BBC claims AGW causing: ‘Unusual number of UK flowers bloom’ – Reality Check: ‘There has been virtually no trend in December mean temperatures in the UK’

More Nonsense From The BBC’s Harrabin

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/more-nonsense-from-the-bbcs-harrabin/

By Paul Homewood h/t Joe Public http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30754443 Another day, another global warming propaganda story from Roger Harrabin. Botanists have been stunned by the results of their annual hunt for plants in flower on New Year’s Day. They say according to textbooks there should be between 20 and 30 species in flower. This year there were 368 in bloom. It raises further questions about the effects of climate change during the UK’s warmest year on record. “This is extraordinary,” said Tim Rich, who started the New Year’s plant hunt for the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland. “Fifty years ago people looking for plants in flower at the start of the year found 20 species. This year the total has amazed us – we are stunned. “During the holiday I drove along the A34 south of Newbury and saw half a mile of gorse in flower when gorse is supposed to flower in April and May. It’s bizarre.” “We are now in our fourth mild winter. Normally flowers get frosted off by Christmas but this year it hasn’t happened.” He said 368 species in flower is an unprecedented 15% of the flowering plants in Britain and Ireland – an “amazing” total. The high count was partly due to the growth in the number of volunteers – but mostly due to climate change, he said. Dr Rich said it was possible that plants in unseasonal flower might be badly hit if February brought very cold weather. The Met Office has confirmed 2014 as the warmest year on UK record, with the wettest winter and the hottest Halloween. It is also the warmest year in the Met Office’s Central England Temperature series, which dates to 1659. Their blog said: “Human influence on the climate is likely to have substantially increased the chance of breaking the UK and CET temperature records. Estimates from the Met Office suggest that it has become about 10 times more likely for the UK record to be broken as a result of human influence on the climate.” The most commonly recorded plants in flower were daisy and dandelion, each of which was recorded in 115 lists (75%). The mild south and west of Britain had the highest numbers of species still in flower, but there were 50 species identified in the east and north of England, and 39 species flowering in Edinburgh. …

Physicist asks: ‘Do sunspots during pregnancy shorten baby’s life by 5 years?’ – ‘If true…it almost looks like a vindication for the ‘astrological’ way of thinking’

Do sunspots during pregnancy shorten baby’s life by 5 years?

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LuboMotlsReferenceFrame/~3/fz-sr4sBTQs/do-sunspots-during-pregnancy-shorten.html

The Huffington Post, SciAm, and others bring our attention to a new spooky Norwegian paperSolar activity at birth predicted infant survival and women’s fertility in historical Norwayby Skjærvø, Fossøy, and Røskaft in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Yes, a proper Norwegian citizen is obliged to have an o-slash (or, in simple terms, \(o_\mu\gamma^\mu\)) in her or his name. They’ve looked at 8,662 lives of people in Norway begun between 1676 and 1878.The number of sunspots is approximately changing in 11-year-long cycles. They seem to believe that the solar maxima increase the amount of ultraviolet radiation – and that’s known to inhibit some vital cellular processes. But you wouldn’t believe that the sunspots should significantly affect the life expectancy, would you?Contradicting several similar surveys in the past that ended with the negative result, these three folks claim that the effect of the solar maxima on the life expectancy (and women’s fertility) exists and is rather large. Most shockingly, the babies born during solar maxima are claimed to have lives shorter by 5.2 years than those born during the solar minima. The barchart above says that the probability of dying before the adulthood is about 3 percentage points higher for the babies from the solar maxima.This is such a large difference that I believe that it should be significantly higher than the noise expected from the respective groups. But when it comes to this most important conclusion about the life expectancy, I don’t see any clear information about the statistical significance in the paper. So I guess that I am not the only one who will remain deeply uncertain about our belief in their conclusion.One may imagine various mechanisms by which the solar activity could affect the life expectancy and other quantities. But despite this fact, I admit that the hugeness of this effect is surprising for me. If that conclusion is true, it almost looks like a vindication for the “astrological” way of thinking and one may say that your birth near the solar maximum is more harmful for you than life-long smoking!If you decide to take the conclusion seriously, you may want to check your chances. Were you born closer to a blue solar minimum (good news) or the red solar maximum (bad news)? The (bad news) maxima came in 1905, 1917, 1928, 1937, 1947, 1957, 1968, 1979, …

