The ' I NEED TO SCREAM' thread.

[West is Best]

Terrific post Tamara.

[biffvernon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811

I have long held to the theory that the Daily Mail is rubbish. Now I have the proof.

[West is Best]

I have long held to the theory that the Daily Mail is rubbish. Now I have the proof.

A few months ago my father-in-law suggested the AGW climate change bandwagon was like a religion, or even a cult. I can now see what he means. Even to voice dissent on some elements is to draw severe attack, and I find that extraordinary. It actually suggests to me that the science of the argument can't really be as robust as the supporters would like to think.

[Devonian]

It is vital that people remain in trying to seek to inject balance into a debate about this subject which would leave us all far more vulnerable and worse off if everyone obediently accepted as gospel everything we are told in terms of the future, irrespective of how much pressure is exerted to do so, and especially when we are told both on this forum and elsewhere by some how irrefutable the evidence is supposed to be.

Why do I have to keep reading post that use words like 'gospel' or 'we are told' or 'pressure' when all people like me do is stick by the evidence?

Very few indeed can deny a warming trend over the last couple of decades but far more are entitled to step back and not feel they have to succumb to pressure to have an opinion imposed on them regarding the extent of this trend, and especially what it may mean for the future. No-one is being deliberately stubborn, homesick for snow, ignorant, deluded or putting their head in the sand by doing so. Quite the opposite in fact IMO. Nor should anyone have to put up with being continually addressed in this way either.

Perhaps people might stop trying to link acceptance of the data to some kind of 'gospel'? Well, we can hope can't we?...

We can either believe Option A) Full endorsement without question of what some of the scientists are telling us, put all our eggs in one basket and not question the future anymore as a done deal, or Option B) we can be more open minded, still bear in mind what current research and scientists tell us but accept that we can’t second guess mother nature and we don’t necessarily know best. Especially when dealing with just a couple of decades or so of climate variation, and on the basis that climate has always varied for differing periods of time before. Even scientists, alas, are human beings.

There you go again. Trying to make out only those like you are questioning. That's bunkum!

Assuming we were put on trial for Option B and trying to stay open minded (I have to say it feels like being on a trial anyway!) - just as one avenue and example, how much time should be given before one concedes that the current especially noticeable trend since circa 1988 is here to stay forever and a day? With this in mind, we should remember that twenty, even thirty years or more is a very short time relatively speaking in cyclical weather terms or any other historical meteorological baseline one cares to use.

And again. Sheesshh, why do people like me have to put up with people like you claiming 'open mindedness' for yourselves? I TELL you I'm open minded. Why do I feel I have to defend myself here? Why do i feel under pressure so to do?

...

None of this disproves warming to date, nor is intended to do so, but we still on the other hand should put some much needed perspective on how much things have (or haven't) changed. It is very reasonable to suggest that contributions towards warming are very probably in areas beyond just basic GW/AGW and that future changes in associated natural patterns will very conceivably make a significant difference to the rate of warming (or to be more accurate, depict a truer actual rate of warming). As WIB says, we cannot keep putting every weather record or event down to GW./AGW, and whilst we need to look at trends indeed, we still need to look at other possible reasons for those trends beyond just GW/AGW as a cause. In this way the future is not as clear as it may seem.

Tamara

And a-bleedin-gain. As if only sceptics have 'perspective'. I dunno...

A few months ago my father-in-law suggested the AGW climate change bandwagon was like a religion, or even a cult. I can now see what he means. Even to voice dissent on some elements is to draw severe attack, and I find that extraordinary. It actually suggests to me that the science of the argument can't really be as robust as the supporters would like to think.

Disgraceful.

I wouldn't stoop so low as to try and make out agw scepticism is a cult. Grrrr.

Still, you nicely make one of the points of my previous post.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Terrific post Devonian.

[West is Best]

I wouldn't stoop so low as to try and make out agw scepticism is a cult. Grrrr.

Still, you nicely make one of the points of my previous post.

I find your anger in the responses tells its own story.

In fact, it's not just my pater-in-law - a lot of commentators are starting to point to the cult-like nature of the AGW lobby. For those inside a cult it's often impossible to see out beyond the perimetre, but for those from whom the scales fall things suddenly become much clearer. I think in this instance what the commentators are referring to is the angry way in which any dissent or questionning of the accepted line is attacked. As I say, it suggests the science isn't as robust as might be inferred.

