Village

I wonder how long it will be before a so called climate expert looks out of the window and finally realises that the climate hasnt changed one bit and comes with so called new research to state exactly that? Its taking them an awful long time to work out that our climate here is no different. Maybe they havent a clue at the end of the day.

Cool cloudy and windy here in London and the southeast after a rainy evening yesterday. Another poor few days to add to a poor summer.

Another pretty average summer .....basically our climate is totally unchanged....what we get now is exactly what one should expect here. Our records of Summers past here in the UK will back this up too. It clearly indicates that there is no climate change. What you see out of the window is what you should expect here during Summer.

Its been another terrible summer so far where I live in southeast Essex. I have never known my lawns to look so beautifully rich and green. I have had regular periods of cloud and rainfall which has been very heavy at times. Even last night we had a period of very torrential rain causing problems driving between Chelmsford on the A130 and my town to the south. The number of times my gutters have been overflowing in the last two months is astounding. Sunshine levels are low and so too have been the temperatures. The last four summers have also been atrocious, although not as wet as this year. The northeast of Essex has seen it drier I understand, but if only I could have three days in a row without the cloud and rain !! thats what I pray for. I havent been sailing now for two years because of the appalling summers. A warming climate? mediteranean Summers? dont make me laugh.....that was two decades ago....its nothing like as warm or dry as it was fifteen to twenty years ago.

All these reports are wild, inacurate and simply speculative make-believe. The truth is that there are always extremes in the weather, there always has been extreme weather events and there always will be. The whole of history is littered with records and stories of flood, drought, torrential rain, snow etc etc. The meteorological office has good records dating back hundreds of years and they clearly support that our weather is no more extreme. In fact, the truth is that the last ten thousand years has been reltively stable right across the globe and there are no signs of a change in this stable period. Everything else is purely speculative and not supported by any conclusive evidence whatsoever.

The so called experts are also confused because they cant agree amongst themselves about anything. There are too many variables which drive our weather and climate and we dont know enough about any of them. The question we should all be asking is; Who was fooled by Gordon Brown's theory that if we here in the UK pay more tax in the form of climate taxes then we can save the World! Further, as temperatures are clearly falling here in the UK....then what are we paying for anyway?

As I understand it , the southern part of Greenland was green between Spring and Autumn and it was warm enough to grow crops there. The evidence from the digs in the region have uncovered that aggriculture did take place for a number of generations before it became colder again. Today, this part of Greenland is still much colder than it was in the past when it was colonised. Yes, through my own observations I would concur with this too. Its the lobes of warm regions of the Stratosphere which retrogress in a series around the region 60 to 70 degrees north which induce a mid lattitude surface pressure gradient or NOT as the case may be. I have noted that this in turn affects the source region for the draw on mid lattitude input to the Artic. My own theory is that the ice sheet is absolutely determined by this source region because this is critical to atmospheric moisture in the lowest portion of the atmosphere and therefore precipitation in the region. One day, when I have the time I will bring my own theory on the science to be tested.

We should not be concerned about a period of less ice in the Arctic IMO. It is very possible that the net impact will be good for life on this planet.

No drought where I live in southeast Essex.....my grass is the healthiest and greenest I have ever experienced ....I cant remember a time when we have had such a sustained period of heavy rain and sunshine alternately day in day out, week in week out during the whole of May and June. It was a dry April, but I havent had a dry four day run since the first week of May. rainfall totals for this month are three times what I would normally expact and our reservoirs are at very healthy levels. Where is the drought?

Yes of course, and also where one is going to be located, ie shade or sunshine, in a breeze or protected and the level of physical activity etc, etc. However, if one is to explain this solely in terms of temperature as this report attempts then one would most certainly not use shaded air temperatures. One would be better off using the insolation index because it represents the greatest corrolation when all factors are taken into account.

