Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Do the members think......

Recommended Posts

Thank you to TWS who seems to be the only person who has commented on what Dr. Pachauri had to say. Personally, I felt that the Dr.'s comments were quite pertinent to the original point 7) in my opening post.

So, what he said, regarding the apparent plateauing of global temperature this century, was.....

"One would have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents, are there natural factors compensating?"

There is an implicit acknowledgement there that there has been such a plateau. No-one can doubt that.

I also find it quite amazing that he is raising the subject of natural factors possibly compensating. Did the scientists and other bods who came up with all the stuff for the IPCC report not even bother to consider that nature might have some effect on the climate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what he said, regarding the apparent plateauing of global temperature this century, was.....

"One would have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents, are there natural factors compensating?"

There is an implicit acknowledgement there that there has been such a plateau. No-one can doubt that.

I also find it quite amazing that he is raising the subject of natural factors possibly compensating.

Natural factors don't compensate,they govern. Our CO2's effects,if any,are nothing more than the finest of fine tunings. This ground has been trodden many,many times. These natural rhythms of climate find themselves in the presence of 'us',some of whom just can't accept it and simply have to look for something to blame. I can never find the superlatives to describe the ridiculousness of it all. Like you say Noggin,cycles within cycles within cycles.

Dr.Pachauri is not the only one,there are many 'dissenters' who refuse to toe the line but they are invariably dismissed as not knowing what they are on about,not qualified,having vested interests etc etc. Sooner or later they will be listened to when the credibility of AGW reaches breaking point. Even the most ignorant of the mainstream masses have a gullibility threshold,though most of them are only aware of the High Priest of nonsense himself Al.Gore wrt to 'climate change'. I'm fed up of being an 'outsider' too,having to put up with frequent insulting questions along the lines of 'do you really know the difference between weather and climate,do you have the faintest idea how climate works,do you realise CO2's forcing works in a logarithmic manner and not linear'?,etc. Yes,yes,yes,ad infinitum,why shouln't I,and what is it that gives the 'believers' the totally misguided and erronous notion that they are the only ones who know with any authority what they are talking about,and the 'deniers' are the ones who need educating? I'm trying so hard not to come across as insulting in any way (I never intend that,despite having to put up with lot's of it myself from those who consider themselves intellectually superior presumably and solely because they entertain the CO2 theory),but boy it's hard work. Millions of people,hundreds of thousands of whom are paid handsomely,squibbling around trying to explain this sub 1C rise in temps over 30ish years and then feverishly putting 100% effort into making the CO2 argument stand up. Still. It wont,it can't,and while the argument rages on the climate will most probably have 'turned' again.

The CO2 'movement' is about everything except climate change in reality.Many folk,bless 'em,are still blissfully unaware of why governments(their employers)want them to vilify the production of CO2 and so they are still employed in this ultimately futile quest to nail CO2 as the great monster of our times. Good luck.

Going back briefly to the unusual (and yes they are unusual in many cases) and extreme cold events which have adorned the start of 2008. Again,some are asking the question whenever a 'denier' mentions these events if they comprehend the difference between weather and climate. Sigh. I'm obviously not making myself clear on this,so I'll try again. Whilst I obviously appreciate that these events signify not a great deal in themselves,they are hardly testimony to this alleged warming which has been going on for X many years now and by certain accounts is not showing any signs of reversing. Notice how the squeals of the globowarmers get ever more shrill as global weather events (which,like it or not are associated with climate!) refuse to conform to the masterplan? Climate,and it's offspring the weather,for want of a better way of putting it,will do what the hell it wants and there isn't a damn thing that anyone,individually or collectively can do a thing about,except cope with it. All this snow and ice to extremes may well be a one off this year,maybe not. What I do know is that some people (and I'm not tarring all with same brush) would say we're still warming and it's all down to CO2 blah blah even if the entire globe was ice locked! The same people who would argue to the death that black was in fact white,and I must be looking at it from the wrong angle somehow. In a world of global cooling,would a whole catalogue of extreme and unusual heat events constitute a 'problem' with the trajectory we thought we were on,or would it not?

Ah,cooling,now that'd be a beauty to grapple with! What's the problem with a little warming anyway? Old ground that's been covered before,I know,but all the people who haven't much interest in this sorta thing have probably never stopped for one moment to actually ponder what it implies apart from the exclusively doom dominated angle they are being sold.Imagine all the land that would become arable and inhabitable as the cold recedes,providing much needed space for the exploding poulation we have right now! Cooling of course would mean cramming all those extra millions into an ever shrinking area. Ok so I've a preference for cold rather than heat(in the context of the UK climate) but don't let anyone think for one moment that I don't buy AGW for the reason that I might not see snow again.Get real. It wouldn't be the end of my world where I'd be reduced to a sobbing wreck. A little extra warmth would benefit many,many times more than it would trouble. A world of easy agriculture and hey,an attendant and inevitable decline in the need and use for...fossil fuels! And that's from the viewpoint of where we're at now,not looking from a colder perspective. Imagine the horrors and abject human misery and suffering which a cooling world will bring (as more and more are now starting to envisage). The myriad benefits of a warmer world compared to the zero benefits and a whole host of catastrophes of a cooler one don't bear much thinking about. So why oh why the (futile anyway) fervent need to stop warming in a world which will soon be 'struggling' to maintain it's current CO2 output? Answer:there's no need to stop beneficial warming,because that's not what it's actually about!! So,as a denier and one who can't confront the awful gravity of the situation,what is it that I'm actually 'denying'?

Have I gone on for too long and wandered a little OT? Sorry,back to bed now while I let the remnants of 'flu work me over. Catch y'all later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually its quite interesting that GW probably helps save lives in the UK and we are campaigning to negatively effect ourselves? Perverse I know but a lot more people used to die from the cold in the winters of old then they don't now, the more Mediterranean our climate becomes the more beneficial its overal effects on the UK??

I guess there will be many areas of the world benefiting in the same way, so the question does have to be asked!

Well, see my previous post- I'm not at all convinced about that. Perversely enough, while individual mild winters might have lower mortality than individual colder winters in the same period, a long-term shift to milder winters may not actually help to save lives, as one knock-on effect of that is that people become less prepared for degrees of cold that they used to consider normal. This factor rarely seems to be taken into account, but it's well demonstrated by the fact that London's cold-related mortality rate is at least as high as in many cities that are prone to much colder, snowier winters.

Then you have the risk of increasing mortality due to increased extreme heat in summer, though again, it may be that we become more prepared for it, offsetting the increased mortality.

There are also other factors to consider like more spread of pests etc.

I will concede there's a strong case for a modest amount of global warming being good from an economic perspective, for it would be likely to reduce the frequency of weather types that cause disruption to businesses, thus potentially providing economic benefits, plus warmer summers might lead to increased tourism. Although, there's much uncertainty over how the prevailing synoptics will respond to further warming- it might be that we get more severe flood events for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff bed,I'm restless! Agree with much of what you just said TWS,interesting though that you didn't mention 'our' CO2! You're mainly coming from a UK perspective with not being able to cope with increased summer heat,and again you're right,mortality rates amongst the elderly,those with respiratory conditions,very young etc do increase. Just like a few centimetres of snow brings chaos to our roads,our European neighbours just seem to carry on pretty much as normal with feet of the stuff. Instead of the notion of trying to 'tackle' climate change,it's more a matter of acclimatising (see what I did there!) to it. No doubt a warmer world would indeed bring some problems but I can't see them outweighing the positives. Maintaining the status quo is out of our hands,and cooling (from the approximate point we're at now) as far as I can see has no plus-points whatsoever,unless you're an Eskimo! As far as summer floods go,well that's too bad for houses etc already in known flood plains,but our government despite it's calamitous warning that we are to expect a repeat of summer 2007 sometime down the line due to 'climate change',has in it's wisdom decided to go ahead and commission the building of thousands more homes in...known flood plains. It was certainly on the agenda late last year anyway. Is it just me,or do they 'know' something we don't!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, see my previous post- I'm not at all convinced about that. Perversely enough, while individual mild winters might have lower mortality than individual colder winters in the same period, a long-term shift to milder winters may not actually help to save lives, as one knock-on effect of that is that people become less prepared for degrees of cold that they used to consider normal. This factor rarely seems to be taken into account, but it's well demonstrated by the fact that London's cold-related mortality rate is at least as high as in many cities that are prone to much colder, snowier winters.

Then you have the risk of increasing mortality due to increased extreme heat in summer, though again, it may be that we become more prepared for it, offsetting the increased mortality.

There are also other factors to consider like more spread of pests etc.

