text:
This has to be the Twitter conversation of the year, in the "hottest year ever".
Kudos to this guy for getting this from Gavin.
According to alarmist "theory", yes the air should warm more and more rapidly than the surface, but it doesn't and hasn't.
I commented to that effect on RealClimate more than a decade ago, but Gavin said nothing. But that was in the pre-Twitter Late Stone Age.
…there's no asphalt in the upper troposphere
…no air conditioning exhausts, either.
Abe! I don't get you most of the time, man, but, LOVE THIS one and you deserve a little recognition for your fervent, sincere, heart-in-the-right-place, sometimes indecipherable, but, often insightful comments:
there's no magical heateristical hotterism
P.S. But… don't be rude to Aphan anymore — that only makes you look bad, Mr. Abe (and Abraham Lincoln frowns down upon you from above and mutters, "Going to sue that boy for character assassination if he does that again.")
"magical heateristical hotterism "
My most favorable review to date.
Nice Abe- just used your "Heateristical hotterism"
Thus again, the temperature at ground level in a system with fixed volume is regulated by gravity – which doesn't change on a scale with markings as fine as the entirety of erect humanoids.
Great screed.
For reference:
Venus: Average surface atmospheric pressure 93 bar, CO2 concentration 96.5%.
Earth: ASAP 1.0 bar; CO2 .04%.
Mars: ASAP 0.006 bar, CO2 95.97%.
Even Screamin' Jim's fellow alarmists are embarrassed by his fevered "Venus Express" fantasy.
There's a misconception about how GHG's work which leads to this idea and many of the other flaws in alarmist 'theory'.
GHG molecules do not heat the atmosphere which then heats the surface, its the other way around. While collisional broadening does result in the probability that upon collision a lower frequency photon is emitted and a small amount of energy is added to the kinetic energy of the GHG molecule and it speeds up, the probability of re-emission at a higher frequency that slows down the molecule is equal and the net effect on the kinetic temperature of all GHG molecules (i.e. their velocity) is zero.
The surface is heated when photons in the absorption band flux passing between GHG molecules are absorbed by the surface rather than another GHG molecule or leaving the planet. The resulting heat of the surface then heats the gases in the atmosphere as they collide with the surface.
The flux of photons passing between GHG molecules can be absorbed by dust and the water in clouds, but matter in LTE is absorbing the same amount of energy that it's emitting and the resulting water temperature increase is very small. The LTE effect this has on the temperature of the atmosphere is even smaller when amortized over its entirety and is somewhere between unmeasurable and insignificant.
Sorry folks but that meme has been debunked. Here is the abstract of a paper whose authors include John Christy.
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
That's a 2006 paper. See Christy et al 2010, or McKitrick and Vogelsang 2014 (the latter looking at 55 years of balloon data).
Any links to those papers for us poor, wretched, creatures who no longer have access to an academic library?
(The first paper is really only for those into stats… not that I understand half the thing)
McKitrick and Vogelsang are economists, not climatologists.
As for the 2010 paper, the title says it all.
"What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?"
It is a comparison of observed and measured trends to previous model projected trends.
Did anyone actually read it or read beyond the abstract? Maybe you take Alberto at his word. Alberto could be a fine upstanding citizen who may visit animal shelters to pet sick kittens but just because a person says something and posts a link to some material, it doesn't mean that the referenced material is going to support their ideology.
We shan't speak of outdated information. This blog is full of outdated information mainly because there is no current data to support the contrarian view although careful misquotation and lack of opinion article readers conducting any fact checking by actually reading and understanding the referenced material (when there is referenced material and when that referenced material is not another opinion article blog post whether here or elsewhere on the web) can have the effect of creating sufficient doubt in readers minds.
This blog post is not even an article, it's a snippet from Twitter that someone slapped a headline on and called themselves an author. Even the author has no relevant background in climatology or related fields. The twitter account for which questions are being asked does not even reveal a real name. The scientist has his name out there and likely receives death threats to himself and family everyday because of that fact just like so many other climate scientists receive daily. That is the group you all belong to, people using anonymity to threaten peoples lives for conducting scientific research and publishing the data, welcome back to the dark ages!
December 15, 2015 at 6:54 am
"McKitrick and Vogelsang are economists, not climatologists."
They are obviously far better at analyzing statistics than a climastrologist fraud like Mann.
Thanks, Alberto.
Ah, the drive-by alarmist commentator! Throw in an alleged debunking grenade into the fray and hope it destroys the whole works. If only the referenced study actually "debunked" what they think it debunks!
Sorry Luke, You are out dated !!!
You don't get why most of us come here. This embarrassing lack of a hot spot makes it a prime target for the team to dig up a ratioonale or find a way to properly 'homogenize' the recalcitrant data.
The dreaded "PAUSE" was obviously a terminal illness for the CO2 control nob CAGW theory. It literally was responsible for debilitating clinical psychological depression striking down numerous CAGW proponents, most of whom seem to have stopped publishing. A much feted butterfly ecologist was among those taken out of action by the epidemic.
Now, as you would expect, this was grandly spun. They explained that fighting for the planet and not being able to convince the world that the end was nigh was what brought them down. Their enablers, kool aid psychologists, supported this diagnosis. This has to be malpractice as classic d*Nile is one of the few solid diags in this corrupted social science. The researchers minds were refusing to acknowledge a scary message from the brain about the meaning of the PAUSE.
It ain't good news to know that your career has been a waste of time. That your contribution has been a negative one. The d*nyle makes you sick (this remarkable property of the brain should be the subject of scientific and philosophical study). Spin doctors went into a frenzy. They found over 60 reasons for the "PAUSE" that permitted clinging to the knob including that the PAUSE could last 17yrs without needing revamp of the theory. Almost 19yrs was reached and you know what they did. They tomkarleized the temperature data.
If only every accountant that tickled the till could go back and "develop" a new set of ledgers it would eliminate fraud.
If only every accountant that tickled the till could go back and "program" a new set of ledgers it would eliminate fraud.
Every time I see "Luke" comment I think of "Abraham, Martin and John" – NOT Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as some might … Luke just isn't in their league, few are:
Why the screen name? Certainly not "Cool Hand Luke".
Thanks for the comments Luke. Every one of them gives me hope, but probably not for the reasons you might expect.
…at least he knows where he can find the truth… once he's willing to accept it.
Let's see, though John Christy was a lead author of that summary, he is but one skeptic, and there are no others on this panel, so a skeptical opinion will not likely be expressed in that summary. Tom Wigley is the convening lead author of it, and Carl Mears and Ben Santer are lead authors as well as Christy. As for this assertion that,
"This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
see this peer-reviewed paper, (1) which states
"Specifically, the characteristics of the divergence across the
data sets are strongly suggestive that it is an artifact resulting
from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radio-
sonde observations. These findings indicate that the recon-
ciliation of differences between surface and satellite data sets
[Karl et al., 2006] has not yet occurred, and we have offered a
suggested reason for the continuing lack of reconciliation."
