Climate Change Experts Predict Mild Winter

[Riedquat]

I used to be a warmist, right up until the left made it their political mainstream. The doubt started to set in once their actions failed to reflect the hot air which constantly leaked from their backsides. Kind of lost its jazz after that, plus I stopped reading the Mirror and grew up.

Where's the next international global warming conference? Timbuktu? Should be a nice long plane ride.

That's worrying. You based your decision on it becoming politically mainstream with one group? First it was the media, now the politicians. Why do you people care less what those bunches of cluelessness say? Some loonies latching onto an idea says zero about its plausibility so don't let them influence your decision. Honestly. Or was it because the extreme green bunch were saying the world that wasn't underwater would be a desert by now? Yet another bunch of lunatics completely over-reacting to an idea isn't cause to reject it either. I'm astounded by who people seem to pay attention to when forming their opinions.

[erranta]

One continual critic of the Met office Warmist Computer output (due to bent programmed data used to confirm/talk up warming) has actually said the UK could be bit warmer this winter coz the VERY strong El Nino weather patterns shift the main cold over to central europe (Russia going on about an uber severe 1000yr??? Winter) leaving us mainly in the milder Atlantic system stuff.

Personally I think he was winding them up - to see what sort of Winter 'forecasting' they produce this year!

We'll see - it's 50-50!

Anyway - another viewpoint >>>

From my long-range astronomical calculations for North America, I've forecasted 2010-11 to be a very strong El Nino year. This is caused mainly by the activity of the Sun, which will undergo an historic solar maximum that will bring to an end the 36-year global warming phase that began in the year 1980 while opening a new global cooling phase that will get underway by the year 2017.

In the meantime, I am also forecasting that the years of late 2009 to 2016 will feature some of the world's wildest climate and weather events of the early 21st century that, by the mid-2010s, will have seen the close of the current 36-year phase of global warming that Earth has experienced since 1980.

By 2010, in my estimation, we will have entered the 30th year of Solar-forced global warming. These last six-to-seven-and-a-half years, from 2010 to about 2017, will likely feature some of the warmest global temperatures recorded in the entire 36th year global warming cycle.

This cycle, like that of global cooling on its way in the decades ahead - is directly caused by the Sun.

[ccc]

If Wales was having it's hottest summer ever the BBC et al would be attributing that to global warming or climate change or global climate disruption or whatever it is they are calling it this week.

Exactly.

It does seem to be an increasing trend amongst denialists to simply make up what they think 'the other side' would be saying, then argue against them based on that. Kind of like the traditional scottish-drunk-picking-a-fight-with-himself, but less reality-based.

It is not made up it is true. Although they have gone a little quieter these days. Probably all that snow is getting some people to think for themselves on these matters. Can't be having that !!

And since when "What the BBC says" had anything to do with what's really going on? What the media happen to decide to latch on to is irrelevent and should be completely ignored when making your mind up about an issue. If you're going to use that sort of argument you may as well make decisions based on coin tosses.

We have already been through this. You think what the media happen to decide is irrelevant ? Then you honestly need to step into the real World for a second. The media control a lot of people's thoughts. Whether they should or not or whether these people should be smarter and work this out is another matter.

People DON'T generally make up their own minds on issues. And this includes people in power. Why else do you think they spend a fortune on lobbying groups and advertising ? Just for the fun of it !!

No - because it works. And when you have people in power making decisions that impact everyone based on what the media have told them ? Then that is very relevant indeed.

Whether you or I believe the medis is irrelevant. We are not the mass population.

[Riedquat]

We have already been through this. You think what the media happen to decide is irrelevant ? Then you honestly need to step into the real World for a second. The media control a lot of people's thoughts. Whether they should or not or whether these people should be smarter and work this out is another matter.

People DON'T generally make up their own minds on issues. And this includes people in power. Why else do you think they spend a fortune on lobbying groups and advertising ? Just for the fun of it !!

No - because it works. And when you have people in power making decisions that impact everyone based on what the media have told them ? Then that is very relevant indeed.

Whether you or I believe the medis is irrelevant. We are not the mass population.

