acbrixton

HP I suggest that you check your facts first: the average price of crude oil in December 1998 was $8.64 according to http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm regards ACB

"1300s; What was this "droghte of Marche" that Chaucer refers too? Is he suggesting that it was normal, or at least common, to have a very dry late winter/early spring with "Zephirus with his sweete breeth" suddenly turning up sometime in April?" 1. Impossible to know in any detail now whether 13thc late winter/early springs were particularly dry. 2. However dry easterlies are, I believe, more prominent in Feb/March than other months in the south east. 3. Whilst 20thc data for the south east shows February to be either the driest or one of the three driest months on average there is little evidence to suggest that April is more than marginally wetter than March. 4. Reading the first 10 lines or so of 'The General Prologue' I suspect that the reference to March "droghte" may be broader/metaphorical; i.e. contrasting the absence of growth/life in both farms and the countryside immediately after winter with lambing, crop growth and leaf bud evident in April as days lengthen and temperatures rise. regards ACB

Mr D thank you. regards ACB

Many thanks Mr D. Do you have the date, location and record maximum for October 1985 please? regards ACB

John, many thanks for this useful thread. regards ACB

The average winter CET for 1951-80 was 3.9c; for 1971-2000 4.5c and for the last 10 years 5.2c. Last winter's average was 5.6c. Thus if the forthcoming winter was in line with the 10 year average, 5.2c, that would be in accord with the MO forecast (i.e. higher than 1971-2000 but cooler than last year). Hardly indicative of pronounced cooling. Of course, GWO will say that the initial cooling of 2008-2017 should be averaged over those 10 years. If the first winter of those 10 years is, say, 5.2c then the remaining 9 years must average less than 3.8c to achieve a 10 year mean of 3.9c. regards ACB

Apologies especially as you pointed this out before...I forgot to correct it! regards ACB

Devonian/VP Here is my own interpretation of GWO's prediction [3.9.08]: "The first test is the predicted weak to moderate El Nino to be in place this winter. The second test is the 'first' 10 year global cooling encompassing the years 2008-2017. DD has postulated global temperatures returning to those of the 1950's-1980's. Parochially translating this into CET values let us assume that phase 1 cooling means a return to the values of, say, 1951-1980, i.e. an annual CET of 9.43c. [For comparison the 10 years 1998-2007 have a mean CET of 10.45c]. If by the end of 2012 the mean annual CET for 2008-2012 (i.e. the first half of the predicted 'first' cooling cycle) is, say, at 10c or more then the final five years would have to average no more than 8.86c IF annual CET values are assumed to move more or less in line with global averages. I doubt that there have been more than 3 sets of consecutive years in either the 18c and 19c when this happened (of course it was not uncommon in the late 17c...)." regards ACB

"The Arctic region has risen in temperature by 39.2F (4C) over recent decades according to scientists." An example of the Philip Eden/Torygraph phenomenon: mistaken conversions of relative readings in celsius to absolute readings in fahrenheit. regards ACB