Jethro, You are also making the same fundamental mistake IMO. You are maintaing that again its air temperatures and nothing else. Let me again explain my reasoning because maybe it is that its been lost over the past few posts. An average person wears a coat because they feel cold and they take it off because they feel warm right? Thats agreed ...thats not my point. The OPEL report maintain that air temps are the reason and so does the METO......I dont agree. Air temperatures are measured in the shade. They have forgotten that basic fact IMO. The real reason IMO that someone decides to loose clothing is not shade temperatures.....its apparent temperatures. Lets take the point in question from the report. They say that the average person moves to summer clothes when the air temperatures rise above 13.5C. This argument can be totally destroyed when one takes into account insolation levels. I believe that very few people would ever put on summer clothes when only 13.5C is reached. I believe that its the levels of insolation which takes the apparent temperatures way higher. For instance....it could be 13.5C and no sunshine and therefore apparent temperatures are say 16C at the surface and only 5% of people change to summer clothes. Or it could be 13.5C and under a hot June sun where surface temperatures are 40C!!! which means that more than 50% of the population wear summer clothes. Therefore it has nothing to do with shade temperatures, its all about apparent temperatures and the intensity of insolation is the key factor. The acid test to prove I am right is to note that even on a sunny day in November with air temps of 13.5C there will be very few people wearing summer clothes....because the insolation factor is greatly reduced. Another acid test is to look at nature....the whole of nature relates to insolation variability and not temperatures. The average shade temperatures is simply a side show. When professionals continually make this mistake one has to question why! Thats why I maintain that there is a fixation with the temperaures variable. Why else is it that they make this mistake?

I think most people know now that Green taxes are not used to make for a greener future. The word 'Green' is simply used as a vehicle to raise more tax revenue for the general pool. If it was about Green issues then the money would be ringfenced and spent on green projects. It is not, almost all of it is spent on anything but green projects.

Hi Jethro, The OPEL report which the Meto are promoting clearly concludes that it is air temperatures which make people change their lifestyles. I have heard the same nonsense many times before in relation to nature also. But as I pointed out....its not air temperatures....its the Insolation levels reaching the Earth's surface. The Meto and the authors of OPEL have got it wrong IMO for the reasons I have stated. The Meto are attaching too much improtance to their own average temperature data quite possibly because its the one variable that they have spent most of their time on. Therefore eveything they seem to produce is always explained relative to temperatures. The Meto needs to take a long hard look at its own fixation with one variable and understand why it is that they link everything to that one variable. IMO its this one factor which is restricting the development of the science. Global warming is not necessarilly what it has been promoted as. It is more likely to be because air temperature data is the one most recorded variable and most manipulated of collated data streams. Therefore its all they can grapple with to use in promoting explanations about changes. Why else has Climate Change been promoted as an issue solely related to average temperatures?

This report about sea levels on the East of the USA doesnt add up IMO. This sudden rise in rate of increase is not reflected in other places in the world. Therefore it must be due to underlying regional tectonic movements or the reconstructed ancient rates are clearly wrong. But the report doesnt mention this critical piece of the puzzle. Further, on the eastern part of the UK sea level rise rates have been very stable over hundreds of years and rise at 6mm per year (3mm when techtonic movement is taken into account). So why is the USA experiencing a lesser rate if its a global issue? It doesnt add up.

I agree, the report does miss the point....but who can blame the author when the whole issue of climate has been deliberately confused by association with carbon fuels for political reasons. As long as our politicians continue to fail us by not spending the time on understanding the subject and blindly peddling the same old CO2 theoretic then this confusion will continue to prevail. Our own Met Office which is also politically driven through the Ministry of defence has also managed to miss the point although they do have to tow the pet political line of the day. The truth is that even though we are now in an extremely rare insolation event the likes of which this planet has not experienced for about four hundred years the Met Office continues to peddle air temperature data statistics as being the relevant variable to watch! The recent OPEL climate survey that they peddle out is again fundamentally flawed IMO. The survey again emphasises average temperatures as the cause for everything in our lives when it is actually NOT the cause. Insolation variability is the cause and not surface temperatures. Surface temperatures are the effect. In the report they believe that the clothes we adorn each day are a response to average temperatures!!! When will these people give up their love affair with Met Office official averages? Its the Sun stupid!! They actually believe that 23% of people put summer clothes on when temperatures reach 13C!! Not a mention of sunshine playing a part!! How many people do you know who will wear summer clothes on a cloudy day with top temps of 13C ? But on a sunny day under a powerful sun where in sun temperatures will climb to 40C of course they will!! But no.....they miss the obvious in there persistent love affair with temperature data. When will they learn? Until they drop the manmade temperature averages they will never be in a position to really understand what makes our climate and therefore ice coverage alter over the long term.

