Climate Change

N

newfly

Guest
global warming

Is global warming responsible for the coldest weather that we have had for the last 13 years. !
 

Salmo salar

Member
Messages
905
Reaction score
3
Location
North East Atlantic
2009 grilse

Is global warming responsible for the coldest weather that we have had for the last 13 years. !

Well the article does say that in the immediate future it may not be all that hot so these guys seem to have covered themselves with this one. However more importantly that coldest weather (2008) might just give us a cracking grilse run this summer!
 

SP8

Well-known member
Messages
3,279
Reaction score
105
Location
North Yorkshire
Weather is what you get on a day to day basis. Climate is the overall meteorlogical regime of an area or period. There have always been hot and cold years, wet summers, dry summers, mild winters and cold winters. Just as one cold winter doesn't disprove the planet is warming one hot summer doesn't prove it is.
However the ten warmest years on record (globally) have occurred since 1997 and this is more the sort of sustained phenomenon which indicates climate change.
The worlds climate has always been in a state of change so the fact that the planet is warming is not unusual except this particular episode seems to have man's mucky fingerprints all over it.

SP8
 

Hodder321

New member
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Warrington
SP8 thanks for that very well put.

Climate has always changed and probably always will.

The climate was much warmer in the middle ages and roman times was much warmer than today. Likewise in Victorian times very much colder this has probably gone on for millions of years. Man made climate change ? hmmm. we are told most scientists numerically concur man is contributing to global warming although this is never quantified and given the research budgets and careers depending on it that’s no surprise. Governments also have an interest in taxing and controlling and no one is able to argue. For a politician its heaven sent.

Its also as fact that it only occurs in UK and EU countries not so much in USA and it does not occur at all in India and China.

You can see I am a sceptic I hope we don’t destroy our western economies our grandchildren will not thank us. Of course if there is mass climate catastrophe as a result of man made global warming they won’t thank us for that either. The basic truth is though no one knows (including the experts) but if I had to bet I know where my money would be.

By the way what happened to the Ice age that we were told in 1970’s classrooms . I can see my old geography teacher now in his jacket with the patches on his elbows explaining it all along with other all the other finger waggers.
 

Souwester

New member
Messages
966
Reaction score
0
a) However the ten warmest years on record (globally) have occurred since 1997 and this is more the sort of sustained phenomenon which indicates climate change.



b) The worlds climate has always been in a state of change so the fact that the planet is warming is not unusual except this particular episode seems to have man's mucky fingerprints all over it.

SP8

SP8,


I have attached a few paragraphs written by Christopher Booker and published in the Daily Telegraph on 27th December 2008.

The full text can be read at:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html


‘Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.’ - Christopher Booker 27th Dec 2008



On point a) according to previous articles and research conducted by Booker global warming actually stopped some time ago and is now in a state of reverse.

On point b) the only 'mucky fingerprints' that man has placed on this episode seems to be the lies and deceit that were required to try to con the rest of us into accepting a form of eco management of our lives which runs contra to what common sense would tell us. We may we get a change of direction as pragmatism prevails but damage has already been inflicted on economies and some countries, including ours, have been stupid enough to sign up to legally binding obligations that will hobble our economic progress for many years to come.

So you are right to separate weather from climate. We mostly get weather here in the UK, which is in turn shaped by seasons and global climatic events.

I would take issue with you though, for the reasons outlined above, that we are heading into any kind of era of man made global warming.


Souwester
 
Last edited:

ianjones

New member
Messages
234
Reaction score
1
Some other of Bookers revelations..

Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
3,599
Location
edzell
climate change

Souwester,

I think i love you.
I couldnt agree more with that article and your comments.
However the overall subplot of stopping us being so reliant on fossil fuels is a valid point and will have to be addressed in the next 30 to 100 years, global warming or not.

Regards

Mows
 

tweedbunnet

New member
Banned
Messages
821
Reaction score
1
Location
Embra'
Souwester and ianjones

I do try to keep up my reading on this from a variety of sources.

I have certainly lost faith in most politicians when they open their mouths on the matter.

I am going to nail my colours to the mast on a few issues. I believe in intelligent design as Darwinism does not explain satisfactorily to me how humans came into being.

A very minor % shift in Earth's travels around the Sun may well have major consequences in climate shifts. Who can say otherwise?

Likewise, I do not believe civilisation began around 7000 or so years ago as taught by Academics in the same way I do not believe some of the statistics being peddled by governments and scientists in their thrall.

Clearly, temperatures have fluctuated a great deal over all parts of the world's hemispheres over prolonged periods of time. The trouble is our records do not go back to the same extent and we have to make estimates based on less than perfect types of guesstimation

This does not make me a Carbon Burning care not a jot about tomorrow person. Nor am I enamored greatly with all the faith put in Wind Turbines and similar non-bio-fuel methods as replacements for Fossil fuels etc. Nor would I say I would like a Nuclear Power Station next to my house.

I still believe that harnessing Solar Power is the long term way ahead for many countries. It is the current system of transmitting, trading and storing it that is the technical issue to be overcome

Rant over and goodness knows how I got on to this. Must be time for my painkillers.

tweedbunnet
 

Salmo salar

Member
Messages
905
Reaction score
3
Location
North East Atlantic
What a great debate and all I wanted was 2point 2 a shift in fish populations north within the North Atlantic! On a read of the posts I did spot a howler though............

Well the article does say that in the immediate future it may not be all that hot so these guys seem to have covered themselves with this one. However more importantly that coldest weather (2008) might just give us a cracking grilse run this summer!
:eek:

OBVIUOSLY WAY OFF THE MARK ON THIS1!
 
Last edited:

Dryfly

New member
Messages
4,106
Reaction score
3
Location
Wiltshire
I should declare my hand. I'm part of the team that funds environmental change research - basic and applied - on behalf of the UK Gov. The UK is over the next 10 years spending in the order of £1.65 billion on it and energy delivery with a view to finding solutions. A serious commitment.

The scientific evidence that we are causing climate change above and beyond what would happen naturally is very clear indeed. It is however very often a question of policy interpretation in the context of the wider polictal agenda. (An anlogous example would be the Nut drugs issue in the news at present. It is categorically a fact that cannabis is significantly safer than booze or smoking. What is tricky is matching that up with questions of policy response and the interface between these has always been tricky, partly because scientists are not always terribly good at explaining themselves to lay audiences, partly because politicians have agendas that don't always sit happily with evidence if it contradicts them.

Global worming doesn't mean it will get hotter everywhere. It may well get cooler in some areas. For example and in relation to salmon. The melting ice cap. The Artic will probably be ice free in the summer time by the end of the century, possible in the next 20 years (polar bears will be extinct aside from in zoos so no polar bear hair for flies - much more seals fur dubbing though - until the fish stocks collapse). Shipping is already using the Northwest Passage for the first timein history.

As the ice melts the seas salinity reduces - ice is fresh water of course. This is having an effect on the most important planetary heat transporters, the oceans conveyers and especially the mid Atlantic drift. If this melting stops the conveyer's efficiency the UK and North West Europe could start to experience a climate akin to the rest of the planet on these latitudes - Hudson Bay for example. As the salinity drops the flow will reduce/recede south to more saline water. Potentially, although unlikely, the conveyor could turn off completely. The UK would be ice bound, rivers frozen and Atlantic salmon banished from the UK. Southern Spain might become the new Kola.

There is so much evidence regarding how serious and real the threats are it is difficult to give a brief analysis. The best is probably the IPCC report at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf from page 8.

If your interested in the research then have a look at http://www.lwec.org.uk/
And
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Energy/default.htm
 

Hodder321

New member
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Warrington
The scientific evidence that we are causing climate change above and beyond what would happen naturally is very clear indeed - you need to be more specific than that dry fly. Thats a typical comment we hear all the time on this subject. The 1.65 billion funding figure is shocking and proves why the man made global warming is so popular in some quarters. Its a gravy train paid for by the taxpayer who has enough to contend with at the moment. There are some real vested interests going on here.

Also in your text you mention global worming just trying to work out how many bouncing betties you would need to use. I am behind the times obviously.
 

tweedbunnet

New member
Banned
Messages
821
Reaction score
1
Location
Embra'
Dryfly

I can only dispute one part of your post - Polar Bears will become extinct.

Is it not the case that a percentage of the Polar Bears populations are likely simply tend to migrate south and adapt?

Where is the evidence they will become extinct?

tweedbunnet
 

Hodder321

New member
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Warrington
Dry Fly - good god man ! -

If I wanted to read about man made climate change on he net I could spend the rest of my life doing it and hand over to my kids and then grandkids we would be none the wiser. Theres enough to sink a battleship not surprising really as whos going to reject a climate change research budget ? I did read your links it was highly technical and nothing more of any value that could be pulled from a google search.

We can all cut and paste from the net.

If you really are the expert why don't you condense the technicalities into an answer on this forum rather than making unsubstanciated statements supported by an answer in kit form off you have got off the net.
 

Dryfly

New member
Messages
4,106
Reaction score
3
Location
Wiltshire
I'm not sure where the bears would swim/walk to? They are biologically in incapable of surviving in warmer climes further south and need the ice to get access to food supplies. If the north cools of course things will be looking up for them.

The following re the bears maybe of interest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35233-2004Nov8.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-than-70-years-because-of-global-warming.html

Closer to salmon there is very little work on the effects on them that I am aware of apart from at http://www.asf.ca/news.php?id=457

Re the sum of money being spent. It roughly amounts to £2.75 per person per year. The Stern Review ( see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6096084.stm ) estimated climate change could shrink the global economy by 20%. Remembering the recent financial crisis is predominantly a western developed country phenomena this climate change has a price tag massively beyond that of the recent financial problems (didn't I hear on the radio last night that the bail out of Lloyds and the Bank of Scotland was costing us £3,000 per person ..... Oh and scientists don't get share options or bonuses)
 

Hodder321

New member
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Warrington
I have seen pixies in my garden on a number of occasions.

These are to be seen around my garden shed normally singly but sometimes 2 to 3 and up to a maximum of 7. The seven pixies were seen on one occasion late at night after my uncle Normans fiftieth.

If we were to irrefutably confirm the existence of pixies this would have profound implications for mankind. If we were not to understand the lives and implications of pixies in our midst we are at risk of great catastrophe. From pixies its only a short step to huge 100 foot high lizards roaming across the land. And none of us wants that.

Some research is needed and we need thousands of reports which we can refer and shake our heads solemnly. Any questions will be answered by the use of web links which has been found to be the most efficient form of communication.

It’s very clear (without doubt) Pixies do exist and I am willing to undertake the research personally.

I don’t want to price myself out of the market and will be willing to perform this work for a sum of £500k per annum over around 10 years. After the 10 year period this will be reviewed and extended if applicable. However initial indications are that a 15 to 20 year period will be more appropriate.

Per annum this amounts to less than 10p per person.
 

Bann Special

Member
Messages
731
Reaction score
3
Location
Abergavenny
For my 2 pence worth,this us why I think man is changing the climate

Simplistically....(limiting it to CO2)

CO2 has the properties of a greenhouse gas

Humanity has unlocked long term stores of CO2 by burning fossil fuels.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen proportionally

Humanity is destroying one of the 2 major sinks on carbon on the planet to grow more food for the developed nations, exacerbating the problem.

The Milankovitch cycles predict we should be getting cooler now, hence the finger wagging in 1970's classrooms about impending ice ages. We are not, the 10 warmest years in a 300 year record have all occured in the last 20 years and 2005 was the warmest year since 800AD. When the planet should have been getting colder

We can measure an effect, I have not year heard a credible aternative of why this effect is taking place except for the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. They are down to us who live in developed nations.

Personaly there are known tipping points I find terrifing. A bit warmer and the great 'mirror' of Artic sea ice, that reflects the suns energy back into space will go. This will accellerate warming, a bit warmer still and all the methane locked up in artic permafrost will be relased.

We are already at the point that deep ocean stores of methane will be unlocked, when the oceans finally adjust to the increased temperature.

Climate change does occur naturally and warming would have occured in due time. A rapid rise like this (termed the emotive climate storm) would likley have collapsed modern civilisation as we know it when it occured. 2/3rds of the world population living in coastal cities, and the worlds resources are already stressed to the llimit by too many humans wanting too much. Do we have to bring it on ourselves through denial of fact and a tradegy of the commons?

I have a 2 year old daughter, who will have to live in the world I leave behind. I also like my salmon fishing!

Hodder 321, Mows, Souwester, have any of you read the Gaian Hypothesis and the Revenge of Gaia?
 
Last edited:
Top