CET competition time!
Have you posted your forecast (guess!) yet? If not, you can enter here. 

Village

Members
  • Content count

    1,106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

182 Excellent

About Village

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    ANYWHERE BUT HERE
  • Interests
    DISGUSTED WITH THIS [email protected] SITE DUE TO THE SELF STYLED HITLERS WHO INTERFERE WITH YOUR PERSONAL EMAILS AND DETAILS WITHOUT ONES PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE.
  • Weather Preferences
    ALL WEATHER, NOT THE PETTY POLITICS OF MODS IN THIS SITE

Recent Profile Visitors

4,454 profile views
  1. Thats the point Paul, I came here to this thread because this is the thread for Help and Support. Thats what it says on the tin. My first request for help as to why posts were deleted without explanation was deleted!! I mean....that does take the biscuit doesnt it? The PM I had didnt offer any explanation as to why it was deleted or why posts went missing. This site basically has a rampant deleter or two running around at will with no regard and not offering of any explanation when requested. I didnt see that in the site rules and it is breaking the trust between members and the site. It must be taken seriously and be addressed or this site will get a bad name.
  2. I think you are a tad over the top. Piers has got to where he is because he has a very good following and a very good record.
  3. Please resend me your explanations regarding why my posts have been removed from the thread "BBC / Met Office Minimum temp forecasts and your explanations as to why my posts have been removed from the thread; "weather in the media" In both these threads my posts have been deleted....about seven of them in total and other members replies to me were also deleted. I have recieved no explanations from anyone. The last time you contacted me with a pm was almost six months ago at the beginning of August last year. I have replied to other member's pm's and i can send you copies if you like and copies of their responses telling me that they had not the time or the inclination to answer me...or not bothered at all. I still have absolutely no idea why I am having posts removed and nobody is telling me.
  4. Paul, I am not talking about the serious discussion area. You did explain to me about that. However, I have never had an explanation about the climate forum other than you had taken the area off line and nobody could see it. That was what I was told at the time. As far as posts being deleted in other forums; I have not once ever had any explanation from anyone. Every time I ask I am told that there is no time to explain or that I should know! Well know what? What is it that I am doing wrong? Give me an example of the posts from the thread on BBC /Meto minimum temp forecasts. Lets see why they went missing....lets have an explanation about where there is a problem and it can be stopped. I even had my post here asking the question deleted. I just got an answer saying you know!! Well I dont know. What is the reason for this kind of behind the scenes behaviour?
  5. I had a response yes Paul, but nobody has taken the time to explain why posts are going missing or why I cannot get into the climate area of the site. All I get is : "I havent the time or inclination to answer you" This is the same response I have had for a full year now. Its discraceful not to give an explanation. What is going on in this site?
  6. I am continually having my posts deleted in this site without any explanation whatsoever by people working in the background. I would like help and support from this thread and an explanation rather than simply deleting my requests. Will someone please take the time to explain please.
  7. It’s snowing, and it really feels like the start of a mini ice age Boris Johnson in the Telegraph today: " I observe that something appears to be up with our winter weather, and to call it “warming†is obviously to strain the language. I see from the BBC website that there are scientists who say that “global warming†is indeed the cause of the cold and snowy winters we seem to be having." "As a species, we human beings have become so blind with conceit and self-love that we genuinely believe that the fate of the planet is in our hands" "Now Piers has a very good record of forecasting the weather. He has been bang on about these cold winters. Like JMW Turner and the Aztecs he thinks we should be paying more attention to the Sun. According to Piers, global temperature depends not on concentrations of CO2 but on the mood of our celestial orb." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9814618/Its-snowing-and-it-really-feels-like-the-start-of-a-mini-ice-age.html Now most of us too have now also come to the conclussion that the CO2 theory has been overplayed and still is simply; just a theory.
  8. Yes, under the section @Weather Discussion and Chat, thread: BBC / Met Office minimum temp forecasts three or four posts vannished and it was happening last week in the Media and weather section where about five posts were vannished. Can you throw any light on the reason why?
  9. Can anybody explain why whole sections of some threads and posts keep vannishing without explanation? Its difficult enough trying to follow some threads in this site, but when what you have been reading vannishes the next day ...it makes the whole thing just pointless.
  10. The periodicals will always sensationalise any story because it sells news papers. Thats their business, selling papers. However, I agree with what Piers said in his media statement today: "These extreme events are entirely driven by solar activity and lunar factors and nothing to do with changes in CO2 which have no effect whatsoever on weather or climate"
  11. Nevertheless, I think there is an issue with official CET stats regarding the set of comparisson data used and how this changes perceptions . Why is it that the rolling averages used keeps altering? Its almost as if a decission is made to cherry pick so that a particular outcome can be demonstrated, why else make the change. Sometimes they use 1960/.90 rolling, others its the 1970/2000, but there is a case for using 1980/2010 last thirty year rolling average now! Clearly, if one uses a different temperature set as a comparission then this will change the outcome. This has been demonstrated with global temperatures where using a different set of thirty year rolling either shows a .5C rise in global temps, a much reduced .25C rise which is negligable or a zero degree change demonstrating no global warming whatsoever. So we need clarity on this issue.
  12. Yeah, it does clearly show now that 2012 was another year showing cooler than average temperatures.
  13. Firstly the last decade and a half has not shown that warming has continued. The Meto has stated that there has been no significant warming over recent years globally, its at a standstill. http://www.publicser...still-continues Further, any warming that has been noted at urban sites has been adjusted and dont forget that downwind of a large urban area will also demonstrate warming as the enhanced temperatures from the upwind urban area will have a signal, just as a large area of water does have an effect. The gratest warming UHI signal has been nocturnally. This shows up clearly in the official statistics over the last thirty years. Check it out, its there in the official data. If the adjustment was correct then it wouldnt be noticable, but it is. Harve, on 04 January 2013 - 00:01 , said: "- I like to compare the CET with a consistent average rather than a rolling average, but I admit that using 1960-1990 is quite arbitrary. Note that that period isn't the coldest set of data, however. Almost the entirety of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were colder in the UK, as well as the first thirty years of the 20th century (the Little Ice Age formed only a small part of these centuries). Furthermore, comparison with an average does not change how much we are warming or cooling by over X years, it just emphasises a certain timeframe. And yes, instrumentation has changed over the years but there's nothing to suggest this would make the temperature record any less accurate. I think you're clutching at straws here to suit your agenda." I dont know what agenda you think I have, I dont have an agenda, I am not paid by the UK government who is the major beneficiary of the new climate taxes. However, anyone who benefits from the government payroll cannot claim the same. What do you think? I am glad you agree with me that using differing sets of rolling averages is not an ideal way to compare data. Its not an ideal situation is it? So who decides which data sets to commpare to? Further, does this not change the trend signal?
  14. IMO Its actually been worse than the official temps would indicate. All the figures that are given out have been adjusted. Basically you are not seeing the real data. The CET figures are adjusted to take into account the effects of the Urban Heat Island (UHI effect). The rate of adjustment is contentious because a body or someone must make a decission about how much to change the data. I personally think that the adjustment is not enough to allow for an accurate comparison of the data. Another point to make is that instrumentation has changed over the years. Further, what data are we comparing today's CET's with? Is it the rolling thirty year average? If so then why are we comparing the data with the coldest set of data from the 1960's? All this effects the rate of cooling which we are officially fed by the Government....or the Met Office...its the same thing.
  15. Didnt you know Rio doesnt have winters, its in the tropics.....so whats wrong with the Daily Mail statement