See also, as Alberto suggested, Christy et al. 2010 or McKitrick and Vogelsang 2014.
Also, just by looking at a comparison of RSS, UAH, and GISTEMP and HADCRUT4, we see that their most certainly still is a discrepancy, at least from June of 1997:
Christy is but one skeptic, and there are no other skeptics as authors of that summary. Tom Wigley, Carl Mears, and Ben Santer are also listed as authors of it, so do you think that with 3 alarmists, 3 people I am not sure about, and 1 skeptic, the skeptic will get his opinion put in there prominently? Anyway, this peer-reviewed paper reviews the report and comes to the opposite conclusion:
Also, as Alberto said, read Christy et al. 2010 and McKitrick and Vogelsang 2014, though the age of a paper doesn't falsify it.
Luke, why did Gavin acknowledge the divergence in his tweet?
Gavin didn't acknowledge any divergence. He said theory said X should warm more.
The explanation is that the data measurements of X are wrong. Gavin did not rule out that explanation.
Gavin DID acknowledge the divergence quite clearly, by explaining and not denying 7kiwi's assertion.
7kiwi: How do you explain the divergence …
Gavin: different parts of the system…
"This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."
How convenient!
"This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
The pure, distilled essence of climate science – change the data.
I do not get the quote. Currently Both RSS and UAH show 1998 as easily the warmest year on record.
And then in 2011 HadCRUT3 was made obsolete and HadCRUT4 was embraced. 1998 wasn't the warmest year evah any more, 2010 is now, 2005 is the second and 1998 the third, In one year 1998 went form being the warmest year ever to being the third one.
And Phil got a peer reviewed paper out or it. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf
Usually the defense at this point for the modellers consists of showing model projections with massive, massive error bars. So an anomaly of 0.2 over a 1979 baseline is consistent with the models, and an anomaly of 1.5 is also consistent with the models. While this may make statistical sense, anyone with a brain can infer that if this is indeed the confidence interval then model projections are essentially meaningless – only the tiniest warming, or an outright temp decline (since 1979!) is ruled out by the models. And skeptics are accused of manufacturing doubt?
(Hosted at ATTP's blog but actually posted by Gavin on twitter. It also shows that the three satellite datasets, plus a revision of UAH, show pretty much the same trend – despite much anxiety about one or other dataset trending cold or warm).
Of course even this comparison is meaningless because the models can tune parameters until they get a reasonable fit between projections and observations. The most obvious is aerosols, where great uncertainty allows modellers to plug in whatever figures they prefer.
Actually the baseline is 1979-1988 but you get the point: zero warming by 2011 was 'consistent with' the models. Warming of 1ºC the same year was… consistent with the models, too.
Pretty big problem when the trend itself is 1ºC/century.
Thanks for that graph. In my opinion, it is astonishing how well the satellite datasets fit together, and, as you say, it helps dispel some of those anxieties about problems with UAH or RSS.
The satellite data also closely tracks radiosondes. Christy usually plots both observational datasets in his CMIP5 model comparisons.
Indeed, and, as NASA reminded us way back in 1990, satellite monitoring of at least the "upper atmosphere" is "more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor global temperature change."
"Structural uncertanties", see how things fall apart, when Hansen was working, the science was settled.
Luke, what flavor was the Koolaid you drank?
Like he could remember that lololol.
Come now, that is no way to treat someone who disagrees with you. We give ourselves a bad name with comments such as these. That report, understandably, could lead him to the conclusion that the differences between the satellite and surface datasets have been resolved (though that is not the case; see my other comment.)
Oh, justanother, that was kind of you, however…, you must be new around here.
Luke is a known troll.
He is not genuinely interested in learning — he has demonstrated that MANY times. Believe me — the most knowledgeable and patient WUWT commenters have tried and tried and tried. No one could be that stupid. It is obvious, now, that he is not here to learn, just to promote AGW.
Don't worry — we (if I may be so bold as to say "we") don't treat people trying to understand, even sort of obnoxious people.
As for Luke, lol, we've got his number, heh, heh, heh.
We just keep refuting him (scornfully! HAHAHAH) to prevent him from misleading other readers.
Keep on posting, Just! Your comments above are great!
Thank you, I am new 'round here, as one might say, and I do understand your frustration, as I have had somewhat similar experiences with a fellow called "Harry Twinotter" over at JoNova's blog. Now, I will try, of course, to be patient but I don't blame you being so frustrated. Thank you for your quick response, I suppose it is just that I wish that I could help them (that is, those that are unreasonable in their discussions) become more reasonable, perhaps to actually even consider what we say, but alas, that doesn't seem too likely.
Well, Hi, justanother 🙂
Thank you for that understanding. I am one of the WORST for getting sucked into a troll's tricks… for just that reason: my heart goes out to the poor, befuddled, soul and I want to help them and THEN!!! Then, I see what they are and I get annoyed and start to really lay into them and I should just ignore them (and I'm getting better) — but I don't!
And sometimes, a mod will come along and whisper in my ear, "psst, Janice… that is just a sockpuppet…. " (or the like), lolol.
It is GOOD, however, to refute them to a point — they put out such "almost true," slimy, junk science, that they could easily fool an uninformed reader. I think… the trolls' main purpose (leaving aside our loyal opposition ones, lol) is to prevent the AGW cult members who come here looking for answers from being persuaded by the scientists and engineers who SOUNDLY destroy AGW day after day… .
Well, again, happy commenting and glad you are here!
Thank you, once again, for your warm welcome, and I do hope for (and believe that I will have) happy commenting here.
fyi- Harry Twinotter has popped up here, as well.
I suspect that whenever he shows up anywhere it turns into an unfortunate situation for anyone involved.
You say
That report, understandably, could lead him to the conclusion that the differences between the satellite and surface datasets have been resolved (though that is not the case; see my other comment.)
Parsimony strongly suggests those "differences" derive from this: the frequent 'adjustments' to the surface datasets alter most of their data most months.
At very least, the amorphous nature of the surface datasets is sufficient explanation for the "differences" you mention.
For a more complete explanation of the matter please read Appendix B of this.
I will not comment on what causes this divergence but your explanation seems viable and not too far out of the question. I too, have wondered why many datasets-not just GISS-seem to have been constanly adjusted upwards, sometimes so drastically as to change a cooling trend to a warming trend! (1)
However, there may be many reasons for such a divergence, such as that there may be problems with the surface or satellite data (I am not referring to the adjustments here).
(1): http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000.9/trend/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000.9/to:2014.42/trend
Yes, I was aware of that divergence which you summarise as the two linear trends in your link.
I again suggest you may find it useful to read Appendix B of this.
