biffvernon

No offence taken, Noggin. The answer is no. Science doesn't work like that. The fundementals of AGW are now so well established, with theory based on experiment supported by observation*, that discussion has moved on. We are now concentrating on just where and when what effects will be seen, what we can do to stop it, what we can do to adapt to it and how we can develop the political and social structures to take action. *You've seen today's news? Judging from some of the posts on this boards you'd think the folk believed that the Universe was created 6000 years ago

I was already grown up in the 70s and 80s and thought the talk of impending ice age very silly. By the late 70s I had introduced the concept and likelihood of anthropogenic global warming into my teaching. The science seemed pretty secure to me at that time and it's good to see that the idea has met with almost universal acceptance in the scientific community. Why there are still some folk, even on this forum, who don't see it, is a mystery but perhaps it is just part of the human condition to be able to believe three impossible things before breakfast.

Oh come off it Darkman, Magpie's right. It's common knowledge to anyone who keeps abreast of what's going on, on this forum or elsewhere in the weather watching world. Anyway it was 24 degrees in my Lincolnshire garden today so that makes up for the cool of Birmingham. :lol:

Well of course if you go to enough significant figures then everything is undetermined. What a daft option.

Why do some people, especially on this forum, confuse local weather with global climate? And why do some people, especially on this forum, seem incapable of understanding climate science?

Essan joking as well? Look at the numbers.

Where's the fith option? "The IPCC report and projections on AGW are mindful of the need to arrive at a politically acceptable consensus so are cautious and may underestimate the impact of AGW."

Yeah, it's an empire thing. We still have the same queen.

Apparently 8 inches of it fell in 3 hours! Average rainfall for June is around 300mm, rising to 500mm in July and back to 300mm in August with the monsoon season tailing off in September. Much of Chittagong is now under water. China's Guangdong province looks a bit damp too, with half a million people evacuated and 50 000 homes destroyed.

It's been raining in Bangla Desh http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_36763.shtml

Some amazing photos at this site: http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.a...at+Wreckage+%21 It also appears that the LNG terminal is still not back up and running according to this report at Reuters yesterday. Copied from eric on PowerSwitch

Indeed

Iceberg, before dismissing it, you might read the paper from which I guess the OP's post was derived: Download the whole of this rather important paper from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1 And hot on it's heels we have:

Seems it made Cat 5 at 160mph at noon GMT today, according to http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/na200...ck.html#a_topad Discussion of implications for oil industry at http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4311

Of course we do. How else would we be able to use up the world's fossil fuel resources so quickly that we put the biosphere at jepordy?

I work in my shed and have to walk right across the lawn to get there. About once a month a drive my small diesel van to make a delivery.

I was in a medium sized branch of W H Smith yesterday and, amongst the thousands of titles, there was one on climate change (Lovelock) and one glossy picture book on the state of the planet. I think we need to shout more loudly lest the world stays asleep.

And emphasised by this morning's report:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6665147.stm bringing us bad news about carbon sinks in the Southern Ocean. Getting back to the New Scientist article that started this thread, this week's issue carries a letter from Martin Durkin. I guess the NS editor must have thought it worthwhile publishing, not because it says anything useful, but because it shows what complete drivel the contrarians come up with. The editor appends a helpful note directing readers to the article further on in the magazine, upon which the OP's link is based.

...impact probability for April 13, 2036 is estimated at 1 in 45,000, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

No, it wasn't. It was supported by religious dogma. Nothing to do with science at all.

I think you misrepresent the scientific process. A scientific report typically describes observations and then may attempt to explain the observations in the light of theory, or use the observations to refute a theory and propose a new theory that better fits the observations. When a theory is sufficiently supported by observation it may be used to make useful predictions. Therein lies the power of science. 'Belief' is not involved, though confidence in the integrity of the method and honesty of the scientists is assured by the lengthy peer review process.

And which of the many gods that folk have believed in do you believe in? Or have you invented you own one? Strange how most of the wars seem to be fought by folk who believe in one god or another. They must be so strongly opinionated that they are prepared to kill people. I wouldn't do that. No apologies for being forthright but I really didn't mean to be obnoxious. If you took it that way, sorry. I've never understood why people who believe in a god are so touchy about the subject.If folk want to use religion as a way of bringing meaning to their own lives and as a framework for their own analysis of ethics, well, I guess that's up to them. But when they try to muddle religion with science, and worse still, try to refute science with religious dogma, then they need to be challenged. Then why make comments in a thread about the Gulf Stream?Fred Pearce's new book 'With Speed and Violence' has some excellent discussion about the Gulf Stream and associated North Atlantic Conveyor. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Speed-Violence-Sci...9256&sr=8-1

Lol. Religion is about stuff that doesn't exist, gods, angels, reincarnation, elephants standing on turtles to hold the world up or whatever. Folk believe in it because it brings them comfort, joy or some sort of meaning, I guess. AGW is real so it's not a religion. QED. So you don't 'believe' in it - you just have to act on it accordingly or we're doomed.

Oh stop being so silly Mondy. AGW is not a religion - it's science. Just like the theory that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun. Remember you only accept that theory because scientists say so. Of course nothing in science is provable but when a theory is backed up by an awful lot of observation and there aren't any better theories to explain the observations then it is wise to act on the basis that the theory is true. Even if the theory says that there is only a small probability, like maybe 5%, of really bad stuff happening, like our species being wiped out, then it is wise to panic and act pdq. Some scientists are putting the probability of really bad stuff happening at a lot more than 5%.

My reading of Mark Lynas's book Six Degrees, is that the ideas presented are not Lynas's ideas. He is just reporting what climate scientists have written in peer-reviewed journals that his 'research' is limited to reading what others have written. He has communicated the ideas of scientists in a form accessible to the intelligent layperson. A valuable task for which we should be grateful. I don't think we have the information to be able to quantify the risk of the six degree worst case scenario and Lynas does not do so. But if the probability is as high as 5%, as you suggest, Parmenedes3, then we had better take radical action pdq. I for one would not travel in a vehicle that had anything like a 5% chance of killing me and I don't want to force my children to do so. It really is time to panic.