Thursday, February 21, 2013

Extreme Weather Events are the new sea level rise

Contrary to expectations fueled by Al Gore's slideshow, Manhattan has not been submerged yet and sea levels remain generally un-alarming.  So Warmists hardly mention sea level these days.

Extreme weather is MUCH juicier.  We have had extreme weather events forever but people's memory of them is vague and people can easily be persuaded that recent events are anomalous.  Studies of weather statistics show we are having FEWER EWEs lately but who needs  statistics when you've got models?

Since the data are so pesky, however, even the modelers are having a struggle to justify their conclusions.  It was all hanging out at a recent IPCC modelers meeting and Michael Kile fisks their agonizing ably below

Dr Peter Stott is now head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK Met Office Hadley Centre. He was in Hobart in mid-January for the IPCC’s WG1-AR5 fourth Lead Author Meeting, with 254 other scientists from 39 countries. They met to “consider comments received during the Expert and Government Review of the Second Order Draft”.

As discussed previously, the global climate “conversation” has become all about EWE risk and “the odds of events.” Stott made this clear in a nine-minute ABC RN interview.

Stott: “You can’t say that a particular event - a particular heatwave or particular drought was definitely caused – or not caused – by climate change [ie: DACC, DAGW]. But what you can do is look at how the odds of events has changed. Is CC changing the odds, or making particular types of weather events more or less likely?”

ABC: You say event-attribution is an emerging science. How do you quantify how much is due to AGW as opposed to natural climate variability?

Stott: “You need to look very carefully at the observations. Then you need to use climate models to calculate the contribution which can be attributable to human influence, as opposed to natural variability. So what you are really trying to do is to detect the fingerprint of human influence and to distinguish it from other factors....

...What you are seeking to do is to compare the probability of having a heat-wave in a particular region as it exists at present with the probability we would have had if we had not changed the climate....

...It is also important to point out that not all of these EWEs will be shown to have had a significant contribution from climate change [ie: DAGW, DACC]. Many of them will, but some of them also will be attributed more to the natural variability of the climate.”

But can climate models ever determine accurately the AGW contribution attributable to human influence, as opposed to natural variability? Is there something fishy going on here? What is the probability that climate changes all by itself?

Stott: “What we have done in this brand-new report is to gather analyses; to have looked at some EWEs of the previous year and put them in the context of climate variability and change.”

Stott’s “brand-new report” -- a research paper in the Bulletin of American Meteorological Society, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective -- had received, he said, “a very, very positive response from the scientific community ... the first example of near-real time attribution of a number of important extreme events occurring in one year.”

Stott did not mention the uncertainty monster during the interview, but he did admit that “to carry out such analyses and to make sure they are peer-reviewed and robust, this is really stretching the ability of the science and the scientists.”

His BAMS paper was more emphatic, stressing that “explaining the causes of specific extreme events in near-real time is severely stretching the current state of the science.” Nevertheless, he hoped this would the first of many annual EWE reports.

The IPCC, not surprisingly, agrees with him: “Extreme climate events can cause widespread damage and have been projected [not predicted] to become more frequent as the world warms”. But even it admitted last year that “it is often not clear which extremes matter the most, and how and why they are changing” (IPCC interdisciplinary workshop, 2012).

Another joint-authored paper -- Attribution of Weather and Climate-related Extreme Events -- presented to the 2011 World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) conference, gives a revealing glimpse inside the EWE sausage – and it sure ain’t pretty. Event attribution, we learn, is a very tricky business. Yet despite big challenges, such as whether “causal factors [for climate events and extremes] can be identified and model deficiencies addressed,” Stott insists that further ACE research “could lead to improved predictions of such events in the future.”

Attribution seems to come down to a dodgy three-way bet -- and  loaded dice.

Here’s the bet: “Human influences have increased the risk of some extreme weather- and climate-related events, reduced the risk of others and, for some may not have affected the risk substantially”. Whatever the outcome, Team ACE can explain it away.

Here are the loaded dice: “A finding that human influence has not contributed substantially to the magnitude of a particular EWE may not be incompatible with a finding that human influences substantially altered the odds of such an event happening (especially a particular threshold exceedence).”

