On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:59:51 AM UTC, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

Jethro_uk wrote:



On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:31:17 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:



The vast majority of respectable meteorologists have long since agreed

that global warming is a real effect and that CO2 and other greenhouse

gasses are responsible for driving it



400 years ago, the majority of respectable physicians agreed that bad

smells were the cause of disease. We really need to rid ourselves of this

conceit that we know better. We know more, certainly. But better ?



And at more or less the same time, the vast majority of teenage girls in

Salem agreed that Goody Wentworth was a witch.



Hmmm, I know, lets simplify life and pass a Bill defining pi to be

exactly 3. Enough of this irrationality.

Yeah although I'm too sure that at the age of 3 he would have made such an interesting story with on the life raft with an orangutan, a zebra, a hyena and a Bengal tiger, which would probbaly have eaten himm as a snack . :-)






--

Tim



"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On Mar 26, 1:34*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 12:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...

And this is where the skeptics smell a rat. The data isn't enough. its
being SPUN by the likes of the guardian. Which leads to the inevitable
question

"Why do you need to spin, if te data supports the thesis so well?"

And of course the answer is that it doesn't support it at all well...

The chap in charge of the Hadley Centre said, when asked why he would
not release their data, that opponents would only use it to prove the
Hadley Centre conclusions wrong. If they were sure of their ground, that
should not be possible.

Colin Bignell

At least one of the climategate e-mails shows "warmists" would rather
delete their data than release it under a FOI request.

Why would that be?

MBQ

On 26/03/2013 13:04, Terry Fields wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:16:44 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

Making less CO2 is a good aim for other reasons, anyway.

Why? As CO2 rises plants grow better and crop yields increase.


One reason is that the stuff we burn to make CO2 now is the stuff we may
well want as feedstock to make other chemicals more easily in the future.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/03/2013 13:21, dennis@home wrote:
The logically way is to ignore the arguments as none of them can be
proven as the system is chaotic and the data is poor.

This means reacting to what is really happening, like insulate your
house to save money as energy prices rise.

Very well put.

Andy

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 13:21 dennis@home wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 26/03/2013 11:44, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:31 Martin Brown wrote in uk.d-i-y:


There is a rearguard action by US coal, Exxon and it's deniers for hire
to prevent the general public hearing what scientists have to say. They
honed their disinformation skills working for big tobacco manufacturing
doubt to keep the suckers smoking. And it is a very effective tactic.

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways) how
do *I* know who to believe?

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted
out.


The logically way is to ignore the arguments as none of them can be
proven as the system is chaotic and the data is poor.

+1


This means reacting to what is really happening, like insulate your
house to save money as energy prices rise.

Indeed.

From the UKIP energy document I posted a link to earlier:

"The 2008 Climate Change Act: This Act is one of the most expensive ever
passed in peace time, threatening costs of £18 billion a year for forty
years. We must repeal this Act as it underpins all these damaging taxes and
red tape policies."


Now - that is one claim I'd like to research in detail. Seems a bit
"headliney". But if it is true, let's see what else we could do with 18
billion in one year.

Cost of triple glazing a house - dunno for sure, but if we run on a double
glazing job is perhaps £10k for an average house and triple is 50% more,
then we could re-glaze 1.2 million aaverage houses in a year.

In 18 years we could have the whole country done.

Assume perhaps we target all single glazed houses - and make it a grant
system where everyone gets some fraction, enough to induce most people to do
it and put the difference into free roof insulation and grants for
"difficult" roofs that may need celotex between the rafters.

Then perhaps wall lining for solid wall houses.

And keep going in the order of best return at the instant.




--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 26/03/13 13:26, polygonum wrote:
On 26/03/2013 13:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/03/13 11:01, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Bob Martin
writes

[Please could you snip your quotes? Thanks]

Just what does a spell of British weather have to do with global
climate?

But it's not just in the UK that we're experiencing weather extremes,
it's worldwide.

The odds of *some* part of the world experiencing a weather extreme in
any given year are about 100:1 on.

the odds of breaking a 100 year record of some kind or other in any
given year in any given country are also very high.. Greater than 50%.

"Coldest temperatures ever recorded for 2 a.m. on March the 24th, at
Oban' say weather experts.

etc etc.

The point is weather and climate have massive natural variation and we
have a very poor handle on it without introducing the straw man of AGW.

we always have experienced extreme weather events in the UK and
worldwide. They just weren't very newsworthy.

Heck nobody even HEARD of Bangladesh before the Beatles. But they had
been starving to death for decades. The world is littered with dead
civilisations who appeared to have been able to support themselves on
land which has been desert for at least 2000 years in some cases.

climate change got them.

Wasn't it East Pakistan before?



yeah, and no one gave a **** about it then either.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 26/03/13 13:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 11:44, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:31 Martin Brown wrote in uk.d-i-y:


There is a rearguard action by US coal, Exxon and it's deniers for hire
to prevent the general public hearing what scientists have to say. They
honed their disinformation skills working for big tobacco manufacturing
doubt to keep the suckers smoking. And it is a very effective tactic.

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways)
how do
*I* know who to believe?

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted
out.

You say a majority of meteorologists agree that greenhouse gasses are
driving climate change. Do you have a link or a book/paper that says
so? I'm
am prepared at this stage to read something thick if I have to.

The best the IPCC managed was to ask loaded questions, then use very
broad categories, rather than actual percentages of responses, to try to
imply that the answers to them showed that the majority of scientists
agreed. Reading the results carefully, I am inclined to think that about
2 out of 3 of the contributors were willing to concede that human
activity may have had some, unquantified and not necessarily
significant, effect on the climate.

Hell even I will concede that the effect of human activities on climate
is non zero. I'll even admit there is a certainty that excess CO2 in the
atmosphere will make a small difference as well. As will the fart that
my dog has just let off.

But that's a far cry from blaming the future of the entire planet on him
fr nicking that catfood.

Enron and Gore started this going to sell GAS instead of COAL. they
freaked a bit at windmills till they realised

- windmills dont reduce the need for fossil fuel
- windmills work better with gas, anyway.

And the best way to disguise the fact that it was all dreamed up for
profit by fossil fuel companies was to claim that anyone who opposed it
was funded by fossil fuel companies for profit.

So you bunged a few million to greenpeace, FOE, renewable energy/climate
research this that an the other. To generate a steady stream of 'on
message' articles all peer reviewed by your eco chums. Its all
blindsiding. The important thing as to ensure everybody used more GAS.

So, attack coal attack nuclear and attack oil, and gouge away

The russians recognised it immediately. They have lots of GAS. Great.
They are master propagandists. It's their old CND network that is the
greenpeace and FOE of today. Yes, that's the one that told you that
reactors are atomic bombs waiting to happen, that nuclear power is just
another name for nuclear weapons, that atomic fallout would destroy all
life on the planet and there was no such thing as a safe level of
radiation. Is it a coincidence that the Guardians financial decline
started at the same time the USSR disintegrated?





Colin Bignell


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 26/03/13 13:50, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/03/2013 13:04, Terry Fields wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:16:44 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

Making less CO2 is a good aim for other reasons, anyway.

Why? As CO2 rises plants grow better and crop yields increase.


One reason is that the stuff we burn to make CO2 now is the stuff we may
well want as feedstock to make other chemicals more easily in the future.

that is almost a red herring.

Burning fossil fuel for energy stops when it takes more energy to get it
out of the ground than yu get from burning it.

There will still be billions of tonnes left to make plastic bags with.

More expensive, yes.

And there is another tipping point. If diesel were - say - £10- a litre,
you could make it for less using off peak nuclear electricity out of
..ahem..water, and carbon dioxide.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mar 26, 2:50*pm, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 13:21 dennis@home wrote in uk.d-i-y:









On 26/03/2013 11:44, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:31 Martin Brown wrote in uk.d-i-y:

There is a rearguard action by US coal, Exxon and it's deniers for hire
to prevent the general public hearing what scientists have to say. They
honed their disinformation skills working for big tobacco manufacturing
doubt to keep the suckers smoking. And it is a very effective tactic.

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways) how
do *I* know who to believe?

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted
out.

The logically way is to ignore the arguments as none of them can be
proven as the system is chaotic and the data is poor.

+1

This means reacting to what is really happening, like insulate your
house to save money as energy prices rise.

Indeed.

From the UKIP energy document I posted a link to earlier:

"The 2008 Climate Change Act: This Act is one of the most expensive ever
passed in peace time, threatening costs of £18 billion a year for forty
years. We must repeal this Act as it underpins all these damaging taxes and
red tape policies."

Now - that is one claim I'd like to research in detail. Seems a bit
"headliney". But if it is true, let's see what else we could do with 18
billion in one year.

Cost of triple glazing a house - dunno for sure, but if we run on a double
glazing job is perhaps £10k for an average house and triple is 50% more,
then we could re-glaze 1.2 million aaverage houses in a year.

In 18 years we could have the whole country done.

No. The same believers, in league with a whole host of Nimbys will
fight tooth and nail to not allow double glazing of listed buildings,
etc. So we also need to legislate to charge an extra 50% on their
energy bills.

Assume perhaps we target all single glazed houses - and make it a grant
system where everyone gets some fraction, enough to induce most people to do
it and put the difference into free roof insulation and grants for
"difficult" roofs that may need celotex between the rafters.

See above.

Then perhaps wall lining for solid wall houses.

See above.

And keep going in the order of best return at the instant.

See above :-(

MBQ

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes

[chomp]

Lovely article, thanks. A lot of that goes along with my instincts.

- tens of thousands of scientists who have pinned their careers to CO2
investigation, and green energy would essentially be shorn of grants.

One outgoing warmist is still banging the drum:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...2/World-faces-
decades-of-climate-chaos-outgoing-chief-scientific-adviser-warns.html

"The world faces decades of turbulent weather even if it takes drastic
action to tackle climate change, the Government's chief scientific
adviser said today in a final stark warning as he prepares to step down.

Professor Sir John Beddington said that time lags in the climate system
meant that accumulations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now will
determine the weather we experience for the next 25 years."

But this bit tickled me:

"He admitted there were some "uncertainties" in the analysis of climate
change"

No ****, Sherlock.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 26/03/13 14:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 13:21 dennis@home wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 26/03/2013 11:44, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:31 Martin Brown wrote in uk.d-i-y:


There is a rearguard action by US coal, Exxon and it's deniers for hire
to prevent the general public hearing what scientists have to say. They
honed their disinformation skills working for big tobacco manufacturing
doubt to keep the suckers smoking. And it is a very effective tactic.

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways) how
do *I* know who to believe?

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted
out.


The logically way is to ignore the arguments as none of them can be
proven as the system is chaotic and the data is poor.

+1


This means reacting to what is really happening, like insulate your
house to save money as energy prices rise.

Indeed.

From the UKIP energy document I posted a link to earlier:

"The 2008 Climate Change Act: This Act is one of the most expensive ever
passed in peace time, threatening costs of £18 billion a year for forty
years. We must repeal this Act as it underpins all these damaging taxes and
red tape policies."


Now - that is one claim I'd like to research in detail. Seems a bit
"headliney". But if it is true, let's see what else we could do with 18
billion in one year.

Cost of triple glazing a house - dunno for sure, but if we run on a double
glazing job is perhaps £10k for an average house and triple is 50% more,
then we could re-glaze 1.2 million aaverage houses in a year.

In 18 years we could have the whole country done.

BUT it wouldn't save as much energy as building a nuclear power station
for that money would generate.


picking the low hanging fruit of wildly lossy houses and grossly gas
guzzling cars is easy. But there comes a point where there are only slim
pickings left. My house is already pretty well insulated and short of
heat recovery ventilation and a massively expensive heatpump
installation its hard to know how to save more.

we may be able to shave 30% off energy use. Maybe 50%, but that's it.

