The Ongoing Warmth in the UK

[chapmanslade]

I'm afraid the biggest problem is the association of climate change and climatology with meteorology. We have had a very dry warm spring, but it isn't BECAUSE of global warming. Last year we had a very cold spring and that doesn't disprove global warming.

Changes in global temperature will change basic weather patterns that drive our local weather but the interaction is complex, which most people do not have the knowledge or intelligence to understand. I certainly don't, and I am a graduate in a scientific degree, so at least understand scientific reasoning.

What annoys me is the global warming band wagon that makes you evil if you drive a big car, or turn the heating up. I do agree with energy efficiency because fossil fuels are a finite resource and alternatives are not sufficiently developed yet, but not because I am worried about the future generations. What is so important about the human race that a good mass extinction event wouldn't be a good idea anyway ? The Earth will be enveloped by the sun eventually and it will get pretty warm then !

I heard somebody say the other day that we should think of our tenure on the earth as merely borrowing it from our children, well all I can say is that everything my son borrows from me comes back buggered.

[PersianPaladin]

I'm afraid the biggest problem is the association of climate change and climatology with meteorology. We have had a very dry warm spring, but it isn't BECAUSE of global warming. Last year we had a very cold spring and that doesn't disprove global warming.

They are the same thing. Here is a definition of meteorology from the dictionary: -

- "the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena, including weather and climate."

Dictionary.com

[johnholmes]

depends which dictionary you use

the OED quotes

• noun the study of atmospheric processes and phenomena, especially for weather forecasting.

I have to say during my career Meteorology was thought of as being the sturdy of current and predicted weather.

Climatolgy was the research into what had happened a long time ago and what might happen a long time ahead.

Edited May 4, 2007 by johnholmes

[chapmanslade]

They are the same thing. Here is a definition of meteorology from the dictionary: -

- "the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena, including weather and climate."

Dictionary.com

But few meteorologists claim to have in depth knowledge of Climatology - they are two distinct fields of expertise not to be confused.

Meteorological events are short term events, Climatological ones long term. Hence one hot Spring does not confirm global warming, and a cold one doesn't disprove it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology gives a better explanation of the difference

Edited May 4, 2007 by chapmanslade

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

As I've said to one or two other people on here Noggin, it would be interesting to know where you would put your line in the sand so that if things have not returned to normal (or started in that direction persistently) we will know that your hypothesis is invalid.

I could go stand by the side of a road where I know a bus used to run, and after every passing day say to myself "maybe tomorrow; these things come in cycles", but at what point do we have to admit to ourselves that our hypothesis might be wrong. If you don't draw a line in the sand then you're in the same camp as the addicted, simply hoping that what you want is going to happen, but not having any cogent rationale for why it might - other than the siren call of hope that keeps playing away in the recesses of the mind.

You don't have to know much about statistics to be able to see that we're right at the margin of the possible in terms of this run of 20 years of warmking being a blip. There's no run like it in terms of length or extremity in the measured record, nor in the reliably reconstructable record.

We can describe it because records can be constructred in other ways. If you're going to play the "concrete proof" argument then prove to me that Romans didn't have jumbo jets. Prove that ancient Greeks couldn't run faster than today's athletes. Prove to me that AIDS is a modern disease. The climate does go in cycles, so do a lot of things, but I wish one or two of you "we've been here before" types would actually look at some of the data and construct an argument as to how and why we are where we are. "We've been here before" is no more an argument for the causes of our current climate than would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer dismissing ongoing increases in interest rates with "we've been here before". Weather is not a matter of whimsy, it is a scientific product of hard and fast relationships: to be at levels of unprecedented warmth right around the globe there must be a reason, and I'm still waiting for one of you to explain what it is if it's not GHG. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while.

The difference between belief and science is that the former requires no proof whatsoever, and is therefore open to all sorts of ignorant bias: the latter does require proof.

Say a little more about our position relative to the sun, and the sun's behaviour.

How come Manchester United win the Premiership even though they don't win every week? A single event proves nothing either way, nor is Terry Wogan and his audience a reliable test of anything scientific.

The media is only the biggest source of information for those who choose to rely on the media. Interestingly enough, if you go read any scientific, technical or professional journal, amongst the list of references accompanying any article you will seldom as never see references to "The Sun" or "The Daily Mirror". Journalists are not technical professionals and I would no more rely on a journalist for information regarding climate than I would rely on them for a medical opinion.

That said, the media tends to lag actuality, and as such is well position to be an adopter not an innovator. You may not like their excesses, but generally speaking they back the winning pony. Brand reputation is hardly built by representing untruths or half truths, unless, like the National Enquirer, that is the land they choose to inhabit.

Brilliant SF !!!

[johnholmes]

I'm always a touch wary of Wilkipedia and who posts but I have no quarrel with their definition or explanation of the differences between meteorol and climat-ogy.

Brilliant SF !!!

true but why oh why quote the whole darn thing.

take a small section to highlight your brief comment not use up nearly another full page!

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

I'm always a touch wary of Wilkipedia and who posts but I have no quarrel with their definition or explanation of the differences between meteorol and climat-ogy.

true but why oh why quote the whole darn thing.

take a small section to highlight your brief comment not use up nearly another full page!

sorry, it was just such a good post I figured if I repeated it in totalis then there would be more chance of more people reading it

maybe there should be a daily thread for "Really good posts of the day" where people can cut and paste any posts they think are really worth bringing to everyone's attention ?

Edited May 4, 2007 by Pennine Ten Foot Drifts

[Mammatus]

The difference between belief and science is that the former requires no proof whatsoever, and is therefore open to all sorts of ignorant bias: the latter does require proof.

The media is only the biggest source of information for those who choose to rely on the media. Interestingly enough, if you go read any scientific, technical or professional journal, amongst the list of references accompanying any article you will seldom as never see references to "The Sun" or "The Daily Mirror". Journalists are not technical professionals and I would no more rely on a journalist for information regarding climate than I would rely on them for a medical opinion.

That said, the media tends to lag actuality, and as such is well position to be an adopter not an innovator. You may not like their excesses, but generally speaking they back the winning pony. Brand reputation is hardly built by representing untruths or half truths, unless, like the National Enquirer, that is the land they choose to inhabit.

Hi SF,

Good post,

'Scientific' Data does show our globe to be warming, BUT, only in recent times. Earth is far older than the human race and will Im sure adjust in given time like in past 100's - 1000's of years. The climate does go in cycles. "but I wish one or two of you (we've been here before) types would actually look at some of the data and construct an argument as to how and why we are where we are. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while". Yes SF I reckon you will, because we have very little data to backtrack on for 'how and why we are where we are' and 'Proof ' - 365 years data is minuscule to the length of time Earth has been here. I understand what your saying though.

Mammatus

Edited May 4, 2007 by Mammatus

[PersianPaladin]

Differences between meteorology and climatology are debatable. You could argue that climatology is merely the same thing....but on a macro-scale - i.e. weather systems become large-scale Hadley\Ferrel, etc cells....oceanic gyres\currents, etc. This all has an influence on regional weather systems and is a reflection of long-term climate. Of course; pervasiveness of macroscale weather systems\circulations in particular regions results in the important 'time-scale' element to meteorology...hence the term 'climatology'.

Edited May 4, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Stratos Ferric]

depends which dictionary you use

the OED quotes

• noun the study of atmospheric processes and phenomena, especially for weather forecasting.

I have to say during my career Meteorology was thought of as being the sturdy of current and predicted weather.

Climatolgy was the research into what had happened a long time ago and what might happen a long time ahead.

As another who has studied both I concur. Meteorology is the here and now process, climate is the long term average of the meteorology that prevails in any location. Therefore, for climate to be changing something has to be happening to the meteorology.

[johnholmes]

as a meteorologist I disagree PP and I'm sure someone with the professional title of climatologist would also disagree.

Short term and long term require differing mind sets but also the ability to be able to see that the other -ology has its place.

[PersianPaladin]

as a meteorologist I disagree PP and I'm sure someone with the professional title of climatologist would also disagree.

Short term and long term require differing mind sets but also the ability to be able to see that the other -ology has its place.

From what I've read both at university and out of interest...climatology is intimately linked to meteorology. Although I agree that they are different aspects of the same science.

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi SF,

Good post,

'Scientific' Data does show our globe to be warming, BUT, only in recent times. Earth is far older than the human race and will Im sure adjust in given time like in past 100's - 1000's of years. The climate does go in cycles. "but I wish one or two of you (we've been here before) types would actually look at some of the data and construct an argument as to how and why we are where we are. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while". Yes SF I reckon you will, because we have very little data to backtrack on for 'how and why we are where we are' and 'Proof ' - 365 years data is minuscule to the length of time Earth has been here. I understand what your saying though.

Mammatus

To be scrupulously fair to Noggin and one or two Tamaras, and as several on here do keep observing, there are a couple of points to be made: the current warming MIGHT indeed be a blip, and the cause of the warming may not be entirely man-made. The longer all of this goes on, though, the longer the odds on either. It is also true that on their own one of sequences, like the month just gone, do not prove anything. What is undeniable is that given the each one on its own is unlikely, the serial occurence of several such instances defies chance occurrence.

[rc28]

Yes, well most people are ignorant idiots, so don't expect the 'masses' to ever have any real appreciation of what is happening around them until their coastal homes are under water, and they have no regular drinking water.

I agree, and well put!

What I would like to know is when was the last time some of the GW naysayers got on a plane and looked out the window to see just how dirty our atmosphere is and see the amount of industrial haze everywhere - all because of human beings! How can people say that such massive volumes of greenhouse gases are not affecting our climate??

BTW, great post SF!

Edited May 4, 2007 by rc28

[Mammatus]

I agree, and well put!

What I would like to know is when was the last time some of the GW naysayers got on a plane and looked out the window to see just how dirty our atmosphere is and see the amount of industrial haze everywhere - all because of human beings! How can people say that such massive volumes of greenhouse gases are not affecting our climate??

BTW, great post SF!

The problem isn't GW, it's peoples unequivocal melodramatic theatrical demeanour on the subject.

Mammatus

[Stratos Ferric]

The problem isn't GW, it's peoples unequivocal melodramatic theatrical demeanour on the subject.

Mammatus

I agree that there is a lot of hubris and theatrical melodrama: the same has happened many times down the years. When Aids first became recognised on a big scale in the late 80s; in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis; when Wimbledon won the FA Cup (actually, wasn't that the start of the "modern climate"...mmm). In part, however, some of this is catch-up, and delayed over-reaction is a normal human condition.

If it wakes more people up than it irritates then I'm fine. The Mondys of the world would be in denial anyway, so I suspect that a little excess exposure (not the same as overstating consequences by the way, I pick my words carefully) is probably a net beenfit in terms of changing behaviour.

Say what you will though, I disagree with your basic tenet. Theatrical excess may be frustrating, but it isn't going to cause a single problem with global feast, famine, displacement or disruption. GW might. Let's not confuse frustrating with potentially damaging.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[noggin]

Noggin, it would be interesting to know where you would put your line in the sand so that if things have not returned to normal (or started in that direction persistently) we will know that your hypothesis is invalid.

I don't know, SF, to be honest. But I'll be dead probably within 35 years' time, so some time within 35 years! I'm not being facetious here......perhaps 30 years will pass by and we'll still be warming up. But I don't think so. If I have to put a figure on it I would say within 5 years we will see a cooling. If we are all still here then and things are still warming up then I will eat my sunhat!

[noggin]

You don't have to know much about statistics to be able to see that we're right at the margin of the possible in terms of this run of 20 years of warmking being a blip.

I'm pretty certain that nature doesn't understand statistics.....they are a man-made thing. Even if it was the case how can we possibly know what has been the "possible" since the Earth came into existence? As for a 20 year blip....we've had warming and cooling blips throughout the 20th century and that shows to me that the climate varies. I do not mean to say that the climate goes in 20 year cycles....far from it. We have, after all, had the LIA and the MWP during the past 1000years and they lasted longer than 20 years.

Say a little more about our position relative to the sun, and the sun's behaviour.

Sometimes the Earth is closer to the Sun than at other times and also the Earth is sometimes at a different angle to the Sun due to it's tilt and this would make for quite a large variation in the amount of heat that we receive from it. Also, the Sun varies in the amount of heat it gives out.

nor is Terry Wogan and his audience a reliable test of anything scientific.

I take it you're not a TOG then, SF!

It does go to show, though, that not everyone believes in GW or AGW.

Gosh, you do tax me with all your questions SF.....I'm not cut out for this debating malarky, y'know!

[Stratos Ferric]

I'm pretty certain that nature doesn't understand statistics.....they are a man-made thing. Even if it was the case how can we possibly know what has been the "possible" since the Earth came into existence? As for a 20 year blip....we've had warming and cooling blips throughout the 20th century and that shows to me that the climate varies. I do not mean to say that the climate goes in 20 year cycles....far from it. We have, after all, had the LIA and the MWP during the past 1000years and they lasted longer than 20 years.

And man is not part of nature? Interesting.

We don't know, but then nor do we need to know. With the right resources I could tell you the outcome of a general election by around 9am on the morning of polling, long before the vast majority of voters have voted. Statistics are maths way of explaining nature, probability is an extension of stats that allows us to attach certainty, even without knowing all history, or all of the future, but it does require certain assumptions about behaviour of the data population. Looking back at the past 350 years the data has behaved in a particular way, within very narrow bounds. It is now so far outside of those bounds that this cannot be put down to a blip in normal behaviour: something has happened tochange the behaviour. The argument is not "has it changed" but "why is it changing".

Have you actually looked at any charts from the past 300 years? I suspect not. Here you are:

Climate does vary, but even the most cock-eyed, biased view of the attached plot would struggle to explain how the current variation in any way matches anything in the measured record. I am, therefore, looking forward to your explanation of this, because it's baffling me.

