General Climate Change Discussion.......

[MR EXTREMES]

lets cool this debate down

im happy yet another average summer so far no real rise in global temps with most of usa in pretty cool air,

perhapes if global temps fall away or remain the same then maybe where get a say in the climate debate because its a cert they have not gone up for sometime now.

but of coarse natural warming has happened but so has cooling is something that get dissmissed theres lots of reputations on the line and egg on the faces is already happening with some.

what i always remember is theres always two sides to a debate and in climate theres many many possible outcomes 1 to warm futher the other cool futher the later seems the most likely.

Edited August 2, 2009 by badboy657

[Methuselah]

You're right BB. It's turning into an omelette!

[Admiral_Bobski]

I met up with Grey Wolf while on holiday in Devon, but he seemed strangely unwilling to discuss climate change with me.

:lol:

CB

[Methuselah]

lol CB. Welcome back. How were the hols? :lol:

[Admiral_Bobski]

lol CB. Welcome back. How were the hols? :lol:

Thanks Pete

The hols were great, except for the clutch going on my car and the pouring rain! In retrospect I should have swung by the MetO in Exeter as I drove past to give them a piece of my mind - hot and dry my R-se!

(That last bit was a joke, before anyone starts talking about probabilities and posting links to the MetO's recent clarification of their summer forecast, which I have already read :lol: )

Seriously, though, despite everything we had a grand old time. And I must offer my apologies in advance to Jethro, as I will be unable to furnish you with the full 1500-slide photographic presentation - I only took 469 photos.

CB

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Beats me, too, Solar.....and yet there are plenty of them, some even on here.

If you are willing to 'slate' folk by calling them a denier...then name them as to clarify whom you refer to.

BFTP

Edited August 2, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

Thanks Pete

The hols were great, except for the clutch going on my car and the pouring rain! In retrospect I should have swung by the MetO in Exeter as I drove past to give them a piece of my mind - hot and dry my R-se!

(That last bit was a joke, before anyone starts talking about probabilities and posting links to the MetO's recent clarification of their summer forecast, which I have already read :lol: )

Seriously, though, despite everything we had a grand old time. And I must offer my apologies in advance to Jethro, as I will be unable to furnish you with the full 1500-slide photographic presentation - I only took 469 photos.

CB

Good to have you back, CB. That reminds me of the time my exhaust fell off, when on holiday in the Highlands! :lol:

[osmposm]

If you are willing to 'slate' folk by calling them a denier...then name them as to clarify whom you refer to.

BFTP

I'm sure my memory's at fault, Blast, but I don't actually remember ever labelling any AGW sceptic a "denier". If I have, please remind me of where because an apology is due from me.

If you mean it just in the context of "denying" that mean global and/or UK temps (I've been involved in discussions about both) are higher now than they were, say, fifty to a hundred years ago (and certainly much longer in England), well - it was Solar who used the word & expressed the view; I just agreed with him, adding that 'some of them' are found on here. Perhaps you should ask the question of him, too?

If you are only referring to the folk on netweather, well I certainly could.....but wouldn't you find it more objectionable - 'slating' them as you put it - to identify them individually rather than just mentioning that they exist? Or is it that you don't think there are any?

Ossie

Edited August 2, 2009 by osmposm

[rob48]

A favourite target for the disciples to lay into:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5955955/Weather-records-are-a-state-secret.html

[Thundery wintry showers]

Part of the reason why the Met Office has made such a mess of its forecasts for Britain is that they are based on the same models which failed to predict the declining trend in world temperatures since 2001.

Ah, so the usual nonsense I see, and for starters it is not based on the same models.

Global temperatures haven't been declining since 2001 by the way, to get any sort of decline you have to cherry-pick 1998 as your starting point.

[jethro]

Thanks Pete

The hols were great, except for the clutch going on my car and the pouring rain! In retrospect I should have swung by the MetO in Exeter as I drove past to give them a piece of my mind - hot and dry my R-se!

(That last bit was a joke, before anyone starts talking about probabilities and posting links to the MetO's recent clarification of their summer forecast, which I have already read :lol: )

Seriously, though, despite everything we had a grand old time. And I must offer my apologies in advance to Jethro, as I will be unable to furnish you with the full 1500-slide photographic presentation - I only took 469 photos.

CB

Tut, tut, tut, only 469? You slacker. A stick of rock as compensation is in the offing I presume?

Good to have you back Bobby boy, glad you had a great time.

[Chris Knight]

Ah, so the usual nonsense I see, and for starters it is not based on the same models.

Global temperatures haven't been declining since 2001 by the way, to get any sort of decline you have to cherry-pick 1998 as your starting point.

Nah - I pick this June as starters (sorry TWS )

[kippure]

Was watching sky news this morning and this maybe my downfall in asking this question. Nasa boffs say that the sun spot activity is about to explode into action over the next month. And that over the next 5 years our weather will be warmer by 50% a year then the summer of 1998. I thought we were in a cooling period till 2012 at least because of the mauder minium. WHats going on. What am i meant to beleive?

[Methuselah]

Was watching sky news this morning and this maybe my downfall in asking this question. Nasa boffs say that the sun spot activity is about to explode into action over the next month. And that over the next 5 years our weather will be warmer by 50% a year then the summer of 1998. I thought we were in a cooling period till 2012 at least because of the mauder minium. WHats going on. What am i meant to beleive?

I get the distinct impression that there as many theories concerning Solar activity as there are people studying it?

[Iceberg]

Indeed Pete, be it high or low, what we can say is that there is very little evidence that a 50 year high or a 50 year low for sun activity will effect temps much either way.!

[Methuselah]

Indeed Pete, be it high or low, what we can say is that there is very little evidence that a 50 year high or a 50 year low for sun activity will effect temps much either way.!

I think we should be looking elsewhere for the causes of the natural component of recent warming? But, as even a 0.1% increase in the Solar Constant probably adds more energy to the system than all the other extraterrestrial influences added together: who knows where to start?

[Iceberg]

Yes my comment was partially tongue in cheek but in reality a 0.1% change assuming that the sun heats the earth by say 200C would equate to 0.2C of temperature change which has already been exceeded.

This is of course not very fair, which is why I added the "little evidence" bit.

At most a maunder minimum would equate to a maybe 0.2% or again at most maybe 0.4C of cooling (which would take us back to 50-80 average) and nobody is seriously suggesting a maunder minimum.! (for anybody that doesn't know this is a big ask as it's the lowest output from the sun for 2000 years).

Fag packet stuff I agree but there really is little evidence that a 50 year high or low for solar over say a 10 year period would have a big effect on temps.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Iceberg

[Gray-Wolf]

It might make sense to tease out the +ve/-ve impacts that humans are having.

We know that the 'dimmed' period had a marked impact on the rate of warming so we know we can lessen the rate of warming (I wonder if the skeptics can embrace our 'cooling' ways?) as well as put in place conditions suitable for warming.

I had a little worry back in 03' when it became clear to me just how dirty China's coal was that we may again enter a 'dimmed' period whilst upping the planets potential to warm.

If ,for once, the first world is true to it's promises then there will be a concerted effort to clean up the Indo-Chinese emissions and this would then produce the same rapid re-start to the warming that we saw at the end of the first 'dimmed' period.

The folk who complain of CO2 inefficiency in warming the planet as it might could maybe consider the amount of aerosols/dust we place into the atmosphere and the scattering of incoming energy this would lead to.

[MR EXTREMES]

Indeed Pete, be it high or low, what we can say is that there is very little evidence that a 50 year high or a 50 year low for sun activity will effect temps much either way.!

it does effect the suns output be it very small.

[Hiya]

Yes my comment was partially tongue in cheek but in reality a 0.1% change assuming that the sun heats the earth by say 200C would equate to 0.2C of temperature change which has already been exceeded.

This is of course not very fair, which is why I added the "little evidence" bit.

At most a maunder minimum would equate to a maybe 0.2% or again at most maybe 0.4C of cooling (which would take us back to 50-80 average) and nobody is seriously suggesting a maunder minimum.! (for anybody that doesn't know this is a big ask as it's the lowest output from the sun for 2000 years).

Fag packet stuff I agree but there really is little evidence that a 50 year high or low for solar over say a 10 year period would have a big effect on temps.

Are you sure that you have thought about those figures? Did you take them from somewhere else?

I'll go out on a limb here and say, I very much doubt that the relationship you present is linear. A 0.1% decrease in solar output could have a much larger difference on temperature than you think.

[mt-leinster-snow-drifts]

Well the main and most respected meteorologist in Met Eireann( Irish met office ) openly admitted that they jumped the gun on global warming and they would have to re-think it as the warming simply wasn't there.

That coupled with falling air and sea temps is enough to convince me that this whole industry will come crumbling down soon enough

Edited August 3, 2009 by mt-leinster-snow-drifts

[MR EXTREMES]

nobody knows why this climate has warmed or cool,

im getting really fedup because i try to post something and it comes up error,

just like the planet and tec its pretty much in its infancy nobody really knows anything.

i write the same old stuff all the time as do alot of people its like one big circle and its boring now.

same people same things being said including myself and none of us,

infact no one on planet earth knows what the future holds for us.

if someone where to say the gulf stream will slow by 80% and cooling will set in then someone else would come along and say no i wont matter because thats how this debate will go on and on.

if theres a solar minimum then people will say no i wont effect us.

if you say theres going to be a el nino then you get a different responce the responce will be oh dear another stormy wet mild winter on the way,

but if you get a la nina then winter wont be cold lol this how it goes on.

warmist wanna screw people over,

but it wont happen to me because i wait and see what happens and by then it will be to late ofcoarse i do my bit for the planet but only because pollution not global warming science,

and in anycase there is not one coldie that would deny that warming has not happened but nearly all warmist scream warming bias rubbish if you ask me

and just one other thing has any studies ever taken place during a minimum as long and as prolonged as this one i dont think so.

[laserguy]

Well the main and most respected meteorologist in Met Eireann( Irish met office ) openly admitted that they jumped the gun on global warming and they would have to re-think it as the warming simply wasn't there.

That coupled with falling air and sea temps is enough to convince me that this whole *industry* will come crumbling down soon enough

Anyone else spot the key-word in there? Ok,I'll give you a clue...

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Yes my comment was partially tongue in cheek but in reality a 0.1% change assuming that the sun heats the earth by say 200C would equate to 0.2C of temperature change which has already been exceeded.

This is of course not very fair, which is why I added the "little evidence" bit.

At most a maunder minimum would equate to a maybe 0.2% or again at most maybe 0.4C of cooling (which would take us back to 50-80 average) and nobody is seriously suggesting a maunder minimum.! (for anybody that doesn't know this is a big ask as it's the lowest output from the sun for 2000 years).

Fag packet stuff I agree but there really is little evidence that a 50 year high or low for solar over say a 10 year period would have a big effect on temps.

How on earth you can make sweeping assumptions or calculations like that I don't know. Fag packet or not. Or tongue in cheek or not - and I suspect in subtle disguise, more not, tbh

NASA etc cannot forecast c23/24 properly let alone longer term solar trends and possible effects so how on earth you can dismiss potential long term outcomes on that basis alone - or do you know more than the 'experts'? How can you be sure about how low this cycle and the next cycle 25 min (especially) may go?? - a tad premature to say the least to be dismissing any Maunder min down the road at this stage.

Look at NASA predictions that the likes of you, GW or Devonian would have been quoting a year or so ago and how utterly wrong they have been. Not in line with your preferred beliefs I know, but best to start from there with much more caution I would suggest.

[Iceberg]

MLSD welcome in here.

It's a very easy comment to say that there has been falling air and sea temperatures but I've been fighting that comment for last few years on here and as yet can only see this apparent fall, if you take the warmest year on record. By it's very nature if you take the warmest year on record as your start point everything else will be less.!, but it's not really the true picture.

Hiya, 0.1% might have a larger effect on temperature or a lesser effect than what I've shown and like you I doubt it's perfectly linear, however there really is very little evidence to suggest it's much higher than what I've posted. For it to be much higher it would require the very same reinforcement feedbacks which Skeptics say don't exist for AGW.