If that costs more than building an entire fleet of nuclear **** that
will run the whole grid - 30% of our energy goes into the grid - we are
achieving less for more cost.


Assume perhaps we target all single glazed houses - and make it a grant
system where everyone gets some fraction, enough to induce most people to do
it and put the difference into free roof insulation and grants for
"difficult" roofs that may need celotex between the rafters.

Then perhaps wall lining for solid wall houses.

And keep going in the order of best return at the instant.



well put double glazing at the bottom. This house is fully compliant
with 2001 insulation standards and it was built single glazed. It is
packed the the gills with rockwool and celotex tho.


Draughtproof first, the loft insulation, then cavity wall, then boiler
upgrade, then insulate the ground floor.

Only when you have done that is it worth double glazing -0 and a set of
heavy triple lined curtains does more and costs less, anyway.





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 15:28 Jethro_uk wrote in uk.d-i-y:

The real headline here is "Scientists link AGW ******** with more
funding."

Hehe - good one!

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 26/03/13 15:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
.. 10,000 years ago you could walk from Spain to
Scotland - and we know people did. Try that now.

I reckon that's going to happen if this euro******** goes on much longer.

they will have to walk,. we wont be able to afford to drive em.



Even the experts admit climate change is truly chaotic. Which means you
can't factor in or out anything mankind does.

Incidentally, there is NOTHING wrong with wanting to live in a more
sustainable way. It's something we should be putting all our effort into.
Not because of climate change though. Just because it's more sensible in
the long run.


But not at any cost.

One day, someone will write a book, or make a film. It will start with
the idealism and hope after the second world war. It will chart how well
meaning, sincere folk started to realise that we can't just rape the
planet and not pay. These evolved into the counterculture of the 60s,
which were derided, mocked and ridiculed by mainstream society.

Then, somewhere between the 60s, and the 90s, a sort of critical mass was
reached - maybe the 1984/5 Band-Aid/Live-Aid phenomenon ? Either way,
somehow, people in suits with wire-rimmed glasses and red braces had an
epiphany. They realised you could actually SELL being green. You could
slap the word "organic" on a food and double the price. So they did.

What was brilliant about this, was that it was the environmentalists that
were effectively paying for the marketing. Every Greenpeace ad about the
environment would see a jump in sales of "Eco" this, and "Green" that.

And our lords and masters looked upon this, and they saw it was good.

And thus it came to pass that the 1980s misbred young executives that
were heavily advertised became the advisers and policy consultants of the
90s.

And lo verily, did the notion of "Green taxes" be dreamt up. For they did
see, that whilst Joe Public might be narked about an extra penny on
income tax, the same Joe Public would queue up to "save the planet".

I'm sorry, but personally I think the worlds public have been hoodwinked
on a massive scale. "Green energy" is a good example. It's doing **** all
for the planet (in fact it's a net carbon contributor) but it's doing
wonders for the firms that build the kit, and wonders for the upper-
middle classes who actually get paid up to 40p/unit for the electricity
that they put into the grid which is charged at 10p/unit.

Everyday I see many small things that could save a shed load of energy.
Very simple things. But guess what ? There's no money in it for anyone,
so it's ignored. Which leads me to my view of life. "If it *really*
mattered ..."

If reducing emissions *really* mattered, you'd have a planning and tax
system which encouraged work from home, and staggered working hours. That
would cost very little, but - guess what ? No money in it. In fact you'll
find behind the scenes the road and rail lobby would HATE any idea like
that. So it's left alone.

When the government *acts* like it matters, then I will.

What I find particularly depressing, is people who are a victim of bad
science in one area, appear to be willing to fall for it in another.

I manage to avoid long debates on climate change now, by just saying:
"Define climate. Define change".

FWIW I have a more Gaian view of things. We live in a symbiosis with
everything on earth, including the Earth. And just like a body with an
infection, if we start to make the Earth poorly, then it's immune system
will start to kick in to eradicate us. Or, alternatively, like a cell
about to divide, we somehow manage to become 2 cells. But that requires
interplanetary travel on a scale way beyond out capabilities. Especially
if our offspring are more content to watch Celebrity Big Brother rather
than design a better mousetrap.

Here endeth the rant for today


not much to disagree with.

Especially about the establishment looking at the radical movements of
the 60's not with fear, but with profit in mind. I lived it and I saw it
happening.

Not that I was politically active then, but those that were..got
hoodwinked royally.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 26/03/2013 8:25 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1215549 20130326 065810 Tim wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 05:40 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:


There's another couple of threads currently running about climate
change, but they've strayed somewhat off topic.

Spotted this in the Grauniad yesterday:

"Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring
weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe
and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...spring-arctic-
sea-ice-loss

Thoughts:

1) I know, it's the Grauniad

2) these are scientists, not greenies dressed up as scientists

3) I have no particular leanings either way on the climate change
argument. Some people say the amount of sea ice has hardly changed,
some say it's massively reduced. I don't know who to believe.


I'm going with "weather is essentially random and has unpredictable
extremes" until enough real scientists say otherwise.

Here you go:

http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?a...winter-history

very similar to March 1962 which of course preceeded the famous winter of
1963.

Another notable one from the same link:

"1849: April, great snowstorm hit Southern England. Coaches buried in
drifts. Notably late snowfall."

So this winter is nothing that hasn't happened before - it's just the tip
end of an extreme. So I call "********" and "desparate to keep the [global
warming] dream alive".

Just what does a spell of British weather have to do with global climate?


Britain's recent cold snap may have more to do with the Jet Stream
moving further south during the last 7 years allowing the NE colder
climate to have an effect?

