General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Thundery wintry showers]

No, I was referring to Osmposm's comment with regards uncertainty and I made that as clear as I reasonably could have.

I have never said "NSSC says something is uncertain means it is prevented from being true"? I suggested that some people, sometimes, imply that if something is uncertain then that implies that we can't take it as being likely to be true (which is also related to the view that we shouldn't take action on something unless we're 100% certain about it).

What I'm seeing is the deliberate twisting of my arguments and views to make them look much less valid than they actually are, and it does begin to get tiresome, especially when I get similar (and rather less founded) accusations sent my way.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

No, I was referring to Osmposm's comment with regards uncertainty and I made that as clear as I reasonably could have.

I have never said "NSSC says something is uncertain means it is prevented from being true"? I suggested that some people, sometimes, imply that if something is uncertain then that implies that we can't take it as being likely to be true (which is also related to the view that we shouldn't take action on something unless we're 100% certain about it).

What I'm seeing is the deliberate twisting of my arguments and views to make them look much less valid than they actually are, and it does begin to get tiresome, especially when I get similar (and rather less founded) accusations sent my way.

O's comments as you full well know were to do with the warming trend and were nothing to do with the exchanges over the uncertainties which were about the solar cycle. What I'm seeing is someone who takes one thing, puts it into the context of another and twists it to cause trouble. I had a belly full enough last week with the fictional accusations you posted over my supposed motives for starting the METO seasonal thread. If that wasn't out to cause problems then I don't know what is.

Please DON'T even 'go there' about what is 'tiresome' .... I could write a books worth...and believe it or not, my problem is that I am too patient and reasonable for my own good.

.

[Thundery wintry showers]

He was referring to misinterpretation/misjudging of other people's posts which was surely part of the same discussion?

Someone has a particularly inflated ego here, but rather than descend into petty arguments I'll leave it up to others to decide for themselves wherein it lies.

As for what happens to our upcoming winters, I expect 2008/09 with its southerly tracking jet to be a blip, although two in a row isn't infeasible, especially considering the 22-23 year cold "Hale" winter cycle over north-western Europe that has not failed since at least 1895. But if global temperatures don't rise substantially over the coming decade I suggest that a correction to a jet taking a more southerly track is odds-on, since it seems probable that the recent Northern Hemisphere does not explain all of its northward movement.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I constantly find myself drawn to a lot of your posts for all the wrong reasons.

Yesterday you side stepped completely the point of my post, but someone else did put forward a more blunt account of your numbers.

Where do todays numbers come from? I mean there are guesses and then there are guesses, are we to take this as your informed opinion?

I think the best anyone can come up with is estimates of their own, based on whichever belief they hold If the best any of us can do is give estimates over something so uncertain, then no one persons guess is worse than another. Which is what I was basically stressing yesterday.

Iceberg admits that he doesn't know enough to give an informed opinion on this particular matter, and I think we all can say that too Which is why the over analysis and nitpicking over of the correct definition of all this probability x and uncertainty y has been bemusing, and, completely uneccessary

I will make a guess that over the coming decade the momentum in terms of scientific research will slowly shift in line with the progression of the solar cycle (amongst other factors in the equation of course before anyone jumps up and down) but it won't be until C25 that any radically enforced climate predictions will occur, if they are to occur. But there is enough uncertainty, and enough potential in terms of negative feedbacks to make the IPCC projections et al, over the coming century, look significantly different.

TWS - my own position is no different to what the average poster would expect. And that is to have their pov fairly and accurately represented and respected. It is only the ignoring of that plea that neccessitates me persisting replying in the way I am. Don't confuse standing up for yourself in the respect of replying to unsubstantiated remarks with ego for ego sake. I have stated many many times my own dislike of the sort of competitive, what AFT would call 'internet tennis' matches that some indulge in, in various parts of the forum, and probably on all internet forums of various types I would guess? A few exchanged pm's over time would bear out that I am neither making up or imagining things here. My failing is replying to the bating - it is that which is designed to make one look the instigator by falling into the trap of replying. The alternative in terms of keeping quiet is you let people continue to misrepresent what you say, which it seems is the position you would like to assert in terms of your own ego. A rather damned if you do damned if you don't postion to get into -I hardly see my own ego as any part whatsoever of this at all. Just self respect with is something entirely different and something we are all entitled to have.

