‘e who must not be named must be rubbin’ ‘is ‘ands wiv glue, I mean glee. Shame to disappoint ‘im, really, isn’ it? But you’re right, it ‘ad to ‘appen, an’ it couldn’ ‘appen to a nicer bloke, ‘n all.

I’m wiv Bryan. Only I don’t ‘ave a spare two big ones.

He’s made this bet with you know who at you know where.

Bryan Leyland December 24, 2010 at 10:38 am

Ok.

“The average UAH temperature – volcanoes excluded – will decline for the next two years.”

$200.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/19/the-mayor-of-london-gives-props-to-skeptic-piers-corbin/

“The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game” – UK Telegraph

by Boris Johnson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8213058/The-man-who-repeatedly-beats-the-Met-Office-at-its-own-game.html

Excerpts

“Why did the Met Office forecast a “mild winter”?”

“Is it really true that no one saw this coming?

Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.”

“He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people – notably in farming – are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.”

“The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world? The Sun is incomparably vaster and more powerful than any work of man.”

So did Lucia.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Model Charged with Excessive Use of Forcing

Posted on December 19, 2010 by Willis Eschenbach – WUWT

[Snip]

There are several surprising things in Figure 3, and I’m not sure I see all of the implications of those things yet. The first surprise was how close the model results are to a bozo simple linear response to the forcings plus the passage of time (R^2 = 0.91, average error less than a tenth of a degree). Foolish me, I had the idea that somehow the models were producing some kind of more sophisticated, complex, lagged, non-linear response to the forcings than that.

This almost completely linear response of the GISSE model makes it trivially easy to create IPCC style “scenarios” of the next hundred years of the climate. We just use our magic GISSE formula, that future temperature change is equal to 0.13 times the forcing change plus a quarter of a degree per century, and we can forecast the temperature change corresponding to any combination of projected future forcings …

Second, this analysis strongly suggests that in the absence of any change in forcing, the GISSE model still warms. This is in agreement with the results of the control runs of the GISSE and other models that I discussed st the end of my post here. The GISSE control runs also showed warming when there was no change in forcing. This is a most unsettling result, particularly since other models showed similar (and in some cases larger) warming in the control runs.

Third, the climate sensitivity shown by the analysis is only 0.13°C per W/m2 (0.5°C per doubling of CO2). This is far below the official NASA estimate of the response of the GISSE model to the forcings. They put the climate sensitivity from the GISSE model at about 0.7°C per W/m2 (2.7°C per doubling of CO2). I do not know why their official number is so different.

I thought the difference in calculated sensitivities might be because they have not taken account of the underlying warming trend of the model itself. However, when the analysis is done leaving out the warming trend of the model (Fig. 2), I get a sensitivity of 0.34°C per W/m2 (1.3°C per doubling, Fig. 2). So that doesn’t solve the puzzle either. Unless I’ve made a foolish mathematical mistake (always a possibility for anyone, check my work), the sensitivity calculated from the GISSE results is half a degree of warming per doubling of CO2 …

Troubled by that analysis, I looked further………

[Willis rediscovered the IPCC "natural forcings" sham]

What I Learned…….

[Willis makes some damning hindcasts WITHOUT recourse to a multi-million dollar supercomputer]

Saturday, December 18th 2010, 7:09 PM EST – Climate Realists

Piers Corbyn was interviewed on Sky News on 18 Dec about 5.45pm. They reported on the recent blizzards and supercold weather and said to Mr Corbyn – So it’s a case of “We told you so Isn’t it?” and asked “What else is to come?”

Piers said “Yes” and that his forecast for a snowy December was first made without detail in May and the full detail for an Extremely Cold and exceptionally snowy December which would probably be the coldest in 100 years was spelt out on 29th November; and held up the forecast.

He said that “Standard meteorology doesn’t know what is hitting them this winter. These spells of very cold weather with snow and blizzards will go on and on and on this winter, including through the Xmas period and into January. Standard forecasts will continue to underestimate the severity of events at times and we can accurately predict when they will make serious errors. If they ask, we are ready to tell the Government well in advance for the whole of the winter when the worst weather periods are likely to be and when standard meteorology will significantly underestimate the severity of events.

When asked how it was done he said that it was nothing to do with CO2 or politicians’ taxation games around such claims but that weather is driven by predictable particle and magnetic effects of the sun (and lunar modulations) and we at WeatherAction can predict when similar effects to sometime in the past will come again and thereby make these forecasts which are reliable 85% of the time.

Parliamentary support, Research papers

2001/09 4 September 2001

Introduction
The Government has announced its intention to ratify the Kyoto Protocol by September 2002. This will require passage of appropriate legislation.

To assist Members in familiarising themselves with the international and local background on this issue, the Parliamentary Library has prepared a detailed paper, available to all Members and support staff on request. This note provides the executive summary from the paper, and a summary of its contents.

• The “greenhouse effect” is a natural phenomenon in which certain gases in the lower atmosphere prevent some of the heat energy radiated from the Earth from escaping. The human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and some industrial gases) have over the last few centuries added to this effect, making global temperatures warmer than they would otherwise be and affecting global weather patterns.

• The hole in the ozone layer is a separate phenomenon, but there are a few linkages with the greenhouse effect. For example, some gases which deplete ozone in the upper atmosphere (CFCs) also act as greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere, and the trapping of heat in the lower atmosphere by the greenhouse effect leads to a cooler upper atmosphere and a slower recovery time for the ozone layer.

• Average global surface temperature has already increased about 0.6°C since 1860.1 The freeze-free season has lengthened in many regions over 1950-1993. In New Zealand and Australia, temperatures have risen 0.5 to 0.9°C.

• During the 20th century global sea level has already risen 0.1 to 0.2 metres and rainfall patterns have changed in many areas. In New Zealand and Australia, sea level has risen on average about 20 mm per decade over the last 50-100 years and rainfall trends have followed the cyclical El Niño events.

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)2 has reported new and stronger evidence that most of the global warming observed over the last 150 years is attributable to human activities. If only human or natural influences on the climate are separately modelled they do not fully explain the historical changes, but there is a good match for both human and natural influences combined.

• Before significant human influence, the climate of the Earth alternated between warm and cold periods over cycles of tens of thousands of years (e.g. the Cambrian and Cretaceous eras and a number of Ice Ages). However, since the Industrial Revolution human activity has led to concentrations of CO2 and methane higher than at any time during the past 420,000 years, and CO2the highest it has been for the last 20 million years.

• The world is already committed to some climate change which cannot be avoided, due to the long life in the atmosphere of the greenhouse gases already emitted over the last few centuries and the inertia in aspects of the global climate system.

• Over the next century, there is a 90-99% chance of higher maximum and minimum temperatures, more hot days, fewer cold and frost days, and reduced daytime temperature ranges over nearly all land areas.

• If greenhouse gas emissions are not controlled, the result of 35 modelling scenarios predicts that global average temperature will increase by 1.4°C to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100, a rate of warming without precedent over the last 10,000 years. Sea-ice, glaciers, snow cover and ice caps are predicted to decrease, contributing to a global mean sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 metres over 1990-2100, and intense precipitation events (drought and flood). Tropical cyclones are predicted to increase in some areas.

• The impacts are expected to fall disproportionately on the poorest people. Those with the fewest resources have the least capacity to adapt and are the most vulnerable.

• Rainfall predictions for New Zealand arise from the expectation that cyclical El Niño events will increase or be exacerbated by global climate change. During El Niño events in the summer there are stronger and more frequent winds from the west, causing more rain in western areas and more drought on the east coast. In the winter, the wind is more from the south causing colder conditions.

Continues…….

Powercratski ?