I will concede there's a strong case for a modest amount of global warming being good from an economic perspective, for it would be likely to reduce the frequency of weather types that cause disruption to businesses, thus potentially providing economic benefits, plus warmer summers might lead to increased tourism. Although, there's much uncertainty over how the prevailing synoptics will respond to further warming- it might be that we get more severe flood events for example.

Don't get me wrong I am not suggesting that too much warming is a good thing, but there must be a balance somewhere. What I touched on in an earlier post was if cutting emission proves to have the desired effects on AGW where do we go from there? Your last paragraph is interesting as it mentions economic benefits due to a particular climate, will we end up trying to achieve a certain optimum global temp and who's optimum will that be? I would argue that man's attempt to curb climate change is not to protect the environment but to protect himself, and as climate does not control itself for the sole benefit of human's what do we do when natural cooling or warming occurs?

So I would now like to add ethical factors to social and economic ones to be included in the AGW debate, because if human's find a way to influence climate then that is here to stay you cannot de-invent something??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The day when a AGW sceptic can make a post without going on a personal insulting rant and instead sticking strickly to the science, which it is after all all about, will be a special day indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The day when a AGW sceptic can make a post without going on a personal insulting rant and instead sticking strickly to the science, which it is after all all about, will be a special day indeed.

Have I missed something, who is doing that??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The day when a AGW sceptic can make a post without going on a personal insulting rant and instead sticking strickly to the science, which it is after all all about, will be a special day indeed.

With respect Magpie,my observation is that it's the AGW fraternity who get most upset,hostile,defensive and abusive whenever someone dare challenge their 'authority'. But that's by the by,back on track now,eh? One notable exception is P3 (where is he by the way?),who somehow never gets ruffled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With respect Magpie,my observation is that it's the AGW fraternity who get most upset,hostile,defensive and abusive whenever someone dare challenge their 'authority'. But that's by the by,back on track now,eh? One notable exception is P3 (where is he by the way?),who somehow never gets ruffled!

What challenge? You've said, at length, you don't agree, but a challenge would be to say why you don't agree. That 'why' involves evidence, data and a new theory. Lets see that - then we'll have a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural factors don't compensate,they govern. Our CO2's effects,if any,are nothing more than the finest of fine tunings. This ground has been trodden many,many times. These natural rhythms of climate find themselves in the presence of 'us',some of whom just can't accept it and simply have to look for something to blame. I can never find the superlatives to describe the ridiculousness of it all. Like you say Noggin,cycles within cycles within cycles.

Yes, laserguy. This morning I read an article which explains it much better than I can! An excerpt from said article......

"Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown".

Edit....hope you soon recover from your 'flu, laserguy, it's a real misery isn't it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What challenge? You've said, at length, you don't agree, but a challenge would be to say why you don't agree. That 'why' involves evidence, data and a new theory. Lets see that - then we'll have a challenge.

I got one for you Dev:

Yes temps are warming every chart shows that but how far off of the natural temp are we? If you subscribe to human's significant effect on GW then you have to accept that man can and has enhanced G Cooling particularly in the first 2 thirds of the 20th century through its Sulphur emissions. If that is true then showing trends of warming in the past 10 years of so is not really right due to the amount of catch up that has to be factored in with falling sulphur emissions. I would put the argument that you have to back at least to 1900 then load the global temps to out the effect of SO2 emissions, which will have the effect of warming the first 2 thirds or the century thus reducing the overall impact of CO2??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The day when a AGW sceptic can make a post without going on a personal insulting rant and instead sticking strickly to the science, which it is after all all about, will be a special day indeed.

A strange post, Magpie. :mellow: I have recently had the words "naive", "stupid" and "idiot" flung my way by people who disagree with my point of view. I wouldn't sink to that level myself.

Anyway, shall we stick with the matter in hand?

Would you care to make any comment regarding Dr Pachauri's comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, if AGW gave Britain economic benefits, that doesn't mean it would necessarily be a good thing, for two reasons (there are probably more),

1. It might have much greater negative economic repercussions elsewhere in the world,

2. There's more to life than economics. For example, while snowy weather may cause inconvenience and disruption, and thus offset economic growth, it can also bring large social benefits, with people laughing and joking, throwing snowballs, taking photos etc. It's also vital to some tourist industries like the Scottish ski resorts.

I personally believe that our country is too focused on economics at the expense of social factors, and that some movement away from the political right and towards more central positions may be useful, not just to help get a good socio-economic balance, but also to make it easier to bypass some of the inertia associated with laissez-faire free market policies. At the moment, there's so much inertia about, that it's difficult to achieve anything other than through highly unpopular, draconian restrictions and taxes which may force a lot of big sacrifices to be made. I think we have strong grounds for looking for ways out of the status quo here.

Plus, it may be that if we reduce negative human impacts on the environment, pollution etc, we may see only a modest further temperature rise, whereas if we do nothing and just let the status quo reign, we may face a very large, potentially dangerous temperature rise. Even if we can't ultimately stop all the fossil fuels being burned, if we can slow the rate at which it happens, it would be less likely to trigger dangerous climate change. This is, indeed, the very scenario presented by the IPCC reports, and while they aren't infallible, the consistency of their findings at least suggests it's one of the more likely scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got one for you Dev:

Yes temps are warming every chart shows that but how far off of the natural temp are we? If you subscribe to human's significant effect on GW then you have to accept that man can and has enhanced G Cooling particularly in the first 2 thirds of the 20th century through its Sulphur emissions. If that is true then showing trends of warming in the past 10 years of so is not really right due to the amount of catch up that has to be factored in with falling sulphur emissions. I would put the argument that you have to back at least to 1900 then load the global temps to out the effect of SO2 emissions, which will have the effect of warming the first 2 thirds or the century thus reducing the overall impact of CO2??

I'll surprise you! Anthro warming is, as yet, not of great magnitude. What we see atm is close, maybe still within, what natural climate variability might provide. But, no one worth listening to has ever said AGW is a just a now effect, it's a effect that will increase as both warming in the pipeline and emission (most likely) increase and that needs to be addressed now, or asap, if it's to be reduced. Also, while it is possible natural forcing could give a spell like at present I think it's asking for one heck of a coincidence - when both ghg are increasing and temperatures beginning to rise and that's where the science points - that, at that very time, some natural combination of effect occurs that mimics what science predicts. No, we're likely (very likely even) seeing the start of AGW.

As to SO2, not really significant globally back to 1900 and, unlike ghg's, rapidly removed from the atmosphere, so no real cooling 'lag', just a slow decline in it's effect as industry cleans up (but see China India maybe?).

I think the next few years (probably no more than a decade) will decide the AGW question. If AGW is 'right' then once La Nina fizzles I would expect renewed warm - and quite a lot of it. If that doesn't happen I'd begin to look for other answers, perhaps those I hinted at above might be amongst them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diessoli
Dr.Pachauri is not the only one,there are many 'dissenters' who refuse to toe the line but they are invariably dismissed as not knowing what they are on about, ...

From:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environment...lBrandChannel=0

 He added that skeptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash," he said.

"Dissenter"?

I'm fed up of being an 'outsider' too,having to put up with frequent insulting questions along the lines of 'do you really know the difference between weather and climate,do you have the faintest idea how climate works,do you realise CO2's forcing works in a logarithmic manner and not linear'?,etc. Yes,yes,yes,ad infinitum,why shouln't I,and what is it that gives the 'believers' the totally misguided and erronous notion that they are the only ones who know with any authority what they are talking about,and the 'deniers' are the ones who need educating?

Those questions are asked (at least when I ask them) because of comments like:

From:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...t&p=1179707

".. just how much CO2 have we churned out since then,a full 10 years ago? It would appear that given the miniscule and even debatable rise in temps since then, ..."

This triggerd my remark about the logarithmic nature of CO2's forcing. Not to insult you or belittle you, but to make the point that your view might be a bit over-simplified.

You seem to suggest that the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere should have raised the temperatures by more than what we observe. To use this as an argument agsinst a theory or model you have to quantify how much rise this particular model or theory estimats for the given rise in CO2 and show that there is an inconsistency.

Whilst I obviously appreciate that these events signify not a great deal in themselves,they are hardly testimony to this alleged warming which has been going on for X many years now and by certain accounts is not showing any signs of reversing. Notice how the squeals of the globowarmers get ever more shrill as global weather events (which,like it or not are associated with climate!) refuse to conform to the masterplan?

Again you have to quantitavely show that these are inconsistent with the current models of AGW. Where does AGW say we can't have those events any more? If, at some point, we see that the frequency of extreme events (in either direction) is inconsistent with the theory, then we have to conclude that something is wrong. If you want to show that we are already in this situation you have to put forward a bit more than this winter's events, so that you can make statistically significant judments about frequencies.

