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

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.

My sentiments entirely. It's all very well for so called deniers to be slated but when it's the other way round,oh no. Not only is it going off wholesale on here but in the scientific community itself,where it is very well known that those who do not toe the line have received all manner of threats to 'keep quiet' from the establishment for fear of upsetting the apple cart.

Well I've had enough.Doneski,finished. I'll let all you believers with all your answers to a non-existant problem just get on with it. I wish you well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree with Jethro and laserguy.

BTW, Stratos and Magpie.......would you both care to post your observations regarding what Dr Pachauri said? I have courteously asked each of you but neither of you can be bothered, it seems. So much for discussion........... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wholeheartedly agree with Jethro and laserguy.

BTW, Stratos and Magpie.......would you both care to post your observations regarding what Dr Pachauri said? I have courteously asked each of you but neither of you can be bothered, it seems. So much for discussion........... :clap:

Noggin, the article you cite appears to infer that somehow he is saying that temperatures have plateaued. Fair play to them, they stop short of putting words in his mouth. All he has said is exactly what several of us on here have said, proof of a plateau would require further analysis and at present natural cooling may be compensating for background warming.

I would be quite happy to accept that temperatures had plateaued if there was actually any robust evidence that they had. So far as CET is concerned the analysis is there for all to see in the analysis partition. In our small corner of the planet there is currently no case to answer. I am not aware of any compelling evidence from anywhere else either.

I assume you're reading something else into this, but then haven't we been down this road previously in the not too distant past, seeing things in an article that really weren't there at all. I must admit I'm slightly suspicious at your source's truncating of sone of the direct quotes, one wonders at the context either side in the original quote and whether, perhaps, this context has been changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I 'threw the towel in' since it had become impossible to say anything on here without being branded as some type of heretic,just for seeing through the nonsense of AGW. The following link has arrived in a timely manner as it pretty much sums up what I've been saying since I arrived on n-w. I urge you all to read. Look at all those billions spent on trying (and failing dismally ) to blame CO2. And AGWer's go on about 'fiddling while Rome burns'.

http://www.aim.org/special-report/will-med...arming-con-job/

I can understand how difficult it is after all these years to admit to being a victim of the greatest hoax ever perpetrated,but better give it up now before getting caught in the avalanche. You know it makes sense. Catch y'all on the otherside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noggin, the article you cite appears to infer that somehow he is saying that temperatures have plateaued. Fair play to them, they stop short of putting words in his mouth. All he has said is exactly what several of us on here have said, proof of a plateau would require further analysis and at present natural cooling may be compensating for background warming.

I would be quite happy to accept that temperatures had plateaued if there was actually any robust evidence that they had. So far as CET is concerned the analysis is there for all to see in the analysis partition. In our small corner of the planet there is currently no case to answer. I am not aware of any compelling evidence from anywhere else either.

I assume you're reading something else into this, but then haven't we been down this road previously in the not too distant past, seeing things in an article that really weren't there at all. I must admit I'm slightly suspicious at your source's truncating of sone of the direct quotes, one wonders at the context either side in the original quote and whether, perhaps, this context has been changed.

Thanks for taking the time to read and reply, Stratos.

The measuredness of your reply makes a change from the usual hoots of derision and insults that usually get flung around when anyone dares to even hint at any possibility of anything other than a relentless rise in the global warming process.

With regard to the CET.....well, we differ on our reading of that. We wear differently tinted spectacles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I 'threw the towel in' since it had become impossible to say anything on here without being branded as some type of heretic,just for seeing through the nonsense of AGW. The following link has arrived in a timely manner as it pretty much sums up what I've been saying since I arrived on n-w. I urge you all to read. Look at all those billions spent on trying (and failing dismally ) to blame CO2. And AGWer's go on about 'fiddling while Rome burns'.

http://www.aim.org/special-report/will-med...arming-con-job/

I've tried "throwing in the towel", but it doesn't work! The lure of the enviro threads is just too great, resistance is futile!

A very interesting read, laserguy. Says it all really, doesn't it? As concise an argument against AGW as I have ever read. Scrap that......it is THE most concise argument against AGW that I have EVER read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It hardly snows anymore.

Culprit: even larger teapot.

Culprit of even larger teapot? Warmer seas, colder polar stratosphere, stronger ENSO, northern jetstream migration, etc.

