Devonian
-
Posts
3,573 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Devonian
-
-
3 hours ago, The PIT said:
Giving companies tax breaks to employ people locally.
Companies hit by larger taxes for employers they employ who have to commute.
Companies also given tax incentives to encourage working from home either hybrid or full working from home.
Encourage people to walk to work where possible as this is the most environmental way of getting to work.
Discourage the use of electric bikes or scooters as this allow people to become unfit.
I have an electric bike. It enables me to commute 12 miles to work and climb the 800 ft back home. Would I do that with a conventional bike? No, I've just never been that fit.
Does an electric bike mean I get unfit? It's the opposite - it only does some of the work you know and if I didn't use it I'd be driving a car to work. I can't see how that would make me fitter or be better for the environment?
-
3
-
-
41 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
The gap to other years continues to grow, lowest on record now by 526,000 km².
1,740,000 km² below the last 10 years average
3,431,000 km² below the 81-10 average
3,974,000 km² below the 1980s average
If we don't see a huge increase in growth, well over 100k/day, soon, we will end up lowest on record by close to a million km² early next week.
I think I've asked something like this before... but if there is a mass of water to cool down (as there is in eg the East Siberian Sea) will it be cooled more if it's still and the ice forms as frazel or if it's turbulent and you get pancakes that freeze together (if that's how it will work)? Put another way, could a layer of ice trap more heat below depending on how it was formed?
It looks to be well below freezing in the area (mins about -8 around the New Siberian Islands) might it almost flash freeze?
-
First noticeable sea ice along the Siberian coast...And it's amazing to be posting such an observation in late October!
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
I put together a short thread on twitter, which I'll link to below.
Basically, there was a paper published during the summer by Polyakov et al that built on previous studies and suggests that Atlantification of the Eurasian seas has increased in recent years. It has occurred because as sea ice is reduced wind and tidal movements are increasingly effective at allowing the warmer and saltier Atlantic waters to mix with the cooler, fresher surface water cap, creating a feedback that slows ice formation and accelerates melt.
There is also the risk of a tipping point being reached, whereby the sea transitions to a new state (much like what happened to the Barents Sea) where sea ice formation is massively impeded, even in mid winter.The length of time that the Siberian seas have had open water this year, and the continuing open water state, may allow for an acceleration of the Atlantification process, especially if a few large winter storms get the chance to churn up the water. This increases the risk of pushing the Kara or Laptev seas beyond Polyakov's tipping point.
'Wonderful' isn't it...
It's like being on ship accelerating towards a huge (ironically obviously) iceberg. You give warnings, you point out its getting closer and closer and that a change of direction is needed. People accuse you of lying, of wanting to spoil the party, of being a scaremonger - some even deny there is an iceberg.
You resign yourself to the reality that the complacent and careless are going to take you down with them - indeed you'll probably be shouted at by said people for not doing anything to help them as you sink under the waves...
-
4
-
-
19 minutes ago, Snowyowl9 said:
NO.
Shouting doesn't make you right...
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, egret said:
Reading the above (all of it!) with interest as the 'science' tends to get referred to in the media (how accurately?) but not published at length.
Reference is made in posts above to the valuable stabilising effect of ice melt upon temperatures, and the impact of losing the latent heat element of ice. To what extent will this be offset by that heat behind adsorbed by latent heat element of water being turned to vapour?
Trees are a major device for doing this as they can tap water stored below soil level. For me levels of afforestation remain a primary concern but I wouldn't love to see the calculations.
Once ice retreats we must surely expect increase in afforestation especially in Northern Hemisphere and presumably greater rainfall globally?
If we, as a species, are to ignorant, to glib, to careless, to do so little that CO2 continues to rise and land ice melts then ocean circulation will stop, the seas will stratify and stagnate and god only knows what will happen to atmospheric circulation, rainfall and trees.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Wimbledon88 said:
Totally agree. The CET has increased by 0.2c in the last 50 years. Nobody ever mentions that. Goes against the narrative I suppose. And as someone said earlier 40c in Ireland, what utter utter nonsense.
Interesting to see they still use Heathrow as the temperature record data for London. Wonder why...
It looks to be a lot more than .2C to me.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, jethro said:
Yes they are. The media, twitterland, even the Golden Globes award ceremony. Everywhere you look, the general opinion is that it's climate change that is responsible.