[noggin]

Yes, well most people are ignorant idiots, so don't expect the 'masses' to ever have any real appreciation of what is happening around them until their coastal homes are under water, and they have no regular drinking water.

---

Do you imply that anyone who does not share your point of view is an idiot?

[Stratos Ferric]

Sometimes the Earth is closer to the Sun than at other times and also the Earth is sometimes at a different angle to the Sun due to it's tilt and this would make for quite a large variation in the amount of heat that we receive from it. Also, the Sun varies in the amount of heat it gives out.

I take it you're not a TOG then, SF!

It does go to show, though, that not everyone believes in GW or AGW.

Gosh, you do tax me with all your questions SF.....I'm not cut out for this debating malarky, y'know!

The earth does indeed change location, but not over the course of twenty years. In any case, given Muana Loa, Hubble, Jodrell Bank, Osborne One-Nil and the many ranks of sensing telemetry we have available nowadays I think we could reasonably, and sensibly, expect that science would have spotted if the current warming was down to any changes in our location in the universe.

I do occasionally listen to R2, but for entertainment. I would no more ask Terry Wogan's audience for a view on climate than I would ask them for a medical diagnosis, to land a plane, or to write the spec for a new remote telemetry suite. For sure, there might be some amongst the five or so million with the right skils, but that's not to say that everyone who proffers a view is qualified to do so technically.

There's always a natural comfort in submerging ourselves in a group of like minded people, but that doesn't mean that the like mind is correct. That very comfort is precisely how gangs work.

[osmposm]

....this GW theory is absolute rubbish. Earth has been here millions of years, our records only go back 365 odd years, so how can we describe todays temperatures 'compared to the long term average'? when they only go back a few hundred years? Beyond me. A cooling phase is just around the corner....

Mammatus, where do you get a record of "365-odd years" from (and you repeat it later)? I assume you're referring to the monthly mean CET series, which is the world's longest continues one, and begins in 1659: I make that 348 years.

I have to say that it makes me wonder if you've ever actually looked at the figures in it. And sorry, but it doesn't inspire much confidence in your opinions on matters of meteorological/climatological observation either.

[chapmanslade]

The period 1700 to 1750 warmed up pretty quickly, and that wasn't down to industrialisation. It would be interesting to plot CO2 levels for the same period. I believe CO2 levels rose steadily throughout the 20th century, temperatures didn't with cooling mid century.

Edited May 5, 2007 by chapmanslade

[Stratos Ferric]

Do you imply that anyone who does not share your point of view is an idiot?

Not at all, but by the dictionary definition of the word most people are ignorant on most things. Having an opinion is one thing, but having a viable, provable opinion is quite something else, as much of the discussion on here shows. For example in your case you have said that you don't believe in GW - fair enough - and that this is just a blip typical of what has gone before. I've demonstrated to you why it isn't just a blip typical of what's gone before. You can hang on to your viewpoint but so far as I'm concerned it's not viable. Like I asked the other day, at what point in future would you accept that the climate is changing "permanently", or do you, like Mondy, just start from a totally entrenched position that man cannot possible impact the climate? If you cannot put a marker down at which point you might change your mind then it ratehr suggests to me that you're simply not willing not willing to change your mind. That's your prerogative, but it's not a particularly intelligent one.

Nobody has to change their mind on anything, but as I see it in public forum if you're going to air an opinion then it's open to challenge. There are plenty of people on here with different opinions to my own, and I'll readily change my mind IF they can disprove my thinking AND demnstrate why their viewpoint is more valid.

Terry Wogan endlessly drones on about climate change / GW, and a fawning audience might join in, but it's hardly critical argument.

[Stratos Ferric]

The period 1700 to 1750 warmed up pretty quickly, and that wasn't down to industrialisation. It would be interesting to plot CO2 levels for the same period. I believe CO2 levels rose steadily throughout the 20th century, temperatures didn't with cooling mid century.

It did indeed, but then we were coming out of the little ice age. The only remotely comparable period in the record is 1700-1710, when temperatures rose as rapidly as they have in the last ten years or so. The difference now is that we've smashed through the ceiling: back then we were coming out of the basement. Add to that that the trend is still up (of the last ten years, the outturn in nine has been above the ten year mean line, and unless we get a major recoil each of the next three years is likely to exceed the first three in the current ten year series) for the ten year mean. Furthermore, it's now 12 years since we had a year come in below the thirty year running mean; not just that, but recent years have been so far in excess of that measure that it's all but an anachronism as a measure of climate in much the same way as the trousers my eldest daughter wore two years ago are now an anchronistic indicator of her height. In fact, the COLDEST year in the last ten is warmer than the thirty year running mean. That has happened only once before: in 1710.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Stratos Ferric