The underlying problem is that there is no agreed definition of global surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) and if there were then there is no possibility of a calibration standard for it. Hence, GASTA cannot be measured and can only – at best – be estimated while the used definition of GASTA is unique to each team (e.g. GISS, HadCRU, etc.) that provides a GASTA time series and each team alters its used definition most months.
Interesting remark, and you may find it interesting to read this peer-reviewed paper on that topic: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf.
Unfortunately, when I wrote my last comment, I hadn't time to read your Appendix, but I shall now.
I read your Appendix (and a short piece of what was above) and while I don't think the surface data sets are "worthless", you make some good points (though the discrepancy between many of the data sets seems to have been resolved: http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php).
Thanks for your link to Essex et al. (2006). As happens I had read it (Ross sent me a pre-print before publication). It is good.
Your other link is to SkS and, therefore, I trust you will understand my not wasting time on it.
While I am one to be nearly as untrusting of SkS as you are, the same data can be plotted at WFT. It is simply a trend calculator, nothing more. No claims, no falsehoods, save for the stuff on the top, left, and right.
If you are referring to the Jim Jones party, most accounts say the flavor was grape and the brand was Flavor-Aid. The drink the Kool-aid phrase evolved due to the use of the genericized brand name being equated with drinks of that sort. The Jonestown people had used both brands in the past.
Flavour was not important. But it was colder than they serve it today!
And isn't it all beside the point?
1) Anthropogenic CO2's contribution to the atmospheric concentration in amongst the natural stores & fluxes is trivial not that anyone can measure any of it accurately & confidently in the first place.
2) The 1750 to 2011 additional CO2 RF of 2 W/m^2 (watt is power not energy) is totally lost in the magnitude and uncertainties of the climate energy/power flux balance. The 2 W/m^2 imbalance could rebalance from radiation to reflection to absorption, i.e. more clouds, warmer oceans, and hardly anyone would notice. I found a rather interesting balance diagram, Bing images, by Trenberth et al 2011 w/ 8 opinions for each of the various major state points. Lots of +/- uncertainty orders of magnitude larger than 2 and obvious non-consensus.
3) The GCMs are, by and large, expensive yet abysmal failures.
I fully agree about the errors. The alarmists purport to do complicated CO2 balances and energy balances (both kinds with many sources and sinks) with an accuracy better than 1%. I have always suspected that these folks knew less about dealing with errors than the average first year engineering student.
Warmists can't do engineering; you have to show your homework and there are consequences to being wrong.
You sure got that right, cB. Climate modelers know absolutely nothing about error analysis.
They haven't the training to evaluate the accuracy of their own models.
Engineers are the BEST!
(well, the 3 men I care about most in the world are engineers — and those on WUWT consistently exhibit remarkably disciplined minds, excellent, highly logical, reasoning and arguments using rock-solid real-world principles and data — oh, yes, dear engineers, I remember who many of you are.)
@ all engineer commenters: Cite your professional credentials more often! (and all of you Ph.D.'s, etc…) It really does add weight to your opinions, here when you are commenting in your area of expertise. And engineers, even when not commenting in their area of expertise, are KNOWN for being especially careful with what they claim is so.
Pat Frank says:
December 14, 2015 at 5:02 pm
I read your article with great delight.
"The best way to test the errors of the GCMs is to run numerical experiments to sample the predicted effects of different parameters…"
Dear God in Heaven!
Forty some years ago, one of my buddies was a pioneer in the numerical modelling of water bodies. I guarantee that his models were evaluated against physical reality. Of course he was an engineer and his models were used for engineering purposes. 🙂
Janice – my wife and my best friend's wife used to post engineering jokes on our refrigerators just to remind us that without our wives we would be missing our social skills…
On behalf of engineering grads from Texas A&M, "No Aggie Joakes"
Dear Mr. Delbeke,
Lol. Thank you for that. I feel a tiny bit sad, though, thinking about the underlying feelings (and maybe not really conscious at the time of writing it) that prompted the author of that joke. Engineers ARE super bright…
… and they are also often laughed at and misunderstood by people who couldn't pass half their coursework. Sure, their social skills are often a bit too blunt, their language abilities are not always the best (but, so what, I say — they are GREAT at succinct, pithy, summaries and tightly logical reasoning!), etc…, but, they usually have tender, caring hearts. A caring heart needs a lot of protection (a.k.a. abrupt, stern-faced, speech and demeanor) or it gets hurt (there are a few engineers who are just jerks, of course — but, you find that in EVERY area of study).
Engineers get lots of ignorant (but, still hurtful, all the same — weird how that can be so) remarks tossed at them from high school friends like, "You were SO SMART — I thought you'd become a doctor or a lawyer or something." Sigh. We know, O Engineers of the World, those of us who went to college with you. We know that you were among the smartest people we ever met.
And, I realize that, for the most part, you are secure in yourself and don't need my encouraging here, but…. deep down inside, sometimes…. you do (not from me necessarily! I mean from someone at all).
Best wishes for many more years laughing together with your partner for life!
Janice Moore
School of Business and Economics (for the most part)
AND PROUD OF IT (loloolololoololol)
One of the oldest, but best engineer jokes and by engineers.
3 engineers sitting in a pub discussing all the affairs and problems of the world! One is a mechanical engineer, one is an electrical/control engineer, and the other is a civil engineer. The subject discussed turns to God and the Creation.
They agree that God must be an engineer but disagree on which discipline of engineer. The mechanical engineer says, "Just look at all those moving joints, sinews and muscles in tension and the skeleton structural framework! God must be a mechanical engineer!"
The electrical engineer disagrees, " Look at all those communication and signal links in nerves, the whole range of sensors, the motive effort and power from muscles and the memory storage and control systems within the brain. God must be an electrical/control engineer!"
The civil engineer disagrees, "God must be a civil engineer. Who else would route a waste transport and removal system through a recreational area?"
An engineer dies and reports to the Pearly Gates. Saint Peter checks his dossier and, not seeing his name there, accidentally sends him to Hell.
It doesn't take long before the engineer becomes rather dissatisfied with the level of comfort in Hell. He soon begins to design and build improvements. Shortly thereafter, Hell has air conditioning, flush toilets and escalators. Needless to say, the engineer is a pretty popular guy.
One day, God calls Satan and says: "So, how are things in Hell?" Satan replies: "Hey, things are going great. We've got air conditioning, flush toilets, and escalators. And there's no telling what this engineer is going to come up with next."
"What!" God exclaims: "You've got an engineer? That's a mistake – he should never have been sent to Hell. Send him back to me."
"Not a chance," Satan replies: "I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm keeping him!"
God insists: "Send him back or I'll sue."
Satan laughs uproariously and answers: "Yeah, right! And where are YOU going to get a lawyer? "
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Translation : Gavin's GISS temp land-based data set measures "different parts of the system [UHI effected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we 'homogenise' the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative]."
And at GISS's core is Hansen's GHCN, made up of imaginary numbers assigned to weather stations no longer in operation.
And at GISS's core is Hansen's worthless GHCN, assigning imaginary data for weather stations long since abandoned.
It's ok. Paris fixed everything. At least until the blackmailers up the ante.
Above referenced PDF from NOAA, which appears to be from 2005 based on data shown, says on page 11, (and called out in right margin)"
"A potentially serious inconsistency has
been identified in the tropics. The favored explanation for this is
residual error in the observations, but the issue is still open."
Why is it always that data that is wrong? Never the models.
"………Why is it always that data that is wrong? Never the models…….."
Because they learned this ploy from economists.
(5) Amplification means that temperatures show larger changes aloft than at the surface. In the tropics, on monthly and inter-annual time scales, both models and observations show amplification of temperature variability in the troposphere relative to the surface. This ampli- fication is of similar magnitude in models and observations. For multi-decadal trends, models show the same amplification that is seen on shorter time scales. THE MAJORITY OF THE MOST RECENT OBSERVED DATA SETS, HOWEVER, DO NOT SHOW THIS AMPLIFICATION.
This is from the report you linked to Luke. (last line capitalization mine)
Theory? We don't need no stinkin' theory.
Isn't that a teensy weency problem?
It's an enormous problem indeed. And one does not have to focus on the pause, the full 37 years of satellite record shows substantially less warning (by some 30-40%) in both interpretations (RSS &. UAH) than any surface dataset. And it is not only above land, but also above oceans.
However, it is supposed to be the other way around. The troposphere should warm 20% faster than the surface globally and 40% faster in the tropics. Yet, it does not.
There is no explanation whatsoever for that so far. It is a much bigger issue, than anything else.
We can add this to Judith Curry's list of Pink Flamingos. As far as I can tell, a Pink Flamingo is similar to the elephant-in-the-room. It's a problem that folks ignore but shouldn't. link
This reminds me of an Upton Sinclair quote:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
The Pink Flamingos and elephants-in-the-room will continue to be ignored.
Solar energy output is NOT CONSTANT at all. Even 'small' changes have big side effects.
Peter, do you have a reference for the 20% global number?
An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere
Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy and Richard T. McNider
The global amplification ratio of 19 climate models listed in CCSP SAP 1.1 indicates a ratio of 1.25 for the models' composite mean trends and 1.19 in their composite median values over a 21-year period that is completely contained within the 30-year record used here. […] Thus, we choose a value of 1.2 as the amplification factor based on these model results.
An amplification factor of 1.2 means layers high above are supposed to warm 20% faster than the surface. That's a global average, in the tropics it's more like 40% according to computational climate models. Observations indicate otherwise.
BTW, the state of affairs described in the paper used to be valid in 2008. The divergence got much worse during the past 7 years.
Thank you Sir, much appreciated.
"If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table".
When us kids would miss behave my mother would hammer the kitchen table with a yardstick. She had the most well behaved table.
And if you don't have a table, get hammered.
Bruce….you always make me laugh or smile. Thanks for that! 🙂
I spend most Saturday nights hammered and under the table.
I was wondering who that was, there were so many shoes in the way I couldn't make out your face…And I sure wasn't going to give up MY SAFE SPACE under MY table to go look !!! LOL
Bruce Cobb — and if you don't have a table, get hammered — nice one, Eugene WR Gallun
If you torture the data long and hard enough, it will confess to anything ! It's called " The Schmidt Effect ", first developed in 1930's Germany !!
I thought the effect's name was spelled without the c, m, and d.
That's the American English version !! LOL
Is there a site where you can view these photos which are taken every 2 hours? Even the Hurricane/typhoon satellite photos don't update every 2 hours – more like at least every 3 hours, or more…
You probably already know this but, all images at:
Unfortunately, the web site seems to update only once per day. The images actually are pretty nice, and the magnifier is a neat little tool.
I would bet if enough people showed interest, the EPIC team could be cajoled into updating the website as the images come in. As far as keeping track of a hurricane, you only get perhaps 2 images per day, as the world turns.
Tony, thank for that
to track storms et.al use –
• Interactive map of earth showing – winds, temps, ocean currents, pollution & more.
(This is the same data used for world weather forecasting)
Click on – 'earth' for parameters (e.g. for Jet Streams height =250
Click on 'globe' & drag to rotate;
Click on 'globe' – green spot gives – Position, Wind direction & speed, Temperature.
Click on 'about' for more details.
Temperature colour key for surface layer.
Blue = 0 to-30°C, Red = -30 to -60°C
Green = 0 to +10°C, yellow/green = +10 to +20°C, Brown = +20 to +60°C
How to use the EARTH map video – http://tinyurl.com/qa6xgvc 6 mins
Jump to –
Arctic – http://tinyurl.com/pjx29ke
Antarctic – http://tinyurl.com/q3fpotv
North Hemisphere Jet streams & temperature – http://tinyurl.com/om2nnl6
North Atlantic currents – http://tinyurl.com/qghcyop
Thanks, no I didn't know where to find these images…
Just heard on NPR that Russia expects a credit for the CO2 sunk by their forests. Well, let's extrapolate that little strategy. How about a credit for the extraneous CO2 sources they eliminate? A popular method currently practiced in many of those developing nations. They don't need more money, just more guns.
OMG.. Canada is going to be rich !!
Marcus – except for one little detail. Canada asked for credits for their forests some time ago and were denied on the basis that boreal forests might actually be net CO2 emitters. And then that darn OCO2 satellite actually showed it might even be true …
I have followed this for a while. From another discussion:
Old news from about 2005 – boreal forests may be net emitters of CO2 rather than sinks – and you put your finger on it about forest litter.
"It took about five years for Canada to give up on the idea of getting credit for forests. Let's hope that it doesn't take as long for those who are still promoting simplistic solutions to the carbon problem to accept what the science is telling them."
See here—-> http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/11/02/trouble-with-the-trees/
Boreal forests contain about 5 times as much CO2 as the vegetation.
(Thanks to Erik Swenson)
So now what?
BEST answer – who knows? Politics is so unpredictable.
The US has been reforesting for the last fifty years — Eugene WR Gallun
The above map of the world showing CO2 blobs have the biggest by far being over the Atlantic Ocean! 🙂
emsnews – must be all the emissions from the volcanoes around Iceland ,, 😉
Structural uncertainty? I've not heard that terminology in all of my coursework or professional experience. Is that like structured water? LOL
(Almost 3 years ago you were asked: 'How many screen names are you using?'. You are on at least your 15th name. Per site policy, please use the name you started commenting with. Also, when posting a link please add a few words of explanation. -mod)
(Note: "Buster Brown" is the latest fake screen name for 'David Socrates', 'Brian G Valentine', 'Joel D. Jackson', 'beckleybud', 'Edward Richardson', 'H Grouse', and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters' names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake "BusterBrown" name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~another mod.)
