La Bise

"I'm a health professional, so I probably know more than most GP's" Ahem, somehow I think I'm starting to understand your position. What is your profession, your description is pretty nebulous. I guess it must be something a bit higher up the ladder than, say, nurse because it is highly unlikely you would know more than most GPs if it was the case (as any nurse would readily accept unless some heavy duty chipontheshoulderishness is involved)?

If I'm sick, I will go to see my GP, someone who studied 6 years to understand the human body and he will only give me an appraisal and refer me to a specialist should my condition require more pointed advice. This will maximise my chances of finding whatever problem is affecting me. I assume that when you're sick you go to look for an answer on the internet, probably looking at the fringes of medical science because doctors have a vested interest in their own self-preservation and are all in the pay of politicians...? Just to prove how independent minded you are...? Or are you going to ask advice to an anthropologist..? The general public knows jackonions about AGW Solar, climatologists do. This is why, in an incredibly daring gesture, I will side with those who, one expects, are best qualified to comment on a certain subject rather than the "general public".

TWS, climatologists are speaking with one voice, there is very, very high percentage of them on board in regards to AGW, over 90%. Of course there is going to be some dissent(thank God!) but the matter, as far that part of the scientific community is concerned, is settled. How much more consensus is needed before people stop heralding every study that shows a hole in the theory whilst ignoring 100 others that reinforce it...? Solar, how on Earth can you establish comparisons between the banking system and the scientific community? Come on, it's plain silly and you know it... Also, please, please, please explain to me what are those "vested interests" that would bend the verdict of the best experts on the matter? Are they going to get a cut on taxes levied by governements to stem pollution causing AGW? Since when has the general public understood complicated matters such as these when all they know, in most cases, is some reductionnist media non-sense favouring the loud and the obnoxious (in both camps)? Chaps, I'm a pretty open-minded kind of bloke who subscribes to a rather daffy philosophy (forteanism) that is openly sceptical of scientists due to their inate human bias and I enjoy like the next man a good dose of mistrust towards "The Man" but at some point one has to accept that people might be onto something when nearly everybody involved in the field agrees with what's being proposed.

Why would the scientific community ignore valid research casting doubt upon the current modelisations? Why would peole who dedicated their lives to study and research do that? What would they gain other than demeaning their work, demeaning themselves and fail their duties towards mankind? Are you really implying that the people working in climate research are such vile individuals? Why is that research, invalidating AGW, is not being published in the relevant academic publications where other scientist can assess them and peer-review it according to standard academical rules? Why is it hidden away on the internet, not the most reliable repository of evidence after all? A conspiracy by those same scientists? Are they in the pay of someone who would benefit from AGW as it has been implied a number of times? Who would benefit from the consequences of AGW, which are rather unpleasant for most of the planet and will affect our lives far more than we can imagine (eg food...)? A "Big Governement" thing, taxing people for no reason for them to carry their nefarious pocket lining? Is it really that, principle-free people aiding and abetting crooks to line their pockets whilst brave truth-seekers are silenced? Seriously guys, this is like a very bad episode of the X-Files and some of you are advocating the disbanding of the Met Office, one of the most respected institutions in the world based on that kind of thinking...? What next, close down universities because they are elitists? Consider "evidence" any half-convincingly written paper on a website? Cast aside rigorous academic vetting of published material for "fair and balanced" views? Sorry for the diversion mods...but the question was so loaded in the first place that it was bound to enter the AGW arena...

The Met Office simply follows the prevalent wind in the scientific arena re AGW and that wind is blowing steadily on (look at it like a good old zonality eh...). They simply can't apply some kind of "fair and balanced" interpretation to please people who seem to think the vast majority of climatologists are either incompetent and/or in the pocket of some sinister force at play in the shadow. There is very little peer-rewieved, academic research that is available to change the mind of the best minds in the field. It is a simple as that... Up until there is a gathering of opinion by people who play within the rules of research science that invalidate the current thinking, nothing will happen and rightly so otherwise we might as well call for equality of treatment for ID, astrology and other well known "alternative" ways to look at reality....I would wager it would be an enormous relief for many people if AGW turned to be far less intense than modelled or down to drivers that are not under our influence so if something worthwile will emerge, it will be taken into account. If anyone on this forum has such research available, have it peer-reviewed, get academic backing, propose articles to scientific magazines and let the community decide whether your research is indeed of value.

We are waiting Solar...

Set up your own weather forecast office then chap, you have the gift apparently...

In fact, I've just taken this approach this week, when I started reading comments by "heavyweights" posters on here like John, GP and a few others talking about a possible HP next week, I kept a close eye on the model thread and waited for the Met to get on board before changing my plans for next week when I was due to be off the earlier part. Best of both world. Looking forward to a sunny break in the Lake District now

Of course it is needed. They are one of the most respected meteorological centres in the world and the idea that they are of no use anymore because a gaggle of over-enthusiastic met geek can pull charts here and there and blog away their change of moods (I mean, come on, imagine a forecast based along the kinds of stuff you read in the model thread...you might as well present it from a roller-coaster for added fun...) for the world to behold is patently ridiculous. I enjoy a browse here to do a bit of meta-analysis of the serious posters when it comes to lrf but I'm plan my short term walks around the Met forecasts, they rarely let me down (and that just happend so no grudge from me...). It's perfectly clear what motivates the most virulent Met Office critics on the internet anyway and (shorter term)forecast accuracy it ain't...

Cheers Damian. Selfishly, my window is wed-fri and after having spent sun/mon in sunshine in the Yorkshire Dales, I'm feeling very happy at the weather I had/should have for my hols...

It was just a general comment, I don't particularly concern myself with looking for flaws in the AGW theory. I do accept every theoretical model has imperfections, which is why it is revised by peer-reviewed studies undertaken by the cream of the crop in climatology regularly. The onus is not on them to constantly having to justify their conclusions but rather for the doubters to come up with some serious counter-theory and data to back it up. So far, it has not happend. IF a serious flaw was to be found, one that would put in jeopardy the whole edifice, it would go counter to every accepted notion of scientific rigour to brush it away hence why the notion of "conspiracy" needs to be introduced when dealing with AGW deniers. It presupposes that people whose working lives have been dedicated to study climate are basically liers and/or incompetents. Which is also why the likes of the MetOffice do get quite twitchy when their data is misused by people whose aim does not come under any kind of scrutiny. I do also have no reason to believe that this same community has elaborated some kind of hoax for reasons unknown and that the rulers of the most powerful nations on the planet, in cahoot with them, have any kind of desire to endanger the political status-quo that has underpinned the growth and prosperity of the western world and their own (you could in fact argue that the recent step-up towards reducing emissions has been forced upon them by their geo-political analysts who highlighted the catastrophic effects on the develloping world and subsequent unrest AGW would cause, no less than the Pentagon drafted such a report that was, obviously, binned away by the Bush administration). This is simply applied logic, based on probality, there isn't even a need to start digging out charts and datasets. I roughly divide AGW deniers in two camps, the far more prevalent one is the absolute layman in term of meteorology and climatology, who generally will not "believe" in it because the weather forecasters failed to predict, say, a weatherfront that spoiled their week-end once and can not fathom in any way the science behind it all which compound him/her in their "belief" that it is all non-sense. Add to that political opinions ("It's all the effing pinkos sandal wearers who want to stop me driving my car") and the usal cynicism when politicians push something hard ("There must be something in it for them, probably got their snout in a big bag of Green money"). The other group is amateur meteorologists, who do understand the basic of climate patterns, do often have a nerdy knowledge of datasets and do have a dislike/distrust of official institutions because, a few times, they proved the boffins at the Met wrong when THEIR forecast was better than the Met's. Enthusiastic amateurs are very hard to convince, they generally feel like they've been dealt a bad hand in life and they should be doing the job rather than the guy who's paid to do it. Enthusiastica amateur do also have a strong ego, generally, they invest a lot of time and, sometimes, money to pursue their passion, seeing someone being paid fail is bound to frustrate... Some of the discussions here are the same I had many times in the pub after a football game, when playing too much Football Manager and attending way too many games turn most fans into a far better manager than the guy paid to run the team. The reality is that the guy running the team is a better manager than you'll ever be (even when he is really crap...) and that the researchers at the MetOffice are better than you, know their job very well and are accountable, unlike you. No one runs a tab on all the times you posted non-sense, got a forecast wrong, your opinions and conclusions are of little relevance to anyone but you and a few accointances. Now, if someone here really think they have found data that counter the current finding or spotted something that would invalidate the model, , do ask yourselves this: is there really a chance that the hundreds of climatologists currently working on it could not spot it, despite their funding, access to resources and years if not decades of experience in the field, is it really likely that I or some other amateur could have done it? Is it likely that that lone scientist has really found a valid alternative theory or is just yet another "magic bullet theory" (it's all down to sunspots man). If someone comes up with strong data to prove that AGW is wrong, it will be peer-reviewed, it will be studied and, if confirmed, I suspect it will be of great relief to many people that it's not us driving climate change. To think otherwise is, I'm afraid, indulging in conspiracy theories...

Damian, am I daydreaming when I look at the forecast for the next few days in the Lake District, once tuesday is out of the way, to me it looks rather good...?

It's easy to get cross when the majority of the comments you read across the media from the sceptical camp infer dishonesty, lies and offuscucation on the part of the global scientific community, particularly climatologists as a way to contradict a theory which is quite hard to disprove with actual science. Sure, the odd hole is found on occasion and highlighted, but on a whole it is a solid piece of work. Yet, each time, such small flaws are used as basis to dismantle the whole work on the subject, a kind of extrapolation gone mad. I choose to trust the findings of our best climatologists, I can't see why they would party to that kind of deception or being that stupid not to constantly review their work to take into account new data and new evolutions of the theory. Without wishing to be rude about anybody in particular, it's not as if some unknown meteo nerd on here or any other amateur forum is going to come up with a sudden revelation of any value. Let's not get into the whole "It's a way to raise taxes and the Green industry is a con to make money"...our model of society in the western liberal worls is utterly dependant on rampant consumerism, growth is the main driver and and the work of governements is to keep that ticking away nicely, to ensure tax revenue and prevent unrest in society(so they can stay in power and enjoy the perks of governance...). The measures being discussed to combat AGW are very much a brake to that prevalent notion of growth, it goes against everything that the orthodox model of capitalist society is about, in short it will likely bring unrest and diminish growth yet governements are willing to take steps in that direction. So much for the green movement being a licence to print money... One thing I've no problems agreeing with the sceptics is the media hysteria (which blows both ways btw, try to be a bit honest about that) which leads to alarmist non-sense that can indeed cast doubts and leave people confused.

How can we be sure that climate change denier guerrilla units have not been hanging around recording stations, particularly those 70 chose ones, with a bag of ice and a fan...? After all, right now the last line of argumentation they have which has not been shot to pieces by anyone seriously involved in climatology is that the data has been tampered with, so we co-conspirators in the great global warming swindle could be forgiven to throw similar accusations at them. It would probably be more fun than insisting with the boring factual stuff.

Oops....http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-crock-week-whats-anthony-watts-take-2

Anyone seen this? Fearless internet warrior Anthony Watts (who's not adverse to prep up his non-existent credentials as a scientist) publish book slaying the Climate Change dragon and reveals yet more about the Great Global Warming Conspiracy then co-conspirator has the cheeks to pick up data from the 70 best weather stations in the US, as chosen by the great warrior himself and compare the result to the overall data, with hilarious results... http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=8&t=56149 There is a reason why reputable institutions and scientists don't want to share their data, most of those working for so-called balance are in fact charlatans, crooks and conspiracy theorists. It's like asking cancer research scientists to share their finding with homeopaths and the likes...

A total of nearly 11 hours in the Pennines (Longendale Valley cliffs) and Yorskhire Dales (Great Whernside and Buckden Pike by Kettlewell) without a drop of rain this week-end, so much for rubbish weather. And I've topped up my tan...

Cheers John, you just ruined my week of hiking at the end of July in the UK. Right, flights to Switzerland.... :lol:

Is there such a thing as "faux heat" then?

Half a dozen bites after an evening stroll in the West Pennines yesterday, English midges alive and kicking...

Much sympathy with the midges sufferers, what horrible creatures...Bottesford, I'm not sure you realise how awful they can be up in Scotland, I'm like you rather indifferent to insects and summer mosquitos on the continent never caused me much harm but when you wake up with 20/25 bites on your face after making the mistake of going out on a warm, still evening, you realise they are something else altogether... Sadly, you can find them in Wales and in Engand as well, got quite a few bites on friday and saturday when out hiking in the hills...

I was waiting for the first "It's part of the global warming conspiracy" post...it duly came....

The Rivington reservoirs don't look very good at the moment and Howden/Ladybower seemed also rather down for this time of the year. Incredibly dry up in the moors, even bog hells like Horton Moor in the Dales (along the course of the 3 Peaks Challenge) did not cause much problems last week. Quite glad to see a good dump of rain even if it means taking the gaiters out of the bag...

Enjoyable winter. The mild periods were never particularly mild, the cold ones not particularly notable either but the overall impression was that of a colder winter (based on the very scientific method of "Do I need a jumper/scarf today" which scored highly all throughout the season). It was pretty good just a bit further up the road, in the Peak District, with some cracking dumps of snow and some wonderfully chilly nights with hard frost (I know, I was walking there at night...The "Frozen mud" indicator also scored highly this year).

No spring feeling up in the Peak District, there is still snow up there and that westerly wind on sunday was one frigid mofo...