A few thoughts: 1. As pointed out earlier the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (section 5 (2)) does indeed provide a defence to a charge of causing damage if this was done to protect other property provided that that property (1) "was in immediate need of protection", and (2) "the means of protection adopted...were...reasonable having regard to all the circumstances." Section 5 (3) makes it clear that "it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.; i.e. an entirely subjective test. 2. As a decision, as yet unappealed, of the Crown Court the case cannot set a binding legal precedent. However it may influence jurors/magistrates who hear similar cases. 3. One of the arguments in favour of the jury system is that it acts as a check against 'unjust' laws; if jurors believe that a 'legally correct' verdict is unconscionable they may, and do, reach 'perverse' verdicts. The repressive breadth of the repealed Official Secrets Act 1911 is an example of a law that juries were prepared to 'ignore' by acquittals. 4. There is no right in law to demonstrate on private land. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides only a qualified right to protest on public land. Before the HRA came into force there was no legal right to demonstrate whatsoever: the public's right to use the public highways was restricted to a right to "pass and re-pass" only; the traditional approach to individual rights in the UK before the HRA was 'negative', i.e. one was permitted to do that which was not otherwise prohibited, there were few 'positive' rights. 5. The expert testimony of Prof. Hansen doubtless had the desired effect upon the jurors. I have not read the transcript of his evidence however he is reported as stating that the daily CO2 emmissions of Kingsnorth (some 20,000 tonnes) could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species. If the reports are accurate this strikes me as a rather crude and over simplified view of causation and possibly takes him out of his area as a climatologist. 6. Doubtless GP will seek to use the same argument in future cases. How will the Crown Prosecution Service react in future cases where this defence is used? Politically it is difficult to see the CPS advancing the argument that AGW is a weak/unproven hypothesis or that CO2 emmissions are unlikely to be a major cause of global warming/climate change. The CPS might argue against the crudeness of Prof. Hansen's reported views on causation? 7. It is, I suppose, always open to Parliament to repeal s. 5 (3) of the CDA so as to replace the subjective test with an objective test, i.e. the belief must be reasonably as well as honestly held. 8. In reality the damage caused (painting 'Gordon' on a chimney) cannot logically be said to have protected the environment as the emmissions from Kingsnorth were uninterrupted. The damage caused was no more than a way of getting free publicity for GP's agenda. If GP had, as intended, damaged Kingsnorth so as to shut it down temporarily then logically one might argue that the defence of protecting the environment applied. 9. It is difficult to see how it can be argued that the environment was in "immediate need of protection" as required under s. 5(2) of the CDA. However as the law currently stands so long as a protestor honestly believes that the environment requires immediate protection that is sufficient. 10. I hope (but do not anticipate) that this case will be appealed so that the issues of causation and immediate protection are clarified requiring rather more intellectual rigour in the defences used by environmental protestors. 11. At least no-one can argue that my criticism of this case flow from an unreasoned rejection of AGW science! regards ACB

One of the drawbacks of the CAA 1956 was that it merely encouraged local authorities to pass bye-laws creating 'smokeless zones' under s.11 of CAA subject to approval by the Ministry of Housing. There were considerable delays before even all urban areas were designated as smokeless zones: the City of Westminster, astonishingly, was not entirely 'smokeless' until 1969. Even now there are rural parts of NI, Wales and Scotland (less so England) that are not smokeless zones. Under the CAA curbs on industrial emissions were not brought into effect until 7 years after the CAA was enacted. The slow adoption of these zones explains why London suffered one further dangerous smog after the CAA was introduced; early December 1962 (albeit a rather less deadly smog than December 1952). I imagine that the extension of smokeless zones was increased speedily after the 1962 smog. Three reasons for the delay in the adoption of smokeless zones occur to me: first the shortage of smokeless fuel (a memo from Crawley BC of 1955 records that new smokeless grates were used for coal as council tenants were unable to buy smokeless fuel); secondly smokeless fuel was considerably more expensive: the BBC states that in 1956 good quality coal was 174s 6d/ton but that smokeless fuel was 214s 7d/ton [i.e. £8.38/ton and £10.38/ton respectively]; thirdly the first half of the 1950s was marked by the rapid construction of council housing to address both the need to continue slum clearance programs first started in the 1920s and war damage, thus conversion of such pre-CAA gousing to smokeless fuels would have taken time and money. regards ACB

John, many thanks for this. regards ACB

Roger, many thanks for the clarification. regards ACB

Roger, "Here are the data points for the CET analysis showing the signal. The analysis is based on monthly anomalies 1659 to present, and what is shown here is the 11-month composite cycle that derives from a running filter of 5.417 months (so the actual length is 10.834 months)." against what baseline/mean have you calculated those anomalies? Presumably 30 year monthly mean values from, say, 1671-1700 onwards? regards ACB

Iceberg thanks for the correction! Mea culpa. regards ACB

"But Edinburgh has a better climate than is often assumed. Its average yearly rainfall is only 16mm (0.6in) more than London, and less than Birmingham or Plymouth." Nonsense. UKMO rainfall data (1971-2000) for Greenwich and Edinburgh are: Greenwich: annual rainfall= 583.6mm (106.50 days with more than 1mm rain); Edinburgh: annual rainfall= 676.2mm (120.70 days with more than 1mm rain). Thus the difference in annual rainfall is more like 3.6" p.a. (that is still a rather smaller difference than I had imagined...). regards ACB