As an Iron worker ( steel walker ) , I am very much aware of " Structural Uncertainty " ! If a steel connection only has one bolt holding it instead of five, that is a " Structural Uncertainty ". Until you put the other four bolts in, I ain't walking on it !!
(Note: "Buster Brown" is the latest fake screen name for 'David Socrates', 'Brian G Valentine', 'Joel D. Jackson', 'beckleybud', 'Edward Richardson', 'H Grouse', and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters' names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake "BusterBrown" name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
According to the Modis satellites, the November average Land temperature was just 0.03C above the 2001-2010 Base period.
While in GISTemp, the average Land temperature was 0.427C above the 2001-2010 average. So, Gavin is just running a temp series designed to exaggerate the warming.
…while infilling over fifty percent of the data!
Gavin and company are highly skilled yabutologists.
They can face-down any fatal flaw in AGW with endless yabuts.
Yabut this, yabut that.
Yabut here, yabut there, yabut everywhere.
Next time you engage an alarmists, (or a lefty on any topic) tell them to stop yabuting.
Perfect example of alarmist view on the data
RATPCAC-A is the one you want:
… make that RATPAC-A …
Here's a summary of the global data:
a: pressure level (mbar)
b: temperature trend 1958-2015 (through November) (K/decade)
a b ----- ----- 1000 0.14 850 0.16 700 0.15 500 0.16 400 0.17 300 0.13 250 0.09 200 0.02 150 -0.03 100 -0.21 70 -0.45 50 -0.50 30 -0.45
Thank you for the link to useful data. I averaged the upper and lower halves of the troposphere and got this graph:
And average trends since 1970 of 0.18 K/decade (lower) and 0.13 K/decade (upper).
The trend since 1998 is not robust (surprise!) but in honor of this forum it is 0.21 K/decade lower and 0.12 K/decade upper.
But hey, those dirty "scientists" probably tampered with it. Better stick with RSS.
Ratpac-A is the same NCDC-adjusted data that all the other upwards adjusted NCDC datasets are.
Where is the raw data?
Answer: You have to go to another agency such as RSS or UAH to get it or some other agency like this one.
Nothing happening in the raw Ratpac data
Bill Illis,
Ratpac-A is the same NCDC-adjusted data that all the other upwards adjusted NCDC datasets are.
Figure 1 compares the raw to adjusted. Show me the upward adjustment.
Jon Keller,
Thanks for your nice graph.
And average trends since 1970 of 0.18 K/decade (lower) and 0.13 K/decade (upper). The trend since 1998 is not robust (surprise!) but in honor of this forum it is 0.21 K/decade lower and 0.12 K/decade upper.
Eh? Here's what I get for trends using your endpoints (plus 1979-2004 for discussion further down) and pressure level bins (K/decade):
Pres Lvl 1970-2015 1998-2015 1979-2004 -------- -------- -------- -------- surf-700 0.18 0.17 0.12 500-200 0.20 0.15 0.11 150-30 -0.39 -0.17 -0.66
So, ever so slightly more upper tropo warming than lower since 1970, ever so slightly less since 1998.
Same endpoints, pressure bins as in the published data:
Pres Lvl 1970-2015 1998-2015 1979-2004 -------- -------- -------- -------- 1000 0.17 0.20 0.13 850 0.18 0.14 0.14 700 0.18 0.16 0.11 500 0.18 0.19 0.10 400 0.22 0.21 0.15 300 0.23 0.15 0.16 250 0.20 0.12 0.13 200 0.14 0.07 0.03 150 0.03 0.03 -0.07 100 -0.22 -0.19 -0.37 70 -0.63 -0.26 -0.98 50 -0.61 -0.26 -0.97 30 -0.54 -0.20 -0.91
Plot of above data, subbing pressure level with altitude in km based on a standard atmosphere:
I added the 1979-2004 interval because the paper I cited above for Bill contains a plot with the decadal trend error estimates for that time period (Fig. 5). The error starts at ~0.05 K/decade at the surface and trends down to 0.03 K/decade at the 150 mbar level. If those errors are similar for the 1970-2015 interval, then the difference between the surface and the 400-300 mbar levels would seem robust for the past 35 years.
I double checked my results and I can't find where the discrepancy might be. I was also unable to reproduce 0.2 K/decade warming at 250 mb. Here is what I got for upper tropo:
Linear model Poly1:
f(x) = p1*x + p2
p1 = 0.01339
p2 = -26.5
Goodness of fit:
R-square: 0.4855
Adjusted R-square: 0.4738
And for 250 mb specifically:
p1 = 0.01018
p2 = -20.14
Goodness of fit:
R-square: 0.3356
Adjusted R-square: 0.3205
I am forced to assume that you are altering your numbers to fit the warmunanist narrative, because the idea of you engaging in that kind of behavior fits my narrative rather nicely. So it must be true!
Hey, any chance you can update this post with a link to the conversation so we can quickly like, retweet, or reply?
And good on @7Kiwi!
.. LOL , I tried that months ago , Gavin blocked me within 5 minutes , as I'm sure 7Kiwi has found out !! He only wants comments that stroke his immature ego !!
You're killing it today Marcus..you've made me chuckle more than once! The safe place thing was hilarious, but now that you brought up Gavin and then used the word stroke, I'm suddenly nauseous and have a disturbing desire to boil my eyes in bleach….:P
Well said.
You know the odd things there is not even agreement on what 'industrial' means in practice, the idea that there was little industry before the industrial revolution, the date for this also being far from clear , does not stand to any historical investigation. Where modern industries are in practice far cleaner than early ones .
You might like the following post — it basically reiterates Feynman — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/a-climate-treaty-based-on-a-failed-model-a-victory-for-the-political-class/
Hmm… does that imply ownership on his part?
The day NASA goes to the White House and says "we were mistaken" is the day things change. Any bets on when that might be?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The day NASA goes to the White House the conversation will be more like "Um….they caught us….now what do we do?" and nothing will change.
Monday, January 23, 2017
"scortcher" ? That extra hundredth of a degree is a real zinger.
Now that the Paris conference is over, perhaps NASA has gone back to telling the truth, or at least less outright lies.
"Heateristical hotterism" is my new favorite phrase thanks to Abe!
Contrary to the tweet, it is only the satellite trend that diverges from the surface trend, the trend in the balloon data is very similar to the surface trend: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/
Even Mears (RSS) says the surface data are more reliable: i.e. less structural uncertainty. And if anyone doesn't trust surface data because of adjustments, then they should be even less trusting of satellite data:
Read: http://www.usclivar.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/Variations2015Summer-1_0.pdf
Tamino is in there too with a wrong analyses see:
No. The tweet was correct.
Back in February the UK Met Office was fairly sure there was a pause….
Anyway researchers got stuck in and studied 15,000 years of simulated [!] climate change. and what ho chaps…….they "discovered" that you could get 20 year periods of cooling once every 100 years due to "natural variability".
It seems that back in February they hadn't come up with the idea to re-adjust older records [to coolerize them I suppose] in order to evaporate the "hiatus"…or the Met office hadn't been told about the new approach
The real question is whether the earth will retain this heat or let it go again once the El Nino subsides. I cant see any wins for AGW either way. If the earth stays warm and its another step increase then the models are essentially falsified because they dont predict step warming as a result of ENSO and if the temperature falls again then…well it falls again and the hiatus continues.
Can,t see it hotting up in stratosphere any time soon. Not while humidity keeps falling anyways coz. No water = no ghg effect. At ground level the day max is higher and night mins lower…. Still zero, naught, Nada, zip, FA to do with CO2, just more like desert than tropical climes.
Its is useful to review that one of things that cam out of climategate was that although in public climate 'scientists' where making great claims of 'settled science ' in private they [were] openly talking about the problems their theory had . Gavin is merely reflecting that issue years later , which suggest that in that time the theory as not become more 'settled ' but is still 'problematic' , which may be because like the rest of 'the Team' his efforts have gone into defending the indefensible , rather than actually working on improving the science.
Still the pay cheques are rolling in and his landing a nice job, has Hansen's hand-picked replacement, where he do further work ensuring the data remains 'correctly adjusted' so why should he give a dam . I wish him a long life , so he gets to see his and friends work held up has bad science and poor joke .
Nothing is a problem for the AGW theory as long as dissenters in the media can be sent on the appropriate re-education courses.
This from a paper published 4/2015 by B. Santer , with G. Schmidt as a co-author:
Paper Title "Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature"
"Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures show slower warming since 1998. Possible explanations for this "warming hiatus" include internal climate variability, external cooling influences, and observational errors,"… "Our analysis uses satellite measurements of changes in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) made by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites. Satellite TLT data have near-global, time-invariant spatial coverage; in contrast, global-mean trends estimated from surface thermometer records can be biased by spatially- and temporally non-random coverage changes"
So here the authors, Mr. Schmidt included recognize the warming hiatus post 1998, and recognize the satellite data as superior.
The paper itself tries to tie the hiatus to volcanic cooling, however after stripping out volcanic cooling effects, and El Nino from the satellite data, there is virtually no warming trend since 1995. See figure 1 , Page 22.
Link to full article..https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
Coming back to the original post and Luke's misunderstanding (or disinformation), the lack of amplified tropospheric warming does indeed remain an unexplained discrepancy. Santer (among others) fought off this conclusion for a long time, but eventually even he had to admit it was true (especially after Syukuro Manabe, (one the godfathers of climate modelling) weighed in, saying "While satellite MSU/AMSU observations generally support GCM results with tropical deep‐layer tropospheric warming faster than surface, it is evident that the AR4 GCMs exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere during the last three decades" (2011, Fu, Manabe, and Johanson, GRL).
Santer was forced to admit that the discrepancy remained, saying that "agreement between models, theory, and observations within the troposphere is uncertain over 1979 to 2003 and nonexistent above 300 hPa" (Thorne, et.al,A quantification of uncertainties in historical tropical tropospheric temperature trends from radiosondes, JGR, 2011). The more recent work by McKitrick as noted upthread shows this discrepancy between models, theory and observations continues, which is why Gavin has so little to say about it.
Gavin probably wouldn't like this graph:
He likes his data sets tamperatured and cherry-picked.
The 2015 "scorcher" statement by Gavin is laughable -being both alarmist as well as a red herring. His version of; "Look! Squirrel!"
pdfs at http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf and http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/quarc/Thorne-2011.pdf
What do you think are the biggest unknowns about future climate change? Where are the biggest surprises likely to come from?
Gavin Schmidt: :we are anticipating "unknown unknowns". But, of course, they're unknown, so you don't know what they're going to be. So, things where we don't have a really solid basis – exactly what's going to happen to clouds, exactly what's going to happen to some of the extreme events that have the biggest impression on society and ecosystems – and we're pushing things in a way that all of those systems are going to be affected – some will be affected more than we expect and some less – but I don't know which!
which settles it……….
John Bils, what a strange quote. Since when does a scientist push things in a particular direction?
Could this clip from a Chris Farley film be sort of what Gavin is going through?
7kiwi posed a question with that last post. I'm guessing holding my breath waiting for an answer from Gavin would be a bad idea. although Gavin would applaud the move as a reduction in my carbon footprint.
Comments are closed.


text:
- Publish date:
? Since its inception in 1933 the All-Star Game has been played annually (including two games each season from 1959 through 1962) except for one year. When was that?
•In 1945. Because of wartime restrictions on travel, the game was called off.
? Who were the starting batteries for the first game?
•For the National League it was Pitcher Bill Hallahan (Cardinals) and Catcher Jimmy Wilson (Cardinals) against Lefty Gomez (Yankees) and Rick Ferrell (Red Sox) of the American League.
? Who had the first All-Star home run?
•Babe Ruth, of course. He hit it off Hallahan with one man on base in the third inning of that opening game.
? Which player has the best home-run record?
•Of the four men with three or more homers, Ralph Kiner has the best average (3 in 15 at bats). He is followed by Rocky Colavito (3 for 18), Stan Musial (a record 6 in a record 63 at bats) and Ted Williams (4 for 46).
? Who has the most hits?
•Musial and Willie Mays of the Giants both have 20 hits. Mays's average is .417, exactly 100 points higher than Musial's.
? What pitchers have the best strikeout records?
•Johnny Vander Meer of the Reds, with 11 strikeouts in 8'Öî innings, and Don Drysdale of the Dodgers, with 14 in 11 innings, lead with an average of 1.3 per inning. Drysdale's total strikeouts are the highest for any pitcher, one better than Bob Feller's 13 in 12'Öì innings.
? What pitcher gave up the most runs in a game?
•Claude Passeau of the Cubs (1941), Sandy Consuegra of the White Sox (1954) and Whitey Ford of the Yankees (1955) each gave up five runs in one game. Only Passeau...however, was a losing pitcher.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
It has been announced that the Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma is planning to attend the NATO summit in Prague, despite opposition from Brussels. According to the Interfax news agency, Ukraine's National Security Council ruled on Saturday that President Kuchma should head the Ukrainian delegation at the Council of European-Atlantic Partnership conference due to be held on the second day of the summit. Earlier this month, NATO downgraded the meeting from chief executive to foreign minister level in view of preventing Leonid Kuchma from attending. Relations between Ukraine and the West have been strained after the US accused the Ukrainian government of selling an advanced aircraft detection system to Iraq. The DPA press agency notes that the only way NATO could now prevent Leonid Kuchma from attending the conference would be by asking the Czech government to refuse to issue him a visa.
