Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen

Climate Questions


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    10 minutes ago, Roger J Smith said:

    These graphics don't contradict my theory in any way, Paul, since I am saying that natural variation is the main (not sole) cause of the warming over the past 120 years. I have never denied that there has been warming. We are talking about the cause of the warming, not its actual existence.

    You may be speaking to a Roger Smith who in your mind is a skeptic that doesn't believe in global warming and needs to be shown graphs of it attached to opinions that the cause is anthropogenic. That person isn't me. I am the Roger Smith who knows it has been warming, already showed that in graphs posted above, and says the warming may be more natural in origin than the IPCC asserts. Their spokespersons have told me I cannot believe this because they have proven the warming to be entirely anthropogenic. I am among a large number of weather enthusiasts who do not accept that as proven science and believe that it may be based on faulty research (it has to be if it's wrong). 

    My question about looking at North American weather data actually refers to a period before the graphs and studies you posted, namely 1890 to 1950. I just wondered if my critics had ever looked at North American weather data for those decades and if they came away thinking that they had seen a natural cooling trend that the first portion of AGW (back then perhaps a tenth to a quarter of the later signal) had obliterated since in fact those decades showed significant warming (as my posted graphs will illustrate). 

    Anyway, with the holidays looming and the certainty that not much work is going to be done on this Toronto file until after new years, I am hereby ending my part of this discussion entirely. I will post the Toronto data in the historic weather section, not this thread, and make no connected statements about climate change in the posting over there, just the numbers and illustrative graphs. We have reached a point here where both sides in this debate know what the other side believes to be true and how they reached their point of view. Anyone who is interested in pursuing my alternative theory would probably be better served by joining a more open-minded discussion of it on the boards.ie weather forum. When I say more open minded, it's not just me vs three AGW proponents, it's dozens of people all over the spectrum of opinion having a frank exchange of views, and I like that sort of thing. 

    The Toronto data could no doubt be used by IPCC or AGW proponents to illustrate their case too. Then we won't be hearing as much about Toronto the isolated nonconforming cherry picked data set (which it certainly isn't, I am rather amused by that knowing how centre of the universe Torontonians think their city to be). The unseen irony here is that Toronto is about the last place on earth I would choose to live (and I did once live there) and my only interest in their weather data would be the longevity which exceeds most other locations in this hemisphere (1840 to present). You could research this for yourself if you doubt my word on it, but Toronto anomalies month by month will have a very high correlation with NYC, BOS, ORD, DCA and various other long-period locations in the eastern U.S. .. the anomaly patterns are usually quite organized in eastern North America. If one place is much above normal, chances are good the rest will also be. The high correlation zone probably extends from about STL to BOS, and north south from YTS to BNA. Beyond that chances increase that a different anomaly regime would be in place. A location likely to be varying inversely might be somewhere between Calgary and Salt Lake City. 

    Lots of words, but not a word to back up your alternative theory of atmosphere physics...

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    1 hour ago, Devonian said:

    Lots of words, but not a word to back up your alternative theory of atmosphere physics...

    I haven't even been able to divine exactly what Roger's hypothesis is yet, Dev. So, I'll assume (for the sake of argument) that it's claiming that some of the current warming might not be the result of manmade GHG emissions??

    If that's true, then all we need to see is some detailed description of the proposed mechanism, along with its modus operandi and some supporting data.

    The only alternative to the above would, IMO, be a claim that anthropogenic CO2 is not a greenhouse gas -- ergo, it is fundamentally (both thermodynamically and quantum-mechanically) different from its 'natural' counterpart...Which is, I think, bordering on the preposterous!

    So can you please provide a concise and succinct statement of your hypothesis (and how it might be falsified/tested) Roger?:oldgood:

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    In a speech at the University of Oregon, James Hansen, NASA's chief atmospheric scientist, walks listeners thru the most recent geologic periods, and speaks to the commonly heard climate canard, "It's been hotter in earth's history before - so what's the big deal?'

     

    • Like 8
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
  • Weather Preferences: Unseasonably cold weather (at all times of year), wind, and thunderstorms.
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
    On 20/12/2019 at 10:36, Paul said:

    Not sure how you can, in good faith, ask that question, when you're obviously ignoring the overwhelming amount of data out there which doesn't tie in with your theory. 

