It began today. But never forget, the irony’s in the UK weather, not the climate.
Let the Met Office make everything clear, thoughtfully updating six days ago:
Astronomical seasons refer to the position of Earth’s orbit in relation to the sun taking into account equinoxes and solstices. Meteorological seasons are instead based on the annual temperature cycle and measure the meteorological state as well as coinciding with the calendar to determine a clear transition between the seasons.
Since the seasons vary in length, the start date of a new season can fall on different days each year. This makes it difficult to compare seasons between different years and resulted in the introduction of the meteorological calendar. This splits the calendar into four seasons of approximately the same length. The astronomical seasons run approximately three weeks later than those of the meteorological calendar. …
The meteorological seasons consists of splitting the seasons into four periods made up of three months each. These seasons are split to coincide with our Gregorian calendar making it easier for meteorological observing and forecasting to compare seasonal and monthly statistics. By the meteorological calendar, spring starts on 1 March.
The seasons are defined as spring (March, April, May), summer (June, July, August), autumn (September, October, November) and winter (December, January, February).
Ah, those seasonal statistics. Where would we all be without them?
And on this day …
Wind the clock back a mere 32 seasons and on this very day we had Professor Calculus and his protege Phil Jones answering questions on the Climategate emails before the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee. What I hadn’t noticed before, or for quite a few seasons, anyway, is a curious little incident on Radio 5 live also on 1st March 2010, as told two days later by Charles Crawford.
I’ll let those into climate nostalgia read those two rather fun threads rather than quoting. But, looking back, doesn’t it all come across as a more innocent age?
Christopher Booker, in presenting his mini-book on climate groupthink at the House of the Lords the other day, highlighted the moment ‘denier’ became the moniker of choice to smear anyone questioning the so-called consensus on AGW. He dated that as 2006. A few threads back Manic Beancounter asked the very good question why Booker didn’t even mention Professor Stephan Lewandowsky in his (admittedly potted) history.
I think it’s been very helpful for Booker to pick up on the work of Irving Janis in trying to explain the sorry climate story. I also think Kevin’s question alone shows it isn’t enough.
I was going to write more about all that but the clock is ticking. I probably will in comments, if anyone asks nicely.