Belarus has recalled its ambassador from Prague in connection with the Czech government's refusal to issue President Lukashenko an entry visa to the Czech Republic where he planned to attend the upcoming NATO summit. The Belarus Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the ambassador had been recalled "for consultations". The Czech Foreign Ministry on Friday announced its decision to reject President Lukashenko's visa request on the grounds that his government violates human rights. A foreign ministry statement said that the rest of the Belarussian delegation had been issued visas out of "recognition and respect for the Belarussian community whose European orientation is well known". Over the past week President Lukashenko made several public threats, warning the Czech Republic that a rejection of his visa request would irrevocably damage bilateral relations and that Belarus would "open its borders allowing illegal immigrants and drugs to flood Europe".
Ten countries poised for EU membership have set out a common demand for entry terms which would not leave them worse off when they join the union in 2004. The EU candidates fear that the slow phase-in of aid proposed in Brussels' 40 billion euro enlargement budget combined with tough competition on EU markets could result in serious economic problems, leaving them worse off than prior to their admission to the EU. The common demand, drafted at a meeting in Warsaw, comes ahead of a final agreement on farm aid and infrastructure funding which is to be reached at the EU's Copenhagen summit in December.
The Czech government has ended weeks of speculation by rejecting a visa request from the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, to attend next week's NATO summit in Prague. The Czech foreign minister, Cyril Svoboda, said the visa would not be granted because Belarus did not respect human rights, adding that Mr Lukashenko had asked for special protection the Czech government could not afford. Mr Svoboda said the government did not want Mr Lukashenko to use the visit to "legitimise his position" in Belarus. However he said the rest of the Belarussian delegation would be allowed to travel to Prague to attend the summit.
There has not yet been any official response from Belarus, though opposition figures have welcomed the decision not to grant President Lukashenko a visa. Mr Lukashenko, who is often referred to as the last dictator in Europe, had previously said he would break off diplomatic relations with the Czech Republic if Prague refused the visa request. He has also threatened to throw open his country's borders so as to allow illegal immigrants and drugs easier access to western Europe. Belarus is not a NATO member, but co-operates with the alliance through the Partnership for Peace programme.
A new opinion poll released by the CVVM agency shows public support for EU membership at 47 percent, up from 40 percent three months ago and the highest figure ever recorded by the agency. Eighteen percent said they would vote against joining the EU, while 23 percent said they would take part in a referendum but hadn't made up their minds which way to vote. The average in other EU candidate countries is 65 percent in favour, 19 percent against.
Police say they have uncovered a plot by five extremists to cut the power supply to parts of Prague during the NATO summit. A police spokeswoman said the plans were discovered during police questioning of the five, adding that the group had targeted the summit's location and the city's metro system. She gave no further details. Up to 12,000 police and soldiers are preparing for the arrival of more than 40 leaders for the key meeting of the alliance next week. It's the first summit to be held in one of NATO's post-Communist member states, and the first since the September 11th attacks.
The Senate has approved a nation-wide EU referendum for next spring, giving Czech voters the opportunity to decide whether their country should join the European Union. All 67 senators present in the 81-seat upper house approved the bill, which must now be signed by President Vaclav Havel. The referendum would be held in June, and approval would pave the way for EU entry in 2004. The Czech Republic is one of 10 countries that hopes to close enlargement negotiations with Brussels next month, and receive a formal invitation to join the Union at December's Copenhagen summit.
The Czech Republic has won support from Sweden in its debate with the European Union over post-enlargement farm supports. A spokesman for the Czech Minister of Agriculture said his counterpart in Stockholm agreed with Prague's positions on milk quotas, wine-vineyard hectarage, cattle production and other points in ongoing talks with Brussels. Agriculture is one of four areas still being discussed as part of the Czech Republic's negotiations for joining the EU. So far the Czech government has rejected the EU's offer for a gradual introduction of farm subsidies for new member states.
Belarus has threatened to break off diplomatic relations with the Czech Republic if Prague refuses to grant visas to a delegation headed by the authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko for next week's NATO summit in Prague. The Czech authorities have so far refused to allow Mr Lukashenko into the country, after NATO officials made it clear his presence at the summit would not be welcome. On Wednesday a furious Mr Lukashenko threatened retaliation, saying he would flood western Europe with illegal immigrants and drugs. Belarus is not a NATO member, but co-operates with the western military alliance through the Partnership for Peace programme.


text:
Bridgend nurseries set for cuts?
As part of plans to save £36million over the next 3-4 years – the budget due to go before councillors within the next few weeks – Bridgend Council have drafted options to change nursery care provision in the county. BCBC aim to make £1.5million in savings.
At the moment, local authorities are legally-obliged to provide up to 10 hours of nursery care per week from a child's third birthday until they start formal schooling aged 5.
The full proposals are available here (doc), but the four options are:
- Option 1: Keep nursery services as they are currently. However, it would mean no savings would be made and they would have to be found elsewhere.
- Options 2a/2b: Provide only the bare minimum (10 hours per week) for both 3 and 4 year olds, exclusively in school nurseries. If parents want extra cover they could need to pay a fee to schools. This would save £1.5million.
- Option 3: Again, provide the bare minimum via school nurseries, but with supported provision for looked-after children, children receiving free school meals and those with special needs. With this extra provision, only £1million would be saved.
- Option 4: Continue existing provision, but fund it from the primary and secondary schools budget, which could mean schools won't have money to provide other services.
Judging by the language used, I suspect they're "leaning on" Option 3, and that would be the one councillors are most likely to support (if cuts are unavoidable), and would match their stance on things like the free school bus transport– the decision there having been recently pushed back.
Obviously this could have a big impact on parents of young children generally and working single parents. The consultation closes on 24thFebruary (survey available here).
Sunday Bus Services for the chop?
In another round of financial squeezing, at tomorrow's cabinet meeting, proposals will be put forward to cuts to supported bus services (doc).
They escaped cuts in last year's budget, and are part-funded by both the SEWTA regional transport consortia and the Welsh Government. With cuts to both anticipated, BCBC want to save £50,000 in supported bus costs.
BCBC currently supports six Sunday services and these are the ones up for the chop. The report says withdrawing Sunday services is "more equitable and efficient" than applying cuts across all services, as many parts of the county aren't served by buses on Sundays anyway.
The services that could have funding withdrawn are:
- Nos. 1&2 – Bridgend to Cefn Glas
- No. 14 – Bridgend to Blaengarw
- No. 22 – Bridgend to Nantymoel
- No. 36 – Bridgend to Cymmer
- No. 62 – Bridgend to Pencoed
- No. 63B – Bridgend to Porthcawl
BCBC say they have a provisional agreement with First Cymru to run four of these services on a commercial basis during daytime hours. The services that would be withdrawn completely are the Nos 1&2 (Cefn Glas) and No. 62 (Pencoed).
It's estimated this would save BCBC just under £56,000 but it could affect 79,000 passengers.
That puts the scale of Carmarthenshire's recent unlawful actions into perspective, as the sum of money troughed in pension payments and unlawful libel indemnity funding is similar. That's before you add Pembrokeshire and Caerphilly to it.
These "little things" add up see, and can make people very angry.
Draft Bridgend Welsh-medium Education Plan
Some people might wonder if all that boring stuff I cover from the Assembly about Welsh laws etc. has any impact on the people of Bridgend. Here's a more direct example.
As part of the School Standards and Organisation Act 2013, local authorities need a plan for Welsh-medium education, which were once non-binding but are now statutory. These plans will be subject to Welsh Government approval. BCBC launched their plan a few weeks ago (doc) and a formal consultation (available here), which closes on March 20th 2014.
Bridgend's draft plan says BCBC wishes to support Welsh-medium education in order to promote linguistic and cultural diversity, create a sense of belonging and place and meet Welsh Government aspirations.
Currently, just under 10% of school pupils in Bridgend attend the four WM primaries and Ysgol Gyfun Llangynwyd. This is one of the lowest percentages in Wales, and no completely new WM primaries have opened for as long as I can remember (YGG Bro Ogwr was a direct replacement for the old Ysgol Penybont on Quarella Road).
There are some specific things from the draft report worth picking out:
- There are currently 10 Mudiad Meithrin/Cylch Ti a Fi groups spread across the county. Some – like one in Pencoed – have had to expand due to demand. The numbers transferring to WM primaries in 2013 are scatty, ranging from 100% at Cynwyd Sant and Y Diwlith (both Maesteg) to 20% in Porthcawl and 0% in Bryncethin. Generally, the numbers are going up and BCBC aim for 100% transfer for those parents who request it by 2015 in all groups except Porthcawl.
- It's believed an expanded replacement for YGG Cwm Garw, along with temporary buildings at YGG Bro Ogwr and YGG Y Ferch O'r Sger, should meet demand for WM education in Bridgend for the foresseable future.
- Transfer rates to Ysgol Gyfun Llangynwyd from the WM primaries is relatively high at 92%. BCBC are aiming for a 95% transfer rate, with a 100% staying-on rate for GCSEs at Llangynwyd (currently 95%).
- Welsh first language benchmark performances at foundation phase (92%) and KS2 (93.4%) exceeded the Welsh average. The first cohort to sit Welsh first language GCSEs at Ysgol Llangynwyd achieved 68% A*-C pass rate compared to a target of 62%. This was lower than the Welsh average (72%).
- The numbers achieving the expected standard at KS2 Welsh second language has increased by 28.2% between 2011-2013 to 60.6%. At KS3 it exceeds the national average (74.2% vs 73.3%).
- The GCSE second language full course A*-C pass rate only lags behind the national average by 1.7% and the performance gap has closed significantly. 31% of GCSE students sat the full course.
- The GCSE second language short course A*-C pass rate is above the Welsh average (58.3% v 50%). 51% of GCSE pupils sat the short course.
Getting Bridgend Active (Travelling)
If you want more examples of "boring stuff" I've covered in relation to the Assembly having a direct impact on Bridgend, here another one.
As a result of the Active Travel Act 2013, all local authorities in Wales now need to assess and plan their active travel routes (English: cycling, walking, wheelchairs etc.). They'll need to draw up a map of current routes and proposed improvements, not only including things like new cycle lanes and upgraded pedestrian crossings, but things like cycle parking facilities.
This is in an attempt to get people across Wales to cycle and walk more in order to reduce traffic and improve overall health.
BCBC recently launched their survey in order to meet the requirements of the Act. There's still time to respond, as the survey doesn't close until February 10th.
The survey itself (available here) is incredibly comprehensive – my compliments to Ark Lab. You can recommend or rate new or current cycle/pedestrian routes down to street level!
So if you're a regular walker or cyclist – whether you walk the dog or you/your kids cycle to school – and for whatever reason believe current facilities or routes in Bridgend and Pencoed aren't up to scratch, then I recommend taking the time to fill out the survey. It takes around 10-15 minutes.
I'm sure Lee Waters and his former colleagues at Sustrans Cymru would be pleased with how Bridgend Council are going about this. The broader issue, of course, is whether there'll be enough money to provide new facilities.
The map they use for the Bridgend area looks a little familiar too….


text:
Into the Wild
Live by Night
The Monuments Men
Promised Land
Machine Gun Preacher
The Ides of March
Love and Human Remains
The Men Who Stare at Goats
All David J. Webb films
Movies.com, the ultimate source for everything movies, is your destination for new movie trailers, reviews, photos, times, tickets + more! Stay in the know with the latest movie news and cast interviews at Movies.com.
Copyright © 2020 FANDANGO MOVIES.


text:
by Bailey
This hat is made with Bailey's famous LiteFelt® finish, a revolutionary treatment process that takes a natural unstiffened premium wool felt hat and makes it water repellent and shape retentive. LiteFelt® adds a tough and indestructible element, combining style and function. This style is the same shape as Bailey's best selling hat the Tino and trimmed with a custom striped band, giving it a fresh new look.


text:
One month after launching into space, the sunny sail of the American organization Planetary society On Tuesday it was correctly deployed in orbit around the Earth.
Solar candle, called LightSail 2, is a small satellite with a leaf 32 square meters They are made of very thin, light and reflective polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which must allow the device to move with a simple photon pulse.
This is an attempt to prove that this alternative propulsion technology is sufficiently developed for engines.
"The introduction is complete!", a tweetal organization. The data sent by the satellite confirmed the mechanical operation, which is expected to be visually confirmed by the photographs later to be made by the probe.
DRAWING THE CIELD CLOSED! Sailing to SUNLIGHT !!!!! pic.twitter.com/PA74NMa7Ry
– Planetary Society (@exploreplanets) July 23, 2019
Director of the Planetary Society, Bill nyeLast month, he said that sun candles someday will "tame" solar energy "Navigation between stars".
The solar sail will remain in orbit around the Earth and, if everything goes well, will gradually increase its height due to the pressure of solar radiation. But what can these solar candles serve in the future?
According to the NyeThey could be useful for sending robotic missions far, outside of our solar system, as the spacecraft, albeit slower than it would have been equipped with the engine, will gradually accelerate and eventually achieve exceptional speeds.
I hat in the mission team on the success of the introduction !! pic.twitter.com/R8j48fMNov
– Planetary Society (@exploreplanets) July 23, 2019
Source link