UPDATE (4/4/13)
Average Peak Bloom Date: April 4
2013 Peak Blooming Date Prediction: April 6 – April 8
Exactly when the buds will open is not easy to predict and it is extremely difficult to give an accurate forecast much more than 10 days before peak bloom. National Park Service horticulturists monitor five distinct stages of bud development and provide timely forecasts and updates.
The Peak Bloom Date is defined as the day on which 70 percent of the blossoms of the Yoshino cherry trees that surround the Tidal Basin are open. This date varies from year to year, depending on weather conditions. The Blooming Period is defined as that period when 20 percent of the blossoms are open until the petals fall and leaves appear. The blooming period starts several days before the peak bloom date and can last as long as 14 days, however, frost or high temperatures combined with wind or rain can shorten this period.
Visit the National Park Service’s website with links to the Blossom Cam, cherry blossom photos, and information on how to donate to the Cherry Tree Replacement Fund.
The following is a comparative record of past bud development. The date listed is when 70 percent of the buds have reached each stage:
Green Color in Buds: Mid to late February to Early March
Florets Visible: Early to Mid March, Av. 16 to 21 days to Peak Bloom
Extension of Florets: Av. 12 to 17 days to Peak Bloom
Peduncle Elongation: Av. 5 to 10 days to Peak Bloom (Frost Critical)
Puffy White: Av. 4 to 6 days to Peak Bloom
2008 Blooming Period: March 26 to April 11, 2008 17 days
2009 Blooming Period: March 28 to April 9, 2009 13 days
2010 Blooming Period: March 27 to April 5, 2010 10 days
2011 Blooming Period: March 26 to April 8, 2011 14 days
2012 Blooming Period: March 18 to March 26, 2012 9 days
Attacks on my work that are aimed at undermining true climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I am not vain enough to embrace that role.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann)
As a climate researcher, I have seen my integrity perniciously attacked. Politicians have demanded I be tried for “"high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death, because of my work demonstrating the reality and threat of exaggerations about human-caused climate change.
I’ve been subjected to congressional investigations by congressman in the pay of the environmental lobby and was the target of a scientifically-illiterate eight-month “witch hunt” by a Minnesota Trotskyite. I have even received a number of anonymous death threats. My plight is dramatic, but unfortunately, it is not unique; climate skeptics are regularly the subject of such attacks.
The cynicism of my attackers is part of a destructive public-relations campaign being waged by banks, “renewable” energy companies, insurance giants, front groups, and individuals aligned with them in an effort vastly to profit by vastly exaggerating the science in making suggestions that the burning of fossil fuels may cause potentially dangerous climate change.
My work first appeared on the world stage in the mid-2000s with the publication of a series of articles in the London Sunday Telegraph indicating inter alia that estimating past temperature trends using information gathered from tree rings to piece together variations in the Earth’s temperature over the past 1,000 years had been proven unreliable. What I found was that the recent small warming, which coincides with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years, is a much-precedented event in this period of reconstructed temperature changes.
Though recent work published in the journal Science suggests that the recent warming trend has no counterpart for at least the past 11,000 years, and perhaps longer, the central England temperature record, which has proven a less inaccurate proxy for pre-thermometer temperatures than dubious tree-rings dubiously processed on dubious computers by dubious zitty teenagers paid by dubious rent-seekers like Michael E. Mann, confirms historical evidence that at the end of the Maunder Minimum temperatures rose at a rate of 4 Celsius/century for 40 years. Nothing like that has been seen since: the 20th century saw just 0.7C of warming, and the 21st century shows none at all. In a graph showing the linear trend for the last 23 years, the trend line looks like a billiard cue.
Since the Doha climate conference of 2012, at which I inadvertently represented Burma, the graph now known as the billiard cue graph has become an icon in the climate-change debate, providing potent, graphic evidence of the recent total absence of human-caused climate change. As a result, governments, banks, renewable-energy hucksters, academics, journalists and those who do their bidding saw the need to discredit it in any way they could, and I have found myself at the receiving end of attacks and threats of investigations, as I describe in my forthcoming book Climate of Freedom. In 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) praised my work publicly; and, jointly with Congressman John Linder, I have been awarded the Meese-Noble Award for Freedom for my work on climate change.
On three occasions, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) invited me to testify before the Energy & Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. On the third such occasion, the Democrats – for the first time in the history of Congress refused the Republicans their free choice of witness because they wanted to protect their own witness, Al Gore, from the public humiliation to which my testimony would inevitably and deservedly have subjected him. I have also testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Climate Change Committee. Inhofe and Barton are just two of the growing number of members of Congress who have seen through the climate scam.
More recently, Vaclav Klaus, as President of the Czech Republic, cited me twice in a speech on climate change in Washington DC, and subsequently accepted my invitation to deliver the annual Magistral Lecture at the World Federation of Scientists’ annual seminar on planetary emergencies.
The Chinese Ambassador to Italy forwarded my seminal, published paper on Clouds and Climate Sensitivity to Peking after his Scientific Counsellor, on hearing me present it, had commented: “This changes everything. It is clear there is no significant manmade influence on the climate.”
I, too, can name-drop sanctimoniously, just like Michael E. Mann.
