Weather hype

[Mervyn and Trish]

Earlier this week on the tv news I heard in the headlines that the previous day had seen "record" low temperatures.

The lowest since 1963 I wondered? 1947 maybe? Since the proverbial records began?

None of these it transpired when the item appeared. The lowest temperatures this year!

Well you could have knocked me down with a feather. Then lowest temperature of the year, in the middle of the winter.

That truly is a shocker.

Surely even the most fervent of the climate change zealots couldn't claim that was a sign of Armageddon?

So what next year? Are we to expect the highest temperature of the year to be in August? Or the longest day in June?

Surely we are doomed.

[Kendhni]

Where would we be without all these irrelevant stats?
The news would only last 5 minutes

[Mervyn and Trish]

Would that be a record?

Good to see you back Ken.

[Not so ancient mariner]

Our local paper was making much of the fact that the on Saturday past, the river had burst its banks and flooded the park in the centre of the city. Actually it does this most winters: -but today happens to be the 10th anniversary of the severe flooding in Carlisle, when the usual 3 feet of water across the park became more like 3 metres, resulting in widespread flooding of both commercial and residential property. (not to mention the police and fire stations!)

Do you think there might be a connection?

[Mervyn and Trish]

I see that today is the anniversary of major flooding in London in the 20s before climate change had been invented discovered.

[Silver_Shiney]

I see that today is the anniversary of major flooding in London in the 20s before climate change had been invented discovered.

I think you'll find "concocted" may be more appropriate, dear sir

[Mervyn and Trish]

You may say that. I couldn't possibly comment.

I'm sure it was the effluent from all the horse buses that caused it.

[Not so ancient mariner]

Weather is definitely warmer (at least during the winters) than it was in my youth 40-50 years ago. The climate is changing: - the only arguable point is how much impact human activity is having on this.

[Silver_Shiney]

The climate is changing, no-one denies that. But man-made? No. It's been changing since the Flood. I understand that we're still not at the temperatures apparently recorded during the Tudor period, which, I'm told, averaged three degrees higher than at present.

But warmer winters? I still distinctly remember the big freeze of 1963, when snow started falling at Christmas and there was still the remains of a snowman in the back garden in March. During the winter of 1978, I was losing a lot of fuel. I found the pipe from the petrol tank had corroded and petrol was leaking out - there was a lump of frozen petrol the size of my fist hanging underneath the car. 1983-4 had me driving through a foot of snow round Lincoln for some time.

[Not so ancient mariner]

You forgot to mention that on 10 December 2010 the temperature dropped to minus 20 overnight - and that was here in Carlisle. My car thermometer was still showing minus 16.5 when I arrived at work that morning. But if you take average temperatures the answer is an unequivocal YES, winters have got warmer.
Agreed, the climate has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age, but the rate of change has increased over the last century, and it's burying your head in the sand to blindly assume that human activity has played no part whatsoever in this.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Agreed, the climate has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age, but the rate of change has increased over the last century, and it's burying your head in the sand to blindly assume that human activity has played no part whatsoever in this.

But it's equally burying your head to assume it is the whole of the answer, or even the biggest part, as climate zealots do, ignoring all else, assuming that by making car owners the villain and risking the lights going out by scrapping power stations before they are replaced, the problem will be solved.

And as to the rate of change increasing, it's stalled in the last few years, with increases below the models that were taken as gospel a few years back.

And headlines like the one quoted at the opening of this thread just add to the political agenda being peddled.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Hot news. Today we learn that the Woolly Mammoth was wiped out by a lack of water caused by global warming. It's not clear in the report whether it was caused by coal fired power stations, motor cars, aeroplanes or Brexit. What a shocker.

[daib GC]

Hot news. Today we learn that the Woolly Mammoth was wiped out by a lack of water caused by global warming. It's not clear in the report whether it was caused by coal fired power stations, motor cars, aeroplanes or Brexit. What a shocker.

Quite clearly Brexit.

It was all the hot air, from both sides, caused a massive spike in world temperatures.

[Silver_Shiney]

CO2 theory failed claims Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman in an open letter to the IPPC, according to an article in the Express, 23 October 2014. Coleman writes: “The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid”.

He went on to say: “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years”.

William Happer, from Princeton University, agrees with Coleman and commented: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science”.