Anyway, I've been jotting some data from the past 10 years and it's all very interesting indeed. Hopefully I'll have it finished later today. Worth remembering though that we've just had the coldest summer since 1993 which, as Tamara correctly asserts, was borne out of neutral synoptics (which has really astonished me I have to say).

This summer is the second season in the past 18 months to be below the 1971-2000 average: winter 2005-6 was also below average. That's the first two entirely below average seasons for ten years: both occurring in the past 18 months. This is factual, and for a scientist or people claiming to use science it should at the very least be food for thought.

Two things are making me sit up and re-examine this whole issue. 1. Is the fact that we have been getting cooler months, and even seasons, thrown suddenly into the mix. 2. Is the way that the AGW lobby is closing out debate. As I said yesterday, it makes me smell something fishy, and I'm not referring to the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble.

[Devonian]

I find your anger in the responses tells its own story.

But, it's a 'do you beat you wife?' thing. Of course when you're asked that you say 'no'. When I'm asked 'am I part of a cult' I angrily say no, I would if asked 'do i beat my wife'. But, in both cases the questioner can respond as you do, the idea I might is planted, that I'm angry because the question holds some truth. I really dislike that.

In fact, it's not just my pater-in-law - a lot of commentators are starting to point to the cult-like nature of the AGW lobby. For those inside a cult it's often impossible to see out beyond the perimetre, but for those from whom the scales fall things suddenly become much clearer. I think in this instance what the commentators are referring to is the angry way in which any dissent or questionning of the accepted line is attacked. As I say, it suggests the science isn't as robust as might be inferred.

I'm not attacking. I'm responding to attacks. I've not mentioned cults, or religion, of lack of open mindedness, or lack of perspective wrt sceptics. I try not to stoop to that.

Anyway, I've been jotting some data from the past 10 years and it's all very interesting indeed. Hopefully I'll have it finished later today. Worth remembering though that we've just had the coldest summer since 1993 which, as Tamara correctly asserts, was borne out of neutral synoptics (which has really astonished me I have to say).

This summer is the second season in the past 18 months to be below the 1971-2000 average: winter 2005-6 was also below average. That's the first two entirely below average seasons for ten years: both occurring in the past 18 months. This is factual, and for a scientist or people claiming to use science it should at the very least be food for thought.

Two things are making me sit up and re-examine this whole issue. 1. Is the fact that we have been getting cooler months, and even seasons, thrown suddenly into the mix. 2. Is the way that the AGW lobby is closing out debate. As I said yesterday, it makes me smell something fishy, and I'm not referring to the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble.

Well, look we will see. This whole AGW thing is about time. About change over time. If it's cooler in the next decade I wont be denying it. I just, think it wont be because i think that's where the evidence and the science points. And for that I/we get called etc etc etc.

[pottyprof]

For once, I'm finding myself agreeing with Devonian. Great post!!

Some good observations in there..

[Wynn D Woo]

I think Tamara has summed things up pretty well and the pro AGW do seem to be more close mind than the rest. Biff Vernons response re the daily Mail articule speaks volumes.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

No more so than your response to Biffvernon's post though!

The whole thread's a joke.

[Wynn D Woo]

Totally different OON, I am lending support to the points raised by Tamara, Biff, whom Im sure can speak for himself, was dismissing out of hand a report simply because he doesnt like the paper its been reported in.

[laserguy]

This thread is utterly astonishing...really, truly mind-boggling.

I know I have a very simplistic view on these things, but let's take the theory that global warming is a mechanism for reducing demand for dwindling fossil fuels. Why would "they" have to set up a highly complex lie which relied on measureable factors to reduce the demand for fossil fuels? Why couldn't it just be like every other commodity on the planet; the more scarce it is, the more expensive it is. That really is just plain barmy.

I remember back in the early 80s when you couldn't get a branded Rubik's Cube for love nor money. I don't remember hearing of impending global doom with convenient corresponding events, to stifle demand, but I do remember the price of them shot through the roof whilst the cheap ones from Woolies that you could take apart easily and reassemble solved were about £1.99.

I may well be completely wrong on this ( I don't work in finance or economics,but I'm not a lame brain either! ), but oil and other fossil fuels are not something that you can choose not to buy. The supply has to be maintained regardless otherwise business and industry would collapse. If governments and/or oil companies priced it so high as to be unaffordable they'd effectively be imposing mass unemployment,no? Whether one can afford a Rubik Cube or not isn't life threatening and you can always save up or buy something cheaper! Only when things get extremely dire would 'they' ration oil or price it astronomically. If for example a chemical/medicine/plastics/cosmetics/ (insert any of a multitude of commercial enterprises here ) were to find rocketing prices they'd have to pass it on to the consumer,which naturally would reduce sales and lead to the domino effect of mass unemployment. Instead of taking the bull by the horns and reducing fossil fuel consumption they invent or at least grossly exaggerate a situation and put the onus on us,hoping that the situation will resolve itself in time. See how over the years the UK's manufacturing base has dwindled whilst the 'service sector' has mushroomed. It's now the Far East where manufacturing is growing. I don't know the politics behind this situation but that's how it is,probably something to do with labour costs being much lower to offset raw material prices.

Remember 1976 when streets across the land had standpipes during the drought? ( Imagine that happening now,we'd never hear the last of it ). Apply the same restrictions to fuel or price it prohibitively and it's asking for economic catastrophe,as evidenced by the fuel protests just after New Labour came to power. So adapt and diversify now,is what I'm hearing. As I said in my post,what is so disastrous anyway about a rise of 2-3,even 4C? IF the fuel situation remained unchanged no one in the West would die as a result of that,and it is only Western governments ( or at least those of industrialised nations ), who are concerned about GW. Yes I smell a rat,but in a way I see it from governments point of view too. Telling people that energy is going to be hard to come by when a lot of us will be dead and gone will most likely be ignored;saying that we're all going to be flooded/fried/snowed in/blown away/sucked up into a tornado/drowned in a sea of frogs etc etc might just do the trick. Maybe I'm a lost cause but I cannot shake off the feeling that,in the great tradition of government past and present, I'm being lied to.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Totally different OON, I am lending support to the points raised by Tamara, Biff, whom Im sure can speak for himself, was dismissing out of hand a report simply because he doesnt like the paper its been reported in.

I think his comment about the paper was tongue in cheek!

I may well be completely wrong on this ( I don't work in finance or economics,but I'm not a lame brain either! ), but oil and other fossil fuels are not something that you can choose not to buy.

I know and to an extent I agree (I'm not very good at analogies), but I do wonder why governments would hoodwink an entire population in which they themselves live, to this extent, because a resource is scarce. Even I'm not that cynical.

[West is Best]

Something else I have learnt and would be of benefit in general to note in the context of what is going on in this thread here, is that irrespective of a history of big problems and disagreements between ourselves, it is possible to stop bickering and put these aside and forget them, irrespective of who may have been right or wrong (or both!) at the time. And readily so I believe.

Tamara

You're so right Tamara. Hear hear B)

The whole thread's a joke.

Actually I think some of the best discussions I've seen on NW are contained in this thread Piers, once one puts aside the occasional cross word. Nor do I think this is simply 'two sides' as you said. Apart from the occasionally polarised positions a lot of contributors have been really keen to probe and explore things, all started by others gently pointing out that the science of AGW is not absolute and that there are problems in both the media portrayal of the issue and, possibly, in some of the science behind it.

I'm taking a leaf out of Tamara's book and I think you could too - it's a leaf from an olive tree ...

Edited September 13, 2007 by West is Best

[Slinky]

A while back if asked if I thought AGW was a reality I would of said no. Now I find myself on the fence so to speak. Having a background in science I always tend to question everything untill I understand things -do I understand AGW- Hell no! Which is why I like looking through threads like these as on occasion you learn the odd thing or two. I must admit I was going to sit back and just read as this thread raged on (lazy hey?) but a comment WIB made comparing AGW and religion did strike a cord with me and prompt me out of my lazy ways.

There is truth in his comment, "A few months ago my father-in-law suggested the AGW climate change bandwagon was like a religion" I on more then one occasion have had personal attacks just for questioning AGW. I find myself asking why? when the AGW supporters claim to be followers of the scientists - the nature of science is to question question question and then question some more a theory, to pull it to pieces and then put it back again in the hope that it stands up. The reluctance to do this brings me to why this should be the case? (are they afraid?) Add that to the pushing the subject gets in the media all being one-sided, makes me very suspicious.

This fence of mine I like and I will keep questioning on both sides of the argument as that is the true nature of science, and the only way to the truth.

All of the above is IMO

Edited September 13, 2007 by Slinky

[Osbourne One-Nil]

No Richard, I think we'll just agree to differ if it's all the same.

[cyclonic happiness]

No more so than your response to Biffvernon's post though!

The whole thread's a joke.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I did not create this thread as a joke, mearly to prove to everyone how much a subject like AGW can be grabbed by popular culture and blown into an uncontrollable monster, hence the title "THE I NEED TO SCREAM THREAD". There still seems to be no general agreement other than the planet is a bit warmer than it was, and I am no closer to knowing how things will turn out or who i should believe. Still I have come to one conclusion.....there are many more of us out there who have had just about enough of the 'HYPE' and would just rather wait and see.

[Nick F]

We need to look more at why synoptics have been different for the last couple of decades or so, contributing significantly to the warming trend observed thus far. We should question whether it is the delivery (in terms of weather and temperature produced) of those synoptics that has changed (and thus potentially influences our judgement of quite how much we have warmed) or is it really the increased frequency of some of them (+AO types) that has influenced CET so far upwards and skewed the impact of GW/AGW beyond the possible underlying reality?

This year has particularly shown well what a powerful influence the AO state has on our own weather and temperature. Also how much it influences the type of synoptics and resultant weather and temperature CET profile (such as that we have become accustomed to experiencing) and therefore has fuelled and exaggerated ‘GWUK’ perspective from many, of the warming trend over the last twenty years.

Tamara, we can't just say that unfavourable synoptics are to blame for skewing the warming trend and producing the high CETs. The NAO and AO which correlate to the surface synoptic pattern in the N Hemisphere are often forced independantly of the pattern of rising temperatures and SSTs. True, the synoptics in the 1990s saw of an increase in the frequency of +AO and +NAO, and a reason for this increase in +ve indices of the AO could be that increasing Greenhouse gases cause the stratosphere to cool and thus strengthen the polar vortex and also other factors such as increased forcings from rising SST - which all in turn enhance radiative warming at the surface, particularly notable in in the warmer winters we get.

However, although the AO and NAO showed a strong increase in from the late 80s until the mid-90s, every winter from 2000/01 to 2003/04 was characterised by a -ve stratospheric AO, the most -ve of which was winter 2003/04, but the winter managed to produce little in the way of cold. In fact the upward trend in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere these last 19 odd years has continued strongly, while the NAO and AO indices have been decreasing. So there seems to be an underlying rise in temps continuing despite often contrary signals from the AO and NAO indices. This may well be down to an increase in tropical SSTs which can influence the North Atlantic SSTAs bringing more anomalous warmth North to us - particulalry in winter.

Or make such a judgement beyond just repeating that the last couple of decades or so have got warmer so therefore this will continue in the future meaning (forgive the fatuous nature of the remark) that we will have to finally conceed that we have to go sledging in Greece instead to get the last vestiges of wintry weather whilst the UK basks in 16C and a displaced winter Azores High pressure as the norm?. How do we know what is or isn't possible anymore? As a minimum we need to see more synoptic parellels like for like to even start to make a tentative comparisons, let alone such a judgement as above.

With an Atlantic maritime climate such as ours - where we are completely surrounded by ever warming SSTs, this may well be reality, Greece has much more of a continental climate - with only cold land between it and NE Europe, so snow and cold aren't unusual there, and shouldn't be used as a marker for it maybe that everything's all right and that we will get a bit of what they're having if we get the right synoptics.

This summer produced for the first time in many years much more traditional synoptics which produced equally traditional results (surprising many people) that have not deviated upwards from any long term norm in terms of equivalent historically similar synoptic set-ups. The fact that it wasn't an especially cool summer this year is not the issue, it is the fact that neutral synoptics (neither especially warm nor cold) still produced ordinary temperatures even against a background of previously anomalous warmth which was hyped up to be such that we have taken a step change beyond our traditional temperate British climate. The significance of it is certainly not that it was slightly below average but that ‘neutral’ synoptics didn’t automatically produce above normal results as would apparently be a given. If the net result of this summer's synoptics had been to produce an outcome above the longer term average then the more progressive 'climatic lurch' view that is repeated so often would take more credence. I expressed astonishment on the winter thread in the weather section at the outcome of this summer. That astonishment though was only relevant and relative to the perception and expectation of many people both on here and amongst jo-public regarding the inevitably of summer 2007 being an extension of the Mediterranean conditions since summer 2006 and the general (and very worrying) sentiment that this is the new climatic norm that we will have to get used to.

To put it into perspective Tamara, the night time minima held up, but the CET was kept below par by the low maxima - pretty much due to a lack of sunshine and high moisture content in the air from incessant rain which prevented the ground from heating up much when the sun did come out. A few cool months here an there will always be inevitable and it shouldn't detract away from the underlying warming trend, which in some parts of Europe was very evident in the heatwave that gripped SE and E Europe.

Following the same observations of this summer there is justification arguably in suggesting that akin winter synoptics will still deliver similar results as in the past. It is the frequency/absence of these certain types of synoptics that is the issue in terms of the increased winter mildness we have seen, not their potency or lack of potency as the case may be. Unfortunately judgement regarding the issue of suspected potency is coloured and clouded due to the underlying issue of a change in pattern in the frequency of the relevant synoptic pattern

Tamara

But Tamara, the same synoptics that occured in the past and brought much colder weather have occured in recent winters on several occasions, but have failed to bring anything as cold. I'm afraid warmer SSTS and more anomalous warmth hanging around over Eurasia from the Autumn into winter are more to blame. So if the same North or East wind in winter now is sourced from the same place as in the coldest mid-80s wintry spells, then it is more likely than not going to be warmer.

I think it is easy to become tunnel visioned and swayed by short-term fluctuations in the CET, while forgetting the wider picture Globally:

Global Highlights for August 2007:

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for August was the 8th warmest on record, 0.85°F/0.47°C above the 20th century mean. The global surface temperature for boreal summer (June-August) was the 7th warmest since records began in 1880.

Separately, the global land-surface temperature was the 3rd warmest for August and 5th warmest for boreal summer. The August ocean-surface temperature was the 9th warmest in the 128-year period of record as cooler-than-average conditions in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific indicated the ongoing development of a La Niña episode.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../aug/aug07.html

[biffvernon]

Biff Vernons response re the daily Mail articule speaks volumes.

B)

Nah, I was kidding. I've known for decades that the Daily Mail is rubbish . And I've known that AGW is true since I first studied meteorology in the early 1970's. Of course there will be loads of folk who deny it, just as there are loads of folk who deny evolution etc. etc. but that doesn't alter the science.

Eli makes an interesting observation in his latest post on the Rabett Run

[Bobby]

The whole thread's a joke.

Sweet baby Jesus, I argree with OON. Not the original post, I agree with most of that, the rest though.

I must say I am suprised at WIB's posts here, I always though he was convinced of AGW. In fact, this could confirm my suspicions that the over the top media hype and hysteria of global warming is turning people away, making them react negatively and being distrustful of the whole idea of it. I think a lot of the sceptics seem to hate the over the top fuss over global warming (as do I) and are distrustful over it because of this.

However, no matter what the media says, what the government says, what anyone else says, its the science that matters. The science is neutral, it doesn't try to tax you more or tell you not to go on holiday or anything, that's everbody else twisting the science for their own means. The science alone is what people should be concentrating on, and in my eyes, that strongly suggests that the Earth is warming and that we are the main cause of it.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Magpie

[Slinky]

However, no matter what the media says, what the government says, what anyone else says, its the science that matters. The science is neutral, it doesn't try to tax you more or tell you not to go on holiday or anything, that's everbody else twisting the science for their own means. The science alone is what people should be concentrating on, and in my eyes, that strongly suggests that the Earth is warming and that we are the main cause of it.

Science should be neutral, however in reality this is not the case. If I was a student again looking to get funding/grant on research I know that to be confident of being sucsessful I would have a much much better chance if I mentioned the magical words global warming. This is a sad fact but very true, I know a number of friends that have experienced this.

[Bobby]

Science should be neutral, however in reality this is not the case. If I was a student again looking to get funding/grant on research I know that to be confident of being sucsessful I would have a much much better chance if I mentioned the magical words global warming. This is a sad fact but very true, I know a number of friends that have experienced this.

I seriously doubt any scientists are making up their data just to get grants. Remember, these papers are peer reviewed, every single bit of data is scrutinised intensely and verified independently. They couldn't even get away with it if they wanted to.

[Devonian]

Imo, excellent posts from Nick F (well argued) and Biffvernon (nails it and mentions Eli ).

[Slinky]

I seriously doubt any scientists are making up their data just to get grants. Remember, these papers are peer reviewed, every single bit of data is scrutinised intensely and verified independently. They couldn't even get away with it if they wanted to.

Sorry didnt make myself clear, excuse me for that. I am not saying they are making anything up, I am simply stating a fact that a lot are forced into this area when they dont really have the heart for it - no motivation breeds sloppy science

[Devonian]

I seriously doubt any scientists are making up their data just to get grants. Remember, these papers are peer reviewed, every single bit of data is scrutinised intensely and verified independently. They couldn't even get away with it if they wanted to.

Ah, but there's a conspiracy going on?