bloody weather!
Discussion
kerplunk said:
What is it about 'wettest [month] on record' you don't understand?
British rainfall was published from 1860 to 1968 since then there are Met office records, a total of one hundred and fifty-two years worth of rainfall records. If we had only started keeping rainfall records ten years ago these would still be the 'wettest [months] on record'. The reason I posted the link was to show that the 'wettest [month] on record' is practically meaningless as rainfall has only been recorded for an insignificant proportion of the time that Britain has been inhabited. Saying the 'wettest/hottest/driest/coldest' since records began is true, but it is hyperbole because we have no accurate record of what went before.
rs1952 said:
This may depend on where you live - I'm in the south west, you're in the north east 
The nearest we got to a heatwave down here in March was between the 23rd and the 29th, with temperatures recorded of 18,21,19,18,19,21 and 20 respectively. I suppose it depends on what you define as a heatwave
Indeed, even in summer, ~ 20 celcius would be classed as a heatwave up here The nearest we got to a heatwave down here in March was between the 23rd and the 29th, with temperatures recorded of 18,21,19,18,19,21 and 20 respectively. I suppose it depends on what you define as a heatwave
rs1952 said:
Apparently yet another "report by experts" out today (heard it on the news and didn't listen hard enough to find the source) saying that we'll be having more rain and more droughts because of global warming, and this is only the start 
That'll be media hysteria manipulated to suit the current conditions then, we're all doomed I tell thee!Incidentally, I don't trust anything the met office says. About 2 weeks ago today, Tyneside had a supercell thunderstorm that caused mass flooding and made my usual 45 minute drive home into a 5 hour drive home (via the pub to watch the match but I digress!). Did the BBC predict that? Well I guess they may have predicted some rain, but not the mental weather that did occur.
Most of the time when I check they do seem to get it wrong.
I normally trust netweather.tv more.
Incidentally, what happened to the "winter to end all winters" we were due to get 6 months ago?!
Catweazle said:
kerplunk said:
What is it about 'wettest [month] on record' you don't understand?
British rainfall was published from 1860 to 1968 since then there are Met office records, a total of one hundred and fifty-two years worth of rainfall records. If we had only started keeping rainfall records ten years ago these would still be the 'wettest [months] on record'. The reason I posted the link was to show that the 'wettest [month] on record' is practically meaningless as rainfall has only been recorded for an insignificant proportion of the time that Britain has been inhabited. Saying the 'wettest/hottest/driest/coldest' since records began is true, but it is hyperbole because we have no accurate record of what went before.
Also as it stands all those hottest/wettest statements are irrelevant, no matter what the timeascale, in terms of human activity as the origin since there is no established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide or anything else due to us nasty humans in any such observation. As you no doubt know.
Certain people forget about causality at convenient times, or drop the initial comment in (loaded, as it is) and then say they weren't claiming causality. Ho hum.
Catweazle said:
kerplunk said:
What is it about 'wettest [month] on record' you don't understand?
British rainfall was published from 1860 to 1968 since then there are Met office records, a total of one hundred and fifty-two years worth of rainfall records. If we had only started keeping rainfall records ten years ago these would still be the 'wettest [months] on record'. The reason I posted the link was to show that the 'wettest [month] on record' is practically meaningless as rainfall has only been recorded for an insignificant proportion of the time that Britain has been inhabited. Saying the 'wettest/hottest/driest/coldest' since records began is true, but it is hyperbole because we have no accurate record of what went before.
kerplunk said:
So, not a pity.
The peeps who wrote the study agree with me:
The study would also greatly benefit from
having data from 1969 onwards included in
the archive and it is a pity that the ‘Heavy
Rainfall on Rainfall Days’ chapter was discontinued.
With such information it would be
possible to consider trends in UK extreme
rainfall up to the present day, a feature
that is particularly relevant in relation to
climate change projections which state the
frequency of extreme rainfall will increase in
a warmer climate (Semenov and Bengtsson,
2002). Extending the archive to the present
day would, however, require considerable
effort. Although the Met Office holds digital
rainfall records over this period, the other
information, namely the written descriptions
from observers and isohyetal maps,
would have to be obtained from a number
of sources (e.g., the Environment Agency,
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency,
CEH Wallingford). It is hoped that such work
will be undertaken in the future.
Yes it would be interesting to those interested in the weather, but whether the results would show drier, similar or wetter periods than average is of course totally irrelevant in terms of attempting to link those results to emissions of harmless carbon dioxide. All it would prove is that it has been drier, similar or wetter, and we already know that.The peeps who wrote the study agree with me:
The study would also greatly benefit from
having data from 1969 onwards included in
the archive and it is a pity that the ‘Heavy
Rainfall on Rainfall Days’ chapter was discontinued.
With such information it would be
possible to consider trends in UK extreme
rainfall up to the present day, a feature
that is particularly relevant in relation to
climate change projections which state the
frequency of extreme rainfall will increase in
a warmer climate (Semenov and Bengtsson,
2002). Extending the archive to the present
day would, however, require considerable
effort. Although the Met Office holds digital
rainfall records over this period, the other
information, namely the written descriptions
from observers and isohyetal maps,
would have to be obtained from a number
of sources (e.g., the Environment Agency,
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency,
CEH Wallingford). It is hoped that such work
will be undertaken in the future.
Climate prediction is the art of judging on the evidence of the last two notes of a symphony whether the next one is going to be good or not.
Maths is my 'stock in trade' and in reality you don't even hear the last two note properly as they are muffled in an adjacent room.
Climate Science is not science at all, it is extrapolation mathematics and that fails after just a few iterations... 50 years? Specific causal input? Nope, never ever going to work, forecasting is as much about intuition based on experience and that is why a good forecaster still to this day mathematically beats any algorithm.
The climate and weather in particular is in the sway of so many imponderables it is a largely fruitless pass-time, let alone a career!
Imponderables remain exactly that, they defy definitive investigation.
My plea would be for these doomsayers to cease and desist their tissue of fabrication and lies and stop misleading the foolish.
Maths is my 'stock in trade' and in reality you don't even hear the last two note properly as they are muffled in an adjacent room.
Climate Science is not science at all, it is extrapolation mathematics and that fails after just a few iterations... 50 years? Specific causal input? Nope, never ever going to work, forecasting is as much about intuition based on experience and that is why a good forecaster still to this day mathematically beats any algorithm.
The climate and weather in particular is in the sway of so many imponderables it is a largely fruitless pass-time, let alone a career!
Imponderables remain exactly that, they defy definitive investigation.
My plea would be for these doomsayers to cease and desist their tissue of fabrication and lies and stop misleading the foolish.
Catweazle said:
British rainfall was published from 1860 to 1968 since then there are Met office records, a total of one hundred and fifty-two years worth of rainfall records. If we had only started keeping rainfall records ten years ago these would still be the 'wettest [months] on record'.
The reason I posted the link was to show that the 'wettest [month] on record' is practically meaningless as rainfall has only been recorded for an insignificant proportion of the time that Britain has been inhabited. Saying the 'wettest/hottest/driest/coldest' since records began is true, but it is hyperbole because we have no accurate record of what went before.
It's a simple statement of the facts and is what it is. The reason I posted the link was to show that the 'wettest [month] on record' is practically meaningless as rainfall has only been recorded for an insignificant proportion of the time that Britain has been inhabited. Saying the 'wettest/hottest/driest/coldest' since records began is true, but it is hyperbole because we have no accurate record of what went before.
Posting a study of the obs was a strange way of saying we don't have records for all the time that britain has been inhabited. I would have posted something like "we don't have records for all the time that britain has been inhabited"
kerplunk said:
What is it about 'wettest [month] on record' you don't understand?
What record?
i take it you can see the date that is the highest
Apparently a record year for the sale of range rovers
Actually lets go further
This bridge as a record got back 200 years
According to religion the earth is 6000 years old
So we have records going back 3.3% of the age of the earth
Its hardly hugely representative is it
Edited by thinfourth2 on Wednesday 11th July 18:06
turbobloke said:
So exactly as you thought Catweazle, it's not you lacking in understanding.
Also as it stands all those hottest/wettest statements are irrelevant, no matter what the timeascale, in terms of human activity as the origin since there is no established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide or anything else due to us nasty humans in any such observation. As you no doubt know.
Certain people forget about causality at convenient times, or drop the initial comment in (loaded, as it is) and then say they weren't claiming causality. Ho hum.
Just like when someone dies of lung cancer and they mention he/she was a heavy smoker. You can't prove individual cases.Also as it stands all those hottest/wettest statements are irrelevant, no matter what the timeascale, in terms of human activity as the origin since there is no established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide or anything else due to us nasty humans in any such observation. As you no doubt know.
