Unusual weather in UK (1 Viewer)

[Kentbloke]

re. the Antarctic ship getting stuck, the sea ice there was "the result of a 2010 collision between an enormous berg known as B09B and the Mertz Glacier Tongue. As a result of this clash, B09B lodged itself on the seabed of Commonwealth Bay, changing the circulation of the area dramatically."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ntarctic-expedition-was-worth-it-chris-turney

No mention of the record low temps recorded there in 2013 in that article, I see?

 

[John Cantelo]

There certainly was a period where we had milder winters and early flowering and breeding with birds, but that stopped with a bang for a couple of winters indeed last year it was well into may before things got going around this way , plants or birds.

The weather is all over the place , that's the truth , no one knows exactly what's going on . As soon as one theory is produced , nature hits us with something else.
they can't even predict the weather weeks ahead yet you expect people to believe these doomesday scenarios, you carry on .I still believe the earth is flat and you can fall of the edge
Even if it's true , what are your views on how our money is being spent trying to combat the problem, wind farms good or bad?
What would your views be if due to our commitments to cut emmissions the lights are out because we shut down coal fired power stations.
now is not the time to cripple our economy or people in these desperate times we can't afford to be world leaders when China , India and indeed Germany are building away.
It just seems to me that as reality never followed what was predicted by their computor models now every extreme weather event is due to climate change , you can't have it all ways. The planets going the other way so get your fur coat

Like many 'sceptics' you confuse 'weather' with climate. You also conveniently ignore the points I raised. Views on the wisdom of certain policies designed to ameliorate the problem has no bearing on whether or not the problem exists. Climate scientists, as distinct from the press, are generally cautious about ascribing individual weather events to climate change although a pattern of events, predicted by modelling, is another matter. I'm also curious as to where you get the evidence for your claim that 'the planet is going the other way' and that we should 'get our fur coats'.

 

[Minto]

re. the Antarctic ship getting stuck, the sea ice there was "the result of a 2010 collision between an enormous berg known as B09B and the Mertz Glacier Tongue. As a result of this clash, B09B lodged itself on the seabed of Commonwealth Bay, changing the circulation of the area dramatically."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ntarctic-expedition-was-worth-it-chris-turney

there's always some explanation dug out when reality flys in the face of their doomesday predictions. face up to it , I don't know , neither do you or most of the others that push the agenda.
All that concerns me is that our countryside and energy supplys are being wrecked to solve a problem that may or may not exist.
I don't drive, plant hundreds of broadleaf trees and generally do my bit for the environment, what I won't accept is being told by people the worlds going to hell , yet these very same people fly thousands around the globe to IPPC jollies , sorry conferences, hypocrites

 

[Minto]

Like many 'sceptics' you confuse 'weather' with climate. You also conveniently ignore the points I raised. Views on the wisdom of certain policies designed to ameliorate the problem has no bearing on whether or not the problem exists. Climate scientists, as distinct from the press, are generally cautious about ascribing individual weather events to climate change although a pattern of events, predicted by modelling, is another matter. I'm also curious as to where you get the evidence for your claim that 'the planet is going the other way' and that we should 'get our fur coats'.

No I don't John,
you warmists are the ones looking for a new religion. Now you mention it though the BBC are forever mentioning climate change in relation to things like the recent storms, or crowing if we get a day or two above average temperatures, that's weather, have you pointed that out to them?
I'll look out for your letter on points of view. Come back to me in thirty odd years if we're still experiencing the same weather and maybe you'll have a point.
Can you show me where in their models the warming was actually going to pause for sixteen years , or be so small a rise as to be statistically insignificant. Don't tell me they found it deep in the ocean, if that's so then get over it and accept that the earths been through this before and can cope with it( without us bankrupting ourselves) and will come out the other end.
What didn't I answer, lets see I'm not funded by big oil, can't say I understand the science( but then again I'll wager most don't), but can digest and see enough to tell me that whatever warming we had has stalled , the changes we saw earlier early flowering, birds moving , breeding earlier well that's on hold now too, was that predicted, bbq summers anyone.
If you are curious as to why I think it's going the other way lets agree to wait until May and see where we are, frozen like last year i'll bet

 

[Minto]

No mention of the record low temps recorded there in 2013 in that article, I see?

Nope , but they are quick enough carping on when we do actually get a bit of warm weather

 

[TwoDipsfromAmsterdam]

No I don't John,

If you are curious as to why I think it's going the other way lets agree to wait until May and see where we are, frozen like last year i'll bet

As John Cantelo has already pointed out, you are confusing weather and climate. Whether May is the hottest or coldest on record or decidedly average will matter diddly squat as far as climate is concerned.

David

 

[Minto]

As John Cantelo has already pointed out, you are confusing weather and climate. Whether May is the hottest or coldest on record or decidedly average will matter diddly squat as far as climate is concerned.

David

I know but if its freezing cold in may could be start of a trend, lets face it the warmist jump on it as soon as a daffodil pokes out its head a week or two early in previous springs . Seeing as you are so concerned to correct me , email the BBC and others when they confuse a couple of warm days with climate, .
Just because JC says something doesn't make it so

 

[John Cantelo]

No I don't John,
you warmists are the ones looking for a new religion. Now you mention it though the BBC are forever mentioning climate change in relation to things like the recent storms, or crowing if we get a day or two above average temperatures, that's weather, have you pointed that out to them?
I'll look out for your letter on points of view. Come back to me in thirty odd years if we're still experiencing the same weather and maybe you'll have a point.
Can you show me where in their models the warming was actually going to pause for sixteen years , or be so small a rise as to be statistically insignificant. Don't tell me they found it deep in the ocean, if that's so then get over it and accept that the earths been through this before and can cope with it( without us bankrupting ourselves) and will come out the other end.
What didn't I answer, lets see I'm not funded by big oil, can't say I understand the science( but then again I'll wager most don't), but can digest and see enough to tell me that whatever warming we had has stalled , the changes we saw earlier early flowering, birds moving , breeding earlier well that's on hold now too, was that predicted, bbq summers anyone.
If you are curious as to why I think it's going the other way lets agree to wait until May and see where we are, frozen like last year i'll bet

Naturally I apologise for misunderstanding you, but I confess that to me, and others, some of your posts did appear to confuse climate and weather. It's really not good enough to smear those who accept scientific findings as 'looking for a new religion'. Arguably those who take a contrary view, despite the weight of peer reviewed evidence, are more guilty of taking a 'faith position'. I would strongly recommend to you the book 'Merchants of Doubt' which clearly sets out why you should be very wary of those espousing the 'conspiracy theory' of global warming

 

[TwoDipsfromAmsterdam]

I know but if its freezing cold in may could be start of a trend, lets face it the warmist jump on it as soon as a daffodil pokes out its head a week or two early in previous springs . Seeing as you are so concerned to correct me , email the BBC and others when they confuse a couple of warm days with climate, .
Just because JC says something doesn't make it so

Note that your Prime Minister has today "admitted" that the recent weather patterns in the UK could be down to climate change. No PM, especially one from a party that contains more sceptics than most, would say that without having been briefed at the highest possible levels.

David

 

[John Cantelo]

there's always some explanation dug out when reality flys in the face of their doomesday predictions. face up to it , I don't know , neither do you or most of the others that push the agenda.
All that concerns me is that our countryside and energy supplys are being wrecked to solve a problem that may or may not exist.
I don't drive, plant hundreds of broadleaf trees and generally do my bit for the environment, what I won't accept is being told by people the worlds going to hell , yet these very same people fly thousands around the globe to IPPC jollies , sorry conferences, hypocrites

It seems to me that you're starting from the viewpoint that you dislike the impact of policies intended to limit the impact of 'climate change'. Hence it appears to me that you reject the overwhelming evidence from professional, climate scientists publishing peer reviewed articles in respected journals not so much because the science is flawed, but because you don't like the consequences. An entirely understandable reaction, but not one likely to advance understanding of the issues.

 

[Minto]

Note that your Prime Minister has today "admitted" that the recent weather patterns in the UK could be down to climate change. No PM, especially one from a party that contains more sceptics than most, would say that without having been briefed at the highest possible levels.

David

What ,cast Iron Dave, please don't take anything he says seriously. That man doesn't even know how to spell truth

 

[Minto]

It seems to me that you're starting from the viewpoint that you dislike the impact of policies intended to limit the impact of 'climate change'. Hence it appears to me that you reject the overwhelming evidence from professional, climate scientists publishing peer reviewed articles in respected journals not so much because the science is flawed, but because you don't like the consequences. An entirely understandable reaction, but not one likely to advance understanding of the issues.

Thanks for that John, bit wide of the mark actually. Read my posts , I don't drive, have personally planted hundreds of deciduous trees( not to offset my carbon footprint for flying, ain't been on a plane), recycle far more than my neighbours, have installed a shower to save water and, like everyone else pay almost double now on my energy bills and generally fork out a fortune monitoring raptors.
I do my bit ,so please enlighten me more and tell me what policies are likely to have much more of an impact on me.
I do dislike windfarms ( coincidently, you accused me of avoiding questions , I asked for your views on windfarms , and the shutting down of coal burning power stations when other countries are going the opposite way) because having read up and look at output they are a waste of money for the infrequent piffling amount of electricity produced.
This is where I have a problem, Professional Climate scientists peer reviewed by their mates,you believe everything they produce in support of GW/CC/CD I just remember the lies , fudging of data , deleting of data that didn't match up , the hockey stick etc and all the other dodgy goings on that was revealed in those emails.
And the whitewash enquiries that followed

 

[Minto]

Naturally I apologise for misunderstanding you, but I confess that to me, and others, some of your posts did appear to confuse climate and weather. It's really not good enough to smear those who accept scientific findings as 'looking for a new religion'. Arguably those who take a contrary view, despite the weight of peer reviewed evidence, are more guilty of taking a 'faith position'. I would strongly recommend to you the book 'Merchants of Doubt' which clearly sets out why you should be very wary of those espousing the 'conspiracy theory' of global warming

John, to me the whole thing isn't linked to us burning carbon , that's the control element of it . I don't need to read that as to be honest there are more pressing things going on in my life, and I read all the shite for months.
Read the great wind farm scam and follow the money these landowners are creaming.
Do you accept that media outlets including the BBC and others like Cameron just today confuse weather with climate, or have I been sleeping for the last few decades whilst our country drowns every winter. Where's the evidence to support his bullshit claims about the storms.Has he been talking to the Met office( invisible after their bbq summer, remember that propaganda John).
should I pm the PM and correct him, it's weather Dave... but hey no conspiracy here move on

 

[pppppvvvv]

Note that your Prime Minister has today "admitted" that the recent weather patterns in the UK could be down to climate change. No PM, especially one from a party that contains more sceptics than most, would say that without having been briefed at the highest possible levels.

David

Lol, yes, and did you hear it on BBC radio4, where they mentioned that Cameron's views were the opposite to his energy secretary, Patterson, who is a well publicised climate change sceptic. Laugh? I nearly paid my electricity bill!

 

[JTweedie]

No mention of the record low temps recorded there in 2013 in that article, I see?

Why would he mention it? It wasn't relevant to the situation they found themselves in, trapped by very old ice that deflected circulation in the local area.

The lowest temperature of -93.2C was recorded in July, during the Antarctic winter, so you'd expect it to be colder then. If it was that cold during summer then it would be really noteworthy. But then it is just one data point, it's not indicative of anything on its own.

However, the temperature wasn't measured using thermometers, but by analysing temperature maps taken by satellites, so there must be some uncertainty in the figures, but even if the figure is right, it doesn't really tell us anything.

Anyhow, according to this article, while we're likely to get the odd lowest temperature, we're likely to experience many more record high temperatures.

 

[John Cantelo]

I do dislike windfarms ( coincidently, you accused me of avoiding questions , I asked for your views on windfarms , and the shutting down of coal burning power stations when other countries are going the opposite way) because having read up and look at output they are a waste of money for the infrequent piffling amount of electricity produced.

I confess to admiring the efforts you make even if I may disagree with you over other matters. As what we're discussing is whether or not climate change is 'real', I suggest that my views on the on windfarms etc., are entirely irrelevant which is why I thought, and still do, it a diversion to discuss the matter.

 

[John Cantelo]

Why would he mention it? It wasn't relevant to the situation they found themselves in, trapped by very old ice that deflected circulation in the local area.

The lowest temperature of -93.2C was recorded in July, during the Antarctic winter, so you'd expect it to be colder then. If it was that cold during summer then it would be really noteworthy. But then it is just one data point, it's not indicative of anything on its own.

However, the temperature wasn't measured using thermometers, but by analysing temperature maps taken by satellites, so there must be some uncertainty in the figures, but even if the figure is right, it doesn't really tell us anything.

Anyhow, according to this article, while we're likely to get the odd lowest temperature, we're likely to experience many more record high temperatures.

Good link. What I'd like to know about this report (i.e. a record low temperature) is first how detailed is the data for low winter temps in Antarctica as a whole over time and second how long satellite data like this has been available. Although i agree with your final comment It would be interesting to know this to put the record into context.

 

[JTweedie]

Good link. What I'd like to know about this report (i.e. a record low temperature) is first how detailed is the data for low winter temps in Antarctica as a whole over time and second how long satellite data like this has been available. Although i agree with your final comment It would be interesting to know this to put the record into context.

I was actually planning on contacting the British Antarctic Survey to ask about what data they have that is publically available. Their website still shows the record low as being the long-standing one from Vostok Station, although this could just be because no-one has got round to updating that particular web page, but it could also be because there's been much made about the reliability of the new temperature because of the way it was worked out.

They might only have data for areas in which the UK operates, but it's worth asking anyway.

For global temperatures, thermometers have to be placed regularly at a certain height off the ground - minimising uncertainty in the measurements. I think this is one reason why these satellite measurements can only be taken as stand-alone data points rather than contributing to the working out of global mean surface temperature.

 

[Minto]

I confess to admiring the efforts you make even if I may disagree with you over other matters. As what we're discussing is whether or not climate change is 'real', I suggest that my views on the on windfarms etc., are entirely irrelevant which is why I thought, and still do, it a diversion to discuss the matter.

Cheers John I honestly do my bit,
but back to the wind farms in this context they are not a diversion, as at the moment they are the central plank of our governments efforts to curb this problem.
The amount of money spent on these should concern you , as they produce nothing near what they should and have to have gas fired power stations as backup. Surely if the problem is real you would want any money spent to be directed at projects that will help reduce our co2 not just feather the pockets of landowners whether they be private or in our case Assembly owned land.

Why not just go nuclear instead of paying people to build up generator parks to kick in when the supplies low, like in the winter last year when we had high pressure for ages and no wind.
As is life I suppose we'll agree to disagree

 

[Minto]

For global temperatures, thermometers have to be placed regularly at a certain height off the ground - minimising uncertainty in the measurements.

It also helps getting accurate global temperatures if the monitoring stations were placed away from built up areas and they had a few more in key areas