How Much Has The Climate Changed During Children’s Lives
By Paul Homewood
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/how-to-talk-with-children-about-climate-change/p0fgdjtz
I covered this BBC video last week. One of the claims made by some of the children is that they are actually living through a changing climate, rather than the whole thing being just some theory that it might have been in the past.
But if they were not told everyday that the climate is changing would they even be aware of it?
Let’s look, for instance, at how the climate has changed in England since 2001:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-and-regional-series
Clearly nothing has changed in terms of temperature or rainfall.
Arctic sea ice? This has been stable since 2007:
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
Sea levels have barely risen since 2001:
https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=170-053
Meanwhile seas have been rising and glaciers melting slowly since the 19thC, the time of these kids’ great great great great great grandparents. I don’t suppose any of those ancestors worried about it!
There are no trends in hurricane frequency:
And, by the way, those polar bears are doing fine!
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/06/17/polar-bear-numbers-growing/
It’s time that schools taught children the facts about climate change, instead of filling their heads with scaremongering propaganda.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“How Much Has The Climate Changed During Children’s Lives”?
NetZero
Climate is weather over 30 years; the Govt “defines a child as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and civil legislation in England and Wales.”
According to BBC, climate changes four times a year, each change being more and more harmful. Children see it quite clearly, especially in television.
According to a certain professor Phil Jones, there is nothing scientific about “climate is weather over 30 years”. From: Phil Jones To: “Parker, David (Met Office)” [and others]
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
“I’m hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don’t hold too much water with me.
There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do things properly for the surface temp and precip as we’d lose loads of stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals. If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in an ad hoc way. There won’t be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won’t help with satellite series or the models. 1981-2000 helps with MSU series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete SST.
20 years (1981-2000) isn’t 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years isn’t that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around 1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it easier to compute. Personally I don’t want to change the base period till after I retire!”
David Parker knew the value of sticking with 61-90 as it had some of the coldest years of the 20th century and was guaranteed to show warming when compared with a period when temperatures had recovered to more amenable levels.:
At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:
“There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted.”
I seriously doubt that any ‘science’ teacher in our senior schools would a) be allowed to discuss this topic or even show your slides, Paul, and b) be able to even understand them – which is a reflection on their education, not yours.
It would be fascinating to find out what a teacher would say to a child who was to bring such a diagram into school to ask what they should say to Mum and Dad to put the record straight.
Weather changes; climate doesn’t. That’s what makes climate useful.
There is of course no “global climate”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
“The Köppen climate classification divides climates into five main climate groups, with each group being divided based on seasonal precipitation and temperature patterns.”
“By controlling the language, Big Brother controls the way that the people think. With a limited vocabulary, the people are limited in how much they can think, as well as, what they think about.” – Orwell
Control the language and you control the conversation. The gross misuse of ‘climate’ is a prime example.
I just came across more BBC propaganda, not even thinly disguised as ‘learning English’.
Google ‘bbc learning english climate’ videos.
For example:
What dreadful tripe !!
There’s also a podcast https://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/english/features/6-minute-english_2023/ep-230309 “How to talk to a climate change denier”
In the dialogue there is this gem:
“Rob
Professor van der Linden advises us not to challenge climate deniers directly, and never to throw insults – to say offensive, hurtful things directly to someone. This approach is unlikely to work and will probably backfire, or have the opposite effect from that intended, such as making that person’s opinion even stronger.
Sam
Instead, what’s needed is understanding and empathy – realising that climate deniers cannot control the life events that led them to mistrust science; and the patience to try to show them difference between fact and fiction.”
This fictional dialogue teaches you English vocabulary such as climate denier, ill-informed, full-blown, take a long, hard look (at something), throw insults and backfire.
“Mistrust science.” You are supposed to mistrust science! Being sceptical is what great scientists have always urged. And of course much of what we Deniers deny are the proposed political and economic ” solutions” to climate change, not Holy Science That Can Not Be Questioned.
“People in the developing world feel they get lectures from us and airports from the Chinese” – Larry Summers, Harvard Professor
I would have thought that ‘climate’ is dependent on 1. geo-location on the globe, 2. topographical features, and, 3. any adjacent land and sea masses. For example, to change the UK’s ‘climate’ you would have to tow it into the Mediterranean or physically bolt it onto France.
The strange thing about ‘climate change’ is that places that have ‘micro-climates’ like the tropical gardens at Poolewe, in the Western Highlands of Scotland, never seem to actually experience it in a quarter centuries worth of talk about Climate Change.
Exactly right. Climate is a function of physical geography. But within many climates thees substantial variation possible. The climate in the Mediterranean hasn’t changed at all – its still warm summers and mild winters. It might be slightly warmer and slightly milder but that’s all.
Just looking at the “annual mean temperatures graph”, why is it so cold in England? Ten degrees Celsius is NOT “warm”.
According to WUWT 14C is a reasonable global value.
That’s why we should use Fahrenheit …
50°F feels so much warmer than 10°C, I think I’ll take my hat & coat off.
Met-office & BBC are missing a trick there – instant global warming;
so not 14.9°C but 58.82° no wonder” the oceans are boiling” !
Why not go the full monty and convert to Kelvin? Be really hot then!
Right you are, Ray.
14 °C is 287.15 K
12.8 °C, the alleged temperature before Man (or Mann?) messed it all up, is 285.95 K. A numerical difference of 0.42%.
OH MY, WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Any time you see temperature changes listed as “anomalies,” recognize that it is a TRICK! intended to exaggerate the change.
Scientific discussion of Global Mean Temperature in Kelvin ENDS ‘climate change’ as an issue.
I noticed an abrupt change in the climate during the early to mid 70’s. I lived in Lenzie, Scotland and every winter during the late 60’s/early 70’s there were hordes of people who went to The Gadloch to skate/slide/play ice hockey (with golf clubs/field hockey sticks etc.) and it might be 30 a side at times ranging over most of the Loch.
About 1974/75 the ice literally switched off and didn’t return for the remaining 15 years I lived there. I suspect it returned in the winter of 2009/2010 when much of Scotland was under ice and snow for almost 6 months.
Ever since then the Scottish climate has remained much the same, wet. Visiting home (the west coast) during summer months I see little difference, its still wet, and midge infested.
I suspect a change to colder times will be just as abrupt. Not that I expect the Mini Ice Age in our lifetimes but I believe world temperatures are about to begin a decline.
Not that the climate fanatics will give up. It’s just another excuse to catastrophize.
Miserable Gits.
“About 1974/75 the ice literally switched off ”
Must have been your warm personality !
The effects of the Great Pacific Climate Shift of ‘76-77?
Just as all the scientists agreed we were in Global Cooling and headed for an Ice Age…it turns.
“One of the claims made by some of the children is that they are actually living through a changing climate.”
Everyone has lived through a changing climate…long-term weather. Not just children.
“PRESENT DAY CLIMATES IN THEIR TIME RELATION”
Frank Morris Hall, Department of Geology University of Minnesota. Dated Minneapolis, Minn., April 10, 1906.
“It is often asserted by people who have lived in a locality for many years that the climate of their region has undergone marked changes during their residence, the most common statements being that cold weather came earlier in the fall, that greater snowfall was experienced, that the thermometer registered more continuously low temperatures in years past, than at present, and that the rainfall is increasing or decreasing in amount. In the light of the modern science.of statistics these statements are open to serious question. The human organism is at best an inaccurate register of temperature, and memory is more liable to be impressed with some single manifestation of weather than with the average of weather conditions which go to make up climate. A vivid impression of a day on which the thermometer registered 40 degrees below zero is quite likely to remain in the mind for a long time, but the week of moderately cold weather which followed the cold snap and which, when averaged with the lowest temperature noted, made only average winter weather, is quite likely to be unnoticed, or, if noted at all, soon forgotten.”
Wouldn’t it be interesting for today’s kids to be shown what the weather was like in the halcyon days prior to the Industrial Revolution when the atmosphere was blissfully unaffected by pesky human fossil fuel emissions? Then they could clearly see the benefits of the current galloping charge to climactic nirvana as espoused by their tutors. Em, bet the weather was just lovely back in the days when their forebears’ lives were nasty, brutish and short. Little Ice Age anybody?
This is pure nonsense, calling annual natural variability – which in the UK has always been high – and calling it climate change. Wholly unscientific.
In stark contrast to the overall constancy of the graphs above, 11,500 years ago, the Greenland ice cap temperature shot up by ten degrees centigrade in just half a century. This dramatically made conditions warmer, wetter and more predictable across the world. Nothing to do with people driving cars, flying aircraft or burning fossil fuels.
The arctic sea ice chart kills your argument, too short a period and you should show the ANTARCTIC chart, isn’t it the opposite?
Schools are cesspits of fascist indoctrination so don’t expect them to teach anything not approved by the WEF/UN.
London Marathon 2018 hottest on record
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43850037
This year’s London Marathon was officially the hottest on record.
More than 40,000 runners took part amid temperatures of 24.1C (75.3F) which were recorded in St James’s Park, the Met Office said.
2023:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-marathon-weather-forecast-met-office-2023-b1075714.html
The Met Office has said the temperatures will be around 10°C when the flag drops for the first elite runners at 9.30am and it is set to stay that way for when the masses begin at 10am