Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[Stratos Ferric]

I think the greater diurnal ranges are generally associated with warm months in this country. In summer it is because warm months tend to be associated with below-average cloud cover, thus less cloud albedo (which tends to result in cooler days and warmer nights) and so diurnal ranges are greater. In winter, warm months are not necessarily generally sunny (though there is a positive correlation in the SE and negative in the NW), but they tend to be associated with frequent Atlantic depressions and variable airmasses, thus more variation between warm and cold over short periods, thus higher mean diurnal ranges.

However, as some posts have suggested above, the warmer days = colder nights would probably only work if cloud amounts decreased. Certainly in Russia there is particularly strong evidence that the change towards a more positive NAO in winter has caused mild cloudy months in Moscow, where temperature anomalies wrt 1961-90 are often 2C higher by night than by day.

Re the Arctic, it may be true that it was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s, and that it didn't warm significantly until after 2002. Unfortunately the area has seen a big surge in winter temperatures since then, and with the amount of sea-ice at a much lower baseline, there is greater chance of the change being irreversible in that region.

I suspect that statistically the extremes have been set in late spring haven't they? It's peak time for differential airmasses and the right combination of overnight cold / clear and dayting warming / warm sector would support this. The averages might show a different distribution for the sort of reasons you suggest.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Thought This article by Ken Ring (Remember him :unsure: ) might be of interest.

His summer forecast for the UK is later down in the article, unfortunately labelled spring :blink:

I think he's got his seasons mixed up, however, the weather during certain periods are quite clear (and quite wrong :lol: )

Have a look at his site for more interesting information

[parmenides3]

Don't do it! Linking on to Ken Ring made my computer craDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of me

:unsure: P

[Stratos Ferric]

Thought This article by Ken Ring (Remember him :unsure: ) might be of interest.

His summer forecast for the UK is later down in the article, unfortunately labelled spring :blink:

I think he's got his seasons mixed up, however, the weather during certain periods are quite clear (and quite wrong :lol: )

Have a look at his site for more interesting information

Say what you like about Ken Ring, his surname is up an "i" and down a "W" and an "o" by my reckoning. He could scarcely have failed to nail summer more had he been clouting tent pegs into granite with a teaspoon.

[parmenides3]

Say what you like about Ken Ring, his surname is up an "i" and down a "W" and an "o" by my reckoning. He could scarcely have failed to nail summer more had he been clouting tent pegs into granite with a teaspoon.

:unsure: :blink:

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Say what you like about Ken Ring, his surname is up an "i" and down a "W" and an "o" by my reckoning. He could scarcely have failed to nail summer more had he been clouting tent pegs into granite with a teaspoon.

So your saying theres a chance :unsure:

[snowsure]

SS,

It's poor use of stats. That would be like me measuring the tallest and shortest person on each continent and inferring from that whether the population as a whole were growing or shrinking. In statistical terms the sample is simply too small to draw any meaningful inferences from. Generally speaking, when sampling, you'd look for at least 30 data points of a type, and ideally 100 or more. Once you get much past 100 additional data don't really change anything, so long as your sampling method is OK.

I will tell the NOAA that their statistics are poor. All I did was lift their details (hence showing the thread, thus following the reference tradition of many real people.)

However I disagree with your measuring the tallest person bit. First of all you would end up with a Gaussian bell curve, a sure sign of randomness.

Secondly, the continental hot record has not fallen, in Europe, since 1881.

There may be some interesting "local" events but the hottest day in Europe was 1881.

Either it is true or it isn't.

Welcome to reductio ad absurdum proof!

Edited August 31, 2006 by snowsure

[parmenides3]

Sorry, SS, that's not an RAA...

Have you read any of the links?

There's nothing wrong with the statistics, just with the use of them.

This doesn't mean you don't have a point, but I still wish you would read the links.

:unsure: P

[Stratos Ferric]

I will tell the NOAA that their statistics are poor. All I did was lift their details (hence showing the thread, thus following the reference tradition of many real people.)

However I disagree with your measuring the tallest person bit. First of all you would end up with a Gaussian bell curve, a sure sign of randomness.

Secondly, the continental hot record has not fallen, in Europe, since 1881.

There may be some interesting "local" events but the hottest day in Europe was 1881.

Either it is true or it isn't.

Welcome to reductio ad absurdum proof!

I didn't say the statistics were poor, I said it was poor use of stats. I'd be astonished if NOAA used those stats as proof of anything.

And I didn't say "measure the tallest person first". Your ability to read is little better than your ability to arrange stats into cogent argument SS.

Truth does not of itself prove anything, other than the hypothesis to which it relates. The occurrence of the hottest day in Europe says no more about climate in Europe than does the occurrence of the wettest day, or, come to that, the day on which european bourses suffered their largest one day fall. It's a data point. Points on there own are no more than single random variables.

By all means debate, but let's not debase the argument by being stupid.

[snowsure]

I didn't say the statistics were poor, I said it was poor use of stats. I'd be astonished if NOAA used those stats as proof of anything.

And I didn't say "measure the tallest person first". Your ability to read is little better than your ability to arrange stats into cogent argument SS.

Truth does not of itself prove anything, other than the hypothesis to which it relates. The occurrence of the hottest day in Europe says no more about climate in Europe than does the occurrence of the wettest day, or, come to that, the day on which european bourses suffered their largest one day fall. It's a data point. Points on there own are no more than single random variables.

By all means debate, but let's not debase the argument by being stupid.

I withdraw from this topic due to SF making such banal comments.

It does not do you justice at all SF. My ability to read is, in my opinion, at an acceptable level.

Yours is questionable.

In my post I said "However I disagree with your measuring the tallest person bit. First of all you would end up with a Gaussian bell curve, a sure sign of randomness."

You read this as "And I didn't say "measure the tallest person first". Your ability to read is little better than your ability to arrange stats into cogent argument SS."

Quick comparison: "However I disagree with your measuring the tallest person bit. First..." and "measure the tallest person first"

I think that you are overdoing it a bit. Your defence of all GW scientific research is clearly taking its toll.

Have a rest old boy.

At this rate you will appear capable of arguing with yourself in an enclosed room.

[The Eagle]

I withdraw from this topic due to SF making such banal comments.

It does not do you justice at all SF. My ability to read is, in my opinion, at an acceptable level.

Yours is questionable.

In my post I said "However I disagree with your measuring the tallest person bit. First of all you would end up with a Gaussian bell curve, a sure sign of randomness."

You read this as "And I didn't say "measure the tallest person first". Your ability to read is little better than your ability to arrange stats into cogent argument SS."

Quick comparison: "However I disagree with your measuring the tallest person bit. First..." and "measure the tallest person first"

I think that you are overdoing it a bit. Your defence of all GW scientific research is clearly taking its toll.

Have a rest old boy.

At this rate you will appear capable of arguing with yourself in an enclosed room.

lol this has gone down hill a bit!. On the topic, firstly I dont understand why some are so intent to discredit the OP. He has a point of view and he is entitiled to it. Personally I dont quite agree but I keep an open mind. After reading through this thread im none the wiser as to what my opinion should be on the possibility of extreme cold reaching our shores in the coming years. Just seems like 'kick the OP' while you can which stifles debate

Edited September 1, 2006 by Icicles

[parmenides3]

lol this has gone down hill a bit!. On the topic, firstly I dont understand why some are so intent to discredit the OP. He has a point of view and he is entitiled to it. Personally I dont quite agree but I keep an open mind. After reading through this thread im none the wiser as to what my opinion should be on the possibility of extreme cold reaching our shores in the coming years. Just seems like 'kick the OP' while you can which stifles debate

In the end, Icicles, you will, of course, make your own mind up. All I can say is, from the reading I have done, that the likelihood of extreme cold reaching these shores occasionally in your lifetime is reasonable. It is not impossible for the climate to cool somewhat, either, but there would have to be an unusual combination of several simultaneous, or closely sequential, events which contributed to a cooling of the local climate -forcings. Some of the forcings which have been proposed are possible, others are almost certainly not. For example; for a variety of reasons, I am as sure as I can be that the THC shutdown - rapid cooling/ mini ice age scenario is a non-starter. On the other hand, there is no good reason not to believe that at least some of the winters in the next thirty years will be harsh and snowy, though the probability of this diminishes as time passes. After much thought and reading, I, personally, have more or less come to the conclusion that the estimated rise of temperature proposed by the IPCC in 2001 is slightly conservative; in other words, I think that it is going to get warmer, on average, more quickly than the report suggests.

That doesn't mean, however, that I am certain; on the contrary, there are a couple of areas about which I have serious concerns, for example freshwater influx, where there are, as yet, no clear-cut answers.

I am sorry you haven't found the posts, in general, more helpful.

P

[Coopsy]

Those that are getting their digs and insults in give it a rest and leave it in the playground please.

[The Eagle]

In the end, Icicles, you will, of course, make your own mind up. All I can say is, from the reading I have done, that the likelihood of extreme cold reaching these shores occasionally in your lifetime is reasonable. It is not impossible for the climate to cool somewhat, either, but there would have to be an unusual combination of several simultaneous, or closely sequential, events which contributed to a cooling of the local climate -forcings. Some of the forcings which have been proposed are possible, others are almost certainly not. For example; for a variety of reasons, I am as sure as I can be that the THC shutdown - rapid cooling/ mini ice age scenario is a non-starter. On the other hand, there is no good reason not to believe that at least some of the winters in the next thirty years will be harsh and snowy, though the probability of this diminishes as time passes. After much thought and reading, I, personally, have more or less come to the conclusion that the estimated rise of temperature proposed by the IPCC in 2001 is slightly conservative; in other words, I think that it is going to get warmer, on average, more quickly than the report suggests.

That doesn't mean, however, that I am certain; on the contrary, there are a couple of areas about which I have serious concerns, for example freshwater influx, where there are, as yet, no clear-cut answers.

I am sorry you haven't found the posts, in general, more helpful.

P

Oh some of the posts are excellent and a good read, very informative. I was just elluding to the 'attack the post not the poster' policy which helps debate My own view is one where I honestly dont know because im not even sure GW is man-made, ive my own views on that.

Your points there are interesting but I feel its all theoretical anyway until we gain a far better understanding of how the climate works. We could be talking decades really because the amount of variables that have to be applied to all models is staggering. I feel it will generally get warmer but like you, I think that we will always have intermittent harsh winters

[The PIT]

Oh dear Ken Ring. I guess Mooncasting has taken a dive.

How come these in debates People are so entrenched in there views???

[parmenides3]

Oh dear Ken Ring. I guess Mooncasting has taken a dive.

How come these in debates People are so entrenched in there views???

Not everyone is entrenched intheir views, Pit. I suspect it is because, in genereal, what we believe is more strongly established in our minds than what we are told. This is why I feel that each person must, will, make their own mind up. How they reach their decisions is another issue. It can be very frustrating at times, though.

P

[Gray-Wolf]

K. R. is like a Genie, mention his name 6 times and he appears!!!!! Someone once said " opinions are like a**eholes, everyone has one but you wouldn't want to inspect too many"

[VillagePlank]

Not everyone is entrenched intheir views, Pit. I suspect it is because, in genereal, what we believe is more strongly established in our minds than what we are told. This is why I feel that each person must, will, make their own mind up. How they reach their decisions is another issue. It can be very frustrating at times, though.

P

It's even worse than that. Becuase there is no closed argument, because the topic of climate change (either direction) can only finally be rationalised by opinion the arguments are more akin to religious warfare than scientific study. Sure, each side will argue that they have the weight of this scientific study or that to back them up.

Some even quote statistical significance as evidence (which it clearly isn't) Evidence is produced by the testing of a hypothesis by making a prediction and that prediction actually occuring. In the case of climate change we're going to have to wait an awful long time for fruition . . . That said, it may well be the case that some serious statistics are needed to present the results given the complexity of looking for small signals in lots of noise.

If one agrees that the polarisation of opinion is akin to religion it becomes easy to understand why those at either sides feel more hotly than than others.

If we throw a ball in the air, the vast majority of us will agree that the ball will fall back to the earth; we can conduct, individually, experiments, we can make predictions, and we can measure the accuracy of our predictions.

With climate change we can make predictions, such as major cold by 2030s, and we, if we are honest with ourselves, have no idea whether this might be the case or otherwise. To sit, strongly, on one side of the fence or the other is simply foolhardiness. To attach to one scientific study and to purport that this must be the truth is even worse

It is the case that those who know most about these things are certainly pointing to a warmer climate, so one presumes, that must be where the bets, at this time must lie. But there is no logical, philosophical, nor reasonable argument to have the stance that this position will never invert; it has certainly done it before so, the chance is, that it will happen again.Just, perhaps, not in the 100 year time we're all talking about.

Edited September 1, 2006 by Wilson

[VillagePlank]

Oh dear Ken Ring. I guess Mooncasting has taken a dive.

I understand that 'mooncasting' might be considered laughable, but on quick retrospection, I suspect, that the moon indeed does have some influence on our weather/climate.

If you consider that the tides are caused by moving vast tracts of ocean around in concert with the moon (and other bodies) it seems self-evident that knowing there is coupling between atmosphere and ocean (look at the THC, for a start) that the movement of water caused by the motion of the moon might have some influence.

Of course, there is the question of the latency of radiation beween ocean and atmosphere to consider - do the tides happen quicker than the latency? There is also the question of how much water the moon actually moves - it's a lot but is it significant enough?

All in all, I certainly think the prospect of proper investigation is warranted; I suspect a more formal investigation might indeed find some underlying correlation, but, in my opinion, would be, for most of the time, insignificant.