--
Learn why we are suffering..
www.zeitgeistthefilm.com/

On 26/03/13 16:52, RayL12 wrote:


Britain's recent cold snap may have more to do with the Jet Stream
moving further south during the last 7 years allowing the NE colder
climate to have an effect?


the question is: why has it moved?

Global warming?

A butterfly farted in Buenos Aires?

A chicken crossed a road in Texas?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mar 26, 8:25*am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1215549 20130326 065810 Tim Watts wrote:









On Tuesday 26 March 2013 05:40 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

There's another couple of threads currently running about climate
change, but they've strayed somewhat off topic.

Spotted this in the Grauniad yesterday:

"Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring
weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe
and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...spring-arctic-
sea-ice-loss

Thoughts:

1) I know, it's the Grauniad

2) these are scientists, not greenies dressed up as scientists

3) I have no particular leanings either way on the climate change
argument. *Some people say the amount of sea ice has hardly changed,
some say it's massively reduced. *I don't know who to believe.

I'm going with "weather is essentially random and has unpredictable
extremes" until enough real scientists say otherwise.

Here you go:

http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?a...winter-history

very similar to March 1962 which of course preceeded the famous winter of
1963.

Another notable one from the same link:

"1849: April, great snowstorm hit Southern England. Coaches buried in
drifts. Notably late snowfall."

So this winter is nothing that hasn't happened before - it's just the tip
end of an extreme. So I call "********" and "desparate to keep the [global
warming] dream alive".

Just what does a spell of British weather have to do with global climate?

You got that wrong. It's what has global climate got to do with
British weather?

I'd have thought it was apparent to even you now.
Extreme weather events becoming more frequent is the answer.

On 26/03/2013 2:26 PM, Andy Champ wrote:
On 26/03/2013 13:21, dennis@home wrote:
The logically way is to ignore the arguments as none of them can be
proven as the system is chaotic and the data is poor.

This means reacting to what is really happening, like insulate your
house to save money as energy prices rise.

Very well put.

Andy

+1

--
Learn why we are suffering..
www.zeitgeistthefilm.com/

On Mar 26, 9:25*am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 08:23, Mike Lane wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote on Mar 26, 2013:

3) I have no particular leanings either way on the climate change
argument. *Some people say the amount of sea ice has hardly changed,
some say it's massively reduced. *I don't know who to believe.

I don't think there is any doubt that the arctic sea ice has reduced over the
last decade. The fact that the north west passage is now routinely navigable
during summer months is surely sufficient evidence of this?

https://hapaglloydcruises.wordpress....hwest-passage/

Roald Amundsen navigated it at the beginning of the 20th century and, if
you read the small print, Hapag Lloyd include a lot of let out clauses
that allow them to modify the itinerary.

Colin Bignell

More ********
It took him three years to do it because of being locked in ice for
two years continously.
Not the Summer conditions prevailing today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwe...sen_expedition

On 26/03/2013 16:56, harry wrote:


I'd have thought it was apparent to even you now.
Extreme weather events becoming more frequent is the answer.

Can you provide a chart of extreme weather event frequency over a
suitably large stretch of time?

And is one countrywide, multi-day, heavily snow-drifted situation one
event? And a waterspout off the Isle of Wight another? Or each stroke of
lightning (pretty extreme at the point it strikes)?

--
Rod

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 16:52 RayL12 wrote in uk.d-i-y:


Britain's recent cold snap may have more to do with the Jet Stream
moving further south during the last 7 years allowing the NE colder
climate to have an effect?

I heard it was the Jet stream being too far south. Did not realise it has
been going that way for 7 years.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Mar 26, 12:02*pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Mar 26, 11:01*am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , Bob Martin
writes

[Please could you snip your quotes? Thanks]

Just what does a spell of British weather have to do with global climate?

But it's not just in the UK that we're experiencing weather extremes,

We are not experiencing extremes.

MBQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

If you want to look at record extremes, you'll find most are fairly
recent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records

On 26/03/2013 17:02, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 9:25 am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 08:23, Mike Lane wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote on Mar 26, 2013:

3) I have no particular leanings either way on the climate change
argument. Some people say the amount of sea ice has hardly changed,
some say it's massively reduced. I don't know who to believe.

I don't think there is any doubt that the arctic sea ice has reduced over the
last decade. The fact that the north west passage is now routinely navigable
during summer months is surely sufficient evidence of this?

https://hapaglloydcruises.wordpress....hwest-passage/

Roald Amundsen navigated it at the beginning of the 20th century and, if
you read the small print, Hapag Lloyd include a lot of let out clauses
that allow them to modify the itinerary.

Colin Bignell

More ********
It took him three years to do it because of being locked in ice for
two years continously.
Not the Summer conditions prevailing today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwe...sen_expedition

He was doing it in a fishing boat. Given the speed of a modern cruise
liner, he might well have completed in a single season. Read your own
link for the various people who have, from 1944 onwards.

Colin Bignell

On Mar 26, 12:59*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 26/03/13 08:23, Mike Lane wrote: Mike Tomlinson wrote on Mar 26, 2013:

3) I have no particular leanings either way on the climate change
argument. *Some people say the amount of sea ice has hardly changed,
some say it's massively reduced. *I don't know who to believe.

I don't think there is any doubt that the arctic sea ice has reduced over the
last decade. The fact that the north west passage is now routinely navigable
during summer months is surely sufficient evidence of this?

https://hapaglloydcruises.wordpress....hwest-passage/

yes, it did. But so too has it done before, many times.
And this year its already well ABOVE last years figures.

I expect its 'only weather' after all :-)

* hell we know that there were rising temps between 1970 and 1998, and
eventually that would cause ice to melt, and the melting of that ice -
as the AGW ists themselves told us, would potentially block the gulf
stream leading to colder NW europe.

What they didn't do was to finish that off by saying 'and that would of
course re-freeze the arctic'.

*shrug* so thirty years of warming has melted the arctic a bit, causing
colder weather that will re-freeze the arctic. It doesn't mean that CO2
has anything to do with it.

