Just this morning I sent the following note to subscribers of my irregular e-news. I try and send something out each month, but of late it has become more seasonal. Please do consider subscribing, the link is here.

It has only taken ten years, that is how long a few of us have been detailing major problems with how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology measures daily temperatures. Now, I’m informed, the Bureau are ditching the current system and looking to adopt an overseas model that it claims will be more reliable.

This is a huge win for fair-dinkum sceptics.

I’m afraid, however, too many on our side just like me poking the bears. They don’t really want the necessary revolution. And so, most of my colleagues have gone to ground on this one. They are not acknowledging this big win.

I remember back to 2014 and with some residual bitterness. I blogged about this recently:

Back in 2014, when Tony Abbott was Prime Minister of Australia, and after a series of damning articles in The Australian newspaper showing the extent to which the Bureau of Meteorology remodel historic temperature series exaggerating warming, there was opportunity for a review.

There was real opportunity for an overhaul of how the Bureau not only change recorded temperatures, but also forecasts the weather.
The plan went to Cabinet, and it was ‘shut down’ by then Environment Minister Greg Hunt. He is on the public record proudly explaining that he ‘killed’ the idea.

I go on in the same blog post to explain:

And if you want a job in politics and you can’t self-censor yourself, then get someone like Greg Hunt to do it for your entire team, the entire Cabinet – for you and Scotty and also Peter Dutton.

I have observed that over the last decade Conservatives have shown more groupthink than the Greens and Labor combined on this and most other issues, while claiming they would welcome debate. Ends.

Back in 2014 the issues revolved around the industrial scale remodelling of historic temperatures through the process of homogenisation.

Over the last few years, I have successfully moved the argument with the Bureau to problems with the electronics.

With each new blog post in a recent series entitled ‘Jokers, Off-Topic Reviews and Drinking from the Alcohol Thermometer’, I have gleaned more and more inside information and crucial temperature datasets. I have so much evidence now, in my back pocket – so to speak.

Just this morning I have passed the following questions across to Senator Gerard Rennick for tabling in the Australian Parliament:

Can the Australian Bureau of Meteorology please confirm the nature of the electrical problems causing artificial variations in daily temperatures across the automatic weather station network, in particular:

1. Is it true, given the nature of the platinum resistance probes and how they are hooked-up to the data loggers, that applying a 100Hz frequency to a power circuit to extend the life of a battery – necessary with solar systems – can cause maximum temperatures to drift up by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius on sunny days? (To be clear, as the electrical current increased the recorded temperature increased additional to any actual change in air temperature.)

2. Can the Bureau confirm the number of remote locations where temperatures have dropped by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius on the hour, at the same time every hour through the night, as the battery is drained with each satellite upload of temperature data?

3. Can the Bureau confirm that upgrading power supplies in 2012 caused a 0.3-to-0.5-degree Celsius increase across 30 percent of the Australian network?

4. When is the Bureau going to inform university and CSIRO scientist of potential problems with the temperature data it has supplied, following the 2012 upgrade? (The increase in temperatures was reported by David Karoly and Sophie Lewis, for example, as due to greenhouse gases when it may at least in part have been due to changes in the power supply to the AWS network.)

5.Which overseas model for measuring temperatures is the Bureau going to adopt as a replacement for the current AWS network that has proven unreliable? Ends.

My most recent blog post in the jokers’ series resonated with many past and present Bureau employees and is technical, and some of the comments in the thread that followed its reposting at WattsUpWithThat.com are important.

I am always inspired by the maxim of Anthony Watt’s resolve quoting Andrew Breitbart:

Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you.

By Andy May

After more than two years of hard work, Marcel Crok, I, and 11 other scientists have finally published our critique of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth report (AR6). The entire book has been extensively peer reviewed and a low-resolution pdf of a nearly final draft of the book has been available for weeks at clintel.org. All comments received on this draft have been carefully considered and incorporated, if approved by the team, in the final book. We are a bit hard on AR6, but our criticisms are well deserved. Only the eBook is out now, the print edition should be along in a week or two. The Kindle edition is text-to-speech enabled. Available at Amazon, Kobo, and Barnes and Noble.

A Brief Summary of the Contents

The IPCC has completed its sixth climate change assessment cycle consisting of seven reports in total, collectively known as “AR6.” A team of eight scientists, in addition to several anonymous expert reviewers, from the Clintel network, have analyzed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. The team and reviewers are from Spain, Canada, Italy, Germany, Norway, The Netherlands, the U.K., and the U.S. In every chapter, this book documents biases and errors in the IPCC assessment. The errors are worse in the WG2 report but are also present in the WG1 report. 

For example, the IPCC ignored 52 highly relevant peer-review articles showing that “normalised disaster losses” saw no increase attributable to climate change yet highlighted one, out of 53 papers, that claimed there is an increase in losses. That one paper is – not surprisingly – flawed, but apparently its conclusions were so appealing to the IPCC that they fell for it. The strategy of the IPCC seems to be to hide any good news about climate change. 

“We are on a highway to climate hell”, said UN-boss Guterres recently. But an in-depth look at mortality data shows that climate-related deaths are at an all-time low. Well-known economist Bjorn Lomborg published this excellent news in a 2020 peer-reviewed paper, but the IPCC chose to ignore it, see figure 17 here. 

Back in 2010, errors in the fourth WG2 report led to the investigation of the IPCC by the InterAcademy Council. This IAC Review recommended, among other recommendations, that “[h]aving author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.” This important recommendation is still ignored by the IPCC. One of the key recommendations in IAC Review that the AR6 authors ignored, as documented in our book, is:

“The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.”

InterAcademy Council Review of the IPCC, page xiv

Numerous very well documented reviewer’s comments were completely ignored in AR6, our book documents many of the more egregious of these. The AR6 Working Group 1 report is not free from bias and misleading conclusions either. The IPCC tries to rewrite climate history by erasing the existence of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, a warm period between 10,000 and 6000 years ago, by embracing a new hockey stick graph, that is the result of cherry-picked temperature proxies. They ignore temperature reconstructions that show significantly more variability in the past.

The IPCC claims there is an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in recent decades. We show this claim is flawed because the IPCC ignores decadal natural variability in the sea level rate. We also show that the IPCC sea level tool – made available for the first time – shows a mysterious and unlikely jump upward in 2020.

Canadian economist Ross McKitrick, pointed out that all models used by the IPCC, show too much warming in the troposphere, both globally and in the tropics (where models predict a ‘hot spot’). Observed warming indicates a moderate climate sensitivity between 1 and 2.5 degrees Celsius, while the IPCC claims a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees.

On top of that, the IPCC is ‘addicted’ to its highest greenhouse gas emission scenario, the so-called RCP8.5 or now SSP5-8.5 scenario. In recent years, several papers have demonstrated that this scenario is simply not plausible and should not be used for policy purposes. Deep inside the WG1 report the IPCC acknowledges that this scenario has a ‘low likelihood’, but this very important remark was not highlighted in the Summary for Policy Makers, so the media and policy makers are unaware of this. This implausible scenario is commonly used in the report.

Our conclusions are quite harsh. We document biases and errors in almost every chapter we reviewed. In some cases, of course, one can quibble endlessly about our criticism and how relevant it is for the overall ‘climate narrative’ of the IPCC. In some cases, though, we document such blatant cherry picking by the IPCC, that even ardent supporters of the IPCC should feel embarrassed.

The AR6 report reveals that they have ignored the very important multi-decadal ocean oscillations discovered in the 1990s and 2000s (see Vinos, 2022 Ch. 11 and Wyatt and Curry, 2014) long after the IPCC had focused exclusively on anthropogenic causes. These ocean oscillations, collectively, have a large effect on our climate, but are unrelated to “non-condensing greenhouse gases.” AR6 states that:

“there has been negligible long-term influence from solar activity and volcanoes”

AR6, page 67

Yet, they acknowledge no other natural influence on multidecadal climate change despite the recent discoveries suggesting significant natural climate change, a true case of tunnel vision.

We were promised IPCC reports that would objectively report on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, yet we find numerous examples where important research was ignored. In Ross McKitrick’s chapter on the “hot spot,” he lists many important papers that are not even mentioned in AR6. Marcel Crok gives examples where unreasonable emissions scenarios are used to frighten the public in his chapter on scenarios, and examples of bias and hiding good news in his chapters on extreme weather and snowfall. Nicola Scafetta and Fritz Vahrenholt document that over 100 papers showing solar activity correlates with climate change have been ignored by the IPCC. Numerous other examples are documented in other chapters. These deliberate omissions and distortions of the truth do not speak well for the IPCC, reform of the institution is desperately needed.

Perhaps this is why, after 47 reports and 32 years, they have yet to convince a majority of the people on Earth, or in the United States, that manmade climate change is our most important and serious societal problem. Other problems are always considered more important and urgent. In a 2018 Pew Research poll climate change ranked 18th, of 19 issues in importance, in a similar 2014 poll, climate change ranked 14th in a list of priorities. A 2022 poll by the Pew Research Center also found climate change ranked 14th. In the UN My World 2015 Report, a poll of 10 million people around the world, climate change ranked dead last of 16 issues in importance. Minds are not being changed.

Are we at a fork in the road? Will the United Nations, the IPCC, and politicians finally realize that their 50-year-old hypothesis is out of date and incorporate the new natural warming forces discovered in the past thirty years into their work and projections? In the past the IPCC has fought off attempts to independently review their work. We hope our documentation of the problems in AR6 eventually leads to the necessary changes in their organization and procedures.

From CLIMATE DEPOT

According to researchers from the American Academy of Neurology, global warming is fueling a rise in neurological diseases ranging from migraines to Alzheimer’s. People with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis (MS) may also experience worsening symptoms. … 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, rising global average temperature continue to impact widespread changes in weather patterns, and extreme weather events—such as heat waves and hurricanes—are likely to become more frequent or more intense. Experts suggest that the stress of these events can trigger headaches.

The World Health Organization has referred to climate change as “the single biggest health threat facing humanity.”

By: Admin – Climate DepotMay 25, 2023 5:50 PM

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-blog/2023/may/headache-and-climate-change

Why Climate Change Might Be Affecting Your Headaches

by Kelsey Geesler

Recurring headaches are one of the most common nervous system disorders, with an estimated 45 million, or one in six, Americans complaining of headaches each year. People who experience headaches or migraines regularly are probably familiar with different triggers for their headaches—such as consuming alcohol, increased stress, or changes in sleep quality. But what people suffering from headaches might not realize is that climate change can have effects on headaches.

How Can Climate Change Cause Headaches?

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, rising global average temperature continue to impact widespread changes in weather patterns, and extreme weather events—such as heat waves and hurricanes—are likely to become more frequent or more intense. Experts suggest that the stress of these events can trigger headaches.

“Not only can experiencing an extreme storm itself be stressful, but the aftermath, where we have to deal with injuries, destruction to our homes or other property, and the loss of our possessions can add to that stress said Marilyn Howarth, MD, an adjunct associate professor of Pharmacology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and director of the Community Outreach and Engagement Core with the Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology (CEET). “This stress can cause people who are already susceptible to headaches to experience them more frequently or more acutely.”

With the increase of weather events that cause flooding, like hurricanes and other intense downpours, there is also an increased likelihood that storage facilities for chemicals and other hazardous materials may be disturbed, which could cause spills and leaks that can contaminate the soil, water, and air.

“A number of common chemicals, like solvents, are known to cause irritation in the nose and throat, and headaches, and if a high enough concentration of these chemicals makes it into the soil around our homes, or into our drinking water, exposure can cause headaches in some individuals,” Howarth noted. “Individuals may also come into contact with contaminated water while attempting to access their homes or evacuate the affected area, which could trigger headaches.”

Research also suggests that rising temperatures associated with climate change have an impact on changing foliage and pollen in some areas.

“These changes can lead to an increase in pollen that already exists in an area, or the introduction of a new kind of pollen in an area that has never seen it before,” Howarth elaborated. “People with existing allergies may see them get worse, and people who never experienced allergies in the past might develop them.”

A recent study from Holly Elser, MD, PhD, a Neurology resident at Penn Medicine, illustrates an increase in emergency department visits for patients diagnosed with headaches following wildfires in California.  “Wildfires are most common in the Western U.S., with climate change driving the intensification and length of wildfire seasons. But even Mid-Atlantic states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey are subject to the effects of wildfires,” Elser said, noting a “red flag” warning in the Philadelphia region, just last month, resulting from warm temperatures, combined with very low humidity and strong winds, caused an increased risk of fire danger.

…

Children may be particularly susceptible to climate change impacts such as increased air pollution exacerbating asthma and flooding redistributing chemicals and causing mold growth which can also exacerbate asthma.

#

Global warming can cause headaches

 Headaches are not lethal every time, but their recurring episodes can cause huge discomfort and hinder our daily activities and productivity. Other than common factors like alcohol, stress, and poor sleep, now global warming has also become a major factor that can trigger headaches, found the University of Pennsylvania.

In its latest research, scientists found that the aftermath of storms, mainly led by climate change, can lead to stress and headaches. The aftermath of such storms includes the destruction of homes, property, loss of possessions, health issues, etc. Contamination of soil, water, and air, can also lead to an increase in cases of nose and throat irritation resulting in headaches.

Experts suggest that a spike in average temperature due to climate change can impact the changing foliage and pollen in some areas. Which can increase allergy symptoms among individuals.

#

Study Finds: Headaches and other neurological diseases are getting worse — due to climate change

Headaches are getting worse, and a new study says climate change may be to blame.

According to researchers from the American Academy of Neurology, global warming is fueling a rise in neurological diseases ranging from migraines to Alzheimer’s. People with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis (MS) may also experience worsening symptoms.

Strokes may also become more prevalent as the planet heats up. The team notes that global warming causes air pollution, which previous studies have linked to worsening brain health. Smog from traffic and industry contains tiny toxic particles called particulate matter. They enter the bloodstream after people breathe them into their lungs. eventually, they can travel to the brain.

“Although the international community seeks to reduce global temperature rise to under 2.7 ºF before 2100, irreversible environmental changes have already occurred, and as the planet warms these changes will continue to occur,” says the Cleveland Clinic’s Andrew Dhawan, MD, DPhil, in a media release. “As we witness the effects of a warming planet on human health, it is imperative that neurologists anticipate how neurologic disease may change.”

#

Does climate change make stroke, MS, migraines, dementia worse?

Review of hundreds of studies sees increased neurological risk in climate change

Climate change and pollution are making troublesome neurological disease symptoms worse, according to new research in Neurology, the journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

The authors reviewed 364 studies from 1990 to 2022 on climate change, neurological disorders, temperature and pollutants to reach their conclusion. As Forbes summarized findings, “extreme weather events accelerated by climate change are associated with an increase in strokes, migraines and seizures, an increase in hospital visits among patients with dementia and worsening severity of multiple sclerosis symptoms.”

The studies all involved adult subjects, not children.

The World Health Organization has referred to climate change as “the single biggest health threat facing humanity.”

The report said extreme weather is marked by drastic temperature change, high temperatures and heat waves.

Filed under: astrology, covid, lockdown, new study, reset, wacky, who