The weather

There is no inconsistency here.

While climatologists are predicting a trend towards warmer and wetter winters, hotter and drier summers etc, they are also predicting that global warming will lead to greater extremes of weather. Just because we've had extremes of rainfall over the last few weeks it doesn't prove the overall trend wrong!

Rich

I'm not disputing there may be a trend (whether the cause is as so pubicly and oft stated, I'm still not convinced though).

However, I merely note that whether it's hotter, colder, wetter, drier, more consistent or less consistent weather, the doomsayers manage to put up an argument to suggest this only supports their theories. Then leading to further nons surrounding the potential reasons why.

And the idea that it's only recently that we've had these varying extreme conditions is complete bollox! As the winters of 47 and 63 or the summers of 40 or 76 will confirm along with (if you want to go even further back) the very flatness of East Anglia where I live kinda confirms it's been even wetter around here before...

Even Woody Allen once stated "...he loved to visit England because you genuinely have 4 seasons here. OK, so you get them all in one day..."

Dear All,

well here in Sydney we have had the hottest May for many years and now we have just had the wettest and coldest June fir very many years.

500mm of rain and frost on my car 3 days in the last 10 days.

I thought coming south meant warmth and sunshine , it appears i am mistaken.

So back to my freezing little flat a crappy electric oil heater and a hot water bottle for my bed.

Also if i put on my EAR 500w valve amps they will heat my bedroom to warm as toast. Expensive to run as electricity here is not cheap.

regards David

Am I allowed to wash my car yet?

Nope. Your hosepipe ban continues doc!

I'm with you on this one Jamie.
We had a pretty hot March (or was it april), & the doomsayers had a field day, & the govy looked long & hard to see if there was another angle to raise taxes due to climate change. So now we have a poxy June, and what?
I find the arrogance of scientists who think they've got climate all sussed out to be pretty alarming & the evangelical fervour around the global warming theory to be worrying.
I think that there is an awful lot that mother nature does that we still yet don't comprehend, & to pretend that we do is wrong.
Why is Mars currently experiencing global warming?
Matt.

quote:

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
Am I allowed to wash my car yet?

Wash it? The eco-facists don't even want you to have one. On yer bike.

quote:

I find the arrogance of scientists who think they've got climate all sussed out to be pretty alarming & the evangelical fervour around the global warming theory to be worrying.
I think that there is an awful lot that mother nature does that we still yet don't comprehend, & to pretend that we do is wrong.
Why is Mars currently experiencing global warming?

Spot on Matt. If it didn't provide politicians with more excuses to raise taxes and control people - do you think we'd hear quite so much?

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by manicatel:

I find the arrogance of scientists who think they've got climate all sussed out to be pretty alarming & the evangelical fervour around the global warming theory to be worrying.

I don't see what this has got to with either arrogance or evangelism. Serious scientists (i.e. researchers who aren't being sponsored by the petrochemical industry) are pretty much
agreed that the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and continuing to grow.

quote:

Why is Mars currently experiencing global warming?

Who cares?

Rich

Who cares if mars is experiencing global warming?
Think about it.
Matt.

You know it's all because you've upset the rain God, or the sun God, or the climate change God. Get out there a sacrifice more chickens/goats/virgns/principles of independantly reviewed science (delete as appropriate).

Regards,

Willy.

PS Some interesting thoughts at
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches.html

quote:

Originally posted by manicatel:
Who cares if mars is experiencing global warming?
Think about it.
Matt.

Still can't see the relevance, sorry.

Are there any warming/cooling trends on any of the other planets you want to throw into the mixer?

Rich

Gaining evidence for Global Warming is a maybe but the evidence as to what is causing it is not.
I see the BBC have a new Nature programme called "Saving the Planet" or something similar. Why the planet ain't going anywhere for many 10s of billion years, unless it gets hit by an almost the same size lump of rock.Saving the Inhabitants is the cry that should be going up.Nature has this unfortunate habit of freezing and then superheating the planet.It don't need us to do it, we MAY have some influence.

No - the anthropogenic factors driving climate change have been pretty much proven beyond reasonable doubt too and have been separated from natural cyclic variations. Greenhouse gases have been identified (CO2, methane etc), their atmospheric concentrations are measurable and increasing and predictable. From this the net heat gain can be predicted and so can its effect on weather patterns sea levels etc.

Don't be tempted to dismiss the science just because you don't like the message!

Rich

Hooray, the common sense 'Grumpy Old Men' among us have a voice!

As I've commented before, we may well be in a warmer spell then the 1950's or 70's but it's a damn sight colder than it was 500 years ago.

I'm always astonished with some of the leaps to conclusions made by 'science' in the name of global warming and it's causes. And how short term data can be used (by politicians and the media among others) to try and convince us of our forthcoming doom. Sure pollution is a bad thing but address it directly rather than through some mock, cod fact, politiclaly agenderised bullshit.