As for Pachauri's comments:

did somebody manage to find a transcipt of his interview?

I would like to know what exactly he said in what context.

If you look at the reuters article (see above) :

 Rajendra Pachauri,[...], said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.

"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.

The bit with the apparent temperature plateau is not a quote, so I'd like to know what exactly he said.

Funny that the word apparent can either mean that it's clear,obvious or that something is only seemingly real or true (according to my Webster).

Given other things that he said, and what can actually be seen in the data, I'd suspect it's the latter. At least that would fit with my (and his) "masterplan" :cray:

Anyway. I am off.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Weather is short term, climate is long term, we all know this. The arbitrary selection of the past thirty years is non-nonsensical in climatic terms, it's such a small window, it tells us nothing. From 1910-1940's we warmed as much and as quickly as we have in the last thirty years, today therefore is not unprecedented.

Jethro, I'm sorry but that comment again betrays some matematical naivety.

Your statement that the 40s is like the present time might well be true(ish) for rate of warming, but what went before was within previous bounds, What we have now is way beyond them. It would be like finding that a car that previously stopped accelerating at, say, 100mph, suddenly was capable of going not only faster, but of accelerating faster as well even beyond previous limits.

Rate of change is not the issue here, it's the fact that we're continuing to climb even though we're well above the previously measured record.

For one who claims an open mind on AGW I continue to be bemused by the persistent one-sidedness of your arguments. You really are the original unbiased coin that somehow always seems to land "tails".

I'll surprise you! Anthro warming is, as yet, not of great magnitude. What we see atm is close, maybe still within, what natural climate variability might provide. But, no one worth listening to has ever said AGW is a just a now effect, it's a effect that will increase as both warming in the pipeline and emission (most likely) increase and that needs to be addressed now, or asap, if it's to be reduced. Also, while it is possible natural forcing could give a spell like at present I think it's asking for one heck of a coincidence - when both ghg are increasing and temperatures beginning to rise and that's where the science points - that, at that very time, some natural combination of effect occurs that mimics what science predicts. No, we're likely (very likely even) seeing the start of AGW.

As to SO2, not really significant globally back to 1900 and, unlike ghg's, rapidly removed from the atmosphere, so no real cooling 'lag', just a slow decline in it's effect as industry cleans up (but see China India maybe?).

I think the next few years (probably no more than a decade) will decide the AGW question. If AGW is 'right' then once La Nina fizzles I would expect renewed warm - and quite a lot of it. If that doesn't happen I'd begin to look for other answers, perhaps those I hinted at above might be amongst them.

Great post

... Instead of the notion of trying to 'tackle' climate change,it's more a matter of acclimatising (see what I did there!) to it. No doubt a warmer world would indeed bring some problems but I can't see them outweighing the positives. ...

Thank heavens your clinical analysis is not setting the global agenda then.

Move the temperature and rain belts and pretty quickly you have big problems with food supply, at a time when the population of the planet is not exactly shrinking. And that's before pondering what even rise in sea level of 5m would do for many of the world's coastal population centres. Amsterdam, Mumbai, Cairo, London, New York, Hastings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the next few years (probably no more than a decade) will decide the AGW question. If AGW is 'right' then once La Nina fizzles I would expect renewed warm - and quite a lot of it. If that doesn't happen I'd begin to look for other answers, perhaps those I hinted at above might be amongst them.

And that for me is where I'm standing Dev. Great post... I agree with most of it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural factors don't compensate,they govern. Our CO2's effects,if any,are nothing more than the finest of fine tunings. This ground has been trodden many,many times. These natural rhythms of climate find themselves in the presence of 'us',some of whom just can't accept it and simply have to look for something to blame. I can never find the superlatives to describe the ridiculousness of it all. Like you say Noggin,cycles within cycles within cycles.

Dr.Pachauri is not the only one,there are many 'dissenters' who refuse to toe the line but they are invariably dismissed as not knowing what they are on about,not qualified,having vested interests etc etc. Sooner or later they will be listened to when the credibility of AGW reaches breaking point. Even the most ignorant of the mainstream masses have a gullibility threshold,though most of them are only aware of the High Priest of nonsense himself Al.Gore wrt to 'climate change'. I'm fed up of being an 'outsider' too,having to put up with frequent insulting questions along the lines of 'do you really know the difference between weather and climate,do you have the faintest idea how climate works,do you realise CO2's forcing works in a logarithmic manner and not linear'?,etc. Yes,yes,yes,ad infinitum,why shouln't I,and what is it that gives the 'believers' the totally misguided and erronous notion that they are the only ones who know with any authority what they are talking about,and the 'deniers' are the ones who need educating? I'm trying so hard not to come across as insulting in any way (I never intend that,despite having to put up with lot's of it myself from those who consider themselves intellectually superior presumably and solely because they entertain the CO2 theory),but boy it's hard work. Millions of people,hundreds of thousands of whom are paid handsomely,squibbling around trying to explain this sub 1C rise in temps over 30ish years and then feverishly putting 100% effort into making the CO2 argument stand up. Still. It wont,it can't,and while the argument rages on the climate will most probably have 'turned' again.

The CO2 'movement' is about everything except climate change in reality.Many folk,bless 'em,are still blissfully unaware of why governments(their employers)want them to vilify the production of CO2 and so they are still employed in this ultimately futile quest to nail CO2 as the great monster of our times. Good luck.

...

LG, I may be wrong but I suspect that you are allowing politics to cloud your judgment. There are several doubters on here who, it seems to me, argue reductively from an end point they don't like. I.e. I DON'T WANT to pay more for anything, and the only reason I'm having to do so is because people worry about AGW, therefore AGW is bad. I couldn't care a hoot about the what or why, and I do agree that at present we cannot be absolutely certain that what we're seeing is anthropogenic, but I do think we can be pretty damn sure.

I work with a lot of people paid a lot of money to make decisions off the back of which the economy of this country, and all of our wellbeing with it, merrily rides. They do not wait for absolutely certainty, they make pragmatic decisions and then follow them. It is ONE of the traits of a real leader that the rest of us lack. Whilst we're dithering, they're deciding, because action requires decisions.

Time and again the sceptics on here rattle on about "it will turn", or "it'll be cool in the five years". I say it over and over and over. I've been online in these arguments for as long as anyone here, and longer than most, and each year there's a new wave of people saying the same; "it's just bad luck", "there's heavy snow in Israel", "it's warmed this quickly before", "it'll be cold again in a few years".

The only other thing I note with any persistence through this time is the marked absence of any cooling. Never mind, maybe next year we'll get lucky, maybe next year we'll cool. And if not we can stoke the fires once more and wait for the year after that. Maybe, just maybe, if we hope hard enough and wait long enough, just maybe it won't all be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I can't find anything to fault in Dev's latest post- a good summing up of the situation IMO.

Thank heavens your clinical analysis is not setting the global agenda then.

Move the temperature and rain belts and pretty quickly you have big problems with food supply, at a time when the population of the planet is not exactly shrinking. And that's before pondering what even rise in sea level of 5m would do for many of the world's coastal population centres. Amsterdam, Mumbai, Cairo, London, New York, Hastings...

...and that's a pretty succinct summing up of some key flaws in the "AGW would be a good thing" argument, more convincing than the ones I pointed out.

Some serious questions to be answered here before the "wheels are coming off the bandwagon" argument gathers much strength, I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and the latest ongoing analysis, nothing but the facts, is here...

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...40748&st=51

Don't worry though, we'll cool properly soon, and if we don't then doubtless it will all be natural anyway and it'll just be bad luck synoptics, and there'll be bound to be heavy snow falling somewhere in the world. That would never happen if we were warming would it?

Yes, I can't find anything to fault in Dev's latest post- a good summing up of the situation IMO.

...and that's a pretty succinct summing up of some key flaws in the "AGW would be a good thing" argument, more convincing than the ones I pointed out.

Some serious questions to be answered here before the "wheels are coming off the bandwagon" argument gathers much strength, I reckon.

I do understand the frustrations of the sceptics, but honestly, legitimate scepticism is pretty soon going to require some hard evidence after the fact rather than the ever growing mountain of wishful thinking piled on vain hope. Whilst Noggin, Jethro and co wish that things were as they used to be, that reality continues, as I keep saying, to seem ever more distant in our rear view mirror.

Some on this thread are staring out of the back window hankering; some are looking forwards with a more concerned attention, and a frequently disquieted look.

I'd love to be wrong, I really would, but I for one won't stop looking forwards for danger until such time as that temperature trend curve is well and truly pointed downwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give it up eh Stratos. I post less and less on here because of the endless, relentless, superior nonsense such as Jethro wishes comments. Seems to me there is less and less debate about facts and more and more responding to personality or persona. I know exactly who will respond to any post I make and the vein and tone which will be taken and by whom. Tedious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A strange post, Magpie. blink.gif I have recently had the words "naive", "stupid" and "idiot" flung my way by people who disagree with my point of view. I wouldn't sink to that level myself.

My point is that there is so much ad hominem, personal, emotional statements on here that seem to be more like personal rants at people rather than calm, logical debate over science. In topic title, the word "bandwagon" is used. Here are some more select words from some posts from AGW sceptics: "hoohah" "global warming brigade" "High Priest of nonsense" "CO2 movement" "squeals of global warmers get ever more shrill" "being sold" "doom mongering" etc. If we want to debate the science and logic of it all, fair enough, but I have better things to do than to get involved in the personal stuff.

As for AGW being a bad thing - it's not so much that it's getting warmer that will cause problems but the fact it will change the climate so quickly that we will not be able to adapt fast enough. This problem of not being adapt fast enough could post the same threat if what was facing us was say global cooling, or global drying, or global wettening, or other changes in climate patterns. The rate of change in the climate is expected to accelerate exponentially as the warming kicks in so our ability to adapt sufficienctly will diminish by the year. Nobody knows exactly what will happen, to what extent and where of course. Also, we aren't isolated from changes in the rest of the world. Ok, if the temp of the UK alone just increased by say 3c we'd probably do fine. But we aren't isolated from the rest of the world anymore - it's a global world. Droughts and famines in other parts of the world will raise prices here, maybe reduce the amount and variety of food we get for example.

Don't worry though, we'll cool properly soon, and if we don't then doubtless it will all be natural anyway and it'll just be bad luck synoptics, and there'll be bound to be heavy snow falling somewhere in the world. That would never happen if we were warming would it?

As predicted. Did everyone remember what was being said during the 2005-2006 winter here, which was quite cold? We also had about 6 months of blow average CET too. People were saying that winters were now going to start to get better, global warming was over and we were now about to cool. Yet what followed was the most astonishing period of warmth we've ever seen. A scorching summer, exceptionally warm autumn, a shocking winter. Warmest ever 12 month CET ever etc. I lost count of the amount of records being broken. Yet once again after another relatively cool period we are hearing the same things. This month has shown the trend getting comfortably back on track and Feb is looking to start warm too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the "let us have our opinions" idea, but there's a difference between subject matters where there are a number of valid viewpoints, and subjects where it's like people arguing that 2+2=5.

There have been a number of arguments raised in opposition to the idea that AGW is a myth, or the warming has ended, etc. For the idea to have much behind it in my view, we need to see some genuine challenges raised to those arguments, rather than the usual assortment of ad hominem and straw man arguments and "if AGW is real we might have to abandon the status quo and some taxes/restrictions may be necessary, therefore AGW is not real".

Rather like Stratos, I would personally much rather that AGW wasn't a real issue, but the balance of evidence suggests otherwise, and to blind oneself to the reality can be very dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I feel that we have screwed our winter's right up.

Our 'way of life' needs to seriously change, our economics needs to change, our power sources need to change.

I'd start with solar power. I mean think about it; trees are basically full of natural solar panels in the form of leaves. Surely we will evolve to adopt what nature does so brilliantly with photosynthesis?

And then with a more clean power source; we can think about cleaning up our wasteful economies and lives. Sadly; this world is run by crooks and disgusting evil corporations whose only interest is in making money out of money, creating dependencies, holding secret societies where some of the stuff that goes on behind closedoors really is disturbing in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...As predicted. Did everyone remember what was being said during the 2005-2006 winter here, which was quite cold? We also had about 6 months of blow average CET too. People were saying that winters were now going to start to get better, global warming was over and we were now about to cool. Yet what followed was the most astonishing period of warmth we've ever seen. A scorching summer, exceptionally warm autumn, a shocking winter. Warmest ever 12 month CET ever etc. I lost count of the amount of records being broken. Yet once again after another relatively cool period we are hearing the same things. This month has shown the trend getting comfortably back on track and Feb is looking to start warm too.

We need the modern equivalent of the crucifixes on the hill, just as a cautionary reminder to people of what has gone before. Those who post with little more than hope are far too disinclined to look back and remind themselves that they've been posting with hope, and little else of substance, for a few years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...