jethro

Merry Christmas everyone! I'm asking Santa for the chance to do this in the New Year, I haven't been a particularly good girl so may need some help in making this wish come true....

Merry Christmas everyone

No Dev. There is an accepted and established protocol in the arena of climate science and that is the 30 year average, used as a baseline. The most recent 30 year period is not 1961-1990. The METO do not use this earlier period when issuing seasonal forecasts, when we read the forecast for this winter, it doesn't say above/below average compared to 1961-1990 - they use the latest 30 year baseline. Shifting goal posts does no one any favours, least of all professional organisations. The baseline 30 year average is there for a purpose, a scientific purpose. Choosing an earlier period, presumably to create drama where there is little or none, is not scientifically valid. In the world of climate science there are a raft of blogs/claims/counter claims to wade through before you can get to the core science. The average man in the street isn't interested enough to bother, instead digesting the soundbites and taking that as gospel. When serious organisations like the METO produce and publish reports/press releases such as the one above, they have a responsibility to ensure it is accurate. What they don't have or shouldn't have, is the freedom to wrap it up in invalid science in order to produce a headline grabber. If you want to be regarded as professional, a source of unbiased science then you have to act accordingly. I remain disappointed that the METO of all people now appear to be engaging in the shifting goal posts used by the blogosphere land.

Why have they used the 1961-1990 average? Everything else, (including usually the METO), use the latest 30 year period as the global average measurement. The cynic in me suggests it's because it makes the warming figure appear more dramatic than it actually is. I guess that's what happens in a media savvy world; disappointing to have a leading organisation dabbling in such tactics.

Just had a look at the radar, we've got loads more rain to come yet; it's going to be a mess out there in the morning. It must be awful to be facing more flooding so soon after the last lot, especially so close to Christmas.

It's absolutely pouring with rain at the mo, so loud and heavy it woke me up! Grrrrrr.

Tis the season to be jolly, fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la.....

Meanwhile, more news on the fracking front..... http://frack-off.org.uk/huge-gas-plans-for-airth-100-rigs-compulsory-purchase-orders-and-fracking-not-ruled-out/ If this report is accurate, I'm more than a little disturbed by the prospect of them being able to wave compulsory purchase orders around.

Yuk, yuk, yuk, what a bleeding horrible day! Can't help but think though.....when that historical ECM run came through last week, it portrayed this lot as hitting the block coming from the East, imagine if this was snow!

Not knowing the influence that clouds may have on climate isn't new news, the problem has been acknowledged in every IPCC report. Some clouds may cause cooling, some clouds may cause warming, deciphering the overall signal is proving a headache but hopefully with information that will come from the Aqua satellite, we may be able to get closer to knowing. As for the Sun's influence, again it's been accepted for a very long time that there may be influences other than TSI, what they are though we simply don't know - I don't see how the influence can be fully included in the IPCC reports if we don't know what it is. I'm all for flaws/errors in science being explored but this isn't really a flaw in the AGW debate, it's simply lack of knowledge. Perhaps Delingpole should have read the various IPCC reports first, then he would have known this is lack of data rather than error. If he has read them and still thinks this is an error then he clearly hasn't understood them which begs the question, why is he commenting at all?

I had a beautiful and huge Lemon tree at work that I'd nurtured for years, they'd had it for a long time but it never grew, never flowered or fruited. It took two or three years of pruning and feeding before it responded properly, but when it did, my was it worth it. It lived in a large pot in a greenhouse, going outside on a sunny terrace for the summer and the scent from the flowers was amazing. The last time I counted the lemons, it had 93 (they take ages to ripen but if you leave them on the tree until they are, they're as sweet as any Tangerine). Back in that really cold December a couple of years ago, despite being inside and wrapped up, it died. I like cold weather as much as the next person, love the snow but I think I'll bear a grudge for a long time against that bitterly cold December and the toll it took on my pride and joy.

