[Closed] Global warming anybody?

last year the north pole melted - all those trillions of tonnes of ice cold water went somewhere...

At least 2 of them fell into my back yard 2 weeks ago and haven't left yet.

so ironically, it may well be that all the snow is evidence of global warming.

and if this easterly wind hangs around during summer, all the roads will melt in the heat...

No idea, but why anybody would think that an increase in average global temperature has to mean an increase in temperatures everywhere all the time is beyond me. Weather is a dynamic system. So, surely, putting more energy into the system would just lead to bigger swings i.e. more extreme periods of hot/cold or wet/dry weather.

Quite what this has to do with bikes though is a mystery to me.

[url=

Isn't it called 'climate change' these days though?

And haven't global temperatures actually increased in recent history?

It was 54 degrees centigrade in Australia January 2013

They had to use a new colour for the charts...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/purple-alert-australian-heatwave-forces-climate-experts-to-use-new-colour-to-represent-extreme-temperatures-8443297.html

Global warming... 🙄

Yes thx1138, youare completely correct. It is now refereed to as climate change. Unfortunately the average idiot on the street does not really understand the concept. Of course, year on year we are seeing more intense weather events, however, because they cant wear shorts the whole year round in wherever in the UK, they don't believe that anything is happening.

The next thing the average idiot will complain about CO2 and how that is unimportant. They almost never understand the wider picture that we live in an "environment" and when we fu** it up its not pleasant to live in anymore.

Climate Change FFS.

chief9000 - Member

Global warming...

Yes thx1138, youare completely correct. It is now refereed to as climate change. Unfortunately the average idiot on the street does not really understand the concept. Of course, year on year we are seeing more intense weather events, however, because they cant wear shorts the whole year round in wherever in the UK, they don't believe that anything is happening.

What makes you think there are now more 'intense weather events' ?

[url= http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/ ]some pretty graphs for you[/url]

And no, I'm not a denier, though I am naturally skeptical of this, as I am with any piece of information. I'm just getting the arse ache with the relentless onslaught of guff from the media every time there is weather of some kind or floods, droughts, snow, heatwaves, long winters, crap summers etc telling me it must be down to [s]AGW[/s] [s]CC[/s] AEWE.

[img] [/img]
ITS CLIMAGEDDON!!!!!1

Sometimes it snows....in April.

Sometimes it snows in May (where i live, which may not be near where you live, but is important to me).

And no, I'm not a denier, though I am naturally skeptical of this, as I am with any piece of information.

That sounds like how scientists are.

I think a lot of it could be solved by sacrificing a few weather forecasters as an offering to the weather gods.

shitest global warming I've ever shivered thru

It is a bit weird ill admit.

Just come back from 2 weeks in Madeira and its a bit warmer there for sure.

Back home on the Coast it should be aves of 13C, so were 10C off that at the mo.

Global warming is a fraud.

They had to rebrand it climate change when the date didn't support warming.

Climate change is yet another fear tactic used by the elite, to keep the masses inline, and line the pockets of bankers etc with carbon credits and also serves nicely to deindustrialise the West.

It's bullshit for you folks that believe everything you read in newspapers or see on the BBC.

Even David ****ing Attenbrough feeds you the shit... and you lap it up.

quick, everyone start desperately googling for vaguely related links to prove there is no such thing!

Burn the unbeliever!

Here's something interesting to watch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qnnqt

Some original thinkers onboard. 2 points raises, like any other successful organism we change our environment, nothing new there. We shouldn't try to stop it happening, but adapt to the change.

"Climate change" is a business like any other, make no mistake.

i know insulting Sir David lets get him

However I cant fault his grasp of science 😉

Even David **** Attenbrough feeds you the shit... and you lap it up.

TBH your comment :

[b][i]Climate change is yet another fear tactic used by the elite, to keep the masses inline, and line the pockets of bankers etc with carbon credits and also serves nicely to deindustrialise the West.[/b] [/i]

suggests that you have been fed shit by David Icke which you have clearly been lapping up.

Check how close to your views David Icke's views are :

[b][i]'The latest megalomaniacal threat from the financial globalists wants to saddle the world economy with a cost of trillions of dollars that benefits favorite corporatists. The phony global warming cult has a core purpose.

Their objective is to drive down the standard of living for non-elites and prevent the use of fossil fuel energy. The fallacious science used to create a disinformation scare for politically unsophisticated “True Believers” is a direct result of transnational money manipulators.[/i][/b]

[url= http://www.davidicke.com/articles/the-money-scam/78997-a-14-trillion-extortion-for-a-global-warming-scam ]A $14 Trillion Extortion for a Global Warming Scam[/url]

Do you want to talk about lizards now?

Edited in response to the deleted post.

[tannoy] Kaesae to the forum[/TANNOY}

...They had to rebrand it climate change when the date* didn't support warming.

*data?

let me guess, there's been no warming since 1997?

kaesae = van cough cough?

Haven't seen kaesae for ages, thought he was banned or something, or spending his time on wacky conspiracy theories, and foil helmets.

I also assumed banned but I meant more they were kindred spirits. However [ I cannot believe i will say this] K man was far more grounded and polite 😯

I liked kaesae. His threads were hugely popular and he stimulated debated. Although some of his views were a little unusual.

It is truly frightening that you believe everything you have been told.

Also a concern that you cannot debate without resorting to insults..

So closed minded and indoctrinated that you buy everything that mainstream media and government tell you. Truly this frightens me.

Anyway, you carry on, pretend you have won, extinguish the debate, everyone will agree with your mainstream installed view.. The End.

Pathetic.

Also a concern that you cannot debate without resorting to insults..

I would suggest that : [i]"Even David **** Attenbrough feeds you the shit... and you lap it up."[/i]
isn't particularly polite.

kaesae = van cough cough?

I've reviewed this and I'm confident that's not the case.

Haven't seen kaesae for ages, thought he was banned or something, or spending his time on wacky conspiracy theories, and foil helmets.

At least one of those things may be true.

I'd be more inclined to listen to the people who say we are changing the climate if they would actually agree on how we are changing it. 💡

Whether you believe in CC/GW or not, I think we can all agree that waste is bad and being more economical with natural resources is good.

Burning fossil fuels for energy can't be good in anyone's book, what we need is a good clean source of energy, like nuclear. Unfortunately people are scared of it.

So closed minded and indoctrinated that you buy everything that mainstream media and government tell you.

Two things:

1) why do you assume we get our info from mainstream media?

2) If something were true, surely mainstream media and government would agree on it and be telling us? Therefore, you can't believe something is false simply because you're being told it.

They had to rebrand it climate change when the date didn't support warming.

No, they had to rebrand it because thick ****s like you looked out of the window at snow and said 'how can there be global warming? It's snowing!' 🙄

molgrips - Member

No, they had to rebrand it because thick **** like you looked out of the window at snow and said 'how can there be global warming? It's snowing!'

No, they rebranded it because they made claims that didn't come true.

I've reviewed this and I'm confident that's not the case.

It is truly frightening that you believe everything you have been told.

Also a concern that you cannot debate without resorting to insults..

So closed minded and indoctrinated that you buy everything that mainstream media and government tell you. Truly this frightens me.

Anyway, you carry on, pretend you have won, extinguish the debate, everyone will agree with your mainstream installed view.. The End.

Pathetic.

For those who aren't enjoying our unseasonably cold March/April, T ? H

Temperature does not equal Hydrogen? 😕

I'd be more inclined to listen to the people who say we are changing the climate if they would actually agree on how we are changing it.

This!

Back in 2004, the scientists were telling us this:

[i]The snow is disappearing from Snowdon, scientists have claimed.
A study of the snowline on Wales' icon mountain has found its winter cap has retreated over the past 10 years.[/i]

and, importantly that:

[i]The figures indicated that this winter Snowdon is on track to have less snow than any of the last 10 years.
The results appear to back the growing body of evidence to support climate change.[/i]

and that:

[i]"What we have found is that it is not so cold as it used to be...Minimum temperatures do not plunge as low as they used to which means that the range of temperatures we experience has decreased...And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past."[/i]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4112137.stm

Now - thats all pretty unequivocal! Then in 2007, we were being told that:

[i]Snowdon may lose its snow cover within 13 years as a result of climate change,[/i]

and that:

[i]Snow has been disappearing for some time from the peak, the highest in Britain south of the Highlands, but the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) disclosed that this winter's accumulation is the lowest since records began 14 years ago. With only a couple of snowfalls this winter, the total depths measured are way down on previous years and, if the trend continues, any kind of the cover could disappear by 2020.[/i]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/snowdon-will-be-snowfree-in-13-years-scientists-warn-432596.html

I can even point you to two official government documents that specifically state that snow coverage on Snowdon is a [b]key indicator[/b] of climate change

