Jump to content

Archived

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

Ed Stone

General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

Recommended Posts

Here we go, folks. Please behave??? :wub: :lol: :wub: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try,but I'm feeling a little fractious after wading thru' deep,deep snow for miles 'n' miles to get to my nightshift and back. Our council have paid too much heed to the global warming barmpots and have been utterly caught out. Sorry,I'd best go to bed before I regret itlaugh.gif !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try,but I'm feeling a little fractious after wading thru' deep,deep snow for miles 'n' miles to get to my nightshift and back. Our council have paid too much heed to the global warming barmpots and have been utterly caught out. Sorry,I'd best go to bed before I regret itlaugh.gif !

I fear councils are like the Conservatives and don't wish to 'tax and spend' on services like ,for instance, social services,street cleaning and grit/salt. We have very little 'grit' left and the council are only doing essential routes.

Had we not changed the polar climate system (from a tri-lobal to bi-lobal setup) then these rapid plunges of cold air would not occur......IMHOdrinks.gifbiggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear councils are like the Conservatives and don't wish to 'tax and spend' on services like ,for instance, social services,street cleaning and grit/salt. We have very little 'grit' left and the council are only doing essential routes.

Had we not changed the polar climate system (from a tri-lobal to bi-lobal setup) then these rapid plunges of cold air would not occur......IMHOdrinks.gifbiggrin.gif

Well I'm still up,stuff sleep it's for wimpssmile.gif ! I don't know what the deal is with councils but it never used to be like this. Apparently,our one gave practically all it's stocks of grit away last year under the delusion that they wouldn't be needing it due to you-know-what. There's no excuse for it this time and IMO all routes are essential. An out-of-the-way cul-de-sac is (almost) as likely to require the emergency services as a busy street. Besides,what's the point of treating normally built-up areas if folk can't leave their street of residence to get there in the first place?! Our road is very,very steep and it's currently at a standstill. Gawd knows when they'll get round to it,despite much pestering. The missus needs to take herself and her family to a hospital 15 miles away on a daily basis to see her ol' man who has been in intensive care (quit the fags if you can,folks) for six weeks,and whose next breath could be the last. Impossible at the moment. But hey that's just one instance of need out of countless others.

'We' haven't changed the polar,or any other climate. Surely you're not seriously saying that Arctic outbreaks were unheard of before the dawn of the industrial revolution?? Anyway,fancy a larf?

http://www.independe...ast-724017.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm still up,stuff sleep it's for wimpssmile.gif ! I don't know what the deal is with councils but it never used to be like this. Apparently,our one gave practically all it's stocks of grit away last year under the delusion that they wouldn't be needing it due to you-know-what. There's no excuse for it this time and IMO all routes are essential. An out-of-the-way cul-de-sac is (almost) as likely to require the emergency services as a busy street. Besides,what's the point of treating normally built-up areas if folk can't leave their street of residence to get there in the first place?! Our road is very,very steep and it's currently at a standstill. Gawd knows when they'll get round to it,despite much pestering. The missus needs to take herself and her family to a hospital 15 miles away on a daily basis to see her ol' man who has been in intensive care (quit the fags if you can,folks) for six weeks,and whose next breath could be the last. Impossible at the moment. But hey that's just one instance of need out of countless others.

'We' haven't changed the polar,or any other climate. Surely you're not seriously saying that Arctic outbreaks were unheard of before the dawn of the industrial revolution?? Anyway,fancy a larf?

http://www.independe...ast-724017.html

"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared." - good call I'd say, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm still up,stuff sleep it's for wimpssmile.gif ! I don't know what the deal is with councils but it never used to be like this. Apparently,our one gave practically all it's stocks of grit away last year under the delusion that they wouldn't be needing it due to you-know-what. There's no excuse for it this time and IMO all routes are essential. An out-of-the-way cul-de-sac is (almost) as likely to require the emergency services as a busy street. Besides,what's the point of treating normally built-up areas if folk can't leave their street of residence to get there in the first place?! Our road is very,very steep and it's currently at a standstill. Gawd knows when they'll get round to it,despite much pestering. The missus needs to take herself and her family to a hospital 15 miles away on a daily basis to see her ol' man who has been in intensive care (quit the fags if you can,folks) for six weeks,and whose next breath could be the last. Impossible at the moment. But hey that's just one instance of need out of countless others.

'We' haven't changed the polar,or any other climate. Surely you're not seriously saying that Arctic outbreaks were unheard of before the dawn of the industrial revolution?? Anyway,fancy a larf?

http://www.independe...ast-724017.html

I'm quite sure that's not what GW is saying. But do you understand the concept that GW is suggesting - that the Arctic circulation is now different to what it was before, and that this might perversely increase our chances of getting cold weather? Too complex a mechanism perhaps? You seem so desperate to cling to the hope that the world isn't warming up as to cling to every last straw, even unusual weather! "The AGW brethren are doing a sterling job of convincing only themselves.", you say. And all the data is meaningless? The fact that 97.5% of climate scientists agree with the mechanism (basic physics really), and the observations are unequivocal? And the data for the polar climate does show that it has warmed, and the mechanism is straightforward - it's us that have changed it.

"Now that we have (and how),some are linking it as a result of said warming,it's weather not climate,or it doesn't register in the 'trend' blah blah. It's getting to the point when I've all on to resist projectile vomiting when I hear these people....." Seriously, laserguy, if you do not understand the difference between weather and climate, and clearly you do not (or don't want to), why do you bother trying to post on a climate forum? I could post that "November 2009, only six weeks ago, was the warmest on record (which it was), therefore global warming etc etc." I won't because the reporting of every extreme event (weather) is not the same as the long-term trend (climate), and on that note I hate the media reporting that is like that.

The Pit (or any others credulous enough to believe that the leaked emails proved anything): Suddenly a few emails that were deliberately taken completely out of context makes you think that all climate scientists are in on a grand hoax? Oh yes, you'll never apply any skepticism to the way that segments of the emails were posted without their supporting context. There's a trick to learn here - always read the context to any segment of text. Only then will you understand the full meaning of what was said. I am entirely comfortable with nearly all quotes (al all the onces about the science), when they are placed in their proper context, though some of the ones about FOI requests were seriously injudicious (but probably made in the face of significant provocation).

sss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared." - good call I'd say, no?

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. How long has our current (very) cold period been going on for now? Even in the midst of it,'we' are unprepared. It's snowing here again. Maybe the council bigwigs are looking out the window in denial and telling themselves that they must be hallucinating in this warming world.

sss - we've been down this road on this forum too many times for me to even consider. I've no stomach to pursue it further,I'm (really) too tired and must get some kip before I pass out. Suffice to say tho' before I go,I can't agree with any of it and feel that the intelligence and integrity of sceptics/deniers is in doubt. Oh dear. I can no longer work out who's trying to convince who and for what reasons,it's all gotten so murky and as far away from being 'settled' as it can get. Sorry but all I can offer right now is a feeble "you go your way and I'll go mine" and one day hopefully the truth will out and for the right reasons and be for the benefit of all. Now I must go to bed! See ya laterlazy.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Now that we have (and how),some are linking it as a result of said warming,it's weather not climate,or it doesn't register in the 'trend' blah blah. It's getting to the point when I've all on to resist projectile vomiting when I hear these people....." Seriously, laserguy, if you do not understand the difference between weather and climate, and clearly you do not (or don't want to), why do you bother trying to post on a climate forum? I could post that "November 2009, only six weeks ago, was the warmest on record (which it was), therefore global warming etc etc." I won't because the reporting of every extreme event (weather) is not the same as the long-term trend (climate), and on that note I hate the media reporting that is like that.

The guy on the poiltics show said to the guy from the Met today. The global warming was up 0.213c in 1999 and up 0.213c in 2009 against long term trend. ie no change in 10 years. He then said why should we trust your figs for 2020 or 2050 (was an excellent interview)

You could argue background signals account for this lack of an increase when they go, warming starts again.

I think we just have to wait and see we cant spend Billion on a theory

The whole of the Northern Hemisphere is getting record cold rather then just a country or sea side town . That is part of the climate a trend in the north for colder winters world wide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy on the poiltics show said to the guy from the Met today. The global warming was up 0.213c in 1999 and up 0.213c in 2009 against long term trend. ie no change in 10 years. He then said why should we trust your figs for 2020 or 2050 (was an excellent interview)

You could argue background signals account for this lack of an increase when they go, warming starts again.

I think we just have to wait and see we cant spend Billion on a theory

The whole of the Northern Hemisphere is getting record cold rather then just a country or sea side town . That is part of the climate a trend in the north for colder winters world wide

er no, selected regions of the NH are cold, by no means all of it. Other regions are unusually warm (SE Europe, Arctic Canada etc).

Every winter there is a specific amount of heat to be distributed around the globe (effectively in two hemispheres). It is never distributed evenly, but it all aggregates up to approximately the same total heat budget. It is the year-to-year change in this total heat budget that is what we're interested in in relation to climate change. The spatial distribution of the heat budget, ie where the blue (cold) patches and where the orange (warm) patches are and move to, gives us our winter (or summer) weather. Normally the blue patches would be over Arctic Canada, Russia etc, but this year, the unusual weather patterns have moved the cold air to be over us, E China and other such areas experiencing noteworthy winter weather. It is internationally newsworthy beacause these areas do not usually have the blue patches! The areas that are warm are not making the news to the same extent because mild winter weather does not generally make news and because the normally really cold bits of the NH are more sparsely populated, with good reason!

We know background signals can't account for the recent warming trend, and the deniers have yet to provide a coherent, physically viable theory that accounts for the recent warming.

LG, fair enough, we'll agree to disagree, but please always have an open mind and be skeptical of all claims, be they from prominent deniers/skeptics or be they from climate scientists. Agree with whoever has the best theory, supported by physics, and crucially by the observational data. Too many denier claims / strawmen / half-truths / ad hominem arguments / plain old lies are taken too much at face value and regurgitated by many on the internet for other credulous people to see.

sss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know background signals can't account for the recent warming trend, and the deniers have yet to provide a coherent, physically viable theory that accounts for the recent warming.

Where is the 'warming trend' for the globe last 10 years ?

No one should argue CO2 up = increase warming

The debate is how the Earth reacts to that

NO evidence yet for global warming sorry climate change (outside of the usual parameters).

ps Most parts of Canada are seeing average temps a few above a few below

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...ld-toronto.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, what happens when AGW and Natural Cycles are in balance??? :yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Councils have just the right amount of grit to go round? :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the 'warming trend' for the globe last 10 years ?

No one should argue CO2 up = increase warming

The debate is how the Earth reacts to that

NO evidence yet for global warming sorry climate change (outside of the usual parameters).

ps Most parts of Canada are seeing average temps a few above a few below

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...ld-toronto.html

That's a good question Stew. Too many making best guess estimates, with little in the way of evidence, to support their conclusions! Lot's off warmists, are in denial right now, all of them want to sweep under the carpet, the OTT comments made in the past, about how winters will be warmer and wetter in the NH! Hopefully 2010 will bring about far more sanity in science, than the years that have proceeded it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241049/BBC-announces-review-science-coverage-month-revealed-ignored-Climategate-leaked-emails.html

Oooooh, the BBC's governing body (the BBC Trust) is to start an investigation into "the accuracy and impartiality" of the BBC's reporting on "AGW".

I hope it will be impartial and not a whitewash (the BBC being a puppet of the Government. :cc_confused:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail...ked-emails.html

Oooooh, the BBC's governing body (the BBC Trust) is to start an investigation into "the accuracy and impartiality" of the BBC's reporting on "AGW".

I hope it will be impartial and not a whitewash (the BBC being a puppet of the Government. :girl_devil:).