Mike, from what I can see in the pictures it appears to be just the young growth that has been affected?? There are a few things which can cause these symptoms and you may have more than one thing doing the damage. The first pic looks as though a hungry Slug has had a go at the young leaf before it had unfurled. The other pics could be caused by a fungus problem or they may be the result of a late frost, possibly followed by fungal damage on the already weakened tips. They can suffer from leaf minor problems (tunnelling inside leaves by insect), it's a bugger to treat effectively, the simplest and most effective way is to remove the affected leaves and burn. For the other problems, try a double handed approach at the first sign of trouble next year - a general purpose insecticide (easiest in spray form) together with a Copper based fungicide which will come as sachets of powder to be mixed and drenched all over the plant with a watering can. As for fruiting - all Citrus are hungry plants, they really benefit from year round application but the feed differs between summer/winter feed. I've had good results from this one but I expect they're all pretty similar http://www.shrubsdirect.com/Vitax-Citrus-Feed-Winter-200g?language=en&currency=GBP&gclid=CN6Iw9rCmLQCFePHtAodEm8AFQ

Seems Fracking is to get the go ahead. Talk about mixed messages, we're all supposed to be facing a bleak, climate changed future and yet our government has decided to seek yet more fossil fuel instead of greener energy. Is it just me who finds it hard to take the climate change message seriously when the government pulls stunts like this? Makes me think there's less of a problem than some claim and confirms my belief that a lot of this has had more to do with conserving energy until we've got our future supplies sorted out. Also (presuming this Mail quote is correct) how on earth can we have an Energy Minister who say's "reduce our reliance on imported gas, as we move to a low carbon economy"? Last time I checked, gas was a fossil fuel responsible for considerable carbon emissions. How can someone in that position know so little? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247421/Fracking-resume-search-shale-gas-Ed-Davey-promises-tougher-rules-prevent-earthquakes.html

Well that's a fine crop of water shoots you've got there! This always happens if a mature tree is severely pruned/lopped back; a mature tree has an enormous root system designed to support the large canopy, if you remove the canopy, all that energy goes into growing new shoots. Water shoots (as they're known in fruit trees) are not productive so you need to encourage new growth which will fruit in the future. Firstly, ignore the leaf growth, it will drop off but you really need to wait until Feb/March time to do the next round of pruning - this won't be completed in one season, if you chop it all off in one go, you'll promote the problem you have now and get water shoots on water shoots. In the first year remove any water shoots growing directly from the trunk of from lower down the branches (judge how low down by how high you want the base of the canopy to allow for mowing etc). Then cut away half of the water shoots at their base. Tip prune all the remaining shoots, removing 4 inches or so from the ends (this will promote the growth of fruiting spurs). Next year, remove half of the remaining water shoots that you have kept from this year. Prune everything else back to an outwards facing bud. In the third year again prune to an outwards facing bud. Fruit buds should have started forming on the new shoots (identified by being bigger, rounder than leaf buds). Thereafter, winter prune as normal. All this is designed to promote fruit growth, if you can't be bothered or think it isn't worth the effort then ignore all the above. An Apple tree which has been overtaken by water shoots won't come to any harm, it just won't give you many Apples. It's still a lovely thing to have in the garden, an ideal support to grow Clematis through and a haven for wildlife.

They do reflect reality in as much as they're pretty good 2 - 3 days out. Any further than say 5 days away and they're really just playing with options of what may happen, based on the information ascertained from the collected data. The problems arise when people take them as absolute gospel and expect them to accurately pinpoint weather 2 - 3 weeks away. What's needed is an understanding and acceptance that they don't produce the weather, that anything more than a few days away can and will change, and that we live on a tiny island in the middle of vast oceans of water and a maritime climate. Getting real, intense cold to these shores has always been hit and miss, it will always be hit and miss, sometimes we get lucky, sometimes we don't - no amount of computer models or apologies will change that.

Ahem, I didn't say I felt impotent, I've never felt impotent in my entire life; my ethos is you either let life happen to you or you make it happen, I've never been inclined to just accept what comes my way. What I said was the world keeps turning regardless of you or I. I, personally don't let that prevent me from living my life exactly as I choose. Do you?