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Stott does admit, however, initial studies “highlight many of the challenges still to be faced”, the “considerable uncertainties that remain”, the uncertainty around alleged “causal links” and “whether relevant processes are captured adequately” by models.

One of them will be required reading in the “de-biasing” gulags proposed by pro-AGW social psychologists and purveyors of what might be called Lewandowsky Logic. It argues that “some cold events are consistent with the inter-play of on-going global warming and internal variability”.

A research group (Perlwitz et al) studied the “very cool 2008 climate conditions” in North America that “diverted strongly from the long-term warming trend observed over previous years”. Their “suite of model experiments” apparently “showed that an anthropogenic warming of North American temperature was overwhelmed by a particularly strong bout of naturally induced cooling resulting from the continent’s sensitivity to widespread coolness of the tropical and north-eastern Pacific sea surface temperatures.”

The study’s implications:

“...that the cool year in 2008 did not indicate that the climate was likely to embark upon a prolonged period of cooling and, on the contrary, the pace of North American warming was more likely to resume in coming years.”

As they say, go figure!

Stott’s concluding comments are also revealing: “While it is possible for an attribution service [such as ACE] to provide quantitative results, it is much harder to provide carefully validated results that include sufficient well-calibrated information that would enable a user to fully understand the capabilities and limitations of the information provided.” Needless to say, “in the interim it will be important to manage expectations."

In other words, don’t expect too much from us anytime soon.

Future “progress” apparently depends on – inter alia – “effective communication of attribution results, including remaining uncertainties”. Given we are told they are considerable, why do we rarely hear about them? It may be “effective” for ACE, but is it being economical with the truth?

No surprise, then, to discover even the UN-funded WCRP describes the quest for an atmospheric El Dorado - a “science underpinning the prediction and attribution of extreme events” - as a "Grand Challenge". Indeed, so much of a challenge that for David Karoly – who was at Team Ace’s foundation meeting four years ago in Boulder, Colorado – WCRP’s ambitious “climate information service” concept is only at "first draft" stage and still “needs consultation and feedback” from the CLIVAR, ETCCDI, GEWEX, WGSIP and WGCM model groups.

We learn something else from Karoly, too: there are “conceptual difficulties in validating model results against observations, first of all associated with (but not limited to) co-location in space and grid-cell data versus point measurements.”

Furthermore, any “improvements in longer term predictions of changes in the frequency and intensity of EWEs” will require “improved representation of key processes in climate models” and resolution of other complex issues.

When did the orthodoxy’s “authoritative” voice ever stress – or mention publicly - there are “conceptual difficulties” with the very models being used to determine EWE “probabilities”?

When did it reveal that “little is currently known about the predictability of the frequency of daily extremes at long lead times”? Does the political class know – or care - that “much work is needed to take careful account of uncertainty when delivering forecasts of extremes [EWEs] to users”? (Karoly, WGSP, 2012, white paper, I3).

When the word “mystery” appears in a peer-reviewed paper, it is time to sit up and pay attention. Did the 255 scientists in Hobart last month do so? Did they discuss the implications of this paper -The mystery of recent stratospheric temperature trends -- during their one-week IPCC lead author meeting?

If not, they should; for it challenges the orthodoxy’s “settled science” mantra. As blogger Doug Hoffman explained here last month: Imagine part of the atmosphere

“that is literally only 10km from anywhere on Earth, a component of our environment that science thought it understood quite well. Now imagine the embarrassment when a major review in a noted journal finds that previous datasets associated with this component are wrong - and have been wrong for more than a quarter of a century. Yet that is precisely what has happened. The area is the stratosphere. The impact of this report is devastating for climate scientists and atmospheric modellers everywhere.”

Even worse, the paper’s authors concluded “the new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances.”

Seeking laws of climate-change and attribution? Prepare yourself for a long wait. Some (funded) studies can go on forever. How many climateers can dance on the head of a pin, or tango on the hot-plate of uncertainty? How many other “mysteries” are lurking in the belly of the catastrophist beast?