    Such as this for Canada?

    canada.png

    WWW.CANADA.CA

    Renseignements sur les indicateurs d'Environnement et Changement climatique Canada.

    Or this from the USA?

    download.png

    WWW.NCDC.NOAA.GOV

    Comparisons of meteorological local, state, regional, national, and global data in historical perspective to determine trends

     

    Criticism should of course be welcomed, but at least do the decent thing and read his post before doing so ?

    Edited by Relativistic
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
  • Weather Preferences: Unseasonably cold weather (at all times of year), wind, and thunderstorms.
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
    On 21/12/2019 at 21:36, General Cluster said:

    I haven't even been able to divine exactly what Roger's hypothesis is yet, Dev. So, I'll assume (for the sake of argument) that it's claiming that some of the current warming might not be the result of manmade GHG emissions??

    If that's true, then all we need to see is some detailed description of the proposed mechanism, along with its modus operandi and some supporting data.

    The only alternative to the above would, IMO, be a claim that anthropogenic CO2 is not a greenhouse gas -- ergo, it is fundamentally (both thermodynamically and quantum-mechanically) different from its 'natural' counterpart...Which is, I think, bordering on the preposterous!

    So can you please provide a concise and succinct statement of your hypothesis (and how it might be falsified/tested) Roger?:oldgood:

    I think he's made his position fairly clear? I'm reading it as follows: Roger believes that a fraction of the current warming is anthropogenic, and the remaining (larger) fraction is of a natural origin. He is citing a rapid warm-up in Toronto (which he, based on his observations of other datasets, believes is representative of a large swathe of North America) during the late 19th/early 20th century as empirical evidence for this. He is not denying that carbon dioxide is a GHG; he believes instead that, in contrast to the IPCC, it has not been solely responsible for the warm-up we've seen in the last 150 years or so.

    The bolded statement is, as with almost all theories in science, the natural next step to take.

    • Like 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    3 minutes ago, Relativistic said:

    I think he's made his position fairly clear? I'm reading it as follows: Roger believes that a fraction of the current warming is anthropogenic, and the remaining (larger) fraction is of a natural origin. He is citing a rapid warm-up in Toronto (which he, based on his observations of other datasets, believes is representative of a large swathe of North America) during the late 19th/early 20th century as empirical evidence for this. He is not denying that carbon dioxide is a GHG; he believes instead that, in contrast to the IPCC, it has not been solely responsible for the warm-up we've seen in the last 150 years or so.

    The bolded statement is, as with almost all theories in science, the natural next step to take.

    No-one, not even the IPCC, is saying that every single millijoule of heat, added to the atmosphere, gets there via the buildup of man-made CO2...But, Roger is claiming that 'something else' is responsible for most of the observed temperature-rise -- but, without saying what that 'something else' actually is...Which, all other things remaining equal, makes the 'something' exceedingly difficult to objectively quantity...?

    In other words: if it ain't CO2, then what is it??

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
  • Weather Preferences: Unseasonably cold weather (at all times of year), wind, and thunderstorms.
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
    13 minutes ago, General Cluster said:

    No-one, not even the IPCC, is saying that every single millijoule of heat, added to the atmosphere, gets there via the buildup of man-made CO2...But, Roger is claiming that 'something else' is responsible for most of the observed temperature-rise -- but, without saying what that 'something else' actually is...Which, all other things remaining equal, makes the 'something' exceedingly difficult to objectively quantity...?

    In other words: if it ain't CO2, then what is it??

    Haven't a clue Ed. It should be remembered though that even QM and GR started off as "something appears to be wrong with our well-established theories, but we ain't got a clue why!".

    However, until we have some kind of proposed mechanism then it's IPCC all the way.