Edited September 1, 2006 by Wilson

[Stratos Ferric]

Two good and sensible posts there I think Wilson.

[Devonian]

...

With climate change we can make predictions, such as major cold by 2030s, and we, if we are honest with ourselves, have no idea whether this might be the case or otherwise. To sit, strongly, on one side of the fence or the other is simply foolhardiness. To attach to one scientific study and to purport that this must be the truth is even worse

It is the case that those who know most about these things are certainly pointing to a warmer climate, so one presumes, that must be where the bets, at this time must lie. But there is no logical, philosophical, nor reasonable argument to have the stance that this position will never invert; it has certainly done it before so, the chance is, that it will happen again.Just, perhaps, not in the 100 year time we're all talking about.

Lets leave out calling people 'religious'. My impression is that very few on either side would, if push came to shove, have a belief system that overode compelling (or more compelling) evidence.

That said, you seem to be equating the kind of predictions in Daniel's posts with what might come out of the Hadley Centre? Right?

[VillagePlank]

Lets leave out calling people 'religious'. My impression is that very few on either side would, if push came to shove, have a belief system that overode compelling (or more compelling) evidence.

Hey it's an observation. It may well be my belief and in and of itself I think that that is OK. Why the weird corroralies? Why the defensive stance?

As I said - it stinks of religous fervour rather than scientific prudence.

If yo do not believe this, then tell me why I am wrong to hold such a belief: do not attempt to present anacdotal evidence. This is a philosophy of argument, not a positioning of stance - in case you missed that,as well.

BTW, religous as a term is not a term normally devoted to the worship of deities; it's normally devoted to those with an irreducible, and inconsolable faith. Where do you fit?

Two good and sensible posts there I think Wilson.

That'll be the kiss of death for me, then Edited September 1, 2006 by Wilson

[Devonian]

Hey it's an observation. It may well be my belief and in and of itself I think that that is OK. Why the weird corroralies? Why the defensive stance?

As I said - it stinks of religous fervour rather than scientific prudence.

If yo do not believe this, then tell me why I am wrong to hold such a belief: do not attempt to present anacdotal evidence. This is a philosophy of argument, not a positioning of stance - in case you missed that,as well.

BTW, religous as a term is not a term normally devoted to the worship of deities; it's normally devoted to those with an irreducible, and inconsolable faith. Where do you fit?

That'll be the kiss of death for me, then

I'm not being defensive - I'm reacting. I don't like to think I'm being religious (irrational) rather than rational or scientific (would you?). I've not called you religious . It's you who needs to put up the evidence. As I said, i've not seen evidence such irrationality is widespread on either side.

I'd like to know what the 'scientifically prudent' view of AGW is? I also asked a question about the views of Daniel and the Hadley Centre.

"With climate change we can make predictions, such as major cold by 2030s, and we, if we are honest with ourselves, have no idea "

We know we can can calculate what Earth's temperature should be, note it's seems to be too high and see ghg's are having an effect. I really think it's not a question of we having 'no idea' what effect doubling CO2 will, in of itself, have. I do though think Daniels prediction is without similar strong foundations.

[Stratos Ferric]

Lets leave out calling people 'religious'. My impression is that very few on either side would, if push came to shove, have a belief system that overode compelling (or more compelling) evidence.

That said, you seem to be equating the kind of predictions in Daniel's posts with what might come out of the Hadley Centre? Right?

I think that's a bit harsh. I've read what Wilson wrote and to my reading, no matter how I try to spin it, he wasn't accusing anyone of being religious. What he said, I think, was that some of the arguments were "akin to" being religious. AS it happens I tend to agree with this point. There are some on here who, in my opinion, doggedly hang onto points of view because it's what they wish, rather than what they have proof of. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that, but it would certainly be "akin" to religious faith.

What I find particularly interesting is your second post, lower down, in which you say you don't like being accused. Unless somebody moderated a post out, or wrote in invisible ink, or I otherwise missed it, I don't recall Wilson accusing anybody specific of anything. However, as one of my favourite people used to say, "if the cap fits..."

I do though think Daniels prediction is without similar strong foundations.

In terms of understatements that's up there with "Houston, we've got a problem"

Edited September 1, 2006 by Stratos Ferric

[johnholmes]

hi

As a very interested reader of this thread, and a once in a while poster, can I ask PLEASE just drop the personal bits. If you are unhappy then click on the complain button or do your complaining about another poster to that poster in a pm? This had been one of the best threads I have seen in 4 years on Net Wx, PLEASE can we keep that.

many thanks

John