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.

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

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".

Ask again if we get several Marches like this in short succession :-o
--
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

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/

--
Mike Lane
UK North Yorkshire
mike_lane at mac dot com

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?

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

On 26/03/2013 05:40, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
.....
2) these are scientists, not greenies dressed up as scientists

They are climate scientists, which is where you usually find 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.

It seems to depend upon how you measure it, when you measure it and what
you choose to compare it with. In the article it says the current levels
are near the minimum recorded for this time of year, which means it has
been lower. They don't say what the weather was like when it was at its
lowest recorded.

Colin Bignell

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 08:25 Bob Martin wrote in uk.d-i-y:


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

My point exactly!

--
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

Mike Lane wrote:
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?

Even more interesting, the north-*east* passage is opening up to
navigation.
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/...rnPassages.asp

(Tho', every Google search for "northeast passage" says: "I think you
mean northwest passage")

JGH

Nightjar wrote on Mar 26, 2013:

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...


Yes but it took him nearly three years to do it (1903 - 1906) - hardly a
pleasure cruise!

--
Mike Lane
UK North Yorkshire
mike_lane at mac dot com

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.

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

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:01 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

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.


There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather sometimes
hitting extremes".

I contend we are dealing with the latter until a majority or respectable
meteorologists agree otherwise.


--
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 Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:12:01 AM UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:01 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:



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.





There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather sometimes

hitting extremes".



I contend we are dealing with the latter until a majority or respectable

meteorologists agree otherwise.

The documanetry I saw a while ago put most of it down to an extra 4% in humidity is what's causing the extremes. But the underlying trend, weather ;-) it be global warming or climate change does it realy matter if we can't do anything about it other than tax whatever they choose to blame.

On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:12:01 AM UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:01 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:



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.





There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather sometimes

hitting extremes".



I contend we are dealing with the latter until a majority or respectable

meteorologists agree otherwise.





--

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

Whoops.
When I saw frozen spring I thought frozen well spring and thought that sounds interesting.

On 26/03/2013 11:12, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:01 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

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?

It may mean that we actually get weather more appropriate to our high
latitude in a world that is on average globally warmer but not for us.

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

That can still be a sampling effect we get much better reporting of
weather extremes now than we have had in previous decades.

There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather sometimes
hitting extremes".

It is impossible to tell from any single incident, but if it keeps on
happening then I think you have to accept that the climate is changing.
When "hundred year floods" occur every couple of years I think you have
to pay attention to the risks of building new homes on flood plains.

Plenty of homes have been built on fields that locals knew were very
dodgy but that doesn't help the incomers until they get wet feet.

BTW What happened to the uninsurable flood insurance showdown?

I contend we are dealing with the latter until a majority or respectable
meteorologists agree otherwise.

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. It is hard to decide whether or
not the warmer world will be stormier with more extremes or not. You can
argue it either way from a physics point of view and either could be
correct depending on the circumstances - thermal gradient from pole to
equator will decrease as the poles warm faster but a warmer atmosphere
will carry more water vapour and with it latent heat. Vertically there
may be a steeper thermal gradient at some latitudes.

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.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

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.

I hear equally convincing 3rd parties claiming both arguments...

--
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, 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

On Mar 26, 11:31*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 11:12, Tim Watts wrote:

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:01 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

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?

It may mean that we actually get weather more appropriate to our high
latitude in a world that is on average globally warmer but not for us.



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

That can still be a sampling effect we get much better reporting of
weather extremes now than we have had in previous decades.



There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather sometimes
hitting extremes".

It is impossible to tell from any single incident, but if it keeps on
happening then I think you have to accept that the climate is changing.
When "hundred year floods" occur every couple of years I think you have
to pay attention to the risks of building new homes on flood plains.

Plenty of homes have been built on fields that locals knew were very
dodgy but that doesn't help the incomers until they get wet feet.

BTW What happened to the uninsurable flood insurance showdown?



I contend we are dealing with the latter until a majority or respectable
meteorologists *agree otherwise.

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. It is hard to decide whether or
not the warmer world will be stormier with more extremes or not. You can
argue it either way from a physics point of view and either could be
correct depending on the circumstances - thermal gradient from pole to
equator will decrease as the poles warm faster but a warmer atmosphere
will carry more water vapour and with it latent heat. Vertically there
may be a steeper thermal gradient at some latitudes.

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.

The staff at the CRU clearly learned from them too. It cuts both ways,
just like the climate "models".

MBQ

On 26/03/2013 11:50, 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 ?

Some diseases are caused by invisible to them agents that can generate
bad smells, so they were at least partly right in that some bad smells
are connected with some diseases.

Malaria, for instance is caused by microbes carried by mosquitoes that
breed in smelly, stangnant water. Get rid of the smelly water, and the
incidence of malaria is reduced locally.

Cholera is caused by organisms that grow in water contaminated by
sewage, which causes a bad smell. Get rid of the smelly water and the
cholera stops.

They were doing the best they could with the knowledge and equipment
they had. Much as we are doing with global warming now. If we reduce
what we think is a major contributory cause, and that doesn't stop it,
then we need another theory. Making less CO2 is a good aim for other
reasons, anyway.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 12:16 John Williamson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

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

It's a good aim - unless it becomes an all embracing requirement at
unlimited expense which seems to be what's happening...

--
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 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.






--
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 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.




--
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 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.


What extremes?
Just because something is the best/worst on record doesn't make it an
extreme.
Most weather records haven't been kept for long enough to know what the
extremes are.
Even in the UK many records are only for the last 20-40 years.

The current British weather is not even extreme we have had far worse in
the last 50 years.

On 26/03/13 08:25, 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?

more than you think.

Unless Britain is now located on the planet Zarg.


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

On 26/03/2013 11:12, Tim Watts wrote:

There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather
sometimes hitting extremes".

It is impossible to tell from any single incident, but if it keeps on
happening then I think you have to accept that the climate is changing.
When "hundred year floods" occur every couple of years I think you have
to pay attention to the risks of building new homes on flood plains.

But the 'hundred year floods' were predicted on the informayion available at the time. If recent floods are now
included in the data set, perhaps the 'hundred year floods' have become 'ten year floods' (or some other less
dramatic figure.

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.

In 2005, the Met Office published one of their brochures on what was then called Global Warming. In it was a
chart, showing 12 or 15 possible causes of temperature forcing mechanisms. Three were know to a 'high' level
of confidence, and a mere eight were classified as 'very little scientific knowledge'. Yet all the models predicted
the same terrible rise in global temperatures, which have since failed to come about. The models couldn't even
predict the past, without constant tweaking. The planet has stopped warming, and CO2 continues to rise. There
is therefore something else happening, that has nothing to do with that relationship.

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.

Oh, the Met Office shot themselves in the foot eight years ago, and I doubt they are in the pay of the deniers, as
you call them.

--
Terry Fields

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.


--
Terry Fields

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.

--
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 11:12, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:01 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

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.


There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather sometimes
hitting extremes".


ad climate change is f course the longer term change in the average of
the weather.

I contend we are dealing with the latter until a majority or respectable
meteorologists agree otherwise.


I contend its a false and arbitrary distinction invented in a hurry by
warmists to explain why it isn't getting warmer.



--
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 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:50:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

big snip

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.

Applause

--
Terry Fields

On 26/03/13 11:31, Martin Brown wrote:

It is impossible to tell from any single incident, but if it keeps on
happening then I think you have to accept that the climate is changing.
When "hundred year floods" occur every couple of years I think you have
to pay attention to the risks of building new homes on flood plains.


er no. 100 year floods happen on average once a year in a sample of 100
countries.



--
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 12:34, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 12:16 John Williamson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

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

It's a good aim - unless it becomes an all embracing requirement at
unlimited expense which seems to be what's happening...

in a global food shortage, more CO2 may actually improve crop growth.

a 1C rise in temperatures would certainly do so, opening up vast swathes
of semi-tundra for agriculture on (often, but not always) extremely
fertile soils.

--
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.

In article , Tim
Streater writes

Hmmm, I know, lets simplify life and pass a Bill defining pi to be
exactly 3.

That has actually happened IIRC.

googles

Ah. Urban myth.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp

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

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.

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

On 26/03/13 12:05, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 26, 11:31 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 11:12, Tim Watts wrote:

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:01 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

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?

It may mean that we actually get weather more appropriate to our high
latitude in a world that is on average globally warmer but not for us.



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

That can still be a sampling effect we get much better reporting of
weather extremes now than we have had in previous decades.



There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather sometimes
hitting extremes".

It is impossible to tell from any single incident, but if it keeps on
happening then I think you have to accept that the climate is changing.
When "hundred year floods" occur every couple of years I think you have
to pay attention to the risks of building new homes on flood plains.

Plenty of homes have been built on fields that locals knew were very
dodgy but that doesn't help the incomers until they get wet feet.

BTW What happened to the uninsurable flood insurance showdown?



I contend we are dealing with the latter until a majority or respectable
meteorologists agree otherwise.

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. It is hard to decide whether or
not the warmer world will be stormier with more extremes or not. You can
argue it either way from a physics point of view and either could be
correct depending on the circumstances - thermal gradient from pole to
equator will decrease as the poles warm faster but a warmer atmosphere
will carry more water vapour and with it latent heat. Vertically there
may be a steeper thermal gradient at some latitudes.

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.

The staff at the CRU clearly learned from them too. It cuts both ways,
just like the climate "models".

indeed. To any who care, I urge you to look up 'AgitProp' and
'propaganda' in wikipedia, see how these games are played, and start
ticking off the matches you find, not only in the skeptics camp, but in
the warmist camps.


a rough check will reveal a far far better match in the warmist camp
than the skeptics camp. Yes, there is a lot of propaganda going down,
but its not coming from the skeptics.

Who are not funded by big oil at all. That's just propaganda. The real
funding goes to the warmists. Climate change is a trillion dollar global
business.


Just like tobacco. And pharmaceuticals.


Now to understand why its the WARMISTS who cry 'propaganda' wiki the
'Big Lie'

And the picture is complete.

Who would think that a series of organizations funded totally by big
business and with massive political clout would dare accuse a paltry
collection of scientists and free thinkers with no weapons at all but
their ability to dissect material, and appeal to common sense and reason
of being in the pockets of big business?

very clued up and smart black propagandists would. Go figure.



MBQ



--
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 10:36, Mike Lane wrote:
Nightjar wrote on Mar 26, 2013:

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...


Yes but it took him nearly three years to do it (1903 - 1906) - hardly a
pleasure cruise!

Scientific expeditions rarely are and it demonstrates that the passage
has been navigable before. As I pointed out in the rest of my post,
Hapag Lloyd don't guarantee that they will do it at all.

Colin Bignell

On 26/03/13 13:00, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/03/2013 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.


What extremes?
Just because something is the best/worst on record doesn't make it an
extreme.
Most weather records haven't been kept for long enough to know what the
extremes are.
Even in the UK many records are only for the last 20-40 years.

The current British weather is not even extreme we have had far worse in
the last 50 years.
well 1962 /63 was below zero from Dec 26th to practically the end of
march, and IIRC snow fell on many occasions during that period.

They told us it was the start of a new ice age.


--
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 11:31, 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.



You really mean all respectable meteorologists, as far as you are
concerned if they disagree they aren't respectable.

On 26/03/2013 13:00, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/03/2013 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.


What extremes?
Just because something is the best/worst on record doesn't make it an
extreme.
Most weather records haven't been kept for long enough to know what the
extremes are.
Even in the UK many records are only for the last 20-40 years.

The current British weather is not even extreme we have had far worse in
the last 50 years.

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.

--
Rod

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?

--
Rod

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

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.

Colin Bignell