“Unprecedented” April Cold Sweeps Siberia
Abnormally cold weather has been infecting Siberia this week, particularly southern parts.
On average, temperatures have been holding 6C below the seasonal norm, as much as 16C in some regions.
This part of the world is accustomed to light frosts during the month of April; however the Siberian nights have been delivering hard, disruptive freezes. The mercury is plunging to -20C (-4F) in parts, with lows of -10C to -15C (14F to 5F) widespread.
Such lows are proving record-breaking reports hmn.ru.
In Novokuznetsk, for example, thermometers recently read -19.3C/-2.7F (-22C/-7.6F according to an automatic weather station), which smashes the locale’s previous April low of -11.6C/11.1F set in 2008 (solar minimum of cycle 23). In nearby Novosibirsk, -14.2C (6.4F) was logged, which is some 5C below the previous benchmark; Omsk posted a record -11.9C (10.6F); Pudino -15.2C (4.6F).
Moreover, the records are not just confined to Siberia, with the wider Central Asia region also suffering, including Kazakhstan–a nation coming off the back of a truly brutal winter. Here, Irtyshsk logged -12.5C (54.5F) on April 19 — a new monthly low.
Snowfall has also been commonplace this April.
While on average, the Siberia, as a whole, is enduring a month an astonishing 4C below the multidecadal norm.
The MSM has been keen to focus on southeast Asia’s heat, but there hasn’t been a peep re. the mass of pinks and purples encasing much of the rest of the continent, polar cold that over the coming days will sink south into China and intensify.
Late-season snows and/or record-challenging lows are to be forecast for some 70% of China’s 9.6 million km² land mass, particularly the eastern half.
Updates coming early next week…
Sri Lanka Shivers
The southern Asian nation of Sri Lanka witnessed a cooler-than-average March of 2023.
According to the Sri Lanka Meteorological Service, last month saw a temperature anomaly of 0.07C below the multidecadal norm. The month was also drier than normal in the north and wetter in the south.
More Establishment Obfuscation
Establishment-finded CRED (Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) recently released its 2022 Disasters in numbers report, which is “even more dishonest than its 2021 report,” according to retired Associate Professor of Physics Dr. Ralph Alexander.
According to CRED’s own emergency events database (EM-DAT), weather-related deaths are down 98% from where they were a century ago.
However, the center says that “misinterpreting statistics could be harmful if it supports a discourse minimizing the importance of climate change,” and so after a “more careful examination” of the statistics CRED believes this percentage may be misleading.
Figure A shows the raw data; that is, ‘total disaster-related deaths per decade (1900-2020)’:
But figure B tells a different story.
Revealed is CRED’s pitiful obfuscation, its attempts at truth bending to appease its AGW Party backers.
CRED states that “it is impossible to draw conclusions about the underlying causes of the century-long trend in disaster mortality based on EM-DAT numbers alone,” which, when translated from agenda-driving gobbledygook, reads “our own data disproved our theory so we changed our data”.
To achieve what the center is now calling a “positive trend” the 50 largest disaster events were inexplicably removed.
Dr. Alexander doesn’t hold back, saying that “such subterfuge is both dishonest and statistically flawed … the only way to present any trend honestly is to include all the data.” A fundamental tenet of the scientific method, he adds, hitting the nail on the head, is that you cannot ignore any piece of evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative, simply because it is inconvenient.
CRED’s annual disasters report is published with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) — America’s largest foreign aid organisation. The center’s EM-DAT service is said to provide “objective evidence-based information” which can be used to assess the vulnerabilities of communities to disasters, “thus assisting policymakers in setting priorities”.
The 2022 Disasters in numbers report states that the annual death toll figure of 30,704 was three times higher than in 2021 but below the 2002-2021 average of 60,955, with the latter influenced by “a few mega-disasters, such as the 2010 Haiti earthquake”. For a more useful comparison, CRED continues, “the 2022 toll is almost twice the 2002-2021 median of 16,011 deaths.”
Off the bat, disaster-related deaths are predominately unrelated to the climate; secondly, picking the median–the number in the middle of all the data–is nothing but blatant cherry-picking; and thirdly, and as explained by Dr. Alexander, yearly death tolls are unrelated independent events in the language of statistics, “so assigning any statistical significance to the 30,704 deaths in 2022 being lower than the long-term average, or higher than the long-term median, is invalid. CRED’s attempt to fit its data to a narrative emphasizing ‘the importance of climate action’ falls flat”.
CRED’s Disasters in numbers is a doom-seeking fairy-tale, one whose authors have bent over backwards to forge statistical support for, when in actual fact “the data and trends of weather-related disasters are pointing in the opposite direction”, comments GWPF director Dr. Benny Peiser. All the parties involved “should be ashamed of what is appearing in their name. This publication is fatally flawed and should be withdrawn,” concludes Dr. Peiser.