Its all part of the massive multi decadal climate oscillations that we
know happen anyway. El nino/La Nina, pacific decadal, North Atlantic
oscillation, etc etc. these all happen at different rates depending on
the time lags inherent in the air and water and land masses involved,
and sometimes they are all in step and we get GLOBAL WARMING or A MINI
ICE AGE and sometimes they are out of step and we get AVERAGE CLIMATE.

No CO2 is involved at all. No polar bears were harmed in the making of
this post. etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl..._1880-2012.svg

On 26/03/2013 3:46 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:37:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 26/03/13 13:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 11:44, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:31 Martin Brown wrote in uk.d-i-y:


There is a rearguard action by US coal, Exxon and it's deniers for
hire to prevent the general public hearing what scientists have to
say. They honed their disinformation skills working for big tobacco
manufacturing doubt to keep the suckers smoking. And it is a very
effective tactic.

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways)
how do
*I* know who to believe?

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted
out.

You say a majority of meteorologists agree that greenhouse gasses are
driving climate change. Do you have a link or a book/paper that says
so? I'm
am prepared at this stage to read something thick if I have to.

The best the IPCC managed was to ask loaded questions, then use very
broad categories, rather than actual percentages of responses, to try
to imply that the answers to them showed that the majority of
scientists agreed. Reading the results carefully, I am inclined to
think that about 2 out of 3 of the contributors were willing to concede
that human activity may have had some, unquantified and not necessarily
significant, effect on the climate.

Hell even I will concede that the effect of human activities on climate
is non zero. I'll even admit there is a certainty that excess CO2 in the
atmosphere will make a small difference as well. As will the fart that
my dog has just let off.

But that's a far cry from blaming the future of the entire planet on him
fr nicking that catfood.

Enron and Gore started this going to sell GAS instead of COAL. they
freaked a bit at windmills till they realised

- windmills dont reduce the need for fossil fuel - windmills work better
with gas, anyway.

And the best way to disguise the fact that it was all dreamed up for
profit by fossil fuel companies was to claim that anyone who opposed it
was funded by fossil fuel companies for profit.

So you bunged a few million to greenpeace, FOE, renewable energy/climate
research this that an the other. To generate a steady stream of 'on
message' articles all peer reviewed by your eco chums. Its all
blindsiding. The important thing as to ensure everybody used more GAS.

So, attack coal attack nuclear and attack oil, and gouge away

The russians recognised it immediately. They have lots of GAS. Great.
They are master propagandists. It's their old CND network that is the
greenpeace and FOE of today. Yes, that's the one that told you that
reactors are atomic bombs waiting to happen, that nuclear power is just
another name for nuclear weapons, that atomic fallout would destroy all
life on the planet and there was no such thing as a safe level of
radiation. Is it a coincidence that the Guardians financial decline
started at the same time the USSR disintegrated?

I think that the effect of humans on this planet is vastly overimagined,
when you consider how long the planet has been here.

Age of planet: 4,500,000,000 years ago.
Life on earth: 3,800,000,000 years ago (apprx).
Mankinds industrial age: 300 years ago.

So you are asking me to believe that *one* species, can lay waste to a
planet in 3,800,000,000 / 300 years ? I certainly believe that one
species can lay waste to *itself* in that time, but that's not "climate
change".

The climate changes all the time. 2,000 years ago the Romans grew white
grapes in Yorkshire. Try doing that now. 300 years ago the Thames froze
over *every* winter. 10,000 years ago you could walk from Spain to
Scotland - and we know people did. Try that now.

Even the experts admit climate change is truly chaotic. Which means you
can't factor in or out anything mankind does.

Incidentally, there is NOTHING wrong with wanting to live in a more
sustainable way. It's something we should be putting all our effort into.
Not because of climate change though. Just because it's more sensible in
the long run.

One day, someone will write a book, or make a film. It will start with
the idealism and hope after the second world war. It will chart how well
meaning, sincere folk started to realise that we can't just rape the
planet and not pay. These evolved into the counterculture of the 60s,
which were derided, mocked and ridiculed by mainstream society.

Then, somewhere between the 60s, and the 90s, a sort of critical mass was
reached - maybe the 1984/5 Band-Aid/Live-Aid phenomenon ? Either way,
somehow, people in suits with wire-rimmed glasses and red braces had an
epiphany. They realised you could actually SELL being green. You could
slap the word "organic" on a food and double the price. So they did.

What was brilliant about this, was that it was the environmentalists that
were effectively paying for the marketing. Every Greenpeace ad about the
environment would see a jump in sales of "Eco" this, and "Green" that.

And our lords and masters looked upon this, and they saw it was good.

And thus it came to pass that the 1980s misbred young executives that
were heavily advertised became the advisers and policy consultants of the
90s.

And lo verily, did the notion of "Green taxes" be dreamt up. For they did
see, that whilst Joe Public might be narked about an extra penny on
income tax, the same Joe Public would queue up to "save the planet".

I'm sorry, but personally I think the worlds public have been hoodwinked
on a massive scale. "Green energy" is a good example. It's doing **** all
for the planet (in fact it's a net carbon contributor) but it's doing
wonders for the firms that build the kit, and wonders for the upper-
middle classes who actually get paid up to 40p/unit for the electricity
that they put into the grid which is charged at 10p/unit.

Everyday I see many small things that could save a shed load of energy.
Very simple things. But guess what ? There's no money in it for anyone,
so it's ignored. Which leads me to my view of life. "If it *really*
mattered ..."

If reducing emissions *really* mattered, you'd have a planning and tax
system which encouraged work from home, and staggered working hours. That
would cost very little, but - guess what ? No money in it. In fact you'll
find behind the scenes the road and rail lobby would HATE any idea like
that. So it's left alone.

When the government *acts* like it matters, then I will.

