This comes from the BBC’s description of the flights of SpaceShipTwo to take people to the edge of space, and then come back to a nice safe landing (hopefully). And all for a mere $200,000 - the world’s most expensive rollercoaster.
Of course, Richard Branson is a man who is extremely adept at being on both sides of the debate on environmental issues.
On the one hand he runs a transcontinental airline and several smaller low-cost airlines so beloved of environmental extremists AND now a sub-orbital flight company, none of which are known for their environmental friendliness or low carbon emissions.
And on the other:
“To my mind there is no greater or more immediate challenge than that posed by climate change,” said Sir Richard.
“It’s therefore more than fitting that the very first science to be conducted on board our new vehicles may be specifically directed at increasing our understanding and knowledge of the atmosphere and from there, to better inform our decisions as to the most effective ways of dealing with climate change.”
“It’s therefore more than fitting that the very first science to be conducted on board our new vehicles may be specifically directed at increasing our understanding and knowledge of the atmosphere and from there, to better inform our decisions as to the most effective ways of dealing with climate change.”
What’s the betting that no-one will be tasteless enough to point out the carbon emissions per passenger of SpaceShipTwo? Certainly not NASA/NOAA because he’s offered to put their scientific instruments on his carbon-spewing air tractor, sorry, sub-orbital first stage launcher, White Knight 2
“Almost everything Noaa does at the moment is at 25,000ft (7,600m) maximum altitude. It’s quite difficult to find research aircraft that do atmospheric testing above that,” Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic, explained.
“One of the things that we as an airline operator know is that the tropopause is rising slightly. That has had quite an effect on aircraft flying in the upper atmosphere and the amount of turbulence they get.
“This is probably related to the mix of greenhouse gases and the levels they are rising to that’s moving the tropopause up.”
…and absolutely nothing to do with the greenhouse gases coming from Richard Branson’s planes.
So here’s today’s scientific question: What’s wrong with this picture?
I rather think even Sir Isaac Newton could answer this one.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
The Drake Equation, according to the world’s worst encyclopedia is
… a famous result in the speculative fields of exobiology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).
This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake (now Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz) in 1960, in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors which determine the number of such extraterrestrial civilizations.
Or at least, that’s what the article said at the precise moment I accessed the page. Who knows what it will say when you do the same?
The Drake Equation is given by the following formula:
where
is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate
and
is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
is the fraction of those stars that have planets
is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
The Drake Equation has been criticized by many scientists as meaningless. Michael Crichton in his speech “Aliens cause global warming” says of the Drake Equation:
This serious-looking equation gave SETI [the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, founded by Frank Drake] a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear - are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science [my emphasis]. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion
Randall Munroe, who draws the consistently brilliant webcomic XKCD, has recently discovered that the Drake Equation is missing a term:
Another episode where you conclude that climate modellers have been elevated to a new branch of government or a special priesthood. Why else would you think that the UK government would do the following [my emphasis]:
Malaria warning as UK becomes warmer
The UK is to be hit by regular malaria outbreaks, fatal heatwaves and contaminated drinking water within five years because of global warming, the Government has warned the NHS.
Following a major consultation with climate change scientists, the Government is issuing official advice to hospitals, care homes and institutions for dealing with rising temperatures, increased flooding, gales and other major weather events.
Hospitals have been warned to prepare for outbreaks of malaria and tick-born viruses.
It warns that there is a high likelihood of a major heatwave, leading to as many as 10,000 deaths, hitting the UK by 2012.
Really? Suddenly climate scientists are experts in malarial diseases and tropical medicine? Since when? I must have missed that part of the earth sciences course I took at university.
A spokesman for the Health Protection Agency said: “Our work is based on what is likely to happen if we do nothing to prevent it - and it could well be that we see an increase in diseases such as malaria.
“Malaria has been seen in these islands in the past, and it is not impossible that it will return regularly if the UK experiences more tropical temperatures and rain on the scale experienced last summer.
“Our nearest continental neighbour, France, has already experienced a severe heatwave, with thousands of people dying, mostly the old and frail, so it was very clearly seen by scientists as possible here within a short timeframe.”
So the people in France were killed by tropical diseases? No they weren’t. They died because they could not afford to air condition their homes, possibly because of those extra “green” taxes designed to reduce electricity consumption.
What of the claim that the UK has seen these diseases before? Well it has. Up to the 19th Century, malaria was endemic to certain marshy parts of England. But the greatest loss of life from malaria in England came in the teeth of the Little Ice Age when temperatures were a degree celsius lower than today, the growing season was five weeks or more shorter and snow and ice covered the land in winter for months at a time.
Want to find a real expert on malaria and disease transmission? Try Professor Paul Reiter, who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in San Juan, Puerto Rico:
Discussions of the potential impact of human-induced global warming frequently include malaria, a disease widely perceived as tropical. Articles in the popular and scientific press have predicted that warmer temperatures will result in malaria transmission in Europe and North America. Such predictions, often based on simple computer models, overlook malaria’s history; until recently, malaria was endemic and common in many temperate regions, and major epidemics extended as far north as the Arctic Circle. Despite the disappearance of the disease from most of these regions, the indigenous mosquitoes that transmitted it were never eliminated and remain common in some areas. Thus, although temperature is important in the transmission dynamics of malaria, many other variables are of equal or greater importance.
Interestingly Professor Reiter withdrew from the IPCC because of its politicization of scientific issues and pre-ordained conclusions which ran counter to the scientific evidence. He even had to threaten to sue them to withdraw his name from the list of authors for the IPCC Review. He also reported that the IPCC had no other comparable expertise on tropical medicine and the transmission of tick-born diseases.
But hey! Why bother when climate modellers can fulfill any expert role.
The English word for malaria was ague, a term that remained in common usage until the 19th century. The Medieval Warm Period was already on the wane when Geoffrey Chaucer (1342-1400) wrote, in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale, “You are so very choleric of complexion./ Beware the mounting sun and all dejection,/ Nor get yourself with sudden humours hot;/ For if you do, I dare well lay a groat/ That you shall have the tertian fever’s pain,/ Or some ague that may well be your bane.”
Such mention of agues did not disappear when the coldest years of the Little Ice Age began. In 16th century England, many marshlands were notorious for their ague-stricken populations and remained so well into the 19th century. William Shakespeare (1564–1616), who was born in the autumn of Bruegel’s first fierce winter, mentioned ague in eight of his plays.
So says Professor Reiter. But what does he know? He’s not creating stupid panics from computer models unable to predict the next El Nino, the next drought or anything else.
But he’s not listened to, because he doesn’t represent the views of a self-indulgent consensus of over-qualified idiots. Whatever makes climate modellers believe their own publicity? Its the rockstar syndrome transplanted into academia.
I recommend the entire essay “From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age” and learn the medical and climatic reality. The UK Government won’t, because scaring Britons with imaginary hobgoblins and unlikely scenarios is a form of social control, and the British taxpayer gets to foot the bill.
You can bet that by 2012, with the UK government unable to produce a single case of domestic malaria, no-one will be held responsible for the money wasted and no-one will be to blame, and the report will be quietly forgotten to be replaced by the next health scare promoted by “the faceless consensus of idiot experts”.
Update:
Professor Paul Reiter testified as to the IPCC’s expertise in tropical medicine and malarial transmission to the UK House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee in 2005. His judgment on the IPCC’s “expertise” was devastating [my emphasis]:
The natural history of mosquito-borne diseases is complex, and the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, and many other factors defies simplistic analysis. The recent resurgence of many of these diseases is a major cause for concern, but it is facile to attribute this resurgence to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to “predict” future prevalence. In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on “experts” who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science. In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities. A creative and organized application of resources is urgently required to control these diseases, regardless of future climate change.
I’ve just posted this to DeSmogBlog as they congratulate themselves on being the best Canadian group blog:
Congratulations on the award, coming as it does on the heels of the conviction of John Lefebvre, the top financial benefactor of the DeSmog Blog, for money-laundering.
Its an impressive moral superiority you display in smearing law-abiding scientists who dissent from the manufactured and largely hollow “consensus” on global warming, that you have been funded by a felon who laundered money from criminal activities.
Give yourselves a big pat on the back that while scientists who have committed no crime and received no money from special interests get smeared by association (and often its a big reach to find that association), DeSmogBlog is funded from straightforward criminality.
It’s alright - you have no shame. That’s why you’ll censor this comment rather than deal with reality - which is why its cross-posted to my blog as well where you can’t delete it.
See also http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22611
Its a sign of the times I suppose that large numbers of scientists and others feel the need to send open letters to political leaders. These sort of political acts happen when supposedly open scientific channels become blocked by individuals or organizations wishing to end debate.
This one is to Ban Ki-Moon, current UN Secretary General:
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
December 12, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of AmericaDear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a nonpolluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate-change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The Summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
The average rate of warming of 0.1 - 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often-repeated assertion that the science of climate change is settled, significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to
apply the ‘precautionary principle’ because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.The current UN focus on “fighting climate change”, as illustrated in the November 27th UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
List of Signatories (to be attached)
Powered by ScribeFire.
GBP 200,000 worth of great science.
I’ve just sent this in, but the chances of a reply are frankly minimal:
“Nature’s refusal to publish a re-analysis by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) “hockey stick” graph has been so well documented elsewhere, not least in hearings instigated by US congressmen, that there is really nothing new to say.”
You know what’s really interesting, Richard? Despite the centrality of the Hockey Stick in formulating policy, being the subject of Congressional investigation and claims made by extremely well qualified scientists and statisticians that the Hockey Stick is trash, neither you nor the BBC ever felt the need to report on any of this.
Why not?
Richard Black is at it again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm
Here is my reply. It won’t get published, still less listened to, because it directly attacks the scaremongering and censorship by the BBC on all things environmental, but at least you can have the benefit:
==============================
Having already decided that the objections made by climate skeptics are easily answered ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm ), then will this be yet another attempt to smear them with false statements to make them look contemptible?
A: Yes.
The plain facts are that none of the “answers” given are true. Many of them are tendentious, and quite a few are false. For example, just the first answer:
” Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming.”
Yes but over what timescale? There is warming since the 1970s, but is it warmer than the 1930s? No. Even James Hansen had to admit that in the US, the best kept temperature network in the world, the 1930s not the 1990s were the warmest decade. This was after Steve McIntyre pointed out his errors to him. Long standing well-documented stations in Nuuk (Greenland), Punta Arenas (Chile) and Cape Town (South Africa) all show the same answer: the 1930s was warmer than the 1990s
“The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for.”
Studied - yes. Corrected for? No. The key paper used by the IPCC was a study done by Phil Jones in 1990. Recently a substantial part of the dataset has come under fire as a case of scientific fraud by mathematician Doug Keenan (see http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm ) and a conference was convened to Portugal to discuss it and matters arising (did the BBC report any of this? Nope. )
“Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends.”
Those were the ones that James Hansen had to restate, showing that the 1930s not the 1990s were the warmest of the 20th Century.
“Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city.”
Except that that paper was shown by Steve McIntyre again to be false, since there was a distinct difference between adjusted urban and rural temperature rises. (See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859 and http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1857 )
“Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn’t resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes.”
Again, the Northern high latitudes includes the rapidly warming urbanized cities of Siberia. When these are excluded, the Arctic is no warmer than it was in the 1930s. See http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=112204A
“Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979″
Yes, but its been warming since the trough of the Little Ice Age in the early 17th Century, well before the rise in greenhouse gases began. Something that you never, ever point out to readers even though its been pointed out many times to you.
So once again, a set of statements which are materially false and misleading gets reported by the BBC. When papers get debunked or rejected, when frauds are discovered and discussed, when Hockey Sticks get broken again and again, the BBC will always be onhand to completely ignore all of them ready for the next scarefest. No criticism is allowed, no opposing view entertained and no computer model ever questioned.
==============================
It doesn’t really matter since the BBC is now engaged in (Richard) Black Propaganda ready for the next IPCC scareathon. There’s nothing like softening up an audience before the main event, is there?
PZ Myers comes unglued when Climate Audit wins a straw poll for Best Science Blog (the one PZ won last year):
Hi, Stan. You’re new here, like a whole lot of people. You’ve just shown up, and here’s your very first comment.
I noticed that this blog is in the running for a Best Science Blog award.
I’ve looked over the site. Cna someone point out where the science is on it. I have looked but I can’t find any.
Let me introduce myself. My name is PZ Myers. I’m an associate professor of biology at a small liberal arts university in the upper midwest. I make no grand claims for myself, but I have been exceptionally busy lately, with lots of travel and lectures, and it’s all on top of teaching two courses, one of which is both new to me and a new course in our discipline, so I’m writing lectures at a frantic pace and trying to keep up with 80 students. I’m also working on a book and have a magazine column to write, in addition to other irregular writing jobs. I’m stretched very, very thin right now, I’m a bit frustrated myself that I haven’t had much spare time for the blog, and I’m feeling extremely cranky.
Welcome, Stan Palmer, I’m going to unload on you as a proxy for all your fellow denialist idiots!
First, though, I’ll help you out. Look on the left sidebard, for A Taste of Pharyngula. If that’s not enough, there’s an archive of my Seed columns. You didn’t seem to look very hard before leaping to your rather clueless indictment; I suspect you were directed here by one of those right-wing sites and came here with preconceptions. I daresay you probably didn’t look at all, but instead simply scampered over here to toss off your petty, ignorant comment.
And then, of course, what’s bringing you and your fellow naive whiners here is the need to defend the climate change denialist, McIntyre — so many of you, after carping that I’m not meeting your demands, are protesting that he’s not a denialist, and you aren’t denialists, and you’re all here in the cause of good science.
Bullshit.
My expertise is not in climate, but in biology, and I’m familiar with his type — it’s a common strategy among creationists, who do dearly love to collect complaints. There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They’re called scientists. Then there are the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt. They lack perspective. They ignore everything that doesn’t fit their search criterion, and of course, they’re focused only on putrescence. They aren’t scientists, they’re more like rats.
And the worst of the rats are the sanctimonious ones that declare that they’re just ‘policing’ science. They aren’t. They’re just providing fodder for their fellow denialists, and like them all, have nothing of value to contribute to advance the conversation. You can quit whining that you and McIntyre are finding valid errors; it doesn’t matter, since you’re simultaneously spreading a plague of lies and ignorance as you go.
So bugger off, denialists. I am not impressed.
Everyone else, please do vote for Bad Astronomy. Real scientists can see the big picture and understand that the real power of science lies in the explanations, not the pettifoggery with statistics — not that I expect the right-wing gomers at the Weblog Awards who nominated the purveyors of junk science for their award to to know that, or for the swarms of freepers and limbots to care.
Oh, and the next clueless ass to whine at me that they can’t find any science here will be disemvoweled. I’m feeling peevish, so it’s not a good time to prod.
More rats. Rats with their moldy flecks of rotting garbage. You guys don’t get it, do you?
Something tells me PZ needs a hug.
After a disastrous flooded out British summer has unfolded that the Met Office said was going to be hot and dry back in December 2006, the Met Office has courageously decided that the only way to guarantee success in its forecasts is to predict every possible eventuality.
More floods in future, predicts Met Office
by Paul Eccleston
The storms that have deluged much of middle England will happen more frequently because man is changing global weather patterns, scientists have warned.
Climate change will bring Mediterranean-style drier summers but there will also be an increased risk of intense and torrential downpours followed by devastating flooding.
Weather patterns in the past are now irrelevant and cannot be used as a guide to help predict weather patterns in the future.
And what used to be 1 in 200 year events - as the flooding was described - will now become more common.
Met Office scientists said man’s footprint could now be clearly seen on altered weather patterns which will bring changes in rainfall in the northern and southern hemispheres.
The warning came as Met Office figures confirmed that the three months of early summer from May to July were the wettest since records began in 1766. The total rainfall - 387.6mm - across England and Wales was 208 percent higher than the average.
In some parts of the country five inches of rain, twice the average for the whole of July, fell in 24 hours on Friday.
The main cause of the persistent rain has been the jet stream - a belt of air at 40,000-feet which controls the movement of weather systems.
Normally it can be found across the north Atlantic but this year it is several hundred miles to the south, channelling depressions, which bring storms, towards Britain.
Meanwhile southern Europe has experienced the opposite with extreme high temperatures of 40C causing hundreds of deaths from heat and humidity in Hungary and Romania and forest fires in Greece and Macedonia.
So there you have it. The UK will be drier except for times when it will be wetter especially during flooding.
The Met Office is spending money in all the right areas to tell us the reasons why weather happened after they have already happened:
The Met Office is now investing heavily in a computer modelling system that will enable them to predict extreme weather earlier and more accurately.
Dr Peter Stott, a climate scientist at the Met Office and the University of Reading, who is co-author of the study which revealed for the first time that man is affecting rainfall patterns, said: “A distinctive pattern of global rainfall changing in the last 75 years is largely due to human influence.
” There are significant trends of increasing rainfall in the northern and southern Hemispheres. There is a clear fingerprint of human activity.
“The world is warming up, we know that, but this is the first time that this has been seen in rainfall patterns.
Dr Stott said the trend would be for wetter areas becoming wetter and drier areas becoming drier.
A clear pattern was beginning to emerge which for Europe and the UK would mean more rainfall in winter and drier summers, but with more extreme rainfall events.
“In the UK the trend will be for drier continental weather particularly for the south but when it rains it will rain harder,” he said.
Scientists have been looking at other countries, including Japan, which have been experiencing a change in weather patterns, to see what lessons could be learned. Japan has seen significantly higher temperatures and rainfall - two or three times as much as the UK gets.
The scientists said it could be another century before Britain experiences the same temperature and rainfall patterns. Much would depend on whether climate change is tackled but they estimate temperatures will rise between five and six degrees over the next 100 years.
Dr Brian Golding, head of Forecasting Research, said the Met Office was developing a far more sophisticated system of computer modelling which would produce more accurate forecasts and give earlier warning of severe storms.
The new £120 million system will begin running in two years time but it will be 2011 before it is fully operational.
It will enable them to give a nine-hour ‘tailored’ warning of extreme weather and eventually they will be able to pinpoint conditions in an area as small as five square kilometres.
£120 million to give us a 9 hour warning. I’m sure its not money wasted.
It may be forecasting but not as we previously knew the term.
Bad Behavior has blocked 23 access attempts in the last 7 days.
