Weather in the general media (Newspaper features etc)

[DAVID SNOW]

If by hurricane, you mean only Atlantic - yes, it is likely to be quiet with a strong Nino in progress. The Pacific Ocean is very active and the combined NH figure is way above average.

 

 

http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php

 

Yes, only the Atlantic

[Snipper]

It must be so nice to be able to believe people like Booker when it comes to climate change related topics (or anything for that matter, like evolution, smoking, asbestos). No matter what the evidence, Booker will always go against it with a combination of half truths, misunderstandings and lies, always to convince his readers that the world is fine, there's nothing to worry about and it's just a big scaremongering conspiracy.

It would be so nice to just ignore all the experts, their reports, their studies, their conclusions and simply believe the random columnist that tells me what I want to hear.

I suppose in retrospect I should have said somewhere "He said with his tongue in his cheek"

[BornFromTheVoid]

I suppose in retrospect I should have said somewhere "He said with his tongue in his cheek"

 

My comment wasn't directed at you! Sorry if it came across that way. I assumed your comment was made with tongue in cheek.

 

Unfortunately, there are people that sincerely believe what Booker writes, even on this forum.

[Snipper]

That's ok no problem. S

[Timmytour]

Folks like Booker don't have a monopoly.The silly stories about Climate change have been far more in abundance regarding what will happen because of it than they have been about "denying" its existence.  Much of the media have reacted hysterically to, and given undue balance to, fears being spread about the effects of climate change (kids won't see snow etc)

If there's been a consistent tone over the past 30 years about what would happen, that can be seen to be unravelling at time goes by, it's hard to find.

Instead the reaction to climate change "scare stories" is becoming a bit like seeing Daily Express predictions of a narnia winter.... "yeah sure!"

[Summer Sun]

UK weather: After the July washout get ready for an August heatwave

 

Experts reckon the gloom could be blown away by roasting air from mainland Europe in early August – with temperatures hitting 32C

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-after-july-washout-6144186

[Hocus Pocus]

UK weather: After the July washout get ready for an August heatwave

 

Experts reckon the gloom could be blown away by roasting air from mainland Europe in early August – with temperatures hitting 32C

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-after-july-washout-6144186

They must be privy to their own weather model then.

[Woollymummy]

Hi there, I just heard there will be a Radio 4 program on next Wednesday morning at 9, called "What's the point of.... The Met Office?" I thought everyone should know just in case it is any good. X

[Norway Nut]

It must be so nice to be able to believe people like Booker when it comes to climate change related topics (or anything for that matter, like evolution, smoking, asbestos). No matter what the evidence, Booker will always go against it with a combination of half truths, misunderstandings and lies, always to convince his readers that the world is fine, there's nothing to worry about and it's just a big scaremongering conspiracy.

It would be so nice to just ignore all the experts, their reports, their studies, their conclusions and simply believe the random columnist that tells me what I want to hear.

 

So Mr Booker made it all up? Can you believe anything written in the papers?

[Timmytour]

Worth reflecting on this again.......an article based on what a prominent scientist had stated which fits in with a prevailing weather patteren of the time.......blantantly wrong as subsequent years have proved but never sneered at in the same way as if an article had been written querying the basis of climate change predictions had been written.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
 

[BornFromTheVoid]

Worth reflecting on this again.......an article based on what a prominent scientist had stated which fits in with a prevailing weather patteren of the time.......blantantly wrong as subsequent years have proved but never sneered at in the same way as if an article had been written querying the basis of climate change predictions had been written.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

 

 

Not quite, that's something taken very much out of context. It's really only another example of poor reporting and misrepresentation in the media yet again.

 

The headline "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past", is not a quote from a scientist, in fact, they contradict themselves on the very next paragraph: "snow is starting to disappear from our lives.". The fact is, we are getting less snow nowadays, it's very much on the decline. There will still be snowy periods, but they are becoming more rare.

 

The scientists, Dr. David Viner, does say that snowfall will become "a rare and exciting thing" and that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". This isn't in reference to now, but in the future and is pretty accurate. It certainly doesn't support the headline of snow just being a thing of the past.

[Hocus Pocus]

Not quite, that's something taken very much out of context. It's really only another example of poor reporting and misrepresentation in the media yet again.

 

The headline "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past", is not a quote from a scientist, in fact, they contradict themselves on the very next paragraph: "snow is starting to disappear from our lives.". The fact is, we are getting less snow nowadays, it's very much on the decline. There will still be snowy periods, but they are becoming more rare.

 

The scientists, Dr. David Viner, does say that snowfall will become "a rare and exciting thing" and that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". This isn't in reference to now, but in the future and is pretty accurate. It certainly doesn't support the headline of snow just being a thing of the past.

I dispute those findings as snow has always been rare in this country bar the odd exceptional periods of wintry episodes. There is no evidence over the last 30 years that this has changed, sure it may well do over the next 100 years but that's just making an uneducated guess than anything scientific.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I dispute those findings as snow has always been rare in this country bar the odd exceptional periods of wintry episodes. There is no evidence over the last 30 years that this has changed, sure it may well do over the next 100 years but that's just making an uneducated guess than anything scientific.

 

You dispute them with what, your opinion? Did you even try to look for any snow cover data before declaring there was no evidence? I ask because the very first result from a google search of "snow cover trends UK" gives this Met Office study: 

A spatial analysis of trends in the UK climate since 1914 using gridded datasets 

 

A quote from the study:

 "there has been a strong downward trend in the number of days with

snow cover at 0900 since 1961. The strongest trend has occurred in southern England (Map

9), where there are now about 75% fewer days with snow cover compared to 1961. Northern

England has also experienced a very significant downward trend. The negative trend is

present in all seasons, but is most significant in the autumn period, although absolute

decreases are greatest in the winter, which is the season in which the most snow occurs.

The 1980’s were a particularly snowy period for the UK, as well as the start of the 1960’s, with

1962/63 being the snowiest season for England and Wales. The decreases are weaker but

still significant for most districts when starting from 1963/64, to avoid skewness introduced by

the high values of 1962/63."

 

Given the fact that your claim of there being no evidence is demonstrably false, I think it was quite unfair to call Dr Viner's statements an "uneducated guess".

[Hocus Pocus]

You dispute them with what, your opinion? Did you even try to look for any snow cover data before declaring there was no evidence? I ask because the very first result from a google search of "snow cover trends UK" gives this Met Office study: 

A spatial analysis of trends in the UK climate since 1914 using gridded datasets 

 

A quote from the study:

 "there has been a strong downward trend in the number of days with

snow cover at 0900 since 1961. The strongest trend has occurred in southern England (Map

9), where there are now about 75% fewer days with snow cover compared to 1961. Northern

England has also experienced a very significant downward trend. The negative trend is

present in all seasons, but is most significant in the autumn period, although absolute

decreases are greatest in the winter, which is the season in which the most snow occurs.

The 1980’s were a particularly snowy period for the UK, as well as the start of the 1960’s, with

1962/63 being the snowiest season for England and Wales. The decreases are weaker but

still significant for most districts when starting from 1963/64, to avoid skewness introduced by

the high values of 1962/63."

 

Given the fact that your claim of there being no evidence is demonstrably false, I think it was quite unfair to call Dr Viner's statements an "uneducated guess".

You're discussing UK snow which in itself is very dependent  on year on year variations in just where the Hadley pressure cells set up each winter, I was referring to the globe in general  which as far as I'm aware shows no downward trend. Also I hasten to add that making bold predictions on such a short timescale is fraught with danger  and one must take such claims with a huge pinch of salt.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Hocus Pocus

[BornFromTheVoid]

You're discussing UK snow which in itself is very dependent  on year on year variations in just where the Hadley pressure cells set up each winter, I was referring to the globe in general  which as far as I'm aware shows no downward trend. Also I hasten to add that making bold predictions on such a short timescale is fraught with danger  and one must take such claims with a huge pinch of salt.

 

Dr Viner wasn't referring to the globe, nor was I.

However, globally (or really, for the N. Hemisphere as the SH doesn't get much snow), there's a weak positive trend in Autumn and Winter but the Spring and Summer seasons show a very strong downward trend. Check out the rutgers snow lab website, it shows the trends for different months and seasons for the northern hemisphere http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/

 

While I agree with applying caution to seemingly bold prediction, I also think predictions based off evidence and expertise are better than predictions based on gut feeling. We also need to be very careful reading predictions in the general media given their predilection for sensationalist content, especially when they "claim" to represent expert opinions. 

[Hocus Pocus]

Dr Viner wasn't referring to the globe, nor was I.

However, globally (or really, for the N. Hemisphere as the SH doesn't get much snow), there's a weak positive trend in Autumn and Winter but the Spring and Summer seasons show a very strong downward trend. Check out the rutgers snow lab website, it shows the trends for different months and seasons for the northern hemisphere http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/

 

While I agree with applying caution to seemingly bold prediction, I also think predictions based off evidence and expertise are better than predictions based on gut feeling. We also need to be very careful reading predictions in the general media given their predilection for sensationalist content, especially when they "claim" to represent expert opinions.

[/quoteYes I jumped the gun in thinking you was referring to global conditions, I still maintain there is insufficient data to make such claims just yet. Another few bad winters during the next decade would make such claims invalid now so it's best to gather data and observe rather than make rash predictions.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

We're all going to drown...etc etc

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/595816/Wave-warning-holidaymakers-gales-floods-coastal-resorts

[Danielvn]

It must be so nice to be able to believe people like Booker when it comes to climate change related topics (or anything for that matter, like evolution, smoking, asbestos). No matter what the evidence, Booker will always go against it with a combination of half truths, misunderstandings and lies, always to convince his readers that the world is fine, there's nothing to worry about and it's just a big scaremongering conspiracy.

It would be so nice to just ignore all the experts, their reports, their studies, their conclusions and simply believe the random columnist that tells me what I want to hear.

The problem is that when scientists make stupid claims that turn out to be wrong, it convinces the average joe on the street and gives people like him ammunition.

 

The sad thing is that with all their science, they've been spectacularly wrong. If only they were sensible and honest about their predictions then perhaps people would be more willing to buy into climate change. Good science requires you to make predictions on a long term basis on a number of occasions and be correct most of the time, the problem is that they appear to devise a model that explains what happened in the past, use it to make predictions and end up wrong. If I was a scientist with a model I believed in, I'd be sitting in a corner making my predictions in private, seeing if they come true and after a few years of success, then I'd go public!

[Methuselah]

The problem is that when scientists make stupid claims that turn out to be wrong, it convinces the average joe on the street and gives people like him ammunition.

 

The sad thing is that with all their science, they've been spectacularly wrong. If only they were sensible and honest about their predictions then perhaps people would be more willing to buy into climate change. Good science requires you to make predictions on a long term basis on a number of occasions and be correct most of the time, the problem is that they appear to devise a model that explains what happened in the past, use it to make predictions and end up wrong. If I was a scientist with a model I believed in, I'd be sitting in a corner making my predictions in private, seeing if they come true and after a few years of success, then I'd go public!

That could be something to do with the media's penchant for publishing the 'unusual'. Does mainstream science interest the Daily Express? And look at all the health-garbage the Mail trots out? IMO, the gutter-press is only interested in what they consider 'zany'...

Edited August 4, 2015 by Ed Stone

[Danielvn]

That could be something to do with the media's penchant for publishing the 'unusual'. Does mainstream science interest the Daily Express? And look at all the health-garbage the Mail trots out? IMO, the gutter-press is only interested in what they consider 'zany'...

 

Fair points......

[BornFromTheVoid]

The problem is that when scientists make stupid claims that turn out to be wrong, it convinces the average joe on the street and gives people like him ammunition.

 

The sad thing is that with all their science, they've been spectacularly wrong. If only they were sensible and honest about their predictions then perhaps people would be more willing to buy into climate change. Good science requires you to make predictions on a long term basis on a number of occasions and be correct most of the time, the problem is that they appear to devise a model that explains what happened in the past, use it to make predictions and end up wrong. If I was a scientist with a model I believed in, I'd be sitting in a corner making my predictions in private, seeing if they come true and after a few years of success, then I'd go public!

 

What stupid claims have the scientists made?

 

In my experience, most of the time when people have tried to make the very same point as yourself, they direct me to mostly tabloid style media examples which they took (for whatever reason) at face value, or climate change denial websites who's job it is to mislead and misdirect. So you'll have to understand if I'm a little sceptical!

[Woollymummy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06418l5

What's the Point of the Met Office?

[Timmytour]

going back in time a little....

http://www.rense.com/general42/5000.htm

 

 

Europe Suffered Hottest 
Summer In 500 Years
9-24-3

 

GENEVA (AFP) -- Europe this year experienced its hottest summer for at least 500 years, providing further evidence of man-made global warming, Swiss university researchers said on Tuesday

 

In the world we live in today, there cannot be records broken without man made global warming or climate change being cited. One wonders why 1757, mentioned as the previous hottest, had not been eclipsed before in this world of soaring heat.....I wonder what measures were it seems successfully undertaken to prevent it happening again for another 350 years ?   Or what had bben happening in the 350 years before it that man should have avoided doing tp prevent it?


 

[BornFromTheVoid]

going back in time a little....

http://www.rense.com/general42/5000.htm

 

In the world we live in today, there cannot be records broken without man made global warming or climate change being cited. One wonders why 1757, mentioned as the previous hottest, had not been eclipsed before in this world of soaring heat.....I wonder what measures were it seems successfully undertaken to prevent it happening again for another 350 years ?   Or what had bben happening in the 350 years before it that man should have avoided doing tp prevent it?

 

 

It would help to see the actual study rather than yet another media report.

 

They likely explain their reasoning, analysis and evidence for their claim in the research. It's all to easy to read a poorly written press release or media representation of a study and then ridicule the scientists.

[Polar Maritime]

It's all to easy to read a poorly written press release or media representation of a study and then ridicule the scientists.

 

Yes BFTV, The media continue to spin what the experts are 'actually' saying. The root of all evil, To whom the majority of the public seem to lay there faith.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Polar Maritime