Global warming. Is it man made? Well judging by the evidence I'd say a damned significant proportion of it is. Enough to make things more unstable and noticable than they otherwise would be in such short time-scales.

What I do have open-mind about is the scale, rate, and intensity of impacts of AGW....how bad things will get. I do not buy some of the disaster-monging I hear from certain sources about the scale and rate of impact. But I feel its important we act now and mitigate it as much as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to PP.......but there is plenty of snow falling in other places. Places where they don't usually get such vast quantities as they are currently getting. So the snow hasn't gone completely.....it's just moved! I agree with you that something has to be done. However our justifications for doing "something" may differ, we would end up with the same thing....a much cleaner planet and, hopefully, a more sustainable lifestyle for us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yesterday I 'threw the towel in' since it had become impossible to say anything on here without being branded as some type of heretic,just for seeing through the nonsense of AGW. The following link has arrived in a timely manner as it pretty much sums up what I've been saying since I arrived on n-w. I urge you all to read. Look at all those billions spent on trying (and failing dismally ) to blame CO2. And AGWer's go on about 'fiddling while Rome burns'.

http://www.aim.org/special-report/will-med...arming-con-job/

I can understand how difficult it is after all these years to admit to being a victim of the greatest hoax ever perpetrated,but better give it up now before getting caught in the avalanche. You know it makes sense. Catch y'all on the otherside.

I don't consider myself a victim of any hoax LG. I am watching you sat out on a high limb on a tree, sawing through it gleefully, with a slightly smug grin on your face, but little realising that you're actually sat on the 'wrong' side of the cyut your making. I rather think that it isn't the likes of me heading for a fall, but the likes of you.

There is NOTHING new in that paper. It is a smorgasbord of much that has previously been discussed on here, and yet again the thread that runs through it is the standard US ultra right-wing agenda of 'there really isn't enough proof yet to make it worth our while taxing people to slow consumption - and by the way a warmer world helps crops grow'. ONE DAY someone will write an article that focusses purely on the fact, without so much as a drop of a leak to suggest that they are actually hiding behind "faux science" to peddle a rather more sinister political agenda, or a self-interested one. IF we are warming, self interest is NOT going to solve the problem.

I agree with the journalists who complain that some excessive claims are made for GW, but that's not to say that GW isn't ongoing. The shame for all of us is that, if we are warming, it is progressing too slowly for people to notice. In my work I often use the parable of the boiling of the frog; thus it seems does GW creep insidiously. Sone arguments, however, are silly. The current froth around the models' inability to pick the current suggested levelling depends on a, frankly, rather stupid, naive and ignorant reading of climate models. A few on here I think fall into the trap of assuming that because the IPCC plots show a straight rising line across the page, so must our climate progressively warm, month after month after month. This is like insisting that for the tide to be coming in each wave on the beach must arrive further up than the previous one. Anyone who holds this view go hop in your car this afternoon and find a beach with an incoming tide and see just how often the waves of the incoming tide set a new high mark on the beach. And it's more sophisticated than that even. Sometimes a wave will make a new mark here on the beach, but looking down the line, not there. And nor are increments equal; sometimes a wave will come in so far beyond previous ones that twenty or thirty more might be required before this line is breached. Climate warms, but short term variations in weather, whether in time or space, have a greater inter-annual amplitude than the rate of background change, as much as 50x in fact; thus, warming can be masked. If I was writing a horror story, and wanted to make possibel the work of the devil such that it was unnoticed, this is precisely the sort of ruse I would use. Like the Pied Piper of Hamlyn, playing a tune that those who are more suited by denial want to hear, leading them on, all the while sitting on the wrong side of the cut I'm making in that high, and seemingly sturdy, bough.

Go read the essay I pionned yesterday, because this article, and your responce, is yet another example of the point I rail against.

It's good that you join the ranks of the not inconsiderable ranks on here who at some time apparently throw down the towel, say they are off for good, then come back.

Reply to PP.......but there is plenty of snow falling in other places. Places where they don't usually get such vast quantities as they are currently getting. So the snow hasn't gone completely.....it's just moved! I agree with you that something has to be done. However our justifications for doing "something" may differ, we would end up with the same thing....a much cleaner planet and, hopefully, a more sustainable lifestyle for us all.

Noggin, China has suffered a 1:50 event. 1:50 events happen, just like last summer's floods, or the record warmth we've been having in thsi country in recent years. What is more interesting is the pattern. If China has equally intense snowfall next year, or any time soon, then this will be of interest. If all the world was having record snowfall then it would be of interest.

