Michael Fish ... Snow Events Less Likely

[LadyPakal]

And back around we go. We're warming and we must have done it, No it's natural warming, Ha! so you admit we're warming ergo we did it, no it's natural warming...

Maybe this thread needs moving to the correct location.

[*AL*]

I think global warming and cooling is just natural cycles for the earth. The C02 emisson debate is nothing but political, raising taxes etc.

[blitzen]

I don't think that there is anything fundamentally wrong with accepting the view that snow events will become less during global warming. I am however very sceptical that the process of global warming is caused by man alone! I am a firm believer in the whole event being cyclical ( as gathered evidence is there for all to see.) Man however IS responsible for the very lucrative creation of the blame game!

[lockers]

Looks like some rather uninformed arguments being put forward here. I would recommend the book 'Skeptical Environmentalist', which covers plenty of what is being debated (and not very well, I hasten to add!) - and more besides..!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Skeptical-Environm...1821&sr=8-1

Global Warming is definitely happening, over the long-run. Anthropogenic Global Warming is also happening, but it seems the jury is still very much out on what the actual / real effect of the AGW is - and how best to deal with it.

The above book is written by Bjorn Lomborg, who used to be a member of Greenpeace, but left them. He left as he discovered the organisation was being rather choosy about what / how data was represented and interpreted, in much the same way as business / governments do. This in itself came about as, whilst Lomborg was - in his words - an 'old, left-wing style member of Greenpeace', some bloke argued against the doomsday environmental scenarios that were being bandied about. As an old-school style environmentalist - and a rather good statistician - Lomborg got so left trouser leged off about this that he decided to reanalyse the base data that the accumulated propaganda (on both sides of the argument) had built towards to prove this guy wrong. He expected to find that the other guy was twisting data to fit his right-wing capitalist agenda. But what he found was that - although the guy had some errors - a large part of what this other guy was saying was valid and correct. This made Lomborg question more 'accepted' environmental approaches and views and he started to see that the old fashioned environmentalism was as wrong as the arch-capitalist 'finger-in-the-ears-and-la-la-la' approach!

Out of this he did more work and - having left Greenpeace, amongst other things wrote the above book to reanalyse what is going on in the world, environmentally. He is not an anti or pro environmentalist. He is not anti or pro GW / AGW. What he is the best type of commentator: not being lazy and looking at and understanding the data and hoping to guide what the best way is to understand the issues, the underlying causes and the best way to act (or not) to come to the best conclusion.

Buy it, read it, enjoy it but most of all, GET EDUCATED!

[Mondy]

Delta, I'm being slightly harsh on you for the English, but I'm trying to make a point about the often poor quality of argument here on N-W. Sloppy English makes for poor argument (often), and poor argument often betrays laziness, and incapacity or unwillingness to actually expore the facts. There are a fair few cold weather bigots here on N-W, who do nothing but look for cold and snow, and take umbrage when anyone challenges their continual and incessant prospecting. If someone puts facts up to make a case, fair enough, but it's pointless to start a thread with a hypothesis and thyen shoot down in one liners every reason put forward to the contrary.

I attach the UKMO's own thirty year averages for comparison. I think it's fair to say that there have been no snowy winters (until the present one) since 2000, so the average will have gone backwards not forwards. Even if you contend that this winter is snowy, the winter it replaces in the thirty year average beat this one in spades, with interest added. In my locale there was snow on the ground every day from December 30th to February 25th, for half the days in March, and for odd days in April and May. Impressive though this year may seem in terms of snowfall to anyone aged 18 or under, to those of us who are 40 or so and up, this is hors d'oeuvres.

Now then.

That chart posted is supposed to convince me the globe is warming? Damn..I asked for conclusive proof and I get that? A met office chart - even a stupid person knows the Met O have played along with global warming hysteria at times. They've already predicted 2009 to be a scorcher of a summer!

I'd be slightly concerned if those maps showed no snow at all, ever, but that's not the case.

I have a feeling this thread will be locked soon. I would ask you again to post something which makes me sit up and take notice, but seeing as how the climate change threads exist, I'll head over there to chuckle at the next instalment from a warmers perspective.

Os - duly noted on the speeel checker. I'd use Wiki, but as you know fine well, the whole Global Warming topic within Wikipedia is corrupt and favours a pro-agw stance. It's regularly altered to suit.

As for posting my thoughts on here and not over on the climate threads. Two reasons.

1) I asked the mods to allow me to view those threads as a guest only, not a user. Some of the stuff on there was downright disheartening and fear mongering at its very worst. I refuse to enter debate when that goes on.

2) I decided to post on this particular thread because the agw movement pounced on it as soon as the topic was started. It's bad enough them contributing to end of the world scenarios over on the CC threads, but to do it in the Winter Area is a step too far, considering yesterday was a joyous day for many.

I say no more and back to guest mode. :wacko:

Edited February 3, 2009 by Delta X-Ray

[Solar Cycles]

Looks like some rather uninformed arguments being put forward here. I would recommend the book 'Skeptical Environmentalist', which covers plenty of what is being debated (and not very well, I hasten to add!) - and more besides..!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Skeptical-Environm...1821&sr=8-1

Global Warming is definitely happening, over the long-run. Anthropogenic Global Warming is also happening, but it seems the jury is still very much out on what the actual / real effect of the AGW is - and how best to deal with it.

The above book is written by Bjorn Lomborg, who used to be a member of Greenpeace, but left them. He left as he discovered the organisation was being rather choosy about what / how data was represented and interpreted, in much the same way as business / governments do. This in itself came about as, whilst Lomborg was - in his words - an 'old, left-wing style member of Greenpeace', some bloke argued against the doomsday environmental scenarios that were being bandied about. As an old-school style environmentalist - and a rather good statistician - Lomborg got so left trouser leged off about this that he decided to reanalyse the base data that the accumulated propaganda (on both sides of the argument) had built towards to prove this guy wrong. He expected to find that the other guy was twisting data to fit his right-wing capitalist agenda. But what he found was that - although the guy had some errors - a large part of what this other guy was saying was valid and correct. This made Lomborg question more 'accepted' environmental approaches and views and he started to see that the old fashioned environmentalism was as wrong as the arch-capitalist 'finger-in-the-ears-and-la-la-la' approach!

Out of this he did more work and - having left Greenpeace, amongst other things wrote the above book to reanalyse what is going on in the world, environmentally. He is not an anti or pro environmentalist. He is not anti or pro GW / AGW. What he is the best type of commentator: not being lazy and looking at and understanding the data and hoping to guide what the best way is to understand the issues, the underlying causes and the best way to act (or not) to come to the best conclusion.

Buy it, read it, enjoy it but most of all, GET EDUCATED!

Thanks for the offer, but I've researched aplenty myself, and while no one can argue that yes, we have warmed, it's what's behind the warming that causes so much debate on here. I still stand by with what I said on the climate forum, that in 2-3 years time it will become very apparent that we are not warming, due to natural forcings ( continuing low solar activity, lunar cycles ). Time will of course tell, but I'm pretty confident on the outcome!!

[WhiteFox]

I still stand by with what I said on the climate forum, that in 2-3 years time it will become very apparent that we are not warming, due to natural forcings ( continuing low solar activity, lunar cycles ). Time will of course tell, but I'm pretty confident on the outcome!!

Or, as with any cycle, higher highs and higher lows pointing to a longer term trend (which itself is possibly part of a larger cycle). Either way I'd argue that the Earth has bigger problems than the UK seeing less snow *if*, and rising sea levels seem to support this, the world is warming (which I believe it is and also believe the data strongly supports this regardless of your views on the cause of said warming). In that scenario those who discount any warming are as bad at mongering as those who choose worst case scenarios, albeit in the opposite direction.

[osmposm]

It only needs a small rise in temperature and that could move the average position of the Polar front northwards by maybe 200 miles. That will make the difference of reducing the average no of days when synoptics over the UK are likely to give snowfall. Add this up over several decades and you see a change of climate. That is what is happening in the UK and other areas of the world.

Some people don't seem to understand that you can have a short term downturn on a data series whilst the longer term trend is still upward. The fact that this winter is colder than the last 10 years is insignificant. If the last ten years had been colder than the previous ten then maybe that would be worth taking notice of, but it has been exactly the opposite. We are in fact warming at a rate that is unprecidentedly rapid in modern times, at a rate that IS significant (several times over).

What we don't know for certain is what comes next. Professor Hubert Lamb showed the ocean currents of the world have several steady states and when 'forced' they tend to flip from one steady state to another. This will fundamentally affect the local climates involved, even making some of them paradoxically colder. We could end up with a climate much colder than we have now in the UK. The forcing involved can be volcanic, solar or from astronomical sources, but the flip is indiscriminate of the source. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is introducing a further source of forcing. How do we know how much extra forcing would be required to produce the next flip? Would it nor be prudent to try to reduce that forcing so as not to induce changes that could be potentially catastrophic for humans?

An excellent post, nef2, in all its parts. Thank you. But a deeply weird avatar image...looks like Boy George at a Halloween party rolled in flour!?

Edited February 3, 2009 by osmposm

[Devonian]

When I read this, I always ask for proof..you got any?

The proof game eh? Always a favourite isn't it...

Tell you what, you tell me what proof is and we might get an idea what you're on about.

[Mondy]

The proof game eh? Always a favourite isn't it...

Tell you what, you tell me what proof is and we might get an idea what you're on about.

Do catch up, Dev. I already left the building on this matter

[Devonian]

Do catch up, Dev. I already left the building on this matter

I can't be everywhere . Don't play more games, just tell me what you think 'proof' is (or where you already said that) will you?

Edited February 3, 2009 by Devonian

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

But if the negaitve feedbacks are predominant, how do you explain the warming? Sure, oceans will soak up some CO2, but if you add it quicker, or create conditions where greenhouse gases build up at a rate quicker than they are absorbed, then warming will continue. Reducing anthropogenic additions may otherwise allow a better balance.

I see where you are coming from with negative feedbacks, but if negative feedbacks are increasing in magnitude, then by definition they are trying to return the state to an equilibrium against a positive trend. The negative feedback is a opposite reaction to a change of equilibrium. Therefore you acknowledge a warming trend exists.

This is my last post on this thread because, as I stated earlier it is going round in circles and not going to get anywhere, It is becoming here, as usual a case of just correcting misrepresntations of what you are trying to say. I have not said anywhere that the negative feebacks are increasing, but I have suggested that they have always been there, and it is the AGW argument that underplays them.

As Lady P says, this belongs in the climate thread. I'm out now, not because I have nothing else constructive to say, but for aforementioned reason. I will leave the usual debaters to it.

Edited February 3, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Neilsouth]

I think global warming and cooling is just natural cycles for the earth. The C02 emisson debate is nothing but political, raising taxes etc.

Yeh agreed B)

[lockers]

Thanks for the offer, but I've researched aplenty myself, and while no one can argue that yes, we have warmed, it's what's behind the warming that causes so much debate on here. I still stand by with what I said on the climate forum, that in 2-3 years time it will become very apparent that we are not warming, due to natural forcings ( continuing low solar activity, lunar cycles ). Time will of course tell, but I'm pretty confident on the outcome!!

Agreed - especially the bit in bold.

[Interitus]

That's why a lot of scientist disagree on this.

No, overwhelmingly they don't, which is the shown in the article I linked to. The only disagreement is on forums like this where people don't want to believe the evidence.

[Thundery wintry showers]

But the something 'has got to give' bit is making the assumption that the warming effects are largely if not entirely man made and dismisses the effects of natural factors.

...

It is, indeed, assuming that humans are playing a significant part in the warming. However, there is a high likelihood of it being true. Not a certainty, but a real possibility. To take an analogy similar to what Stratos Ferric tends to use- if you're driving blindfolded, and you could be heading towards your destination or a large cliff next to it, would you keep on driving in the hope that you might not be heading for the cliff edge?

so who caused global warming last time the planet went hot...apes driving their cars???....and who caused the last ice age??? its just another one of earths changes and like it or not... all we can do is slow the process down but its going to happen one way or the other. its natures way...and lets face it, nobody knows what she has planned next!

A lot of "Everything happens for a Reason" type defeatism there!

"All we can do is slow the process down" is probably correct, but it would be a good thing to achieve in itself. Slower rate of change = easier for humans to adapt = easier for the global climate system to adapt without wild swings.

[Methuselah]

Solar cycles affecting climate really is a no-brainer IMO: higher Solar constant --> warmer climate and vice versa. Surely no one can argue with that??

But lunar cycles? Does the lunar constant really contribute anything noticeable to global warming, cooling or whatever? No, to me, this claim is far-fetched even by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas-claim standards. Or even the frequency of snowfalls in London?

Where's your evidence? Or, better still, where's your proof!

Edited February 4, 2009 by Pete Tattum

[Timmytour]

A lot of "Everything happens for a Reason" type defeatism there!

"All we can do is slow the process down" is probably correct, but it would be a good thing to achieve in itself. Slower rate of change = easier for humans to adapt = easier for the global climate system to adapt without wild swings.

Man's ability to do something would be limited , but nature could, in an instant, change things one way or the other. In the meantime man could have spent an awful lot of money time and resource for nothing....trying to protect the future when there are problems in the present that are being ignored.

I have my serious doubts but aGW, but pushing them aside, I still wonder what we do and why we do it.

I suspect a lot of the concern to do with it these days centres around protecting the status quo more than anything. If climate change would see a currently impoverished country suddenly able to feed itself and earn money exporting its produce, would it be right that they signed up to instigate a means of preventing it?

Let's say the consensus is that AGW is a real factor..... where's the consensus that we can do anything to prevent it? Where's the consensus that says it's better to spend billions trying to prevent it as opposed to to dealing with and preparing for its consequences. Where's the consensus about what the actual consequences will be?

Coming back to Michael Fish...I've heard it said that AGW will result in the demise of the Gulf Stream and that, as a consequence, Britain's winters will be more in line with its latitude....which would bring more not less snow wouldn't it?

The biggest danger I see is giving politicians the excuse to to levy taxes which they can then funnel into schemes run by their friends for which no one is ever held accountable.

Never underestimate the politician's ability to turn the concerns of a nation into a financial windfall. A prime example of this - admittedly not in anyway linked with AGW but I think the pribciple stands - was the anthrax situation after 9/11....

The big concern after 9/111 was that that the terrorists would unleash anthrax attacks upon us all and so there was a need to be at least ready to vaccinate everyone. You might say that there was a consensus on this! Anyway, strangely enough, the contract and associated public funds to provide the UK with its required vaccine landed up with a company run by a generous Labour Party benefactor who was a good friend of Tony Blair!

And how did they use the funds? Well half of them they used to pay the German company that manufactured the vaccine! The other half? Well I think we can guess! When questions were asked, it was explained that the company in question had an exclusive contract with the German manufacturers to supply the vaccine. Only this actually wasn't the case as the manufacturers later confirmed they would have supplied the vaccine directly to the British Government if they had been asked.

And to top it all.... it turned out the vaccine procured wasn't the recommended strain!

Whether Britain ever ended up purchasing the correct strain of vaccine on top of paying double the price needed for the wrong vaccine is unclear. I mean...who talks about the risks of anthrax poisoning these days? the opportunistic politicians have already had their field day with that one!

What worries me about all the talk of AGW is not the genuine concerns of people with genuine beliefs....it's the opportunistic politicians who will see it as a money raising and making scheme for themselves and their friends.

Perhaps the time has now come and gone for those opportunities. I imagine a lot of them will be happy to move onto other things now, that we are in a grip of a global financial crisis and its resulting recessions. And funny enough this will probably end up by default achieving a lot of what the AGW lobby have been pushing for all along!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Where's the consensus that says it's better to spend billions trying to prevent it as opposed to to dealing with and preparing for its consequences

Actually, there are many, many reasons why it's better to spend billions trying to prevent it. If we just "deal with it", we're talking about necessity of flood defences for coastal areas from sea level rises (which is going to cost billions anyway) and more flooding, more droughts, more aggressive depressions (due to higher SSTs etc) and marginal climates being tipped over the edge.

In addition our non-renewable resources, which are the primary source of any AGW element to current climate change, are not infinite. Already we are seeing the effects of dwindling oil reserves as oil prices were hiked up last year. If we just continue as we are, while we will continue to find ways of extracting the resources more efficiently with time, we won't be able to go on forever. Something will have to give, and when it does, we're talking major global depressions, and probably World War III as countries fight over the remaining oil reserves. To my mind, that's an even more compelling argument for action than the AGW argument- as it's less prone to uncertainty.

My main problem with current anti-AGW policies is that, while "carrot and stick" is usually the best way forward if we want shifts in behaviour to occur, there is way too much emphasis on "sticks" at the moment, which often punish a lot of the wrong people, perhaps a symptom of our current slide towards authoritarianism. What I would like to see is a lot more effort going into encouraging and developing alternative sources of energy and more efficiency. This will not only slow down AGW but it will also make us less dependent on fossil fuels- so although economies may decline slightly in the short term, it may save us from huge economic ruin in the long-term once our fossil fuels become scarce- and also slow down their rate of depletion. The problem here is that governments and free markets alike tend to focus too much on the short-term and may not be prepared to sacrifice a bit of economic growth in the short-term in order to benefit us 10-20 years down the line.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

It is, indeed, assuming that humans are playing a significant part in the warming. However, there is a high likelihood of it being true. Not a certainty, but a real possibility. To take an analogy similar to what Stratos Ferric tends to use- if you're driving blindfolded, and you could be heading towards your destination or a large cliff next to it, would you keep on driving in the hope that you might not be heading for the cliff edge?

That analogy, in itself, is based yet again on the snap conclusion that the weightings towards AGW induced warming are far greater than cyclical and natural factors. I would suggest that the cliff edge analogy works both ways and if we put all our eggs in one basket on a fanatical AGW cause we have plenty to loose as well.

Being open minded towards cyclical causation in effects on climate, non dismissal of solar cycle effects, acceptance and non denial of the existence of negative feedbacks (which many AGW supporters put aside) I would suggest is driving without a blindfold.....

Like I keep repeating to no avail, this can bat to and fro ad infinitum, but one can't be 'converted' one way or the other unless they see something for themselves that makes them change their mind. Frankly, for all the ridiculous charges of 'keeping the faith, and 'clinging to hopes' etc, it is purely that what I read, google for myself etc etc raises more questions than answers on this subject- and makes me less inclined than ever to assuage towards the concept of AGW. Hence why I keep the blindfold off.

I don't mind others agreeing to the concept, but I would rather that worked both ways - it is a matter of opinion and that should be respected. No-one is avoiding any 'unpalatable truth', so I would request that this is dropped once and for all.

Now I will exit this thread stage left!

[Timmytour]

..

I can't see much in your post with which I disagree. Some of the goals pushed in the name of slowing down AGW are ones that should be pushed in the name of coping in the future anyhow. I think the AGW argument allows exploitive profiteering through scaremongering and causes resentment among those nations such as India and China who have relatively only just got going with their industrialization only to be told they can't go down the path that the rich western nations have travelled for the last 200 years of so because they'll ruin the planet!

But there are circumstances where spending money on pain relief is better than spending it on the "cure"... especially when there's absolutely no guarantee that the cure will work.

I always thought if there if there was a real determination to act to slow down AGW, which of course would need massive public support, then it would need drastic action now in the form of something that is simple and uncomplicated.

The two things I always thought ought to be tried are...

1) A complete ban on air conditioning...in cars,offices or wherever. If the way we are living now is threatening the planet, then surely we could all put up without a comfort factor that was not generally available just two generations or so ago? It strikes me as the kind of luxury we ought to be able to sacrifice for the greater good. And if working in some areas would just not be possible without it...well then maybe the fact that we artificially created an environment to work in those areas in the first place has played a major part in AGW.

2) Ban traffic on sundays! Get it back to the day of rest it once was. It would not only be a day of greatly reduced enegy use and carbon emissions, but it would also give the environment a chance to recover from the hits it takes on the other six days. Perhaps this was the true intention behind the "day of rest" concept! Perhaps in religious terms the environment's need to rest was represented by God resting!!!!

But..as you rightly say, these would represent economies that governments are not willing to make.

[Thundery wintry showers]

That analogy, in itself, is based yet again on the snap conclusion that the weightings towards AGW induced warming are far greater than cyclical and natural factors. I would suggest that the cliff edge analogy works both ways and if we put all our eggs in one basket on a fanatical AGW cause we have plenty to loose as well.

No it isn't- because the "you could be driving to your destination" part of the analogy covers the possibility that AGW might be a small factor with cyclical and natural factors the larger factors. Note that I didn't say anything about the relative probabilities of the cliff edge vs. the destination, either.

I struggle to see what we have to lose by addressing AGW? We are going to have to cut down our CO2, SO2, methane etc. emissions at some point anyway whether we like it or not, because of the sources of them being finite.

As for Timmytour's suggestions, I don't want to sound harsh, but those are the kind of draconian "stick" measures that I despise, that would cause a lot of annoyance to the general public and would merely scrape the surface of the problem. I doubt that banning traffic on Sundays would have much impact on pollution overall, as most traffic pollution tends to stem from rush hour Monday-Friday anyway. What it would do is have a heavily negative impact upon weekend recreation for a lot of people (and don't get me started on the "work is essential, pleasurable things are non-essential and disposable" philosophy). And as for air conditioning, instead of a ban, I would say put fairly draconian measures in to ensure that air-conditioning is used only when appropriate and in an efficient manner. Too many places use it very inefficiently.

[ribster]

Is Mr. Fish after some research funding? In all seriousness, it stands to reason that if the planet can cool, then it can warm too. I think what is in question is the cause of that warming, is it just natural/cyclical or is it being helped along by mankind. Personally I take the former view, although there is evidence or should I say support for both views. Don't get me wrong, I think we should recycle, conserve energy, preserve the rain forest and not pollute the atmosphere etc, they are common sense measures to make the planet a better place to live.

I agree with BFTP, that we may now be at the start of a cooling trend over the next 10 or so years.

Yes, mainly my opinion, so no attacks please demanding that I go and find white papers on climate change to go and post on here as 'evidence, as I said plenty of 'evidence' from both sides, although one side seems to have been allowed less of a voice than the other!

[Thundery wintry showers]

The reason why there is so much support for AGW among the scientific community isn't driven by "left-wing Communists" or anything like that- it is, genuinely, on the basis that that's where most of the evidence points. Or at least, at current levels of understanding, there's a more compelling case "for" than "against". But there is still some room for argument. However, in these debates it's worth having some reasoning behind one's position, rather than just faith.

The "let me have my opinions" argument only applies up to a point in the AGW debate. It isn't an issue where there is a clear "right" view (though there are plenty clearly "wrong" views, e.g. "Pigs fly therefore AGW is a myth", or "Britain had snow so AGW must have caused it" type stuff). But certain opinions are more likely to be "right" than others.

[Methuselah]

There's nowt wrong with holding to a contrary view...What is wrong, IMO, is when holding that view requires one to repeatedly denigrate the science carried out by those who do not...Denigration of opposing research findings does not constitute anything of much use to anyone. It does muddy the water though; not suggestion that that is the intention of course...

But hey. It's my opinion! :lol: