Michael Fish ... Snow Events Less Likely

[Solar Cycles]

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!

Well Roger is the man to speak to about this Pete. He knows far more about this than I!

[Mondy]

Now as good a time as any to plug RJS's site: http://futureweatherinc.com/overview-of-the-new-theory/

Note: Short range forecasts haven't been updated, but everything else appears to still be relevant [within the site].

PS, I have backdoor entry to this site and am watching for spammers!

Edited February 4, 2009 by Delta X-Ray

[Solar Cycles]

Now as good a time as any to plug RJS's site: http://futureweatherinc.com/overview-of-the-new-theory/

Note: Short range forecasts haven't been updated, but everything else appears to still be relevant [within the site].

PS, I have backdoor entry to this site and am watching for spammers!

Thanks Delta, I'd lost the link to Roger's site. I really admire the guy, everything explained in layman's terms, and Roger is always happy to answer any questions. Take note Pete!

[osmposm]

I wonder how much you would admire him, SC, if his opinions were less in line with your beliefs. :lol: .

As it happens, though I disagree with him, I have respect for him and his work too - at least I do when he stays off the more personal/conspiracy aspects of his opinions.

I'm afraid he called the 'massive snowfall' from the recent "French Low" rather wrong, too, though he was not alone in over-estimating that.

Ossie

[Solar Cycles]

I wonder how much you would admire him, SC, if his opinions were less in line with your beliefs. .

As it happens, though I disagree with him, I have respect for him and his work too - at least I do when he stays off the more personal/conspiracy aspects of his opinions.

I'm afraid he called the 'massive snowfall' from the recent "French Low" rather wrong, too, though he was not alone in over-estimating that.

Ossie

Obviously I wouldn't worship him like I do now . Actually Osmposm, I too have respect for one or two climate scientist ( TomC ) on Two being one of these.

[Timmytour]

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.

Well I'm one of those who doesn't subscribe readily to man's influence on Global Warming surpassing or even coming near to Natures. But I accept a lot of people do subscribe to it...what I wonder is how much they think man can actually do about it.

Again I'm with Paul Daniels on this one...."not a lot!" (don't know what his actual views are btw )

I don't know if any consensus exists on this issue... certainly you do come across a lot of what we might refer to as pro AGW opinions where the need for action is apparently drastic. In which case how do compare measures taken to combat it, no matter how draconian they might appear, against the effects of trying to move too carefully, too slowly, without hurting people's recreation time? Is AGW propelling us towards a situation where something needs to be done urgently to thwart the threat to the future? Then surely draconian,war-time like measures, are exactly what's needed? No use in trying to gently persuade people along the lines of "hey...if we don't do something about AGW we'll have less Snow Events in the future. Some people might actually relish this prospect!

But anyway...getiing back to the basis of this thread. Is Michael Fish right?

Let's, for the sake of argument, say that the world is warming up and man is extensively to blame for that. Do we get less snow events as a result?

As I've stated previously there are I believe arguments that would indicate the precise opposite would be true. Arguments that say that AGW will cause the Gulf Stream to decay and this will mean places in Britain will start having the kind of colder winters more associated with other places on a similar latitude.... for example Glasgow and Moscow!

[Neilsouth]

How about this one from sky news weather interview

The next lot of winters are going to be cold ones , but after that it will warm up because of global warming

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't know if any consensus exists on this issue... certainly you do come across a lot of what we might refer to as pro AGW opinions where the need for action is apparently drastic. In which case how do compare measures taken to combat it, no matter how draconian they might appear, against the effects of trying to move too carefully, too slowly, without hurting people's recreation time? Is AGW propelling us towards a situation where something needs to be done urgently to thwart the threat to the future? Then surely draconian,war-time like measures, are exactly what's needed? No use in trying to gently persuade people along the lines of "hey...if we don't do something about AGW we'll have less Snow Events in the future. Some people might actually relish this prospect!

I note the dramatic change of tack- first saying that it's best to take no action, then saying we need drastic ultra-draconianism, and in both cases dismissing anything in between (I might again sound like I'm being harsh here, but it's typical of the kind of black-and-white philosophy I've often come up against with environmentalists and politicians- either we do nothing or we go to the other extreme)

The problem with bringing in too big a stick too soon is that it forces more self-sacrifices than may be necessary in order to achieve a given level of environmental improvement. We force people to cut down, but don't provide any viable alternatives. It's defeatist at the other end of the spectrum- instead of accepting that we can't do anything, it's accepting that we can only achieve improvement through maximum self-sacrifice. We do have to be careful not to be too slow about it- therein lies the problem of achieving the happy medium, but I would prefer to see the minimum draconianism necessary to bring about change. And I never proposed using "we'll have less snow" as an argument for tackling AGW lol!