As The Consensus Among Scientists Crumbles, Global Warming Alarmists Attack Their Integrity

Global warming alarmists are attacking the integrity of scientists, desperately seeking to minimize the damage presented by a recent survey of geoscientists and engineers regarding global warming.

A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists) and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem. By contrast, a majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Global warming alarmists, desperate to restore the shattered remains of their fictitious global warming consensus, spent the last week in overdrive expressing outrage and attacking the scientists participating in the survey. Their asserted arguments go something like this:

Argument 1

The survey consisted of geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, Canada, which has the highest per capita of geoscientists and engineers in North America. Oil companies and companies in related industries employ many of these geoscientists and engineers. These scientists are therefore biased and do not represent geoscientists and engineers as a whole.

Argument 2

Geoscientists and engineers are not qualified to give an informed opinion on global warming. Only atmospheric scientists are qualified to do so.

Argument 3

The survey takers claim their survey is not strong evidence against the mythical global warming consensus, therefore skeptics cannot cite the survey while debating the mythical consensus.

Let’s address the first two arguments first. These arguments would be plausible, and perhaps might even be persuasive, except that alarmists have been saying exactly the opposite for decades. When alarmists say that scientists can be biased based on their career path, and that only atmospheric scientists are qualified to give informed opinions on global warming, they are engaging in the most laughable form of hypocrisy.

Let’s start with Argument 1.

Skeptics frequently point out that claims of an alarmist global warming consensus rely on tainted, biased participant pools. Donna Laframboise, for example, has documented absurd bias and activism with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), where environmental activists drive the IPCC findings in their roles as lead authors. Similarly, I documented how environmental activists directed the findings of a recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) global warming report and how nearly all of the 23 NAS authors were already on the record as being global warming alarmists before being chosen to write the report.

Additionally, an often misrepresented survey claiming 97 percent of scientists agree that humans are causing a global warming crisis (actually, the survey asked merely whether some warming has occurred and whether humans are playing at least a partial role – two questions to which I would answer yes), restricted its participant pool to government scientists and scientists working for institutions dependent on government grants. Scientists who work for – or are funded by – government institutions know that their funding will dry up and their jobs will disappear if and when global warming stops being an asserted crisis.

When skeptics point out these blatant biases, however, alarmists claim that scientists by their very nature are immune from having their environmental activist affiliations, the source of their paychecks or their preexisting advocacy for global warming restrictions influence their research and scientific opinions. Skeptics who call attention to such biases are demonized as “attacking scientists” or “attacking science” itself.

So which is it? Skeptics are willing to play by any set of rules alarmists make, just so long as the rules are consistently applied. Alarmists can’t have it both ways. Scientists’ career choice, salary dependency, and preexisting sociopolitical points of view either taint their objectivity or do not taint their objectivity. They do not taint skeptics’ objectivity while failing to taint alarmists’ objectivity. When alarmists make duplicitous claims to the contrary, they are about as intellectually compelling as Vizzini attempting to divine the location of the poisonous iocane powder in The Princes Bride.

Now let’s address Argument 2.

Skeptics frequently point out how people who have little or no atmospheric science education dominate the IPCC, the NAS report and other so-called “consensus” reports. People without advanced science degrees and degrees in fields other than atmospheric science serve as lead authors for IPCC. Less than a quarter of the authors of the NAS report have degrees relating in any significant way to atmospheric science. Heck, the godfather of global warming alarmism, James Hansen, is an astronomer. The head of the IPCC , Raj Pachauri, is a railroad engineer.

Alarmists claim that their scientists’ lack of in-depth training in atmospheric science does not diminish their authority to speak on global warming issues.  Skeptics who point out such shortcomings are, again, accused of attacking scientists or attacking science itself.


Climate fear-mongers’ blind faith in suspect and shoddy science

There have always been priests and shamans who claim that their rituals can "fix" the weather but there is still nothing that actually works.  The wish is mother to the faith, however

Bill McKibben, founder of, spoke on Sunday at the “Forward on Climate Rally” in Washington, D.C. He said, “Science should have decided our course long ago.” He was right. If only environmental policy were based on what science really says, billions of dollars would not have been wasted trying to “contain climate change,” as nonsensically demanded of President Obama this past weekend.

No matter what Mr. McKibben and Al Gore tell us, experts in the field understand that climate science is highly immature. We are in a period of “negative discovery,” in that the more we learn about climate, the more we realize we do not know. This problem is compounded by the fact that much of the data used by campaigners to try to convince the public that we are in an unusual period climatically is either wrong or highly suspect.

Rather than “remove the doubt,” as Mr. Gore tells us should be done, we must recognize the doubt in this, arguably the most complex science ever tackled.

The confidence expressed by Mr. Gore, Mr. McKibben and Mr. Obama that mankind is causing dangerous climate change is a consequence of a belief in what professors Chris Essex (University of Western Ontario) and Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph) call the “Doctrine of Certainty.” This doctrine is “a collection of now familiar assertions about climate that are to be accepted without question” (“Taken by Storm,” 2007).

Mr. Essex and Mr. McKitrick explain, “But the Doctrine is not true. Each assertion is either manifestly false or the claim to know is false. Climate is one of the most challenging open problems in modern science. Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved.”

Yet, as long ago as 1989, Mr. Gore insisted there was “no dispute worthy of recognition” about the dangers of man-made climate change. Since then, his certainty, and that of the U.N. and most member governments, has solidified into a dogma that few politicians, media, educators or industry leaders dare question.

Yet that dogma is being questioned by more and more reputable scientists who are finally speaking out in an organized fashion. For example, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) shows that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has unjustifiably downplayed research that suggests variations in solar output have far greater impact on global climate than all human activities combined. The NIPCC demonstrates that much of the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar climate policies is likely wrong.

Climate change and extreme weather have always happened and always will, no matter what we do. Therefore, instead of foolishly trying to stop them from occurring, we need to adapt to such phenomena by preparing our societies for these inevitable events.

Adaptation measures would include burying electrical cables underground, reinforcing buildings and other infrastructure and preparing for a continuation of sea level rise. We must also ensure reliable, affordable energy so that we have the power to heat and cool our dwellings as needed. For this reason, the president must expand, not shrink, the use of America’s cheapest, most reliable and most abundant energy source — coal — which generates half the country’s electricity. Replacing significant amounts of conventional fossil fuel and nuclear power with intermittent and diffuse sources such as wind and solar power, as groups like are demanding, is irrational.

It is time to listen to reputable experts who say that, while someday we may be able to meaningfully predict climate, it is not possible now. The science fiction of attempting to actually control global climate through impractical energy policies will simply leave us hungry and freezing in the dark.

That may not be a comforting thought for the thousands who braved the elements to demonstrate on the Mall on Sunday, but that is the true climate reality.


The Green Lobby Is Destroying The British Economy

IMAGINE a different future. We are now so used to rising energy prices – they’ve gone up 159 per cent since 2004 – that they have come to seem an inevitable part of life.

That’s certainly what Energy Secretary Ed Davey tells us, saying it’s impossible to “turn back the tide” of rising energy prices.

But instead of unrelenting increases, instead of a collapse in our capacity to generate energy and instead of fears that we will soon be in hock to Russian gas oligarchs, imagine a different story.

Imagine the price of gas falling by two-thirds in less than a decade. Imagine electricity prices crashing by more than a quarter in less than a year. It sounds like a fantasy. Too good to be true.

A little later I shall tell you why it needn’t be. But first let us reflect on Britain’s actual energy policy.

Yesterday Alistair Buchanan, the departing head of energy regulator Ofgem, warned that our energy reserves are “uncomfortably tight”.

If we think the rises in energy prices have been bad enough already then we need to think again. This, he said, is only the start.

As Mr Buchanan put it, the combination of British power plants closing, foreign gas supplies shrinking and demand for energy rising has tipped us perilously close to the edge. He is simply stating the obvious.

Our energy policy is no longer dictated by the need to keep supply plentiful and cheap which for decades was the basis of all planning. Today energy policy is framed with only one factor in mind: satisfying the green lobby.

It is, to be blunt, mad. Next month we are forcing 10 per cent of our energy production plants to close in order to meet environmental targets.

They are in full working order.  No matter. They will be boarded up by order of the state.

There is no starker example of the disconnect between the political classes and the rest of us. For the political classes – all three main parties are as one over this – the only thing that matters is signing treaties on global warming.

They love nothing more than flying off to summits parading their green hearts. Only when they get home does reality strike and we have to start implementing their deals.

Five years ago we lived in a different world. Growth was not just a cherished wish but a reality. For many people climate change was the most pressing problem faced by the world.

And so green treaties seemed prescient – an example, it was proclaimed, of foresight and good stewardship of the planet.

But actions have consequences.

And we are now paying the price of the green lobby persuading governments to rip up decades of energy policy and start again.

Some of the less starry-eyed analysts warned at the time that by 2015 there would be an energy crunch as coal and oil plants were closed to meet EU green energy rules.

Added to that wasteful subsidies for wind power, a minimum price for carbon (due to come into effect on April 1) which would push up prices and the failure to bolster nuclear supplies have all added to the mix. And then came the financial crash.

In the pre-crash world the green obsession might, just, have been manageable if we actually wanted to throw money away on inefficient and unnecessarily expensive energy supplies. But in today’s world it is economic madness.

Energy Secretary Ed Davey thinks rising energy prices are now out of control

"Five years ago we lived in a different world. Growth was not just a cherished wish but a reality. For many people climate change was the most pressing problem faced by the world. "
Not one of the coal or oil plants now being closed needs to shut. The only reason they are being tossed aside is because of our green obligations.

Soaring energy costs are the opposite of what the economy needs as it limps from one quarter to another. We need to reduce the price of energy.

And yet governments – this one and the last – have constructed a new energy system calculated to inflate costs.

What is truly enraging about the perfect storm of energy chaos into which we are now plunging headfirst is that none of it is necessary.

The “fantasy” scenario I sketched above is, you see, no fantasy at all. It is the story of energy prices in the US over the past few years. Two huge economies. Two nations with vast energy needs. One – the US – has chosen to meet those needs and put its people first.

Another – the UK – has chosen the opposite path.

Because as well as saddling ourselves with crippling green commitments we have turned our backs on the new technology and method which has brought about such a revolution in the US: fracking.

In America the extraction of shale gas from rocks (fracking) has transformed everything. In one state alone – Pennsylvania – production of natural gas went from zero to more than the North Sea’s entire output in four years.

Gas prices in the US are now just 20 per cent of the equivalent price of oil.

The International Energy Agency forecasts that the US will overtake Russia as the world’s biggest producer of natural gas by 2015 and by 2020 will produce more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Yet in the UK we let the green lobby sneer at fracking and barely even pay lip-service to its possibilities, at the same time as we close down productive power plants and stand back watching while prices go through the stratosphere.

The political classes have treated the rest of us with contempt.

When Ed Davey says the only way for prices to go is up he is talking, quite simply, nonsense. And he is treating the rest of us as idiots.


British government invests another £37m in electric cars despite only 2,000 being sold last year

The electric car industry was handed a £37million boost by the taxpayer yesterday – even though only 2,300 were sold last year.

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin announced a subsidy for homes and businesses which fit plug-in points for the cars.

It will pay up to three-quarters of the installation costs, which range from £1,000 to £10,000.
Hospitals, police and public bodies may have the full price paid.

The government wants to encourage the ownership of electric cars, such as the Vauxhall Ampera (pictured)

The government wants to encourage the ownership of electric cars, such as the Vauxhall Ampera (pictured)

The news comes amid fears that battery-powered cars are losing their spark with drivers.

Only 3,200 have sold in the last two years – less than 1 per cent of the total market – despite green discounts of £5,000 per car.

In 2012 just 2,237 electric cars were sold and registered for the ‘plug-in car grant’, though that is double the figure of 1,052 in 2011 and a big increase on the 111 in 2010.

Studies show the fear of losing power on the road is a top reason people do not use the vehicles.

Mr McLoughlin announced the subsidy on a visit to Sunderland, where Nissan produces its Leaf electric car. He said he wanted Britain to be a world leader in the electric car industry.

But he rejected criticisms that electric sales were poor because they were only of use in towns, and insisted manufacturers would not be making them if there were not a market for them: ‘They are fantastic cars.’

