pottyprof

Quickest way I've found is type without it into google and take one of the links. http://www.utexas.edu/learn/html/spchar.html Copy and paste list

Touché

So what you're saying then is that we can't discuss climate change without speculating? Fair enough. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. For some reason keeping things clear so people can understand is an uphill battle for some people. Why use one word when you can make things into a topic of it's own? I understand the need to speculate and form ideas and paths. I already said that there is a need for that. It shows how little people take notice unless it suits their agenda. Can we keep the actual real world stuff separate from the speculation is all I was getting at?

You failed to answer my question.... Is it really that difficult to discuss elements of climate change without speculation?

I don't think that any genuine sceptic will refuse to discuss any part of the climate change subject. If they refuse then they are not doing things in the true spirit of science. My objection is about speculation being referenced as fact. People need to know what is fact and what is speculation. The lack of clarity turns many people off the subject. They don't know what to believe. Is it really that difficult to discuss elements of climate change without speculation?

It's been poor round here this year. Very few through the summer although I saw a Cabbage White and a Red Admiral over the weekend.

This is what I was trying to get to. You can't speculate and treat it as fact. There is nothing wrong in speculating provided it is used as just that. It is after all how ideas get tested, proven or dismissed. The thing is though it is constantly getting in the way of facts and positive conclusion. Again, this is speculation. There are also studies that link solar events to this phenomenon. Can we prove conclusively that either one is responsible at this moment in time? No..... Just because there are scientific papers that speculate on the various observations it doesn't mean they are right in their conclusions.

We don't have to "accept" anything that is not fact. Fact means we have evidence and is completely accurate. Anything else comes from people's imagination. Are you going to believe that Watts is telling the real story because you have to accept that some of his parameters are correct? That is what happens if we live by those rules. Sorry GW but this is exactly why my previous post was worded like it was. A thread on here was created so that you could spare the rest of the threads from your crystal ball (I'll say it if nobody else will). I don't disagree with your posts that are based on fact. You know more than many people ever will. Lets leave the drama to facebook and TV though and deal with the facts. Surely it can't be that difficult?

So nothing that we can say for definite then GW? I totally agree. This of course would also mean we leave the guesswork of what might be at the door and stick to facts. None of us have a time machine so we don't know what will happen in the future. Let's base this on what we know and what we can observe.

http://www.ustream.tv/occupiedair Back on air and showing some of their damage...

http://www.ustream.tv/occupiedair Hats off to these guys for keeping the stream going even though their apartment is flooding...

Unless it is a combination of both that causes the effect? Let's face it, it'll answer a few of the problems we're trying to make sense of..

Reed Timmer says TVN weather has teams streaming from NY later today. Only one stream at the moment. http://tvnweather.com/live

The reason I asked about the length of the drought was to see if any record averages were broken. There clearly were a few broken even if the max temperatures weren't. You could cherry pick and prove black is white all day but for now at least we have to accept that the averages are record breaking. As for the actual length of the drought, we need to look back to the 1930's and the same goes for max temperatures when daily records were set. I hate statistics. It must be confusing for anyone just starting out on the CC journey. Thanks to knocker for the links.

Did it break any records regarding the length of time ? Just wondering...

Ah.. There you go. Irony is lost on some folk. There was nothing veiled about it. If you have a problem with my comments, please feel free to PM me.

It's a fair point. The Beeb do like their CO2. Climate change has always happened.......... That said, I think we're pushing our luck with regards to the carbon issue.

I agree with your comments Knocker. There is this thing that the extremes of both sides of the debate do..... They attack each other with, frankly, stupid remarks and statements, lies and the rest of the bottom of the barrel, which leaves the rest of us feeling a bit put out to say the least. I'm not one for censorship but I think things like this really do emphasize the need for a slop bucket.

It makes the data or their reconstruction of the data questionable. No doubt they'll sort it out..... Probably with the same technique that they sort other figures out with.............. *I know, I know... Baaaaad Potty......

I agree with what you are saying Dev. A short range spot can be a useful thing when trying to get a point across in some circumstances, whether it's temperatures or anything else for that matter but it has to be accepted by both sides of the debate. To be honest, it wasn't aimed at yourself but just a general observation in here and on other boards. Cherry picking has to be accepted by both sides if both sides are going to use it. There can't be finger pointing from one side unless we allow hypocrisy to rule.

I agree. Keith.... Can you please post a link to the figures/details. You can't just make accusations without support. Providing this information will help to educate and encourage real discussion. So it's ok for one person who is pro AGW to cherry pick details and claim 16 years or so to be scientifically acceptable for climate study but yet claim 30 years when data goes against their views? Which is it? While I accept the rest of the sentiments, I must say that we really don't want to continue down the line of petty bickering. That applies to everyone. Muddy waters lack the clarity this subject needs.

Perhaps we could use the rods that they use to freeze the ground around the leaning tower of Pizza?

If your posts are missing, that's because the topic was drifting well away into Neverland. You'll find your posts here >> http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/74595-antarctic-ice-where-are-we-heading/

I think we smashed the 2007 record purely by the fact the ice was a lot younger/thinner. This was always going to be a problem if we had another summer where heat was being pumped up there and I think in a few camps it was well anticipated. We need a good 5 years of below average temperatures through the melt season for there to be any chance of a half decent recovery I think. Until we get that as a base I'd expect more of the same as we had this year and further reductions.