Quite so. The first test is the predicted weak to moderate El Nino to be in place this winter. The second test is the 'first' 10 year global cooling encompassing the years 2008-2017. DD has postulated global temperatures returning to those of the 1950's-1980's. Parochially translating this into CET values let us assume that phase 1 cooling means a return to the values of, say, 1951-1980, i.e. an annual CET of 9.43c. [For comparison the 10 years 1998-2007 have a mean CET of 10.45c]. If by the end of 2012 the mean annual CET for 2008-2012 (i.e. the first half of the predicted 'first' cooling cycle) is, say, at 10c or more then the final five years would have to average no more than 8.86c IF annual CET values are assumed to move more or less in line with global averages. I doubt that there have been more than 3 sets of consecutive years in either the 18c and 19c when this happened (of course it was not uncommon in the late 17c...). regards ACB

As at 29th August Philip's values are: CET mean 16.3c [mean max. 19.5c, mean min. 13.1c], rainfall 115.1mm or 170% and sunshine 107 hours or a remarkable 58%. So on this basis suggested final values: 16.4-5c, rainfall 125mm++ (175%+ depending on how Sunday's breakdown develops), sunshine about 115 hours+ (just over 60%?). The dullest but second warmest month of the past three summers? regards ACB

Well, BFTB, we have phase 1 cooling to look forward to in the meantime. DD has postulated a 10 year cooling period from 2008 to 2017 with global temperatures predicted to return to those of the 1950's-1980's. Parochially translating this into CET values let us assume that phase 1 cooling means a return to the values of, say, 1951-1980, i.e. an annual CET of 9.43c. [For comparison the 10 years 1998-2007 have a mean CET of 10.45c]. Thus decade to decade we can expect about a full 1.0c drop in annual CET. In fact as this year (the first year of the 10 year phase 1 cooling) seems likely to be in the region of 10.2-10.3c that would require the remaining 9 years of phase 1 to have an average annual CET nearer to 9.35c... We shall see soon enough. regards ACB

DD, thank you for that...most illuminating. regards ACB

Gavin, there were no 'Frost Fairs' in Victorian London: the last time that the Thames froze over in central London was in the winter of 1813/14. Milder winters from the second half of the 19c are only part of the reason why Frost Fairs were impossible but the main reasons appear to have been: 1. The demolition of the 'old' London Bridge in 1831; 2. The progressive embankment of the Thames in the mid 19c. The old London Bridge had 19 thick piers which significantly impeded the river's flow and limited the tidal effects so that salinity downstream was lower than now. In effect the old LB acted as a weir. The embankment of the Thames (largely associated with the improvements to London's sewage disposal by the great Bazalgatte) funnelled and increased the river's flow. It is almost certain that in the absence of factors 1 and 2 the Thames would have frozen over in the winters of 1893/94 and 1895/96; as it was the river was closed to most shipping in parts of those two winters by dangerous ice floes. regards ACB

Philip as at 16-16.22nd August is still on 16.1c (rounded up), mean max 19.4c [-1.5c], mean min 12.8c [-1.0c]. Possible month end range?...16.0c to 16.6c depending on the orientation of HP ridges and the consequent origin of associated airmasses with minima especially prone to variation. regards ACB.

Philip now has the CET as of 19th August at 16.1c (rounded up) (-0.3c). Mean maximum 19.4c (-1.5c), mean minimum 12.7c (+0.8c). Interestingly the CET diurnal range for 19th August was just under 3c: unusually low for mid August, I would have thought. As to the month end, assuming 15.8c-15.9c at the 2/3 mark, I think that the possible range would be, say, 15.8c-16.5c and most likely 16.1c-16.4c. Much hinges on the duration/extent of the predicted AH ridge, of course. regards ACB

Jackone, many thanks for the effort put into producing this useful resource. regards ACB

I think you may be right! regards ACB