bloody weather!
Discussion
kerplunk said:
I don't understand your logic much either. When new national records are being set how can you say it's nothing that hasn't happened before in recent history for example? Same question I posed to TB - what is it about new recorded highs that you don't understand? Records that were set only 5 years ago I might add.
New recorded highs of any type of weather event have all been higher during the unrecorded 99.9999% of time. But the main point is that any new highs are just expected variations in weather patterns (it would be impossible to not have that variation).
Guessing that these weather events are some how caused by and connected to anthropogenic CO2 is not logical to me. It's a good job we haven't had a period of climate by coincidence that fits with the guesses of the CO2 theory, or that would have been incorrectly viewed as proof of the theory.
Given the massively increasing number of sites where the weather is monitored (since the days 'when records began'), the sheer number of different data items collected, the imposition of our artificial time/date/season system etc., the ability to pick any site or geographical area or time-scale you like;- The only surprise would be if records weren't broken almost constantly. Statistically it really is daft to attribute any higher significance to the wettest day, the coldest January, the dullest weekend, the windiest visit to the toilet between 6 and 7 a.m.......
Well, I'm please to report that here in Sunderland, there's been no rain ALL DAY! Not a drop. And yet yesterday, it never let up. Now THAT'S climate change! 
Got all the gardens done, trimmed the conifers, even felled a couple of trees. Took my daughter to the local cafe for lunch, we walked there in THE SUNSHINE.
Marvellous the British weather.
Got all the gardens done, trimmed the conifers, even felled a couple of trees. Took my daughter to the local cafe for lunch, we walked there in THE SUNSHINE.
Marvellous the British weather.
deeps said:
kerplunk said:
I don't understand your logic much either. When new national records are being set how can you say it's nothing that hasn't happened before in recent history for example? Same question I posed to TB - what is it about new recorded highs that you don't understand? Records that were set only 5 years ago I might add.
New recorded highs of any type of weather event have all been higher during the unrecorded 99.9999% of time. deeps said:
But the main point is that any new highs are just expected variations in weather patterns (it would be impossible to not have that variation).
They're also expected as a result of a warming world so 'the question' is begged.deeps said:
Guessing that these weather events are some how caused by and connected to anthropogenic CO2 is not logical to me. It's a good job we haven't had a period of climate by coincidence that fits with the guesses of the CO2 theory, or that would have been incorrectly viewed as proof of the theory.
I haven't said anything about that. Predictions of more weather extremes are based on a warming world. A warming world is a predicted outcome of adding GHGs to the atmosphere. They're connected but seperate. I said as much in the first post you replied to.kerplunk said:
They're also expected as a result of a warming world so 'the question' is begged.
What warming? At the start of 2012 the mean global tropospheric temperature was within a gnat's gonad of the temperature at the start of 1981.
Over a shorter timescale the global lower troposphere has cooled between the El Nino max of 2010 and the latest value for June 2012.
31 years of no overall warming, basically no warming. So, no chance of the warming that doesn't exist being behind the normal variation in weather we're seeing or have seen.
kerplunk said:
deeps said:
Guessing that these weather events are some how caused by and connected to anthropogenic CO2 is not logical to me. It's a good job we haven't had a period of climate by coincidence that fits with the guesses of the CO2 theory, or that would have been incorrectly viewed as proof of the theory.
I haven't said anything about that. Predictions of more weather extremes are based on a warming world.kerplunk said:
A warming world is a predicted outcome of adding GHGs to the atmosphere. They're connected but seperate.
Predicted by gravy train scientists, yes.I can understand that the theory would appeal to and be accepted by the unquestioning mind. But when looking deeper, as reporeted by real scientists, the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic and climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 390 ppmv (0.039%) and of that amount less than 4% is of human origin. Reducing that 4% to 3% or even zero would have no effect whatsoever on global climate. Meanwhile the oceans de-gas and re-sink CO2 at huge rates naturally, always following temperature never preceding it. And that's not even beginning to think about the other variables that come into play.
deeps said:
Predictions of more weather extremes can be based on a cooling world too.
Can be indeed, and they are.Apart from the lack of troposphere warming to base anything on, in a cooling world scenario it's based on sound science not junkscience and in keeping with the historical record.
Nor can climate models 'see' localised weather conditions, models are far too crude, it's basically arm waving from the alarmists.
kerplunk said:
hmm good cherries, well it seems we're on the upswing again as we climb out of La Nina and already hitting record territory which seems to indicate If we transition to El Nino...
well, time will tell won't it.
Time will always prove a standpoint or a prediction right. It's just how long you have to wait and how long you are right for that matters. Time however does not pass judgement on any theory behind the prediction.well, time will tell won't it.
kerplunk said:
hmm good cherries, well it seems we're on the upswing again as we climb out of La Nina and already hitting record territory which seems to indicate If we transition to El Nino...
well, time will tell won't it.
So temps drop then it is a natural weather cycleswell, time will tell won't it.
but when they go up it is global we are all going to die unless you give all your money to the government warming
deeps said:
kerplunk said:
deeps said:
Guessing that these weather events are some how caused by and connected to anthropogenic CO2 is not logical to me. It's a good job we haven't had a period of climate by coincidence that fits with the guesses of the CO2 theory, or that would have been incorrectly viewed as proof of the theory.
I haven't said anything about that. Predictions of more weather extremes are based on a warming world.kerplunk said:
A warming world is a predicted outcome of adding GHGs to the atmosphere. They're connected but seperate.
Predicted by gravy train scientists, yes.I can understand that the theory would appeal to and be accepted by the unquestioning mind. But when looking deeper, as reporeted by real scientists, the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic and climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 390 ppmv (0.039%) and of that amount less than 4% is of human origin. Reducing that 4% to 3% or even zero would have no effect whatsoever on global climate. Meanwhile the oceans de-gas and re-sink CO2 at huge rates naturally, always following temperature never preceding it. And that's not even beginning to think about the other variables that come into play.
Your take on CO2 is rather unconventional but it appears you think the world is warming (or CO2 wouldn't be going up) which begs the question - are predictions of more weather extremes coming true as a result.
Back to square one.
Mr GrimNasty said:
kerplunk said:
hmm good cherries, well it seems we're on the upswing again as we climb out of La Nina and already hitting record territory which seems to indicate If we transition to El Nino...
well, time will tell won't it.
Time will always prove a standpoint or a prediction right. It's just how long you have to wait and how long you are right for that matters. Time however does not pass judgement on any theory behind the prediction.well, time will tell won't it.
(not quite sure what your point is)
Maybe or maybe not the point concerned the climate or indeed weather equivalent of the broken watch thing. If you wait, then at some point it will be right - but for the wrong reasons.
This is precisely what's happening now. A chaotic shift in the jet stream causes normal variation involving unusual conditions and the climate 'scientists' and their alarmist hangers-on wake up from semi-irrelevance and claim it's global warming/climate change/climate chaos/numberwang when in fact it's just the weather. Pure desperation, but as always the willingly credulous and strategically uninformed will fall for it.
This is precisely what's happening now. A chaotic shift in the jet stream causes normal variation involving unusual conditions and the climate 'scientists' and their alarmist hangers-on wake up from semi-irrelevance and claim it's global warming/climate change/climate chaos/numberwang when in fact it's just the weather. Pure desperation, but as always the willingly credulous and strategically uninformed will fall for it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff