[Closed] Another weather thread - but can someone explain what is happening please?

As the artcic warms and melts, whether that is due to AGW or just natural climate variability, the newly melted and cold water spreads and cools the atnosphere covering it. That atnospheric cooling continues to the high level where the jet stream is found, forcing the jet stream further south. As the jetstream controls where the atlantic depressions are steered a southerly jet steam means that the bad weather that would have been steered north and miss the UK now hits directly.

monsoon season here 'innit

[s]Global warming[/s]
[s]Climate change[/s]
It's just a bit of a crappy summer, really.

And there may be worse to come...

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/combination-of-factors-could-m/36990

AccuWeather.com Long Range Expert Joe Bastardi believes there is a significant chance for particularly frigid winters in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 into 2014-2015

Best. Name. Ever.

I saw a bloke reporting for BBC while ago on some sort of financial policy changes. He really looked like a financial journalist (geeky, glasses, the kind of guy who would have got picked on in school). His name was Guy Dangerfield.

One good thing out of all this bad weather is that they've stopped banging on about global warming.

I think the BBC soon shut up after even they realised they couldn't pull the wool over our eyes any more that we were supposed to all be basking in 50 degree sunshine.

Still, I'll happily burn a few trees down if it meant a proper summer.

Its all Bob Diamonds fault! Or possibly Fatcha's

I think the BBC soon shut up after even they realised they couldn't pull the wool over our eyes any more that we were supposed to all be basking in 50 degree sunshine.

Oh dear.

I think the BBC soon shut up after even they realised they couldn't pull the wool over our eyes any more that we were supposed to all be basking in 50 degree sunshine

Troll or stupid?

Maybe neither.

But probably both.

Its not necessarily all bad. At least it'll keep the rioters indoors for bit longer. Lets face it, as soon as we get a bit of sustained sunshine the city centres are going to be ablaze again

Maybe its a conspiracy between the police and Foot Locker

Troll - unless he failed to understand the simple explanation above - unless of course he thinks that ice caps are melting and it is not getting warmer?

The simple explanation can explain how the natural feedback loops of the earth's climate can self-regulate with a temporary warming prompting a colling effect.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation ]North Atlantic Oscillation[/url]

[img] http://www1.secam.ex.ac.uk/scripts/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2681&g2_serialNumber=1& [/img]

[img] http://www1.secam.ex.ac.uk/scripts/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2678&g2_serialNumber=1& [/img]

Its not necessarily all bad. At least it'll keep the rioters indoors for bit longer. Lets face it, as soon as we get a bit of sustained sunshine the city centres are going to be ablaze again

Maybe its a conspiracy between the police and Foot Locker

If enough people get angry about the weather we could create a micro bubble of high pressure to induce summer. I'm hoping this will happen to coincide with me camping in Torridon in two weeks time.

Do people have really short memories?

This happens pretty much every single year. Nice spring, goes to **** for good slices of June and July, then gets nicer again.

One good thing out of all this bad weather is that they've stopped banging on about global warming.

I think the BBC soon shut up after even they realised they couldn't pull the wool over our eyes any more that we were supposed to all be basking in 50 degree sunshine.

I realise (hope) that this was a troll - but the scary thing is that some folk actually think like that!

failed to understand the simple explanation above

That atnospheric cooling continues to the high level where the jet stream is found, forcing the jet stream further south

The less gullible will have noticed that cold air tends to stay down, not rise to high levels in the atmosphere where the jet stream is. One theory is that as the arctic warms it reduces the pressure difference between the arctic and lower lattitudes which allows the jet stream to bend more, and at the moment it happens to be bending in such a way that we get crap weather.

One of the biggest enemies to getting the climate change message across is that the messages that are put out tend to be over-simplified or wrong. The converts and the gullible will ignore this, but surely the target must be the skeptics, so the messages must be consistent and correct?

lol.

