Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace


So, here's an idle speculation which crossed my mind. If this weather were the precursor of another LIA, would the met office be the first to tell us, or the last?

Jul 1, 2012 at 10:57 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda


Yes, I agree B & W!

And on my Nikon D200 it just takes a few moments to switch to B&W

Jul 1, 2012 at 9:21 AM | Registered Commenterpeterwalsh

SKY news showing the following on screen:

Meteorologists confirm June weather wettest since 1860

I wonder what the Wet Office has to say about that?

Jul 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM | Registered Commenterpeterwalsh

This seems to be most representative of our current weather patterns:

Low pressure or Cyclonic weather systems track along the Polar Front that separates polar and tropical air and is coincident with Rossby Waves. Intensity of the system is determined by the temperature contrast across the Front so that is the location of most severe weather and heavy precipitation. With Meridional Flow and cold air pushing well south the contrast is greater, storms more intense and precipitation heavier. Because the system is stalled wind damage and rainfall levels are higher. They also orient north /south rather than west/east.

Current Global Weather Patterns Normal Despite Government and Media Distortions
by Dr. Tim Ball on June 28, 2012
in Antarctic,Arctic,History,Political,Theory

Jul 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM | Registered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

peterwalsh - B&W. All great moments in history have been recorded in B&W.

Jul 1, 2012 at 8:35 AM | Registered Commentermatthu

Robin - thanks for that - Booker must have read my comment!

As for the met office codes - yes, they are robust - but robustly biased in assuming a substantial CO2 effect. The last time I corresponded with them they assured me that the chance of a severely cold winter was 1/20 and this probability was independent of anything that had gone on before i.e. one cold year did not affect the probability of the following year also being cold.

How can they defend that position? Only by ignoring all other possible natural factors.

Quoting from the Research Council of Norway report

Furthermore, a good understanding of the climate system cannot be reached without a dedicated effort to understand the contribution to climate change from natural climate processes. The geological history very clearly documents a strong climate forcing associated with solar variability, although the exact mechanism has not been identified. This should call for a coherent international effort, but surprisingly, the worldwide scientific effort to increase our understanding of the natural variations is very limited, and this is most probably related to the limited funding available for basic, not agenda-driven research.

Therefore, in addition to implementing the recommendations of Klima21, this committee recommends an increased effort in research on the natural causes of climate change, in particular the activity variations of the sun, the mechanism of cloud formation, and the multi-decadal variations in ocean current systems.

And if the met office are belatedly engaged in any of that research, they certainly aren't incorporating it into any of their models any time soon.

Jul 1, 2012 at 8:32 AM | Registered Commentermatthu

Their [ The Climate Change Committee's ] latest pronouncements show a mind-boggling degree of ignorance. How can these people, utterly detached from the real world, advise government on anything? And how shall we cope with the economic fall-out from their prescriptions?

Jul 1, 2012 at 8:19 AM | Registered Commentermatthu


When Julia Slingo gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in March 2010 (link - see page Ev 61) she said:

At least for the UK the codes that underpin our climate change projections are the same codes that we use to make our daily weather forecasts, so we test those codes twice a day for robustness.

And here's Christopher Booker's comment in his Sunday Telegraph column today (third section):

The Met Office’s projections of future climate change are viewed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with total reverence. So the £33 million super-computer which failed to predict the wettest April in more than a century is one of those on which the IPCC relies for its predictions of what the weather will be like in 100 years’ time. It is hard to know which has become more discredited in the past two years, the UK Met Office or the IPCC, both of which rest their faith on computer models as dodgy as one of those proverbial nine-bob notes.

Jul 1, 2012 at 8:14 AM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

CAGW Legacy

“In 2002, you could stand in 41 per cent of Scotland and see no visual impact from built development,” says Helen McDaid, of the John Muir Trust, which campaigns for wild land. “By 2009, it was down to 28 per cent, largely due to wind farms.” That figure, produced by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), will be even lower by now. It fell by 3 per cent in 2008 alone.

Jul 1, 2012 at 8:05 AM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

I "subscribed" to Quadrant on line some time back and receive their newsletters occasionally.

This came in from them this morning...


This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features a situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.


You are in Queensland , Brisbane to be specific.

There is chaos all around you caused by severe storms.

This is a flood of biblical proportions.

You are a photo-journalist working for the Courier Mail, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos.

There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing into the water..

Nature is unleashing all its destructive fury.


Suddenly, you see a woman in the water.

She is fighting for her life, trying not to be taken down with the debris.

You move closer... Somehow, this woman looks familiar...

You suddenly realise who it is... It's Julia Gillard! You notice that the raging waters are about to take her under forever.

You have two options:

1. You can save the life of Prime Minister Gillard; or

2. You can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, documenting the death of one of the country's most powerful people!


Here's the question, and please give an honest answer...

Would you select high contrast colour film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?

Jul 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM | Registered Commenterpeterwalsh

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>