Die Zeit Interview With Hans von Storch: ‘No Intensification In Storm Activity’…All ‘Within Range Of Natural Variability’

Die Zeit Interview With Hans von Storch: “No Intensification In Storm Activity”…All “Within Range Of Natural Variability”

http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/10/die-zeit-interview-with-hans-von-storch-no-intensification-in-storm-activity-all-within-range-of-natural-variability/

The online center-left Die Zeit features an interview with Prof Hans von Storch, Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg and Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. The focus was on mainly storm activity and its possible link to man-made climate change. In the end the very green-oriented Die Zeit did not get the sound bites it likely had hoped to get. All within natural varibility In the interview, in response to the question of storm frequency and intensity, von Storch, a renowned climate scientist with 40 years of experience, says: We see no intensification in storm activity at our latitudes, and our climate models also indicate that we cannot expect it. Also since 1950 they have not become systematically more frequent or stronger. Therefore we believe that Christian [October 2013 North Sea storm] moved within the range of normal variability.” Von Storch also tells Die Zeit that storms do not occur with a rather regular periodicity, saying that “sometimes there are decades when they rumble a lot, and some decades when they don’t.” The north German professor also tells Die Zeit it is very difficult to make comparisons between the storms of today and those of decades ago because the data recorded back then are nowhere near as complete: If you simply compared the pressure values with those from a few decades ago, then you would reach the conclusion: Yes, the storms have become more powerful. But that would be a faulty conclusion.” The reason for this, von Storch explains, is that the measurement of the storms core pressure was very inadequate and readings were often taken by ships that were not located near core of the storm. Today satellites provide very reliable data for comparisons.” Climate models do not indicate future intensification On the future of storms and increased intensity, von Storch tells Die Zeit no one can rule it out, of course, but thinks it’s “implausible“. “Our climate models do not lead us to expect it.” Von Storch also cautions against putting too much emphasis on model results: Ultimately, however, observations and not climate models decide. We always have to expect that we will know the truth only afterwards. We can’t predict everything with certainty.” “Pause” has …

The Blocked By @MichaelEMann Club: Register Here

The Blocked By @MichaelEMann Club: Register Here

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=15217

PennState Prof. @MichaelEMann taking a page out of their crisis management playbook: block, ignore, put head in sand. pic.twitter.com/GD2zxGUTmq — Alex Epstein (@AlexEpstein) January 8, 2015 It’s Saturday but I’m somewhat tied up (call the police!), so something light and weird. I was on Twitter and saw the above tweet from our friend Alex Epstein, which (if you can’t see it) notices that he is blocked from viewing the tweets of Michael E. Mann. The middle initial tells you he’s serious, says William M Briggs. That’s science, friends. So I looked and lo, I was blocked too (my handle is @mattstat: all the variants of @wmbriggs were taken by the time I got to Twitter). That got me to wondering how many others were blocked, and that led me to thinking about the nature of those blocked. I figured we could form some sort of club. Surely Mark Steyn is a member. Perhaps you are too? Let’s all have a look, shall we? Register below if you are a member of the Free and Open Debating Society of Twitterers Blocked by Michael E Mann. Now I don’t recall ever having tweeted to Mann. And I’m not sure if I ever met him, though it’s possible. There were times when we overlapped at annual AMS meetings and that sort of thing. The days before I became an apostate I was able to meet and talk with nearly everyone. It’s understandable that Mann would block some people. I myself am blocking a person whose moniker contains the word “idiot”, a man whose only purpose, it seems, is to cast meaningless abuse. Even Mann shouldn’t have to suffer nitwits. But block Epstein and me (and possibly you)? What purpose can that serve? I am, after all, a peer of the scientific realm, complete with letters patent. I know the secret handshake. I have the parchment. I have the bronzed horseshoe that comes with publishing papers in places like the Journal of Climate. Mann wouldn’t want to stifle scientific debate, would he? Blocking peers on Twitter would be like a major peer-reviewed journal blocking people from publishing just because those people might hold the wrong views. Good thing that never happens! Where would Science be if scientists and journals formed cliques whose members labored to keep contrary views from being aired? I’ll tell you. Right where …