weather eater

I think what happens is that people get caught up in the hype, BBC forecasters are no longer just the person who reads the forecast they are minor celebs, song and dance routines on children in need etc. It would seem that nobody ever questions the advise given, in truth this is how the media is run, information is parroted out regardless of its validity. This of course is happening in regard AGW, from both side of the debate. Misinformation and spin are being used across the media, TV, newspapers, and the internet. Never mind a METO statement declaring a Barbeque summer that’s jut a piece of hype on top of a forecast and not far out, at least if you live in the SE. Far more sinister and deceptive are the internet sites secretly funded by the oil industry and right wing think tanks pumping out the all is well message, Greenpeace and environmental groups doing the opposite, and the news media mentioning climate change ever time we have a news worthy weather story, as if storms, floods, tornados, etc have never been seen before in the UK. The truth is out there if anyone can find it.

Managed 13c in Whaley this afternoon TM, balmy compared to you. We now have frequent heavy and blustery showers, finished outside now thank goodness. Roll on winter, at least I'll know what clothes to put on.

Damm you caught me out, a scary book everybody should read, especially before commenting on media stories, be it the weather or anything else. As for the summer well friends from the south keep telling me how nice the weather has been, so given that only London and the south east count in media circles, then maybe the press release comments were not so wide of the mark.

Foul, especially for me as I have to work in it.

That’s about spot on, although nearer the mark would be to say the churnalism that passes for news in the media, is not interested in truth and facts.

I have to take exception to that as well. The implication seems to be if we don’t think as you do then we are not thinking for ourselves, instead being lead round by the nose by others with an agenda, its that kind of attitude that entrenches opinions, stifles debate and leads to a bad atmosphere on the climate change threads. Rubbishing the views and augments of those that see things from a different view point rather indicates the paucity of your own intellect to make valid arguments. Lets stick to the facts or at least reasoned opinions about the METO forecast and not have another tribal dust up, there’s enough of that in the world already.

Can you post the link to where it actually says this Solar thanks.

Rather like saying, my town had 500 recorded crimes in 2007 and 495 in 2008 and 490 in 2009, the local police claim they are getting to grips with crime, ignoring that crime in the town is still at appalling levels. Yes of course the ice figures for the last two years are an improvement on the year before, and that is welcomed, but to claim this as evidence, as some are doing, that this is evidence of long term recovery is very premature. A few more years in the same direction would change my tune, but for now I just see another poor year.

It is evidence of Global Warming, or do you mean not evidence of AGW. We have warmed, we have seen Global Temperatures stabilise, we have yet to see them fall in any meaningful way, therefore summer ice loss is most likely down to GW, whether its man made or a natural cycle is another argument.

1. The media is not interested in positive stories, they don’t sell and the BBC compete's in the ratings market place. 2. Its not good news its another poor year, just not as poor, better if you want to put a positive spin on it. If we can keep a sequence going for a few years now that would be good news.

No its not, but also its not going to get lower and lower, year in year out either, so no evidence of global cooling can be drawn from this years summer ice extent. The major point that this summer will prove is that we have yet to see a recovery in summer ice extent, whether its the lowest, 2nd lowest, 3rd etc is immaterial.

Yes another article that explores natural cycles of cooling and warming and one that supports the idea that those natural cycles have a major impact on climate change, however as you have made clear in your post the article still ends up endorsing the view that AGW is a scientific fact. As for the circular nature of the climate change threads I cant see that changing short of a really rapid and dramatic shift up or down in world temperatures.

Thanks CB, it seems to me that while the possibilities of a time lag re the solar minima may not yet have kicked in, the telling statement from the first link you posted seems to be this one. "Strong temperature increase in the 20th century can not be explained by the sun “Our study distinguishes between the pre-industrial era (1250-1850) and the period covered by the past 150 years”, emphasises Anja Eichler, scientist at the Paul Scherrer Institute. “While changes in the solar activity were a main driver of temperature variations in the pre-industrial period, the temperatures in the Altai have shown a much higher rate of increase than that of solar activity during the past 150 years. The strong increase in the industrial period, however, correlates with the increase in the concentration of the greenhouse gas CO2 over this time. The results of our regional study indicate that changes in solar activity explain less than half of the increase in temperature in the Altai since 1850. This agrees with global studies, based on reconstructed northern hemispheric temperatures”, says the researcher." Now while I make no claims for the validity of this statement, it does however demonstrate that natural cycles are being taken on board by those investigating climate change. As for a time lag if we are to see some results from this, please not 30-40 years.

Up or down, under calculation seems as likely. Well we will find out, sooner or later, the facts of the matter are that for all the talking and a few initiatives by governments there is no real possibility of global CO2 emissions being curbed in any meaningful way. So far all we have seen is a lot of hot air and attempts by politicians to sound right on and look like they are doing something.

Perhaps there’s a paucity of record cold events at the moment, so its passing the time keeping the thread warm so to speak.

Thanks TWS in other words you think the IPCC are presenting us with an idiots guide and not treating us as adults and giving us the whole picture. Given the vociferousness of the sceptics, as they are perfectly entitled to be, you would have though that the IPCC would be at pains to make it clear as to how natural cycles were factored in to their models and estimates, I do, as I said, find it difficult to believe that natural cycles are not being accounted for in future model projections when the scientists behind AGW theory will also be responsible for much of what we know about natural cycles as well. It would be great to have one participate in this thread to answer some of the criticisms.

Very good, you smoke to your hearts content, I don’t and never have, can’t stand the taste or smell and although I don’t want to smoke your fags by proxy what you do on the street or in your home car etc is your business, the point I was trying to make was that there is a link between smoking and cancer, heart disease, etc and for years we where told the evidence is inconclusive, I was not comparing it to AGW as a potential world wide killer.

Hi Pete yes I know of those cycles, I have some good books on the subject, the problem remains either the scientists have a clue about what they are talking about or the science is likely to be flaky to one degree or another in regards both AGW and natural cycles. What I do find a worry is that in all of the books that I have read in regards natural cycles, is that they all seem to indicate that climate changes can be dynamic and sudden, add to this the possibility that we are having a significant effect on climate we could see very swift changes in a very short space of time.

If you find anything interesting slap it up, as I said my link was most likely old hat. Seems to me the trap that’s easy to fall into is to except the theory’s of which ever scientist or group of scientist’s that fit most with ones own natural inclinations, it works both ways. I can’t speak for others who think AGW theory is most likely sound, but I for one would love to be wrong, we don’t want warming we don’t want ice cap melt, sea rises etc. some decent winters would be a grand thing at nearly 50 these seem increasingly like memories of my child hood.

Seems to me that the natural cycles would continue but might be altered in duration, intensity and so on. however given the time scales of some of these cycles coupled with a limited knowledge of know climate cycles and the possibility that others remain undiscovered we might never know the extent to which they have been altered. Nobody has yet to explain to me why the scientific theory’s behind natural cycles is believed without question but when the same scientists put forward their theory’s about AGW they are dismissed as hopelessly flawed or exaggerated., its often implied that they have failed to take natural cycles into consideration this seems to me to be highly unlikely. I’ve asked this question several time before and nobody on the sceptics side of the argument seems to want to respond. See my link earlier there's some stuff on it there

Either way a potential lose lose situation, I too would support the notion that its possible to tip the other way towards an ice age and Tamara’s right that does invite catastrophe for many of the earth inhabitants maybe more so than warming and especially for us.

I'm a noob heres the link http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

This or something similar might have been posted before but it looks worth a post, I have yet to read all of it as we have guests round and I'm trying not to be anti social. Its a history of the study of CO2 in the atmosphere

I agree with your last two paragraphs, but as I put in my other post I doubt there is the will power in the world. I thought I was careful not to say, “must” have an impact all I have said is we are playing with fire when assuming it wont, it seems to me that for some on these threads its OK to assume no effects but out of order to suggest it might. I don’t profess to be an expert as some on these pages do but it seems to me that the bulk of the climate science community does think it will have an effect, as I say some on these threads think they know better and the science is flawed and like to cite natural cycles despite the fact that our knowledge of these is largely down to the same scientist’s who's science is so suspect when it comes to AGW that seems to me to be selective thinking. On your third point nobody is saying CO2 is overriding natural processes but it might alter them, to use a rather crude/poor analogy if your are freewheeling down a hill at 30 miles an hour and the gradient changes and gets stepper, you start to go faster but the process of freewheeling has not changed, the gradient/gravity has augmented your speed, you, the bike, its wheel size etc has not changed. Any natural process can be altered.

Cheer up Tamara perhaps I better explain what I mean by gung-ho as it seems its being taken personally which is not what I intended. What I mean is that as a species we are using up fossil fuels in a gung-ho manner we really don’t know what effects of the release of naturally stored CO2 over a short period will do, and thus to my mind we are being gung-ho about the impact of that as well. Despite the dire warning concerning AGW, as a species we are actually doing very little about it and most of what governments appear to be doing is like it or not merely a tax gathering exercise, I trust them not. What is actually happening is that more and more CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere rather than less and in my opinion this is not going to change. For all the talk on these pages, and whatever our opinions are, we are going to find out what the consequences are sooner or later, large or small maybe none, it seems to me unstoppable, I don’t believe there is the willpower in the world to change it, even if proved beyond doubt. All there is to decide is which NW members get to say told you so.