58.17823 -0.85016 Met Office Assessed CIMO Class 5 + Subject to Shading Installed 1/1/1948

Alice Holt is a forest area in Hampshire and the site’s weather station holds a long term temperature record. The station is jointly operated by the Forest Research , UK Environmental Change Network and the Environment Agency. There is obviously no problem whatsoever with a Forest Research institute accurately monitoring weather, soil and weather conditions but should such an exceptional area’s data be included in the national temperature record?

The Met Office rates this site as low as rankings allow – this is it in close up.

Although there are no significant immediate extraneous heat sources to affect readings, the Class 5 rating is enforced by being in the middle of a forest clearing. Shading from the surrounding trees and also the obvious wind break effect create a localised micro climate. Originally the site was manual recording but considered worthy of conversion to automated reporting in 2009 though there is, logically, no wind speed recording instrumentation.

The question of whether such micro climate data should be included in the national historic record is quite interesting in that this site’s records are consistently colder than the surrounding area. Very near neighbouring sites at Odiham (Class 3) and South Farnborough (Class 2) are also automated and much better quality. The map below from https://weatherobs.com/ shows the locations of automatic reporting sites in southern England. Alice Holt Lodge is adjacent to Guildford.

Mean daily annual temperature records indicate Alice Holt Lodge is up to 0.7°C colder for 2023.

The same differential applies to data from 2021 and 2022 and demonstrates the significant differences that can be caused by variation of siting. Given that some “Climate Scientists” seem captivated by such small variations of temperature and attribute them to being an “existential threat”, I do wonder if they have ever considered such mundane aspects as siting of instrumentation and the obvious difference it makes.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/AEMyZxe

November 3, 2024 at 05:12AM

By Paul Homewood

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01822-1/abstract

.

Yes, it’s the same old pack of lies they roll out every year, trying to convince that global health is suffering because of climate change.

You only have to read the first paragraph to understand that this is a political document, not a serious scientific one.

.

.

And sure enough, they claim to have found “record-breaking threats” to health and even survival:

.

.

Each year is the same – they ignore real world data, which positively shows the opposite to be true, and instead concoct increasingly obscure and dubious ways to satisfy their agenda.

The idea, of course, that the world’s climate has changed so much since 2015 is itself absurd – but that does not stop the Lancet from saying it has!

They start by claiming that heat-related deaths have increased since the 1990s, but there is no mention of the fact that cold-related deaths have decreased by many more. They claim that heat exposure has reduced labour productivity, forgetting that, thanks to mechanisation, productivity has rocketed and workers are therefore less exposed to heat stress.

They claim that extreme precipitation has increased since 1960, but this is not derived from real world data, which is far too sparse to make such bold claims. Instead it is all based on computer modelling.

To be fair, the IPCC also claim that the number of heavy rainfall events has been increasing, but significantly also tell us that they can find no global trends in floods. In many places heavy rainfall is welcomed because it alleviates drought. Try telling the Indians that they had too much rainfall during this summer’s monsoon. As for those who suffered during the Dust Bowl years in the US, they would have given their right arm for a few storms.

.

IPCC AR6

.

It is the same with drought. Apparently 48% of the world’s landmass was affected by at least 1 month of extreme drought last year, up from 15% in the 1950s. But droughts build up over a period of months and even years, not one single month. It is plainly ridiculous to use such a metric – I wonder why they did?

And as with extreme precipitation, the Lancet study does not use actual rainfall data, but computer models which can be programmed to come up with any results you want, because the real world data they would need simply does not exist for most of the world.

But where we do have actual precipitation data, the IPCC only find that although some regions have seen an increase in droughts, while others have seen fewer:

.

And so it goes on. Apparently there are more sand storms, but again this is gleaned from computer models, a “state-of-the-art multimodel reanalysis ensemble”.

Malaria, we are told, is being spread by global warming, despite the fact that the number of new cases has been steadily dropping, with the exception of COVID affected 2020:

.

But the biggest joke of all must be this:

The mind boggles!

.

If they really were concerned about global health, there is plenty or incontrovertible, real world data which they could use, instead of their phoney models.

Around the world people live longer, child mortality is much lower, fewer live in extreme poverty or are undernourished. They live healthier lives, thanks to better access to clean water, medicines and healthcare. The children are better education, and technology is transforming people’s lives.

Thanks mainly to fossil fuels food output hits new records year after year. Meanwhile in contrast to the Lancet’s claims of desertification, the planet is greening because of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

.

.https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

But the Lancet are not interested in the truth, nor for that matter do they appear to care about global health.

They only want to generate alarmist headlines, to push forward their Net Zero agenda.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/J4oFZyH

November 3, 2024 at 04:45AM

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/Ro7HncJ

November 3, 2024 at 04:05AM

By Paul Homewood

 

 

h/t Paul Kolk

Meanwhile we are becoming ever more reliant on imported power:

 

 

 

 

Britain is importing record amounts of electricity from Europe to keep the lights on, as the shutdown of coal and nuclear power plants puts more pressure on the grid.

The surge in imports follows the opening of two new links between the UK and the Continent, increasing the amount of foreign power that is theoretically available for use in Britain by one-third.

According to data published by the National Energy System Operator (Neso), net imports totalled 26.3 terawatt hours from January to September – a new record for the UK.

That beat the previous high of 24.6 terawatt hours reached three years ago.

The biggest share of imports so far this year has come from France, where the bulk of the power is generated by the country’s large fleet of nuclear power stations.

Supporters argue that interconnectors – high voltage undersea cables which connect the electricity systems of different countries – allow Britain to take advantage of cheaper prices across the Channel, benefiting consumers.

But critics have warned that the growing dependence on imports also poses potential risks, amid concerns about interconnector outages and export restrictions that have been adopted by some countries such as Norway and Germany.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/02/britain-importing-record-amounts-of-electricity-from-europe/

 

.

I have no objection at all to importing electricity. But to rely on it is foolhardy in the extreme.

Until all of our coal power stations were shut down, we had large surpluses of generating capacity. This not only gave us energy security, it also ensured a highly competitive market place, meaning low prices for consumers.

The Telegraph make this interesting observation;

Ofgem, the energy regulator, has recently indicated it is against further interconnectors being brought online.

The watchdog has suggested that it wanted to block the construction of new cables — which could take capacity to as much as 20 gigawatts in the next decade — because they risk benefiting power producers more than consumers.

Countries that have the ability to export their unused power tend to see prices rise due to demand from abroad, Ofgem found.

Under the Government’s plans to reach a “net zero” power system in the 2030s, ministers want Britain to become a net exporter of power.

“Not only might the imports we want not be available in the future, but Ofgem has also declined almost all future proposed interconnector projects,” Ms Porter said.

“So when Neso says it expects to have more capacity in future, where is that going to come from?

And the useless response from DESNZ?

On Friday, a spokesman for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We are committed to boosting Britain’s energy security.

“Our mission is for clean power by 2030 because this is the best way to achieve energy independence, protect bill payers and reduce imports.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/lhMcr5N

November 3, 2024 at 03:31AM