What I find particularly depressing, is people who are a victim of bad
science in one area, appear to be willing to fall for it in another.

I manage to avoid long debates on climate change now, by just saying:
"Define climate. Define change".

FWIW I have a more Gaian view of things. We live in a symbiosis with
everything on earth, including the Earth. And just like a body with an
infection, if we start to make the Earth poorly, then it's immune system
will start to kick in to eradicate us. Or, alternatively, like a cell
about to divide, we somehow manage to become 2 cells. But that requires
interplanetary travel on a scale way beyond out capabilities. Especially
if our offspring are more content to watch Celebrity Big Brother rather
than design a better mousetrap.

Here endeth the rant for today


Very well put. And, which clearly explains, it's not the Earth that
needs saving!

To all:

As for governments anywhere; they too, are in the palms of the
money-movers. The 'meek' shall inherit the Earth but, not without the
pressure needed to re-shape governments.

The fact that governments borrow money from banks that, in truth,
don't own money and, that the people have to pay interest on as tax,
disgusting!
Go ogle for Mark Cocking. He make it clearer. And, for those of you
who haven't done already, watch the Zeitgeist movie on Youtube.

Below is one such 'people power' site. Sign up and start putting your
finger on the button of persuasion.

--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

On 26/03/13 13:25, polygonum wrote:

Considering how long we have had people recording the weather (Fitzroy
systematically - and many, many others with varying accuracy and
completeness over at least many centuries), I fail to understand why
they keep referring to "since records began" as referring to a period
within my own lifetime. Have they thrown all the old records out? Have
they decided that the standards to which they were made are not
compatible? If they have done that, then they need to be much more
forthcoming about what they actually mean.

It is always difficult to reconcile any 'long series' or records, in any
subject. What instruments were used, how were they calibrated,
conversion factors, where, in what circumstances, language, terminology,
reliability of witnesses, discontinuity of records etc..

I can remember the winter of '63€” at least I remember lots of snow at
the age of ten, but not cold, no central heating, frost on the window
panes in the mornings was just normal. Thinking back, it was probably
that winter that prompted my parents to install (coal-fired) heating.
My mother said it was not as cold as '47. Did my grandparents experience
colder? I don't know.



--
djc

On 26/03/2013 17:14, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 16:52 RayL12 wrote in uk.d-i-y:


Britain's recent cold snap may have more to do with the Jet Stream
moving further south during the last 7 years allowing the NE colder
climate to have an effect?

I heard it was the Jet stream being too far south. Did not realise it has
been going that way for 7 years.


Of course, for all we know, it was going the wrong way for a very long
time before that and is now reverting to where it should be.

Colin Bignell

On 26/03/13 13:26, polygonum wrote:
On 26/03/2013 13:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

we always have experienced extreme weather events in the UK and
worldwide. They just weren't very newsworthy.

Heck nobody even HEARD of Bangladesh before the Beatles. But they had
been starving to death for decades. The world is littered with dead
civilisations who appeared to have been able to support themselves on
land which has been desert for at least 2000 years in some cases.

climate change got them.

Wasn't it East Pakistan before?


yes, or East Bengal



--
djc

On 26/03/2013 18:22, djc wrote:
On 26/03/13 13:25, polygonum wrote:

Considering how long we have had people recording the weather (Fitzroy
systematically - and many, many others with varying accuracy and
completeness over at least many centuries), I fail to understand why
they keep referring to "since records began" as referring to a period
within my own lifetime. Have they thrown all the old records out? Have
they decided that the standards to which they were made are not
compatible? If they have done that, then they need to be much more
forthcoming about what they actually mean.

It is always difficult to reconcile any 'long series' or records, in any
subject. What instruments were used, how were they calibrated,
conversion factors, where, in what circumstances, language, terminology,
reliability of witnesses, discontinuity of records etc..

Which, IIRC was the argument NASA put forward for adjusting figures that
showed rather inconveniently high temperatures in the early 20th century.

Colin Bignell

Tim Watts wrote:


http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Doesn't work with normal browsers.

Bill

On 26/03/2013 18:34, Bill Wright wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:


http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Doesn't work with normal browsers.

Bill

Works with my normal browser.

--
Rod

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 18:34 Bill Wright wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Tim Watts wrote:


http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Doesn't work with normal browsers.

Bill

Which browser and which OS?

It works with chrome for me and firefox on linux.

It's not my project, but I'm a fan, so I'm happy to chase them

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 26/03/2013 4:55 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/03/13 16:52, RayL12 wrote:


Britain's recent cold snap may have more to do with the Jet Stream
moving further south during the last 7 years allowing the NE colder
climate to have an effect?


the question is: why has it moved?

Global warming?

A butterfly farted in Buenos Aires?

A chicken crossed a road in Texas?



Very good!


--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

On 26/03/2013 6:23 PM, Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 17:14, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 16:52 RayL12 wrote in uk.d-i-y:


Britain's recent cold snap may have more to do with the Jet Stream
moving further south during the last 7 years allowing the NE colder
climate to have an effect?

I heard it was the Jet stream being too far south. Did not realise it has
been going that way for 7 years.


Of course, for all we know, it was going the wrong way for a very long
time before that and is now reverting to where it should be.

Colin Bignell

They are both always in 'change'.

--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

On 26/03/2013 12:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/03/13 05:40, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

There's another couple of threads currently running about climate
change, but they've strayed somewhat off topic.

Spotted this in the Grauniad yesterday:

"Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring
weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe
and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice"


If you look at the graphs, you will see that there is no dramatic ice
loss. In fact its pretty average for the time of year.l

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...spring-arctic-
sea-ice-loss

Thoughts:

1) I know, it's the Grauniad


that is all you need to think.

2) these are scientists, not greenies dressed up as scientists


no: there is a cadre of tame scientists whose livelihood depends on
defending the AGW theory who are essentially able to carefully present
a distorted picture of events without actually lying.

They are the equivalent of 'experts for hire' that pop up in ever US
courtroom drama. Who are paid to say that 'in their professional
opinion' the prosecution have seventeen copper plates legs to stand on.


3) I have no particular leanings either way on the climate change
argument. Some people say the amount of sea ice has hardly changed,
some say it's massively reduced. I don't know who to believe.


look at the graphs yourself

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/

sea ice is above what it was this time last year extent wise.

OK the greentards will then weae3l that and tell you 'its how thick it
is that counts' well they would say that wouldn't they, but the arctic
is colder this year than last, and the summer melt will be interesting
to watch.

I think that you need to understand the metaphysics of the AGW camp
versus the skeptic camp. I will try and elucidate them both without
being too partisan.

The AGW camp accept that the 'science is settled' and there is
absolutely no doubt whatsoever that rising temperatures are a long term
multi-decadal feature of the global climate, and that any apparent
exceptions to this fact are understood to be exceptions that prove the
rule, and there are (and they will search high and low for them)
plausible reasons why at any particular point in time the actual data
are not refuting their core belief system. That CO2 causes massive
global warming. Overall. With pockets of global cooling due to special
reasons that are too difficult for you to understand.

However why does the Guardian feel the need to keep banging the same drum?

Because the skeptics say that theories that cant predict climate
accurately are, even if broadly accurate, no bloody use politically.

The fact that overall the consensus among people who actually measure
these things is that global warming stopped in 1998, and hasn't
happened since. It hasnt got colder (yet), but its not got much warnmer
either. That gets spun as '6 of the hottest summers were in the last ten
years' which sounds impressive but when examined carefully says 'global
warming happened, we are at the peak,' but not that 'global warming is
still happening'

And this is where the skeptics smell a rat. The data isn't enough. its
being SPUN by the likes of the guardian. Which leads to the inevitable
question

"Why do you need to spin, if te data supports the thesis so well?"

And of course the answer is that it doesn't support it at all well.

ten years ago the absolute lowest temperatures predicted by the IPCC
given **** loads of cO2 reduction are still above the current
temperature by a large margin..and CO2 rise has been completely unaffected.

Now the AGW-ists didn't question their primary metaphysical assumption
which is in simple terms 'temperatures rose, we eliminated all the
knowns and there was a huge unknown left, we plugged in CO2, and it
wasn't enough so we MULTIPLIED it by an arbitrary number, (with zero
justification) and the curves fitted, especially after the data had been
bent a little (climategate) so thtas that, the science is setled'

If they now don't fit, its down to 'some other unknown' or they adjust
the multiplier to make it fit and claim that whilst its not quite so
scary was it was, yes its still really happening.

Now I am going to be partisan here and make the point that disturbs me
the most about all of this, because it is deeply philosophically and
logically abhorrent, and amounts to double think.

Namely that he AGW model as it stands depends on two things that are in
a sense mutually opposed, a known unkown - the CO2 and an unknown
unknown - the multiplier needed to make CO2 rises with the 1970-1998
rises in global temperature. And I ask myself 'why did you pick a
multiplier of a known unknown, rather than an independent variable in
its own right?

I,e the current equation at the root of AGW is, after removing all the
known knowns like solar variability if radiation boils down to

dT=dC*lambda where dT is temp change dC is CO2 change, and lambda
represents positive feedback in the ecosystem.

BUT the equation could easily be

dT=dC + Uv

That is temperature change is change in CO2 plus change in something we
don't know about yet...and there is really no scientific reason to
prefer one over the other,. when you drill down to the exact nature of
what the so call science is.

so why pick that one?

In kind mood, I would perhaps say that the original scientist were in
love with their ideas, and couldn't let go of the idea that their CO2
model was not just responsible for a little warming, but ALL of it, and
the first form is based on that assumption.

In more cynical and partisan mode, I would point out that the latter
form has deep political and commercial implications. It makes CO2 almost
irrelevant in climate change, it means humans are not responsible for
it, lambda is - whatever it is - and there is no point in spending a
single tax dollar on ameliorating CO2 when the problem is, in act,
something else entirely.

If that second form became accepted 'settled science':

- tens of thousands of scientists who have pinned their careers to CO2
investigation, and green energy would essentially be shorn of grants.
.
- billions of pounds spent on renewable technology and other CO2
amelioration measures would be seen to have been utterly wasted.

- ...and you can envisage the rest.

Who after all is going to listen the the great and the good and the BBC
luvvies ever again, if they have to turn round and say 'well we got that
one totally wrong, didn't we? And bet the nations economy on something
that not only didn't work, but even if it had, wouldn't have made a
ha'poth of difference to the climate anyway'.

That is why there is so much spin and so much obfuscation going on.
Because the implications of the AGW theory being more or less refuted,
would change the political commercial and social landscape of the
western world completely, and that could be very very dangerous for
those who are deeply enmeshed in 'being green'

Under that pressure, you will never get a truthful answer out of the AGW
camp. They have benefited immensely from a climate of fear, and they
wont let go of that easily.

In the middle are us - more or less educated people who are more or less
intelligent or stupid who see a lot of vicious argument name calling and
smearing going on and don't know what to believe.

What we do know is that those warm winters we had in the 80s and 90s are
gone. That we are paying a lot of money for whirligigs that even when
the wind blows steadily, don't do much. We know already that the
political class is corrupt and tells porkies. We know that many who
'deeply believe' in AGW are also making obscene amounts of money out of it,

And if we vistit the better skeptic sites - like wattsupwitthat - there
are a lot of intelligent well written posts by people who appear to be
scientifically respectable saying that AGW is at best wildly overstated
and at worst total utter bunk.

whereas te sites where the 'on message' AGW texts are promoted consist
in little more than smears, straw men refutations and ad hominen attacks
on anyone who disagrees with them. 'denier' was invented by the
skeptics, but by the AGW camp. Why?

I know who I want to be right. And it isn't the al gore fanboys.