Here in the UK snowfall has been in decline for most of my adult life. Yes, some years fare better than others, but snowfall, and in fact all indications of winter weather, are in decline. Not just this year, but across a long period, and the same is true across much of Europe.

In a warming world climate systems change, and it is not the case that everywhere must become warmer and wetter. This is another mistaken belief on the part of some who read the IPCC's reports (or the reporting of them) too literally. Step back from the detail, in both time and space, and see the big picture.

...A very interesting read, laserguy. Says it all really, doesn't it? As concise an argument against AGW as I have ever read. Scrap that......it is THE most concise argument against AGW that I have EVER read.

Noggin, it isn't concise, nor does it refute the argument. You're praising it because the argument aligns with your own preferred view. Any argument that both tries to sugest we aren't warming, and at the same time says "actually, warming would be good", is nothing if not contrary. All it does is point to the fact that the author is wanting to avoid the consequences of the outcome as he sees them i.e. higher tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reply to PP.......but there is plenty of snow falling in other places. Places where they don't usually get such vast quantities as they are currently getting. So the snow hasn't gone completely.....it's just moved! I agree with you that something has to be done. However our justifications for doing "something" may differ, we would end up with the same thing....a much cleaner planet and, hopefully, a more sustainable lifestyle for us all.

My best mate lives in SW Sweden and they have not seen any snow yet this Winter , that is unheard of

Post 154, current model discussion thread.

As ever, cherry picking data doesn't add up to robust analysis. To have a complete picture we must have complete data. I am sure other places are getting unusual snow (e.g. Jerusalem), just as I'm sure some places will be unusually mild.

It was ever thus, the world is very large, and by definition there are always anomalies. What matters is the average anomaly over periods of time and large areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... 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.

Legitimate scepticism is all about the absence of evidence :yahoo: Don't confuse real sceptics with the so-called sceptics :cold:

Real sceptics question whether there is sufficent evidence to draw the conclusions drawn by those who purport that significant climate change is occurring as a result of GHG emissions. They ask whether the conclusions are based on all the evidence, or just part of the evidence. And whether there is still more evidence to be found. Real sceptics also refer to the growing pile of evidence that there's a lot more than just GHG emissions involved.

'So called' sceptics on the other hand just claim whatever is happening isn't due to GHG emissions (and, more generally, isn't due to human activity at all)

There's a difference :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legitimate scepticism is all about the absence of evidence :yahoo: Don't confuse real sceptics with the so-called sceptics :cold:

Real sceptics question whether there is sufficent evidence to draw the conclusions drawn by those who purport that significant climate change is occurring as a result of GHG emissions. They ask whether the conclusions are based on all the evidence, or just part of the evidence. And whether there is still more evidence to be found. Real sceptics also refer to the growing pile of evidence that there's a lot more than just GHG emissions involved.

'So called' sceptics on the other hand just claim whatever is happening isn't due to GHG emissions (and, more generally, isn't due to human activity at all)

There's a difference :lol:

Good clarification, and I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noggin, China has suffered a 1:50 event. 1:50 events happen, just like last summer's floods, or the record warmth we've been having in thsi country in recent years. What is more interesting is the pattern. If China has equally intense snowfall next year, or any time soon, then this will be of interest. If all the world was having record snowfall then it would be of interest.

Of course more snow does not mean more cold. Cold areas of the world, like many parts of China already are, are cold enough that even large amounts of warming won't be enough to turn the precip into rain. Instead the increased warming leads to more evaporation and thus more and heavier snow. It always grates me when deniers go on about a small vilage in Siberia has above average snowfall one day and thus global warming is a scam.

Legitimate scepticism is all about the absence of evidence wink.gif Don't confuse real sceptics with the so-called sceptics wink.gif

True, I am one of the biggest AGW sceptics there is. Many AGW accepters seem to be generally sceptical people. Science is all about scepticism.

Was going to read that until I read "con-job". I frankly have better things to do than to indulge in others emotional, political and often abusive rants. Con-job? Will ANY denier piece ever just stick to the science?!?

BTW, Stratos and Magpie.......would you both care to post your observations regarding what Dr Pachauri said?

Stratos already said it... I don't see anything about what he said has to do with there not being warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yesterday I 'threw the towel in' since it had become impossible to say anything on here without being branded as some type of heretic,just for seeing through the nonsense of AGW. The following link has arrived in a timely manner as it pretty much sums up what I've been saying since I arrived on n-w. I urge you all to read. Look at all those billions spent on trying (and failing dismally ) to blame CO2. And AGWer's go on about 'fiddling while Rome burns'.

http://www.aim.org/special-report/will-med...arming-con-job/

I can understand how difficult it is after all these years to admit to being a victim of the greatest hoax ever perpetrated,but better give it up now before getting caught in the avalanche. You know it makes sense. Catch y'all on the otherside.

You complain about how you are being treated, depart and then return, and now go on to allege people like me find it 'difficult to admit to being a victim of the greatest hoax ever perpetrated'. I think you're showing both double standards wrt mutual respect and, erm, not exactly an open mind wrt AGW :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the economic costs of taking action, other than the argument "there's more to life than economics", what about the economic cost of just letting things continue the way they are?

There was a report recently by Stalin which suggested that the economic costs of continuing "as is" may be highly extortionate in themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the economic costs of taking action, other than the argument "there's more to life than economics", what about the economic cost of just letting things continue the way they are?

There was a report recently by Stalin which suggested that the economic costs of continuing "as is" may be highly extortionate in themselves.

Aye...didn't he find the murdering of all those Ukranians costly in the end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a report recently by Stalin which suggested that the economic costs of continuing "as is" may be highly extortionate in themselves.

Oops, one of the worst Freudian slips ever! :D

I meant to refer to the Stern Report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good clarification, and I agree.

So I spend goodness knows how many months saying this only to be slated at every opportunity and yet Essan says it once and you agree. As I said a few days ago, more to do with personality than content of posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I spend goodness knows how many months saying this only to be slated at every opportunity and yet Essan says it once and you agree. As I said a few days ago, more to do with personality than content of posts.

Jethro, you patently have not said that at all, though feel free to point me to the post where you believe you have done so. There are plenty on here who may fancy they belong in group one by Essan's definition, but whose behaviour is consistently that of group two.

Believe me, whatever your over sensitivities, I treat each and every post I happen to read on N-W on its merits, and whilst it might grate with a few, I hope I'm reasonably up front at explaining what I dislike or like or something. That doesn't make me right on the matter; all I'm doing is giving my opinion.

As I've written elsewhere tonight, and previously, I would have more time for many of the sceptics on here if they would come out and declare the point at which they might be willing to accept that there might be something in AGW after all. A refusual to do that suggests to me that an individual is simply a bigot so far as the matter is concerned, that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. An inability to do so suggests a level of ignorance; if you can't say what it would take to convinve you on a subject then you really haven't thought hard enough about it.

To be fair to you I think you have reluctantly conceded that there might be warming going on, but that little of any of it is natural and, in any case, we're still in natural bounds. As I said on Friday, at which point you threw the toys out, I don't think you've ever given an indication of how much warmer things would have to get to convince you.

With some people no amount of convincing will ever do, and it was ever thus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jethro, you patently have not said that at all, though feel free to point me to the post where you believe you have done so. There are plenty on here who may fancy they belong in group one by Essan's definition, but whose behaviour is consistently that of group two.

Believe me, whatever your over sensitivities, I treat each and every post I happen to read on N-W on its merits, and whilst it might grate with a few, I hope I'm reasonably up front at explaining what I dislike or like or something. That doesn't make me right on the matter; all I'm doing is giving my opinion.

As I've written elsewhere tonight, and previously, I would have more time for many of the sceptics on here if they would come out and declare the point at which they might be willing to accept that there might be something in AGW after all. A refusual to do that suggests to me that an individual is simply a bigot so far as the matter is concerned, that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. An inability to do so suggests a level of ignorance; if you can't say what it would take to convinve you on a subject then you really haven't thought hard enough about it.

To be fair to you I think you have reluctantly conceded that there might be warming going on, but that little of any of it is natural and, in any case, we're still in natural bounds. As I said on Friday, at which point you threw the toys out, I don't think you've ever given an indication of how much warmer things would have to get to convince you.

With some people no amount of convincing will ever do, and it was ever thus.

First up, let's deal with the "reluctantly conceded that there may be warming going on" - wrong again Stratos, there has never been any reluctance, nor has there ever been any dismissal. My stance is and has always been, we have warmed - but how much of it is down to us? Has ALWAYS been my question.

Secondly, over sensitivity - nice try, first line of defence in most people is to attempt to displace a problem over onto the other party; doesn't work, won't work. Pointing out your differing ways in which you respond to various members is not over sensitivity, it is observation, based upon experience.

Patently not said the same as Essan - without spending too long going back through every single post to find more examples, here are a few which spring to mind.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...44748&st=34 post 49

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...1545&st=255 conversation with Oon

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...42868&st=51 conversation with you, you requested I clarify my position, Potty also requested the same and so I did, there it is in black and white, addressed to you.

Toys out of pram? Er when? How? About what? If you mean when I objected about your "Jethro wishes" comment then it wasn't a tantrum, merely pointing out how you clearly respond to different posters based upon their personality, not the content of their posts. I've said the same as Essan time and again, you agree with him, you disagree with me. Perhaps you could explain the reasons why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do members think........ that if we suffer a heatwave or the last of the polar ice looks destined to ablate this summer the same folk will pop up claimimg an increase in agw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jethro, you patently have not said that at all, though feel free to point me to the post where you believe you have done so. There are plenty on here who may fancy they belong in group one by Essan's definition, but whose behaviour is consistently that of group two.

Believe me, whatever your over sensitivities, I treat each and every post I happen to read on N-W on its merits, and whilst it might grate with a few, I hope I'm reasonably up front at explaining what I dislike or like or something. That doesn't make me right on the matter; all I'm doing is giving my opinion.

As I've written elsewhere tonight, and previously, I would have more time for many of the sceptics on here if they would come out and declare the point at which they might be willing to accept that there might be something in AGW after all. A refusual to do that suggests to me that an individual is simply a bigot so far as the matter is concerned, that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. An inability to do so suggests a level of ignorance; if you can't say what it would take to convinve you on a subject then you really haven't thought hard enough about it.

To be fair to you I think you have reluctantly conceded that there might be warming going on, but that little of any of it is natural and, in any case, we're still in natural bounds. As I said on Friday, at which point you threw the toys out, I don't think you've ever given an indication of how much warmer things would have to get to convince you.

With some people no amount of convincing will ever do, and it was ever thus.

I shan't ramble on in Jethro's defence but she's right - she has made her position quite clear on numerous occasions. Whether or not that position has been appreciated by other members seems to have more to do with their own presuppositions than anything else. Perhaps it is because I am a skeptic too that I have always appreciated her stance...?

What would it take to convince me though...? There's a question that's difficult to answer definitively. A degree of warming that is obviously outside of natural variation would be a start, but then where is the line drawn? The scientific proof, if you like, is for the theory to predict something the result of which is scientifically tenable. By "scientifically tenable" I mean something which is predictive by virtue of the theory itself rather than based upon extrapolating trends. It has been pointed out that Hansen predicted future temperature rises many years ago, but it was possible to predict future trends by merely extrapolating from current trends (or at least it could be argued thus), and so the prediction was not necessarily something which could only have happened due to man's influence. Similarly, predictions of Arctic melt can be made on the basis that "if it gets warmer then ice will melt", which again doesn't necessarily prove anything with regards to man's influence. (I have not yet read a prediction of anomolously high ice extent in polar regions, despite the fact that it has occurred.)

If you would point me to a prediction that is, as I say, scientifically tenable then perhaps I will have a rethink.

:lol:

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diessoli
What would it take to convince me though...? There's a question that's difficult to answer definitively. A degree of warming that is obviously outside of natural variation would be a start, but then where is the line drawn? The scientific proof, if you like, is for the theory to predict something the result of which is scientifically tenable. By "scientifically tenable" I mean something which is predictive by virtue of the theory itself rather than based upon extrapolating trends. It has been pointed out that Hansen predicted future temperature rises many years ago, but it was possible to predict future trends by merely extrapolating from current trends (or at least it could be argued thus), and so the prediction was not necessarily something which could only have happened due to man's influence. Similarly, predictions of Arctic melt can be made on the basis that "if it gets warmer then ice will melt", which again doesn't necessarily prove anything with regards to man's influence. (I have not yet read a prediction of anomolously high ice extent in polar regions, despite the fact that it has occurred.)

If you would point me to a prediction that is, as I say, scientifically tenable then perhaps I will have a rethink.

:lol:

CB

I am not sure if I understand your point about extrapolating trends. But I make a guess and comment anyway.

In the 80's Hansen made projections of future temperatures using different emission scenarios. Those where done by the virtue of climate models, which are one way to represent the current state of knowledge about the climate system.

The fact that you might at the time have gotten the same predictions using extrapolation has no bearing on the results of Hansen's work.

The thing is that if you remove the additional CO2 forcing as caused by humans from the climate models, you do not get the observed temperature trend. This has been show in various studies (not just by Hansen).

A second class of techniques to determine if the warming is caused by human emissions is of statistical nature.

Chapter 9 of the latest IPCC report reviews about 500 papers covering both approaches and comes to the conclusion that it is "very likely" that we are responsible for most of the observed trend.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First up, let's deal with the "reluctantly conceded that there may be warming going on" - wrong again Stratos, there has never been any reluctance, nor has there ever been any dismissal. My stance is and has always been, we have warmed - but how much of it is down to us? Has ALWAYS been my question.

Secondly, over sensitivity - nice try, first line of defence in most people is to attempt to displace a problem over onto the other party; doesn't work, won't work. Pointing out your differing ways in which you respond to various members is not over sensitivity, it is observation, based upon experience.

Patently not said the same as Essan - without spending too long going back through every single post to find more examples, here are a few which spring to mind.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...44748&st=34 post 49

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...1545&st=255 conversation with Oon

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...42868&st=51 conversation with you, you requested I clarify my position, Potty also requested the same and so I did, there it is in black and white, addressed to you.

Toys out of pram? Er when? How? About what? If you mean when I objected about your "Jethro wishes" comment then it wasn't a tantrum, merely pointing out how you clearly respond to different posters based upon their personality, not the content of their posts. I've said the same as Essan time and again, you agree with him, you disagree with me. Perhaps you could explain the reasons why.

Jethro, the point I keep making to you is that you're like the racist who claims NOT to be a racist, but who repeatedly tells racist jokes. I KNOW you claim to accept warming, and that some of it is anthropogenic, but EVERY SINGLE paper you post is pointing to the fact that warming is NOT anthropogenic.

The point in my essay the other morning is that people like you, arguing the toss about whether man is 20% responsible, or 30% responsible, are missing the point. Whilst the boat is sinking you're arguing about who didn't rivet the panel properly. And I KNOW you'll say you agree with good husbandry of the planet, which is fair enough, but so long as C-B and the like ride on your coat tails, and others who perhaps read but don't comment, then I'm sorry, I shall continue to be concerned.

And I don't care what you feel, I do not treat you any differently to anyone else. If I disagree with you it's because I disagree with what you're saying. I accepted Essan's correction the other day because it was in response to something I had written. I have neither the time nor inclination to read every single post posted on N-W, nor do I feel the need to concur or disagree with every post written, so if I haven't replied to a similar point you have made in the past it doesn't mean I didn't agree. Not agreeing is not the same as disagreeing; you're seeing the latter and rather carelessly assuming the former I think.

However, I do concede that you have indeed written several times that you accept that we might be warming and that man might in some measure be responsible. An alien landing on N-W and reading all the posts wherein you do not assert your position might not, I suggest, reach the same conclusion. Or perhaps, like our "bad luck" synoptics, it's just bad luck that whenever I read a paper with a link posted by you, it's debunking AGW. And I'll withdraw that challenge when you point me to a post you've made in which there's a link supporting the part of AGW that you believe in.

...What would it take to convince me though...? There's a question that's difficult to answer definitively. A degree of warming that is obviously outside of natural variation would be a start, but then where is the line drawn? The scientific proof, if you like, is for the theory to predict something the result of which is scientifically tenable. By "scientifically tenable" I mean something which is predictive by virtue of the theory itself rather than based upon extrapolating trends. ...

And there was me thinking that Hadley and co were modelling from first principles. Are you suggesting that all they're doing is taking the trend line from the early 80s to the 90s, and with a 6" rule extending it up the page?

I can't tell you what to consider natural. And therein lies the risk for all of us, like I said on Saturday morning, you can smell the bacon frying and tell yourself that it won't be too crisp for a few minutes yet, but once it's burned it's burned I'm afraid.

What I do know is that Hadley is well above the upper limits of the previously measured record, and that in a cold year globally we're still not getting down anywhere near 10C on the rolling 12. Twenty five years ago 10C seemed like the stuff of another part of the universe, somewhat closer to the sun, or else a latitude a good few degrees equatorwards of where we are now. How much higher Hadley before you'd accept it's unnatural? Go on, commit yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...