    Edited by Relativistic
    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    17 minutes ago, Relativistic said:

    I think he's made his position fairly clear? I'm reading it as follows: Roger believes that a fraction of the current warming is anthropogenic, and the remaining (larger) fraction is of a natural origin. He is citing a rapid warm-up in Toronto (which he, based on his observations of other datasets, believes is representative of a large swathe of North America) during the late 19th/early 20th century as empirical evidence for this. He is not denying that carbon dioxide is a GHG; he believes instead that, in contrast to the IPCC, it has not been solely responsible for the warm-up we've seen in the last 150 years or so.

    The bolded statement is, as with almost all theories in science, the natural next step to take.


    And all 'we' want is for him to take that next step - too explain the 'how'. We've seen umpteen, lengthy posts about his beliefs. Arm waving, assertion and little asides about conspiracies doesn't cut it for me.

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
  • Weather Preferences: Unseasonably cold weather (at all times of year), wind, and thunderstorms.
  • Location: Edinburgh (previously Chelmsford and Birmingham)
    4 minutes ago, Devonian said:


    And all 'we' want is for him to take that next step - too explain the 'how'. We've seen umpteen, lengthy posts about his beliefs. Arm waving, assertion and little asides about conspiracies doesn't cut it for me.

     

     

     

    I understand that, but realistically how quickly can you expect that (from even the largest of scientific bodies)? Some theories take decades from the "our data is not quite as we expect" stage, to the "we now have a theory that matches our expectations" stage.

    Edited by Relativistic
    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    29 minutes ago, Relativistic said:

    I understand that, but realistically how quickly can you expect that (from even the largest of scientific bodies)? Some theories take decades from the "our data is not quite as we expect" stage, to the "we now have a theory that matches our expectations" stage.

    TBH Relativistic, I think it's more a case of finding a cause (anthropogenic CO2) that can account for the observations? Take out the CO2, and whatever the 'mystery ingredient' is, it has a lot of causing to do -- it ought, therefore, to have an enormous footprint...?

    How then, I wonder, can it be so difficult to pinpoint...?:unknw:

    Edited by General Cluster
    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    2 hours ago, Relativistic said:

    I understand that, but realistically how quickly can you expect that (from even the largest of scientific bodies)? Some theories take decades from the "our data is not quite as we expect" stage, to the "we now have a theory that matches our expectations" stage.

    Is there some thing, some data, some evidence that makes you think that atmosphere physics is better understood by Roger than by people at Hadley Centre, or NOAA ,or GISS or indeed the IPCC? Or, put another way, what scientific something might Roger be onto?

    Edited by Devonian
    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

    I was glad to read the post from Relativistic which shows that some readers have an idea what I was saying.

    The question then has been isolated somewhat to: what does RJS think is the cause of natural variability warming that he asserts to be the major component of observed (and agreed upon) recent warming?

    It would be best to postpone this discussion until I have the full Toronto file available on line, I can of course see it all here myself, but you cannot yet, so until that happens (will say Jan 10th to be realsitic about holiday interruptions, all the basic work is finished but I have to organize the excel file into something more readable, and create a blog style accompanying post as a guide.) The Toronto file can be compared to a similar file I have created for the CET records. Some of that material is already posted in the historic weather section although in a format and tone that makes no references to any theories of warming.

    There is also the research file in this particular subforum that shows recent changes to climate stats for Canadian arctic sites. I am updating that in the next hour which should bump it back onto page one. There again, I posted that in a very neutral tone about six years ago and have been updating it every year since.

    For now, I would just make these comments about the possible causes of natural rather than anthropogenic warming.

    (a) Be assured that I am not saying zero warming from greenhouse gases, my thesis is that in the 20th century and to date, the ratio may be as high as 3:1 natural to AGW, but that would be a long-term average, that does not imply that in the past ten or thirty years the ratio has been that high. Perhaps as greenhouse gas levels rise, the ratio has fallen in recent decades. For the sake of argument, let's say that a 3:1 ratio average 1910 to 1990 with a 5:1 ratio 1890 to 1910 and a 2:1 ratio 1990 to 2020 might be a more detailed version of the general assertion. If at any time natural variability provides a cold signal, then any residual warming would of course indicate a greater than 1:1 ratio in favour of greenhouse effect. Just as a hypothetical, if 2020 to 2050 showed a slower pace of warming, 0.3 C additional, and I estimated the natural cooling signal within that as -0.5, then the AGW signal (assuming these two are additive, an assumption that might need further study) would be +0.8. As I understand the IPCC current thinking, we have seen an increase of +1.0 to +1.5 and should have seen a slight decrease, so the AGW signal according to them is +1.5 to +2.0. According to me it has been +0.5 and the natural component about +1.5 (since 1890).