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_073021.pdf

http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=88430&filetype=pdf

and then we get the Welsh Minister in 2007 stating

[i]Welsh environment minister Jane Davidson said last night she was shocked by photographs taken ten years apart, one showing Snowdon covered in snow and the other more recent picture, without its white peaks.[/i]

in an article that also states

[i]Experts predict that the impact of global warming on the weather will mean increased temperatures, hotter, drier summers, [b]milder winters with less snow[/b] and more intense rainfall[/i]

"http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2007/11/21/snowdonia-shows-signs-of-global-warming-55578-20137434/

allied to this photo:

http://www.greendiary.com/photos-reveal-global-warming-sweeping-snow-out-of-snowdonia.html

So - sorry, but when this happens:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-21952080

Its simply revisionist nonsense to move the goalposts and tell us that the colder, snowier weather is down to climate change, as the global warming alarmists have quite undeniably and quite consistently been telling us for the last decade that the opposite would be true.

No, they rebranded it because they made claims that didn't come true.

a) evidence for that?
b) they've been making claims about the middle or the end of the century. It's only 2013.
c) they aren't making 'claims' they are making models that suggest certain outcomes, and trying to tell you about it. They can't help it if the general **** public doesn't understand what they are trying to say.

Back in 2004, the scientists were telling us this:

So you expect scientists to learn nothing in 9 years?

Its simply revisionist nonsense to move the goalposts and tell us that the colder, snowier weather is down to climate change

What?

Warmer air holds more moisture, which can mean more snow.

And for at least the last decade they've been telling us we'll get more intense extreme weather with climate change, but in about 50 years' time. So wtf are you talking about?

Warmer air holds more moisture, which can mean more snow.

But in just 2007, they told us:

Experts predict that the impact of global warming on the weather will mean increased temperatures, hotter, drier summers, [b]milder winters with less snow[/b] and more intense rainfall

And, [u]quite specifically[/u], that decreased snow coverage was a key indicator of climate change in wales

Ok. So the local predictions weren't right.

Does that mean the whole thing is a fraud?

It's not that hard to grasp that suggesting a trend of warming winters doesn't necessarily mean guaranteeing that every single winter from now on will be milder than the previous one, is it?

Anyway, I'm not really a denier or an advocate but I reckon that when you're talking about something as complex as the global climate it's perfectly possible that you might get temporary localised exceptions to overall trends, so I don't think the fact this winter's been quite harsh is necessarily proof of anything.

Ok. So the local predictions weren't right.
Does that mean the whole thing is a fraud?

Nope, but it means that if you're fundamentally out in your conclusions, you go back to the drawing board to figure out why you're wrong.

Its a classic case of the real world data not matching the model - and that tells you that there's something wrong with your model

yes it tells me it cannot predict yearly weather on snowdon. Is this a surprise to you? The model may well be flawed in telling us exactly what will happen but that does not mean AGW is not happening.
For example smoking causes cancer but if 1 million people start smoking i cannot tell you how many will die, when or who - it does not make the model of smoking causing cancer fundamentally flawed or wrong. We may adapt the modles to the real world data but we wont be adapting it to the point we conclude it does not cause cancer. this is what is happening with climate models and when it does you claim it is indicative the model is wrong.

when he says in the future it could - it is a statement of what MIGHT happen and no timescale is given. I suspect he meant a slightly longer timeline than the next
as for linking the lack of snow to that article [ your first is 2004 it seems we dont get as much snow as this year which you are welll aware is weather.
to refuse to accept global warming because they cannot tell you how much snow there will be on Snowdon in say 2023 is a somewhat silly position to argue.

ps your quotes all involve the journalist telling us what experts think will happen rather a direct quote from an actual "expert". I think we can accept that journos are well known for their purveying of complicated information with simplified soundbites

sbob - Member

Temperature does not equal Hydrogen?

temperature does not equal heat.

this:

[img] [/img]

isn't a model, it's the last 30 years of global temperature.

so, do we accept the data, and say the world hasn't warmed since 1997?

or, do we accept the data, and say the world has been warming for 3 decades?

or, do we say that climate scientists are making it all up to cash in on all those massive research grants/to please their lizard over-lords

Nope, but it means that if you're fundamentally out in your conclusions, you go back to the drawing board to figure out why you're wrong.

Sounds to me like you've not really understood what the scientists were trying to say. I've not heard anyone making local weather predictions for 5-10 years in the future. I've heard people say things like 'snow COULD become rarer' but I don't pay much attention to them. I prefer actual science to media friendly soundbites.

molgrips - Member
Nope, but it means that if you're fundamentally out in your conclusions, you go back to the drawing board to figure out why you're wrong.
Sounds to me like you've not really understood what the scientists were trying to say. I've not heard anyone making local weather predictions for 5-10 years in the future. I've heard people say things like 'snow COULD become rarer' but I don't pay much attention to them. I prefer actual science to media friendly soundbites.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Pointless to try and discredit science via newspaper clippings.

I dunno. The Snowdon Discredit could be up there with The Edinburgh Defence.

Pointless to try and discredit science via newspaper clippings.

And to also use selected quotes ?

According to that link Dr Viner went on to say :

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

But hang on that was 13 years ago, not the probable 20. So yet another example of how a scientist has screwed up, eh ?

It's amusing that people try to see a conspiracy of environmentalists and others making money from making up climate change. All the serious money is made by those pumping carbon from fossil fuels into the atmosphere....

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

rattrap - well and truly.... what's that word the kids use? Ah yes, I think it's 'pwned'. 😆

One problem though Grum... I didn't post it!

Pwned 😉

It completely undermines the point you were making rattrap. You claimed that scientists in 2007 had predicted less snow in future years, and yet as far back as 2000 scientists argued that climate change would lead to heavy snow occasionally returning and causing chaos.

One problem though Grum... I didn't post it!
Pwned

That doesn't even make any sense. You could at least have the good grace to admit when you've been caught out making a completely spurious point. But then why am I feeding the troll - sometimes I forget.

It doesn't matter who posted it - it completely discredits all the rubbish you've been spouting on this thread.

as far back as 2000 scientists argued that climate change would lead to heavy snow occasionally returning and causing chaos.

Hasn't that always been the case? Hardly a bold prediction.

I predict that we'll have surprisingly heavy rainfall at times during the summer.

Hasn't that always been the case? Hardly a bold prediction.

I predict that we'll have surprisingly heavy rainfall at times during the summer.

Exactly. The deniers try to use it as an example that climate change can't be happening, whilst ignoring the fact that "stuff happens".

climate change would lead to heavy snow [b]occasionally[/b] returning and causing chaos.

See that word there Ernie, "occasionally" - Thats your problem!

You're predicting heavy snow from December through to April every year ?

What was that quote from the CRU Emails?

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

Why does an email present a problem for you rattrap ? I'm sure that the whole argument on this subject shouldn't hang on an email sent by one person - how about you ? And isn't the whole reason why it is now called climate change rather than global warming precisely because warming isn't always evident ?

the short version- you are cherry picking data and misrepresenting what it means to serve your agenda though of course this is just what everyone else does

bit longer

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"
Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email

This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system.

Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small 40 years ago but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m2 over the 2000 to 2005 period, as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite data indicates the energy imbalance has continued to increase from 2006 to 2008. The net result is that the planet is continuously accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.

Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't surface temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural variability". But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual physical processes involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the energy must go somewhere. Is it going into melting ice? Is it being sequestered deep in the ocean? Did the 2008 La Niña rearrange the configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the above? Trenberth wants answers!

So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy budget, tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the climate. A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x 1020 joules per year. The following list gives the amount of energy going into various parts of the climate over the 2004 to 2008 period:

Land: 2 x 1020 joules per year
Arctic sea Ice: 1 x 1020 joules per year
Ice sheets: 1.4 x 1020 joules per year
Total land ice: between 2 to 3 x 1020 joules per year
Ocean: between 20 to 95 x 1020 joules per year
Sun: 16 x 1020 joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling from 2004 to 2008)
These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 1020 joules per year. This falls well short of the total 145 x 1020 joules per year (although the error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It's not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It's that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.

So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only goes to 900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m2. This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance.

A subsequent study by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013) determined that over the past decade, approximately 30% of ocean warming has occurred in the deeper layers, below 700 meters. This conclusion goes a long way to resolving the 'missing heat' discrepancy. There is still some discrepancy remaining, which could be due to errors in the satellite measurements, the ocean heat content measurements, or both. But the discrepancy is now significantly smaller, and will be addressed in further detail in a follow-up paper by these scientists.

Summary
So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"
Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email

Self confessed troll returning under his third username (that we know of) is PWNED so hard his arse must be inside out. 😆

He's not as good at this as Kaesae

Needs to respond to more things with unrelated questions and YouTube videos

ernie_lynch - Member
Pointless to try and discredit science via newspaper clippings.
And to also use selected quotes ?