The NAO figures give a good explanation. If you are interested, search for Rossby waves and the jet stream. (The NAO is derived from observations of surface pressure and is an indicator of jet stream activity by proxy, really. Similarly to other atmospheric patterns. The driving mechanism comes from troposphere / stratosphere interactions and instabilities in the Rossby wave patterns. For example, during the extremely cold winter we had 2010-2011, extreme weather was mimiced around the globe as the Rossby wave pattern had shifted. Similarly, there is/has been 'unusual' weather around the Northern Hemisphere with this latest 'anomaly', e.g. US east coast heat wave and associated storms.)

Another weather thread - but can someone explain what is happening please?

Raining. Mostly.

Looking on the bright side, it stops southernists moaning on about hosepipe bans.

But it's going to be sunny in the Scottish Borders next week though, isn't it? ISN'T IT?

This happens pretty much every single year. Nice spring, goes to **** for good slices of June and July, then gets nicer again.

Well it happens in cycles but not every year but yes people forget. It's been about 5 or 6 years of this now.

Could it be the unfortunate truth that, between the global warming deniers and the the environmental evangelists, in reality, absolutely nobody has got the slightest ****ing clue what the hell is going on?

Certainly looks that way to me

Could it be the unfortunate truth that, between the global warming deniers and the the environmental evangelists, in reality, absolutely nobody has got the slightest ****ing clue what the hell is going on?

Certainly looks that way to me

Difficuly to continue justifying research grants etc if you admit it though.

These 'scientists' have probably got families to feed and mortgages to pay, so as long as they've got a seat on the climate change bandwagon the larder will be full.

One of the biggest enemies to getting the climate change message across is that the messages that are put out tend to be over-simplified or wrong. The converts and the gullible will ignore this, but surely the target must be the sceptics, so the messages must be consistent and correct?

This is of course true, but a problem is explaining the difference between weather and climate; between long-term averages and extreme events and the statistics that scientists use on these very different observations. Whether or not the rise in global mean atmospheric temperature is a driving factor in the more extreme variation in the jet stream track(s) we have observed recently is something we won't know for a few years yet, and may never be able to decipher with sufficient statistical rigour. The sceptics will jump on that scientific rigour and say 'there is no proof', but there is good evidence of [i]climatic[/i] changes.

The latest anomaly is a consequence of natural variability in the system, but whether the more extreme Rossby wave locations and its consequences on extreme events observed on the ground have been accentuated by global temperature increases is something that will take a long time and a lot of effort to determine.

To those worrying about me being a troll, perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

For many years, certainly throughout the early 00's, the BBC spent much of their time telling us that we were directly contributing to the CO2 emissions that were causing the Greenhouse Effect, and thus causing massive global warming, which they reckoned we'd end up being a bit similar to Mercury as a result of our evil actions.

I'm fully aware of the natural oscillations of the planet that result in the ebb and flow of the cooling and warming, and more than aware of the maaaaaaaany scientific reasons for what we're seeing at the moment (I'm no scientist, so I'm not able to argue whats right or wrong).

However, my point was this; we were told for many years that we directly contributed to the melting of the ice in the polar regions. They've backed off on this now; telling as it was when Attenborough made the comment at the end of his last nature series.

There was many buzzwords chucked around by groups for political gain (imho) such as Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change and Global Warming that used the human impact as a main contributor. It seems to be that in the wake of this weather, they've kind of got a little quiet on the Greenhouse Effect one...

Konagirl - well put.

The sceptics will jump on that scientific rigour and say 'there is no proof'

This is surely relatively easy to counter by an appropriately phrased risk statement. My main issue is that often the messages that are put out are misleading or simply wrong. The skeptics can they say "you are wrong" and the argument is lost.

Edit: and when people fall for the incorrect statements it reinforces the impression that climate change is a belief system and not a scientific study.

Difficuly to continue justifying research grants etc if you admit it though.

These 'scientists' have probably got families to feed and mortgages to pay, so as long as they've got a seat on the climate change bandwagon the larder will be full.

Yeah. Greedy ****s.

they've kind of got a little quiet on the Greenhouse Effect one..

I know!!!. It's summer and it's cold and raining. I'm writing a furious letter to the University of East Anglia as I type this.

Up along the eastern half of the South Downs Way on Saturday and Sunday - relying on the long range (week) forecast turning out to be completely wrong, as usual... 😕

he converts and the gullible will ignore this, but surely the target must be the skeptics, so the messages must be consistent and correct?

Could it be the unfortunate truth that, between the global warming deniers and the the environmental evangelists, in reality, absolutely nobody has got the slightest ****ing clue what the hell is going on?

Certainly looks that way to me

yes experts pah what do they know about anything ...like say font choices eh

For many years, certainly throughout the early 00's, the BBC spent much of their time telling us that we were directly contributing to the CO2 emissions that were causing the Greenhouse Effect

If you were paying attention then you would also have noticed that they have been telling us for years that global warming would lead to more extreme and unpredictable weather. Is this not exactly what we are experiencing and talking about?

I think you fail to understand the concept of science anyway. Some people have ideas, do research, do experiments, suggest what might happen. This can change.

Global warming is still happening tho, and it appears to be messing up our weather quite effectively. [b]As predicted[/b]. By scientists.

we were told for many years that we directly contributed to the melting of the ice in the polar regions

Is that not happening now then?

Oh jeebus he was being serious!

the Greenhouse Effect, and thus causing massive global warming

You do realise that the hypothesised [i]"massive global warming"[/i] generally equates to a couple of degrees and that some areas would get wetter and colder (more water in the atmosphere, melting polar ice, jet streams changing direction etc).

Not sure how that ties up with [i]"we were supposed to all be basking in 50 degree sunshine"[/i]?!?

Or as the Royal Society puts it:

"It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure – global temperature – the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place."

-- http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/

I think you fail to understand the concept of science anyway. Some people have ideas, do research, do experiments, suggest what might happen. This can change.

Wrong again there 'Grips. They do this:

families to feed and mortgages to pay, so as long as they've got a seat on the climate change bandwagon the larder will be full

And, they grow human ears on the back of bald, albino mice. Oh, and lets not forget about doing shed-loads of research on what foods will/will not give us cancer. [u]That[/u] is [s]what[/s] all 'scientists' do.

Seemingly there is no reason for these extraordinary [s]intergalactical[/s]meterological upsets

Only Dr Hans Zarkov, formerly at NASA, has provided any explanation. His ideas, however, have been rejected as irrational.

I dont think you can convince a sceptic with facts tbh

Many climate change sceptics are perfectly rational people who are not in the pay of big oil companies. Many of them could be convinced by appropriate facts. But correctly presented facts are thin on the ground whereas opinions are not in short supply. This may of course be because the right facts are not available.

These 'scientists' have probably got families to feed and mortgages to pay, so as long as they've got a seat on the climate change bandwagon the larder will be full.

Lol. Again, we seem to missing the difference between weather and climate; between observations and the 'dark art' of science (making sense of the observations, understanding the system and ... as has been asked of the 'scientists' by Government, making predictions of what [i]might[/i] happen).

The climatic observations are quite clear and scientifically rigourous. Global mean temperature is increasing, and associated with that there are numerous climatic effects that are documented and measured. These are facts. Now, there are regional variabilities overlying this global, spatial mean. Some places are cooling, some are warming. In some locations, sea level is rising but in some it has been falling, on average, for the last 10 years. But on average, averaging spatially over the globe and taking a trend in the data, we are observing trends in a lot of atmospheric and oceanic data which could have severe consequences to humanity.

If, as a society, we don't spend some (a very small amount of) money (compared with most other Government spending) on investigating these observations, in trying to better our understanding of the driving mechanisms and improve predictions and uncertainty anaylsis, then we set ourselves up for a catastrophic fall. There was a recent paper that found the cost of setting-up, calibrating and running the flood warning system for the east USA was covered by the potential costs saved from good early warning for one specific hurricane a few years ago. Generally, investing in science is extremely cost-effective, from an economic point of view.

.

No clouds 32' rhodes

I'm going to duck out of this conversation; I didn't especially want to get into a specific scientific argument about something I readily will admit to knowing little about.

I do know however that there are some clear facts around the level of which man outputs pollution (like CO2) and that this never tied in with the so say armageddon that was being put around in the earlier part of the decade.

Being a mod for Pistonheads I know exactly how these threads turn out, and I'd rather not get lynched for being a bit dim! Take a look here if you want to see a gigantic thread on this very exact subject: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=219&t=995557&mid=15957&nmt=Climate+Change+%2D+The+Scientific+Debate

🙂

[

Many of them could be convinced by appropriate facts. But correctly presented facts are thin on the ground whereas opinions are not in short supply. This may of course be because the right facts are not available.

Well the simple facts are
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2,. Co2 rates have increased - burning carbon based fossil fuels
3. The temperature has increased

What more do you think the sceptics want then as a fact?

Perhaps they could explain what great system could ameliorate the effect if increased C02 and why temperatures would not increase

perhaps they could then explain why every scientific organisation of any standing accepts [s]global warming [/s] lets call it climate change.

The most vocal objections are from people who are not scientist and are [ largely though not exclusively] right wing folk who don’t want to damage the economy

they have next to no facts to support their view and if they are not convinced currently then my point stands...more facts wont convince them.

Its BS to suggest there is debate on this, there is as much debatte on whether AGW as there is on gravity or evolution within the scientific community [ vitually nil] it is a [ english language] media led fiction by folk with more opinions than facts. Nothing will convince them and in some , though not all , they are far from qualified to comment

Would you get heart surgery advice from Nigel Lawson or from a cardiologist?

It is pointless to have this debate as one side is not rationally based /cannot be convinced by data...yes they are all in the pay of the great global conspiracy by solar power manufacturers whose wealth and power dwarfs those of the oil industry, the petrol chemical industry and the car industry who all quake when the greenies so much as look their way- this is meant to be a credible argument as well as all the scientists in the world lying so they can pay their bills - its a poorly conceived fiction

FFS if even these vested interests have given up arguing the issues[ took less time that tobacco denying cancer] then the sceptics left are not for turning even when the water is at their knees

Has someone compared us to the religious yet or used the word zealot

I do know however that there are some clear facts around the level of which man outputs pollution (like CO2) and that this never tied in with the so say armageddon that was being put around in the earlier part of the decade.

More specifically it never ties in with the BBC saying we'd be [i]"basking in 50 degree sunshine"[/i] by now. Mainly because they didn't. 🙄

Simple question: would you believe me if I said that volcanoes could influence the climate?

Seems fairly reasonable, yes? All part of the natural cycle? World ticking along as normal.

Volcanoes do put out a lot of CO2 after all. Somewhere around a quarter of a billion tons of CO2 per year.

Sadly, [url= http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2827 ]man-made CO2 puts out the same amount every three to five days[/url].

Odd then that this would have no effect.

NeilBolton

I concede that the message that has been put in the media, especially early on, has at times been over the top, sensationalised and at times has been wrong. This is partly from the lack of experience scientists have / had in dealing with the media and from its spin on things (how to sell a story)... But we can't just blame the media. e.g. the early IPCC report statement on glacier melt in the Himalaya. There should have been much more rigourous checks and statements about uncertainty - but I think the authors didn't want to report to read to a legal document with a caveat at every page! Its main purpose was to inform and I think it has achieved that.

The science, and in particular, the uncertainty analysis has come a long way since the IPCC started reporting, which is perhaps something that the public isn't too aware of. And scientists are getting a lot more support on how to talk to and use the media and other forms of communication a lot more.

It is actually very useful to hear people's opinions on climate change/AGW because it gives those in the science community an idea of how the public perceives both the science and the message that they are hearing.

I'll "duck out" now!

Seriously, don't feed the troll

Well the simple facts are
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2,. Co2 rates have increased - burning carbon based fossil fuels
3. The temperature has increased

I'm guessing you're not a scientist. I won't bother taking that apart but this is exactly the sort of over-simplified "explanation" and certainty that discredits climate science in the general public's view, positions it as a belief system and feeds the skeptics. Have a read of what konagirl put above for a more reasoned position.

According to some more sensible, less sensationalistic weather professionals everything we are seeing is within normal statistical limits. We would have to see consistent change for fifty years before they would agree that the world was warming up.

We are just better informed about what's happening around the world and more of us are more affected because there are a hell of a lot more humans on the Earth than even 50 years ago.

Carry on.

CO2 emissions that were causing the Greenhouse Effect

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect ]do go on.[/url]

Well the simple facts are
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2,. Co2 rates have increased - burning carbon based fossil fuels
3. The temperature has increased

What more do you think the sceptics want then as a fact?

Are you implying correlation = causation without giving a mechanism for the causation that can also be backed up by facts?

I agree with the sentiment and I'm not diagreeing with your hypothesis but if you want to base you arguements on facts you really need to understand how to use them properly or your agrument will be dismissed on a technicality rather than being taken on board.

However, my point was this; we were told for many years that we directly contributed to the melting of the ice in the polar regions. They've backed off on this now; telling as it was when Attenborough made the comment at the end of his last nature series.

I thought "they've backed off in this now" because it is fairly widely reported and accepted as being one of the main contributory factors. It's definitely been done over and over in the media, to the point where people are fed up with reading it. Perhaps it's more of a case that it's no longer the headline grabber it once was, doesn't sell papers etc. clearly this doesn't mean we dont contribute to global warming, but rather it's just not rammed down our throats.

Fuzzhead, I'm starting to get a little annoyed at the troll comments; I'm clearly not a troll, and it's a little offensive.

You wouldn't say it to my face, so lets not turn this place into somewhere where it's seemingly acceptable to do so.

Konagirl, thanks for your post - I actually have no problem with the science, nor do I have a problem with informed voices trying to explain to a lay person like myself.

I'm not going to start arguing about something I know nothing about, hence my previous post 🙂

According to some more sensible, less sensationalistic weather professionals everything we are seeing is within normal statistical limits. We would have to see consistent change for fifty years before they would agree that the world was warming up.

Each decade since the 1970's has been warmer than the previous one.
Are you saying we need to wait another 50 years on top of that before it can be considered a trend (i.e. till 2060ish) or just till those figures reach 50 years (i.e. till 2020ish)?

Also Climate scientists say that average global temperature has risen "[i]by about 0.8°C (with an uncertainty of about ±0.2°C) since 1850"[/i]. Does that not count for anything?

I'm clearly not a troll, and it's a little offensive.

True. If you were a troll you would have made exaggerated inflammatory statements about something that you admit you know very little about.

🙄

Well the simple facts are
1. [s]Co2[/s]This weather is [s]a greenhouse gas[/s]Crap
2,. [s]Co2[/s]Grumpiness rates have increased
3. [s]The temperature has increased[/s]Another informative STW thread has descended into pointless arguing

Difficuly to continue justifying research grants etc if you admit it though.

These 'scientists' have probably got families to feed and mortgages to pay, so as long as they've got a seat on the climate change bandwagon the larder will be full.

I'm loving this - the idea that researchers do research because they want the vast amounts of money, fame & fortune (and overwhelming quantities of anonymous sexual encounters, hard drugs and free champagne?) that are of course part of being an academic, particularly if you are part of the 'climate change bandwagon'.

Given climate scientists are mostly going to be people with a pretty strong grasp of maths, stats, computer modelling etc. - if they wanted a safe job with lots of money and all that they'd have become accountants or something - people become academics because they are interested in something, not for the safe easy vast quantities of money. eg. My pay now, after 6 years of postgrad/post doc stuff (and being quite successful at it so far, in a pretty well funded department) is something like 75% of my pay before my PhD, even ignoring the significant amount of inflation that has gone on since then meaning that the money is worth less than it was.

Joe

GrahamS, wind your neck in mate. No need to be a prick about it. I see your profile explains why you feel the need to be like you are however.

One thing is for sure, Organic355 is absolutely right.

organic355,

[img] [/img]

According to some more sensible, less sensationalistic weather professionals everything we are seeing [with regard to the weather] is within normal statistical limits. We would have to see consistent change [in weather patterns on the daily timescale] for [s]fifty[/s] [30] years before they would agree that [s]the world was warming up[/s] [the warming global temperature is a cause of a perceived increase in extreme events].

FTFY. With regard to climatic change (climate being the 30 year average of weather observations), then the climate is different now to what it was 30 years ago and before, as described by GrahamS. It's determining whether or not the extreme events we are observing (the extreme monsoons and flooding in ****stan last year, extreme rainfall here in 2007 and last week, etc.) are outside the 'statistical norm' that is very difficult to say without many more years of observations.

Given climate scientists are mostly going to be people with a pretty strong grasp of maths, stats, computer modelling etc. - if they wanted a safe job with lots of money and all that they'd have become accountants or something

Probably be financial analysts actually, very similar maths (stochastic, chaotic systems; extreme value statistics)... most of my Masters course went into banking.

Interesting and perhaps little known FACT:

The building of the Hoover Dam in the 1950's, with lots and lots and lots of concrete, put out as much CO2 as modern day USA does in a ten year period. AFAIK, the dam continues to emit CO2, as does all concrete and yet we can't leave the stuff alone.

We would have to see consistent change for fifty years before they would agree that the world was warming up.

Minimum. How long has the earth been spinning around our star? How long have we been collecting meteorological data?

Each decade since the 1970's has been warmer than the previous one.

Well the simple facts are
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2,. Co2 rates have increased - burning carbon based fossil fuels
3. The temperature has increased
I'm guessing you're not a scientist.

I am I won't bother taking that apart

but this is exactly the sort of over-simplified "explanation"

and certainty that discredits climate science in the general public's view, positions it as a belief system and feeds the skeptics.

Have a read of what konagirl put above for a more reasoned position.

Are you implying correlation = causation without giving a mechanism for the causation that can also be backed up by facts?

it would seem that if i say C02 is a greenhouse gas and it is increasing then I would also be giving a mechanism that caused increased temperature change - ie more of the grren house gas

But we can't just blame the media. e.g. the early IPCC report statement on glacier melt in the Himalaya.

Consiodering sceptics have poured over the thousands of claims within the report they have found very little that was factuall innacurate and wher ethey have it hs been about the impact [ which we all agree is uncertain and hard to define] rather thn ait being about any critical argument

So whioch of these is wrong?

1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2,. Co2 rates have increased - burning carbon based fossil fuels
3. The temperature has increased

Only 3 is even "worthy " of debate

LOL at the personal responses on here .... on the one hand rational discourse on the other wound up hyperbole whilst trying to say the other side are wound up and overstaing their case..... its like a modern day religious thread but with actual facts if any of you cared to say anything about them 🙄

Can i predict complete ignorance of fcats related to points 1-3 and more of the same for a few more pages.

I scraped a first class science degree with minors in the philosophy of science

Did they have "word-counts" then ? 😉

😆

Slow day in the office, really slow but super reply genuine LOL for that ....now folk think i am mental in the real world and on the internet 😳

How have you measured this?

I haven't. Some clever blokes did and told me 😀

I was quoting from the [url= http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf ]Royal Society's Climate change: a summary of the science (PDF)[/url] - nice doc that does cover some of the scepticism and "what we don't know" stuff too.

The IPCC 4th Assessment offers more details on how global average temperature is reached, the summary in this FAQ is particularly useful (for a layman like me):
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-1.html

The climate change lobby do suffer from the problem of too much information/confusion, which makes it hard put their side of the debate across effectively in the face of the skeptic brigade who only deal in black and white: If we're not underwater, baking in 50 degree heat, battered by endless Typhoons/Hurricanes, then climate change doesn't exist.

Climate change is happening, but how extreme will it be? This is where the skeptic brigade wade in with absolutes, if it's not extreme NOW, then it's not happening. Of course they belong to groups with most to lose and finance political parties the world over.

I'd rather head this one off at the pass, so to speak, as a precaution, rather than the do the usual Human thing of closing the door after the horse has bolted.

[img] [/img]

I think a lot of resistance to the idea of MMGW came from hardcore greens insisting that the only solution is a regression to a pre-industrial society.

Turns out that while certain famous NGOs run around touting subsistence farming and smallholding as the only future we can have, a lot of clever people are building the clean technologies that will push us onwards anyway.

I still have half an inkling that climatology is a bunch of half-arsed 'models' (or 'spreadsheets') and inappropriately used statistical techniques. That said, seeing as this is a question, essentially, of fossil fuel use there are already so many reasons to quit fossil fuels that global warming is just one more, and not the biggest either.

The great thing is we have already invented the technologies we need to replace them - we just need to start building the stuff.

this it is what scpetics do

So imagine I was a sceptic (an assumption on your part, the only point I was making is that the message is presented badly), do you think you've convinced me or anyone else by reasoned argument and pertinent facts? Or have you just demonstrated my point for me? 8)

We still have a hosepipe ban here, if that helps.

IHN mentioned Dr Hans Zarkov. I wondered if he were one of the 49 NASA scientists*... he wasn't. I looked further, and now I'm amused. Thanks IHN.

*Before someone else quotes them--

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/04/26/more-debunking-of-the-ex-nasa-49-climate-change-deniers/

Oh, and I'm happy to live well above current sea level, thanks.

Each decade since the 1970's has been warmer than the previous one

The earth is 4.5 billion years old (or is that the Universe? either way, it's flipping old)

I think we should be careful about placing too much emphasis on having written down the temperature for a piffling 3 decades

It's raining. It rains every June, more often than not it rains so much in June that somewhere floods, yet it still comes as a complete surprise to the nation each year.

It's raining. It rains every June, more often than not it rains so much in June that somewhere floods, yet it still comes as a complete surprise to the nation each year.

Very true. But we can't argue about that.

I think we should be careful about placing too much emphasis on having written down the temperature for a piffling 3 decades

Do you think climate scientists have not thought of that?

cheburashka - Member
It's raining. It rains every June, more often than not it rains so much in June that somewhere floods, yet it still comes as a complete surprise to the nation each year.

Not really relevant, since the real point is that this June was most likely the wettest on record.
The reason for it is an unusually persistent region of high pressure over Greenland (similar to what caused the coldest December on record 2 years ago). Why this weather pattern is seemingly more prevalent in the last few years is open for debate, but as usual that debate seems to degenerate into uniformed vitriolic arguments about global warming (which may or may not have anything to do with it).

I got bored of reading after the pretty pictures.
It's just a bit of pooh weather really.
It happens. September will be nice and sunny though.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old (or is that the Universe? either way, it's flipping old)

I think we should be careful about placing too much emphasis on having written down the temperature for a piffling 3 decades

Undoubtedly true, it's a small sample, but you've got to start looking for some correlation somewhere.

I can give you a 2 million year old rock, which due to a force that is probably as old as the universe, will fall towards towards the ground at roughly 9.78 m/s²

How many times would you need to drop it onto your toes before you were convinced of that...? 😉

Undoubtedly true, it's a small sample, but you've got to start looking for some correlation somewhere.

I can give you a 2 million year old rock, which due to a force that is probably as old as the universe, will fall towards towards the ground at roughly 9.78 m/s²

How many times would you need to drop it onto your toes before you were convinced of that...?

It wouldn't on the Moon 😉

Somewhat facile point methinks. Weather is a variable and in the point you are trying to illustrate, gravity on Earth is much more constant.

I tend to agree with joao3v16 FWIW, we have no historical data of substance to be able to correlate anything, let alone scientific fact or statements to pertain to fact.

The Thames would regularly freeze enough to support winter markets during the 19th century. We can look at micro trends but have no base upon which to determine both floor or ceiling.

It was Neil Armstrong who once said that when he viewed the Earth from the orbiting Lunar capsule, he recognised that our planet was like his space craft and for the astronauts to survive, they had to know exactly which buttons to press to keep the life support systems functioning. He reasoned that the earth was no different... Better start looking for those buttons 😀

We have temperature data for a lot longer than three decades. Inferred from other things.