The new multi-million pound funding package aims to kick-start home and on-street charging, as well as the creation of new charge points for people parking plug-in vehicles at railway stations, by offering subsidies covering up to 75 per cent of the cost of installing the charging points.

Hospitals, the police and other public bodies are set to have the full cost of the installation covered.

The announcement was made at Gateshead College’s Skills Academy for Sustainable Manufacturing and Innovation next to Nissan’s site in Sunderland.

The cash-boost follows a critical report by MP watchdogs in September which said electric car sales are stalling except as ‘subsidised second cars for the rich’ allowing the affluent middle classes to run around town and appear environmentally-friendly. The MP’s report said Government grants were ‘subsidising second cars for affluent households’.

It concluded that despite the £5,000 per car ‘green’ subsidy, electric vehicles have lost their spark and proved too expensive for most motorists. Past failure by ministers to provide enough public plug-in power points also means electric car sales had fallen flat threatening an end to the Government’s electric dreams, said the report by the House of Commons transport Select Committee.

The Department for Transport said the £37million funding for the package comes from the Government’s £400million commitment to increase the uptake of ultra-low emission or ‘green’ vehicles and is available until April 2015.

Installing a charge-point in a home costs about £1,000-£1,500, while rapid chargers can cost around £45,000. A charge-point capable of charging two vehicles at once in residential streets or train stations costs around £10,000.

The full package announced today includes up to £13.5million for a 75per cent grant for homeowners who want domestic charge-point installed at their. There is also an £11million fund for councils in England to install on-street charging for residents who have a plug in vehicle but do not have off-street parking.

Up to £9million is being made available to fund charge-points at railway stations.

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: ‘This investment underlines the Government’s commitment to making sure that the UK is a world leader in the electric car industry.

‘Plug in vehicles can help the consumer by offering a good driving experience and low running costs. They can help the environment by cutting pollution. And most importantly of all, they can help the British economy by creating skilled manufacturing jobs in a market that is bound to get bigger.’

Business Minister Michael Fallon said: ‘Today’s announcement will make the consumer environment for plug-in vehicles more attractive and, in turn, makes the UK a more compelling place to invest.’

John Martin, Nissan’s senior vice president for manufacturing, said: ‘We are delighted that the UK Government is showing it shares our commitment to the transport of the future.’

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and traders welcomed the move which it said would ‘boost confidence’ in the electric car market.


Climate sceptic in Tasmania

LORD Christopher Monckton, one of the world's best-known climate change sceptics, breezes into Tasmania today with a warning the Greens are the new totalitarians and Labor is not much better.

Speaking from Melbourne yesterday, the outspoken British peer said there had been no measurable global warming for at least 16 years and quite likely longer, despite increases in carbon dioxide emissions.  Lord Monckton said the science was collapsing around the alarmists and ordinary people were angry at the lies that had been told.

He said much of the debate was driven by left-wing politics.  "The Greens are too yellow to admit they are reds," he said. "Labor is frighteningly close.

"The totalitarian left thinks they know best how we should live. It's about increasing the ability to interfere in every aspect of our lives, down to the last dim, flickering light bulb."

Lord Monckton described Australia's carbon tax as "fantastically cost-ineffective".

If the whole world adopted Australia's carbon tax scheme for 10 years, it would cost $317 trillion or 59 per cent of global GDP.   This amounted to $45,000 for every person and all it would achieve was to forestall warming by about one sixth of one degree. It would be 36 times more expensive than paying the cost of adaptation to any climate change.

While carbon dioxide did have some effect on temperatures, he believed it was vastly overstated. He dismissed the idea of a scientific consensus as intellectual baby talk. "Science is a matter of verifiable proof. Climate science is much slipperier."

Asked about warming of the sea along Tasmania's East Coast, he said Australia was one of the only places where warm currents had had any effect, but the Great Barrier Reef had experienced no temperature change at all.

Lord Monckton is speaking at the University of Tasmania's Sir Stanley Burbury Lecture Theatre in Hobart tonight at 7.30




Preserving the graphics:  Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here and here


No comments: