The ' I NEED TO SCREAM' thread.

[cyclonic happiness]

Last night after spending a couple of hours on Net weather and various internet sites/forums, I just had to concluded that there cannot be any real consensus on global warming being either a long term threat or a man made one? Yes I do honestly KNOW that Britain/ the planet has warmed up, any fool can tell that over the past thirty years that the winters have been getting less severe ,but the summers don't seem too much different? (yes we do get higher maxima, i know) The point I'm trying to make is that I, as a lay person, when it comes to scientific discussion, can only hear equally valid points and arguments from both the long term global warming camp and the imminent global cooling camp and a massive amount of noise from in between. All i want to know is what is it that I am supposed to believe? as i cannot and will not believe either the government or the press. So I have only you guys (and i must say that you all do a fabulous job in informing the general public as you are always frank and honest in your replies, p.s. that's not lip service lol) that i can really trust to give me the answer i need. And after years of watching you analyse and process data, I know that this type of board/media, will be the first to unearth the truth.

[parmenides3]

ch: you have expressed what a lot of people seem to feel about this question: a mixture of confusion and worry. That you have the courage to admit it is laudable.

Most of us don't feel comfortable with science because we think it's too difficult. This is a shame, because most of it is written in English, and most of it can be understood by careful reading. The problem you describe, of apparently conflicting 'evidence', comes from not being able to tell for sure whether the science you are reading makes sense or not. This is especially important for you, if you don't trust the government. As far as trusting the media... always assume you need to check the facts for yourself, and assume that stories of imminent doom are exagerrations, is the simplest suggestion.

So, who should you trust to know the answers? Who would you go to if you were sick? Who would you go to if your car broke down? Who would you ask if you wanted to know what the weather was going to be like on Saturday?

It is common sense to get your answers from the experts. They are the climate scientists. There are thousands of them around the world. All of them have degrees, and many of them doctorates; they got these through study, hard work and knowing their subjects. Climate scientists know what they are doing. they also know what is wrong with some of the things they have done, and try to fix them, They also know all of the things that we lay-people argue about here on NW, and often know the answers (but not always).

Almost all climate scientists agree that CO2 is having an effect on the world; it is causing it to get warmer. Almost all climate scientists are sure that this warming will, allowing for the odd 'blip', carry on for many years; probably centuries. Almost all climate science is published in scientific journals, which have a review-process and a response-process to try to stop 'poor' science from being published. A good test of whether the material you are reading is likely to be good-quality science is to check where it was published. This is no guarantee of it being right, only a sort of quality-assurance, like checking for caterpillars in lettuce before it gets packaged and sold.

You don't have to take my word for this, so check it out if you want to, but almost all of the material which looks like it 'disproves' global warming has never been close to a science journal. This is not, as some people would claim, because there is a conspiracy to silence dissent, but simply because it is so poor in quality that no science journal would print it.

There has been some important work done on 'alternative' theories to Global Warming. Some of this is decent quality science. But nothing has been published, inside or outside science, which actually, properly, disproves AGW. Every time it looks like someone has found an alternative, the ideas are tested and in some way found wanting.

I expect someone to respond to my comments here by telling you that I am wrong, and that this or that is 'proof'. This is because they are convinced themselves that AGW isn't happening. They aren't necessarily fools or liars; they are often very rational people, like my father-in-law, who simply won't be convinced. But, for them, for a variety of reasons, AGW can't be happening, so it must be wrong.

I know what I think about AGW. I know what I would like you to think, but I'm not going to tell you; you have to work it out for yourself. And if the science bit is just too dull for you to cope with, then you have to decide who to trust; who is most reasonable, who seems to rely on fact and evidence rather than insult or flat statements contradicting other people.

Failing all else, browse through the pinned links at the start of the environment change thread, or look up key terms or words on wikipedia. In a month, you'll be an expert. I was .

Good luck.

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

That's a very measured assessment, for which much credit.

To those who doubt I say don't worry; wait another three or four years and we will either have warmed even more, or corrected back. The same arguments were raging back in 2003, at about the time N-W launched, and the same posts could be seen: some arguing for continued warming, some suggesting that we were overdue a cold winter and that it was just a matter of unlucky synoptics. The four years since aren't a long time, but a cursory assessment of what's happened in that time perhaps provides at least some pointers to current direction of travel. If we have four more years the same, then four more after that, there comes a point at which, irrexpective of whether or not somebody can understand the science, or wants to, the facts themselves become compelling.

I remember watching my football team get relegated back in 1979. They were far too good to go down, everybody said that, and all the fans believed it, and even as the team sank deeper into the mire those who had invested in season tickets could often not bring themselves to believe that the team they loved might actually get relegated. Say what they will almost thirty years on, the league table speaks for itself, they went down.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi CH

I honestly don't want to write a post contradicting P3 and SF just for the sake of it - in fact there is a lot in those posts that I can agree with. As SF says, if it warms appreciably over the next 4 years, and then the next, and then the next then there's some fairly compelling evidence for GW, especially considering the currently predicted (or speculated) cooldown or levelling-off.

But, since it seems only right that a self-professed skeptic should step in and comment ( ), I thought I should give an alternative viewpoint.

Global warming certainly appears to be happening at present. That's pretty hard to argue and, I think, most skeptics don't try to argue that. They argue the speed of the temperature increase, they argue its significance (both physically and statistically), but they don't tend to deny that warming seems to be occurring. I certainly don't, anyway!

But there's a big difference between GW and AGW - namely the "A" part - and this is where it starts to get complicated. As yet there is no actual proof that mankind is having an effect on global temperatures (those who accept AGW argue that it's not possible to give proof, and to a certain extent they are right, but hear me out on this...!). Similarly there is nothing yet to disprove AGW (which those who accept AGW claim is indicative of how robust the theory is).

The problem is knowledge. There are many people out there (yes, even scientists!) who think that we do not know enough about the climate system to be able to make specific claims about the future, or what may be affecting the climate system right now. With so many gaps in our knowledge and understanding it is felt by some that it is not possible to pinpoint specific causes, especially when the effects of those causes are so very small.

This knowledge and understanding problem leaves us in the situation where, at present, it is simply not possible to either prove or disprove man's effect on the climate system. It is not that the AGW theory (or hypothesis) is especially robust, scientifically speaking, but rather that our understanding is not sufficient to be able to analyse the theory critically enough.

So people like me come along and argue against AGW, while others (like P3, SF and Devonian) argue for AGW. With any luck, as time goes on these arguments will become more and more refined until we get to the crux of the issue - I would never say that AGW definitely isn't happening, I simply feel that there are too many contrary points to be able to claim that AGW is happening. If it ever gets to the point where the evidence in favour of AGW is overwhelming then I will gladly (though perhaps a little shamefacedly!) change my views.

Has this helped anyone, or has it just confused the issue further?

CB

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I remember watching my football team get relegated back in 1979. They were far too good to go down, everybody said that, and all the fans believed it, and even as the team sank deeper into the mire those who had invested in season tickets could often not bring themselves to believe that the team they loved might actually get relegated. Say what they will almost thirty years on, the league table speaks for itself, they went down.

You've just wasted ten minutes of my day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978-79_in_English_football

[Bobby]

It is common sense to get your answers from the experts. They are the climate scientists. There are thousands of them around the world. All of them have degrees, and many of them doctorates; they got these through study, hard work and knowing their subjects. Climate scientists know what they are doing. they also know what is wrong with some of the things they have done, and try to fix them, They also know all of the things that we lay-people argue about here on NW, and often know the answers (but not always).

I agree with that. If you want the most possible accurate view, read the scientific papers, only listen to scientists. Don't listen to us lot, few of us are qualified and many here have their own ideas and theories and opinions that can't be properly backed up, from both sides of the argument. I would say that the Wikipedia article on climate change is a pretty good balanced view of things.

One simple fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that the Earth is warming and man is largely behind it. This view is the overwhelming scientific consensus, whether it's right or not.

[Essan]

Climate change isn't just about temperature.

Global Warming doesn't mean everywhere getting warmer, nor every year being warmer than the one before.

Natural variation may on occasion over-ride any anthropogenic effects. Likewise anthropogenic effects may amplify natural warming.

If the next 2 decades see a downturn in global temperature due to reduced solar activity, for example, it doesn't mean that the underlying trend isn't still one of global warming, nor does it mean that other effects of human activity won't cause changes in rainfall distribution or cloud cover.

Many of the things being suggested to reduce carbon emissions will likely have no impact whatsoever on climate change. But they will save you and the country money in the long term, improve your quality of life, and reduce our reliance on other countries for our energy needs.

The 'AGW scare' if that's what it turns out to be, will also have prompted increased technological development and thus likewise benefit the human race in the long term.

The people most likely to be affected by climate change are those currently least able to act to prevent it - and some current western policies and preferences are actively encouraging such people to make their own situation worse and condemn their children to misery.

The single biggest, and easiest, thing that can be done to reduce carbon emissions and reduce all impacts of climate change - not just 'global warming' - is to cease all rainforest burning. Paying tropical countries to replant the forests instead of burning them is also the cheapest short term option for western countries. We could pay for it with all the money we save by switching unnecessary lights off at night - a policy which will also enable your children to see the stars

[Gray-Wolf]

Option 'B' is to wait and see!

If you've read any of my posts you'll know I favour that we will see indisputable evidence as the 'tipping points' we have crossed begin to truely show their hand (the planet is a big cumbersome beast that, as has been said, has it's own 'rhythms' that may occasionally mask the odd region from the changes).

Indisputable Sea level rises are my favourite for the thing that will end any debate as to the direction we are headed but we will see this happen in 'slo-mo' as it will come to us via catastrophic collapses of continental/shelf ice (something you can watch daily via the 'MODIS' satellites- both Terra and Aqua).

Keep asking questions but don't be too surprised if, as your understanding grows, you perceive only one end result instead of the dichotomy you find yourself in today!

[mezzacyclone]

but we will see this happen in 'slo-mo' as it will come to us via catastrophic collapses of continental/shelf ice (something you can watch daily via the 'MODIS' satellites- both Terra and Aqua).

any Link on this please GW?

[laserguy]

A few questions,and I promise I'm not being 'awkward'. Why does it take literally tens of thousands of scientists to do this work,and who is paying them? Why aren't a similar number of experts employed to work on the anticipated effects of climate change instead of squandering billions on the climatologists who have,it seems, already reached their conclusions? How many more years are they going to go around telling each other they're right? The climate is changing and it will continue to do so whether scientists say so or not. Game over boys,go get a proper job. Apart from anything else,not much can be done to cope with climate change because no one knows what the effects will be and how each effect will influence other factors. We see stuff on the news and documentaries saying how dire it could all become,but so what? Yes we can all 'do our bit' ( I do ),but our valiant endeavours are wasted,I feel. When I see stuff on the news about climate change I feel like I probably would if told that Apophis has been nudged off it's trajectory and will in fact be making landfall in two days time.

Time to stop panicking and introduce a little commonsense. If you're being mugged you don't stop to ponder how on Earth this ghastly situation arose,you ponder ways to deal with the matter in hand! We're being told stuff about what it might be like 50-100 years down the road but I hear no voices saying what to do about it,only cut those emissions and it'll all pan out fine. YEAH,RIGHT. CO2 or no CO2,changes are afoot that we can do precisely nil to avoid.

[Gray-Wolf]

any Link on this please GW?

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2007249/

there ya go!

[parmenides3]

A few questions,and I promise I'm not being 'awkward'. Why does it take literally tens of thousands of scientists to do this work,and who is paying them? Why aren't a similar number of experts employed to work on the anticipated effects of climate change instead of squandering billions on the climatologists who have,it seems, already reached their conclusions? How many more years are they going to go around telling each other they're right? The climate is changing and it will continue to do so whether scientists say so or not. Game over boys,go get a proper job. Apart from anything else,not much can be done to cope with climate change because no one knows what the effects will be and how each effect will influence other factors. We see stuff on the news and documentaries saying how dire it could all become,but so what? Yes we can all 'do our bit' ( I do ),but our valiant endeavours are wasted,I feel. When I see stuff on the news about climate change I feel like I probably would if told that Apophis has been nudged off it's trajectory and will in fact be making landfall in two days time.

Time to stop panicking and introduce a little commonsense. If you're being mugged you don't stop to ponder how on Earth this ghastly situation arose,you ponder ways to deal with the matter in hand! We're being told stuff about what it might be like 50-100 years down the road but I hear no voices saying what to do about it,only cut those emissions and it'll all pan out fine. YEAH,RIGHT. CO2 or no CO2,changes are afoot that we can do precisely nil to avoid.

I'll try: Climate science is only one of many disciplines studied at universities and institutes. People with the aptitude and interest (and who are willing to be paid less for the privilege), study climate science, but often indirectly; they study atmospheric chemistry, physics, computer modelling, statistics, geography or ocean science, for example. On top of these people, there are those who are employees of state-funded scientific research establishments, like NASA or the Met Office (Hadley Centre). The reason that so many people study any subject is that (broadly), the more you look into any subject, the complex and interesting it gets. And the climate (and all the bits that interact with it) is very complicated. The reason that governments think the money is worth spending is because they are pretty sure that we have a problem just around the corner.

I'm not sure you're right about distinguishing climatologists from people who are trying to solve the problems; they are often the same people.

Then you go and spoil it: what's with the dim comments? Here is an example of a contradiction; you claim 'no one knows why', but then say that scientists should stop doing their work, because they already know the answers.

We see lots on the media. I keep saying; approach with caution. Why does climate change matter? You might as well ask why all known life matters.

Then at the end, you confidently say that things are happening that we have no power to change. These would be the things not being caused by our interference, would they?

Make your mind up laserguy: are changes happening? Do we want to stop things from getting very bad? How might we find a way to stop things? I know; let;s get some people to find out what's happening and work out why, then we can do something about it...hang on; that's what we already do.

I know you want to understand really, but you are letting your cynicism get in the way. Let it go and look for the truth.

:)P

[biffvernon]

Very well put, P3.

[Essan]

I believe a lot of current research is into aspects of ACC other than carbon emissions. I hope that this will become a bigger issue over the coming years.

[Stratos Ferric]

A few questions,and I promise I'm not being 'awkward'. Why does it take literally tens of thousands of scientists to do this work,and who is paying them? Why aren't a similar number of experts employed to work on the anticipated effects of climate change instead of squandering billions on the climatologists who have,it seems, already reached their conclusions? ...

Laserguy, believe you me they are. Do you suppose that: initiatives to grow biofuels; the development of wind farms and more efficient turbine converters; the production of lighter composite materials to reduce the load on engines and requirements for fuel; the development of alternative energies; hydrological engineering projects around the world; R&D into low energy light sources; the engineering of crop varieties that are more drought resistant and higher yielding; the design of living spaces that capture, and retain, more of the naturally occurring heat and light; and, the incredible foresight demonstrated by Bridlington Town Council in investigating the potential for a marina to be built, just fall of trees? There are far more people, often in the private sector, but not exclusively so (for example The Carbon Trust, another of my erstwhile clients, is NFP and doing sterling work here in the UK), investing in the future than there are scientists modelling the climate.

...you are letting your cynicism get in the way. Let it go and look for the truth.

P

There's many on here that would do well to heed those sensible words. Instead of jaundiced opinion, people should go and find some facts and enquire. There's more than one or two on here - Captain Bobski for instance, but he's far from being alone - who have taken, and continue to do so, time to do a bit of objective research (note that this is as distinct from 'trying to find an opinion that agrees with my own however unreliable that opinion might be') from primary sources and who then mull, and come back with thought through opinions and questions.

You've just wasted ten minutes of my day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978-79_in_English_football

I said they were too good to go down, and they didn't!

Wrong season. Surely it wasn't 79/80? Staggering, it was 1981-2!

[laserguy]

In response to my earlier post,P3,you say I might as well ask why all life matters as ask why climate change matters. Unless I've grossly misunderstood you,you're saying that we,and everything else on the planet will die if the projections of a certain quarter materialise some time in the future? What sort of a temperature rise are you therefore anticipating? Must be pretty spectacular if that's the outcome! Yes,scientists in their own mind do know the answers at the moment. Then somewhere down the line something changes that makes their current viewpoint obsolete. Back to square one,and a continuation of the sapping of billions of pounds of tax-payers money to effectively chase the end of the rainbow.

All the things you mention,Stratos,are to my mind extremely worthwhile and such endeavours can only be a good thing and should be encouraged. It is simple common sense and anyone who opposes such measures must have a strong anti-social gene lurking somewhere within. However,I feel it is wrong to give the message that such projects and their attendant reduction of CO2 output will somehow 'save the planet' from climate change. The reason behind the things you mention from the viewpoint of government and corporations is very simple: the world's oil supply is dwindling,prices are rising and in the not too distant future ( ie within our lifetime ),the lights are going to go out. America is so dependant on oil that any reduction in their supply will either lead to that country being reduced to the status of Africa,or they will react by launching all-out nuclear war on Russia and China who at the moment are collaborating in their quest to secure oil reserves in the Arctic circle. Now I can't see those two countries sympathising with America's looming plight and saying "there's lot's of oil to go around,here,have some of ours". Within a period of a little more than a hundred years,humanity has managed to get through all the (easily accessible) fossil fuels that nature has taken hundreds of thousands to make,and boy are we panicking. Right to the point that governments are having to blame us for the natural proccesses that are occuring and that we can somehow,laughably,turn around inexorable,inevitable natural proccesses around in their tracks by installing low energy light bulbs (which I have in every room!) etc,etc.

I do engage in research,Stratos,but as always it's a case of believing,or trusting the science which makes the most sense to an individual. For sure,we are living in very interesting times entirely of our own making. Climate change is nothing new,but I'd like to envisage how heated (or not) the debate would be right now if we weren't so dependant on fossil fuels. I think it wouldn't even have been noticed,to be honest.

Football?!? Not interested,but I hope they don't play at night,all those ferociously power-hungry floodlights can't be doing CO2 levels any good at all!

[Gray-Wolf]

In response to my earlier post,P3,you say I might as well ask why all life matters as ask why climate change matters. Unless I've grossly misunderstood you,you're saying that we,and everything else on the planet will die if the projections of a certain quarter materialise some time in the future? What sort of a temperature rise are you therefore anticipating? Must be pretty spectacular if that's the outcome!

I've asked this time and time again over various topics but why do you feel so secure in this all too fragile 'developed world' existence?

With just a few well parked cars and texts you got a feel for how easily our civilisation can come tumbling down during the first 'petrol crisis'. Even without outside pressures of environmental collapse the financial world could easily set in motion a collapse that would affect billions (and all over the calling to be honoured of debts that the multinationals exist with).

Do you have your own potable water supply? do you have enough food to keep you healthy over any protracted 'collapse' of the infrastructure that you so heavily rely upon? Do you have the means (and intention) to defend those commodities from the thousands around you who do not have any and will covet your supplies (for their children,partner,parents)?

We in the developed world are the first areas of the world to fail should any collapse (however generated) occur. The developing nations already exist with their own water supplies within walking distance/the village, the developing world have access to the crops they grow/animals they own. The developing world would notice very little change if/when the power goes off.

And you?

Edited September 9, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

You're absolutely right,Gray-Wolf. It is the sections of humanity in which technology has become so entrenched as to be seemingly essential to their existance who will suffer. It's like I said,would we actually notice climate change if we weren't dependant on fossil fuels and the technology we have created? Something of a Frankenstein's monster feel emerging. I foresee the demise of Western civilisation when the fuel's gone (unless we embrace nuclear-big time),but third world countries and technologically ignorant (for want of a much better description) countries will wonder what all the fuss is about apart from relocations being necessary in some instances. But even when the oil has gone and we are stood ragged in the ruins of OUR world,the climate will still do what it will,I feel.

No,I haven't a clue what to do when financial collapse comes our way. Perhaps it's time for us all in the Western world to embark on survival courses. I'm not being flippant there,by the way. Starting to wander off topic a little there, so to re-focus it matters not about CO2 because pretty soon there will be nothing left to produce it! There's little doubt that the last dregs of oil will be gobbled up by China,India and Russia. America is a spent force and is getting more deperate by the day ( see news reports about the rapid and ongoing nose-dive of it's economy). In all seriousness, I believe CO2 and climate change will be the least of our worries fairly soon. Meanwhile,nations who don't depend on oil will be looking on in bewilderment while the once 'superpowers' battle it out like a pair of schoolkids over who gets the last Rolo,only with nuclear fighting aids. Interesting times indeed. Maybe there is something to all those 2012 'end of world' tales after all?

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for your reply Laserguy, we may differ in some areas but we seem to both know how serious our futures may turn out to be!

Funny that the U.S. have a kind of 'civil defence' family survival paper outlining what a family would need in the case of any 'disaster' scenario (so as not to swamp any of the rescue sevices and stay self sufficient through the crisis) and our Govt. give us Diddly?

[laserguy]

Thanks for your reply Laserguy, we may differ in some areas but we seem to both know how serious our futures may turn out to be!

Funny that the U.S. have a kind of 'civil defence' family survival paper outlining what a family would need in the case of any 'disaster' scenario (so as not to swamp any of the rescue sevices and stay self sufficient through the crisis) and our Govt. give us Diddly?

Exactly. Here's something else:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4185

It's a preparation for when the **** hits the fan and Mr.Average American starts rioting in the streets,nationwide. How does it go?...Whatever America gets,we get a little later.

[Gray-Wolf]

Exactly. Here's something else:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4185

It's a preparation for when the **** hits the fan and Mr.Average American starts rioting in the streets,nationwide. How does it go?...Whatever America gets,we get a little later.

Thanks again Laserguy!

though, hopefully, it'll only ever remain 'game' every family/group should 'test' their survivability come any type of disaster. The fact that plans are already in place to 'isolate' folk in their home areas (with rights to use 'lethal force' if the officers on the ground deem it necessary) cut down many daydreamers thoughts of 'gettin' the sneck outa there' as they will be marooned within their Local Authority/Region come any 'civil emergency'.

Most folk would quickly realise how poorly prepared they are for any type of emergency (floods/snow etc).

The lessons to be gained from watching folk in the U.S.when Hurricane warnings go out (run on materials/food/water, which then run out) are that we should be 'be prepared'. The folk who add extra problems to the emergency services by adding their 'extra' crisis to situations when a little 'forethought' could have avoided it should be left to fend for themselves(IMHO).

For the sake of the price of a meal out and a couple of bottles of plonk with the family/in-laws folk could 'loft' enough dry supplies/water/meds/batteries etc (long use by dates on most items.....which can then be donated elsewhere when the 'sell by date' approaches and re-stocked) to 'ride out' most crisis....esp. the mad buggers fighting for the last of everything 'cause they didn't 'prepare'.

[nkaol2001]

Climate change isn't just about temperature.

Global Warming doesn't mean everywhere getting warmer, nor every year being warmer than the one before.

Natural variation may on occasion over-ride any anthropogenic effects. Likewise anthropogenic effects may amplify natural warming.

If the next 2 decades see a downturn in global temperature due to reduced solar activity, for example, it doesn't mean that the underlying trend isn't still one of global warming, nor does it mean that other effects of human activity won't cause changes in rainfall distribution or cloud cover.

Many of the things being suggested to reduce carbon emissions will likely have no impact whatsoever on climate change. But they will save you and the country money in the long term, improve your quality of life, and reduce our reliance on other countries for our energy needs.

The 'AGW scare' if that's what it turns out to be, will also have prompted increased technological development and thus likewise benefit the human race in the long term.

The people most likely to be affected by climate change are those currently least able to act to prevent it - and some current western policies and preferences are actively encouraging such people to make their own situation worse and condemn their children to misery.

The single biggest, and easiest, thing that can be done to reduce carbon emissions and reduce all impacts of climate change - not just 'global warming' - is to cease all rainforest burning. Paying tropical countries to replant the forests instead of burning them is also the cheapest short term option for western countries. We could pay for it with all the money we save by switching unnecessary lights off at night - a policy which will also enable your children to see the stars

If G/W doesnt mean everywhere is getting warmer, then why call it global warming :blink: really, none of you ppl know what you're talking about. On here, the f/cast last Thurs (6/9), said the anticyclone to the west of Britain would move steadily east, meaning temps would go up, sun would be plentiful & by early next week (10/9) temps would be 27-29C in south, & 25C in North. very nice you might think, only he got it completely I have a problem about face! The wretched high is still to the west of Ireland, & it's pulling in increasingly cooler, cloudier air, with the result that nowhere in England will exceed 20C on Mon, & most places will only be about 17-18C....a far cry from what was forecast.

My point is: you cant even get a simple thing like a quiet anticyclonic spell anywhere near correct for only a few days ahead, so how the hell can u forecast months/years in advance. Global warming doesnt exist, full stop. if it did, our climate would be far better than it is now. eg. more sun, warmth, & drier, instead of this rubbish we in England have to suffer every year & eachg year sees a deteoriation in climate too. The climate in the 1970's was far superior in every way to this 21st. cent travesty of a climate. see if u can pick the bones out of this.........

[biffvernon]

That's not a very scientific approach to the sciences of meteorology and climatology.

[Stratos Ferric]

You're absolutely right,Gray-Wolf. ...

A more malthusian treatise I haven't read since my degree days at Uni, in fact, it had been many years since I'd even though about Malthus until I read that rather doom-ridden post. A couple of points to dampen your armageddon around the corner outlook LG. Oil has decades to run, gas at least as long, coal probably far longer than that. Wen I was at uni in the early 80s oil was predicted to run out by around 2000. Here we are well past that mark with big reserves, and, with oil proce as high, other previously uneconomic fields come into play. Additionally, where twenty years ago producers would struggle to get 50% from a reservoir, now they often get 75% and more. There is, for better or worse, still at least a couple of centuries of carbon to go after. If you are able to cast your awareness of social and economic history back the same distance, and reflect on how far the world has come in that time, then do you not think that it is just possible that technological evolution will find a way to cope? For sure, there are finite limits to everything (the world is NOT infinite), but a Malthusian outlook like yours is far too simplistic.

...

see if u can pick the bones out of this.........

If you were even a enth as knowledgeable as you like to think you are then you would realise that forecasting the weather and modelling the climate are as far remved from each other as entering the pools next week, and placing an each-way bet on the likely winner of the Premiership.

If I turn the heat on under a pan of boiling water, then my knowledge of physics, given approriate measurement of the heat of the hob, the water temperature in the pan, and the volume, would allow me to calculate when the water would start to boil. Determining which bubbles would rise when, along the way, would be a different matter indeed.

You confuse two very different things, and in seeking to attack them - and you are far from alone in making this mistake - you actually do little than expose your own ignorance.

Are you going to tell us, as well, that our climate isn't warming?

[Bobby]

If G/W doesnt mean everywhere is getting warmer, then why call it global warming really, none of you ppl know what you're talking about. On here, the f/cast last Thurs (6/9), said the anticyclone to the west of Britain would move steadily east, meaning temps would go up, sun would be plentiful & by early next week (10/9) temps would be 27-29C in south, & 25C in North. very nice you might think, only he got it completely I have a problem about face! The wretched high is still to the west of Ireland, & it's pulling in increasingly cooler, cloudier air, with the result that nowhere in England will exceed 20C on Mon, & most places will only be about 17-18C....a far cry from what was forecast.

My point is: you cant even get a simple thing like a quiet anticyclonic spell anywhere near correct for only a few days ahead, so how the hell can u forecast months/years in advance. Global warming doesnt exist, full stop. if it did, our climate would be far better than it is now. eg. more sun, warmth, & drier, instead of this rubbish we in England have to suffer every year & eachg year sees a deteoriation in climate too. The climate in the 1970's was far superior in every way to this 21st. cent travesty of a climate. see if u can pick the bones out of this.........

Global warming means that the globe on average warms, not every place on the globe warms. Weather and climate are two completely different things also. While nobody can predict what the weather on 14th December 2012 will be, it's a pretty certain bet that it will be cooler than it was today - that's the difference between climate and weather. I have a feeling that changing your opinion is impossible though.

Oil has decades to run, gas at least as long, coal probably far longer than that. Wen I was at uni in the early 80s oil was predicted to run out by around 2000. Here we are well past that mark with big reserves, and, with oil proce as high, other previously uneconomic fields come into play. Additionally, where twenty years ago producers would struggle to get 50% from a reservoir, now they often get 75% and more.

This is incorrect. Oil doesn't "run out", we won't be pumping more and more oil until suddenly overnight it's all gone. Oil production rises, reaches a peak, and then declines, and all evidence points to the fact that oil production is about to peak anytime now. May already have happened. As for oil reserves, while they can get more oil out of a reservoir now, they get it out faster, meaning it runs out faster. The various techniques they use on the particular oil fields to get this hard to get oil out (namely water injection, which floods the oil field eventually) only reduces the ultimate amount of oil available to extract. There is very very little oil left, discoveries peaked way back in the 1960s, we started using more oil than we found in the 1980s, and we now using about 8 barrels of oil for every one we find. With most of the world's major oil producers already in decline, rapidly declining discovery rate, the fact that oil production usually peaks about 40 years after peak discovery of oil, and rapidly increasing use of oil, oil certainly isn't plentiful.