Unusual weather in UK (1 Viewer)

[Minto]

Lol, yes, and did you hear it on BBC radio4, where they mentioned that Cameron's views were the opposite to his energy secretary, Patterson, who is a well publicised climate change sceptic. Laugh? I nearly paid my electricity bill!

Don't forget the rules Peter, its weather not climate , and I'll wager Patterson knows a damn sight more about it than cast Iron Dave, short term memory loss with this is it Peter, don't you remember all his broken promises .
yet because he supports the scam then he must be alright.
As for your electric bill comment, is that a dig? or are your fiddling your meter and defrauding your supplier , or do you have a little turbine on your chimney pot

 

[pppppvvvv]

You can try to move me onto other topics. Ones you can "win", but I don't think many people will fall for it. It's a very old trick best wishes

 

[locustella]

Winter in recent year seems to begin later than previously, but maybe this is only such impression.

 

[JTweedie]

For global temperatures, thermometers have to be placed regularly at a certain height off the ground - minimising uncertainty in the measurements.

It also helps getting accurate global temperatures if the monitoring stations were placed away from built up areas and they had a few more in key areas

Ah, the old urban heat island effect tactic. http://www.desmogblog.com/urban-hea...-myth-debunked-again-time-koch-funded-science

 

[Minto]

You can try to move me onto other topics. Ones you can "win", but I don't think many people will fall for it. It's a very old trick best wishes

What on earth are you on about. You thought you were being funny and I responded , so read again you were the one moving the goalposts, I replied .
I don't need to win, only you warmists think its a war, most others have moved on from the topic years ago, you really are deluded if you think you have somehow "beaten me".
Look how quickly the recent IPPC report faded away, the general populace ain't falling for the scam any more.
Reality isn't following the doomesday scenarios predicted by computer models

 

[John Cantelo]

Apologies for not keeping up with this thread. I'm currently limited to typing mono-manually - with my 'wrong' hand at that - which is slow and very tiresome.

It's a pity, Minto, that you are unwilling to read the book I recommend since it is an excellent primer to understand how a well funded lobby with a clear political agenda is deliberately misinforming the public about this matter. They use the same tactics, share the same political agenda and even some of the same personnel as the tobacco industry when it sought to discredit the link between smoking and cancer. Unlike the scientists you disparage their articles and comments aren’t peer reviewed. Worse, no matter how often they are shown to be incorrect, they keep getting quoted (see examples referenced in this debate).

When I hear a climatologist on the radio (as I did this morning), they are very cautious about linking specific weather to climate change. Yes, warming seas will cause greater rainfall and stronger winds they will say (apparently a matter of simple physics), but are cautious to link any specific event to warming.

In my experience it is the anti-climate change lobby, and by their example many other commentators, that confuses weather with climate. A cold snap and the likes of ‘twitter’ is alive with people doubting climate change.

The bottom line is that the overwhelming number of climatologists regard the case as closed. Supporting evidence also comes from other sciences. To claim, effectively, that they’re all part of a plot is absurd. As I pointed out previously, a good deal of useful evidence for global warming was obtained by research into other topics not directly linked to climate research and thus where there could have been no pressure to join the ‘conspiracy’. To claim we should give ‘equal time’ to the ‘other side’ is exactly the strategy the tobacco giants used to muddy the waters regarding cancer. Arguing that the consequences of ‘global warming’ are so unpalatable that it’s better to ignore the evidence might be understandable, but it’s hardly scientific or likely to arrive at the truth.

 

[Farnboro John]

Arguing that the consequences of ‘global warming’ are so unpalatable that it’s better to ignore the evidence might be understandable, but it’s hardly scientific or likely to arrive at the truth.

Its not likely to come up with either solutions or even adaptive measures, either.

These guys would get on well with the SongBird Survival conmen, too.

John

 

[Minto]

Apologies for not keeping up with this thread. I'm currently limited to typing mono-manually - with my 'wrong' hand at that - which is slow and very tiresome.

It's a pity, Minto, that you are unwilling to read the book I recommend since it is an excellent primer to understand how a well funded lobby with a clear political agenda is deliberately misinforming the public about this matter. They use the same tactics, share the same political agenda and even some of the same personnel as the tobacco industry when it sought to discredit the link between smoking and cancer. Unlike the scientists you disparage their articles and comments aren’t peer reviewed. Worse, no matter how often they are shown to be incorrect, they keep getting quoted (see examples referenced in this debate).

When I hear a climatologist on the radio (as I did this morning), they are very cautious about linking specific weather to climate change. Yes, warming seas will cause greater rainfall and stronger winds they will say (apparently a matter of simple physics), but are cautious to link any specific event to warming.

In my experience it is the anti-climate change lobby, and by their example many other commentators, that confuses weather with climate. A cold snap and the likes of ‘twitter’ is alive with people doubting climate change.

The bottom line is that the overwhelming number of climatologists regard the case as closed. Supporting evidence also comes from other sciences. To claim, effectively, that they’re all part of a plot is absurd. As I pointed out previously, a good deal of useful evidence for global warming was obtained by research into other topics not directly linked to climate research and thus where there could have been no pressure to join the ‘conspiracy’. To claim we should give ‘equal time’ to the ‘other side’ is exactly the strategy the tobacco giants used to muddy the waters regarding cancer. Arguing that the consequences of ‘global warming’ are so unpalatable that it’s better to ignore the evidence might be understandable, but it’s hardly scientific or likely to arrive at the truth.

They are right to be wary especially after their tricks were exposed in the emails. You carry on believing John, and I'll have my view.
at least I have a clear conscience that my behaviour ie not hopping on planes , driving here there and everywhere to twitch( as do a lot of warmists) isn't adding to the problem if it does exist. this is in fact the complete opposite to the main scaremongers Gore etc who live in several well light palaces whilst telling us we need to cut back.
There's more than one conspiracy going on John and most of it emanates from the UN, I think you are too trusting, born in more honest times no doubt, the worlds moved on and there are bogey men out there.

 

[Minto]

Its not likely to come up with either solutions or even adaptive measures, either.

These guys would get on well with the SongBird Survival conmen, too.

John

Are you saying that the adaptive measures that they have come up with Windfarms for one , are the answer, no just more of our money down the drain.
Tobacco , Song birds grow up , you all go on about me believing in conspiracies yet tar everyone who's views differ from yours with the same brush, isn't that a conspiracy theory.
You can go on about consensus as much as you like but there has been no warming for 16 years , most of the other none sense linking these storms to climate change is just yawn ...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...redictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating

 

[pppppvvvv]

What on earth are you on about. You thought you were being funny and I responded , so read again you were the one moving the goalposts, I replied .
I don't need to win, only you warmists think its a war, most others have moved on from the topic years ago, you really are deluded if you think you have somehow "beaten me".
Look how quickly the recent IPPC report faded away, the general populace ain't falling for the scam any more.
Reality isn't following the doomesday scenarios predicted by computer models

There's two things I want to say.. I only lingered in here to discuss the claim that the BBC are in someway biased against the climate change deniers.. And have shown several articles that I think prove they are quite balanced really, but everyone has their opinion.

And 2, I haven't declared my hand as being a warmist, or having any opinion on the climate change subject..I don't feel I know enough to argue either side.. But you keep trying to drag me into an argument with yourself using.. Oo false assumptions about my beliefs. "Debating" on here for days on end is pointless. Sorry

 

[Farnboro John]

Are you saying that the adaptive measures that they have come up with Windfarms for one , are the answer, no just more of our money down the drain.
Tobacco , Song birds grow up , you all go on about me believing in conspiracies yet tar everyone who's views differ from yours with the same brush, isn't that a conspiracy theory.
You can go on about consensus as much as you like but there has been no warming for 16 years , most of the other none sense linking these storms to climate change is just yawn ...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...redictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating

No mate, thats democracy in action.

And I don't recall saying that measures suggested to date were either effective or the limit of what can be achieved, just that if you don't look you won't find.

As for quoting the Daily Wail in support of your argument, I've just had my best laugh of the week - jolly well done!

John

 

[John Cantelo]

They are right to be wary especially after their tricks were exposed in the emails. You carry on believing John, and I'll have my view.
at least I have a clear conscience that my behaviour ie not hopping on planes , driving here there and everywhere to twitch( as do a lot of warmists) isn't adding to the problem if it does exist. this is in fact the complete opposite to the main scaremongers Gore etc who live in several well light palaces whilst telling us we need to cut back.
There's more than one conspiracy going on John and most of it emanates from the UN, I think you are too trusting, born in more honest times no doubt, the worlds moved on and there are bogey men out there.

Oh dear, Minto, I fear by embracing the UN-as-a-conspiracy scenario, your really are heading into tinfoil hat territory. The 'tricks' exposed by the email revelations to which you refer were entirely on the part of denialists - a result of deliberately partial and misleading quotations of stolen emails. Read up on it and the evidence exonerates those involved. As a rule I eschew conspiracy theories, but the blatant manipulation of the record and lies by the tobacco industry is a matter of record as is the involvement of the same people with the same agenda using the same methods in the climate change denial. How people behave has no relevance to the evidence that supports climate change which is scientifically tested and overwhelming.

 

[John Cantelo]

Good example here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GehK0P91E-I - of how the press misreports and distorts information to fit their agenda ...and why the "16 years with no warming story" is not as reliable as some think. Don't worry it's only just under 9 minutes, I'm not expecting anyone to read a book. I do, though commend 'potholer54' video channel as a good source.

 

[locustella]

Here:
http://puszcza-bialowieska.blogspot.com/2014/01/zimowa-wiosna-podczas-wycieczki-po.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wdgtTQvCgLg/UtL-FHro4BI/AAAAAAAAHS0/U6ukNCfYMck/s1600/m7.jpg
is Common Hepatica Anemone hepatica flowering in Białowieża Forest 3 months before its flowering period.
There is also too early for the scarlet elf cup:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mxi3EhCFdng/UtL973WnJVI/AAAAAAAAHSM/oszVgkubR3Q/s1600/m2.jpg

 

[Minto]

Oh dear, Minto, I fear by embracing the UN-as-a-conspiracy scenario, your really are heading into tinfoil hat territory. The 'tricks' exposed by the email revelations to which you refer were entirely on the part of denialists - a result of deliberately partial and misleading quotations of stolen emails. Read up on it and the evidence exonerates those involved. As a rule I eschew conspiracy theories, but the blatant manipulation of the record and lies by the tobacco industry is a matter of record as is the involvement of the same people with the same agenda using the same methods in the climate change denial. How people behave has no relevance to the evidence that supports climate change which is scientifically tested and overwhelming.

We'll agree to disagree then John , as our world and its leaders are so honest and wonderful of course its all being done to save us from the tiny amount of warming likely to be produced.
what's happened to the warming John, all the rest linking floods etc is just bullshit.
Is the hockey stick still relevant John, you seem to forget that quite a lot of what was put out as gospel has been discredited.
It don't matter anyway as the majority of people can see through scam and are more interested in why their energy bills keep going through the roof to keep us warm whilst the usefull idiots shout were going to fry...

 

[Minto]

No mate, thats democracy in action.

And I don't recall saying that measures suggested to date were either effective or the limit of what can be achieved, just that if you don't look you won't find.

As for quoting the Daily Wail in support of your argument, I've just had my best laugh of the week - jolly well done!

John

The stories about the met admitting there's no warming, aren't they the authority on climate weather in this country, or is that the Sun what you read

 

[Minto]

There's two things I want to say.. I only lingered in here to discuss the claim that the BBC are in someway biased against the climate change deniers.. And have shown several articles that I think prove they are quite balanced really, but everyone has their opinion.

And 2, I haven't declared my hand as being a warmist, or having any opinion on the climate change subject..I don't feel I know enough to argue either side.. But you keep trying to drag me into an argument with yourself using.. Oo false assumptions about my beliefs. "Debating" on here for days on end is pointless. Sorry

Your links were seven and five years out of date, hardly proves your point. Although in their defence, on points of view one of the beebs big knobs did say that claims linking the recent storms with climate change were incorrect

 

[Minto]

No mate, thats democracy in action.

And I don't recall saying that measures suggested to date were either effective or the limit of what can be achieved, just that if you don't look you won't find.

As for quoting the Daily Wail in support of your argument, I've just had my best laugh of the week - jolly well done!

John

What's democracy, robbing people on the utility bills to build turbines that no one wants and only provide a piffling amount of electricity for the billions invested, if that's democracy go and try china , you'll fit in there.

 

[John Cantelo]

Yes, I fear you're right and we must agree to disagree. I'll continue to base my case on what the qualified, expert scientists tell me in peer reviewed studies and you can cleave to the mythology pumped out in non-peer reviewed articles in the press by non-expert, often non-scientists like the discredited Lord Monckton.

Actually an increase in the frequency of flooding and violent storms was predicted by climate change models and for reasons that are very simple to understand. As for Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' the most instructive lesson to be drawn is not only how ably he defended his thesis, but also the dreadful level of 'monstering' (inc. death threats!) he has been subjected to simply for following the science.

I've not a shred of doubt that you are determined and honest person who wants to do the 'right thing' (probably more so than me) which is why it pains me to see you so grievously misled by charlatans and worse. I've looked at both sides and repeatedly found sources promoted by 'denialists' simplistic and shot through with error (which persists despite being corrected multiple times). I challenge you to watch the excellent rebuttals of the anti-global warming position posted by Potholer 54 (http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54) and still believe in the garbage spewed out by the anti-science lobby. In turn I'll happily watch anything you suggest (although I suspect I've already seen much of it).

 

[Zheljko]

I don't know what the weather is like in UK right now, but I am sitting by the open window in a T-shirt. It seems it is at least March not January.