[Methuselah]

Maybe, we'd all benefit from some input from a real climate modeller? Because (IMO) without that input, we are all guessing at to what's included in the various models and what's not?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

As for what happens to our upcoming winters, I expect 2008/09 with its southerly tracking jet to be a blip, although two in a row isn't infeasible, especially considering the 22-23 year cold "Hale" winter cycle over north-western Europe that has not failed since at least 1895. But if global temperatures don't rise substantially over the coming decade I suggest that a correction to a jet taking a more southerly track is odds-on, since it seems probable that the recent Northern Hemisphere does not explain all of its northward movement.

Edited August 5, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Chris Knight]

Yes indeed, I sense another BBC onslaught coming with a fresh salvo of dramatic climate change 'evidence' on news bulletins and the Gardeners World Team being primed to put tips into their presentation on how we should adapt our gardens for the warm and steamy decades ahead. Assuming you live high up enough that is to still have a garden.

I think BBC Gardening will be out of fashion soon. Not only will we have to conserve every drop of water that falls onto our measly plots of earth, we shall have to use the collected water to hold the summer heat to keep us warm during the long winter months - big black tanks in summer and white fleecy covers during the colder seasons, and at night - with everything else wrapped in spaceblanket aluminised plastic bubble wrap. Reality TV will consist of reporters with FLIR thermographic cameras calling on people whose houses are abnormally hot, and radiating like pulsars in the suburbs. Daytime TV with titles like "Insulation, Insulation, Insulation!", and "Glass(fibre) in the Attic" will be the daily fodder for the unemployed.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think BBC Gardening will be out of fashion soon. Not only will we have to conserve every drop of water that falls onto our measly plots of earth, we shall have to use the collected water to hold the summer heat to keep us warm during the long winter months - big black tanks in summer and white fleecy covers during the colder seasons, and at night - with everything else wrapped in spaceblanket aluminised plastic bubble wrap. Reality TV will consist of reporters with FLIR™ thermographic cameras calling on people whose houses are abnormally hot, and radiating like pulsars in the suburbs. Daytime TV with titles like "Insulation, Insulation, Insulation!", and "Glass(fibre) in the Attic" will be the daily fodder for the unemployed.

Like it Chris! Thanks for that - a much needed laugh!

Maybe, we'd all benefit from some input from a real climate modeller? Because (IMO) without that input, we are all guessing at to what's included in the various models and what's not?

Yes indeed

It would be nice to know exactly what the full remit and range capacity of feedbacks, data etc that the IPCC models can incorporate, interpret and produce a range of predictions for?

[noggin]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scienti%20sts-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-%20to-reconsider-views

I wasn't sure whether to start a new thread or not for this. Mind you, they all end up going around in the same circles half the time!

Anyway, I have noticed how, rather than just having the odd individual scientist speaking out against the AGW "consensus", sceptical scientists* are now becoming more organised as their numbers grow. Perhaps many have harboured doubts for a long time, but are now feeling more able to voice those doubts as the clamour grows louder, presenting their cases to the relevant bodies. There have already been "movements" (for want of a better word) in America, Australia and Poland, I believe. Also, in some countries, there are also now sceptical politicians in positions of power who have their doubts, Eire and the Czech Republic, I believe.

Anyway, above is a link WRT the German contingent of sceptical scientists*

*"sceptical scientists" is my best description in respect of their stance on AGW.

[jethro]

It's the Mail, it's the silly season, but I do wish they'd make their minds up....

Glacial retreat - it's global warming. Glacial advance - it's global warming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1203500/In-pictures-How-global-warming-changing-face-northern-hemisphere.html

[Thundery wintry showers]

I have seen the idea that growing glaciers is a sign of global warming quoted, albeit rarely, in some sources. There is a solid foundation behind it in certain areas of the world where warmer temperatures are coming hand-in-hand with higher precipitation, resulting in greater snowfall- this has been noted in Norway for example. However to say it's a sign of global warming is, in itself, misleading, because what it really reflects is higher precipitation.

Global warming should, on the whole, lead to a retreat of the world's glaciers, with just odd exceptions here and there (as above). However the retreat of glaciers only indicates that the planet is getting warmer- not that humans are causing the warming.

In fairness to the article it says "it is seen as a sign that greenhouse gases are affecting the planet", which is 100% true in some circles. Whether they are right to see it that way is another matter of course!

[Solar Cycles]

I have seen the idea that growing glaciers is a sign of global warming quoted, albeit rarely, in some sources. There is a solid foundation behind it in certain areas of the world where warmer temperatures are coming hand-in-hand with higher precipitation, resulting in greater snowfall- this has been noted in Norway for example. However to say it's a sign of global warming is, in itself, misleading, because what it really reflects is higher precipitation.

Global warming should, on the whole, lead to a retreat of the world's glaciers, with just odd exceptions here and there (as above). However the retreat of glaciers only indicates that the planet is getting warmer- not that humans are causing the warming.

In fairness to the article it says "it is seen as a sign that greenhouse gases are affecting the planet", which is 100% true in some circles. Whether they are right to see it that way is another matter of course!

The problem with using glaciers as evidence, is that they are always in a state of retreat or advance. As for AGW being responsible for advancing glaciers, well that's just irresponsible journalism! Edited August 7, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Methuselah]

The problem with using glaciers as evidence, is that they are always in a state of retreat or advance. As for AGW being responsible for advancing glaciers, well that's just irresponsible journalism!

Why??

[Solar Cycles]

Why??

Quite simple Pete, they are purely speculating. There is zero evidence to back up such wild claims!

[Methuselah]

Quite simple Pete, they are purely speculating. There is zero evidence to back up such wild claims!

And, you can prove that SC?

[Solar Cycles]

And, you can prove that SC?

The onus isn't on me to prove anything, they are the one's making up such wild claims. We can all come out and make this and that up, but without a shred of evidence, it means nothing!

[Methuselah]

Quite simple Pete, they are purely speculating. There is zero evidence to back up such wild claims!

Well, SC - if you can prove that CO₂ is not a GHG, then I'll believe you...

[Solar Cycles]

Well, SC - if you can prove that CO₂ is not a GHG, then I'll believe you...

Tut tut Pete, never mind I'm used to debating with closed minds!

[Solar Cycles]

Tut tut Pete, never mind I'm used to debating with closed minds!

Forgot to put in one of these!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I addressed the question in my above post.

The consensus view is that AGW will cause glaciers to recede on the whole, but that a minority of glaciers will temporarily advance because higher temperatures will come with higher precipitation therefore causing more snowfall high up. This has happened in Norway over the last two decades, and as a result some of the glaciers there have been advancing.

Barring some misquoting and misleading stuff going on in newspapers I don't think anyone has ever suggested that AGW is expected to cause glaciers to advance overall- only ones in areas where it becomes much wetter as well as warmer.

All of this is a very logical consequence of a warming planet and backed up by plenty of evidence. What it doesn't address is how much of the warming is anthropogenic in origin.

And as for the "A" part in AGW, see Pete's post above re. CO2 being a GHG.

[Methuselah]

Tut tut Pete, never mind I'm used to debating with closed minds!

Raallly , SC? Just show, scientifically, that CO₂ is not a GHG?

[Solar Cycles]

I addressed the question in my above post.

The consensus view is that AGW will cause glaciers to recede on the whole, but that a minority of glaciers will temporarily advance because higher temperatures will come with higher precipitation therefore causing more snowfall high up. This has happened in Norway over the last two decades, and as a result some of the glaciers there have been advancing.

Barring some misquoting and misleading stuff going on in newspapers I don't think anyone has ever suggested that AGW is expected to cause glaciers to advance overall- only ones in areas where it becomes much wetter as well as warmer.

All of this is a very logical consequence of a warming planet and backed up by plenty of evidence. What it doesn't address is how much of the warming is anthropogenic in origin.

And as for the "A" part in AGW, see Pete's post above re. CO2 being a GHG.

I've no problem with any of that TWS, other than it's far to easy to blame the media for these stories. They get their attention grabbing headlines from some one/where? Edited August 7, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Methuselah]

So, what are you saying??

[Solar Cycles]

So, what are you saying??

Pete, off course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It may be the Shiraz, but I fail to see the point your making?

So, what are you saying??

I think we maight have crossed wires here!

[Methuselah]

It could be down to vodka, Solar - but, do we agree on a combination of natural cycles + GHGs?