Bedford WMO 03560 – Where did we park the car?

52.22698 -0.46554 Met Office Assessed Class 2 Installed 1/1/1956 at a different site, above location from 1980

Tim Channon assessed this site as possibly Class 1 back in 2012

Then again, times change but seemingly unnoticed by the Met Office.

There are a surprisingly large number of both active and former RAF airfields in the UK. Many of them are almost forgotten and lost in the sands of time. A typical example is RAF Wisley just to the south of the, now famous, Royal Horticultural Society Gardens. It is now a lost relic soon to be built over. Better than building over virgin green belt.

A different re-purposing applies to the former RAF Thurleigh (known by the Met Office as “Bedford”) which became the site of Thurleigh Vehicle Storage and just a few new and secondhand unsold cars.

Reviewing Tim’s original scaling, the 30 metre exclusion zone for Class 2 is technically not breached so the Met Office can justify their assessment on tape measurements as they often do such as at Chertsey. However, it seems to be stretching a point claiming such a high standard when there are clearly, at times, thousands of mostly internal combustion engine vehicles alongside. They are frequently being moved in and out by using their own engines and, on this enormous scale, must surely exert influence on the immediate weather station just a fraction over 30 metres away.

This site re-purposing is neither the responsibility nor the fault of the Met Office, though I do feel this former acceptable site is now compromised beyond continued use of its data for the historic temperature record. Another re-location is overdue.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/3caSoWV

November 14, 2024 at 06:09AM

UN COP29 Climate Summit is a galaxy far, far away

Climate delegates and activists live in their own reality.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/F5GnYXC

November 14, 2024 at 05:29AM

COP Attendees Update

Well, it’s that time of year again. I get the feeling that most sceptics are finding it difficult to maintain an angry face by now; the COPs have gone on so long, that they have long since ceased to be a source of outrage. Now they are so ridiculous as to be self-parodies, save that the ant-like delegates don’t see the joke.

A few years ago, I compiled a list of the number of attendees at each of the COPs; I failed to locate numbers for two of the early shindigs, Geneva and Bonn. I updated it after Glasgow and Sharm El-Sheikh, but had lost all enthusiasm by Dubai.

Today (it was yesterday…) I idly wondered whether the rest of the world shared my ennui. Had the number of delegates finally begun to drop off?

I was rather surprised to find that – almost impossibly – COP28 managed to assemble almost 100,000 participants. (Actually, 97,372 according to the UNFCCC; another 3,000 dialled in, so the total was in fact over a tenth of a million. And why was it not the other way: 97,000 virtual attendees, and 3,000 in person?) Quite incredibly, COP28 all but tripled the attendance of COP27 (33,449).

What about this year? The total attendees:

66,778

I won’t ask you to guess how many UK plc sent, because Paul Homewood already drew attention to the number, and I’m sure most readers of Cliscep read Notalot. If you do so, you will know that the UK delegation numbers 470.

Of course, that is a bald number lacking context. The context is that the UK is in 11th place on the delegation size list. Here are the top eleven:

Azerbaijan 2,229
Brazil 1,914
Türkiye 1,862
United Arab Emirates 1,011
China 969
Russian Federation 900
Indonesia 810
Nigeria 634
Japan 595
Kazakhstan 478
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 470

The further context is that the delegates come from a range of departments and organisations, foreign countries, business outfits and media. Here is a list of all organisations with at least three representatives:

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero 115
FCDO 51
No10 33
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office 28
UK Government 15
Sky News 11
Department for Business and Trade 10
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 8
National Grid 8
SSE Plc 8
Standard Chartered 7
British Council 6
International Climate Change 6
Met Police 6
University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership 6
AVEVA 5
DP World 5
HM Treasury 5
Cabinet Office 4
Climate Change Committee 4
Government Legal Department 4
Octopus Energy 4
UK Export Finance 4
BBC News 3
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 3
Department for Health and Social Care 3
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology 3
DfT 3
ITV News 3
UK Parliament 3
UK Space Agency 3
We Are Family Foundation 3

Some items appear more than once owing to nuance in spelling or abbreviations. One of our representatives put themselves down as a member of “Foreign, Commenwalth and Development Office” [sic]. Just the sort of representative we need.

Why are we sending representatives from DP World? [= Dubai Ports World, famed for running ports, and for firing 800 P&O ferry staff.] Or Octopus Energy? The 11 from Sky are presumably making a documentary about Chairman Starmer. Further down the list (not shown) are representatives of Anguilla, Montserrat, and others.

Other countries’ numbers tot up to 32,688. Almost as many, you’ll note, as the total attendance at COP27.

1,128 folks from the UN turned out, representing 41 different offices:

Department of Peace Operations 11
Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs 15
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 16
Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia 4
Economic Commission for Africa 134
Economic Commission for Europe 29
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 2
Executive Office of the Secretary-General 28
International Trade Centre 22
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 10
Office of Legal Affairs 1
Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States 2
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 26
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 23
Ozone Secretariat 7
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 4
Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 3
The Joint Sustainable Development Goals Fund 20
United Nations Capital Development Fund 15
United Nations Children’s Fund 100
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 92
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 21
United Nations Department of Global Communications 14
United Nations Development Coordination Office 26
United Nations Development Programme 83
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women 69
United Nations Environment Programme 49
United Nations General Assembly 4
United Nations Human Settlements Programme 39
United Nations Institute for Training and Research 24
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 17
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs 2
United Nations Office for Project Services 99
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 7
United Nations Population Fund 34
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development 1
United Nations University 49
United Nations Volunteers 1
United Nations Youth Office 2
Universal Postal Union 5
World Food Programme 18

I didn’t know the UN had an Office for Outer Space Affairs. Is this someone’s idea of a joke, or is this the organisation that will eventually evolve into Starfleet?

There are 1,047 representatives from 23 international agencies, some of them excrudescences of the UN:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 47
Global Environment Facility 21
Green Climate Fund 36
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 10
International Atomic Energy Agency 47
International Civil Aviation Organization 8
International Fund for Agricultural Development 27
International Labour Organization 26
International Maritime Organization 6
International Monetary Fund 29
International Organization for Migration 84
International Telecommunication Union 47
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 2
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 17
United Nations Global Compact 25
United Nations Industrial Development Organization 183
WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 31
World Bank Group 260
World Health Organization 59
World Intellectual Property Organization 10
World Meteorological Organization 34
World Tourism Organization 24
World Trade Organization 14

There are 1,029 representatives of 111 inter-governmental organisations (the interpreter having replaced some characters with ?):

Adaptation Fund Board 16
African Centre of Meteorological Application for Development 9
African Development Bank Group 26
African Union Commission 29
ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity 6
Asian Development Bank 39
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center 4
Asian Forest Cooperation Organization 4
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank 26
Banco Centroamericano de Integraci?n Econ?mica 4
Black Sea Trade and Development Bank 5
CAB International 6
Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre 14
Caribbean Community Secretariat 4
Caribbean Development Bank 6
Caribbean Export Development Agency 3
Center for International Forestry Research 8
Centre for Environment & Development for Arab Region & Europe 5
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) 3
CGIAR System Organization 15
Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure 21
Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo 1
Comité permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel 10
Commission de l’ocean Indien 4
Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale 3
Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South 10
Commonwealth Secretariat 22
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat 1
Corporación Andina de Fomento 7
Council of Europe 7
Council of Europe Development Bank 3
East African Community 7
East Mediterranean Gas Forum 3
Economic Community of Central African States 5
Economic Community of West African States 8
Economic Cooperation Organization 4
ECOWAS Regional Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 1
Energy Charter Conference 2
Energy Community 4
Eurasian Development Bank 5
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 35
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts 3
European Investment Bank 25
European Space Agency 7
European University Institute 6
Gas Exporting Countries Forum 8
Global Crop Diversity Trust 6
Global Green Growth Institute 7
Global Water Partnership Organisation 7
Greater Virunga Transboundary Collaboration 3
IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre 13
Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura 21
Inter-American Development Bank 16
Inter-Parliamentary Union 7
International Anti-Corruption Academy 1
International Bureau of Weights and Measures 4
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas 5
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development 7
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry 7
International Development Law Organization 5
International Electrotechnical Commission 12
International Energy Agency 13
International Energy Forum 2
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 20
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 1
International Institute of Refrigeration 6
International Livestock Research Institute 10
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan 6
International Renewable Energy Agency 34
International Rice Research Institute 10
International Solar Alliance 36
International Transport Forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 7
International Tropical Timber Organization 2
International Union for Conservation of Nature 25
International Water Management Institute 12
Islamic Development Bank 32
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization 11
Lake Chad Basin Commission 4
League of Arab States 16
New Development Bank 12
Nordic Council 8
Nordic Council of Ministers 7
Nordic Development Fund 7
Nordic Environment Finance Corporation 7
Nordic Investment Bank 8
Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel 4
OPEC Fund for International Development 12
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12
Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie 6
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States 12
Organiza??o do Tratado de Coopera??o Amaz?nica 2
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe 7
Organization of American States 7
Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries 2
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries 8
Pacific Islands Development Forum 6
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat 4
Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean 7
Permanent Court of Arbitration 1
Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention 2
Regional Center for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 10
Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific 5
Secretaria Ejecutiva del Consejo Agropecuario Centroamericano 5
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme 1
Secretariat of the Union for the Mediterranean 30
South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme 2
Southern African Development Community 4
The Coral Triangle Initiatives on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security 1
The Islamic World Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ICESCO) 8
The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden 3
University for Peace 7

No doubt all these folk have good reasons to be at the shindig.

There are so many people from so many NGOs that I can’t show them: almost 10,000, with more than 1,000 organisations sending people. Here are the orgs with 20 or more staff on hand:

International Chamber of Commerce 158
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability 89
Climate Action Network International 88
Egypt The Dream Foundation for Development and Innovation and Innovation 64
International Trade Union Confederation 53
Society for Development and Community Empowerment 48
WWF 48
Abibimman Foundation 47
C Team 44
International Emissions Trading Association 43
African Smart Cities Innovation Foundation 37
Sustainable Development Policy Institute 35
World Farmers’ Organisation 35
African Climate Change Research Centre 32
Association Actions Vitales Pour Le Développement Durable 32
Greenpeace International 32
Habitable Earth International Organisation 32
The Northern Forum 32
International Association for the Advancement of Innovative Approaches to Global Challenges 29
India Youth For Society 27
International Youth Council – Yemen 27
World Business Council for Sustainable Development 27
ActionAid International Foundation 26
African Belt and Road Development Initiative 26
Climate Action Network – Europe 25
International Youth Nuclear Congress 25
The Volunteer Team Foundation for Humanitarian Action 25
Asabe Shehu Yar’adua Foundation 24
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical 24
China Association for NGO Cooperation 22
Global Alliance for a Sustainable Planet, Incorporated 22
Sustainable Environment Food and Agriculture Initiative 22
Woman, Development, Future Public Union * 22
Climate Action Network – Latin America 21
Coshare Environment 21
Friends of the Earth International 21
Washington University 21
Association Club Amis de la Planète 20
Fundación Red Colombiana Para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, el Medio Ambiente y la Paz 20
Indigenous Information Network 20
International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests 20

Thrush, Hydra and SPECTRE also sent agents. I mean delegates.

The 301 delegates from Global Climate Action get their own tab in the UNFCCC’s PLOP spreadsheet. They include Mr. Albert Gore, whoever he is, one from UEFA, and two from Artistic Milliners. [Yes, really.]

Then we have 294 conference invitees, including two from the Clinton Foundation and 5 from BMW.

There are 1,881 invitees of the host country from nearly 1,000 outfits, including 5 from the Tony Blair Institute, more from the UN, one from the Shaolin Temple, & 4 from Bill & Mel Gates Foundation.

Finally, the media, numbering 3,575, from 1,400 companies. As you might guess, Azerbaijan’s media is the largest group. The BBC has sent a modest 12, at least off their own back (plus 3 hanging onto the UK party’s coat-tails). In these straitened times, the Guardian kept their numbers down to 3, to add to the 1 who came with a UK badge.

Ignoring the 12-ish temporary passes, that’s the whole shebang. 66,778 party-goers.

Oh, minus 85 now that Argentina have gone home.

Our leader submitted the UK’s suicide note at the beginning of the conference. He was captured the same day with an expression that told of second thoughts. Of course, fleeting expressions captured by a fast shutter can be very misleading. No doubt the PM was just listening intently to some important point or other. Perhaps it was someone laughing at him and asking for money, or demanding that he demonstrate climate leadership.

Meanwhile, on this grey Thursday morning, scanning the live streams of COP29 on Youtube, I see a total of about 50 people watching from around the globe across 6 streams. The top audience is for Euronews, with 20. There are streams running with (literally) zero viewers.

via Climate Scepticism

https://ift.tt/XnEApkP

November 14, 2024 at 05:09AM

Ideas For An Incoming Trump Administration: Climate And Energy Edition

Francis Menton

The arena of climate and energy is sufficiently large that it deserves its own post of ideas for the incoming Trump administration. The Biden people went so far off the rails in this area that there are far more topics than I can cover. I’ll have to stick to some highlights.

Communications.

As I noted in the previous post, changing the communications of the prior administration should be an easy and obvious first priority. However, the Trump people notably did a poor job on this subject the first time out.

The subject of climate and energy is pervasive through the websites of dozens of federal agencies. Let’s just note a few examples:

At the Department of Energy, a big section is devoted to “Combating the Climate Crisis.” From the intro:

There is no greater challenge facing our nation and our planet than the climate crisis. That’s why President Biden has laid out the boldest climate agenda in our nation’s history—one that will spur an equitable clean energy economy and cement America on a path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. . . . DOE has long been the nation’s powerhouse for scientific and innovative solutions to the challenges we face, including the climate emergency. Our program offices and 17 National Laboratories are working every single day to research, develop, and deploy the clean energy technologies of the future, including battery storage, renewable power, electric vehicles, carbon capture, and resilient grid infrastructure.

And don’t forget the subject of “Energy Justice,” otherwise known as the scam of justifying vast wasteful subsidies to useless energy sources as some kind of quasi-reparations to minority communities:

For far too long, communities of color and low-income communities have borne the brunt of pollution to the air, water, and soil they rely on to live and raise their families. The clean energy revolution must lift up these communities that have been left behind, and make sure those who have suffered the most are the first to benefit.

Over at EPA, the huge “Climate Change” section of the website pretends that the regulatory onslaught attacking hydrocarbon fuels has something to do with “human health.” Example:

Understanding and addressing climate change is critical to EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment.

A massive section on “Climate Change Indicators” falsely claims that things like hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods have been increasing and are proof of dangerous climate change. Example:

Tropical storm activity in the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico has increased during the past 30 years. Storm intensity, a measure of strength, duration, and frequency,  is closely related to variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic and has risen noticeably during that time.

At NOAA and NASA, an endless succession of press releases touts the claims that the most recent week, month or year was the “warmest on record.” They somehow never mention that the data set in question only goes back to the late 1800s, and that they lack any data for, for example, the Southern Hemisphere oceans, for almost all of the period in question.

There is no reason why all of this claptrap, and hundreds or thousands of other examples of same, cannot just be wiped away on January 20. Putting up something new can then begin, but is not necessarily a rush.

Executive Orders and Actions

From the day he entered office,President Biden took numerous executive actions and signed a series of Executive Orders directing an “all of government” approach to the climate/energy issue. Examples include: “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis,” January 25, 2021; “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” January 27, 2021; and “Executive Order on Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration,” February 4, 2021. There are plenty more such. And yes, the official Biden administration line is that the main reason for the surge of illegal migrants across the Southern border is “climate change.”

Also in the executive action category are things like Biden administration efforts to restrict leasing of drilling rights on federal lands, to delay or refuse permits to pipelines and other energy-related projects, and the like.

All of these can be wiped away at the stroke of a pen on day one.

Paris Climate Agreement

Obama joined this Agreement by executive action. Trump exited by the same method. And Biden rejoined, again by executive action, right on January 20, 2021.

Trump could follow the previous method and just quit again. But my preferred suggestion would be to submit the Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. There is zero chance that the Senate would ratify. That would kill this thing much more securely than the other method.

Regulations

“Regulations” are different from mere Executive Orders and actions, in that in order to be adopted they have gone through some complex and time-consuming processes prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The processes are designed to give these “regulations” some purported legitimacy and heft, to make them hard to undo, and to distract the gullible public from the fact that they have not gone through the only process that counts under the Constitution for valid legislative action, namely passage by both houses of Congress and signature by the President. The result of all the procedural rigamarole is that — if you buy the legitimacy of enactment of massive substantive regulations by administrative agencies in the first place — then the processes to eliminate the regulations are the same complex and time-consuming mess that it previously took to adopt them.

The Biden administration has seen a veritable blizzard of major regulations designed to restrict, hobble, and ultimately eliminate the use of hydrocarbon fuels. I have had numerous posts on multiple of these regulations, for example this one from May 1, 2024 on no fewer than four big new Rules from EPA, then-newly-adopted, intended to force the phase out of fossil fuel power plants, and this post from June 8, 2024 on two big new Rules, one from EPA and the other from NHTSA, intended to force the conversion to electric vehicles. These Rules in the aggregate are thousands of pages long. There are other comparable gigantic Regulations sprinkled around dozens of other federal agencies, for example a massive SEC Rule requiring burdensome disclosures of “carbon emissions” for all public companies. All of these Rules had gone through the lengthy and difficult “notice and comment” process, which involves widely disseminating notices of the proposed rule-making, collecting comments from the public over the course of months (in these instances there were tens of thousands of such), responding to all of the comments, modifying the proposed Rule accordingly, and finally going public with a final Rule after many, many months. I should mention that all of these Rules were then promptly challenged by litigation brought by interested parties, which in this case include large numbers of the red states.

Do the Trump people really need to go through the same labyrinth to rescind these Rules? Here’s an approach I would take: First, announce that the legal opinion of the administration is that the Rules are invalid under Supreme Court precedent (i.e., the “major questions doctrine” of West Virginia v. EPA), and therefore they will not be enforced. Next, announce that permitting on power plant and other fossil fuel projects will take place as if these Rules did not exist. Finally, switch sides in the litigation, and join the red states and other plaintiffs seeking to have the Rules invalidated. Simultaneously, start the rescission process under the APA. It should be completed in about two years.

Cost and feasibility study of Net Zero

So far all of these ideas have been things that many others have thought of. But how about this one that I haven’t seen anywhere else: launch a cost and feasibility study of the plans to transition the U.S. economy to “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050.

It is truly incredible that our federal government has launched a supposed “energy transition,” with an announced goal of reaching “net zero” emissions by 2050, without any cost or feasibility study of whether this can possibly work. Somehow, the bureaucrats have the idea that their job is just to order up a multi-trillion dollar transformation that has never been done before, and then the little people will figure out the details. In the real world the chance that this energy transformation can actually be accomplished are about zero. Meanwhile, enormous damage is being inflicted.

There are plenty of people who understand the problems who could be used to staff the study commission. I’d be happy to volunteer!

Audit the NOAA and NASA surface temperature data

The record of what are called “global average surface temperatures” has been altered and manipulated to reduce earlier-year temperatures and increase more recent temperatures, the better to show a strong warming trend and to support the narrative of dangerous climate change. For more details than you will ever want, see my 33 part series “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.”

As a first step, the incoming administration should replace the statements on the existing websites that the most recent month or year was “the warmest ever” with a statement that the surface temperature records have been altered and therefore are not to be used for any public policy purpose. Then start an audit process. As part of the audit, fully disclose the computer code that executes the “homogenization” process of temperature alteration, and disclose quantitatively how much the temperatures have been altered. Any discrediting of the crooks who have been doing the alterations is merely a side benefit.

Rescind the Endangerment Finding

Underlying all efforts of the bureaucracy to regulate CO2 emissions and “climate change” is a regulatory determination made by EPA in 2009, shortly after Barack Obama first took office, the CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” constitute a “threat to human health and safety.” What a crock. The first Trump administration never got around to rescinding this ridiculous regulatory overreach. The existence of the EF gives environmental litigants as evergreen basis to try to force more and more regulation from agencies that are often very willing to go along.

I recommend convening a commission of scientists to evaluate the EF. Key suggestion: anyone who gets any grants from the government for studying climate issues should be disqualified for conflict of interest. The CO2 Coalition should be able to come up with plenty of highly qualified and non-conflicted genuine scientists to study the matter. The EF will shortly be gone.

And finally — Repeal the “Inflation Reduction Act”

The fraudulently-named “Inflation Reduction Act” is the fount of trillions of dollars of subsidies for useless wind and solar energy generators. The subsidies are mostly in the form of tax credits and are uncapped, meaning that they could run into multiple trillions of dollars.

Unlike the other items on this to-do list, repeal of the IRA clearly requires Congressional action. However, note that this is a budgetary item and thus could be included in so-called “reconciliation,” thus requiring only a simple majority vote in the Senate, rather than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

As I said, this topic is so broad that my list here is only a start. I can’t wait for them to get going.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/DxrSbLK

November 14, 2024 at 04:07AM