I came here to see if there's any science to support those claims. Seems as usual, it's as I presumed, a mixture of both. There is science which says massive bush fires are more likely, that drought is likely to intensify/be more prolonged. But there's nothing scientific to pin the current situation on.
El Nino causes terrible drought in Australia, climate change may make it worse. Land management (or lack of it) can, and does make a bad situation ten times worse. Ergo, stating it's a climate prediction that has been proven correct simply isn't true.
I very much doubt it's all due to human caused climate change - otoh, if there have always been bush fires then it can't be the fault of bad farming practices either. I also can't ignore the reality that last year was the warmest and driest in the detailed climate record. You're not going to see record numbers of bush fires in a record wet summer - we'd all accept that?
However, the test of how serious these fires were will be in a few years time. Then we'll see if the talk of hundreds of millions of animals lost and species made extinct is correct, the talk of how this sort of event will be the norm likewise. My hope is it all recovers, that wetter and cooler years return, I hope I'll not get called names for fearing (based upon my understanding of what is going on) that might not be the case.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Roger J Smith said:
So far I've been accused of cherry-picking and having a cult following.
If there are any other little scolds or mini-Gretas out there with a bone to pick, let's say January 9th could be International Hate Roger Smith Day and let's get it all out in the open.
You're soft skinned. When you've also been called a liar, a fraud, and had death threats (all of which repeated for years) then I'll take your words as serious.
Btw, no one is accusing you of cheery picking, its not an accusation it's a reality. You've pick one weather station and try to draw global (or at least meaningful) conclusions from that one station.. C'mon
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Relativistic said:
I understand that, but realistically how quickly can you expect that (from even the largest of scientific bodies)? Some theories take decades from the "our data is not quite as we expect" stage, to the "we now have a theory that matches our expectations" stage.
Is there some thing, some data, some evidence that makes you think that atmosphere physics is better understood by Roger than by people at Hadley Centre, or NOAA ,or GISS or indeed the IPCC? Or, put another way, what scientific something might Roger be onto?
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Relativistic said:
I think he's made his position fairly clear? I'm reading it as follows: Roger believes that a fraction of the current warming is anthropogenic, and the remaining (larger) fraction is of a natural origin. He is citing a rapid warm-up in Toronto (which he, based on his observations of other datasets, believes is representative of a large swathe of North America) during the late 19th/early 20th century as empirical evidence for this. He is not denying that carbon dioxide is a GHG; he believes instead that, in contrast to the IPCC, it has not been solely responsible for the warm-up we've seen in the last 150 years or so.
The bolded statement is, as with almost all theories in science, the natural next step to take.
And all 'we' want is for him to take that next step - too explain the 'how'. We've seen umpteen, lengthy posts about his beliefs. Arm waving, assertion and little asides about conspiracies doesn't cut it for me.-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Roger J Smith said:
These graphics don't contradict my theory in any way, Paul, since I am saying that natural variation is the main (not sole) cause of the warming over the past 120 years. I have never denied that there has been warming. We are talking about the cause of the warming, not its actual existence.
You may be speaking to a Roger Smith who in your mind is a skeptic that doesn't believe in global warming and needs to be shown graphs of it attached to opinions that the cause is anthropogenic. That person isn't me. I am the Roger Smith who knows it has been warming, already showed that in graphs posted above, and says the warming may be more natural in origin than the IPCC asserts. Their spokespersons have told me I cannot believe this because they have proven the warming to be entirely anthropogenic. I am among a large number of weather enthusiasts who do not accept that as proven science and believe that it may be based on faulty research (it has to be if it's wrong).
My question about looking at North American weather data actually refers to a period before the graphs and studies you posted, namely 1890 to 1950. I just wondered if my critics had ever looked at North American weather data for those decades and if they came away thinking that they had seen a natural cooling trend that the first portion of AGW (back then perhaps a tenth to a quarter of the later signal) had obliterated since in fact those decades showed significant warming (as my posted graphs will illustrate).
Anyway, with the holidays looming and the certainty that not much work is going to be done on this Toronto file until after new years, I am hereby ending my part of this discussion entirely. I will post the Toronto data in the historic weather section, not this thread, and make no connected statements about climate change in the posting over there, just the numbers and illustrative graphs. We have reached a point here where both sides in this debate know what the other side believes to be true and how they reached their point of view. Anyone who is interested in pursuing my alternative theory would probably be better served by joining a more open-minded discussion of it on the boards.ie weather forum. When I say more open minded, it's not just me vs three AGW proponents, it's dozens of people all over the spectrum of opinion having a frank exchange of views, and I like that sort of thing.
The Toronto data could no doubt be used by IPCC or AGW proponents to illustrate their case too. Then we won't be hearing as much about Toronto the isolated nonconforming cherry picked data set (which it certainly isn't, I am rather amused by that knowing how centre of the universe Torontonians think their city to be). The unseen irony here is that Toronto is about the last place on earth I would choose to live (and I did once live there) and my only interest in their weather data would be the longevity which exceeds most other locations in this hemisphere (1840 to present). You could research this for yourself if you doubt my word on it, but Toronto anomalies month by month will have a very high correlation with NYC, BOS, ORD, DCA and various other long-period locations in the eastern U.S. .. the anomaly patterns are usually quite organized in eastern North America. If one place is much above normal, chances are good the rest will also be. The high correlation zone probably extends from about STL to BOS, and north south from YTS to BNA. Beyond that chances increase that a different anomaly regime would be in place. A location likely to be varying inversely might be somewhere between Calgary and Salt Lake City.
Lots of words, but not a word to back up your alternative theory of atmosphere physics...
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:
Here's is a question albeit related to my area..why is the vast majority of the warming confined to the winter months and not spread out across the year??...here spring summer and autumn temps and rainfall haven't really changed over the last 50 years or so..but winter has warmed by approx +2c..is this a pattern repeated across the northern hemisphere that occurs more the further north you go??
How about winters are more likely to be affected by the greater changes to the Arctic climate (caused by AGW plus Arctic amplification) than summers because atmospheric circulation is more vigorous in the winter and sluggish in the summer so the effect of changes to the Arctic on weather is greater in the former than the latter?
-
1 hour ago, Roger J Smith said:
I will take one more turn since there are clearly misleading statements made above.
The opinions on U.S. weather forums are not confined to enthusiasts (although some enthusiasts have probably seen a lot more past weather data than some IPCC scientists). It is my observation that in North America, the entire profession including AGW proponents would stay clear of any statements about no natural warming, and a state of continued natural cooling overwhelmed by warming only of human origins. This simply looks ridiculous when you study maps, data and trends. It clearly turned a lot warmer between the 1880s and the 1910s.
The attached graph shows Toronto and CET annual averages for the period that they both exist (1841 to 2019, the latter contains a slight estimate for rest of Dec and will be adjusted in my research file when that data is in).
Now it's probable that 75% of the differential (Toronto used to be about 2 C deg colder on average, now the difference is closer to 0.5 deg) is urban heat island related, but the warming that is evident from 1888 to 1910 is almost a phase change of climate from a cold setting in the 19th century to a much warmer setting in the early 20th. There is no way that more than a slight fraction of this is related to human activity.
As for not providing one iota of proof, it's all going to be evident from this Toronto180 study, so I know the proof exists. I do accept that there is some uncertainty about how much of the warming is natural and how much is from human activity. And I have already conceded that there was a general cooling trend before the Maunder minimum. Statements made about the MWP not being as robust or widespread as some claim are (as everyone knows) highly disputed and controversial, appearing to be a deliberate distortion in plain sight. The climate in Newfoundland is known to have been considerably warmer at the arrival of the Vikings than in modern times, and Greenland was evidently, well, green near the edges. Norse settlement failed by the 14th century due to major temperature declines. There is no rational reason to downplay the MWP, and doing so is probably an effort to hide the possibility of natural warming cycles or events.
Here's the graph:
MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURES at TORONTO (blue) and CET (red) 1841 to 2019
'hide'? You give your prejudices away there Roger...
As to your study, well, unless you have studied other record nearby, let alone a bigger area, how do we know you're not (to use another word you have, so it's fair game) trying to 'mislead' by the use of carefully picked cherries? Why just Toronto v just the CET?
Have you done those check, those comparisons? Have you seen how the CET compares with other cities in Canada? How does it compare with Montreal, or Halifax, or Vancover? indeed, how does Toronto compare with Halifax?
-
Born, a couple of questions.
1, I should know what paper that graphic is from but I don't...
2, the dotted lines are the 99% confidence lines?
3, what effect would a big event (or how big an event?) would it need to be to show as sudden a cooling (I can't think of a natural sudden warming event) of the same magnitude as we see atm? Toba would be bigger, 1816 smaller?
4, would such an event show up in the kind of proxies that the graphic used to produce (I'm sure it would?)?
5, and are people still working on temperature reconstructions, or have they exhausted the proxies available?
-
I hope you can continue without words like 'idiocy' 'fooled', 'paranoia', 'bogus', 'zealots' - that is the language of a closed mind not of someone putting forward a 'plausible' theory..
A few million less words per post might not come amiss too.......
-
6
-
-
16 hours ago, ALL ABOARD said:
Is there a thread for people who aren't sure about 'climate change'?
This one?
Ask a question? Ask a question about what you're not sure about?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, cheeky_monkey said:
remind me how the 1970s went again.?.near economic collapse, failing nationalized industries, 3 day working week, rampant inflation, UK CO2 emissions 2.5 times what they are now and England not qualifying for the 1974 & 1978 world cups or the Euros in 1976... lots of cold and snow though and two belting summers
Humm, OT but the 80s were wonderful? Millions of jobs and livelihoods cast onto the scrap heap, civil unrest, the ideology that set off the deep divisions we now see set into political concrete...
If only we still had the positive changes the 00s brought (low tax on small cars, subsidised clean energy generation) we'd be living in a cleaner, less polluted country.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
Have you a source for that stuff?
This must be the climate election - Greens
WWW.BBC.CO.UKCo-leader Sian Berry urges £100bn a year to be spent on climate action at the party's campaign launch.I must say that if you think the evidence is correct then it perfectly rational to think it is the most serious issue we face. I think the evidence is correct.
However air quality is obviously the most serious problem Delhi has atm - but the people there seem to just cough, wheeze and just shrug their shoulders. Shrugging is a big problem too...
-
1
-
-
Just now, Snipper said:
No you didn’t you just came back another of your increasingly boring and pious rants.
Yes most of us want to do something effective to counter what is happening but putting a drop of water into a bath that is overflowing because the taps are full on ain’t going to help much.
There you go again... What have I done to deserve being call 'pious'? I have my say and for that I get attacks
I am, reasonably, intelligent. I've been interested in weather and climate all my life - I'm 61 years old. I'm an amateur, but i think the professionals know their jobs.
To me the evidence and data is abundantly clear. We need to act because if we don't the state of the planet will continue to be degraded.
What response will I get for daring to think and say that? Would it be 'OK, thanks, I'll look at and read the links you've supplied' or another personalised attack?
-
3
-
-
22 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:
I acted accordingly.. had a lovely bonfire, great fireworks and yes some burgers.. life is a gift, live it!
And another reply implying something of me.
I love life to - why wouldn't I? Why do you feel the need to attack me in such a way? I'm sure you love life, so do I - all of it. We're alike, we both love life
Again, taking positive steps is a choice. I chose to take those steps. I'm perfectly happy not flying around the world. I don't feel the need to drive a huge car - my little old super mini is fun enough and practical. Fwiw I can't stand burgers either, I know what they're made of and how, so no thanks - but I've no problem if you do. Enjoy.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Snipper said:
This comes over as a quite a smug answer to what was a simple question.
Why is your reply implying something about me me rather than talking about what I said?
Are you smug? Does saying that of each other help? No it does not.
You asked what you should do. I answered you pointing to how serious the problems are and that you can indeed act or still chose not to.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Snipper said:
Bonfire night. How many less burgers should I eat to offset it’s carbon footprint?
You either accept the science, the evidence and the data, and act accordingly, or you can ignore it (and in some chose to hurl abuse at said science, scientists or people who understand, it instead). It's your choice, I know what mine is mine
-
This is something like how I'd hope climate change conversations would go here:
Poster #1"If you look at the available evidence and data it's clear (to me, and most scientists) the world is warming, that the warming is due to humanities activities, and some major changes are on the way"
Poster #2 "Humm, I'm not convinced. I do accept you're genuinely concerned and have done some studying. Can you point me to what it, what evidence and data, is that makes you think the way you do please?"
#1 : "Sure [posts links]"
#2 " thanks, I'll take a look"
But instead we get something like:
#1 "If you look at the available evidence and data....."
#2 "You're pathetic"
...
-
5
-
Environment and what the Government should be doing now as we come out of lockdown
in Climate Change
Posted
In a word, dogma.