You're missing my point slightly. I agree with what you're saying there, and that was what I was complaining about - people who base their decisions (either accepting what they're being told or simply backlash against it) by what the media and politicians say.

[ccc]

You're missing my point slightly. I agree with what you're saying there, and that was what I was complaining about - people who base their decisions (either accepting what they're being told or simply backlash against it) by what the media and politicians say.

Yep would agree with that. Always better to do your own research. But then everyone cannot research everything so in many cases we are forced to listen to experts. Whether they have hidden agendas is not always obvious.

I am sure there are plenty of things I believe I 'know' about when in reality I don't have a clue - because I have just been listening to what I have been told.

[Pole]

[PopGun]

That's worrying. You based your decision on it becoming politically mainstream with one group?

Only after their actions didn't seem to reflect their rhetoric. Hypocrisy is a dead giveaway.

[Riedquat]

Only after their actions didn't seem to reflect their rhetoric. Hypocrisy is a dead giveaway.

And what bearing does that have on whether or not there's any truth in climate change? We know politicians will talk whatever they feel will make them popular, and do whatever will keep themselves comfy. That has little to do with the facts of the matter so should have sod all to do with your opinion on them. The only opinion it should give you is of the politicians in question. Someone claiming to be religious but not acting it doesn't tell you anything about whether or not.god exists. Same thing with politicians, journalists etc. and climate.

[athe]

Badly.

Cold climate = boring weather; hot climate = exciting weather (extremes in both directions).

OK so if we get a mini ice age it will be because of global warming? In fact what ever happens it'll be because of man made global warming? I'm glad you cleared that up.

Nope that's not what I said at all is it. I said hot climate = extremes in both directions. If the world sinks into an ice age I will happily concede the point.

It is worth noting that the last time the sun activity was as low as it is now (Solar cycle 16, 1923-1933) we had the Great Blizzard of 1933 - a foot of snow a day, and 6 ft drifts on the south coast.

[Riedquat]

It is worth noting that the last time the sun activity was as low as it is now (Solar cycle 16, 1923-1933) we had the Great Blizzard of 1933 - a foot of snow a day, and 6 ft drifts on the south coast.

Thought it had picked up again after the solar minimum, although it was a rather prolonged and low-activity minimum.

[athe]

Thought it had picked up again after the solar minimum, although it was a rather prolonged and low-activity minimum.

Just starting to rise - still very low

Out of interest here is what it should have looked like if it had followed previous average cycles

ie even by the low prediction we should be up around 50 - 75 by now, where as we are still hovering around 15 - 20. No wonder it's bloody chilly.

Edited to add comparison - Cycle 16 - note SSN of about 20 (same as now), lots of snow ( a lot more than now)

[MrPin]

I used to be a warmist, right up until the left made it their political mainstream. The doubt started to set in once their actions failed to reflect the hot air which constantly leaked from their backsides. Kind of lost its jazz after that, plus I stopped reading the Mirror and grew up.

Where's the next international global warming conference? Timbuktu? Should be a nice long plane ride.

I think it's fair to say it has been taken up by the "left" disproportionately, and was beginning to sound like a Party sermon!

A Presbyterian one at that, with loads of sin and damnation involved!

After all, they don't believe in Socialism any more, and needed a cause!

[libspero]

Just starting to rise - still very low

Excellent, finally something useful to come out of predictive weather climate cycles.. I'll be booking my UK beach holiday for summer 2014 then!

Woohoo!

[1929crash]

It is typical of the level of public debate about climate change that many of the most vocal participants don't seem to know the difference between climate and weather.

+1 Daily Sport level!

[libspero]

+1 Daily Sport level!

Oh come on.. get over yourself

I think this debate has been done to death.. it's hard to be serious all of the time.

As far as I can tell we have been as good at predicting mid-term climate trends as we have at short term local weather trends. Pretty rubbish!

I know there is a lot of research going on and we are probably starting to get a much better understanding of the atmospheric chemistries and mechanisms involved. I expect there are still plenty of unknowns as well though, hence the lack of accurate mid term climate predictions.

You ain't going to convince the average daily sport reader until you can show we understand it as well as we say we do. Which will be easily demonstrated with accurate predictions!

[fluffy666]

It is not made up it is true. Although they have gone a little quieter these days. Probably all that snow is getting some people to think for themselves on these matters. Can't be having that !!

So you know how the BBC is going to report on a story that hasn't happened yet, and this is evidence of their bias?

It is an interesting observation from hanging around denialist blogs that there are a lot of people who seem to think that the media is constantly portraying 'Teh Climate Doom', along with lots of scientists (who apparently get vastly rich off of all this). Yet on questioning they seem reluctant to point to any actual examples. It really is a case of people winding each other up..

[libspero]

It is an interesting observation from hanging around denialist blogs that there are a lot of people who seem to think that the media is constantly portraying 'Teh Climate Doom', along with lots of scientists (who apparently get vastly rich off of all this). Yet on questioning they seem reluctant to point to any actual examples. It really is a case of people winding each other up..

To be fair there is lots of grant money being thrown at this at the moment. I don't believe scientists are getting rich from it.. most are happy just to get their funding rolled over (perhaps they are selling themselves short) .

I think it is more that when you throw money at something and involve lots of people with a common goal there is the risk of group think and herd like mentality. Not saying there is.. but this is probably more the concern of the sceptics.

[6538]

I think it's fair to say it has been taken up by the "left" disproportionately, and was beginning to sound like a Party sermon!

A Presbyterian one at that, with loads of sin and damnation involved!

After all, they don't believe in Socialism any more, and needed a cause!

Global waming is an attempt to ressurect socialism in a new form. Listen to the rhetoric they use, things like; "we're all in this together", "we're all equally affected", "your liberties have to be restricted for the greater good of the prole....mankind", "individual liberty and private activity has be be restricted and controled at the whim of the state because the state knows what's best for you", "you must pay us sh1t load of taxes in order so we can do all of the above". I'm sure soemone can put it more eloquently than me but you get the idea.

[fluffy666]

To be fair there is lots of grant money being thrown at this at the moment. I don't believe scientists are getting rich from it.. most are happy just to get their funding rolled over (perhaps they are selling themselves short) .

Bear in mind that if you could put together a genuinely scientific research program that cast doubt on the magnitude or extent of human induced global warming, you would NOT be short of grants. If you work in the earth and atmospheric sciences, there are basically two sources of funding - the research councils and the oil/mineral extraction companies. The second of those would greatly like global warming to go away, even if you consider - with no actual evidence - the research councils to be totally corrupt.

I think it is more that when you throw money at something and involve lots of people with a common goal there is the risk of group think and herd like mentality. Not saying there is.. but this is probably more the concern of the sceptics.

There is no common goal in scientific research, apart from demonstrating that your peers are wrong and you are correct.

[libspero]

Bear in mind that if you could put together a genuinely scientific research program that cast doubt on the magnitude or extent of human induced global warming, you would NOT be short of grants. If you work in the earth and atmospheric sciences, there are basically two sources of funding - the research councils and the oil/mineral extraction companies. The second of those would greatly like global warming to go away, even if you consider - with no actual evidence - the research councils to be totally corrupt.

There is no common goal in scientific research, apart from demonstrating that your peers are wrong and you are correct.

It sounds as though you are closer to academia than me so you are probably better aware of whether there is institutional bias one way or the other. I thought most of the oil collaborations were more to do with the earth/mineral side than atmospheric chemistry.. but I'll bow to your better judgement if you say so.

I have to say that of the few groups I've spoken to some of them make the doom mongers on HPC look like Timmy Mallet on an ecstasy trip!

[Scunnered]

Global waming is an attempt to ressurect socialism in a new form. Listen to the rhetoric they use, things like; "we're all in this together", "we're all equally affected", "your liberties have to be restricted for the greater good of the prole....mankind", "individual liberty and private activity has be be restricted and controled at the whim of the state because the state knows what's best for you", "you must pay us sh1t load of taxes in order so we can do all of the above". I'm sure soemone can put it more eloquently than me but you get the idea.

But yet again you're just making this up. You say "Listen to the rhetoric they use" and then write down lots of stuff that you've just invented. Most of it's just rubbish that nobody has ever actually said.

[ccc]

So you know how the BBC is going to report on a story that hasn't happened yet, and this is evidence of their bias?

It is an interesting observation from hanging around denialist blogs that there are a lot of people who seem to think that the media is constantly portraying 'Teh Climate Doom', along with lots of scientists (who apparently get vastly rich off of all this). Yet on questioning they seem reluctant to point to any actual examples. It really is a case of people winding each other up..

I know it because they do it all the time. You want us to point to examples of TV stories showing something to do with the weather that tells the public it is (Or could be) down to climate change ? Are you for real ?!

But yet again you're just making this up. You say "Listen to the rhetoric they use" and then write down lots of stuff that you've just invented. Most of it's just rubbish that nobody has ever actually said.

This is just the front page of the BBC Science & Environment page today.

UK renewables under fire

"The last 10 years have been a lost decade for renewables. Labour's tragic legacy is that we are 25th out of 27 EU member states on renewables. We have been playing as amateurs when we should have been in the Premiership."

New energy sources to tackle climate change

"Even though there is uncertainty, I think that it is essential to prepare for the worst case".

Un Climate talks

"Cancun will be a success, if parties compromise."

Moral anger at climate progress

Scotland's religious leaders have described the West's failure to help developing nations cope with climate change as a "moral outrage".

It highlights disappointment at the outcome of last year's UN climate change conference in Copenhagen and says every day that passes sees lives "affected and even lost".

"It is a moral outrage that as yet developed countries appear unwilling to find the money so urgently needed to deal with this issue."

[ccc]

And Fluffy for your enjoyment. From just back in August. BBC. So here you have it - in black and white. Good enough example for you ?

Hot weather in Russia 'partly blamed on climate change'

Hot weather

"Global climate change is partly to blame for the abnormally hot and dry weather in Moscow, cloaked in a haze of smoke from wildfires, say researchers. "

[ccc]

If Wales was having it's hottest summer ever the BBC et al would be attributing that to global warming or climate change or global climate disruption or whatever it is they are calling it this week.

It does seem to be an increasing trend amongst denialists to simply make up what they think 'the other side' would be saying, then argue against them based on that. Kind of like the traditional scottish-drunk-picking-a-fight-with-himself, but less reality-based.

Russia

Fluffy - you will now need to apologise to Ruffneck. You are wrong. He is right. It is there in black and white. He did not 'simply make something up'. The facts are there for all to see.

[Scunnered]

This is just the front page of the BBC Science & Environment page today.

UK renewables under fire

"The last 10 years have been a lost decade for renewables. Labour's tragic legacy is that we are 25th out of 27 EU member states on renewables. We have been playing as amateurs when we should have been in the Premiership."

New energy sources to tackle climate change

"Even though there is uncertainty, I think that it is essential to prepare for the worst case".

Un Climate talks

"Cancun will be a success, if parties compromise."

Moral anger at climate progress

Scotland's religious leaders have described the West's failure to help developing nations cope with climate change as a "moral outrage".

It highlights disappointment at the outcome of last year's UN climate change conference in Copenhagen and says every day that passes sees lives "affected and even lost".

"It is a moral outrage that as yet developed countries appear unwilling to find the money so urgently needed to deal with this issue."

And? None of that bears the slightest resemblance to the rhetoric that 6538 attributes (in the form of direct quotations) to whoever it is that he's railing against:

Listen to the rhetoric they use, things like; "we're all in this together", "we're all equally affected", "your liberties have to be restricted for the greater good of the prole....mankind", "individual liberty and private activity has be be restricted and controled at the whim of the state because the state knows what's best for you", "you must pay us sh1t load of taxes in order so we can do all of the above".

Let me repeat: he implies that this comes from climate scientists. It doesn't. He's just made it up. It's a stupid circular argument: you fabricate stuff, claim it comes from your enemies, then use it to condemn them.