The tide is turning (at long last., I think we are starting to see more level headed journalism now actually, news presenters asking more probing questions, to the climate science elite. About bloody time really!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the 'warming trend' for the globe last 10 years ?

No one should argue CO2 up = increase warming

The debate is how the Earth reacts to that

NO evidence yet for global warming sorry climate change (outside of the usual parameters).

ps Most parts of Canada are seeing average temps a few above a few below

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...ld-toronto.html

Nobody's trying to, ah, hide a decline, stewfox, and a few years that qualify as fractionally less hot than 2005 / 1998 a declining trend do not make! Sure it looks like we hit a peak if you look at the last five years or so, but the same happens if you look at previous 'peaks' in the general warming trend of the last 40 years - namely you'll get a hot year, followed by a few years not as hot, before the increase continues. It will only be if we get a sustained decline (and preferably substantial decline, which we've not seen) in temperatures over many years can you talk about a trend that is anything other than the observed upwards trend of the last 40+ years. BTW, Toronto is not 'most parts of canada', in fact is it rather close to USA. I'm talking about the greater part of Arctic Canada as you could see on Dev's chart at the end of the last thread. You can't just cherry-pick individual locations, you must look at the hemisphere as a whole. Much of the heat at present is trapped beneath the jetstream, which as you'll know is well south, producing those above-average temperatures in southern / Eastern Europe and North Africa. I imagine it'll be released northwards eventually.

Err, SC: have most of the winters of the past 20 years been warmer and wetter than average or cooler and drier?

Seems in both cases here there's a tendency to highlight individual occurrences rather than long-term trends. There is no such thing as a uniformly warming trend, and there never has been one predicted. So you can't just say "AGW is wrong because it's been cold for a year or two".

"The tide is turning (at long last., I think we are starting to see more level headed journalism now actually, news presenters asking more probing questions, to the climate science elite. About bloody time really! "

That's OK if the presenters do their research and understand what climate science is really about. And they allow the interviewees to answer the questions fully. If they don't and ask the knee-jerk-dumb-journalist-type questions then there will be a lot of patient explaining to be done by the poor climate scientists on the front-line! Given that in terms of the science the probing questions are already asked at universities / conferences and suitably dealt with.

sss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear councils are like the Conservatives and don't wish to 'tax and spend' on services like ,for instance, social services,street cleaning and grit/salt. We have very little 'grit' left and the council are only doing essential routes.

Had we not changed the polar climate system (from a tri-lobal to bi-lobal setup) then these rapid plunges of cold air would not occur......IMHOdrinks.gifbiggrin.gif

An adjoining (Labour) council where one of my friends lives has run out of grit.

It does, however, feel it necessary to employ its very own Climate Change Officer on a salary not unadjacent to 30k plus all the other LA perks.

I wonder what he did to earn his crust today, with the roads being all but impassable?

He certainly wouldn't have been able to indulge in his usual activity of visting the schools in the district and brainwashing the children.

Probably "worked" from home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'We' haven't changed the polar,or any other climate. Surely you're not seriously saying that Arctic outbreaks were unheard of before the dawn of the industrial revolution?? Anyway,fancy a larf?

http://www.independe...ast-724017.html

We know nowt really do we L.G.?

It was the roadworks that nearly stopped me watching my ole fella's last gasp over summer but if we were 60yrs back in time I'd have been with him an' walked to the flea pit to watch his Swan song........change seems inevitable.

Were I not so positioned I'd love to meet an' greet with you fella.

I'm sure there'd be far more laughs than growls and that my head would REALLY hurt the day after ('specially if it were yer' own brew as I'd be into the two weeks on stuff once stocks ran out!!!).

Happy New year Fella, may you always be right and I wrong eh?biggrin.gifdrinks.gif

P.S. Get a tub of Petroleum Jelly (on script from Dr's) all over your steed 'cause you'll find a way to get her back on the street I promise!

EDIT , EDIT. If you can't P.M. me 'an I'll try and post it on...... at least she'll be dry eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody's trying to, ah, hide a decline, stewfox, and a few years that qualify as fractionally less hot than 2005 / 1998 a declining trend do not make!  Sure it looks like we hit a peak if you look at the last five years or so, but the same happens if you look at previous 'peaks' in the general warming trend of the last 40 years - namely you'll get a hot year, followed by a few years not as hot, before the increase continues.  It will only be if we get a sustained decline (and preferably substantial decline, which we've not seen) in temperatures over many years can you talk about a trend that is anything other than the observed upwards trend of the last 40+ years.  BTW, Toronto is not 'most parts of canada', in fact is it rather close to USA.  I'm talking about the greater part of Arctic Canada as you could see on Dev's chart at the end of the last thread.  You can't just cherry-pick individual locations, you must look at the hemisphere as a whole.  Much of the heat at present is trapped beneath the jetstream, which as you'll know is well south, producing those above-average temperatures in southern / Eastern Europe and North Africa.  I imagine it'll be released northwards eventually.

Err, SC: have most of the winters of the past 20 years been warmer and wetter than average or cooler and drier?  

Seems in both cases here there's a tendency to highlight individual occurrences rather than long-term trends.  There is no such thing as a uniformly warming trend, and there never has been one predicted.  So you can't just say "AGW is wrong because it's been cold for a year or two".

"The tide is turning (at long last., I think we are starting to see more level headed journalism now actually, news presenters asking more probing questions, to the climate science elite. About bloody time really! "

That's OK if the presenters do their research and understand what climate science is really about.  And they allow the interviewees to answer the questions fully.  If they don't and ask the knee-jerk-dumb-journalist-type questions then there will be a lot of patient explaining to be done by the poor climate scientists on the front-line!  Given that in terms of the science the probing questions are already asked at universities / conferences and suitably dealt with.

sss

Aye winters have been warmer and wetter, natural cycles you see. Also AGW isn't wrong in theory, just the overall magnitude of warming that is in dispute! As for journalist, well for far to long they have been in the pockets of the warmists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An adjoining (Labour) council where one of my friends lives has run out of grit.

It does, however, feel it necessary to employ its very own Climate Change Officer on a salary not unadjacent to 30k plus all the other LA perks.

I wonder what he did to earn his crust today, with the roads being all but impassable?

He certainly wouldn't have been able to indulge in his usual activity of visting the schools in the district and brainwashing the children.

Probably "worked" from home.

Grrr, there was some beardy-halfwit on the BBC Newsround the other day explaining that it was snowing due to Climate Change, and now we have to get used to hotter summers & COLDER winters !!!

They can't even get their story straight these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, most of Laserguy's posts insist that AGW is a "sham", "myth" and all the rest of it, and try to deny that the world has ever warmed, so it would seem that for certain individuals, there is more than just magnitude under dispute. But yes, any half-objective analysis of the evidence will suggest that it's more a case of "how much" rather than "if".

How much, indeed? There is still a lot that we don't know very well about the way the Earth's climate system works- while the simplistic CO2-temperature link is fairly well understood, many of the feedback processes that it triggers are still somewhat open to question. Papers upon papers are coming out disputing the effects of aerosols for example.

Interesting to see the BBC being scrutinised for possible pro-AGW bias. I think they have got better at it in the last year or two, but before that, I did sense some pro-AGW bias- they didn't tell lies about the subject, but rather over-simplified it and presented only one side of the story. Regarding journalists they have a tendency to get polarised to two extremes- either "AGW is a sham" or "AGW is really serious and we're all going to die"- whatever makes the most headlines, really.

Because it's important to remember that the emails were stolen. Just like some sceptics think it's important to keep banging on about the hockey stick - they think that is important as well.

Dev, I'm afraid I have to pull you up on this one- "because the emails were stolen", as an argument to support the notion that the leaking of them was theft, is circular reasoning. It's like when someone questions the idea that ripping legitimately purchased CDs to mp3 to play on your PC is theft, and getting a response like "it's theft because the mp3s are stolen from the CD", often accompanied by a threat of punishment for condoning stealing music. OK, so there's a huge moral difference between that and leaking emails- but the "theft" misconception is much the same.

Regarding the lack of warming over the last 10 years, 10 years is not a long enough time span to be able to refute the notion of warming, against an upward trend over the last 30, 50 and 100 years. Perhaps if we get another 10 years of near-stagnant global temperatures, it will indeed raise some serious questions about the true extent of AGW (the stall over the last 10 years alone does, to me, suggest that the warming of the 1980s and 1990s was not entirely down to AGW). But what the mainstream scientists argue is that at least some of the warming is due to AGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grrr, there was some beardy-halfwit on the BBC Newsround the other day explaining that it was snowing due to Climate Change, and now we have to get used to hotter summers & COLDER winters !!!

They can't even get their story straight these days.

Must have been a faulty drone, has we speak he is on his way back to Hansenville to be re-programmed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, most of Laserguy's posts insist that AGW is a "sham", "myth" and all the rest of it, and try to deny that the world has ever warmed, so it would seem that for certain individuals, there is more than just magnitude under dispute. But yes, any half-objective analysis of the evidence will suggest that it's more a case of "how much" rather than "if".

How much, indeed? There is still a lot that we don't know very well about the way the Earth's climate system works- while the simplistic CO2-temperature link is fairly well understood, many of the feedback processes that it triggers are still somewhat open to question. Papers upon papers are coming out disputing the effects of aerosols for example.

Interesting to see the BBC being scrutinised for possible pro-AGW bias. I think they have got better at it in the last year or two, but before that, I did sense some pro-AGW bias- they didn't tell lies about the subject, but rather over-simplified it and presented only one side of the story. Regarding journalists they have a tendency to get polarised to two extremes- either "AGW is a sham" or "AGW is really serious and we're all going to die"- whatever makes the most headlines, really.

Dev, I'm afraid I have to pull you up on this one- "because the emails were stolen", as an argument to support the notion that the leaking of them was theft, is circular reasoning. It's like when someone questions the idea that ripping legitimately purchased CDs to mp3 to play on your PC is theft, and getting a response like "it's theft because the mp3s are stolen from the CD", often accompanied by a threat of punishment for condoning music piracy. OK, so there's a huge moral difference between that and leaking emails- but the "theft" misconception is much the same.

Regarding the lack of warming over the last 10 years, 10 years is not a long enough time span to be able to refute the notion of warming, against an upward trend over the last 30, 50 and 100 years. Perhaps if we get another 10 years of near-stagnant global temperatures, it will indeed raise some serious questions about the true extent of AGW (the stall over the last 10 years alone does, to me, suggest that the warming of the 1980s and 1990s was not entirely down to AGW). But what the mainstream scientists argue is that at least some of the warming is due to AGW.

Hi TWS, I see your loaction is the Uni' of East Anglia - AKA - "HQ Biggest Fib Ever "

It's because of the bilge being pumped out by the CRU that I'm paying more taxes than ever. Now what was that tale about "The Emperor's new clothes"......????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To whoever this may concern,Hello, my name is Christopher O'Rorke and i'm a student at the University of Leicester and follow the weather keenly. To put it bluntly I am completely baffled by your constant plugging of 'Global Warming' or as you've now changed it to 'Climate change'. Aside from the obvious financial gain and media coverage your receiving I'm very confused why your making such a fuss about nothing. I'm very disappointed in the Met office jumping on the bandwagon of Al Gore and for also being caught trying to pay off scientists to agree with Climate change even though they didn't study this subject in particular.I would really appreciate a reply from you, which convinces me why Climate change is now a bigger issue than World Poverty and how this problem deserves more funding than solving world hunger. An estimated $10 billion is needed to solve the world's water problems but you and other brainwashing meteorologists are demanding that this money is spent on what is simply the earth's cycle! If I do not get a reply expect one from me in 5 years when your plugging 'Global Cooling'.Thankyou for your time.Chris.

This is an email ive just sent to the metoffice, haha had to get it off my chest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×