I was educated in the 70's and 80's and then the curriculum addressed the possibility of a new ice age coming our way. What happend to that then? I now understand that new curricula (curriculae?) will treat global warming and the cause as man made CO2 emmissions as a given.
How can that possibly be right. It's a bit like creationism isn't it? No room for debate or considered alternatives?

As many have pointed out before, Greenland is so called for a reason, the horizon in Norfolk might as well be in outer space given it used to be the sea bed and early civilisation remains have recently been found in the middle of the great lakes in North America. Climate does indeed change; daily, weekly, annually and by millennia.

Live with it. Reduce polution and energy consumption by all means (a jolly good thing) but not in the name of man made global warming from Co2.

If Mars, & possibly other planets are warming up, I doubt it has much to do with human influence. Maybe, just maybe, the reason that Mars is warming up MAY also have something to do with why the earth warming up? Maybe?
I recycle a fair bit of waste, I religiously switch off tv's at night, use energy saving lightbulbs, good insulation, & am not employed by any company with a vested interest in climate/petrochemicals. I am wary, & also getting a little sick of the evangelism around theories of which I am far from convinced.
We have apparently just experienced the second warmest winter since records began. When was the most mild winter recorded? In the early part of last century, way before our current levels of CO2 had been established. Just a thought.
Matt.

quote:

Originally posted by Sir Crispin Cupcake:
No - the anthropogenic factors driving climate change have been pretty much proven beyond reasonable doubt
Rich

This "pretty much proven beyond reasonable doubt", I'm not familiar with this scientific term. Is that less than 10 to the minus 9 (probability that two sets of landing gear won't come down on your airplane) or the plus or minus 400% of the estimates for the predicted rise in temperature?

As an engineer/scientist I find the lack of rigour in the approach taken by the "climate scientists" disturbing. Throughout the history of climate change science there is a track record of error, deceipt and obfuscation, with very little of the material being subject to proper independant review. When it has been, such as in the case of the famous Mann et al hockey stick graph it is all too often found to be riddled with errors and bad methodology. At that point they usually resort to the concensus argument. Concensus has no place in science, never did and God forbid that it ever does!


Regards,

Willy.

quote:

Originally posted by Sir Crispin Cupcake:
From this the net heat gain can be predicted and so can its effect on weather patterns sea levels etc.

Rich

"the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

source - The third Assessment Report of the IPCC 2001.

Their words not mine. However from what I've read on the topic I'm inclined to agree with them on this point.


Regards,

Willy.

quote:

Greenhouse gases have been identified (CO2, methane etc), their atmospheric concentrations are measurable and increasing and predictable.

No wrong there is no matching increase in temperature with the increased CO2. The greatest increase in temperature was late 19th early 20th pre mass transport (petroluem) based. Temperature fluctuations do match the sunspot activity though.
Largest greenhouse gas? Water vapour. Best ban water eh!

I seem to remember from somewhere that temp increase leadCO2 increases, not follow them. I may be wrong on this, but if it is correct, it kinda blows the whole 'CO2 increase means temp will rise' theory out of the water.
Matt.

quote:

Originally posted by manicatel:
I seem to remember from somewhere that temp increase leadCO2 increases, not follow them. I may be wrong on this, but if it is correct, it kinda blows the whole 'CO2 increase means temp will rise' theory out of the water.
Matt.

That's correct, however when the "climate scientists" realised that they re-fudged their "science" and came up with a new justification for their huge research budgets. Latest "theory" is that temperature rise does lead CO2, but that CO2 (augmented by teh piffling % we contribute) then causes more temperature rise. Sort of a domino effect. Seems to be little evidence of this ever having happened in the past when CO2 levels were much higher than they currently are. What we should probably worry more about is that there was a sudden increase in atmospheric CO2 just before the last ice age and no, we weren't around to cause it.


Regards,

Willy.

Yes and rising temperatures will lead to higher concentrations of water vapour in the atmosphere leading to further temperature rises... We have a positive feedback mechanism.

Oh and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by robert-:
Any naims damaged in the floods?

I was privileged to get an early preview of this weather and, just, rescued my system from the rising waters.

I lived with my quite ritzy boxes piled on tables and my bed - re-assembling the system just 5 days ago.

I'd been quite pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed a lashed-up DVD5, AV2, NAP175 and n-SAT combination - until I re-instated the "proper" bits.

A day later - a low, threatening hum screwed up my satisfaction.

A few desperate e-mails to the designer, re-doing all the connections, diving inside and really doing nothing that could be construed as useful and, somehow, it all came right again.

NOT something I want to repeat.

They say it was the worst rain for 30 years. This should mean it is unlikely to happen again too soon. However, it did hang around and seems to have nipped over to you guys to continue breaking records.

Perhaps a set of Naim NABRIKS to raise the bar a little higher.

Yep, apparently it was worse 30 years ago and that little village outside Sheffield on the news so much was also under water then. Guess what, it's built on a flood plain...

I blame the Russians....all them rockets going into the sky

I had Lord Lucan and Shergar in the back of me cab last week..