Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

My Fab Four Up-To-Date Climate Change Observations, by Andreas Schmittner - See more at: http://climatechangenationalforum.org/my-fab-four-up-to-date-climate-change-observations/#sthash.EzY5i7zb.dpuf

[Polar Maritime]

[Gray-Wolf]

 

I do wish we could double and triple 'like' any one thing!!!

 

Verify.

 

The number of times we have dragged a thing over from 'Headless Chicken' land to show the truth of it to be met by what?............ Name calling but no Science....... so why post if verification shows just how out of whack it is? ......... because this is what their masters demand, for every person that verifies 10 walk away believing what they just read.

 

This is how the Misleaders work the public. They take an vocal minority and rely on the fact that most folk do not 'engage' and so think ~" what would it take for me to comment?" ....... they would never do what the adherents to the Misleaders would but take it that those people are 'Like Them' and go away thinking they have learnt something...... well they have.... they have learnt what it feels like to be duped......

 

Do not blindly believe either thread, Verify, Verify and then verify again. If you find no quibbles maybe think about believing.......

[knocker]

Debating the Causes of Extremes

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/02/15/debating-the-causes-of-extremes/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2933937

 

 

No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office's most senior experts

 

 

Not worth spending much time on this.

 

Matt Collins doesn't work for the Meto. No climate scientist has said that it did including Julia Slingo. She said climate change has a role to play in the storms. And of course she is correct it should be climate change and not global warming. Classic case of bulverism.

 

So since when did 'cause' equate to  'has a role to play' except in the deniers book "let's twist the truth to confuse the average punter". Evens that this will appear in Anthony's blog today although at the moment he has wandering Bob Tisdale twittering on about ENSO again.

 

EDIT

 

Matt Collins tweets 47m ago

 

"I said that the models don't tell us much about how the jet stream is affected by climate change. I don't disagree with Julia"

 

https://twitter.com/mat_collins

Edited February 16, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Bit difficult to say you weren't trying to mislead folk when the horses mouth tweets that you are? 

 

Why do they do it? Why do they do it and then complain that folk call them for what it is that they do???

Edited February 16, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Polar Maritime]

New research suggests that the main system that helps determine the weather over Northern Europe and North America may be changing.

With the UK, the US and Australia experiencing prolonged, extreme weather, the question has been raised as to whether recent patterns are due to simple natural variations or the result of manmade climate change? According to Prof Francis, it is too soon to tell.

"The Arctic has been warming rapidly only for the past 15 years," she says.

"Our data to look at this effect is very short and so it is hard to get a very clear signal.

"But as we have more data I do think we will start to see the influence of climate change."

Prof Francis was taking part in a session on Arctic change involving Mark Serreze, the director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.

He said the idea that changes in the polar north could influence the weather in middle latitudes - so-called "Santa's revenge" - was a new and lively area of research and somewhat controversial, with arguments for and against.

"Fundamentally, the strong warming that might drive this is tied in with the loss of sea-ice cover that we're seeing, because the sea-ice cover acts as this lid that separates the ocean from a colder atmosphere," Dr Serreze explained. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26023166

Edited February 16, 2014 by Polar Maritime

[Polar Maritime]

"For proper evidence-based science these days one has to step outside the hermetically sealed bubble of warmist group-think and look to that array of expert blogs and websites that provide the data necessary to thinking straight."   

 

Here we go then..http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/    

 

I don't know where to start on this one... another rag of twisted truth. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10639819/UK-weather-its-not-as-weird-as-our-warmists-claim.html

Edited February 16, 2014 by Polar Maritime

[Polar Maritime]

 Also regarding the Jet Stream, "They are talking about it as if it were a new phenomenon, when it isn't. It just happens that the location this winter has been to such as to bring LPs on a more southerly path, just as it did in summer 2007, when all the floods occurred then." Quote from OldMetMan.

[Gray-Wolf]

Theoldmetman needs to look at all the years, bar last, since 07' and the floods that we saw across the UK. Both flash floods and river floods appear to have been far more common?

 

From personal experience the river flood here, in june 2012, took the river 70cm above the previous high for this location. this was after all the flood alleviation schemes were in place after the floods of the late 1980's ( when the old record was set) so goodness only knows what the river would have peaked at had they not done all the work???

 

Our second flood in 2012 was a 'flash flood' when a group of storms decided to stall over the hill side. This event would be lost in regional records but had major impact here? How many other 'local events' that we see on the news get lost when placed into the regional mask?

 

It's like looking at a regional 'average' wind plot when you know 4 tornadoes ripped through the area that period. would the core speed of the Tornadoes be represented in the 'average plot'? 

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2933975

 

The things is, Keith, that you need to watch the pea under the thimble with people like Christopher Booker.

 

He starts off fairly calmly, but he soon cranks it up. The Met Office is "global warming-obsessed", there are "warmists", a "faltering religion". Booker then really starts to blow his top, various people are "paid to spout all the required mantras" and Jeremy Grantham is "the billionaire climate zealot".

 

Calm rational analysis then....not. But, perhaps(?) the kind of you like?

 

Booker then try to go all 'sciency'. he quotes a 'sciency' site by accountant Paul Homeward (ah ha!, that's where you got your movie tone video from  ). Yes, that's right, an accountant who Mr Booker things is an authority on climate. Hey ho.

 

Booker gets latched onto rainfall data. Paul Homeward has been doing 'sciency' you see. Lets look at this section:

 

"There is no upward trend in our rainfall. Even January’s continual downpours made it only the sixteenth wettest month since records began in 1766. Even if this month’s rain adds a further 200mm (8in) to the December-January figure, the resulting 650mm would still be way short of the 812mm (32in) recorded between November 1929 and January 1930."

 

What is Christopher Booker blathering on about? Can you, Keith, tell me what the 812mm figure refers to? Is it England and Wales winter rainfall? No it is not. Frankly, I've no idea where Booker gets the figure from - it is utterly misleading*.

 

There's more but, sorry, but that enough dissection of nonsense for one day ...

 

 

*hang about, I'm only half awake!! Look more carefully, Peter!!! Booker is comparing December - January this year to....November - January 1929-30. He is, Keith, misleading either all of us or himself or he doesn't even realise you can't compare different periods as the same? Astonishing. Hell, why not compare this winter in England and Wales with autumn rainfall in western Scotland in a wet year?

 

Anyway, thanks for flagging the article up. It's a classic

Edited February 16, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2934059

 

 

Excellent common sense journalism

 

Perhaps an oxymoron thread?

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2934059

 

 

Perhaps an oxymoron thread?

 

I thought I'd perhaps post a reply to Booker's article but the comments there are such a flood of ignorance that I'm sure, like many other things this winter, my reply would be swept away.

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2931752

 

In amongst all the insults (I'm quite sure SI would not like being called 'deceitful' but there we are...) I noticed this little comment "AGW is not a hoax"

 

Lets just repeat that: "AGW is not a hoax"

 

Would you care to expand upon that a bit? How much of AGW isn't a 'hoax' (again, if we said SI was a hoaxer I'm sure he'd really appreciate it...) ? How much warming will it cause?

[knocker]

I thought I'd perhaps post a reply to Booker's article but the comments there are such a flood of ignorance that I'm sure, like many other things this winter, my reply would be swept away.

 

Precisely Dev

 

Any way my even money bet romped in. The Mail article duly arrived on WUWT. If anyone wants to bother you can link to it via HotWhopper as she has duly dispatched it as well. Not the main point though as she found another amusing tweet from Anthony. Dear oh dear.

 

Forgot the link.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/oh-he-of-little-brainpumping-floodwaters.html

Edited February 16, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Knocker read the reportQuote He said that when the IPCC was compiling its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change last year, it discussed whether warming might affect the jet stream. But, he went on, ‘there was very low confidence that climate change has any effect on the jet stream getting stuck’. In the end, the possibility was not even mentioned in the report.

 

Does KL even know how the IPCC report works??? At the time documents were being accepted from it Jen Francis was only just compiling her first speech at the AGU???? Why do the sceptics swing from refusing everything in the IPCC report to demanding that anything not mentioned in the document is not to be discussed?????

 

Keith , climate is altering really quickly . In 2006 you would have been hammering on about nothing to worry about in the Arctic ot that it was warmer in the 30's ( or some such) then what happened? You cannot afford to wait 30yrs to see if what you see happening verifies on climatological time scale. It is happening and it is happening right now. By the time we are fully ice free ( pre 2020?) the impacts will be undeniable....do you intend to wait for that before making plans of how best to deal with its impacts?

[Snowyowl9]

 Also regarding the Jet Stream, "They are talking about it as if it were a new phenomenon, when it isn't. It just happens that the location this winter has been to such as to bring LPs on a more southerly path, just as it did in summer 2007, when all the floods occurred then." Quote from OldMetMan.

The jet stream this winter started to the north with Scotland getting storms and has moved steadily south as this winter has gone along but the lows seem to zip north this year when they hit us as the jet goes NE so nothing like summer 2007 the jet stream was muchfurther south to now and highly unusual floods,so no east flow,just once it happened for 2 days this winter.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/2007/Rrea00120070618.gif

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/2007/Rrea00120070625.gif

There was gales too.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/2007/Rrea00120070706.gif

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/2007/Rrea00120070721.gif

You can`t compare this to a summer the jet moves further north normaly,winter is more normal for floods to summer as it hasn`t got time to dry up unlike summer.

This winter`s abit exceptional though.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Snowyowl9

[knocker]

Met Office rainfall records – how far do they go back and what can they tell us?

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/met-office-rainfall-records-how-far-do-they-go-back-and-what-can-they-tell-us/

[knocker]

Right in the pocket

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

The 76th anniversary of the first graph linking global temperatures with increasing CO2 levels.

 

 

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Can you even credit that the other thread see an other 'side' in the debate? When was " That which everyone , bar the fringe, accepts" a side?

 

This is where the lurkers become confused. how can they see just how extreme the denialists are if they accept that there are two sides to the AGW coin and not that both sides of it show the same thing from different aspects?

 

The changing climate is not a debate. The recent speed of that change is not a 'debate'. The magnitude of the changes across all areas of the climate is not a 'Debate'

 

All of these things are areas of active study and investigation not 'up for question'.

 

If the other thread have anything Scientific to bring to the table ( that has not already been investigated to death and found of little impact) then please so we can 'Debate'.

 

If all they have is name calling and 'odd' ancient news snippets from half a world away then where , and what, is this 'debate'? Where, and what is "The other Side"?

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2934155

 

Odd, Jonboy, how you missed this misleading article. The 812mm rainfall figure is way wrong. If a AGW scientist did that you'd all be screaming 'fraud'! But, hey, maybe Christopher Booker is allowed to make mistakes to make a point???

Edited February 16, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

Seeing as newspaper articles are in vogue today I'll temporarily enter the fray. Roll of drums please..........................

 

Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up

 

If climate change sceptics have a coherent explanation for the events we are witnessing, it's time they held an international conference and told us what they believe.

 

Of course this is no easy task with no head.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/16/climate-change-deniers-put-up-or-shut-up

Edited February 16, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Further tweet from Matt Collins

 

"Together with the Met Office I'll be putting out a statement tomorrow clarifying the statements in the Mail on Sunday article"

 

https://twitter.com/mat_collins

Edited February 16, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

While the northern states struggle with record high snowfall and sub-zero temperatures, the small town of Valdez, Alaska is experiencing unusually warm temperatures. The town has been cut off by an avalanche that is blocking the main highway. Nearly a dozen avalanches that were caused by a warmup affected the area over the weekend.

 

Must see