According to that link Dr Viner went on to say :

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.
But hang on that was 13 years ago, not the probable 20. So yet another example of how a scientist has screwed up, eh ?

To say that validates what the CRU scientist said just complete rubbish, some years it's snowed, others it hasn't. My 'selective quoting' was intentional, I quoted the part which was factually incorrect.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1090067.stm ]2000 Severe snowfall in spring 'big freeze'[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2708283.stm ]2003 snow and gales sweep the uk[/url]
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1453011/Snow-and-ice-cause-more-mayhem-on-roads-and-the-railways.html ]2004 snow causes travel chaos[/url]
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_Kingdom_snow_events ]2005 Was the snowiest year since 1876[/url]
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1541961/Snow-brings-travel-misery-to-England.html ]2007 snow brings travel misery to Britain[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7863374.stm ]2009 heavy snowfall hits britain[/url]
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11836547 ]2010 heavy snowfall grips britain in the earliest widespread snowfall for 17 years[/url]

within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

grum - Member
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.
rattrap - well and truly.... what's that word the kids use? Ah yes, I think it's 'pwned'.

What's that? Oh yes, see above - PWNED

2000 Severe snowfall in spring 'big freeze'
2003 snow and gales sweep the uk
2004 snow causes travel chaos
2005 Was the snowiest year since 1876
2007 snow brings travel misery to Britain
2009 heavy snowfall hits britain
2010 heavy snowfall grips britain in the earliest widespread snowfall for 17 years

"Newspapers write shocking headlines about the weather every year shocker"

Short term evidence in a long term trend

Well, if we are using newspapers

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-behind-the-big-freeze-is-climate-change-bringing-the-arctic-to-europe-6358928.html

BTW retro83, if you dig around you'll find newspaper headlines announcing all the scorching summers we had. And the wet ones. And the ones with droughts, etc, etc

Good lord, even the Mail has one. FACT then.

http://www.****/sciencetech/article-1341388/Global-warming-Britain-longer-colder-winters-melting-sea-ice-plays-havoc-weather-patterns.html

Just to balance out The Mail

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming

And http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8281655/Climate-change-means-we-will-be-skiing-in-Yorkshire-rather-than-sunbathing-under-palm-trees-experts-warn.html

When did the climate start to change? Was it the 1970s or a bit before?

When did the climate start to change? Was it the 1970s or a bit before?

Warmer air holds more moisture, which can mean more snow.

so when it snowed loads years ago as we get told it did, that means it was warmer than it is now...and that when it wasnt snowing loads during what we understand was a warm period it was maybe because its was colder

...

That's why it snows more in February and March than it does earlier in the winter. I'm not making it up btw.

Why the hell am I getting involved in this? Some of you really don't know the first thing about this issue. You should identify yourselves and then just stop thinking about it. You'll only get confused and start imagining giant conspiracies.

or, we can't just post a link to a photo of some snow, and say 'pfft, so much for global warming'

well, we can still do that, but we'd fail our phd vivas if that's the best science we could come up with...

We were always told the weather would become more unpredictable/inconsistent, within a general trend of warming. I really fail to see how that's being disproved by current events.

It also seems to display a childish misunderstanding of science to say 'well they didn't accurately predict everything that's happened in the last 20 years, therefore it's all a hoax/conspiracy'.

ernie_lynch - Member
"Newspapers write shocking headlines about the weather every year shocker"

ernie_lynch - Member
BTW retro83, if you dig around you'll find newspaper headlines announcing all the scorching summers we had. And the wet ones. And the ones with droughts, etc, etc

Molgrips said he hadn't seen climate scientists talk in absolutes, I simply provided a quote to the contrary (from a scientist at the CRU@UEA no less) and links to show the statement was factually incorrect. But that's still not good enough?

grum - Member

We were always told the weather would become more unpredictable/inconsistent, within a general trend of warming. I really fail to see how that's being disproved by current events.

It also seems to display a childish misunderstanding of science to say 'well they didn't accurately predict everything that's happened in the last 20 years, therefore it's all a hoax/conspiracy'.

Perhaps scientists should stop [s]making such exacting predictions then[/s] talking to journalists. 😉

Molgrips said he hadn't seen climate scientists talk in absolutes, I simply provided a quote to the contrary

I said I hadn't seen it. And I'm still right, cos I hadn't seen that quote.

However that is splitting hairs. I think that particular scientist was probably out of order talking like that, IF that is what he actually intended to say or what he actually did say.