New York State suffers 6 feet and counting of global warming
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
No, you see, before.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
So?http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
One scientist gets one thing wrong and it means that entire field of science should be disregarded?
Is it so hard to believe that sometimes, scientists get things wrong. That's how science works. It gets it wrong then looks again until it gets it right.
Climate science is still new so is probably going to be wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean it's completely wrong all of the time. So far, the basic theory of AGW is still regarded to be correct by the majority of people who study it and the majority of scientific publications and establishments.
It's mainly just on Pistonheads that people know better
BigMacDaddy said:
Except that's not strictly true is it - whilst there is plenty of evidence to back up the claim that "climate change is real" (as it has been for several billion years of course....) there is no proper proof that this is due to human activity in the main, if at all (and I've lost count now of the number of times the so-called "settled science" has been debunked).
What we should all be doing as a global community is working on ways to adapt to how the environment is changing, but then that probably doesn't make as much easy profit for those with a vested interest in pushing the current climate agenda.......
I'm as sceptical as anyone I know.What we should all be doing as a global community is working on ways to adapt to how the environment is changing, but then that probably doesn't make as much easy profit for those with a vested interest in pushing the current climate agenda.......
But my understanding is that there is a vast amount of peer reviewed & extensive scientific research which shows that humans are having a direct effect on the earth's climate.
Equally my understanding is that there is nowhere near the amount of evidence to the contrary.
The whole 'vested interest' agenda also makes me laugh. When we go to war everyone is at pains to point out that it's because of oil and western governments are in the pockets of major oil companies - but when man made climate change is raised everyone is in the pockets of the organic wind farm mafia.
New Amsterdam has snow every year or storms what is the big deal.>Russia it be snowing and it's cold in East Europe.
Wet in the U.K nothing changes.You listen to the pretty lady's talking ten minutes about the weather and having nothing to say.We have prevailing South Westely winds from the Atlantic Ocean.North or north easterly winds means snow for us in winter.Sometimes left overs from the States when they've had bad weather.
Russia it be snowing and it's cold in East Europe.Wet in the U.K nothing changes.You listen to the pretty lady's talking ten minutes about the weather and having nothing to say.We have prevailing South Westely winds from the Atlantic Ocean.North or north easterly winds means snow for us in winter.Sometimes left overs from the States when they've had bad weather.
BigMacDaddy said:
Except that's not strictly true is it - whilst there is plenty of evidence to back up the claim that "climate change is real" (as it has been for several billion years of course....) there is no proper proof that this is due to human activity in the main, if at all (and I've lost count now of the number of times the so-called settled science has been "debunked").
Except it hasn't, because paranoid idiots saying what they want to be true isn't a debunking.
Some Gump said:
So, in your head the reason that there is a lot of snow in New York is due to man's influence and warming a lake. I'm going to counter with my theory that the current snow is due to a wind pattern coming down from the arctic - although I'll agree that the reason snow is deeper near lake eerie than elsewhere is a localised lake effect.
I don't buy that all weather (be it hot, cold, wet, or dry) can be explained by "man made global warming". The earth's climate has changed steadily since time began - ice ages, thawing, cooling down again etc etc. I know as a race we're massively arrogant and think we can control everything, but again I can't buy it. After all, there was once so much ice on Scotland that the place is STILL rising a few mm a year following the loss of the glaciers - and when they melted, we didn't even know about fossil fuels, never mind "the greenhouse effect".
There is a vast difference between correlation and causation. There is also a vast difference between a theory / model that predicts a system, and that model being an accurate reason for the cause of the system's behavior. I'm sure most people who read the papers will agree that [CO2] has an effect - but to suddenly claim that this is the sole parameter that influences every single weather system on the planet is quite a stretch, given that we can't even predict the local weather 3 days in advance.
I don't buy that all weather (be it hot, cold, wet, or dry) can be explained by "man made global warming". The earth's climate has changed steadily since time began - ice ages, thawing, cooling down again etc etc. I know as a race we're massively arrogant and think we can control everything, but again I can't buy it. After all, there was once so much ice on Scotland that the place is STILL rising a few mm a year following the loss of the glaciers - and when they melted, we didn't even know about fossil fuels, never mind "the greenhouse effect".
There is a vast difference between correlation and causation. There is also a vast difference between a theory / model that predicts a system, and that model being an accurate reason for the cause of the system's behavior. I'm sure most people who read the papers will agree that [CO2] has an effect - but to suddenly claim that this is the sole parameter that influences every single weather system on the planet is quite a stretch, given that we can't even predict the local weather 3 days in advance.
Correlation does not mean causality.
CO2, the Devil's own bowel gas, has been rising slowly but steadily and has reached the dizzying heights of 400ppm (that's 0.04% to us lay people), of which 3% or so is man made. That's 0.0012% of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is man made. Meanwhile, there's been no warming at all for at least 18 years (source; IPCC).
When the computer modelling does not match the hard observational data, the faithful get ever more desperate to link any kind of weather to Climageddon.
Time to waste more money on an even more powerful computer?
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
Or perhaps warmer global temperatures means more evaporation from lakes, meaning more moisture in the air and therefore more snow when the temperature drops.
Perhaps.
No, you see, before..... Perhaps.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
wolves_wanderer said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
Or perhaps warmer global temperatures means more evaporation from lakes, meaning more moisture in the air and therefore more snow when the temperature drops.
Perhaps.
No, you see, before..... Perhaps.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
V88Dicky said:
CO2, the Devil's own bowel gas, has been rising slowly but steadily and has reached the dizzying heights of 400ppm (that's 0.04% to us lay people), of which 3% or so is man made. That's 0.0012% of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is man made.
You want to look at your maths again Professor? You seem to say that 3% of CO2 is man made.
Then you say that 0.0012% of CO2 is man made.
You seem to be mixing up man made Co2 as a percentage of all Co2 with man made Co2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
Forgivable though - because you probably just read that somewhere then just relayed the same duff information without thinking to check either it's accuracy or veracity.
That's why peer reviewed scientific research is important - and there a lots of it around on man made climate change.
I'd love to not believe it - and I was hugely sceptical for a long time - but the sheer weight of scientific evidence points towards a problem.
Edited by Mr Gearchange on Friday 21st November 11:32
Mr Gearchange said:
V88Dicky said:
CO2, the Devil's own bowel gas, has been rising slowly but steadily and has reached the dizzying heights of 400ppm (that's 0.04% to us lay people), of which 3% or so is man made. That's 0.0012% of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is man made.
You want to look at your maths again Professor? You seem to say that 3% of CO2 is man made.
Then you say that 0.0012% of CO2 is man made.
You seem to be mixing up man made Co2 as a percentage of all Co2 with man made Co2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
Forgivable though - because you probably just read that somewhere then just relayed the same duff information without thinking to check either it's accuracy or veracity.
That's why peer reviewed scientific research is important - and there a lots of it around on man made climate change.
I'd love to not believe it - and I was hugely sceptical for a long time - but the sheer weight of scientific evidence points towards a problem.
Edited by Mr Gearchange on Friday 21st November 11:32
I'll leave you to do the math - Clue....it's very very small
dickymint said:
Try this then...............
I'll leave you to do the math - Clue....it's very very small
Guys can we keep this one as tongue in cheek version of the Climate Change threads - leave the heavy stuff for the politics and science threads?I'll leave you to do the math - Clue....it's very very small
Love that film of the panda enjoying the snow - adaptation at its best!
that includes you mr gearchange - post in the science thread if you dare
Edited by Jinx on Friday 21st November 12:07
Mr Gearchange said:
Ah, an arbitrary graphic of no provenance from the website of a neo-liberal right wing American 'think tank'
That really does offer a fantastic counterpoint to the massive weight of evidence based research.
Take that science.
You will find that even the IPCC publish those figures as fact!That really does offer a fantastic counterpoint to the massive weight of evidence based research.
Take that science.
dickymint said:
Mr Gearchange said:
Ah, an arbitrary graphic of no provenance from the website of a neo-liberal right wing American 'think tank'
That really does offer a fantastic counterpoint to the massive weight of evidence based research.
Take that science.
You will find that even the IPCC publish those figures as fact!That really does offer a fantastic counterpoint to the massive weight of evidence based research.
Take that science.
You seem to be presenting them as precisely the opposite.
Anyway in the spirit of the thread I'll desist from turning this into a scientific debate..
king clue?Mr Gearchange said:
I'm as sceptical as anyone I know.
But my understanding is that there is a vast amount of peer reviewed & extensive scientific research which shows that humans are having a direct effect on the earth's climate.
Equally my understanding is that there is nowhere near the amount of evidence to the contrary.
The whole 'vested interest' agenda also makes me laugh. When we go to war everyone is at pains to point out that it's because of oil and western governments are in the pockets of major oil companies - but when man made climate change is raised everyone is in the pockets of the organic wind farm mafia.
This.But my understanding is that there is a vast amount of peer reviewed & extensive scientific research which shows that humans are having a direct effect on the earth's climate.
Equally my understanding is that there is nowhere near the amount of evidence to the contrary.
The whole 'vested interest' agenda also makes me laugh. When we go to war everyone is at pains to point out that it's because of oil and western governments are in the pockets of major oil companies - but when man made climate change is raised everyone is in the pockets of the organic wind farm mafia.
Only quoted to add that it is not my life's work, or even my area of expertise, to study AGW. I don't think any CC deniers on PH fall in this area either. Since PH'ers of either side will never have the knowledge required to make an absolute decision, true scepticism is required. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to sit on the side of the majority of scientific opinion, rather than against it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff