... and if you are really bored you may wish to look at the lightning 'radar', red oldest to white newest, which suggests the thunderstorms may be headed for ....... Medway!
... and if you are really bored you may wish to look at the lightning 'radar', red oldest to white newest, which suggests the thunderstorms may be headed for ....... Medway!
I am not confusing the two - my point is that meteorologists frequently get things wrong with their weather forecasts, so why is it that you think climate change scientists always get their man made global warming forecasts right? They use computer models to forecast what they think climate is going to be like and already have had to change their thinking on the speed of global warming as it hasn't warmed in the last ten years as they predicted.
There are two situations here;
One is the global warming issue as I have posted above these are the FACTS
If you put carbon into the atmosphere it will warm the planet.
Atmospheric carbon has risen by between 25 & 30% over the past 50 years.
The rate at which carbon is entering the atmosphere is accelerating.
The rate at which carbon is leaving the atmosphere is decelerating.
These FACTS can and have been tested and have been found to be correct, 99.9% of the worlds scientists agree with them. These FACTS form the basis for the science behind global warming.
A weather prediction is not a fact, it is an opinion based upon given conditions and an analysis of them. These predictions are subject to error, not as has been pointed out frequent error but, error nonetheless.
The planet IS warming up however, certain weather systems (the afore mentioned cyclicals) have just been discovered that explain the lack of increase to global averages over the past 10 not 20 years. I am not saying that they can get the warming forecast right, in fact if you actually read what I put you would see that I said they are in disagreement about the predictions. That is just an argument about the rate of warming not the FACT of warming.
I hope that helps, if you are genuinely interested in the debate I'm happy to continue, I think your thoughts are dangerous because they have a bearing on political scene which is still dangerously inactive on the consequences we face. That is why I have brought this back, it must be understood that if we do not act we as a species will not survive. That is a big statement but, it is not one that is disputed by any reputed scientist anywhere that I know of at least. As to when and how, that is a quite different matter.
To say that global warming is not happening because the weather cannot be predicted is quite frankly crass. You are making a comparison of opinion and fact and they are not comparable.
I am not confusing the two - my point is that meteorologists frequently get things wrong with their weather forecasts, so why is it that you think climate change scientists always get their man made global warming forecasts right? They use computer models to forecast what they think climate is going to be like and already have had to change their thinking on the speed of global warming as it hasn't warmed in the last ten years as they predicted.
There are two situations here;
One is the global warming issue as I have posted above these are the FACTS
If you put carbon into the atmosphere it will warm the planet.
Atmospheric carbon has risen by between 25 & 30% over the past 50 years.
The rate at which carbon is entering the atmosphere is accelerating.
The rate at which carbon is leaving the atmosphere is decelerating.
These FACTS can and have been tested and have been found to be correct, 99.9% of the worlds scientists agree with them. These FACTS form the basis for the science behind global warming.
A weather prediction is not a fact, it is an opinion based upon given conditions and an analysis of them. These predictions are subject to error, not as has been pointed out frequent error but, error nonetheless.
The planet IS warming up however, certain weather systems (the afore mentioned cyclicals) have just been discovered that explain the lack of increase to global averages over the past 10 not 20 years. I am not saying that they can get the warming forecast right, in fact if you actually read what I put you would see that I said they are in disagreement about the predictions. That is just an argument about the rate of warming not the FACT of warming.
I hope that helps, if you are genuinely interested in the debate I'm happy to continue, I think your thoughts are dangerous because they have a bearing on political scene which is still dangerously inactive on the consequences we face. That is why I have brought this back, it must be understood that if we do not act we as a species will not survive. That is a big statement but, it is not one that is disputed by any reputed scientist anywhere that I know of at least. As to when and how, that is a quite different matter.
To say that global warming is not happening because the weather cannot be predicted is quite frankly crass. You are making a comparison of opinion and fact and they are not comparable.
Calm the heck down. No wonder people get agitated by FACTS being shouted at them when they dare to question.
Loco, I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening because the weather can't be predicted. I didn't even link the two. What I did say is that predictions of global warming aren't accurate just as predicting the weather isn't accurate.
Politically I think we're doing too much - this rush towards renewables is going to leave us dangerously short of power in the near future. Whatever we do in this country is negated by countries like China.
Loco, I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening because the weather can't be predicted. I didn't even link the two. What I did say is that predictions of global warming aren't accurate just as predicting the weather isn't accurate.
Politically I think we're doing too much - this rush towards renewables is going to leave us dangerously short of power in the near future. Whatever we do in this country is negated by countries like China.
_______________
Why do some people persist with this notion of man made climate change and global warming?
A few years ago the global warming fanatics said.....
I'm sorry but I do not believe all the so called evidence. So much of it is used to 'fit' what the climate change theorists want.
it just goes to show how scientists can get things wrong, so why shouldn't they be wrong about man made global warming?
Your previous posts seem to contradict that however, as people think I need to chill out or calm down and I need to cook a pork chop, I'll leave it there. *leaves the room, the very epitome of calmness*
I am not confusing the two - my point is that meteorologists frequently get things wrong with their weather forecasts, so why is it that you think climate change scientists always get their man made global warming forecasts right? They use computer models to forecast what they think climate is going to be like and already have had to change their thinking on the speed of global warming as it hasn't warmed in the last ten years as they predicted.
There are two situations here;
One is the global warming issue as I have posted above these are the FACTS
If you put carbon into the atmosphere it will warm the planet.
Atmospheric carbon has risen by between 25 & 30% over the past 50 years.
The rate at which carbon is entering the atmosphere is accelerating.
The rate at which carbon is leaving the atmosphere is decelerating.
These FACTS can and have been tested and have been found to be correct, 99.9% of the worlds scientists agree with them. These FACTS form the basis for the science behind global warming.
A weather prediction is not a fact, it is an opinion based upon given conditions and an analysis of them. These predictions are subject to error, not as has been pointed out frequent error but, error nonetheless.
The planet IS warming up however, certain weather systems (the afore mentioned cyclicals) have just been discovered that explain the lack of increase to global averages over the past 10 not 20 years. I am not saying that they can get the warming forecast right, in fact if you actually read what I put you would see that I said they are in disagreement about the predictions. That is just an argument about the rate of warming not the FACT of warming.
I hope that helps, if you are genuinely interested in the debate I'm happy to continue, I think your thoughts are dangerous because they have a bearing on political scene which is still dangerously inactive on the consequences we face. That is why I have brought this back, it must be understood that if we do not act we as a species will not survive. That is a big statement but, it is not one that is disputed by any reputed scientist anywhere that I know of at least. As to when and how, that is a quite different matter.
To say that global warming is not happening because the weather cannot be predicted is quite frankly crass. You are making a comparison of opinion and fact and they are not comparable.
What would be interesting to know is by how many degrees the planet is expected to warm, say by 2050 according to the global warming theorists ?
A FACT I would like to know is by how much the planet has warmed in the last 100 years - without me having to look at some long winded link.
Loco, BFR or one of you knowledgeable people, I'd really like to know the answers to the above.
I can hear thunder getting nearer so have decided not to water the garden!!!
Most predictions suggest a 2 to 3 degree Fahrenheit warming over the next four decades. The estimate is that by 2100 the world will be warmer than at any time over the last 11,000 years. Set in context the world's temperature cooled over the last 5,000 years until the last 100 years when it started to warm. This coincided with the industrial revolution which has annually pumped billions of tons of greenhouse gases - mostly carbon dioxide - CO2, methane - CH4 and nitrous oxide - N2O, plus water vapour, CFCs etc into the atmosphere. To give you an idea the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is now ca 390 parts in a million, a rise of around 40% from 280 parts per m in the mid-18th century/pre-industrial era. There are some natural causes of CO2 in the atmosphere - volcanoes for example and large forest fires etc, but these are negligible when compared to human activity (by a factor of 135). Methane levels in the atmosphere are also higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. Deforestation hasn't helped either as that used to soak up large amounts of atmospheric carbon.
The world has warmed by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. (source IPCC report 2007). Much of the warming - 0.7 degrees has occurred since 1970.
This is not an exact science as solar activity (which works on 11 year cycles) can have an effect, periods of intense solar activity - sunspots for example can lead to increases in global warming. Similarly periods when solar activity is at its lowest can result in below average global temperatures (this happened from the 1640s to the 19th century when the Thames used to regularly freeze over for example). But over the last 30-40 years solar activity/radiation (called Total Solar irradiance or TSI) has decreased and yet temperatures have risen, which in theory shouldn't happen. Therefore solar radiation has had a negligible effect on the sharp rise in global warming since the early 1970s. This is compared with previous few decades when it undoubtedly had a reasonably large effect - between 20 and 40%. Solar radiation reaching our planet is either reflected or absorbed - snow, sea ice, clouds and anything white will reflect solar activity, anything dark - soil, sea, urban areas etc will absorb it. This is called albedo - approximately 70% of solar radiation is absorbed, but the more sea ice, glaciers etc that melt the greater the absorption and the signs aren't looking good so the more pack ice and glacial ice melts the worse things become. The real fun will start when the Arctic and Siberian tundra starts to defrost. That'll release tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Thanks BFR - so "The world has warmed by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. (source IPCC report 2007). Much of the warming - 0.7 degrees has occurred since 1970. "
and
"Most predictions suggest a 2 to 3 degree Fahrenheit warming over the next four decades."
Why do such minute changes make such a difference?
The polar regions are so cold, why then does an increase of such a small amount make such a difference?
The temperature difference just in this country, varies so much more from day to day, so why should an increase of 3 or 4 degrees make such a difference?
It's the consequences/effects of that change - a slight increase in global temperatures has a knock on effect elsewhere especially on polar ice caps and tundra and it is those effects which might be quite severe. Warmer temps = Arctic/Greenland ice caps melting and that will release more water into the Atlantic rather than holding it as ice, consequently sea levels will rise and affect our weather patterns. It is estimated that the Arctic has lost an area of ice equivalent to Scandinavia over the last three decades. That flood of melt water caused the gulf stream for example to run far lower last year than normal and therefore we had more rain. The wet summer led to a ruinous harvest with grain yields down and consequently bread prices rose. Elsewhere hot dry summers have led to drought and massive forest fires. The rise in sea levels will cause low lying areas of land to be flooded - that might be ok in sparsely populated areas - but in places like Bangladesh it will result in massive shifts of populations - where will they go? Warmer sea water will lead to more hurricanes which can cause billions in damages. Floods/doughts will have massive problems. Basically it'll throw the entire global eco-system out of balance.
There has been reports (very early stages and I will be dead and buried before anybody can confirm or otherwise this) that the Gulf Stream is slowing, if this is the case then don't forget we are on the same latitude as Moscow, therefore expect much colder winter and any type of summer you can call. Why the Gulf Stream is slowing (if it is) is again open to many theories, it might be that the ice caps are melting and the cold water is forcing it lower or there are 100's off other reasons all making perfect sense. Until we understand these sort of interactions then nobody can come up with deffinate answers, dont forget a very important fact everybody is guessing both the pro and anti climate change, as climate change take a very long time to prove or disprove, throughout the history of this planet warming and cooling has constantly been occurring throughout Britain, Britain has been covered by ice and grape vines and funny enough nobody blamed climate warming or cooling then.
Many years ago when the first technical papers started dribbling out some extremely clever sod predicted that for Britain the winters would get colder around the turn of the millennium and the summers would cool off after a few hot summers, this would continue. Unfortunately this was the age before the Internet and finding it again has proven to be impossible.
"Throughout the last few decades of the 20th Century, considerable debate ensued about whether increased levels of atmospheric CO2 due to human activity were responsible for warming the planet. However, by the end of the century, a large array of extremely diverse observations — from tree ring studies to general circulation models of the planet climate system to studies of glacier retreat — has produced a strong scientific case for anthropogenic global warming. Virtually all of the major scientific organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), National Academy of Science, the American Geophysical Union, have issued reports and statements declaring that it is now unequivocal that the planet is heating up due, at least in part, to CO2 produced by human energy consumption".
"Climate change refers to long-term changes in the average state of the climate and can also be due to natural factors. The rapid changes that have occurred since the middle of the past century, however, have been caused largely by humanity’s emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Other human activities also affect the climate system, including emissions of pollutants and other aerosols, and changes to the land surface, such as urbanization and deforestation".
"The increase of CO2 in modern times, most likely due to humans burning fossil fuels, has led to an enhanced greenhouse effect which is increasing our planet’s average temperature. As a result sea levels are rising, partly because ocean water is expanding as it warms, and partly because polar ice is melting. Climate change is already causing ecosystems to change".
"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years".
"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)"
Comments
One is the global warming issue as I have posted above these are the FACTS
If you put carbon into the atmosphere it will warm the planet.
Atmospheric carbon has risen by between 25 & 30% over the past 50 years.
The rate at which carbon is entering the atmosphere is accelerating.
The rate at which carbon is leaving the atmosphere is decelerating.
These FACTS can and have been tested and have been found to be correct, 99.9% of the worlds scientists agree with them. These FACTS form the basis for the science behind global warming.
A weather prediction is not a fact, it is an opinion based upon given conditions and an analysis of them. These predictions are subject to error, not as has been pointed out frequent error but, error nonetheless.
The planet IS warming up however, certain weather systems (the afore mentioned cyclicals) have just been discovered that explain the lack of increase to global averages over the past 10 not 20 years. I am not saying that they can get the warming forecast right, in fact if you actually read what I put you would see that I said they are in disagreement about the predictions. That is just an argument about the rate of warming not the FACT of warming.
I hope that helps, if you are genuinely interested in the debate I'm happy to continue, I think your thoughts are dangerous because they have a bearing on political scene which is still dangerously inactive on the consequences we face. That is why I have brought this back, it must be understood that if we do not act we as a species will not survive. That is a big statement but, it is not one that is disputed by any reputed scientist anywhere that I know of at least. As to when and how, that is a quite different matter.
To say that global warming is not happening because the weather cannot be predicted is quite frankly crass. You are making a comparison of opinion and fact and they are not comparable.
Some people need to chill out.
Politically I think we're doing too much - this rush towards renewables is going to leave us dangerously short of power in the near future. Whatever we do in this country is negated by countries like China.
A FACT I would like to know is by how much the planet has warmed in the last 100 years - without me having to look at some long winded link.
I can hear thunder getting nearer so have decided not to water the garden!!!
http://www.theeuroprobe.org/?p=210
She had a cracking set.
The world has warmed by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. (source IPCC report 2007). Much of the warming - 0.7 degrees has occurred since 1970.
This is not an exact science as solar activity (which works on 11 year cycles) can have an effect, periods of intense solar activity - sunspots for example can lead to increases in global warming. Similarly periods when solar activity is at its lowest can result in below average global temperatures (this happened from the 1640s to the 19th century when the Thames used to regularly freeze over for example). But over the last 30-40 years solar activity/radiation (called Total Solar irradiance or TSI) has decreased and yet temperatures have risen, which in theory shouldn't happen. Therefore solar radiation has had a negligible effect on the sharp rise in global warming since the early 1970s. This is compared with previous few decades when it undoubtedly had a reasonably large effect - between 20 and 40%. Solar radiation reaching our planet is either reflected or absorbed - snow, sea ice, clouds and anything white will reflect solar activity, anything dark - soil, sea, urban areas etc will absorb it. This is called albedo - approximately 70% of solar radiation is absorbed, but the more sea ice, glaciers etc that melt the greater the absorption and the signs aren't looking good so the more pack ice and glacial ice melts the worse things become. The real fun will start when the Arctic and Siberian tundra starts to defrost. That'll release tons of methane into the atmosphere.
"The world has warmed by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. (source IPCC report 2007). Much of the warming - 0.7 degrees has occurred since 1970. "
and
"Most predictions suggest a 2 to 3 degree Fahrenheit warming over the next four decades."
Why do such minute changes make such a difference?
The polar regions are so cold, why then does an increase of such a small amount make such a difference?
The temperature difference just in this country, varies so much more from day to day, so why should an increase of 3 or 4 degrees make such a difference?
so it aint exactly a global warming phenomena is it caused by man
its the world going back to how it was before it got cold and all the loonies could write and talk cack
Simple
"Throughout the last few decades of the 20th Century, considerable debate ensued about whether increased levels of atmospheric CO2 due to human activity were responsible for warming the planet. However, by the end of the century, a large array of extremely diverse observations — from tree ring studies to general circulation models of the planet climate system to studies of glacier retreat — has produced a strong scientific case for anthropogenic global warming. Virtually all of the major scientific organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), National Academy of Science, the American Geophysical Union, have issued reports and statements declaring that it is now unequivocal that the planet is heating up due, at least in part, to CO2 produced by human energy consumption".
Cornell University http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/energy/the_challenges/global_climate_change.html
"Climate change refers to long-term changes in the average state of the climate and can also be due to natural factors. The rapid changes that have occurred since the middle of the past century, however, have been caused largely by humanity’s emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Other human activities also affect the climate system, including emissions of pollutants and other aerosols, and changes to the land surface, such as urbanization and deforestation".
World Meteorological Organisation http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
"The increase of CO2 in modern times, most likely due to humans burning fossil fuels, has led to an enhanced greenhouse effect which is increasing our planet’s average temperature.
As a result sea levels are rising, partly because ocean water is expanding as it warms, and partly because polar ice is melting. Climate change is already causing ecosystems to change".
British Geological Survey http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/home.html?src=topNav
"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years".
NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)"
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html