Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect on climate change?


West is Best

Has this winter changed your view on Global Warming?  

146 members have voted

  1. 1. AGW = Anthropocentric Global Warming, in other words that humans are contributing to climate change

    • It is making me think about the issue again
      17
    • It is making me think there might be something in it afterall
      13
    • It's changed me from a sceptic to thinking humans are partly to blame
      17
    • It has made little or no difference: I already believed in AGW
      70
    • It has made little or no difference: I don't believe in AGW
      29


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Broadmayne, West Dorset
  • Weather Preferences: Snowfall in particular but most aspects of weather, hate hot and humid.
  • Location: Broadmayne, West Dorset

This winter so far has made no difference to my belief about gw. GW is happening.This winter is without doubt very mild (so far). This is perfectly in line with Met office forecast who called no cold weather until late in the winter and possibly March (still much more a winter month in my book than december has ever been).

However we are not yet out of the age of the severe or hard winter. In Philip Edens Daily Telegraph book of the weather published in 2003. He takes the best available research from climate scientists and models etc and puts together a notional set of weather headlines from the 21st century.

The first one funnily enough is set on Feb 12th 2008 and suggests that Britain is going through its worst winter since 1979 and that if lasts a bit longer it could rival 1963. This as Philip Eden says in the book is not a date set in stone but it does show that those with far more knowledge on the subjest than any of us on here are reasonably sure that Britain will at some point soon see a very hard ( compared to recent times)winter. As it says in the book. Global warming does not mean a continuous upward drive in Winter temps. Ther will be some parts of the world having colder episodes and Britains ( Northern Europes) turn will come. Real winters like 47,63,79 are not dead just getting further apart timewise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

The problem is, whether the warmer temperatures (particularly higher SSTs) have made it more difficult for the right synoptics to occur to give us a severe winter. Although our cold air sources have warmed significantly since around 2002, we could still get a very cold snowy winter with the right synoptics, but over the past few years I've increasingly tended towards Stratos Ferric's view that temperature anomalies could be changing our synoptic patterns, making cold synoptics less likely, thus making it doubly more difficult to get a cold winter. Philip Eden's book is quite right to say that some regions will warm more than others, and it won't be a continuous upward trend in temperatures- but for now, we seem to be in one of the regions that is warming more than most others.

Of course, it's quite possible that as the planet warms, synoptics will continue to change, and colder synoptics may return to being more frequent- it's more a case of whether this can happen before our cold air sources and SSTs become too warm to enable Britain to continue to get decent snow events from cold synoptics.

To be fair to Philip Eden, he did mention that Eden's Law states that if a meteorological cycle is found, chances are it will soon be broken, and the 2008 prediction comes from a 22-23 year cycle of cold winters peaking around 1895, 1917, 1940, 1963 and 1986. This may well correspond to the sunspot minima, it would be interesting to see if the cycle failed in any years prior to 1895 (I vaguely recall Mr Data suggesting that it probably did). I'm becoming less and less convinced that winters 2008-2010 will be snowy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
Benford's law of controversy states

I'll get back with detailed argument to all of your points early next week as my data is at work. Please do the right thing and do not edit your posts, though, huh?

(Oh and I'll take the opportunity to ignore your ignominious advice, if you don't mind, too)

Excuse me! I'm pretty sure that there's no rule against editing unless you kow different; fair enough if I was coming back three days later to the equivalent of "shedding the evidence" of some unwaranted behaviour; I do periodically edit my entries, but invariably within five minutes or so of posting, and almost always to correct typos or potentially misleading prose.

[EDIT] by the way, on rechecking, which post EXACTLY did I edit?

[EDIT 2] presumably you're NOT disputing the point I made re the numbers then? Yes, the SRCC test would have as a null hypothesis that there is no upwards trend in mean monthly CETs. But as you're familiar with the tool I'd magine you would have been able to infer this, I mean, it was hardly going to be proving a relationship between temperature and the price of bananas was it?

....

Edit: To get back on topic, though, I think that taking one extreme winter as proof of (A)GW is unwise. There may well be a longer-term trend of increasingly mild winters at present, but I fail to see how one extreme winter could suddenly shift the burden of proof onto Man-made climate change: that would be akin to taking one colder winter (should we get one) as proof that GW is a load of old tosh...

I'm not sure many of us who argue for AGW actually are taking this one winter as proof. Certainly if you go back and see various threads where I posted data in the autumn this patern can be traced back twenty year s or so; it's no "one horse wonder".

Edited by Stratos Ferric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

Hi Stephen,

If I may be so bold, I'd like to quickly respond to your post a point at a time, hopefully to give some insight into why I (and possibly other "nitpickers", if you like) argue points in the AGW debate. I personally have no problem with the concept of GW, in and of itself, but AGW is a rather more complicated issue.

I think people are moving away from the facts here... who's talking about one winter being representative of GW??

I was referring to the name of this topic: "Has this winter changed your view on Global Warming?" (And subtitled "Replying to Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect {sic} on climate change?") - the insinuation being that this one winter's extreme mildness is indicative of some human-influence factor.

I think all we need to realise right now is that GW does exist and without any remedial action it will change the planet in a big way, whether that is by planetry warming or local warming. I think debating what is on some of this thread is like debating how you're going to win lottery. It is getting a bit tedious at times when someone turns around and says there is no global warming or it's not man made when it is.
GW appears to be happening to some extent - the human input into the effect is unclear. Taking remedial action to somehow "repair" the biosphere seems something of a fool's errand - the biosphere is a lot bigger than we are, and it is unclear as to how much of an effect we are having on it, so it is unclear what effect any "remedial action" may have (if any at all). We debate because we are human, and humans do like a good debate, don't they?! ;) Besides, it's kind of fun to play devil's advocate and have a good chat.
I cannot believe for the life of me why people try to pick holes in something that has been well documented and has lots of scientific data and something that is backed up by the computers.

The fact is that there are holes - and more than a few - that can be picked. The AGW debate is not watertight yet. And, anyway, why do people pick at scabs when we know it's a silly thing to do? Because we can't help picking at something which irritates us!

GW was only meant to affect us in the next 20+ years, it's always been the case and the computers have always said this, it's not like they said there'd be a 3C rise by 2010. As far as I am aware this rise has started you only have to look at computer generated graphs to see that is the case - no corruption there.

There may be no corruption in the computer's output, but computers are only as good as the models and the input that they are given. Ironically, computer models are still subject to human error.

I'll finish up by saying that we know that there was a Little Ice Age of some sort that "ended" sometime near the start of the Industrial Revolution (whether the Industrial Revolution is what ended the Little Ice Age or not is a debate for another thread). Comparing current data with the historical record, most of which was recorded during the Little Ice Age, and drawing the conclusion that man is warming the climate is like (to quote someone else - sorry but I forget who it was) comparing summer to winter and drawing the same conclusion.

I hope this explains my position a bit ;)

C-Bob

PS - Thanks Gray-Wolf - I'll emigrate to the other thread!

Edit - Sorry SF. I didn't intend to suggest that any poster on this topic was being swayed by one isolated winter - I was responding directly to the question posed at the start of the thread. No offense meant :blush:

Edited by Captain_Bobski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
The problem is, whether the warmer temperatures (particularly higher SSTs) have made it more difficult for the right synoptics to occur to give us a severe winter. Although our cold air sources have warmed significantly since around 2002, we could still get a very cold snowy winter with the right synoptics, but over the past few years I've increasingly tended towards Stratos Ferric's view that temperature anomalies could be changing our synoptic patterns, making cold synoptics less likely, thus making it doubly more difficult to get a cold winter. Philip Eden's book is quite right to say that some regions will warm more than others, and it won't be a continuous upward trend in temperatures- but for now, we seem to be in one of the regions that is warming more than most others.

Of course, it's quite possible that as the planet warms, synoptics will continue to change, and colder synoptics may return to being more frequent- it's more a case of whether this can happen before our cold air sources and SSTs become too warm to enable Britain to continue to get decent snow events from cold synoptics.

To be fair to Philip Eden, he did mention that Eden's Law states that if a meteorological cycle is found, chances are it will soon be broken, and the 2008 prediction comes from a 22-23 year cycle of cold winters peaking around 1895, 1917, 1940, 1963 and 1986. This may well correspond to the sunspot minima, it would be interesting to see if the cycle failed in any years prior to 1895 (I vaguely recall Mr Data suggesting that it probably did). I'm becoming less and less convinced that winters 2008-2010 will be snowy.

Several points in there:

Absolutely right re differential warming;

Changing SSTs may eventually impact the overall thermohaline flow, and a negative feedback loop leading to lowering SSTs (albeit from raised global levels) cannot absolutely be ruled out, though these changes would certainly not be sudden.

Philip's cycle may still hold true, but, just as I have taken to doing, it would be important to assess 2008-10 not against long-term means, but against a shorter mean (I use 10 years) to test relative difference. As I illustrtaed elsewhere last night, this january could certainbly set a record for January in the CETseires, yet still not be the most anomalously warm January when compared with its own temporal context.

Hi Stephen,

...

There may be no corruption in the computer's output, but computers are only as good as the models and the input that they are given. Ironically, computer models are still subject to human error.

I'll finish up by saying that we know that there was a Little Ice Age of some sort that "ended" sometime near the start of the Industrial Revolution (whether the Industrial Revolution is what ended the Little Ice Age or not is a debate for another thread). Comparing current data with the historical record, most of which was recorded during the Little Ice Age, and drawing the conclusion that man is warming the climate is like (to quote someone else - sorry but I forget who it was) comparing summer to winter and drawing the same conclusion.

I hope this explains my position a bit :blush:

C-Bob

PS - Thanks Grey Wolf - I'll emigrate to the other thread!

C-Bob;

Fair point re the models, HOWEVER, one of the compelling factors in climatic modelling is that the types of outturns we're now getting from actual weather are consistently well aligned in pattern with what was being projected 15-20 years ago, and the models are improving all the time. Models vary in robustness, go see the stuff they use in a nuclear power station, or indeed even a normal power station, and you'll see what I mean. The issue is around comprehension of the system. We will NEVER be able to model point changes - spatioally and temporally - but that is NOT what the climatic models are about; they work at lower resolution and on macros-scale change. Additional verification of the latest models can be achieved by loading actual data and assumptions from twenty years ago, and seeing whether they turn up somewhere near today's outcomes; my understanding is that they do.

Re the comparisons; again, not quite a fair challenge. In actual fact very little of the current record dates back to the LIA, and there was a long climatic flat line (albeit with short wave fluctuation of around +/- 0.75C depending on the timescales used) thereafter until the mid 80s. What has happened since really is not far short of remarkable in statistical terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Broadmayne, West Dorset
  • Weather Preferences: Snowfall in particular but most aspects of weather, hate hot and humid.
  • Location: Broadmayne, West Dorset
The problem is, whether the warmer temperatures (particularly higher SSTs) have made it more difficult for the right synoptics to occur to give us a severe winter. Although our cold air sources have warmed significantly since around 2002, we could still get a very cold snowy winter with the right synoptics, but over the past few years I've increasingly tended towards Stratos Ferric's view that temperature anomalies could be changing our synoptic patterns, making cold synoptics less likely, thus making it doubly more difficult to get a cold winter. Philip Eden's book is quite right to say that some regions will warm more than others, and it won't be a continuous upward trend in temperatures- but for now, we seem to be in one of the regions that is warming more than most others.

Of course, it's quite possible that as the planet warms, synoptics will continue to change, and colder synoptics may return to being more frequent- it's more a case of whether this can happen before our cold air sources and SSTs become too warm to enable Britain to continue to get decent snow events from cold synoptics.

To be fair to Philip Eden, he did mention that Eden's Law states that if a meteorological cycle is found, chances are it will soon be broken, and the 2008 prediction comes from a 22-23 year cycle of cold winters peaking around 1895, 1917, 1940, 1963 and 1986. This may well correspond to the sunspot minima, it would be interesting to see if the cycle failed in any years prior to 1895 (I vaguely recall Mr Data suggesting that it probably did). I'm becoming less and less convinced that winters 2008-2010 will be snowy.

Fair points tws. My reply would be that sst's may well have made it more difficult for severe winter synoptics to develop but there is a differnce between ''more difficult'' and ''impossible''. Which is why I added the piece about hard winters getting rarer rather disappearing altogether. We are certainly not at that stage yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

Hi SF.

Just a quickie to clarify my stance on the points you mention.

The accepted concept of climate is that it is non-chaotic. Climate is an averaging of weather over a long period of time, and therefore any chaotic influences are ironed out, they say. While I understand the idea, I can't agree with it. I'll explain why. Although this may work for the most part, the fact that weather is chaotic means that there is always a distinct probability that a number of chaotic factors can combine at any given moment to cause a sudden change to an alternative long-term trend. The reliance on models which, by their very nature, cannot take into account sudden changes is a bit of a problem to me - not being able to accurately model the weather has a very real effect on our ability to accurately model the climate arbitrarily far in advance.

As for the comparison, I apologise once again - I should have been more specific and singled out temperature data (with temperature records going back to the mid-17th Century). I grant that the last twenty years appear to be statistically anomalous, but statistics can be a dicey thing! In school I always loved maths - when we got to GCSE level it was split into Pure Maths, Mechanics and Statistics. The first two I continued to love, but Statistics drove me completely potty! A scientific discipline, for want of a better term, which has little to do with reality and a lot to do with playing around and finding different ways of presenting results. I love science, but I hate juggling!

:blush:

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks

could we have your town in your avatar pse Captain B?

many thanks

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

The bottom line is Mother Nature does, what Mother Natue does. We cannot stop it or start it.

The question that does also need to be asked is what is the statistical relevance of taking a temperature change over 150 years compared to a 4.5bn year old earth? This is the problem with Enviro-"Scientists" - they look at short term data and try to force long term trends from it.

Wonder if any of the 'Global Warmers' could answer these two questions for me?

1. Do we control the Earths temperature?

2. If yes to the above then are we going to try and heat it up if it gets too cold and cool it down if it gets too hot?

:blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
The bottom line is Mother Nature does, what Mother Natue does. We cannot stop it or start it.

The question that does also need to be asked is what is the statistical relevance of taking a temperature change over 150 years compared to a 4.5bn year old earth? This is the problem with Enviro-"Scientists" - they look at short term data and try to force long term trends from it.

Wonder if any of the 'Global Warmers' could answer these two questions for me?

1. Do we control the Earths temperature?

2. If yes to the above then are we going to try and heat it up if it gets too cold and cool it down if it gets too hot?

:closedeyes:

1. No: the Sun does. But we have affected the CO2 balance of the atmosphere, so less radiation is escaping into space than used to , so the atmosphere is warming up. So our activities have changed the earth's temperature.

2. ? If it gets too hot, it'll be too late. If it gets too cold, ditto. Odds are on the first.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

OK, it's a thread to debate/air your views etc. Here's mine and none of it is gloom-ridden.

Do we want to keep the temp. no matter what the Earths natural trend is?

If we suspect a new Ice age- like in the 70's, are we going to increase co2 emissions in order to heat the place up? Well- are we?

We "know" the temp has changed 0.6 +/- 0.2 (!) in 100 years- but how much is 'natural' and how much (if any) is us?

We can probably guess that our influence is positive ie heating. Anyone know the background or 'natural' figure or it's direction? Probably gentle warming tho, maybe 0.6 for all I know. ( :closedeyes: )

We might as face up to a couple of facts.

1. If we're going to be here long term, we're going to have to put up with it being both warmer and cooler than it is now. It's done this before and will do so again.

2. We DO NOT control the temp of the planet and never will.

We should learn to adapt to gentle changes in temp and climate. Enjoy the changes!

We've been here for a while now and we're not doing too badly.

To listen to these 'environmentalists' you'd think bloody ice should stay frozen forever!! Obviously it used to be liquid water and it will be again!

Do deserts have to stay deserts forever? All this stuff changes ever so slowly as the Earth does its stuff! It won't stay the same just 'cos we want it to.

I'm sure it's a natural mechanism which is running constantly and it's neccessary to keep the place healthy and clean.

Frankly I think it could do with a wee heat up where I live so bring it on..

Edited by Mondy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
Fair points tws. My reply would be that sst's may well have made it more difficult for severe winter synoptics to develop but there is a differnce between ''more difficult'' and ''impossible''. Which is why I added the piece about hard winters getting rarer rather disappearing altogether. We are certainly not at that stage yet.

A reasonable assertion- I think March/April 2006 alone provided sufficient proof that it's still possible for us to get very cold snowy weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Excuse me! I'm pretty sure that there's no rule against editing unless you kow different; fair enough if I was coming back three days later to the equivalent of "shedding the evidence" of some unwaranted behaviour; I do periodically edit my entries, but invariably within five minutes or so of posting, and almost always to correct typos or potentially misleading prose.

[EDIT] by the way, on rechecking, which post EXACTLY did I edit?

[EDIT 2] presumably you're NOT disputing the point I made re the numbers then? Yes, the SRCC test would have as a null hypothesis that there is no upwards trend in mean monthly CETs. But as you're familiar with the tool I'd magine you would have been able to infer this, I mean, it was hardly going to be proving a relationship between temperature and the price of bananas was it?

(i) I said I would get back to you with an argument early next week. Is that too long to wait? Especially if you're correct!

(ii) I have argued with you before and you've edited posts to remove erroneous comments before (albeit not for some long time, now) I thought it worth the mention; I'm sure you feel different. I can't recall the post, as always, it was about a finer point of detail and not about the overall picture which, it so happens, we both agree with.

(iii) I am disputing your numbers per se: I will do my research - as I said I will get back to you

(iv) You still need to read some of DeMorgan's laws, I'm afraid. Inference isn't what you say it is - look up the truth table.

(v) You complained to me that I had "no evidence, nor verification of what I was saying" OK I've put in a far more diplomatic manner than 'having a small cock' but then I'm someone who looks to think of an argument as an intellectual exercise rather than some macho sabre rattling rubbish. You are entitled to argue as you see fit, of course. Nevertheless, you provided no null hypothesis for your stated statistical results - regardless of what you think other people should infer. Indeed, given your results, it might as well have been the price of bananas. This smells of amateurism as much as my (drunken) post did.

I promise I will do a thorough analysis of what I've said and will either support your post (and hold my hands up) or provide some cognitive argument which, I hope, you will argue in a more adult, and reasoned manner.

Mods: is it worthwhile to start a new thread "Is the recent temp rise statistically significant?" and move the appropriate posts over?

Edited by Geludiligo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dublin, ireland
  • Weather Preferences: Snow , thunderstorms and wind
  • Location: Dublin, ireland

Hi mondy,

I dont thinkI need to post on this thread anymore.

Your views mirror mine exactly.

Thanks

OK, it's a thread to debate/air your views etc. Here's mine and none of it is gloom-ridden.

Do we want to keep the temp. no matter what the Earths natural trend is?

If we suspect a new Ice age- like in the 70's, are we going to increase co2 emissions in order to heat the place up? Well- are we?

We "know" the temp has changed 0.6 +/- 0.2 (!) in 100 years- but how much is 'natural' and how much (if any) is us?

We can probably guess that our influence is positive ie heating. Anyone know the background or 'natural' figure or it's direction? Probably gentle warming tho, maybe 0.6 for all I know. ( :closedeyes: )

We might as face up to a couple of facts.

1. If we're going to be here long term, we're going to have to put up with it being both warmer and cooler than it is now. It's done this before and will do so again.

2. We DO NOT control the temp of the planet and never will.

We should learn to adapt to gentle changes in temp and climate. Enjoy the changes!

We've been here for a while now and we're not doing too badly.

To listen to these 'environmentalists' you'd think bloody ice should stay frozen forever!! Obviously it used to be liquid water and it will be again!

Do deserts have to stay deserts forever? All this stuff changes ever so slowly as the Earth does its stuff! It won't stay the same just 'cos we want it to.

I'm sure it's a natural mechanism which is running constantly and it's neccessary to keep the place healthy and clean.

Frankly I think it could do with a wee heat up where I live so bring it on..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
(ii) I have argued with you before and you've edited posts to remove erroneous comments before (albeit not for some long time, now) I thought it worth the mention; I'm sure you feel different. I can't recall the post, as always, it was about a finer point of detail and not about the overall picture which, it so happens, we both agree with.

If you're going to make a statement like that I STRONGLY SUGGEST you produce evidence.

I have NEVER removed or edited any post of mine during an argument or discussion, with you or anybody, in such a way as to factually alter something written deliberately. Like I said, I will often make a momentary clarification or correction IMMEDIATELY after posting. Just bear in mind that you are not beyond the laws of libel on here, as last week's news demonstrated. If you're not going to produce any evidence then I suggest that you consider a retraction. On occasions when I am shown to be incorrect in an argument I quite readily admit as much with an open post.

In any case, before providing your retraction, you might like to examine CAREFULLY how the edit feature on here works. I THINK I'd be correct in stating that once a post has been replied to IT CAN NO LONGER BE EDITED. That would make it darn difficult, unless I had mod's right, to change a post in response to something you have subsequently stated - don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
The bottom line is Mother Nature does, what Mother Natue does. We cannot stop it or start it.

The question that does also need to be asked is what is the statistical relevance of taking a temperature change over 150 years compared to a 4.5bn year old earth? This is the problem with Enviro-"Scientists" - they look at short term data and try to force long term trends from it.

Wonder if any of the 'Global Warmers' could answer these two questions for me?

1. Do we control the Earths temperature?

2. If yes to the above then are we going to try and heat it up if it gets too cold and cool it down if it gets too hot?

:unknw:

1 - we certainly influence it. Why ever wouldn't we. You argue that it's (the atmospheric system) a natural cycle; are you suggesting that somehow we exist outside of nature? We have denuded the planet of many species, impacted micro climates dramatically - unless you're going to suggest that there is some boundary that prevents many small effects from aggregating up to a larger one then this is very much an "ipso facto" in my eyes.

2 - is not much of the current political attention aimed at exactly this? Hollywood films like Asteroid or Armageddon are behaviourally plausible in the eyes of the audience precisely because human kind seeks always to survive (indeed, all successful animal species do, hence why, by definition, the do evolve and thrive) no matter wat the overhwelming odds against this. Given your line of work I can't believe you aren't aware of soe of the compelling testimonies to be drawn from cockpit voice recorders that show pilots of doomed airliners working right up to the moment of death to arrest quite unrecoverable situations. It's not only that they're well trained, it's also a primeval motivation that exists in our genes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Merseyside
  • Location: Merseyside

Once again your poll does not have an option for me!

This winter has not changed my opinion about human affect on climate change... I'm sure we're having an affect, but not as big as some environmentalists claim.

I find myself agreeing with Mondy's posts earlier... but I also believe humankind must use the planet's resources wisely... but I'm also sure that the earth will do what it needs to to survive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

Having read SF's reply numerous times this morning, a simple yes or no would've sufficed instead of a rambling which, to me, is rather unclear and portrays the poster as being tied up in knots.

Question 1: Do we control the Earths temperature? You did not answer that directly. Yes or No?

Instead you fudged around the issue by proclaiming:

we certainly influence it

Question 2: If yes to the above then are we going to try and heat it up if it gets too cold and cool it down if it gets too hot?

I'll read your reply again in a few hours when perhaps i've woken up more and actually grasped what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Morning sleepy head (Mondy).

Yes we are heating the planet by providing a feedback system that stops heat being radiated back into space as it would were we not providing the 'chemicals' for it to not do so (we are forcing other effects by our actions but none as 'notable' as the greenhouse suite).

I'm sure America would dearly love to purposely mess with the planet to suit there own needs but I do not feel it is a safe option until we fully understand ALL the influences on climate ('cause we'll just find ourselves in some other mess).

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: .
  • Location: .
I was referring to the name of this topic: "Has this winter changed your view on Global Warming?" (And subtitled "Replying to Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect {sic} on climate change?") - the insinuation being that this one winter's extreme mildness is indicative of some human-influence factor.

Oh dear. Sigh. Did you read my first post on the poll? I mentioned that one winter does not prove anything.

I was simply asking if this winter was having an effect (sic! lol - bad mistake of mine that tut tut) on people's view of AGW. As I mentioned summer 2003 sent me back to the arguments. Sometimes micro events can force us to think about macro issues. Fairly straightforward and quite reasonable! Up to now nearly 30% have said it is making them either re-think or change. That's quite something.

This post has been edited in order to add the statistic (for Geludigilo's benefit)

Edited by West is Best
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

In response to your earlier, longer comment, Mondy: the first question you are asking is about attribution. Many attribution studies have been and continue to be done. Within the bounds of scientific probability, we are responsible for a large proportion of the near- 1C rise in temperatures in the last hundred years.

Of course it will get cooler, eventually, but this is missing the point. The worry about AGW is what is most likely to happen in the next 100 or 200 years. As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence for a cooling in this preiod of time, just more warming.

It isn't about control, it's about effect. If you refuse to acknowledge the effect our actions have had, measurably and demonstrably, on global temperatures, that is your choice, but as it stands, your statement is (allowing for the use of language) simply false.

Again, it isn't about 'gentle changes in climate'; the worry is about the possible extreme, long-term effects of AGW on parts of the world which could, conceivably, warm 5 degrees or more, and will, probably, reduce our global capacity to provide food and water for the population.

There is a difference between 'environmentalists' and people who think AGW is a problem. You are intelligent enough to understand the distinction.

As you rightly say, the earth does it's stuff, gently. We don't; we do our stuff rapidly and destructively. The current phase of warming has no historical precedent.

Think beyond where you live. Scotland may well become a very desirable place to live, especially if you like storms and rain. But your children are unlikely to want to visit the toxic, parched Mediterranean for their holidays. That is, if they can get through the crowds of climate refugees from countries which are riddled with warfare over resources and almost uninhabitable.

One reason your 'simple' questions aren't simple to answer is that they are not clearly expressed, in particular, question 2.

This winter has not changed my opinion about human affect on climate change... I'm sure we're having an affect, but not as big as some environmentalists claim.

I find myself agreeing with Mondy's posts earlier... but I also believe humankind must use the planet's resources wisely... but I'm also sure that the earth will do what it needs to to survive...

Lady P., I agree with your first comment entirely, however I think Mondy is wrong.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

Well, if anything my little input shows debate is alive and well on here; and healthy.

I'm not old enough to remember 1957, but knowing a little history, wasn't 1957 the International Geophysical Year? Then, so-called scientists were worried about the coming mini-ICE age. Guess what? It didn't get cooler.

So, continuing the debate.

Glaciers come and go. There are a lot of erratic boulders (aka Pleistocene deposits) in our country. We're living in interglacial times as happened so many times before during the Pleistocene epoch.

I also like the cut of this Professor's jib. Worth a read. Maybe even the alarmists could take comfort from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

The mini-ice age worry: (1970's) loads of reasons why this isn't relevant as a comparison, but here are a couple: a cooling trend which was at the time unexplained had been observed. Within a couple of years, after research, explanations were found for the cooling, as well as the previous warming. By comparison, the GW hypothesis began nearly 100 years ago, and, with the advent of computers and satellites, took off as a working explanation of climate change by the mid-seventies. Nobody doubts that scientists and experts can be wrong, obviously. because of the way science works in the modern age, mistakes are generally picked up fairly quickly and rectified. The body of science now in existence which shows GW and AGW is huge. There is very little science, if any (and here I distinguish between proper science and pseudo-scientific nonsense) which puts AGW in doubt. No competing explanation for recent warming has successfully been offered. No disproof of the AGW theory, never mind the underlying physics, has been provided. The science is sound.

Yes, we are living in an interglacial. So? By the book, we're not due another ice age for 30,000 years or more. But we're also not on a 'natural' warming curve, either. Once again, it's because the recent warming has no natural explanation that human interference is the issue. As things stand, there are no known climate cycles which fit the patterns of the current warming phase.

Lindzen is a well-known anti-GWer. He isn't a specialist and his 'science' is cobbled together, cherry-picked, and misrepresents the real science; it is an example of the above 'pseudo-science'. His rhetoric is loud, but his arguments are, simply, wrong. I am not saying this because I disagree with him, I am saying it because it is the case.

Please don't characterise people who argue that AGW is real as 'alarmists'; this is implying some kind of hysteria. I, for one, am not hysterical. :unknw:

Have you read the material in the 'basics of climate change' pin?

Regards,

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

What if Mount St Helen's decides to erupt next year? The fact that the Earth naturally emits 97% of all CO2 and this total varies greatly every year is forgotten. Compared to mankind's 3%, and vehicles (all vehicles) 0.375%of the total worldwide emissions the fact that this is NEVER mentioned is at least misleading.

How many people here are talking about mankind's massive contributions when in fact, a busy year from Mother Earth renders our contribution meaningless.

I feel i'm now going round in circles on this thread. Like WiB initially mentioned, he was a sceptic - I'll always be a sceptic. I can't change that. Just thought it important to get a point across from a non-believer instead of the thread rapidly becoming a " I agree" type one, and everything in the garden is rosy..

Time to bail out of this thread. It's much more interesting watching rapidly deepening depressions zoom across the Atlantic, than debate/argue about warming possibilites.

Please don't characterise people who argue that AGW is real as 'alarmists'; this is implying some kind of hysteria. I, for one, am not hysterical
Point taken
Have you read the material in the 'basics of climate change' pin?

Most of it. Didn't think it was particularly apt to add to it with my "negative" thoughts, subsequently ruining the pin. A thread like this is much better to air views :unknw:

Edited by Mondy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...