But then, I am a bit of a scientists. And I don't have any grants to
lose. Or invcstment in renewable energy companies.


+1

On 26/03/2013 17:21, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:59 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
No CO2 is involved at all. No polar bears were harmed in the making of
this post. etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl..._1880-2012.svg


From NASA. Well known for getting the science right and damn the funding.

On 26/03/2013 18:22, djc wrote:
On 26/03/13 13:25, polygonum wrote:

Considering how long we have had people recording the weather (Fitzroy
systematically - and many, many others with varying accuracy and
completeness over at least many centuries), I fail to understand why
they keep referring to "since records began" as referring to a period
within my own lifetime. Have they thrown all the old records out? Have
they decided that the standards to which they were made are not
compatible? If they have done that, then they need to be much more
forthcoming about what they actually mean.

It is always difficult to reconcile any 'long series' or records, in any
subject. What instruments were used, how were they calibrated,
conversion factors, where, in what circumstances, language, terminology,
reliability of witnesses, discontinuity of records etc..

I can remember the winter of '63€” at least I remember lots of snow at
the age of ten, but not cold, no central heating, frost on the window
panes in the mornings was just normal. Thinking back, it was probably
that winter that prompted my parents to install (coal-fired) heating.
My mother said it was not as cold as '47. Did my grandparents experience
colder? I don't know.



I remember that winter of 62/3 with bitterness (and not because of the
cold). I was in Newcastle, Sunderland and Ayr so got to see quite a lot
of it.

I would be much more accepting if, for example, they always made the
period clear. And, hopefully, always the same. "Since records began"
sounds an awful lot older than "in the last 50 years". :-)

If they acknowledged that, for example, extremes in older records were
indeed indisputably hotter, colder, wetter (or whatever other aspect is
being considered) even after allowing a suitable adjustment for possible
inaccuracy.

--
Rod

On 26/03/2013 16:56, harry wrote:

I'd have thought it was apparent to even you now.
Extreme weather events becoming more frequent is the answer.


Which extreme events are they?
how much more frequent?
from when?

Anyone would think the population has forgotten 1963 when there was some
winter weather. Or maybe one of the very frequent ones before then.

On 26/03/2013 19:08, newshound wrote:
On 26/03/2013 17:21, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:59 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
No CO2 is involved at all. No polar bears were harmed in the making of
this post. etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl..._1880-2012.svg



From NASA. Well known for getting the science right and damn the funding.

You mean apart from adjusting all the temperature records for the early
part of the 20th century when 1934 turned out to be the warmest year of
the century?

Colin Bignell

On 26/03/2013 18:22, djc wrote:
On 26/03/13 13:25, polygonum wrote:

Considering how long we have had people recording the weather (Fitzroy
systematically - and many, many others with varying accuracy and
completeness over at least many centuries), I fail to understand why
they keep referring to "since records began" as referring to a period
within my own lifetime. Have they thrown all the old records out? Have
they decided that the standards to which they were made are not
compatible? If they have done that, then they need to be much more
forthcoming about what they actually mean.

It is always difficult to reconcile any 'long series' or records, in any
subject. What instruments were used, how were they calibrated,
conversion factors, where, in what circumstances, language, terminology,
reliability of witnesses, discontinuity of records etc..

In the case of sea surface temperatures, the regular records go back to
the early 19th Century, with occasional readings before that. Early
measurements were normally taken using a canvas bucket thrown over the
side and left in the wind on deck while the temperature was measured, so
an unknown amount of evaporative cooling occurred. Later ones were
normally taken using a wooden or metal bucket, so there was less
evaporative cooling. Later still, they fitted a thermometer to the
engine cooling water intake, so not only did the water come from deeper
down, there was no evaporative cooling. These readings show a rising
trend with noticeable "steps", unsurprisingly. The current method using
satellites can only measure the temperature of the top few microns of
water. They don't seem to agree very well with any of the other methods.

There was an air temperature measuring station at Heathrow when it fist
opened as an air base with a grass field. Now, the meauring station,
while in the same place geographically, is surrounded by tarmac and
concrete surfaces. It reads both hotter and colder extremes than the
earlier version. Make of this what you will.

I can remember the winter of '63€” at least I remember lots of snow at
the age of ten, but not cold, no central heating, frost on the window
panes in the mornings was just normal. Thinking back, it was probably
that winter that prompted my parents to install (coal-fired) heating.
My mother said it was not as cold as '47. Did my grandparents experience
colder? I don't know.

'47 was allegedly colder than '63, which is the first really cold winter
I remember.

I don't remember feeling colder for as long at any time since then.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/03/13 16:56, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:25 am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1215549 20130326 065810 Tim Watts wrote:









On Tuesday 26 March 2013 05:40 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

There's another couple of threads currently running about climate
change, but they've strayed somewhat off topic.

Spotted this in the Grauniad yesterday:

"Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring
weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe
and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...spring-arctic-
sea-ice-loss

Thoughts:

1) I know, it's the Grauniad

2) these are scientists, not greenies dressed up as scientists

3) I have no particular leanings either way on the climate change
argument. Some people say the amount of sea ice has hardly changed,
some say it's massively reduced. I don't know who to believe.

I'm going with "weather is essentially random and has unpredictable
extremes" until enough real scientists say otherwise.

Here you go:

http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?a...winter-history

very similar to March 1962 which of course preceeded the famous winter of
1963.

Another notable one from the same link:

"1849: April, great snowstorm hit Southern England. Coaches buried in
drifts. Notably late snowfall."

So this winter is nothing that hasn't happened before - it's just the tip
end of an extreme. So I call "********" and "desparate to keep the [global
warming] dream alive".

Just what does a spell of British weather have to do with global climate?

You got that wrong. It's what has global climate got to do with
British weather?

I'd have thought it was apparent to even you now.
Extreme weather events becoming more frequent is the answer.


except they aren't becoming more frequent at all.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.