Meanwhile, I’ve also been subject to a constant onslaught of character attacks and smears on websites, in op eds, by a politicized and now-discredited clerk in the House of Lords acting without the authority of the House, in Michael E. Mann’s Climategate emails, and on left-leaning news outlets, usually by front groups or individuals tied to global warming profiteers of the traffic-light tendency (the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds): groups like Greenpeace, Deutsche Bank, the Environmental Defense Fund, Munich Re, and the World Wide Fund for Nature.
As the website WattsUpWithThat has frequently pointed out, climate researchers are in a street fight with those who seek to discredit the data that now comprehensively disprove the once-accepted scientific “evidence” simply because it is inconvenient for many who are profiting from attacking fossil fuel use.
Being the focus of such attacks has a lead lining: I’ve become an accidental public figure in the debate over human-caused climate change. Reluctant at first, I remain reluctant embrace this role, but nevertheless I choose to use my position in the public eye to inform the discourse surrounding the issue of climate change.
Despite continued albeit diminishing skepticism in official quarters, in reality the evidence against dangerous human-caused climate change is now very strong. By digging up and burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon that had been buried in the Earth into the atmosphere, helping to stave off the mass extinctions that would follow from the next – and long overdue – Ice Age. And storms like extra-tropical system Sandy and hurricane Irene, and the oft-precedented heat, drought, and wild-fires of last summer cannot in logic, reason, or science be attributed to “global warming” that has become conspicuous chiefly by its near-total absence over the past two decades and perhaps more. In a deterministic climate object operating on a rational world, that which has not happened cannot have caused that which has.
If we continue down this path of lavishly funded nonsense, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a different planet - one with more extreme Socialism, more pronounced and widespread scientific illiteracy, worse episodes of cant even than those of Michael E. Mann (if that were possible), and greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies. It will be worse than we ever thought.
Greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies, even at a time when global population growth is declining, in turn, is a recipe for a national security nightmare. The worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the Cypriot sand and pretend that national bankruptcy doesn’t exist.
It is imperative that we take no action now to squander trillions enriching charlatans like Michael E. Mann. It would be one or two orders of magnitude less cost-effective to spend a single red cent today than to let global warming happen, enjoy the sunshine, go surfing, and pay the minuscule cost of adapting to its consequences the day after tomorrow.
Global warming? As we shivering Scots lairds say as we carry glasses well filled with single malt whisky to our aged retainers as they gallantly shovel feet of unseasonal snow off our three-mile driveways, “Bring it on!”.
Christopher W. Monckton of Brenchley is a Distinguished Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s forthcoming Undistinguished Fifth Assessment Report. Last year he was the Distinguished Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the Distinguished University of Western Ontario, where he discussed the mathematics of Doric architercture, probabilistic combinatorics, logic, climate sensitivity, feedback amplification, and climate economics in a Distinguished fashion. He directs Distinguished Monckton Enterprises Limited. He is the Distinguished author of numerous Distinguished reviewed papers in the Distinguished learned literature, and of the Distinguished forthcoming book “Climate of Freedom”. He is Distinguished for his notorious self-effacement, modesty, and humility – which is more than can be said for the Undistinguished Michael E. Mann.
By David Rose, Daily Mail
The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.
We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years.
Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions.
All a con? The Mail on Sunday revealed some of the science behind the scare tactics for Global warming were miscalculated and now they are being attacking for pointing out the truth
Leading the attack is committee member Sir Brian Hoskins, who is also director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London. In a blog on the Committee on Climate Change’s website, Sir Brian insisted: ‘The scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks remains robust, despite the points raised ...Early and deep cuts in emissions are still required.’
He also claimed our report ‘misunderstood’ the value of computer models. Yet in an interview three years ago, Sir Brian conceded that when he started out as a climate scientist, the models were ‘pretty lousy, and they’re still pretty lousy, really’.
Our graph earlier this month was reproduced from a version first drawn by Dr Ed Hawkins, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Last week it was reprinted as part of a four-page report in The Economist.
The accuracy of computer forecasts is vital because they influence politicians and their key environmental advisers on how urgently to act on climate change ‘ and how many billions of pounds they take from the taxpayer in ‘green’ levies.
How the MoS reported the faulty forecast
The Committee on Climate Change claims such forecasts must be right because world temperatures have previously matched computer models’ ‘outputs’ for most of the past 60 years. Yet as this newspaper pointed out, for almost all of that 60year period the models were not making predictions because they did not yet exist.
Instead, the models had recently been making ‘hindcasts’ backward projections based on climate simulations and tailored to actual temperatures. The evidence shows the models collapse when they try to forecast the future.
Author Andrew Montford, who runs the widely read Bishop Hill climate blog, leapt to The Mail on Sunday’s defence and said Sir Brian’s reliance on ‘hindcasts’ was ‘crazy, crazy stuff’.
David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the graph showed models were so unreliable that ‘if this kind of data were from a drugs trial it would have been stopped long ago’.
And last week, The Economist repeated our claims that many scientists now believe that previous estimates of ‘climate sensitivity’ - how much the world will warm each time the level of carbon dioxide doubles - are far too high.
In a key 2007 report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested this was most likely to be about 3C, with 4.5C considered ‘likely’. However, recent research suggests the true figure is much lower between 1.5C and 2C giving the world many more decades to avoid disaster through effective new technologies.
The Committee on Climate Change, established by the 2008 Climate Change Act, advises the Government on setting ‘carbon budgets’ and CO2 emissions cuts. It is chaired by Lord Deben, who also heads Veolia Water UK, which connects windfarms to the National Grid.