not be eliminated by vaccines. COVID risk needs to be treated just like other presenting risks. (I am not saying that all risks are equal in threat or the same in character; rather, that we need equally to learn how to live with risk while preserving the things we value). COVID risk should not be exceptionalised. It needs to be assimilated into everyday risk awareness, social norms and human behaviour.
There’s a post published at Watts Up With That which provides a sneak preview of some CMIP6 models runs for the upcoming release of the IPCC’s AR6 (Part 1: Physical Science Basis due in April 2021). As the author, Andy May says:
The new IPCC report, abbreviated “AR6,” is due to come out between April 2021 (the Physical Science Basis) and June of 2022 (the Synthesis Report). I’ve purchased some very strong hip waders to prepare for the events. For those who don’t already know, sturdy hip waders are required when wading into sewage.
Andy has looked at some of CMIP6 climate model runs posted on KNMI Explorer and this is what he found:
The base period is 1981-2010 and the emissions pathway is ssp245, which is similar to the old RCP4.5 concentration pathway. Most as you can see project global warming in 2100 to be somewhere between just over 1.0C and 2.5C, which in itself is quite a spread. But then you look at UKESM1.0 (light blue) and CanESM5 (yellow – partly obscured) and they are projecting warming anywhere between about 2.5C and 3.8C. They stand out like sore thumbs in 2100, as does UKESM1.0 hindcast warming in the 1960s using historical forcings. As you can see, UKESM1.0 cools the mid 20th century cooling period by -1.5C compared to 1981-2010! That is huge and is not borne out by actual observations. I went into the reasons for this discrepancy here.
To get a clearer picture of how UKESM deviates from actual measurements, here are the graphs of Hadcrut 4 against the model runs:
Quite obviously, UKESM1.0 vastly overstates mid 20th century cooling in the northern hemisphere. Why? Because it greatly overestimates the impact of anthropogenic aerosol cooling. Here is what the Met Office say about UKESM1.0 and the physical general circulation model on which it is based:
The Earth System Model UKESM1, and the physical model (or General Circulation Model) it is based on, HadGEM3-GC3.1 are the result of years of work by scientists and software engineers from the Met Office and wider UK science community.
Analysis shows the climate sensitivity of the models is high. For both models the Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCR) is about 2.7 °C, while the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is about 5.4°C for UKESM1 and about 5.5°C for GC3.1. Future projections using the new models are in progress. When these have been analysed, we will have a better understanding of how the climate sensitivity affects future warming and associated impacts.
Very high sensitivity means that historic aerosol forcings must be correspondingly high in order for the model to align with current (presumed highly accurate) global mean surface temperature data. But the aerosol forcing is so high that it ends up unrealistically cooling the 1960s. As I pointed out:
UKESM1 massively overstates mid 20th century cooling but it has to if it is to get the rest of the historical record more or less correct with such a ridiculously high sensitivity built in. Note that it is indeed overestimated aerosol cooling which is responsible for this 20th century mismatch because it is much more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere where most of the heavy industry was and still is.
The Met Office confirms that large anthropogenic aerosol forcings were incorporated into the development of UKESM1.0:
UKESM1 is developed on top of the coupled physical model, HadGEM3-GC3 (hereafter GC3). GC3 consists of the Unified Model (UM) atmosphere, JULES land surface scheme, NEMO ocean model and the CICE sea ice model. The UM atmosphere in GC3 is Global Atmosphere version 7 (GA7). Inclusion in GA7 of both a new cloud microphysics parameterization and the new GLOMAP aerosol scheme led to a concern the model might exhibit a strong negative historical aerosol radiative forcing (i.e. a strong aerosol-induced cooling due to increasing anthropogenic emission of aerosol and aerosol precursors over the past ~150 years) with potentially detrimental impacts on the overall historical simulation of both GC3 and UKESM1.
A protocol was therefore developed to assess the Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) of the mainclimate forcing agents over the historical period (~1850 to 2000), namely; well mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs), aerosols and aerosol precursors, tropospheric ozone and land use change. This protocol follows that of the CMIP6 RFMIP project (Andrews 2014, Pincus et al. 2016). The aim was to assess the change in the mean top-of-atmosphere (TOA) ERF between average pre-industrial (~1850 in our experiments) and present-day (~2000) conditions. In particular to assess the aerosol ERF, with a requirement that the total (all forcing agents) historical ERF be positive. Initial tests revealed an aerosol ERF of -2.2 Wm-2, significantly stronger than the -1.4 Wm-2 simulated by HadGEM2-A (Andrews 2014) and also outside the IPCC AR5 5-95% range of -1.9 to -0.1 Wm-2. As a result of the large (negative) aerosol ERF, the total ERF diagnosed over the historical period was approximately 0 Wm-2.
They were so large initially that they had to find a method of actually reducing them:
We therefore investigated aspects of GA7 that could be causing this strong aerosol forcing and, where possible, introduced new processes and/or improved existing process descriptions to address these. The goal of this effort was to develop an atmosphere model configuration solidly based on GA7.0 that:1.Had a less negative aerosol ERF and thereby a total historical ERF of >+ 0.5 Wm-22.
The above is bad enough news for the historical authenticity of UKESM1.0 and hence its reliability in terms of future projections, but it gets worse. A paper recently published argues that anthropogenic aerosol forcings cool the climate even less than originally thought, meaning that UKESM1.0 is even more out of sync with reality than as described above:
“Our conclusion is that the cooling effect of aerosols on clouds is overestimated when we rely on ship-track data,” says Glassmeier. “Ship tracks are simply too short-lived to provide the correct estimate of cloud brightening.” The reason for this is that ship-track data don’t account for the reduced cloud thickness that occurs in widespread pollution. “To properly quantify these effects and get better climate projections, we need to improve the way clouds are represented in climate models,” Glassmeier explains further.
Oh dear, it’s not looking good for the Met Office’s ‘flagship’ CMIP6 climate model. Maybe they need to raise the white flag of surrender. It’s not much better for the Canadian model either, or in fact any of the CMIP6 13 model ensemble according to Andy May.
Historical forcings are used prior to 2014 and projected values after. The blue and orange curves are from two runs from a single Canadian model. The two runs are over 0.2°C different in 2010 and 2011, some months they are over 0.5°C different. There are multiple periods where the model runs are clearly out-of-phase for several years, examples are 2001-2003 and 2014 to 2017. The period from 2015 to 2019 is a mess.
I’m unimpressed with the CMIP6 models. The total warming since 1900 is less than one degree, but the spread of model results in Figure 1 is never less than one degree. It is often more than that, especially in the 1960s. The models are obviously not reproducing the natural climate cycles or oscillations, like the AMO, PDO and ENSO. As can be seen in Figure 2 they often are completely out-of-phase for years, even when they are just two runs from the same model. I used the Canadian model as an example, but the two NCAR model runs (CESM2) are no better. In fact, in the 2010-2011 period and the 2015-2019 period they are worse as you can see in Figure 4.
Terrawatch: the adventurous icebergs that trigger ice ages
How does an ice age start? We know that changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun alter the amount of solar energy reaching our planet, but it has long been a mystery as to how this triggers such a dramatic change in the climate. A study shows that Antarctic icebergs may be responsible for tipping the balance.
Aidan Starr, from Cardiff University, and his team analysed sediments recovered by the International Ocean Discovery Program from the ocean floor south of South Africa. Within those sediments were tiny fragments of rock dropped by melting Antarctic icebergs. By studying the chemistry of the tiny deep-sea fossils found throughout the sediment core, the scientists were able to show that when climate conditions enabled icebergs to travel this far north they made the North Atlantic fresher and the Southern Ocean saltier.
Climate and ocean simulations revealed that this pulse of freshwater to the North Atlantic triggered changes in ocean circulation patterns that led to more carbon dioxide being pulled out of the Earth’s atmosphere, helping to plunge the planet into an ice age. The results, which were published in Nature, show that every glacial period over the last 1.6m years is associated with Antarctic icebergs straying farther north than normal.
That was it. That was the entire article. Something’s wrong here I thought, the Graun almost never publishes anything on climate without mentioning the dreaded climate crisis. There must be more to it than this. So I dug a little deeper into reports elsewhere of this recently published paper and sure enough, climate change does get mentioned, by the authors themselves in fact.
Professor Ian Hall, co-author of the study and co-chief scientist of the IODP Expedition, also from the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said: “Our results provide the missing link into how Antarctica and the Southern Ocean responded to the natural rhythms of the climate system associated with our orbit around the sun.”
Over the past 3 million years the Earth has regularly plunged into ice age conditions, but at present is currently situated within an interglacial period where temperatures are warmer.
However, due to the increased global temperatures resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the researchers suggest the natural rhythm of ice age cycles may be disrupted as the Southern Ocean will likely become too warm for Antarctic icebergs to travel far enough to trigger the changes in ocean circulation required for an ice age to develop.
Professor Hall believes that the results can be used to understand how our climate may respond to anthropogenic climate change in the future.
“Likewise as we observe an increase in the mass loss from the Antarctic continent and iceberg activity in the Southern Ocean, resulting from warming associated with current human greenhouse-gas emissions, our study emphasises the importance of understanding iceberg trajectories and melt patterns in developing the most robust predictions of their future impact on ocean circulation and climate,” he said.
I’ve been around the whole subject of climate change alarmism long enough to know how these guys’ minds work. The above passage is very subtly phrased such that it leaves it open for climate scientists to claim either that man-made global warming means that ice ages might never happen ever again because we have made the oceans too warm for Antarctic icebergs to drift far enough north to trigger them or we’ve warmed the Antarctic so much that it’s beginning to break up and massive icebergs drifting as far north as the Cape may trigger a future catastrophic ice age. They like to keep their options open.
Freshwater pulses into the north Atlantic have long been associated with a dramatic slowing of the AMOC and climate alarmists have used evidence of rapidly melting Greenland glaciers (allegedly caused by global warming) to argue that the region may reach a ‘tipping point’ where the AMOC (which includes the Gulf Stream) abruptly slows, plunging Europe and North America into an era of much colder winters. Not a full ice age, more akin to that which happened during the Little Ice Age. But then other scientists have argued that we narrowly missed a full glacial inception near the end of that period and it was only man-made GHGs which ‘saved’ us. So it’s clear, there’s room to argue that if AMOC is disrupted by a nasty South African variant iceberg which has travelled far north from the Antarctic (due to global warming fracturing the ice shelf) we may be in for some decidedly chilly weather.
The authors argue that this may not happen (as it apparently has happened at each previous glacial inception) because the icebergs which break off may not travel as far north as South Africa because the Southern Ocean will be too warm. Hence the planet may be ‘doomed’ to remain within a perpetual warm interglacial. But it’s not that warm in the seas around Antarctica at the moment – in fact, the Southern ocean surface waters have been cooling, especially over recent decades, contrary to scientists’ expectations.
Despite global warming, SSTs in the Southern Ocean (SO) have cooled in recent decades largely as a result of internal variability. The global impact of this cooling is assessed by nudging evolving SO SST anomalies to observations in an ensemble of coupled climate model simulations under historical radiative forcing, and comparing against a control ensemble. The most significant remote response to observed SO cooling is found in the tropical South Atlantic, where increased clouds and strengthened trade winds cool the sea surface, partially offsetting the radiatively‐forced warming trend. The SO ensemble produces a more realistic tropical South Atlantic SST trend, and exhibits a higher pattern correlation with observed SST trends in the greater Atlantic basin, compared to the control ensemble. SO cooling also produces a significant increase in Antarctic sea ice, but not enough to offset radiatively‐induced ice loss; thus, the SO ensemble remains biased in its sea ice trends.
Over the period 1982 to 2011, however, a cooling trend was recorded in surface waters in some parts of the Southern Ocean around the Antarctic continent, specifically in the area south of 55 degrees latitude. This cooling was strongest in the Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean, where the ocean surface cooled by around 0.1°C per decade, and the weakest in the Indian and parts of the Atlantic sectors.
So at the moment, there is not much preventing a large piece of the Antarctic ice sheet which has broken away from drifting north into the ocean and heading towards South Africa. The Southern Ocean does not look like it’s going to become warm enough to melt icebergs any time soon. Oh dear. South African variant icebergs may be the ‘tipping point’ which propels the planet into a new and deadly Ice Age. We could call these dangerous icebergs ‘Thunbergs’, after dear Greta, who is forever warning us about tipping points.
Each year that the US gets severe cold weather (which has happened a lot over the past 20 years), there’s always a few climate change fanatics who claim that it’s due to global warming. They have to you see. Snow, ice and severe cold are bad for business. It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Winters were supposed to get warmer, shorter, spring was supposed to arrive earlier and summers were meant to be searingly hot. Severe cold weather at the end of January doesn’t fit the narrative, so they change the narrative. Simples.
I recall the good old days, when President Trump was around to troll the climate change fanatics with tweets like this:
In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!
They went into hysterics of course, on that occasion claiming that it was ‘just weather’ and that Trump was using ‘just weather’ to ridiculously claim that global warming wasn’t happening. ‘Experts’ and the Guardian laid into him lie a pack of hyenas:
US president again conflates weather with climate to mock climate change
Experts call comments ‘scientifically ridiculous and demonstrably false’
The president was reheating two favourite tropes: the conflation of weather with climate to pour scepticism on global warming, and the supposed cost to the American taxpayer of the Paris climate accord, from which he has confirmed the US will withdraw.
Climate scientists, however, have long warned against using individual weather events to ponder the existence or otherwise of global warming. Weather, they point out, refers to atmospheric conditions during a short period; climate relates to longer-term weather patterns.
“There is a fundamental difference in scale between what weather is and what climate is,” he said. “What’s going on in one small corner of the world at a given moment does not reflect what’s going on with the planet.”
But severe (often record breaking) cold weather has been happening so frequently, particularly in the eastern US, that climate change fanatics are now having to admit it’s not ‘just weather’ after all, as they previously shrieked and screamed in response to being trolled by Trump, it’s actually a bizarre and counter-intuitive result of global warming. Yep, the new global warming is . . . . . . cooling!
Hence, with Bidet now in charge, who made it his first task on day one of his fake Presidency to sign the US back up to the Paris Accord, and the upcoming COP26 meeting in Glasgow, climate alarmists are keen to keep the man-made global warming narrative going, even during severely cold winter weather.
So the NYT, noting the present cold weather in the US, has once again wheeled out Jennifer Francis along with her theory of how Arctic warming causes extreme weather, a theory which has been doing the rounds for several years now, which has been severely criticised by scientists, has little real evidence in its favour, but is all they’ve got, so they keep regurgitating it to explain inconveniently cold and snowy weather.
Disturbances to the upper-atmosphere phenomena known as the polar vortex can send icy blasts from the Arctic into the middle latitudes, chilling Europe, Asia and parts of North America. The disturbance and its effects have persisted for an unusually long time this year, said Jennifer Francis, a senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center, with two disruptions of the polar vortex so far this year and, potentially, a third on the way.
Research into the interplay of the complex factors that bring on blasts from the polar vortex is ongoing, but climate change appears to be part of the mix. While warming means milder winters overall, “the motto for snowstorms in the era of climate change could be ‘go big or go home!’ said Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a company that provides information to clients about weather and climate-related risk.
The wild weather has its origins in the warming Arctic. The region is warming faster than the rest of the planet, and research suggests that the rising temperatures are weakening the jet stream, which encircles the pole and generally holds in that frigid air. In early January, a surge of sudden warming hit the polar stratosphere, the zone five to thirty miles above the surface of the planet.
But it’s not clear cut, as the NYT itself admits:
While the scientific evidence supporting climate change is indisputable, the connection between climate change and the disruptions in the stratosphere is not so settled. Dr. Cohen was an author of a paper last year in the journal Nature Climate Change, which looked at winter data from 2008 to 2018. The team found a sharp increase in Northeast winter storms over the previous decade. “Severe winter weather is much more frequent when the Arctic is warmest,” Dr. Cohen said.
Dr. Butler, however, said that across the full historical record, which goes back to 1958, “There is no indication of a long-term trend” in polar vortex disruptions. The weather patterns that affect the vortex “occur naturally even in the absence of climate change,” with some decades showing no disruptions and other decades with one in almost every year.
But Jennifer Francis is having none of it. There simply must be a connection she states; we just haven’t discovered it yet:
To Dr. Francis, a senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center, the influence of climate change on these phenomena is inevitable, if still somewhat mysterious. “We’re changing the planet in such dramatic and incontrovertible ways,” she said. “The atmosphere is different now. The Earth’s surface is different now. The oceans are different now. So there must be some connections that are yet to be discovered as we do more research on the stratospheric polar vortex.”
This is climate science for you. This is extreme weather attribution. If the data doesn’t fit the theory, if the theory fails, then just invoke the climastrologists’ Inevitability Principle, which states:
A must cause B, even though there’s no evidence that B is caused by A, simply because A ‘changes everything’ and A is ‘settled science’.
It’s now effectively illegal to leave the UK. We are living on Prison Island. Supposedly, this is because of a ‘deadly virus’ and its ever changing ‘new variants’. It is to ‘protect us’. No, it is not, it is the dictatorial, fascist, globalist, Communist – call it what you will – UK government flexing its authoritarian muscles over us all using a flu like respiratory virus as a convenient excuse to crush our civil liberties and in particular our freedom to travel.
Why would the UK government want us to stop travelling and seeing the world? Because the peasantry have had it too good for too long and they have become enlightened and knowledgeable, freedom-loving, outward-looking, globe-trotting individuals who must be put back in their box if the Great Reset is to work.
Essential to the Great Reset of course is the destruction of society and the economy as we know it to enable our dictatorial governments to ‘build back better’ which is ‘build back greener’ which basically means eco-communism on a global scale in order to ‘save the planet’ from the world-destroying anthropogenic carbon-dioxide Thermageddon molecule.
To this end, the UK government has committed to reaching net zero by 2050. That will mean very drastic changes in our lifestyle. It will mean closing most airports and ending all ‘unnecessary’ international travel in the next decade. The plan is outlined here, in a report commissioned by the government. Patel’s arrogant curtailment of our most basic human rights has nothing whatsoever to do with a virus, everything to do with reaching the legally binding net zero emissions target. But that will entail huge collateral damage. I wonder if she cares. I wonder if the government cares. I doubt it.
They’ve only got 8 years to force the closure of all airports except Heathrow, Belfast and Glasgow. Destroying the international tourism industry and sending all budget airline operators into bankruptcy is the way they will do it. It’s so they can ‘save the planet’ remember, prevent mass extinctions, an environmental, ecological and climatological catastrophe. Yeah, right:
In addition to the human cost, she highlighted the impact that a loss of tourists is having on conservation efforts. “The 100,000-plus Namibians dependent on tourism are all hanging on by the barest of margins, and tourism is also vital in protecting species such as black and white rhino, elephant, lion, cheetah, leopard, pangolin, and wild dog,” she said.
“Any further delay in allowing UK tourists to visit Namibia will directly result in increased poaching, habitat destruction and a humanitarian disaster.
“We are already seeing the effects of this in terms of huge increases in poverty in remote communities which have traditionally relied on tourism; children are unable to attend school, families cannot buy food, villages are beginning to question the value of conserving wildlife when faced with the ongoing inability to meet their basic needs.
“If we are not able to welcome UK tourists back to Namibia when this lockdown eases, many more companies will be forced into liquidation and the future of conservation here will be in serious trouble. We can never get back the iconic species that may be lost, and we must do everything in our power to prevent this catastrophe.”
Her thoughts were echoed by Alexandra Matts, director of UK firm Extraordinary Africa. She said: “Each job in a safari camp supports 8-10 people. Without tourism those jobs don’t exist. There is little to no social security in any of the countries we work in so the people who rely on that income have no other fallback. In many companies, management have taken huge reductions in salaries to protect those at the bottom, and camp owners are trying to keep staff afloat out of rapidly dwindling savings.
“Vast tracts of land, such as the conservancies around the Maasai Mara, are protected for wildlife only because of the income from tourism. In addition, almost every single lodge and camp we work with has outreach projects to support conservation and the local community – anti-poaching projects, school projects, HIV projects, water projects – the list goes on. Without tourism jobs, without tourist money to protect land, without tourism funding for vital projects, the consequences are devastating.”
Jane Palmer of Conservation Travel Africa, a small UK firm that specialises in volunteering breaks, said: “While we are all desperate to travel, we need to remember that the people and wildlife on the ground in Africa are even more desperate for us to visit. What is just a holiday for us means so much more to the people that companies like ours are trying to support. Does that make travel to Africa an unimportant luxury?”
Killing off iconic African wildlife and habitat and pushing millions of Africans into poverty to ‘save the planet’ by reducing our tiny contribution to global GHG emissions, whilst China, which gave us this ‘deadly pandemic’ – and its travel-destroying ‘mutant strains’ – in the first place, races away building thousands more coal-fired power stations. Ironic too, that it is mainly Chinese demand for exotic animal products which will now be contributing to the accelerated decline of African wildlife. Wasn’t it supposed to be the Chinese demand for exotic animals to eat which gave us this bloody world-destroying, most hyped ‘pandemic’ in human history?