No need to get soul destroyed about the loss in Arctic Ice. One should be rejoicing IMO. The more exposed land in the northern hemisphere then the better for all carbon based life forms.....that means us guys!...it means more life , more diversified life and more food! :-) You certainly wont be very happy if the Ice started to build again to levels that it did a few thousand years ago....then you will really have something to worry about.

Contrails can be eliminated very easilly anyway. The aircraft will simply fly in the Stratosphere at 50,000 plus feet in the future where there is absolutely hardly any moisture and any injection of condensation will evaporate into the environment in a nanosecond. Simples

Hi Summer! I wouldnt get too concerned about contrails because of the latest fad about vitamin D deficiency. These reports blow hot and cold. It was only a few years ago that the surveys returned that we should be keeping out of the sun and putting hats on kids and keeping them in the shade. Now the fad is that they need more sunshine. Its the same with global warming theoretics....all the talk before was about the planet overheating because of us and now they find that possibly our contrails are acting to cool the planet....really? So what are we doing? in fact, are we significant enough to make any difference either way? I guess it depends on the latest report again.

What I said was that too much is made of the effects of contrails for the reasons I stated. Contrails are most common in the mid lattitudes where there exists a sustained moisture injection at altitude (ie like a warm front scenario) for instance like your scenario ahead of an advancing warm front. For most of the year the sun glances the atmosphere at such an angle in the mid lattitudes that even if an effect of a contrail shaddow on stratus way beneath it could be measured ( which they cannot) then the effects would be virtually undetectable at the surface. Its simply not significant enough and that is the reason why scientists are asking for thousands of volunteers, simply just to find out if they can detect anything detectable whatsoever.

Too much is made of contrails. Its not true that they ruin temperatures because when they can be suported in the environment, that environment at altitude moves and therefore so does any effect. Further they act to warm the environment at night , not cool it. Lastly, and most importantly, contrails cannot exist on most days because the environment doesnt support them. Aircraft must be in an environment which is moist enough to support condensation otherwise they immediately and very rappidly evapourate to leave a clear sky again. Aircraft by chance must be at the exact altitude of any moisture, if any. Thats why most days there are none existing. Also, if there is a great deal of cloud at lower levels then any contrails that do exist have no effect at the surface whatsoever. This is why the effects of contrails are greatly exagerated IMO.

I agree with you 100% and so does the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree. The IPCC simply pretends that Global warming is real but were forced to change the theory name 'Global Warming' to that of 'Climate Change' because the term global warming is totally misleading. Climate Change is the term now because the climate does change, always has done and always will do. So its a nothing statement. The question should be; Why on Earth is the IPCC waisting billions of Dollars of tax payer's money in a futile attempt to make global climate stand still just because it suits the Human world to do so? I say to all these people; Climate changes, get over it!

:good: :good: Absolutely spot on :good: :good: Some people actually believed Gordon Brown when he used to say; If you pay me more taxes I can save the planet for you! A tax on climate? what a joke. He was sent marching

London / City, heavy sleet 4C

Aha Mr Iceberg, you must have had a different name in another site! I still expect that anything could happen after the end of next year. The Solar minimum is just the beginning of a new era......our climate could change, but I am quite sure it will have nothing to do with theories about CO2. CO2 theoretics is simply a cosy bedtime story to help the kids sleep at night!

I personally believe that too much is being made about the varying degree of ice in the Arctic. As we all understand very well it is a varyable. To link this varyable to global climate change is to attribute too much. Its a mistake. As we hear over and over again from so called 'climate experts'; Regional climate can be expected to buck any global climate change. Therefore, just as one would not conclude that the Globe is necessarilly cooling because the Antarctic is cooling then one cannot conclude that the Globe is warming because of ice melt in the Arctic. To attribute one region's variability to represent the planet as a whole is a mistake the experts say. Right!