    (b) So with that understood to be the difference in our theoretical constructs, what leads me to think that there has been a natural warming of +1.5 C deg since 1980 (average for all climate zones, the CET obviously hasn't seen quite that much warming, closer to +1.0).? The main likely cause is the enhanced solar activity of the 20th century. Schove had long ago researched the scope of solar variability before the observational period (it began just before the Maunder minimum) and is the established authority for such estimates. According to his data, updated since he bases his index on standard sunspot number reporting, the 20th century saw the highest average level of activity of the entire period he was able to analyze using auroral and other secondary evidence, a period that extends back to 290 AD with a few patches of estimates from several centuries before that. Obviously these estimates are not foolproof but they are all we have to go on (broader-brush estimates are available by means of sediment analysis going much further back). Another high-activity interval accompanied the MWP. The second half of the 16th century was also quite active. In broad general terms, you could simplify the past three centuries after the Maunder as 18th century quite active, 19th century not as active with long inactive spells to start (Dalton) and finish (weak cycles of 1883, 1893, and 1905), followed by a very active 20th century. The interval 1947 to 1989 had the highest five-cycle average peak index on the Schove system of any five consecutive peaks. Peaks in 1917, 1928 and 1937 were generally moderately strong like the 1999-2001 flat-topped peak. As many will know, the solar activity has dropped to a much lower level with only a medium-weak peak in 2013 and signs that we may get another of those in six to ten years.

    My contention is that the high solar activity was driving a natural warming trend and there may be some lag time involved in its full extinction if we are going into any prolonged downturn. The Dalton minimum involved three weaker peaks (1801, 1815, 1829-30) and was followed by a rapid return to higher activity. There were four quite active peaks 1838, 1848, 1860 and 1870 before the next downturn. The coldest part of the Dalton minimum appears to have been enhanced by Tamboro's massive eruption in 1815 and the later minimum had the Krakatoa eruption in 1883. One wonders if there could be any connection between lower solar activity and large eruptions, in which case we are due for another one of that magnitude. That would temporarily reverse the warming trend.

    (c) Another candidate for possible cause of the long-term natural warming since 1890 would be any connection between geomagnetism and weather. I think there may be a connection, and the north magnetic pole began to drift north away from the North American mainland through the Canadian arctic islands (the latter portion from about 1940 to 1990) and has since accelerated a northwest drift to reach a position far to the north of the Bering strait at 86N 170W. This would influence temperatures in North America somewhat more directly than in Europe. It might imply a cooling trend in some specific locations in eastern Siberia but that could be faint until the pole begins to close in on their sector in the period 2020-2050. Any signs of significant cooling in eastern Siberia in the interval 2020-2050 would be seen as possible proof of this connection. And there is certainly a steady rise in temperatures at Toronto after 1888, some of which must be attributed to the growing urban heat island there, but a study of differences in daytime and overnight temperatures shows that the signal is mostly natural warming, otherwise it would be more skewed to rising minima.

    (d) The mechanism by which the magnetic field might modulate temperatures is mainly a capture of solar system magnetic field energy translated to our atmosphere. The actual position of the pole is not the physical cause of the warming, only indirectly perhaps, as the cause is more directly a change in the circulation patterns brought about by differential location of signal forcing in solar system magnetic field sectors. The main drivers of these field sectors (which are more or less a constant feature) are Sun-Jupiter and Sun-Saturn interactions. These can be shown to be correlated with solar activity. In my research (published yet again in another thread on NW) I have shown the postulated mechanisms of these field sectors and how I think they modulate temperatures over the synodic years of Jupiter and Saturn (a synodic year being the period, somewhat longer than one earth year, between oppositions, or dates where we pass through these field sectors). My contention is that if the magnetic field has modulated the primary effects of these signals (basically ridges in the upper atmosphere) in a northward direction (more NW'ly as that is the drift of the magnetic grid) then warming would be experienced especially in zones where northward transport of warm air masses is a frequent component of the regional climate). The southern hemisphere magnetic field has not shifted as much to compensate, which might underlie a smaller overall warming as this factor would be slightly negative against the positive solar activity factor there).

