The Farmers Almanac says we are headed for a snowy winter in the US and they point to the woolly caterpillar as proof. I talked to a guy the other day and he saw one crawling across his driveway and it had a very thick coat of fur on it already! Thick coats of fur on these things usually means a cold winter. Coincidence or .......? Time will tell if this winter is as cold and snowy as predicted but it certainly is shaping up to be a cold and snowy one!

2009: #5 hottest year out of 130 years.

This is an excerpt from the files
The treatment of scenarios is confusing. There is only one reference (in Chapter 13) to a document describing the SRES set of IPCC scenarios and incomplete information is spread around several Chapters. There is a whole Chapter 13 on “Scenario Development” which does mention the IPCC SRES scenario as authored by Nakicenovic, and “under review” but gives no further details. . Several Chapters give model results from the obsolete IS92a scenario, thereby “selecting” it, in defiance of the IPCC claim that they do not favour one scenario over another. There is evidence in Chapter 4 (in Table 4.12a) that IS92a has been revised; the earlier version being referred to as “SAR” As IS92a made exaggerated assumptions of climate and social parameters for the years 1990 to 2000, this is to be welcomed, but these revisions presumably were not used in the various reported models, and it seems that the revisions were only made for 1990-2000, whereas they should have been made throughout.

There are two different versions of the SRES scenarios in different Chapters. Chapter 4 has A1, A2, B1, B2 only, whereas the rest have A1B, A1T, A1F1, A2. B1 and B2.

The assumed atmospheric concentration figures for carbon dioxide for the SRES scenarios were included in the First Draft, but have now been deleted. Presumably you are ashamed to admit such absurd figures. Figures for all the other gases are given in Chapter 4 including ridiculously exaggerated figures for future methane concentrations.

Chapter 13 needs to be rewritten to include explanatory material on the IPCC scenarios.

The scenarios are merely the personal opinions of their creators, who seem uninterested in procedures for checking whether any of the scenarios agree with past or future trends.
Recent unwelcome changes in greenhouse gases are ignored. Carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels have fallen for the years 1997 and 1998. The rate of increase of atmospheric methane has steadily decreased over the past 15 years, to a current value of zero, yet you persist in projecting increases.

The Report should be a review of published work, There is too high a proportion of references to papers that are “submitted”, “in the press”. or “in preparation”. Chapter 12 has 21% of such papers. How can you expect us to comment on material we cannot consult?

Hi marysduby

I'm in Madrid (and for the next couple of weeks)

They call it working ;-)

Clear blue sky something I haven't seen for ages

Just popped by because that "disappearing" North Polar Ice cap, with just enough room for a single polar bear to cling to, is bigger than the United States of America again (surprisingly)

;-)

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

9,869,531 km2 North Polar Ice Cap sea ice extent
9,826,630 km2 USA (according to wikipedia)


In a couple of days it might even be bigger than Canada




Multi-national Dave

Cheers Gerald

Make that just one day (to be bigger than Canada)

9,994,219 km2 North Polar Ice Cap sea ice extent
9,984,670 km2 Canada (according to wikipedia)

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm


Disappearing my derrière


Dave


p.s. the EU Nonsense continues

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2675

That Barroso is a menace