You could say that things like banning cars on Sundays and banning air conditioning aren't huge sacrifices, but then again, they'd merely be scraping the surface of the problem, and it sounds like it stems from my pet-hate philosophy of "work is essential; pleasure is disposable" (as we wouldn't ban cars on Mondays-Saturdays as it would affect work, and we all need to work etc etc)

[Solar Cycles]

I note the dramatic change of tack- first saying that it's best to take no action, then saying we need drastic ultra-draconianism, and in both cases dismissing anything in between (I might again sound like I'm being harsh here, but it's typical of the kind of black-and-white philosophy I've often come up against with environmentalists and politicians- either we do nothing or we go to the other extreme)

The problem with bringing in too big a stick too soon is that it forces more self-sacrifices than may be necessary in order to achieve a given level of environmental improvement. We force people to cut down, but don't provide any viable alternatives. It's defeatist at the other end of the spectrum- instead of accepting that we can't do anything, it's accepting that we can only achieve improvement through maximum self-sacrifice. We do have to be careful not to be too slow about it- therein lies the problem of achieving the happy medium, but I would prefer to see the minimum draconianism necessary to bring about change. And I never proposed using "we'll have less snow" as an argument for tackling AGW lol!

You could say that things like banning cars on Sundays and banning air conditioning aren't huge sacrifices, but then again, they'd merely be scraping the surface of the problem, and it sounds like it stems from my pet-hate philosophy of "work is essential; pleasure is disposable" (as we wouldn't ban cars on Mondays-Saturdays as it would affect work, and we all need to work etc etc)

Well I'm sorry but that's just plain daft banning cars on Sundays TWS, I work over 7 days on different shifts. And being a Nurse, I don't have the luxury of choosing a MON-FRI 9-5 job. But besides this, I'm totally against such draconian measures. We already have far to much of politicians know whats best for you attitude, and besides such measures would have no impact on cutting emissions, when you have countries like China, who continue to burn fossil fuels at an alarming rate.

[Thundery wintry showers]

For once- I agree with you!

[Solar Cycles]

For once- I agree with you!

Even though my thoughts differ vastly than yours regarding AGW, I still care deeply about the enviorment we live in. I too think we should be cleaning up our act, and making this planet a better place for all. As a keen outdoors person I love our countryside, and to see such contempt for it by man, saddens me greatly.

[Methuselah]

Even though my thoughts differ vastly than yours regarding AGW, I still care deeply about the enviorment we live in. I too think we should be cleaning up our act, and making this planet a better place for all. As a keen outdoors person I love our countryside, and to see such contempt for it by man, saddens me greatly.

Hear! Hear! SC...

[Neilsouth]

The government are hypocrits and it annoys me greatly , they go on and on about global warming then destroy masses of woodland and green land for houses. The hill near me used to be tree's and grassland and now its all houses it looks awful

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Even though my thoughts differ vastly than yours regarding AGW, I still care deeply about the enviorment we live in. I too think we should be cleaning up our act, and making this planet a better place for all. As a keen outdoors person I love our countryside, and to see such contempt for it by man, saddens me greatly.

SC - I read this and had to respond. I wholeheartedly agree. I tried to make the same point as you the other day and I think in terms of the post responses I kept getting, I feel as though I am being judged (very wrongly) as irresponsible. We should be highly responsible and caring for our environment despite any alleged AGW, not because there is a theory upheld by some that it exists :lol: .

I also agree with neilsouth. I live in, and am surrounded by beautiful countryside. There is enough urban town sprawl and associated waste and pollution. We don't need anymore. I hate living in towns and am so glad to be moved out where I am. Just hope it stays that way!

Edited February 5, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[The watcher]

Snow events less likely, erm.....what are we in now??? Oh yeah a 5 day snow and wintry spell....duh! I think he should choose his timing carefully to make a statement like that, aying it during a winter cold spell that looks set to last for a while doesn't make sense...he should wait til Summer.

[laserguy]

SC - I read this and had to respond. I wholeheartedly agree. I tried to make the same point as you the other day and I think in terms of the post responses I kept getting, I feel as though I am being judged (very wrongly) as irresponsible. We should be highly responsible and caring for our environment despite any alleged AGW, not because there is a theory upheld by some that it exists .

I also agree with neilsouth. I live in, and am surrounded by beautiful countryside. There is enough urban town sprawl and associated waste and pollution. We don't need anymore. I hate living in towns and am so glad to be moved out where I am. Just hope it stays that way!

I'm in no doubt that all us AGW 'deniers' concur fully with this,a point I've laboured since contributing on NW. For reasons unknown though,the believers (well,certain ones) simply cannot,or will not accept that we too share many if not all their environmental concerns and are as far removed from being enviro vandals as they could imagine. Let's just leave global climate out of the long list of the victims of our presence,eh?

[Methuselah]

I'm in no doubt that all us AGW 'deniers' concur fully with this,a point I've laboured since contributing on NW. For reasons unknown though,the believers (well,certain ones) simply cannot,or will not accept that we too share many if not all their environmental concerns and are as far removed from being enviro vandals as they could imagine. Let's just leave global climate out of the long list of the victims of our presence,eh?

Oh yes we can! I agree absolutely...

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I'm in no doubt that all us AGW 'deniers' concur fully with this,a point I've laboured since contributing on NW. For reasons unknown though,the believers (well,certain ones) simply cannot,or will not accept that we too share many if not all their environmental concerns and are as far removed from being enviro vandals as they could imagine. Let's just leave global climate out of the long list of the victims of our presence,eh?

Agreed

I know you have worked long and hard to put that message across on the climate threads. Environmental concerns have got far too narrowly attached/associated to climate change at the expense of wider issues that the world should take responsibility/be putting their attention into within the same environmental audit.

Sadly anyone like you or I are charged with being environmentally irresponsible simply because we dare to question AGW,when in fact we are simply trying to be detached from the narrow focus that many AGW supporters attach between climate and the enviroment.

[Mr Maunder]

I must say how much I agree with Laserguy and Tamara.

To be a so called "denier" in that I have not bought the full AGW argument I can accept. I can live with that.

This does not mean that I am in any way against the conservation of the worlds resources or that I want to see the world "maximise" its carbon output.

Here we have, I suspect, a common cause.

I am just a "skeptic" that it is all down to CO2 and that, therefore, I must support the politicians in introducing green taxes - not to use these taxes to advance programs to reduce carbon outputs (no that is perhaps too logical) - but instead to just plug holes in their fiscal budgets.

In the meantime there is really liittle in the way of real plans to meet long terms objectives or even our short term energy needs. A few loose ideas, long term targets (outside of the political time cycle of course), but more so called green taxes now. It really is a "con".

MM

[Devonian]

I'm in no doubt that all us AGW 'deniers' concur fully with this,a point I've laboured since contributing on NW. For reasons unknown though,the believers (well,certain ones) simply cannot,or will not accept that we too share many if not all their environmental concerns and are as far removed from being enviro vandals as they could imagine. Let's just leave global climate out of the long list of the victims of our presence,eh?

I accept you share the concerns - who has said you don't?

But, lets not dismiss the possibility that, if we as a species can damage the environment (something it's apparent we all agree about), it's not impossible we can damage the atmosphere. I can't rule that out, indeed why should we?

Edited February 5, 2009 by Devonian

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I accept you share the concerns - who has said you don't?

But, lets not dismiss the possibility that, if we as a species can damage the environment (something it's apparent we all agree about), it's not impossible we can damage the atmosphere. I can't rule that out, indeed why should we?

It has much more to do with making hasty judgements on 'weightings' than entirely ruling anything out. My position on AGW is not that it doesn't exist at all, but that it is way overcooked at the expense of natural factors and with worrying underestimation of already existing negative feedbacks regarding CO2 and the like, with correspondingly over emphasis on positive warmth enhancing feedbacks. At the other end of the scale, no-one should take the 'planet for granted', but at the same time lets not overestimate our own role against gigantic influences like for eg the sun.

As much as I like the cold, I think it is actually a good job that we have CO2 around in large enough quantities to stop us from freezing to death and enabling our plants and crops to grow. But just because I think this this, it doesn't automatically mean I am signalling it is ok to be gun-ho with the atmosphere.

I think it is a case of getting a balance between the benefits and non benefits and avoiding the extremes of thinking.

Edited February 5, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

It has much more to do with making hasty judgements on 'weightings' than entirely ruling anything out. My position on AGW is not that it doesn't exist at all, but that it is way overcooked at the expense of natural factors and with worrying underestimation of already existing negative feedbacks regarding CO2 and the like, with correspondingly over emphasis on positive warmth enhancing feedbacks. At the other end of the scale, no-one should take the 'planet for granted', but at the same time lets not overestimate our own role against gigantic influences like for eg the sun.

As much as I like the cold, I think it is actually a good job that we have CO2 around in large enough quantities to stop us from freezing to death and enabling our plants and crops to grow. But just because I think this this, it doesn't automatically mean I am signalling it is ok to be gun-ho with the atmosphere.

I think it is a case of getting a balance between the benefits and non benefits and avoiding the extremes of thinking.

I think the balance, the reasonable pov, the non extreme position, is too accept that CO2 is a ghg which our activities might well send way above 400ppm in the atmosphere (conceivable to 500ppm+), that other human activities change the atmosphere's radiative properties and that land use changes made by humanity have effects on the climate. I think that all that adds up to warming effect by ~2100 in the 2-4C bracket. I don't think the evidence is that it's likely other effects will cancel that out.

For me that is the reasonable conclusion based on the evidence available. 2C warming might not be too bad but 4C would seriously damage this planet - imo, which I think is a reasonable and balanced opinion.

My problem is that for thinking that, for having the temerity to think the scientists involved are honest and telling it how it is, I am to some an extremist. Indeed for quite a lot of people on the net (admittedly many are American...) I'm promoting a lie and a fraud...You know what? I think I know who the extremists really are.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think it's best to leave the AGW issue out of the equation though. We definitely have the problem that current development and consumption isn't anywhere near being sustainable, but we might have a significant AGW problem as well. It is thus well worth the current research and analysis into AGW and the like, so that we can help towards pinning down how much of it is actually down to humans, and thus making reasonably accurate predictions of impacts on future climate- and if nothing else, that can help us to adapt accordingly.

Despite being someone who believes that AGW is more likely than not to be a major issue, I do think the politicians, campaigners etc. should move emphasis towards the "sustainability" issue rather than the AGW issue. Not only is the "sustainability" issue a given (as opposed to something with likelihood estimates) but chances are, any measures that help move us towards more sustainable living will help address any AGW anyway.

The reason why I sometimes level accusations of "maintaining the status quo" at some members is because I often see assertions like, "AGW is a myth so we shouldn't do anything about it, or if it does exist, it can't be helped because it would be non-productive spending trillions on reducing CO2" or whatever. The fact is, if we do nothing about AGW, by definition, it means that we will continue to live in a very non-sustainable way, because in order to become sustainable we physically have to reduce at least some of the potential sources of AGW.

The other advantage of focusing on a "sustainability" perspective is it would encourage efforts to be channelled into bringing about gradual positive changes, rather than desperate draconian measures that in practice are merely scraping the surface of the problem, like the aforementioned "ban cars on Sundays" for example.

[Timmytour]

It is not my belief that we need to impose the draconian beliefs I outlined earlier in the thread. I only suggest them to those who belief AGW is an urgent issue that desperately needs sorting out now. Draconian as they may seem the question is would they contribute to slowing down AGW and would it be possible to impose them, or would there be too much resistance from the Nimby brigade.

The questions are these

Do you believe in AGW? (Personally I have my doubts about the extent that is "promoted")

Do you think it's possible to do anything about AGW? ( i think any impact we have would be minimal at the most)

Do you thinks it's necessary to act urgently on AGW? ( ie should draconian laws be imposed now or should a nice consensus about what to do be sought so that we counter AGW without threatening the change in lifestyle which has accelerated AGW in the first place).

Again I would say let's improve the environment by all means, but not use the fears of what AGW will do , but because it's the right thing to do anyway. And that means changing the way we live without imposing taxes which do nothing but replenish government coffers.

So instead of debating whether AGW is a force or not, I'm quite prepared to accept, for the sake of argument, that it is. My problem is that then I don't know where the argument goes? Especially in these two key questions....

What will actually be the effect of doing nothing or acting too slowly? (EG...on a minor point.... will it snow less or more in the UK )

Should those countries who might conceivably benefit from the perceived effects of AGW be forced to join in with measures other countries might end up taking?

[MR EXTREMES]

funny that i just watched a video on bbc news website saying this is a natural cycle and that its possible it could well turn out the next few winters could be cold also before warming again

but i do agree its not cold compard to 63 and 80s so that would say it has warmed alot over the year but whos to say this cold cycle is not something to do with solar activity there not very informative about it so that tells me there not 100% sure why this cycle has come around although it does seem to have a kind of trend around every 20years.

but also think gw is a natural cycle so where just have to wait and see.

be intrested to know which years where as cold if not colder before 63.