On Thursday, 10 December 2015 20:26:48 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 16:57:25 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making apocalyptic
pronouncements.

Because you're the one who's prepared to accept that global warming
may exist in the "apocolyptic" sense." Not me. I never mentioned
apocalypses. That was you.

And so its incumbent on you to explain exactly what you mean by apocalyptic
in this context.

How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?

What's apocalyptic about a bit of flooding ?

Where's that stiff upper lip ?

If there'd been a volcanic eruption with lava flowing everywhere,
along with an earthquake, which cause a total meltdown of
Sellafield, along with a tsunami then that admittedly might
be reasonably described as bordering on apocalyptic.

Ah, glad to see you've taken my advice and asked the warmists what they
mean by "apocalyptic". Well done.

So that unlike me, it seems you do in fact agree with Harry then ?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
news:081220152250132617

quote

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about.

/quote

And that these latest local difficulties are in fact evidence of global warming.



The fact that they are building on flood plains proves global warming exists $-D

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, tony sayer wrote:
That big Thames freeze over back whenever it was?, do so with sunspots
and the Maunder minimum was it?....

Well so they say, so they say. These days I am sceptical of every
'explanation'

I'm surprised, given the modern trend to blame all climate change on human
activity, that people haven't tried to claim that the big freeze on the
Thames in the 1800s was caused people people all deciding not to light their
fires or run steam trains for the preceding few years :-)

Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was in the
1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over. But I disagree that this
is part of a relentless irreversible trend or that it is entirely/mainly
caused by human activity, rather than as a result of natural cycles.
*Correlation* between increased burning of fossil fuels and increased air
temperatures/ reduced area of North Pole doesn't necessarily imply *cause*.
Indeed there could even be reverse cause: increased air temperatures (caused
by natural events outside of our control) may lead to people travelling more
and to them burning more fuel to generate power for their air conditioning.
And of course if it's exceptionally cold, then there will be negative
correlation: more people burn fuel to heat their houses.

Sadly a lot of people seem to work on the "stand to reason, doesn't it"
level of "proof", where they find some evidence of correlation that supports
their pet theory that they want to be true.

In article , NY
wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, tony sayer wrote:
That big Thames freeze over back whenever it was?, do so with sunspots
and the Maunder minimum was it?....

Well so they say, so they say. These days I am sceptical of every
'explanation'

I'm surprised, given the modern trend to blame all climate change on
human activity, that people haven't tried to claim that the big freeze
on the Thames in the 1800s was caused people people all deciding not to
light their fires or run steam trains for the preceding few years :-)

Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was in
the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over. But I disagree
that this is part of a relentless irreversible trend or that it is
entirely/mainly caused by human activity, rather than as a result of
natural cycles. *Correlation* between increased burning of fossil fuels
and increased air temperatures/ reduced area of North Pole doesn't
necessarily imply *cause*. Indeed there could even be reverse cause:
increased air temperatures (caused by natural events outside of our
control) may lead to people travelling more and to them burning more
fuel to generate power for their air conditioning. And of course if it's
exceptionally cold, then there will be negative correlation: more people
burn fuel to heat their houses.

Sadly a lot of people seem to work on the "stand to reason, doesn't it"
level of "proof", where they find some evidence of correlation that
supports their pet theory that they want to be true.

You can, I understand, draw a straight line graph with the rise in crime
since WW2 and the number of refrigerators in domestic ownership up to about
1960. Was the crime casued by fridges?

--
Please note new email address:

On 11/12/15 11:42, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, tony sayer wrote:
That big Thames freeze over back whenever it was?, do so with sunspots
and the Maunder minimum was it?....

Well so they say, so they say. These days I am sceptical of every
'explanation'

I'm surprised, given the modern trend to blame all climate change on
human activity, that people haven't tried to claim that the big freeze
on the Thames in the 1800s was caused people people all deciding not to
light their fires or run steam trains for the preceding few years :-)

Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was in
the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over. But I disagree
that this is part of a relentless irreversible trend or that it is
entirely/mainly caused by human activity, rather than as a result of
natural cycles. *Correlation* between increased burning of fossil fuels
and increased air temperatures/ reduced area of North Pole doesn't
necessarily imply *cause*.

Worse, the correlation is weak and breaking down as each year passes anyway.


Indeed there could even be reverse cause:
increased air temperatures (caused by natural events outside of our
control) may lead to people travelling more and to them burning more
fuel to generate power for their air conditioning. And of course if it's
exceptionally cold, then there will be negative correlation: more people
burn fuel to heat their houses.

There is pretty firm evidence that rising temperatures raise CO2 levels
by outgassing from the sea.

If CO2 then also raised temperatures faster than some other negative
feedback could cope, we would have gone into runaway global warming
millennia ago.

Ergo, there must exist some overall negative feedback term far far
greater than the effect of CO2 ...




