Discussion in 'Renewable Energy & Energy Saving' started by rbartlett, Apr 17, 2007.
Climate is not the same as weather.
I totally agree
But whichever way you look at it, something strange is happening, IMO.
I believe the Augusta golf was played in record low temperatures, we've had some crazily warm weather of late, and Spain has had poo
All in the same fortnight.
To save any arguments, I'll just say I don't think it's a natural thing that it's happening so fast.
And now I'm unsubscribing, because I know how it's going to go.
You either believe we're blowing it, or you don't.
Prehaps just before you go, maybe this natural event will help explain the recent weather....?
I thought global warming was rising temps not lowing temps. Maybe Blair will try to tax us on augusta being a little bit more colder then usual.
Global warming my A***
I never mentioned global warming. I was thinking about climate change.
Temps can go up and down, swinging away from the long term norm.
My point is a lot of extremes are happening in rapid succession.
You can read into it what you want.
I've seen your viewpoint in other threads and whilst I think you're perfectly entitled to it, I think there is cause for concern.
Not sure how El Nino affects our 3rd hottest April ever and loads of records set over the last 25 years (hot and cold), but point noted
I think few people are suggesting that temperatures haven't risen. It seems to me the 'controversy' is as to the cause.
As for me, I also have concerns regarding the political, economic and social consequenses of policy which may be enacted with, perhaps, the best of intentions, but will subsequently be seen to be damaging.
In addition, I also have concerns regarding those who see AGW as the thin end of the wedge to further their Marxist/Socialist agendas.
There are people on these forums who attempt to alude that I am delusional, but I can assure you that the potted plants that I speak to confirm that indeed I am not
Same thing just dressed up differently.
They always say oh that was the hottest day/month/year since about 1800.
So what was causing it in 1800 then?
These records are very woolly and take an overall average. Some places slightly hotter, some places slightly cooler, it dont prove anything.
It points out the reason for Augusta being played in the cold, which you felt couldn't be 'natural' Turns out it was natural but you're still worried...??
El Nino effects the whole worlds weather by the 'butterfy effect' only this is a pretty darn big butterfly.
Best just to accept that natural weather patterns cause 'unnatural' weather (whatever 'unnatural' means to you of course) That should stop all your worrying about the golf players needing another natty jumper etc
I suggest you look into the El Nino -and the other less known La Nina which can have huge dramatic effect on weather.
That old chestnut is only ever trotted out by the MMGW'ers when it's colder than expected.
That's because it's true! If you don't understand the difference between weather and climate, I suggest you do some reading.
The idea that global warming means that everywhere on the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter is a strawman argument, with no basis in reality.
Whilst you may -or may not- wish to present balanced view the mass hysteria and 'strawmen' are usually lined up during a hot sunny spell on TV to pontificate on Global disaster-again with no basis in reality I presume?
It is as much a mistake to attribute a few incidents of unseasonably hot weather to global warming as it is to claim that a few incidents of unseasonably cold weather prove that global warming is not happening. To that extent I agree with you.
Climate is a regional phenomenom, and if the climate in a particular location is getting warmer, you would expect a higher frequency of very warm weather, and a lower frequency of very cold weather, when viewed over a sufficient period of time for the observations to be statistically significant.
Global warming means simply that the planet as a whole is getter hotter, because less of the energy from the sun is being radiated back into space. The consequences of that warming are many and various, and do not imply a uniform increase in temperature around the globe. And on top of that we will always have weather, in all its hard-to-predict complexity, varying on a daily basis.
Interesting, what was is that reduced this radiative loss during the medieval warm period and increased it for the recent 'mini ice age' ?
Ditto the post WWII cooling period.
We've already done this argument, several times, as well you know, so I'll simply refer you to the following statement from the IPCC TAR:
Nothing has changed since that was written.
The post WWII cooling period (roughly from the 1940's to the 1970's) appears to be a slight interruption of an upward trend. Northern hemisphere cooling was larger than in the southern hemisphere. This is consistent with the widely accepted interpretation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere. Emission controls have since reduced that form of pollution, at the same time as CO2 emissions have continued to increase. The CO2 signature is once again dominant.
it was a simple question - not an argument.
ahh ! the glory that is the IPCC TAR. Was the quoted section written before ar after the infamous "We have to get rid of the medieval warm period" e-mail that was sent to Deming ? IIRC the redaction happened between 1996 and 2001.
Deming claims to have received this email in 1996. It's funny how he declines to reveal who the email was from, isn't it? I think I'll continue to prefer the weight of scientific evidence over some unsubstantiated tittle-tattle fed to a US senate committee.
The fact that he hasn't had to reveal the individual's name just says none of the senior pro MM GW priests have called on him to reveal the name.
The person may be one of those who has recanted, may be dead, or his Senate Committee evidence may be sealed. But as you well know that is not the issue at all.
Why would the high priests not call him out ? If he made it up they have him in a lie and have silenced part of their opposition. Of course if he is called out and he reveals the e-mail from the 'prominent global warming alarmist' then the whole MM GW house of cards is dealt a fatal and public body blow.
You assume he is lying because he says something you don't like. Yet more ad hominem.
Of course what actually happened was that famous Mann hockey stick appeared to magically obliterate the medieval warm period.
This is well described here
with lots and lots of other information. Enjoy.
link to the above interesting pdf can be found on
Right. So on the one hand, we have the scientific evidence about the nature of the medieval warm period, as embodied in the papers referenced in the IPCC report (amongst others).
And then on the other hand, we have an alleged email from an unnamed person, the full contents of which have not been revealed but which supposedly contains the phrase "We have to get rid of the medieval warm period", which now triumphantly resonates throughout the AGW denialist websites as if it somehow proved something!
That's pretty funny, Steve.
Oh n, you caricature yourself more with each passing post.
Come on I know you 'always' follow my links, you told me so !
Some places on earth are getting warmer and some have gotten colder, but the AVERAGE over recent decades is a rise by half a degree C.
Wow so what, its bugger all, so why have places got colder then.
And BTW did you know its against forum rules to change someones quote like you have done mine. How old are you 10.
Because global climate is complicated.
yes it is. This gives a good explanation of it
worth a read.
I must admit that I don't understand many of the slides (my ignorance, not being a scientist or statistician), but slide 6 is interesting, especially looking at the lower graph.
At the end, it predicts that we are in for a period of cooling.
NJP uses the 'global effect' argument a lot, saying that the cold/worm periods in the past were not global effects and therefore were not the same as our present (alledged) warming.
However, it appears that the famous Snows of Kilamanjaro are not behaving in quite the way that the warmers would have us believe. In fact the glaciers are growing.
So 'global' warming is not a global effect. It's just the weather.
Not every cold/warm period! There have certainly been global climatic changes in the past. I specifically referred to the MWP and the LIA.
As far as I am aware, the glaciers of Kilimanjaro are indeed in retreat, along with all other tropical glaciers. I thought the objection raised by some (e.g Michael Chrichton, based on his misreading of a paper) was that the retreat was due not to rising temperatures but to local deforestation?
If the argument has now changed, perhaps you could point me in the direction of the new paper? Certainly, the high altitude of the Kilimanjaro glaciers may make them less susceptible to rising temperatures than many others, so the recession may have other causes, but these could still be related to climate change. I'm open to persuasion, but I suspect the full story is rather complicated.
As an aside, Kilimanjaro has certainly been misused as an icon of global warming by careful selection of photographs. But that's the media for you, I'm afraid. Nothing to do with the science.
My mate also told me about this as well, not sure where he got the information from, these sorts of things are happening all over the world, some melt some reform. As you say its just the weather nothing more and nothing less.
Separate names with a comma.