[Archived] The Weather

[AlanK]

I couldn`t get home Friday evening in the car.

I had to abondon the car and walk a couple of miles through the flood to get home.

Its not until you walk in knee deep water that you appreciate the current and the stink of cow ###### in the water.

The area is under more threat tonight as the Thames reaches its peak. I`m fortunate that the town I live in is pretty much unscathed but there are some unbelievable sights around here.

[adopted scouser]

A mate of mine runs a business in Stroud (Eh - Ciren Rover ?)

They were jet skiing along slad road > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzhZK2uePnA

[AlanK]

The rain on Friday was indescribable.

About 15 hours of non stop torrential downpour.

I live next to RAF Brize Norton.

The previous rainfall record was in the 70mm in the 1960`s. On friday we had 126mm. Not far off double.

Cancelled my Cornwall holiday in 2 weeks. Bugger that, we`re off to turkey.

[AlanK]

blah blah blah

Edited July 25, 2007 by AlanK

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

The temperature certainly seems to have dropped over the last week or so, with some cold frosty starts to the morning.

December 2006, last year, was the mildest December in Britain for 18 years - although by the end of that month it became wet and stormy, with a few Hogmanay celebrations cancelled for the Jocks.

We have a long way to go before it gets anywhere near as cold as December 1981. That was the coldest British December of the 20th Century, with some bitter temperatures recorded. On a couple of days that month roads between Blackburn and Haslingden were closed with 10ft snow drifts.

This year, 2007, has seen some contrasts in the weather. We had the warmest April ever recorded in Britain, but also the wettest summer in our history.

Link: Past weather in Lancashire

[Alan75]

It cant be cold, the experts say ther's global warming

[Eddie]

Well depending on where you live and the theory you have subscribed to, global warming could bring a drop in temperatures as well.

[Alan75]

Well depending on where you live and the theory you have subscribed to, global warming could bring a drop in temperatures as well.

Well it's blinking well dropped here

[Eddie]

Very cold in Paris at the moment as well actually. It was a warm September and October with very little rain, but over the past two weeks it has started to get very cold.

[roversyoyo]

Bit nippy is it?

I've just moved to Minneapolis and its f'ing freezing

minneapolis weather

and last week it reached -18 celcius!

[Tim Southampton Rover]

Friends of ours said it was snowing on Corfu.

[American]

Well depending on where you live and the theory you have subscribed to, global warming could bring a drop in temperatures as well.

It only brings the drop in temps because when the first theory was proving wrong they had to come up with another one to save their funding....

[Flopsy]

Global Warming was coined by the press, the climate scientists have been wittering on about climate change.

And a warmer planet, means warmer seas, which means more powerful weather systems, and altered weather systems.

The Gulf stream is likely to be altered due to the melting of the ice caps and the desaliantion of the oceans.

Then its going to be bloody cold here in blighty.

On a none related, but sort of note - have you been affected by the Ice Storms?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Friends of ours said it was snowing on Corfu.

It been snowing so bad in Southern Italy that they have had re-direct flights from Brindisi airport.

Ive still not seen any evidence of Man made global warming that convinces me 100%. There is a competing theory that is gaining strength , that declares that rising Co2 levels come after temperature increase not the other way around, so therefore something else other than Co2 is causing global warming. The earth is obviously warming; but it has done this 100’s of times over a multi-million year cycle. Vikings farming in Greenland and Romans producing wine in Northumberland etc

Might the earth’s warming be more relevant to the cycle of solar radiation? In conjunction with rising Co2 levels. I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly

I think what Flopsy is trying to get is that if the Earth carries on heating at it current rates this will affect the Earths natural ability to produce oxygen (rainforests destruction/fire, death of micro plankton) which will ultimately have an adverse affect on ocean conveyer system and the sea’s ability to both cool the earth and provide it with oxygen will cease.

And yes its bloody feezing

[den]

You will just have to rely on the worlds' leading scientists then Bazza. They're convinced.

As explained HERE.

What would it take to convince you?

Edited December 17, 2007 by den

[Flopsy]

I think what Flopsy is trying to get is that if the Earth carries on heating at it current rates this will affect the Earths natural ability to produce oxygen (rainforests destruction/fire, death of micro plankton) which will ultimately have an adverse affect on ocean conveyer system and the sea’s ability to both cool the earth and provide it with oxygen will cease.

No what I was saying was that the Gulf stream is a current of hot water that works in a circular motion - hotwater moves to the north european coast (Ireland and the UK) where it cools and sinks, drawing hot water to the north which pulls the cold water from the North Atlantic back down to the tropics where its reheated, rises and then flows north.

The desaliantion of the oceans due to the artic icesheets melting is likely to bugger that up good and proper.

explains it better than I can

I think that Humans have affected the earths climate, whether its the main reason, I dont know, but it appears to be having some effect.

[Eddie]

Might the earth’s warming be more relevant to the cycle of solar radiation? In conjunction with rising Co2 levels. I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly

If that were the case, surely the United States would be leading the cause, rather than doing almost everything they can to fight it?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

You will just have to rely on the worlds' leading scientists then Bazza. They're convinced.

As explained HERE.

What would it take to convince you?

Some 100% proof evidence, they have yet to come up with yet. I have no doubt that pumping out Billions of extra tonnes of Co2 per year is having an affect somewhere. The problem is that science has not yet caught up with theory in that it can’t provide any concrete evidence regarding global warming.

Den there are those scientists who are less vocal who have competing theories regarding global warming, who can provide as much solid evidence as those scientists shouting from the rooftops its who choose to believe. Personally I haven’t seen any argument that doesn’t have considerable holes in it; the fact is that science Is yet to provide us with the means to the answer.

Eddie as far as im aware the US was at the Bali conference? If they were doing almost everything they can to fight it? They would of either not turned up at all, or rejected the proposal without discussion. The Neo-Cons are playing party politics with the GW and im not sure if they even have an agenda, there primary focus seems to be on the surge in Iraq. Im pretty sure that the Democrats if elected will sign and ratify any future treaty.

The first person to use Global warming as a political tool was our very own iron lady, during the miners strike. She set-up a panel to investigate global warming and any future political policy

Edited December 17, 2007 by Bazzanotsogreat

[northernrover]

Spare a passing thought for Gloucester Football Club - to demonstrate just how badly the area is affected. That goalpost is 10foot tall. Thats the entire ground floor of a house!

I used to stand just behind that goal a few years ago.

I'll take me snorkel next time i'm watching the Tiger Army

[LeftWinger]

Spare a passing thought for Gloucester Football Club - to demonstrate just how badly the area is affected. That goalpost is 10foot tall. Thats the entire ground floor of a house!

Do Gloucester FC play with bigger goalposts than the rest of the football world then?

[den]

Den there are those scientists who are less vocal who have competing theories regarding global warming, who can provide as much solid evidence as those scientists shouting from the rooftops its who choose to believe. Personally I haven’t seen any argument that doesn’t have considerable holes in it; the fact is that science Is yet to provide us with the means to the answer.

I suspect you wouldn't accept any evidence of climate change Bazza.

Anyhow, in reply to your point above: in particular -Misleading arguments 2.

Read all of this

Edited December 17, 2007 by den

[American]

You will just have to rely on the worlds' leading scientists then Bazza. They're convinced.

As explained HERE.

What would it take to convince you?

Actually, Den, I read an interesting column by one of the scientists who is sharing the Nobel Prize with Gore. He actually didn't seem to be convinced. Can't post a link, but if you send me your email address, I might be able to mail you the link (not sure if it has expired yet).

Have you read and absorbed all of the counter arguements, or are you just listening to one side, which is what you are accusing Baz of.

Oh, and Flopsy, thanks for asking, but I'm in Ireland until Friday, so no problems here!

[den]

Actually, Den, I read an interesting column by one of the scientists who is sharing the Nobel Prize with Gore. He actually didn't seem to be convinced. Can't post a link, but if you send me your email address, I might be able to mail you the link (not sure if it has expired yet).

Have you read and absorbed all of the counter arguements, or are you just listening to one side, which is what you are accusing Baz of.

Oh, and Flopsy, thanks for asking, but I'm in Ireland until Friday, so no problems here!

I'm listening to the vast majority of scientists and reading their evidence. If you read the links that I've highlighted, you will see some of the answers regarding the odd scientist who doesn't go along with the evidence. Bazza just doesn't believe it, with no evidence as to the contrary.

Edited December 17, 2007 by den

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I suspect you wouldn't accept any evidence of climate change Bazza.

Anyhow, in reply to your point above: in particular -Misleading arguments 2.

Read all of this

You clearly haven’t read my first post, where I stated that there is definitive evidence of climate change, what I am yet to be totally persuaded by is the role that humans are having on climate change. I have skim-read your article and it pretty much falls in-line with what you’d expect with those pushing man-made case. Yet for all of its vigour and well-written comment it cannot say 100% that the current warming trends are man-made.

There is no full-proof scientific evidence which can answer as to whether or not human made emissions of Co2 levels are responsible for climate change, if there was a scientific model that shows 100% that humans are defiantly responsible for the current warming process then im pretty sure that the Kyoto treaty would off been ratified all those years back. The problem is that Scientists behind the theory of man-made global warming cannot provide us with 100% data to backup their theory.

As for my own personal opinion I am yet to be convinced by any evidence from all sides of the argument such those you believe that climate change is affected by Solar and lunar activity

[den]

You clearly haven’t read my first post, where I stated that there is definitive evidence of climate change, what I am yet to be totally persuaded by is the role that humans are having on climate change. I have skim-read your article and it pretty much falls in-line with what you’d expect with those pushing man-made case. Yet for all of its vigour and well-written comment it cannot say 100% that the current warming trends are man-made.

There is no full-proof scientific evidence which can answer as to whether or not human made emissions of Co2 levels are responsible for climate change, if there was a scientific model that shows 100% that humans are defiantly responsible for the current warming process then im pretty sure that the Kyoto treaty would off been ratified all those years back. The problem is that Scientists behind the theory of man-made global warming cannot provide us with 100% data to backup their theory.

As for my own personal opinion I am yet to be convinced by any evidence from all sides of the argument such those you believe that climate change is affected by Solar and lunar activity

The only 100% truth that you must see, will be when global warming either happens, or doesn't happen.

From the Stern review:

This chapter begins by describing the changes observed in the Earth’s system, examining briefly the debate over the attribution of these changes to human activities. It is a debate that, after more than a decade of research and discussion, has reached the conclusion there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years.

An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.

Most climate models show that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases is very likely to commit the Earth to a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures. This level of greenhouse gases will probably be reached between 2030 and 2060. A warming of 5°C on a global scale would be far outside the experience of human civilisation and comparable to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. Several new studies suggest up to a 20% chance that warming could be greater than 5°C.

Link to more of the Stern review

So, which part of the science is wrong Bazza and what about the overwhelming body of scientific evidence? I would have thought that when Scientists present overwhelming conclusions, that we laymen might accept it, unless we had real reason to doubt it.

Edited December 17, 2007 by den