The Ongoing Warmth in the UK

[noggin]

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.

Thanks for your reply, but I wasn't asking you, I was asking Calrissian.

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.

Re your first paragraph........comes across as a bit pompous......don't know if you meant it to.

Re your second paragraph.......could just as well apply to you, being here. I certainly am not amongst like-minded people here, bar a few exceptions. It is certainly not "comfortable" when so many people disagree with my view. However, I shall try not to lose any sleep over it.

And man is not part of nature? Interesting.

That is not what I said. I said that I am pretty certain that nature does not understand statistics.

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

Thank you for supplying a graph relative to the past showing things going up and down.

I would be more impressed if you could produce one for the future.

Edited May 5, 2007 by noggin

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

If this were a boxing match it would be pretty obvious who is now very much on the ropes and just swinging wildly in a vain attempt to avoid the knock-out punch

[noggin]

Time out for me for the moment.......I have to see the results of "Any Dream Will Do" on the telly!

However, I look forward to continuing this conversation with SF.

[The PIT]

SF is correct Most people are ignorant these days. Sadly I've got to agree.

[Mammatus]

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.

osmposm, this is exactly my point.

where do you get a record of "365-odd years" from - 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.

The fact your being fastidious and pernickerty about 17 years says it all really. The Earth has been here millions of years, you or I haven't, or our weather records/observations haven't so stop being so sanctimonious and self-satisfied. Look at the bigger picture - not 348 years. Climate goes in cycles. Your post explains very little to support your arguement which I find unproductive and uneffectual to this thread.

Mammatus

Edited May 5, 2007 by Mammatus

[The PIT]

Another point without a Tardis temperatures measured in the past may also be dubious also gives a bit of leeway.

The last warm spell and present warm spell a lot of people were saying it was cold in these forums.

Edited May 5, 2007 by The PIT

[Thundery wintry showers]

SF is correct Most people are ignorant these days. Sadly I've got to agree.

Me likewise.

One interesting question for those who believe that GW is entirely natural, or even that the world isn't getting warmer; why do you believe this?

The question is significant because the answer gives a clue as to how much weight one's view holds. An opinion based on evidence, especially if it's sound, well thought through evidence, carries much weight. But sometimes people form opinions along the lines of "A is true because I want it to be true"; for instance some AGW deniers may believe that AGW is not real because they don't want to face up to the possibility of having to make some sacrifices in order to reduce emissions etc, or may be subconsciously opposing the consensus view among scientists and the media because they don't trust those sources.

In the meantime, an 'opinion' based on no thought, merely of the form "A is true because it is", is more a case of blind faith.

The very definition of a discussion is that if you post a view, chances are it will be challenged and questioned. When some people complain about those with a certain view posting in a thread, it's not the holding of the view that is generally the problem, but rather a reluctance to let others challenge it in any way.

[TEITS]

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.

Yes this is called the Milankovich cycles.

I tend to avoid these threads because I find them rather irritating how some seem to be clairvoyant in knowing our future weather. Making assumptions that the earth will continue to warm up in the future due to GW is not only laughable but is also ignoring many factors of what makes our climate.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The more "moderate" AGW-mongers don't advocate the idea that we have a clairvoyant ability to predict future climate, but speak in terms of probabilities; the probability is high that the world will continue to warm up.

I am in full agreement with those who dismiss the AGW extremists and people with other agendas. But in order to refute the AGW arguments, you need to tackle the views offered by the more moderate 'AGW-believers' as well; it's no good addressing only certain, or extreme, aspects of the arguments.

[The PIT]

Evidence Mmmmmm

The trouble with Evidence is that it's based on money. So therefore you've got to find a problem. No problem no money no research.

The old temps readings how accurate are those. We all know without the correct equipent we record duff readings so go back 300 years how good are those. Dig a few ice cores up how good are the estimates of the temps are at that point. Can aqnyone prove that estimates are correct???

I don't think anyone on here who posts has the qualifications to prove or disprove the theroies that abound. Theres a lot of bluster around but look at all the attempts at forecasting the success rates are pretty poor.

As I said before the truth is somewhere between. I still think most of the warming is natural with a little bit of man made help.

[Stratos Ferric]

Thanks for your reply, but I wasn't asking you, I was asking Calrissian.

Re your first paragraph........comes across as a bit pompous......don't know if you meant it to.

Re your second paragraph.......could just as well apply to you, being here. I certainly am not amongst like-minded people here, bar a few exceptions. It is certainly not "comfortable" when so many people disagree with my view. However, I shall try not to lose any sleep over it.

That is not what I said. I said that I am pretty certain that nature does not understand statistics.

Thank you for supplying a graph relative to the past showing things going up and down.

I would be more impressed if you could produce one for the future.

Noggin: like I said, I listen to R2 for entertainment, not for assessment of scientific matters. Not pompous, simple fact.

Re what you said, I'm sorry, but I played back a logical challenge to EXACTLY what you said: viz:

I'm pretty certain that nature doesn't understand statistics.....they are a man-made thing

That sentence quite clearly suggests that statistics are irrelevant to nature because they are man made. My point was that man is part of nature: ipso facto so must statistics be. I'm all ears however for the interpretation of the sentence that I am not able to see.

I'm glad you liked the graph, but like Nelson you're holding the telescope to a blind eye. Yes, climate has fluxed up and down, but it has never got as warm as it is now, and it is still warming. Which way is the graph going in future? Up.

I note that despite being asked twice you still refuse to suggest at what point in the future, assuming continued warming, or no sustained fall back to the general level shown in that graph (i.e 8.5 - 9.5C), you would concede that your hypothesis - that this is just a blip - is misguided. I seem to recall that Mondy, too, refused to draw a line. That suggests to me that if, say, in fifty years time we were 2C warmer than now, you'd still be sat here spouting "this is just normal variation". It already quite clearly is not normal, and for you to, however playfully, suggest that it is is just daft, sorry.

[Stratos Ferric]

Me likewise.

One interesting question for those who believe that GW is entirely natural, or even that the world isn't getting warmer; why do you believe this?

The question is significant because the answer gives a clue as to how much weight one's view holds. An opinion based on evidence, especially if it's sound, well thought through evidence, carries much weight. But sometimes people form opinions along the lines of "A is true because I want it to be true"; for instance some AGW deniers may believe that AGW is not real because they don't want to face up to the possibility of having to make some sacrifices in order to reduce emissions etc, or may be subconsciously opposing the consensus view among scientists and the media because they don't trust those sources.

In the meantime, an 'opinion' based on no thought, merely of the form "A is true because it is", is more a case of blind faith.

The very definition of a discussion is that if you post a view, chances are it will be challenged and questioned. When some people complain about those with a certain view posting in a thread, it's not the holding of the view that is generally the problem, but rather a reluctance to let others challenge it in any way.

Some very good points in there TWS. I for one give far more credence, whether I agree with the argument or not, to people who at least present arguments for their contrary (relative to my position) views. Roger, for instance, has reasons for believeing that we will cool down. There are a good few of the doubters who also tend to pine madly for cold weather. I think you have rather hit the nail on the head with your point about wishful thinking, particularly when no evidence is otherwise presented. In many cases I suspect it's less that they cannot se that we're warming, more that they do not want to have to forego some of the (cold winter) weather that goes with it.

As Terminal Moraine and John Holmes have pointed out in other threads recently, for all that these chat rooms are a catholic church, with varying levels of knowledge and interest, meteorology is still a science, and we should at least respect the rigour of scientific discipline even if, individually, we are not minded to indulge in the detail.

[johnholmes]

hi EITS

Making assumptions that the earth will continue to warm up in the future due to GW is not only laughable but is also ignoring many factors of what makes our climate.

I don't dispute that the earth has warmed and cooled, indeed in various posts on this and other fairly similar threads, I have been at pains to point this out.

May I ask you to explain or show supporting evidence that the climate of the world, within, say, the 50-200 years, will actually start to cool.

The reason I ask is that almost all the main scientific evidence shows that it will continue warming, even with an anticipated somewhat cooler period superimposed over the current trend.

Why do I choose the period 50-200 years? Simply because this is within human understanding of time scales, my grandchildren's grandchildren will be part of this time scale, so I can talk to the two that are still at school for them to understand the points which are simple enough for very young teenagers to grasp and understand.

One of the main points in the IPCC report is that unless world governments are prepared to act now with a plan, not necessarily to stop or even slow down GW, but to create plans of what to do with the many many millions who will be affected by drought or sea level rises, then chaos is going to ensue within the time scales I've mentioned.

That assuming only the less stark possible effects of the continued warming being realised.

I hope that members, and visitors, to our threads will accept that I do try to post reasoned and realistic comments about this very emotive topic. I like frost and snow but one has to be realistic about how likely it is to see a return to even the late 20th century let alone to the winters of my childhood.

In the meantime, I used once before, the world governments argue about this and Rome continues to burn!

Edited May 6, 2007 by johnholmes

[TEITS]

hi EITS

Making assumptions that the earth will continue to warm up in the future due to GW is not only laughable but is also ignoring many factors of what makes our climate.

I don't dispute that the earth has warmed and cooled, indeed in various posts on this and other fairly similar threads, I have been at pains to point this out.

May I ask you to explain or show supporting evidence that the climate of the world, within, say, the 50-200 years, will actually start to cool.

Morning John.

What I mean't by my post last night is that we simply cannot be sure of the future. How do we know what Volcanic eruptions will occur in the next 20-30yrs because as you know some people believe that the series of volcanic eruptions during the little ice age contributed to such low temps. This of course makes sense because the volcanic ash particles would of course cause a cooling thus causing a greater amount of snow/ice thus causing even more cooling as the sun's heat is reflected even more. On top of this how do we know how much freshwater is being dumped into the oceans and what effect will this have on the ocean circulation patterns.

This is why I don't usually bother with these threads because I find they often go round in circles because nobody is correct because nobody can see the future. The current evidence points to the earth getting warmer & warmer but that doesn't mean it will and the points I make above can cause a rapid change in our climate in a very short space of time.

Edited May 6, 2007 by THE EYE IN THE SKY

[johnholmes]

hi EITS

On top of this how do we know how much freshwater is being dumped into the oceans and what effect will this have on the ocean circulation patterns.

To correct, not necessarily your misunderstanding, but others with respect to this.

Until the ice begins to melt of the two major frozen continents, ie Greenland and Antarctica then there is no major problem with sea level rising. That is apart from ocean ice in the Arctic and to a lesser extent in the Antarctic casing a very very slight rise. At this stage the most marked increase, and only slight, is that with rising temperatures this will very slowly affect the huge heat engine of the oceans. The slight thermal expansion of all this water will cause rises of, I think the figure quoted, is cm's.

No the main threat comes if/when the ice begins to melt off the two continents mentioned above. That is when the fairly large and comparatively quick rise in sea levels, many decades that is, will occur.

Yes you are right to comment about the effect of volcanoes and there are several around the world that vulcanologists predict are 'due to go off'. However that is an if and when rather than a now and ongoing which the temperature rise is.

Also to more directly address your point about water circulation.

This is another factor, at least for the European area of interest. The NAD(North Atlantic Frift) has shut down before and could do so again. But once more it is an if and when rather than a now and ongoing.

All the factors have been commented on at some point in various IPCC papers.

Edited May 6, 2007 by johnholmes

[noggin]

My point was that man is part of nature: ipso facto so must statistics be. I'm all ears however for the interpretation of the sentence that I am not able to see.

Good morning, SF. Of course man is part of nature and I can indeed see where you are coming from here. The point that I was trying (and obviously failing!) to make is that nature does not, for want of a better way of putting it, have a brain. That it is not a statistician. That it does not have "thoughts" about what would be normal or abnormal.

In the same way that I can see where you are coming from on this, I hope that you can see where I am coming from!

I note that despite being asked twice you still refuse to suggest at what point in the future, assuming continued warming, or no sustained fall back to the general level shown in that graph (i.e 8.5 - 9.5C), you would concede that your hypothesis - that this is just a blip - is misguided. I seem to recall that Mondy, too, refused to draw a line. That suggests to me that if, say, in fifty years time we were 2C warmer than now, you'd still be sat here spouting "this is just normal variation". It already quite clearly is not normal, and for you to, however playfully, suggest that it is is just daft, sorry.

I did put a figure on it SF, in post number 153 on this thread. But here it is again, copied and pasted;

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!

[Stratos Ferric]

Morning John.

What I mean't by my post last night is that we simply cannot be sure of the future. How do we know what Volcanic eruptions will occur in the next 20-30yrs because as you know some people believe that the series of volcanic eruptions during the little ice age contributed to such low temps. This of course makes sense because the volcanic ash particles would of course cause a cooling thus causing a greater amount of snow/ice thus causing even more cooling as the sun's heat is reflected even more. On top of this how do we know how much freshwater is being dumped into the oceans and what effect will this have on the ocean circulation patterns.

This is why I don't usually bother with these threads because I find they often go round in circles because nobody is correct because nobody can see the future. The current evidence points to the earth getting warmer & warmer but that doesn't mean it will and the points I make above can cause a rapid change in our climate in a very short space of time.

There is some sense in that EITS. However, by way of an analogy.

Your house is on fire, you haven't phoned the fire brigade, you have a lot of possessions that you cherish. You're not sure whether it's a small fire or a big one, or whether it will take hold. It's raining outside, you don't want to start taking possessions outside in case they get wet, you're not sure about phoning the fire brigade in case they charge you for wasting their time.

One of my erstwhile clients got into a very deep hole back in 1995 when they sat out a long drought. Rather than invest whilst they could, to mitigate the worst case scenario, they sat doing nothing on the assumption that the drought had to break. They soon passed the point at which the lead time for taking action was longer than the period remaining to having to use rationing (or some other much more expensive alternative provision), and still it didn't rain.

Yes, there may be things in the future that alter the course of events, but ALL - and I stress ALL - disasters, barring occasional one-off single link catastrophes, have as a common thread the passage of multiple points at which alternative courses of action could have been taken, and at which there were warning signs of the need for them to be taken.

In the examples above, and in your argument, there are some things which are more certain than others. Thus, as John says, we ARE warming. In the meantime, there might be some volcanic eruptions, we might get struck by a comet, and you might win the friggin lottery, but let's not confuse degrees of certainty. If you're a manager in the situation to manage deal first with the definite, then with the possible, but whatever else you do, don't bank on potential catastrophe being averted by possible benevolent acts of God. History says it very rarely happens, nad that, by the way, is why we have something called insurance.

[Stu_London]

I'm glad you liked the graph, but like Nelson you're holding the telescope to a blind eye. Yes, climate has fluxed up and down, but it has never got as warm as it is now, and it is still warming. Which way is the graph going in future? Up.

I assume you mean in terms of how long measured temperature records go back because there is plenty of evidence that the earth has been warmer than today many times.

[johnholmes]

Noggin

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 sun hat!

I suggest in a post a little earlier that there is likely to be a cooling, but only slight, and probably barely noticeable due to the rising temperatures overrunning it.

I tried to suggest that the likely occurrence of a return to the late 20th century winters, 85, etc was pretty slight, probably even as a one off year. More so that a return to the winters of my childhood, 1947 being the major one, is pretty implausible, as is the 1962-63 winter.

On a purely parochial level but it does illustrate what has happened in this area, regardless of what MAY happen in the future.

The 1963 January and February mean temperature for the two months for here was -0.8C, that was 4.2C below the then 20 year average straddled over that period.

The current 20 year mean for those two months for this area is 5.1C, January 4.8C and February 5.5C. So a mean for the two months of 4.2C below the current average would give 0.9C.

Quite some difference from the minus 0.8C for the two months in 1963.

Put another way we would have to have a mean temperature for January and February some 1.7C BELOW the mean even to get down to the 20 year mean in 1963.

Enter Mr Data to tell us when that last happened?

aa

Edited May 6, 2007 by johnholmes

[Stratos Ferric]

Good morning, SF. Of course man is part of nature and I can indeed see where you are coming from here. The point that I was trying (and obviously failing!) to make is that nature does not, for want of a better way of putting it, have a brain. That it is not a statistician. That it does not have "thoughts" about what would be normal or abnormal.

In the same way that I can see where you are coming from on this, I hope that you can see where I am coming from!

I did put a figure on it SF, in post number 153 on this thread. But here it is again, copied and pasted;

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!

Good for you, and thank you for putting a line in the sand. I hope though, that rather than eating your sunhat - if and when we get there - you find ways of adding your very sensible approach to what would, in that case, be a growing call for action.

It's churlish to quibble, but adding five years to where we are now would give a "blip" far in excess of anything we've ever had; I think the line falls short of that.

Re statistics and nature: for sure, nature does not follow statistics by rote, but that's not the point. Nature follows discernible patterns, and if those patterns exist then statistics reveals them and provides pointers as to what MIGHT happen in future. For example: when my daughters were born it was possible using weight / height charts to say how typical they were of the total poulation, and therfore how tall they might grow given where they started from, and sure enough, those charts weren't far out. Most of nature follows paterns of normal distribution, and that distribution has specific characteristics that do allow mathematical inferences to be drawn. They don't work ALL the time, but they work most of the time. What's more, the more data you have, or the longer a sequence goes on, the more sure you can become.

The other things statistics let us see is when a previous pattern is no longer being followed. Example: go toss a coin 100 times and keep a note of the heads / tails, or if you have excel set up a rand() routine and copy it 100 times. Note how many H/T or values +0.5/<0.5 you return. Do it again and again and plot a histograme showing the spread of H-T results. Most sets will return a breakdown in the range 45-55, there will be a few in the 40-60, and a very few outside this. Now look at individual tosses in sequence. Occasionally you will you see more than four in a row of a type (this is a 1:8 occurrence so you might find around 8 such sequences in your 100 flips. There will be a very few with five on the trot, fewer still of six and by the time you reach 7 you're at the point where more often than not you will not see such a sequence in 100 tosses. Now compare this with our current climate. If the climate were stable we would be seeing annual values above AND below the 30 year mean. At present we are in a sequence of ten above above par. If you were tossing a coin - particularly for money - you'd start to suspect one of the old roman variety!

As the plot above shows, this sequence is not absolutely unprecedented in terms of length. 1699-1712 and 1726-38 both surpassed the current run, but as we saw in yesterday's plot the first of those runs was a reflex out of a very low base into the corridor in which the CET then sat for the next 200 years or so. The second is more interesting, because it did take the CET to unprecedented heights (though not nearly so high as we are now) which would not again (using ten year running mean) be touched until we entered the "modern climate". Analysing more of the detail: in that 13 year run there were 110 warm months, 45 cold and one bang on par: around 66% warm. In the current run of ten (to the end of last year) there were 87 warm, 30 cold and three neutral. Add the four from this year and we're running at 80% warm months, compared to the comparison period. Furthermore, 26-38 managed 18 months with >1.0C below the norm, the current sequence of ten managed just two, and one of those was the very first month in the sequence, Jan 1997.

What should we conclude? Statistically, the length of warming is not unprecedented, but warming in context is. The 1725-38 run peaked at a level well below the point at which the current run started, so arguably a warming run was easier to attain. Further more, in that run there were still instances of cold months: the current run includes very few genuinely cold months and fewer below par months: given that the trend is up, as it continues, it ought to be harder to getmore warm and easier to get more cold: that is clearly not happening and it is that that should set the alarm bells ringing loudest.

For sure nature does not foloow statistics. But what statistics tells us is that the pattern that nature has hiterto followed is starting to look broken, we are entering a new pattern, in fact, I suggest, we have already started it: the questin now is how much longer and how high? If you want to clutch final straws I'd suggest that we need to see the start of sustained reversal within the next 2-3 years. It doesn't look like happening this year!

I assume you mean in terms of how long measured temperature records go back because there is plenty of evidence that the earth has been warmer than today many times.

Given that I was referencing the graph, yes. The earth has been warmer, as has the UK, but back then the UK was probably straddling the equator!

[Stu_London]

easy to forget that in 4 of the last 5 years we have seen cooling in terms of CET, although 2006 wiped out all 4 and more.

However people were speculating up until the middle part of last year that perhaps we had entered a sustained cooling phase. Lets keep things in perspective, we have only had this extraordinary warming for a period of 13 months

[Stratos Ferric]

easy to forget that in 4 of the last 5 years we have seen cooling in terms of CET, although 2006 wiped out all 4 and more.

However people were speculating up until the middle part of last year that perhaps we had entered a sustained cooling phase. Lets keep things in perspective, we have only had this extraordinary warming for a period of 13 months

We've seen cooling at the second decimal place, which was wiped out about six times over by last year's huge leap.

We haven't been warming extraordinarily for 13 months. If you go back and see the chart I posted yesterday we've been in uncharted territory since 1997: that we are warming as dramatically as we are now, given that the CET is at record levels, is staggering. Yes, we warmed this quickly from 1700-1710, but then we were coming from record lows. You expect climate to accelerate back towards its mid point the further away from that mid point it is. What we have at present is a climate a long way away form mid point, managing to speed up in its movement away.

I don't think there's any lack of perspective in this assessment; it's cold playback of the facts in context. In fact cold analysis is, for cold lovers, about the only cold that we have left.

[Stu_London]

We've seen cooling at the second decimal place, which was wiped out about six times over by last year's huge leap.

We haven't been warming extraordinarily for 13 months. If you go back and see the chart I posted yesterday we've been in uncharted territory since 1997: that we are warming as dramatically as we are now, given that the CET is at record levels, is staggering. Yes, we warmed this quickly from 1700-1710, but then we were coming from record lows. You expect climate to accelerate back towards its mid point the further away from that mid point it is. What we have at present is a climate a long way away form mid point, managing to speed up in its movement away.

I don't think there's any lack of perspective in this assessment; it's cold playback of the facts in context. In fact cold analysis is, for cold lovers, about the only cold that we have left.

My point was that warming had reappeared in the UK climate in the last 13 months at a great pace which was extraordinary given that we were at a warm start point anyway - so essentially we are saying the same thing.

I am not a cold lover by the way and I am not in denial about the climate warming. I think energy conservation and other green issues are very sound thinking, however not necessarily linked to climate. But I also think that laying the blame at C02 emissions and citing a couple of hundreds years worth of statistics is akin to claiming to see the whole picture when one is in fact, holding a jigsaw piece in front of them.

[johnholmes]

very true Stu, but as some of us are trying to illustrate, its partly the rate and also the level at which its started from.

I'm not sure I totally agree with some of the points SF makes but I am in overall agreement with his thinking. I do believe that we SEEM to be entering an area that modern man, post 10th century has not seen before. As most of these changes, up and down, in temperature, appear to last many decades, often for centuries, then its that which predisposes me to believe its time all of us, here with commercial, try to persuade our elected rulers/parliament/local/national to get off their backsides and plan for the next 50-200 years. I won't bore you with my arguments, they are up there early on in this thread.

Edited May 6, 2007 by johnholmes

[Stratos Ferric]

My point was that warming had reappeared in the UK climate in the last 13 months at a great pace which was extraordinary given that we were at a warm start point anyway - so essentially we are saying the same thing.

I am not a cold lover by the way and I am not in denial about the climate warming. I think energy conservation and other green issues are very sound thinking, however not necessarily linked to climate. But I also think that laying the blame at C02 emissions and citing a couple of hundreds years worth of statistics is akin to claiming to see the whole picture when one is in fact, holding a jigsaw piece in front of them.

Stu, I don't think that in this thread anybody is explicitly laying all the blame in anyone place. Re AGW, as has been mentioned in other threads, there is a tendency in some quarters to assume that climate can only warm for one reason. It can warm for many, but the CO2 effect is proveable science, if uncharted ground. I think one or two look back to the geological record and see warming when there was little or no human effect and therefore suggest that we cannot be warming now for the reason of CO2. Also, warming and cooling factors can be coincident, and then, within the whole, there is dynamic variation around the mean. It's a messy picture, but given that we are now clearly outside the normal pattern of outcomes something(s) is (are) happening to force a change and, it would appear, a rebasing of our climate.