The fog's lifted here leaving a thick coating of rime on everything, looks very pretty, blinking cold though.

Woah there, hang on just a second. First up, at no point have I EVER said that humans have not changed the planet, neither have I EVER said climate change or even AGW is not happening. As you are quite well aware I fully endorse the theory of AGW, my only question is the magnitude of it. By all means argue against points I have made but save us both the tedium of trying to discredit me by making out I'm a complete sceptic/denier, it's a pathetic get out clause used to silence critics instead of addressing the issues raised. Secondly, what I or you or anyone else thinks on this subject will have absolutely no impact on whether or not fossil fuels continue to be used. The continued use, phase out and demise will be dictated by cost/profit, whether there are viable alternatives, whether or not we run out of them. I don't live in a fluffy world of ideology, I live in the one dictated to by commerce and capitalism. Placing both feet firmly on the ground, applying all logic, common sense and life experience gained thus far I can say with absolute conviction that regardless of impact, regardless of climate change, regardless of environmental issues, the average man in the street if faced with the choice between saving the planet and having a car, would choose the car every time even if it did mean drilling for oil in Antarctica or the Arctic. That's not me personally insisting that we'll use all our fossil fuels, that's me accepting the truth of the world we live in. Show me a decline in their use and I'll happily retract my words, remember, emissions levels keep rising, despite all the fears of climate change.

I just read that without reading the post you were replying to.....I thought well that's a bit personal, a tad rude.

None of the above, just a healthy dose of realism. The facts are we need energy and we'll need more and more of it. Currently there is no alternative means of generating all the energy we need, other than heavy usage of fossil fuels. As time progresses and as technology advances, that situation will change - it's going to have to as regardless of climate change, fossil fuels are finite and dwindling. Of course petro companies keep themselves abreast of scientific developments, that doesn't however mean that they try to disseminate mis-information; quite apart from anything else, they have no control over it. Governments have legislated in order to reduce GHG emissions, these legislations will get tighter but that doesn't necessarily mean no more fossil fuels, that they will be banned. Much of the research and legislation is designed to keep the coal fires burning but make them less harmful, carbon capture as well as alternative means of energy production will progress hand in hand in the forseeable future. Shell, BP and Exxon are not going to close, their products are not going to be banned, we will continue to use fossil fuels until there are none left, but like the Clean Air Act and the development of smokeless fuels, their potential to cause harm will be greatly reduced.

To go back to the cars comparison, we have speed limits, the highway code, the MOT test and the restriction on drinking, plus a minimum age limit and driving test. None of these existed when cars were first invented, they have been introduced by successive governments. If governments fail to introduce legislation or safe practise policies, then they are lacking - the problem is with the lack of legislation, not the fossil fuel industry. All businesses will function on the most cost efficient basis in order to generate the most profit, that's not unique to the fossil fuel industry and often companies have to be made to sacrifice a little profit in order to comply with health and safety. I think it is wrong and in this context, invalid to blame the woes of environmental damage and climate change on the fossil fuel industries. People really ought to think how their life would be without the use of fossil fuels, for a start off, we wouldn't be having this on-line debate without electricity and the petro-chemical industry.

Are you saying that there's a conspiracy going on here and that science gets suppressed, only to be viewed by the fossil fuel industry and social elite? If you are, then you've answered your own question. Blimey Ian, sinister and conspiracy plots in one day, I'm not being funny but maybe a walk and breath of fresh air will help clear your head.

Isn't that the same as saying we have all seen the motorway pile up's, do folk really believe cars are safe? Cars are perfectly safe but occasionally the person behind the wheel gets it wrong or a mechanical failure causes an accident. Fossil fuels have enabled people to live a longer, healthier, wealthier life, occasionally a mechanical failure or human error may result in environmental damage.

I don't think sinister or any other emotion ever features in business, money and profit drives business.

Still very white and frosty here, now the fog is descending; hoping for a thick hoare frost in the morning.