Sadly a lot of people seem to work on the "stand to reason, doesn't it"
level of "proof", where they find some evidence of correlation that
supports their pet theory that they want to be true.

Confirmation bias.

Just as 'Piltdown Man' was *constructed* to *exactly* fit the prejudices
of the time, so too has AGW been *constructed* as a political and
commercial tool to exactly fit the fashionable bigotry of the New Green
Left.

The Piltdown Man fraud lasted - despite completely valid questions being
raised from the outset - for 40 years.

We have had about 30 years of AGW to date.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article ,
NY wrote:
Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was in
the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.

Think that's a poor example. The Thames may have frozen over for reasons
other than just ambient temperature. The speed it flows at, and water
pollution. And of course the ambient temperature in cities is higher than
surrounding areas - I'd guess more so than in those days.

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
NY wrote

Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than
it was in the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.

Think that's a poor example.

I don’t.

The Thames may have frozen over for reasons other
than just ambient temperature. The speed it flows at,

That would be easy to see by considering just how common
it was for other rivers to freeze over at the same time and
whether it happened at a time of very low rainfall etc.

and water pollution.

That normally has the reverse effect, polluted water
is less likely to freeze solid enough so you can skate
on it and walk on it like they did at that time.

And of course the ambient temperature in cities is higher than
surrounding areas - I'd guess more so than in those days.

Sure, but presumably the parts of it well
outside London proper froze over too.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
NY wrote

Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than
it was in the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.

Think that's a poor example.

I don’t.

The Thames may have frozen over for reasons other
than just ambient temperature. The speed it flows at,

That would be easy to see by considering just how common
it was for other rivers to freeze over at the same time and
whether it happened at a time of very low rainfall etc.

and water pollution.

That normally has the reverse effect, polluted water
is less likely to freeze solid enough so you can skate
on it and walk on it like they did at that time.

And of course the ambient temperature in cities is higher than
surrounding areas - I'd guess more so than in those days.

Sure, but presumably the parts of it well
outside London proper froze over too.


Global warming definitely happens, as the UK was once covered in sheet ice
to a considerable depth, but now isn't. Global cooling also happens, as
there was a time before the ice when it wasn't there. Natural phenomena that
now may very marginally be affected by man's activity. After all the
Romans farmed what is now the Sahara once !

Andrew

"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
NY wrote

Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than
it was in the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.

Think that's a poor example.

I don’t.

The Thames may have frozen over for reasons other
than just ambient temperature. The speed it flows at,

That would be easy to see by considering just how common
it was for other rivers to freeze over at the same time and
whether it happened at a time of very low rainfall etc.

and water pollution.

That normally has the reverse effect, polluted water
is less likely to freeze solid enough so you can skate
on it and walk on it like they did at that time.

And of course the ambient temperature in cities is higher than
surrounding areas - I'd guess more so than in those days.

Sure, but presumably the parts of it well
outside London proper froze over too.


Global warming definitely happens, as the UK was once covered in sheet ice
to a considerable depth, but now isn't. Global cooling also happens, as
there was a time before the ice when it wasn't there. Natural phenomena
that now may very marginally be affected by man's activity. After all
the Romans farmed what is now the Sahara once !

Its not in dispute that climate varys. What we are discussing
is whether man has much effect on the variation in climate
that has certainly happened.

In article , NY
writes
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, tony sayer wrote:
That big Thames freeze over back whenever it was?, do so with sunspots
and the Maunder minimum was it?....

Well so they say, so they say. These days I am sceptical of every
'explanation'

I'm surprised, given the modern trend to blame all climate change on
human activity, that people haven't tried to claim that the big freeze
on the Thames in the 1800s was caused people people all deciding not to
light their fires or run steam trains for the preceding few years :-)

Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was
in the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over. But I disagree
that this is part of a relentless irreversible trend or that it is
entirely/mainly caused by human activity, rather than as a result of
natural cycles. *Correlation* between increased burning of fossil fuels
and increased air temperatures/ reduced area of North Pole doesn't
necessarily imply *cause*. Indeed there could even be reverse cause:
increased air temperatures (caused by natural events outside of our
control) may lead to people travelling more and to them burning more
fuel to generate power for their air conditioning. And of course if
it's exceptionally cold, then there will be negative correlation: more
people burn fuel to heat their houses.

Sadly a lot of people seem to work on the "stand to reason, doesn't it"
level of "proof", where they find some evidence of correlation that
supports their pet theory that they want to be true.
Apparently it's all down to farting cows - or more accurately a load of
bullocks.
--
bert

On 11/12/15 11:42, NY wrote:
Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was in
the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.


The Thames was a lot wider and slower flowing before embankment, it was
also a lot cleaner. So not necessarily evidence of warming.


--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

On Thursday, 10 December 2015 15:32:58 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2015 06:51, harry wrote:


How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?


And how often have these one hundred year events happened in the past?

Once in a hundred years of course ****-fer-brains.

In article ,
DJC wrote:
On 11/12/15 11:42, NY wrote:
Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was
in the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.


The Thames was a lot wider and slower flowing before embankment, it was
also a lot cleaner. So not necessarily evidence of warming.

Cleaner? Thought it was once just an open sewer. ;-)

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DJC wrote:
On 11/12/15 11:42, NY wrote:
Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was
in the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.


The Thames was a lot wider and slower flowing before embankment, it was
also a lot cleaner. So not necessarily evidence of warming.

Cleaner? Thought it was once just an open sewer. ;-)

The building of the embankment and the building of Bazalgette's sewer to
clean the Thames happened at the same time (the embankment was built to take
the sewer).

On 12/12/15 12:45, NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DJC wrote:
On 11/12/15 11:42, NY wrote:
Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was
in the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.


The Thames was a lot wider and slower flowing before embankment, it was
also a lot cleaner. So not necessarily evidence of warming.

Cleaner? Thought it was once just an open sewer. ;-)

The building of the embankment and the building of Bazalgette's sewer to
clean the Thames happened at the same time (the embankment was built to
take the sewer).

It is not established that sewage freezes above freezing point any more
than ordinary river water does.

AS we see a complete straw man raised to obfuscate and divert attention
away from the salient fact. It was a lot colder 300 years ago than it is
now, or was 600 years ago.

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/15 12:45, NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DJC wrote:
On 11/12/15 11:42, NY wrote:
Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it
was in the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.


The Thames was a lot wider and slower flowing before embankment, it
was also a lot cleaner. So not necessarily evidence of warming.

Cleaner? Thought it was once just an open sewer. ;-)

The building of the embankment and the building of Bazalgette's sewer
to clean the Thames happened at the same time (the embankment was
built to take the sewer).

It is not established that sewage freezes above freezing point any more
than ordinary river water does.

Not just sewage in the Thames. All sorts of chemicals from the industries
of the day. Not saying that influenced the freezing point though.

But a slower flowing shallower river will freeze more easily. And I think
most would agree that the ambient temperature in large cities is
influenced by man's behaviour. And that difference is going to be much
greater now than then.

AS we see a complete straw man raised to obfuscate and divert attention
away from the salient fact. It was a lot colder 300 years ago than it is
now, or was 600 years ago.

You've got accurate figures world wide from 600 years ago?

--
*Velcro - what a rip off!*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/12/2015 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It is not established that sewage freezes above freezing point any more
than ordinary river water does.

Not just sewage in the Thames. All sorts of chemicals from the industries
of the day. Not saying that influenced the freezing point though.


Nearly everything that makes a solution in water freezes below 0C.

I don't recall anything that makes it freeze at a higher temperature.

On 12/12/2015 09:29, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 10 December 2015 15:32:58 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2015 06:51, harry wrote:


How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?


And how often have these one hundred year events happened in the past?

Once in a hundred years of course ****-fer-brains.


********.
We don't have records that go back far enough to be able to say they
happen only once in a hundred years. Its just more propaganda from the
alarmists like you.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/15 12:45, NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DJC wrote:
On 11/12/15 11:42, NY wrote:
Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it
was in the 1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over.


The Thames was a lot wider and slower flowing before embankment, it
was also a lot cleaner. So not necessarily evidence of warming.

Cleaner? Thought it was once just an open sewer. ;-)

The building of the embankment and the building of Bazalgette's sewer
to clean the Thames happened at the same time (the embankment was
built to take the sewer).

It is not established that sewage freezes above freezing point any more
than ordinary river water does.

Not just sewage in the Thames. All sorts of chemicals from the industries
of the day. Not saying that influenced the freezing point though.

But a slower flowing shallower river will freeze more easily. And I think
most would agree that the ambient temperature in large cities is
influenced by man's behaviour.

Yes.

And that difference is going to be much greater now than then.

That is arguable with much better insulated houses and buildings
rather than the flagrant use of very cheap sources of heat that is
just allowed to escape very easily due to the much worse insulation.

AS we see a complete straw man raised to obfuscate and divert attention
away from the salient fact. It was a lot colder 300 years ago than it is
now, or was 600 years ago.

You've got accurate figures world wide from 600 years ago?

Don’t need accurate figures when the difference is large
enough to produce stuff like the freezing of the thames etc.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 12/12/2015 09:29, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 10 December 2015 15:32:58 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2015 06:51, harry wrote:

How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?

And how often have these one hundred year events happened in the past?

Once in a hundred years of course ****-fer-brains.

********.
We don't have records that go back far enough to be able to say they
happen only once in a hundred years. Its just more propaganda from the
alarmists like you.

harry is such a twerp, ain't he? I'm still waiting to hear what sort of
event a "hundred year event" is.

Tiring and tedious, I'd say.