    (e) As always in natural variability, there can simply be random luck of the draw at work, something that if you accept it to be part of the scenario of natural variability, no researcher has any obligation to "explain" as with long runs of sports teams winning and not losing, long periods in a casino with good or bad cards, long runs of heads not tails in coin tosses, these things occur and perhaps for no particular physical reason at all, and unless you can say otherwise, you are not really in any strong position to say, well there could not be a century-long natural warming. But wait, weren't we told that there has been a natural cooling trend underway since the post-glacial optimum, courtesy of Milankovitch? Well yes, and to forestall pointless argument, I accept all of that to the Maunder with a minor reservation about the intensity of the MWP, but, how about since the Maunder ended? The evidence for ongoing natural cooling through the 18th and 19th century is weak in comparison to a paradigm of continued oscillations around a fixed mean. I suspect that the Milankovitch background settings are not changing very much after an earlier prompting of the cooling from 3,000 BC to 1650 AD followed by the larger cold core of the LIA brought on by the Maunder minimum. Certainly the CET averages in the 18th century show a much more complicated pattern than just background cooling (which we might agree would have to start acting after a recovery period from the Maunder). In fact, 1710-1739 was a thirty-year interval every bit as warm as the mid-20th century, somewhat colder decades followed but there were renewed warmings at times, then the Dalton cold spell (largely confined to winter months, it should be pointed out), and a fluctuating period in the mid-19th century followed. In other words, there is not much strong evidence for a resumed natural cooling trend after the Maunder. 

    That was more than brief, but I could back up some of these conjectures with evidence from the files that I am working on for January. So this will have to suffice until then, and with the holidays looming, I propose a pause until perhaps January 10th or thereabouts. Whatever gets posted here before about Jan 4th is unlikely to be read by me until then as we have some travel plans and my limited internet time will need to go to the contest duties. 

    Readers might be interested in that arctic thread too, it should be updated within the next hour with some data from summer and autumn 2019. 

    Edited by Roger J Smith
    • Like 4
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

    For part A: Ideas without causal mechanism, evidence or anything of substance. Doesn't mean anything.

    Part B: Solar has been shown time and time again not to be the cause, even within this thread. Solar output has been dropping while warming accelerated. The pattern of solar induced warming is not apparent. There is no mechanism whereby a lag effect could work the way solar proponents suggest. Repeating something that's been disproven, no matter how many times, doesn't make it true.

    Part C. Another idea with no evidence. UHI is accounted for in the temperature record. To explain a long term trend in global temperature and accumulation of heat within the climate system, you need a sustained mechanism to cause this. This isn't achieved by regional variability,  especially when mountains of evidence exists, rooted in basic science, that explain what the mechanism actually is.

    Part D. Once more, solar cannot be the cause, neither can internal variability. Changes to weather patterns simply cannot explain a global consistent rise in temperatures and a massive and sustained increase in global heat accumulation.

    Part E. It was explained, repeatedly and in different ways, that the long term cooling is not detectable on decadal timeframes. Several global temperatures reconstructions have been posted to show trends over the last several thousand years. Of course, they've been dismissed conspiracies to hide the truth, which is convenient. It's also convenient to ignore the role of volcanoes in the LIA. Even harder to blame modern climate change on them, I suppose.

    I'm hoping we won't just see an analysis of the Arctic climate based on one or 2 isolated stations, that then proceeds to make much broader claims without examining causal mechanisms or other station records?

     

    • Like 6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans

    Quote

    During a recent congressional hearing, Rick Perry, the US energy secretary, remarked that “to stand up and say that 100% of global warming is because of human activity, I think on its face, is just indefensible”.

    However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.

    Here Carbon Brief examines how each of the major factors affecting the Earth’s climate would influence temperatures in isolation – and how their combined effects almost perfectly predict long-term changes in the global temperature.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans?utm_source=TwitterVid&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=EndHits18

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: North York Moors
  • Location: North York Moors

    How would they explain the warming before 1950 which was similar to the last 30 years or so

    Edited by BornFromTheVoid
    Lets keep the conspiracy theories out of it
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    24 minutes ago, 4wd said:

    How would they explain the warming before 1950 which was similar to the last 30 years or so

    More to the point (and assuming that, as you seem to suggest, CO2 is not a GHG) how would you explain it?

    Edited by BornFromTheVoid
    Just removed reference to edited part of quoted comment
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
    16 hours ago, 4wd said:

    How would they explain the warming before 1950 which was similar to the last 30 years or so

    ClimGraphb.thumb.png.c6c40e42c4e673d75e89660dc0c0959c.png

    A very rough check, which really should compare 30 years averages.... but anyway.
    ~ 1909-1946, an increase of 0.55C, so about 0.15C per decade.
    ~ 1972-2019, an increase of 1.2C, or about 0.26C per decade. 

    I'm pretty sure most other ways of looking at it produces similar results

    They aren't all that similar, really.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 2 weeks later...
    Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

    So far I've been accused of cherry-picking and having a cult following. 

    If there are any other little scolds or mini-Gretas out there with a bone to pick, let's say January 9th could be International Hate Roger Smith Day and let's get it all out in the open. 

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    23 minutes ago, Roger J Smith said:

    So far I've been accused of cherry-picking and having a cult following. 

    If there are any other little scolds or mini-Gretas out there with a bone to pick, let's say January 9th could be International Hate Roger Smith Day and let's get it all out in the open. 

     

    You're soft skinned. When you've also been called a liar, a fraud, and had death threats (all of which repeated for years) then I'll take your words as serious.

    Btw, no one is accusing you of cheery picking, its not an accusation it's a reality. You've pick one weather station and try to draw global (or at least meaningful) conclusions from that one station.. C'mon ?

    Edited by Devonian
    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

    Why do Climate Change Deniers feel the need to diminish the damage that's clearly being caused by anthropogenic environmental degradation:

    Annual droughts/fires in the southwestern United States? It's happened before: where are the Anasazi now?:oldrolleyes:

    Disappearing North Atlantic/Arctic sea ice? It's happened before, haven't you read ships' logs from 1866?:oldrolleyes:

    Devastating bushfires raging across Australia, leading to loss-of-life to both animals and humans? Not to worry, it was worse during the Mediaeval Warm Period!:oldrolleyes:

    Deforestation in Western Africa, allowing Ebola to spillover from root-dwelling fruit bats to the human population? That's not yet proven, as some other species might turn out be the interpandemic reservoir...:oldrolleyes:

    Blah, blah, blah, blah blah...And yet galahs go on for ever!:help:

     

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Somerset midway between Bath&Wells. Mendips 200m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Somerset midway between Bath&Wells. Mendips 200m asl

    Haven't been in here for years....with all that's going on in Aussie land I thought/hoped there might be something of interest in here. This is the only thread I've looked at, figured Australia being front page, there might be some relevant questions/answers in here. Alas.....all the last couple of pages have done is remind me why I, and so many others give this section a wide berth. None of you cover your selves in glory, it's the same old vitriol that ever was SOOOOOOOOO disappointing.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    35 minutes ago, jethro said:

    Haven't been in here for years....with all that's going on in Aussie land I thought/hoped there might be something of interest in here. This is the only thread I've looked at, figured Australia being front page, there might be some relevant questions/answers in here. Alas.....all the last couple of pages have done is remind me why I, and so many others give this section a wide berth. None of you cover your selves in glory, it's the same old vitriol that ever was SOOOOOOOOO disappointing.  

    So...ask a 'relevant question' then?

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Somerset midway between Bath&Wells. Mendips 200m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Somerset midway between Bath&Wells. Mendips 200m asl
    23 minutes ago, General Cluster said:

    So...ask a 'relevant question' then?

    Lol. Wild horses and all that....after reading the above, I have zero faith that there's even the remotest of hope of having any questions answered, or discussion had, without being bombarded with similar.  That said, it's only fair to give folk a chance, I'll be over the moon to be proved wrong......

    I've seen quite a lot of reports from Aussie farmers on Twitter about the bush fires. Time and again, they report that in their opinion/experience, this situation has largely been driven by a change in conservation policy. Before the change, undergrowth and bush was cleared during the winter months, thus greatly reducing the amount of fuel available to fan the flames of bush fires. Bush fires being a normal problem in Australia, out of control ones, like the current situation, are not. They seem pretty certain, it is not that bush fires have happened that's the problem, nor that climate change has caused this problem, but that in conserving the landscape for wildlife a 'perfect storm' scenario has been created.

    In the press, a lot of people have taken the current Australian situation and used it as proof of climate change. I wonder, is there actually any science to support those claims or are they merely promoting their own voice from the podium of a current disaster?

     

    p.s REALLY NOT, absolutely NOT getting into any discussion about AGW being real or not. Not interested/interesting.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
    41 minutes ago, jethro said:

    Lol. Wild horses and all that....after reading the above, I have zero faith that there's even the remotest of hope of having any questions answered, or discussion had, without being bombarded with similar.  That said, it's only fair to give folk a chance, I'll be over the moon to be proved wrong......

    I've seen quite a lot of reports from Aussie farmers on Twitter about the bush fires. Time and again, they report that in their opinion/experience, this situation has largely been driven by a change in conservation policy. Before the change, undergrowth and bush was cleared during the winter months, thus greatly reducing the amount of fuel available to fan the flames of bush fires. Bush fires being a normal problem in Australia, out of control ones, like the current situation, are not. They seem pretty certain, it is not that bush fires have happened that's the problem, nor that climate change has caused this problem, but that in conserving the landscape for wildlife a 'perfect storm' scenario has been created.

    In the press, a lot of people have taken the current Australian situation and used it as proof of climate change. I wonder, is there actually any science to support those claims or are they merely promoting their own voice from the podium of a current disaster?

     

    p.s REALLY NOT, absolutely NOT getting into any discussion about AGW being real or not. Not interested/interesting.

    Don't have time to dig through what the locals have been saying and how valid it is. With regard to the science though, there was a 2007 paper that projected a detectable change in the intensity of Australian bush fires by 2020. Page 3 here: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/2007/hennesseykj_c.pdf
    I'm sure there are plenty more similar papers out there too.

    I suppose it doesn't have to be a binary scenario, AGW or land management. There's little doubt that record breaking heat and droughts will contribute to more bush fires, but the contribution of other factors, such as land management, may be larger or smaller than AGW. Hard to say without more research/data.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Somerset midway between Bath&Wells. Mendips 200m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Somerset midway between Bath&Wells. Mendips 200m asl
    49 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

    Don't have time to dig through what the locals have been saying and how valid it is. With regard to the science though, there was a 2007 paper that projected a detectable change in the intensity of Australian bush fires by 2020. Page 3 here: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/2007/hennesseykj_c.pdf
    I'm sure there are plenty more similar papers out there too.

    I suppose it doesn't have to be a binary scenario, AGW or land management. There's little doubt that record breaking heat and droughts will contribute to more bush fires, but the contribution of other factors, such as land management, may be larger or smaller than AGW. Hard to say without more research/data.

    Thank you. I'm so glad you agree it doesn't have to be a binary discussion.

    Having seen first hand the extent of flooding in Somerset a few years ago and seeing/hearing how lack of land management had caused a large proportion of the problem, I'm inclined to accept the word of those aussie farmers. Climate change may make flooding in Somerset more likely, but failure to dredge the rivers and ditches over the years, meant the excessive rainfall had no where to go. Now they are being properly maintained, flooding (despite the ceaseless rain recently) has been at historical levels and in the expected flood plains.

    If climate change is likely to cause more bush fires, then it's completely logical that failing to clear undergrowth will only make matters worse. It therefore stands to reason, that taking the current dire situation over there as proof positive of climate change being responsible, is both fool hardy and less than an honest picture. It would appear to be another occasion of latching onto something in order to drum home a message. Can't see how that helps anyone.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
     Share

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...