Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Britain's Weather Has Now Got So Bad Even The Met Office Is Worried: Forecasters To Hold Meeting


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

This is, of course, exactly the kind of regime shift that you expect to see if you put more energy into a chaotic system.

Unless, of course, you work at the Met Office

Or is the claim that 'Met Office’s temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm. None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold. That makes the errors systemic and significant' bogus?

There are at least two things intertwined here - the science, or otherwise, of global warming and the way that science has been relayed to Joe and Jane Public. Regardless of the merits of the former, the latter has been shoddy and sensationalistic. And no copping out for the scientists who failed speak out against the more OTT drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1
HOLA442

By definition, you would have no idea what you'd get if you alter the state of a chaotic system. That's why it's called chaotic - geddit?

.. which is, of course, why the effect observed was not predicted.

I can say 'putting more energy into a chaotic system is likely to lead to the emergence of new quasi-stable states and greater excursions from the mean'. I can't give much idea as to what form those states and excursions will take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
Guest eight

There is a middle ground between weather and climate, however. And you may notice that I use a lot of qualifiers on my statements..

What have we got today? Not surprisingly, the day dawned bright and clear. Now, coming up on ten o'clock, it's clouded over. Not a single inch of blue sky to be seen. Now I'm no meteorologist or pilot but I'd say this cloud is no higher than a couple of thousand feet - in fact it feels like it's not far above the trees and buildings. This will last now till about teatime when it will break and the evening will be sunny and warm. This happens almost every single day. If I could attach pictures I would, and you would all be startled by my predictive capacity!

I contend this is neither weather or climate - that's happening up above it, out of sight. What it is I have no idea, but I'm freakin' sick of it, I can tell you that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

<snip>

I contend this is neither weather or climate - that's happening up above it, out of sight. What it is I have no idea, but I'm freakin' sick of it, I can tell you that much.

That's my experience and feeling also (though I reckon the haze cuts in significantly higher than you do). I am plenty open to evidence that it's down to bias on my part as an isolated observer but my recollection is, and it may be imperfect, that the expression of our weather has changed. Cobalt blue skies, not snowy winters, are a thing of the past.

It's not good impo and, aside from chemtrail-focused conspiranauts, it's receiving hardly any attention at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

What have we got today? Not surprisingly, the day dawned bright and clear. Now, coming up on ten o'clock, it's clouded over. Not a single inch of blue sky to be seen. Now I'm no meteorologist or pilot but I'd say this cloud is no higher than a couple of thousand feet - in fact it feels like it's not far above the trees and buildings. This will last now till about teatime when it will break and the evening will be sunny and warm. This happens almost every single day. If I could attach pictures I would, and you would all be startled by my predictive capacity!

This does happen a lot. Indeed most days now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

Unless, of course, you work at the Met Office

Or is the claim that 'Met Office’s temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm. None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold. That makes the errors systemic and significant' bogus?

Science by Daily Mail headline.. seriously?

There are at least two things intertwined here - the science, or otherwise, of global warming and the way that science has been relayed to Joe and Jane Public. Regardless of the merits of the former, the latter has been shoddy and sensationalistic. And no copping out for the scientists who failed speak out against the more OTT drivel.

Here's the problem : whenever I ask for examples of sensationalism there's a tumbleweed-like silence. I read the Guardian; when I do see climate reporting in that it's usually pretty conservative. And papers like the Mail or Telegraph don't even acknowledge the science..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447
7
HOLA448

Science by Daily Mail headline.. seriously?

So, the statement...

'Met Office’s temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm. None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold.

is incorrect?

(I'll park 'That makes the errors systemic and significant' as something that's a matter of interpretation rather than a straight factual claim)

Here's the problem : whenever I ask for examples of sensationalism there's a tumbleweed-like silence. I read the Guardian; when I do see climate reporting in that it's usually pretty conservative. And papers like the Mail or Telegraph don't even acknowledge the science..

I'll point to some of the classics...

Independent: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

Independent: Bring on the olives and bananas?

MSNBC: 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change

In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far."

NYT: The Civil Heretic

Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”

Reason Online: An Inconvenient Truth - Gore as climate exaggerator

Take sea level rise for example. Gore spends a lot of time talking about how dramatic melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps that could raise sea level by 20 feet by 2100. He shows computer animated maps in which most of southern Florida, southern Manhattan, Shanghai, and Bangladesh are inundated. "Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees, and then imagine 100 million," says Gore. Of course his reference to the couple of hundred thousand refugees aims to evoke thoughts about the horrific experience of New Orleanians last year.

Well, the "consensus" of climate scientists as represented in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 inches to 35 inches with a central value of 19 inches.

bored of cutting and pasting now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

This does happen a lot. Indeed most days now.

As far back as I noticed, which was the introduction of Mrs Loo into my life, where the sun, or lack of it is a major family discussion, the UK was encased in a layer of cloud during the day, clearing at night.

I particularly remember going on holiday a year after our marriage...this would be 1982, and we left the UK for a Yugotours holiday in a Tupelev aircraft, and we were blessed with rearward facing seats. and very large circular windows.

As the aircraft climbed away we could look back on the cloudbase large in the window.

As we crossed the coast, the sea became visible...the cloud later seemed to cover the entire land mass both left and right.

It seems the Uk collects clouds and dries the skies for the rest of Europe.

Marvellous hoilday...cost peanuts and we came back with change from £500, including the holiday itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

As far back as I noticed, which was the introduction of Mrs Loo into my life, where the sun, or lack of it is a major family discussion, the UK was encased in a layer of cloud during the day, clearing at night.

No-one who has grown up in the UK is a stranger to cloud.

What I do recall is that when we were treated to the occasional cloud free day you could actually see a clear blue sky.

FWIW I don't think this is observer bias and faulty memory at work. According to AP (I wasn't in the country at the time), the skies over the UK cleared up considerably when air traffic was grounded during the 2010 Icelandic volcano eruption...

LONDON - A volcano in Iceland has ripped away Europe's veil of civilization - and even some of its smudge. Even as volcanic ash cast a shadow over millions of lives, Londoners and other city dwellers across Europe were treated to a rare spectacle of nature: Pristine, blue skies brighter than any in recent memory.

The remarkable sight happened in part because mass flight groundings prevented busy airspace from being crisscrossed with plumes of jet exhaust that create a semi-permanent haze — and other effects beyond the white contrails themselves.

Just as city lights make it necessary for us to go to the desert to appreciate the true glitter of stars, so has modern aviation dulled us to what the noontime sky can really look like — until the erupting volcano in Iceland offered a reminder.

Britain's poet laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, was inspired to write verses about the unusually clear skies above London: "Five miles up the hush and shush of ash/Yet the sky is as clean as a white slate/I could write my childhood there."

Planes f***ing up our skies and obscuring the Sun should be an issue afaic. Why isn't it? Why is there no public discussion about the possible impacts and ways to ameliorate them? It's a peculiar thing to be blasé about impo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

Planes f***ing up our skies and obscuring the Sun should be an issue afaic. Why isn't it? Why is there no public discussion about the possible impacts and ways to ameliorate them? It's a peculiar thing to be blasé about impo.

Indeed. And that's before we get to the pollution (noise and air) they cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

No-one who has grown up in the UK is a stranger to cloud.

What I do recall is that when we were treated to the occasional cloud free day you could actually see a clear blue sky.

FWIW I don't think this is observer bias and faulty memory at work. According to AP (I wasn't in the country at the time), the skies over the UK cleared up considerably when air traffic was grounded during the 2010 Icelandic volcano eruption...

Planes f***ing up our skies and obscuring the Sun should be an issue afaic. Why isn't it? Why is there no public discussion about the possible impacts and ways to ameliorate them? It's a peculiar thing to be blasé about impo.

actually, we had three days of sunshine then a thunderstorm.

Yes, the skies were noticeably clearer when the volcano grounded the planes....and it was much quieter...

I am priveliged to have a very large window overlooking a flight lane....when the planes make trails, you can see them making a sort of patchwork of clouds that moves over the sky....

not chemtrails....just water vapour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

actually, we had three days of sunshine then a thunderstorm.

Yes, the skies were noticeably clearer when the volcano grounded the planes....and it was much quieter...

I am priveliged to have a very large window overlooking a flight lane....when the planes make trails, you can see them making a sort of patchwork of clouds that moves over the sky....

not chemtrails....just water vapour.

At present, I wouldn't suggest anything else.

I would still like to see the sun make a return

and some indication or public discussion of what impact swathing the country in artificial cloud 365 days a year has on surface temperature as well as the physiology of all the organisms, and their complex interactions, underneath it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

not chemtrails....just water vapour.

You know this for a certainty? You're absolutely, 100% sure? I presume you've flown up to these trails and taken samples which have been analysed in a laboratory etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415

You know this for a certainty? You're absolutely, 100% sure? I presume you've flown up to these trails and taken samples which have been analysed in a laboratory etc?

but what purpose chemtrails....are you suggesting the pilots switch them on, and switch them off?

Is this in the flight manual...if so...please show it to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

but what purpose chemtrails....are you suggesting the pilots switch them on, and switch them off?

Is this in the flight manual...if so...please show it to me.

It's clearly automated, based on very simple barometrics I would suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
17
HOLA4418

You know this for a certainty? You're absolutely, 100% sure? I presume you've flown up to these trails and taken samples which have been analysed in a laboratory etc?

I can’t believe this theory has got the traction it has, obviously there are a lot of easily fooled people about.

Just supposed there aircraft were spraying chemicals, think how many people would have to be in on it: the aircraft technicians the pilots etc… and not one of them go to the press etc…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

So, the statement... is incorrect?

Now, if I made a statement in this conversation which amounted to 'here is my claim, please prove it wrong', what would a dozen or so posters immediately reply with?

I'll point to some of the classics...

Independant, 2000:

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

Independant, 1996:

Poor Bill Giles. He's going to be haunted by those olives, the way that his colleague Michael Fish has been by the hurricane that he said wouldn't happen. He won't be able to pick up a bottle of salad dressing without someone saying, "Your own oil is it, Bill?"

MSNBC: Lovelock.. isn't a climate scientist. Plus, it's a bad idea to listen to scientists over the age of 80 outside of their strict specialties.

The Civil Heretic NYT piece is someone complaining about percieved alarmism. No recursing, please.

And the Reason Online piece it just going into straightforward denialism. Again it's a piece complaining about alarmism rather than being alarmist.

In any case, if you are having to go back years to find the odd dubious example then this kind of disproves the meme that there is a phalanx of alarmist scientists pushing some apocalyptic vision, dosen't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
20
HOLA4421

In any case, if you are having to go back years to find the odd dubious example then this kind of disproves the meme that there is a phalanx of alarmist scientists pushing some apocalyptic vision, dosen't it?

Well there was a piece in New Scientist a couple of weeks back that was somewhat biased. Instead of simply reporting that climate models overestimated the effects of certain factors the headline was something like "A second chance to avert climate disaster".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
22
HOLA4423

Now, if I made a statement in this conversation which amounted to 'here is my claim, please prove it wrong', what would a dozen or so posters immediately reply with?

Not my claim but one that's been reported or referred to in at least a couple of newspapers. In response, you mentioned something about the Daily Mail, implying that was an unreliable source.

Will the BBC do?

Met Office global forecasts too warm in 11 out of last 12 yrs (2012)

In any case, if you are having to go back years to find the odd dubious example then this kind of disproves the meme that there is a phalanx of alarmist scientists pushing some apocalyptic vision, dosen't it?

I'm going back years because that's the point. Enough time has passed for at least some of the initial doom and gloom stuff not to have transpired.

And who said anything about a phalanx of alarmist scientists? I mentioned that communication of the science to the general public has been alarmist. It has. I did suggest that not many scientists (with access to the media) called foul when the material was being spun but that's a sin of omission not commission. There are exceptions, such as James Hansen who ticks all the boxes

As for the persistent contrail thing, I'm reasonably confident that air traffic is causing significant, semi-permanent haze which *may* have implications for stuff underneath the haze. However, when the subject shifts towards chemtrails I chuck my hand in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

I can’t believe this theory has got the traction it has, obviously there are a lot of easily fooled people about.

Just supposed there aircraft were spraying chemicals, think how many people would have to be in on it: the aircraft technicians the pilots etc… and not one of them go to the press etc…

I'm not saying I believe in chemtrails (or whatever they are), I'm just saying that it seems - for obvious reasons - impossible for people on this forum to make statements saying they don't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

Not my claim but one that's been reported or referred to in at least a couple of newspapers. In response, you mentioned something about the Daily Mail, implying that was an unreliable source.

Will the BBC do?

Met Office global forecasts too warm in 11 out of last 12 yrs (2012)

I'm going back years because that's the point. Enough time has passed for at least some of the initial doom and gloom stuff not to have transpired.

And who said anything about a phalanx of alarmist scientists? I mentioned that communication of the science to the general public has been alarmist. It has. I did suggest that not many scientists (with access to the media) called foul when the material was being spun but that's a sin of omission not commission. There are exceptions, such as James Hansen who ticks all the boxes

As for the persistent contrail thing, I'm reasonably confident that air traffic is causing significant, semi-permanent haze which *may* have implications for stuff underneath the haze. However, when the subject shifts towards chemtrails I chuck my hand in.

With a few exceptions, I'd say that the public communication of the science has tended to underplay (and, in the right-wing press, rubbish) rather than exaggerate the possible results of greenhouse warming. Even the scientists themselves have now to some extent been cowed into making estimates that tend to err on the conservative side - witness the IPCC forecasts for Arctic ice melting, which now seem very optimistic.

James Hansen is one of the few climate scientists with both the scientific credentials and political clout to say what he really thinks without having to worry too much about the consequences to his career, though the Bush administration did try its best to shut him up!

Edit: Fully agree with you on contrails and "chemtrails" by the way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information