At http://phys.org/print385196521.html ... one and half million pounds, it is alleged, have been used to fund a rather strange story by environmental scientists at the University of Stirling in the southern Highlands of Scotland. They make the bold claim that beech woodland in southern England is actually under threat - from rising temperatures and a more common occurrence of drought. The problem is that their information or point of stat is based on a drought in 1976. My wife was pregnant in that year and I remember it well.
Climate change news
What the chancellor has in store over the next 3 or 4 years will make your eyes water. Go to http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/booker-unravels-... ... and www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/11/the-government-is-pursuing-a-climate... ... but do research the issue a bit more.
Haven't looked at this blog before but an interesting point of view is expressed - go to https://risk-monger.com/2016/06/08/how-to-starve-africa-ask-the-european... ... and begins with the question, why do environmentalists hate Africa (but more correctly the Green Blob as I'm sure not all environmentalists can be tarred with the same brush). These people are of course primarily opposed to genetically modified food and the companies that market the ways and means of growing and spreading them via the sale of seeds.
The theory of Henrik Svensmark, the seeding of clouds by cosmic rays, has been strengthened by the results of the CERN experiments (recently published) it is alleged. Pierre Gosselin at http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/30/though-media-refuse-to-admit-cern-res... ... Not sure if this is true but the media don't seem to have joined the dots as Gosselin has done as far as the recent CERN research is concerned. Do cosmic rays seed clouds - and alter the climate?
At http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/28/solar-deniers-face-harsh-times-flurry... ... well there you have it. It's the Sun 'innit' - the big orb in the sky. It seems that climate scientists have studiously been avoiding putting data from the Sun into their models. They have been incessantly bleating the Sun has a constant effect and therefore could not possibly cause climate change or global warming. A convenient point of view I suppose and probably the number one reason why climate models do not seem fit for purpose.
At http://phys.org/print383229114.html ... there is a fascinating piece of research from Greenland that will warm the cockles of somebody's heart. A history of snowfall is preserved in the remains of aquatic plants that lived long ago, accumulating at the bottom of lakes in horizontal layers. They are able to tell us how Arctic precipitation fluctuated during the Holocene at large and how this might have influenced the size of the Greenland ice sheet as the Earth warmed and cooled.
At http://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientists-making-own-clouds-found-1746000... ... refers to a paper in Nature by CERN scientists and the subject is secondary particles. These were thought to be almost totally derived from human activity but the climate scientists had it altogether wrong it would seem as the new paper seems to show that secondary particles have been with us all the time - long before the scare was a pipedream in a politico's navel. Secondary particles bombard our atmosphere on a daily basis and are also produced by vapour released by trees.
One example was forwarded by Bill Thompson - go to www.yahoo.com/news/climate-feedback-allows-scientists-correct-media-erro... ... but at http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/22/1959-paper-shows-most-warming-before-... ... wherein the title says it all. The first piece shows climate scientists have the ability to contradict press stories if they become too outlandish but at the same time they are altering the data themselves to make the story more grisly.
Tim Cullen is at his very best at https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/ian-plimer-not-for-the-greens/ ... and they are most unlikely to look at the link which has two videos of Ian Plimer talking to an audience and raising a laugh. He is an Australian geologist of note, a professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. His book, 'Not for the Greens' (2014) sets out to use humour to confront the CAGW crowd.
I have just received a response to a News item from 18 months ago - see www.sis-group.org.uk/news/moon-and-jet-stream.htm ... It seems the article written by Clive Best in collaboration with Roberto Madrigadi was rejected and not published - see www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2015-300/#discussion