I've just read a very interesting article suggesting how these creatures did die - I tried to attach it but apparently .PDFs are not allowed.

[Mervyn and Trish]

The thing is it may or may not be true that CO2 causes a green house effect. What is certainly true is that raised ocean temperatures cause the release of more CO2. So we may have climate change and we may have increased CO2 in the atmosphere but which is cause and which is effect?

It is also true that we have had variations in global temperature over millions of years, more extreme than anything now. And the climate change models and predictions from the CO2 disciples have consistently turned out wrong after a very short time to be replaced by another model of doom.

I do believe we are witnessing climate change. I do not believe there is any consistent evidence we or CO2 are the culprit. Therefore I believe instead of closing working power stations and the rest in a vain attempt to reverse the course of nature we should be working and investing to mitigate its effects.

[towny44]

I agree that there is a lot of hype, and hot air (pun intended), expressed about climate change/global warming, but I am much more concerned about the polluting effects from the burning of fossil fuel, rather than the theoretical amounts of CO2 produced; to this end we need to address the pollution problems, which as a side effect might also reduce CO2 emissions.
I believe a lot has already been done on reducing the pollutants causing the acid rain scare of the 70's and 80's from coal fired power stations, and like Merv I think it would have been prudent to keep the most efficient of the coal burning power stations operational.
But I also think we were mislead about the benefits of diesel engines vs petrol, diesel may emit far less CO2 but we are only just beginning to appreciate the damage that micro pollutants might be doing to our health, especially in densely populated urban areas.
In future I would like to see politicians take a much more measured approach to this topic and not just blindly follow these, so called, experts advice, I am hoping that Theresa May might just be such a politician.

[qbman1]

Hot news. Today we learn that the Woolly Mammoth was wiped out by a lack of water caused by global warming. It's not clear in the report whether it was caused by coal fired power stations, motor cars, aeroplanes or Brexit. What a shocker.

Have the mammoths been wiped out then? That's a shame.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I agree that there is a lot of hype, and hot air (pun intended), expressed about climate change/global warming, but I am much more concerned about the polluting effects from the burning of fossil fuel, rather than the theoretical amounts of CO2 produced; to this end we need to address the pollution problems, which as a side effect might also reduce CO2 emissions.
I believe a lot has already been done on reducing the pollutants causing the acid rain scare of the 70's and 80's from coal fired power stations, and like Merv I think it would have been prudent to keep the most efficient of the coal burning power stations operational.
But I also think we were mislead about the benefits of diesel engines vs petrol, diesel may emit far less CO2 but we are only just beginning to appreciate the damage that micro pollutants might be doing to our health, especially in densely populated urban areas.
In future I would like to see politicians take a much more measured approach to this topic and not just blindly follow these, so called, experts advice, I am hoping that Theresa May might just be such a politician.

I agree John, there are good reasons for conserving scarce resources such as fossil fuels.

The diesel thing is just one example of the climate change hype which turns out to be cobblers.

Mind you I have now just bought a new(er) diesel car, because the hype now about electric and hybrid is just as bad.

Hybrid cars are heavier so use more energy, wherever it comes from, to move them around. It also seems they produce additional pollutants from brake and tyre wear because of that weight.

Electric cars are even worse. They are claimed to be green. Of course they're not. Again they're heavier so use more energy to move about and that energy is only as green as the power stations that generated the electricity to charge them.

And as for hydrogen. Zero pollution is their claim. Well of course the hydrogen they combine with oxygen to generate electricity and produce water is itself produced by using electricity to separate water into its components.

The only advantage of either is that they produce the pollution somewhere else, not in city centres. Even that may be a moot point with those living near the power stations where the pollution is produced instead!

And finally biomass. Instead of burning coal let's burn trees, because by replanting new ones it's carbon neutral. Well yes it is. But only over a cycle of about 100 years. By which time, if the doom mongers are to be believed, it will be too late. In the meantime look at the carbon footprint of importing them from places such as Canada.

[Silver_Shiney]

Read a very interesting article today:

BBC News and World Meteorological Organisation November 14, 2016 proclaim this year will be world’s warmest year on record and this has been mimicked by media everywhere. According to the BBC, scientists are 90% certain 2016 will be the hottest year on record, based on nine months of data for this year. To make their point the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) have published a somewhat blurry graphic, reproduced in the BBC article, entitled “Global Temperatures – change from pre-industrial” showing an impressive looking increase from the middle of the period included in the graph. Looking closely the time period is from 1880 to 2020, and the steep rise begins in the 1970’s. The WMO goes on to list a plethora of natural disasters it attributes to the warming, including hurricanes, storms, floods, wildfires, heat waves and droughts. According to the BBC, “Scientists are stressing that the evidence for the reality of climate change is getting stronger all the time.”




“On record” eh? Whenever you see claims like this you need to ask: whose records, and what time span do they really cover? The reason they have chosen 1880 is because regular measurements of weather conditions (temperature, humidity, pressure, etc.) using instrumental weather stations did not get underway until the latter part of the 19th century. At that time official weather stations were mainly in sea ports, because sailors needed the information. In the whole of the UK there were less than 100 for the first few decades after 1880. The number of stations increased dramatically in the mid-20th century, with many around airports, because flyers needed accurate weather reports particularly with warplanes being used. And this airport location is now one of the modern fudge factors as the high temp jet exhausts contribute to out of whack readings on a huge scale. Hi tech satellite observations and remote sensing only go back to the 1970’s. “Hottest year on record” may sound impressive, but the period 1880 to 2020 is not actually the history of the world, especially when you note that most media and climate activists, who claim the warming is man-made, believe man appeared on the planet some millions of years ago. Furthermore, as 2016 is not over yet, and the scientists admit they only have nine months of data, you wonder why this story is being presented as scientific news now. Perhaps it is not just coincidence that the story was published when a) there was a UN climate summit meeting, and b) more importantly, news services are all filled with outrage about Donald Trump being elected the next US president and Trump is a well-known critic of man-made global warming claims. WMO are also capable of producing a graphic with clear figures, so [it would appear that] this is a fudge for political purposes.

[Mervyn and Trish]

We also learned this week there is no evidence at all of ice melt in the Antarctic. So is that on a different planet then? Or is global warming actually half-global warming? The truth is they haven't a clue.

[towny44]

Very true Merv although they did suggest it might have something to do with the lower population in the southern hemisphere, clearly we in the north are breathing out far to much carbon dioxide.
I wonder if the southern hemisphere has its equivalent of the gulf stream, and if not why not, which is one of the factors they quote as being a contributor to the sea ice reduction in the arctic.

[Onelife]

[quote="Silver_Shiney"]CO2 theory failed claims Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman in an open letter to the IPPC, according to an article in the Express, 23 October 2014. Coleman writes: “The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid”.

He went on to say: “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years”.

William Happer, from Princeton University, agrees with Coleman and commented: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science”.

I've just read a very interesting article suggesting how these creatures did die - I tried to attach it but apparently .PDFs are not allowed.[/quote

............



Hi Mr Shiney...having read the link below it appears your Mr Coleman spouts more bulls**t than what l do...but in my defence my bulls**t is harmless fun, his, on the other hand appears to come from a man who enjoys being controversial.

https://www.desmogblog.com/john-coleman

According to a search of Google Scholar, John Coleman has not published peer-reviewed research on climate change. The only article returned was published in the “RAAF Radschool Association Magazine” titled “The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam” (PDF). [29], [30]

Coleman previously published numerous articles calling global warming a “scam” on “Coleman's Corner” on the KUSI News website. “Coleman's Corner” appears to have since been removed from the KUSi Website.

Regards

Keith

[Mervyn and Trish]

Very true Merv although they did suggest it might have something to do with the lower population in the southern hemisphere, clearly we in the north are breathing out far to much carbon dioxide.
I wonder if the southern hemisphere has its equivalent of the gulf stream, and if not why not, which is one of the factors they quote as being a contributor to the sea ice reduction in the arctic.

Yes, I saw that. Another example of the climate change disciples trying to explain away inconvenient evidence. Are they telling us that the air in the northern hemisphere never gets mixed with the air in the southern? Over a period of several years? And that CO2 generated in the north stays in the north? Really? Well in that case why is there any problem in the Arctic? The population there is pretty sparce!

[qbman1]

Someone must have been engaging in an awful lot of heavy breathing to bring the last ice age to an end !

[Mervyn and Trish]

Oh my god! Don't tell me we had global warming before!