Certain people forget about causality at convenient times, or drop the initial comment in (loaded, as it is) and then say they weren't claiming causality. Ho hum.
I'd say this falls into the category of 'are predictions based on theory coming true?'.
As for causality I would expect the cause for the prediction in this case is 'a warming world' - whatever the cause. Not that 'tax gas' is directly effecting the jet stream.
kerplunk said:
As for causality I would expect the cause for the prediction in this case is 'a warming world' - whatever the cause. Not that 'tax gas' is directly effecting the jet stream.
BBC interview with Prof. Phil Jones said:
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Jones is High Priest of the religion. That interview was from 2010. According to NASA Earth Observatory, 2011 was only the ninth warmest year 'on record'.Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=...
The warming has stalled. MMCO2 is inexorably rising.
Thank God for models.
kerplunk said:
thinfourth2 said:
What record?
The ones in the news recently.Unless you believe the earth is older the 6000 years then it makes it an even smaller snapshot of the history of the earth
Blib said:
Jones is High Priest of the religion. That interview was from 2010. According to NASA Earth Observatory, 2011 was only the ninth warmest year 'on record'.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=...
The warming has stalled. MMCO2 is inexorably rising.
Thank God for models.
Nasa has this May tied warmest in the record with 1998. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=...
The warming has stalled. MMCO2 is inexorably rising.
Thank God for models.
May 1998 was in the middle of the so called 'El Nino of the century' - we're currently coming out of a La Nina.
We're getting warmer if you ask me.
TankRizzo said:
dandarez said:
I referred to 'green' teachers brainwashing the young.
Here is a response to the current inclement weather on a forum by one teacher with the username horseypie... god help his/her Year 6, he/she can't even string a sentence together correctly let alone put a full stop at the end of a sentence, but then adds a comma after Worcestershire!
That's called global warming - its a warning. Any idiots on here you can't see that should speak to my class of year 6 children who can explain it to you if it's too hard to understand
horseypie, Worcestershire,
You've been reading the Mail's website dan, confess!Here is a response to the current inclement weather on a forum by one teacher with the username horseypie... god help his/her Year 6, he/she can't even string a sentence together correctly let alone put a full stop at the end of a sentence, but then adds a comma after Worcestershire!
That's called global warming - its a warning. Any idiots on here you can't see that should speak to my class of year 6 children who can explain it to you if it's too hard to understand
horseypie, Worcestershire,
dandarez said:
TankRizzo said:
dandarez said:
I referred to 'green' teachers brainwashing the young.
Here is a response to the current inclement weather on a forum by one teacher with the username horseypie... god help his/her Year 6, he/she can't even string a sentence together correctly let alone put a full stop at the end of a sentence, but then adds a comma after Worcestershire!
That's called global warming - its a warning. Any idiots on here you can't see that should speak to my class of year 6 children who can explain it to you if it's too hard to understand
horseypie, Worcestershire,
You've been reading the Mail's website dan, confess!Here is a response to the current inclement weather on a forum by one teacher with the username horseypie... god help his/her Year 6, he/she can't even string a sentence together correctly let alone put a full stop at the end of a sentence, but then adds a comma after Worcestershire!
That's called global warming - its a warning. Any idiots on here you can't see that should speak to my class of year 6 children who can explain it to you if it's too hard to understand
horseypie, Worcestershire,
Nit said:
That's called global warming - its a warning. Any idiots on here you can't see that should speak to my class of year 6 children who can explain it to you if it's too hard to understand
Go not to six year old kids for explanations - they will often believe whatever lies, drivel and half-truths their teachers spout at them 
I also suspect that this classful of six-year-olds might have a difficulty with putting a coherent sentence together, and punctuating it properly, with a role model like this berk.
I hate conspiracy theories and I am a firm believer in climate change, as in it's the climate and it changes, so there! but this ok-ish weather with brief spells of heavy, as in very heavy rain and or hail and then back to mild and dry is a bit weird.
I have been away for a week so has it been like this for more than the couple of days that I have been back?
Normally I would expect constant rain or drizzle but these constant flooding cloud bursts with no thunder and lightening is a bit strange.
I have been away for a week so has it been like this for more than the couple of days that I have been back?
Normally I would expect constant rain or drizzle but these constant flooding cloud bursts with no thunder and lightening is a bit strange.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff