Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Wobbegong said:
Ali G said:
Woops snow.
Has been observed.
Explain away via catastrophic Gloopal Wombling, coz it should not be happening.
Actually it should be happening. The ‘scientists’ are saving the world Has been observed.
Explain away via catastrophic Gloopal Wombling, coz it should not be happening.
HAARP maybe?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-224...
Wobbegong said:
Ali G said:
Woops snow.
Has been observed.
Explain away via catastrophic Gloopal Wombling, coz it should not be happening.
Actually it should be happening. The ‘scientists’ are saving the world Has been observed.
Explain away via catastrophic Gloopal Wombling, coz it should not be happening.
HAARP maybe?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-224...
now we just need to pick the best temperature.
so what temp do we pick?
anyone?
jet_noise said:
Quick, incinerate that snowstrawman.
As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
And the statistics show snowfall is becoming more rare, not just in the UK but across Europe:As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators...
So if you ignore the tabloid hyperbole, the sentiment of what he was saying was basically correct.
I mean, there's no mystery to why people use it; people will scrape whatever barrel they have to to make them feel like they are right, so are happy to hang an entire argument off a sentence or two from a short, sensationalised newspaper article from over a decade ago that was probably written in 10 minutes. It says a lot about the strength of their argument and is a good identifier of people who probably haven't done their own thinking.
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
Quick, incinerate that snowstrawman.
As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
And the statistics show snowfall is becoming more rare, not just in the UK but across Europe:As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators...
So if you ignore the tabloid hyperbole, the sentiment of what he was saying was basically correct.
I mean, there's no mystery to why people use it; people will scrape whatever barrel they have to to make them feel like they are right, so are happy to hang an entire argument off a sentence or two from a short, sensationalised newspaper article from over a decade ago that was probably written in 10 minutes. It says a lot about the strength of their argument and is a good identifier of people who probably haven't done their own thinking.
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
Quick, incinerate that snowstrawman.
As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
And the statistics show snowfall is becoming more rare, not just in the UK but across Europe:As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators...
So if you ignore the tabloid hyperbole, the sentiment of what he was saying was basically correct.
I mean, there's no mystery to why people use it; people will scrape whatever barrel they have to to make them feel like they are right, so are happy to hang an entire argument off a sentence or two from a short, sensationalised newspaper article from over a decade ago that was probably written in 10 minutes. It says a lot about the strength of their argument and is a good identifier of people who probably haven't done their own thinking.
durbster said:
... a bloke called Viner...
A Bloke? Dr David Viner, senior researcher at CRU for 17 years, a 'qualified expert' in Climate research? Isn't he the sort of guy you spend all your time on your knees brown nosing and urging us all to only listen to the qualified experts... rather than some 'blokes' on a car forum?He also suggested that by 2020, the med will be too hot to bear with water shortages and tourists will be flocking to Blackpool. Only 2 1/2 years to go before I can book my sun-drenched fortnight, yippee!
Hope they can do some nice tapas in Blackpool by then...Kawasicki said:
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
Quick, incinerate that snowstrawman.
As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
And the statistics show snowfall is becoming more rare, not just in the UK but across Europe:As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators...
So if you ignore the tabloid hyperbole, the sentiment of what he was saying was basically correct.
I mean, there's no mystery to why people use it; people will scrape whatever barrel they have to to make them feel like they are right, so are happy to hang an entire argument off a sentence or two from a short, sensationalised newspaper article from over a decade ago that was probably written in 10 minutes. It says a lot about the strength of their argument and is a good identifier of people who probably haven't done their own thinking.
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
Quick, incinerate that snowstrawman.
As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
And the statistics show snowfall is becoming more rare, not just in the UK but across Europe:As you very well know what he actually said was winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
and
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators...
So if you ignore the tabloid hyperbole, the sentiment of what he was saying was basically correct.
I mean, there's no mystery to why people use it; people will scrape whatever barrel they have to to make them feel like they are right, so are happy to hang an entire argument off a sentence or two from a short, sensationalised newspaper article from over a decade ago that was probably written in 10 minutes. It says a lot about the strength of their argument and is a good identifier of people who probably haven't done their own thinking.
The European trend line graphs are related to snow mass not frequency and I note they exclude mountain areas.
It's also interesting to see the graph results described as an "Anomaly" in the context of snow when several factors could influence whether precipitation events present as snow, rain or in some other way - hail, sleet, even frosts.
The risks highlighted include
"Changes in snow cover affect the Earth’s surface reflectivity, water resources, flora and fauna and their ecology, agriculture, forestry, tourism, snow sports, transport and power generation."
The effect on water resources is interesting but so far as I could see not fully outlined in the document.
Presumably, with more floods forecast as one effect of changing weather patterns due to CC, the water resources are not so much lacking as appearing erratically and not as well managed as weather used to be in times past.
It would be interesting to better understand what the implications are for "forestry, tourism, snow sports, transport and power generation" since these are all things that a properly Green philosophy would seem to prefer being changed or eliminated. Forests, for example, should be allowed to do their own things unsullied by human interference and tourism and snow sports are entirely unsustainable in the future world. One might also suggest unnecessary. Thus transport should be greatly reduced or eliminated other than by natural movement - walking and running predominant. Power generation will, of course, wind (snow not especially helpful for wind based power generation), solar (snow very unhelpful for power generation) and Hydro (Snow usefulness may depend on what was expected in terms of water based energy supply when the location was chosen and the plant designed.) Of course the unreported Mountain areas are more significant for the Hydro questions in most cases of serious generation capacity.
California seems to like to try to take the lead on this sort of stuff - less interference with forests, more renewables, greater reliance on snow from mountains as a source of water, vehicle engine pollution controls and so on. How are they getting along over there?
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
... a bloke called Viner...
A Bloke? Dr David Viner, senior researcher at CRU for 17 years, a 'qualified expert' in Climate research? Isn't he the sort of guy you spend all your time on your knees brown nosing and urging us all to only listen to the qualified experts... rather than some 'blokes' on a car forum?He also suggested that by 2020, the med will be too hot to bear with water shortages and tourists will be flocking to Blackpool. Only 2 1/2 years to go before I can book my sun-drenched fortnight, yippee!
Hope they can do some nice tapas in Blackpool by then...
Wobbegong said:
My school promised Birmingham-on-Sea by 2020 with London and Wales underwater
I live in Burnham on Sea, funnily enough the sea level hasn't risen to breach the sea wall yet, all appears normal which is most peculiar, as the informed man from BBC News stated when he stood on the sea wall holding a 2 metre stick that "this is where sea level will rise to". Unfortunately I can't remember his time scale, may have been by 2020 or 2050, so we still have time to raise the wall by 2 metres That sort of full-on ridiculous reporting has died off now, they switched to a more subtle subliminal route several years ago, which involves showing as many normal extreme weather events as they can, followed up with brief articles on CO2 hours or days later. Then repeat, repeat.
Another favourite of mine from the ridiculous era though, was when an informed BBC reporter stood in a parched field during a period of drought and declared "taking rainfall for granted in this country is becoming a thing of the past" which of course went out at prime time and was presented to the nation as news. During the weeks and months that followed it hardly stopped raining! Beautiful!
I remember writing about that on here at the time, along with all the Met office failed predictions on medium range forecasts, they actually had a 100% failure rate which is quite something when you think about it, they could have been more accurate by sheer luck and guessing, but year after year they got it 100% wrong! Apparently the same models were/are used for long term climate forecasting!
I guess it's actually a good illustration that correlation can easily be mistaken for causation. Just imagine if the medium range weather/climate had obliged and all their forecasts had coincidentally come true. The Met would have claimed 100% accuracy in their computer modelling even though it would have been down to absolute luck... and blind ignorance wins the day.
Diderot said:
zygalski said:
Ali G said:
Woops snow.
Has been observed.
Explain away via catastrophic Gloopal Wombling, coz it should not be happening.
Genius. So in keeping with the nature of this thread.Has been observed.
Explain away via catastrophic Gloopal Wombling, coz it should not be happening.
You really should present a paper based on this observation.
AGW is increasing more rapidly than previously thought.
No snow here, either.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff