Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

Status
Not open for further replies.
February this year has been devastatingly cold in China in case you haven't heard. But if you are referring only to UK temperatures then what was the point in the post? And since we have another 14.5 days to go till the end of February your post seems utterly irrelevant to me.

BTW the original ":snigger: :lol: " was posted by you in response to piece of garbage humour by our resident "Sexual Intellectual" that was directed at me. [GK please note!]

And wet in Australia. And warm in the UK. etc. etc. That's why "climate change" is a more appropriate expression than "global warming".

Yep. Only half way through Feb so were talking about a two week comparison period. Let's see where we are in another few weeks.
 


You do understand the impact of a climate shift don't you?

This is really basic stuff you're talking about here Tony.

Oh bollocks GK! have another look at what HBT wrote.

NC must be getting to you! Whereabouts are you?
 
Logon or register to see this image


What this shows me is that there is a definite forced warming trend with natural fluctuation that takes place roughly every 30-40 years. Currently we are experiencing a natural downward fluctuation that is fighting the forced warming effect of CO2, and temperatures for the past few years have levelled. The cooling efect will likely end soon and temperatures will continue upwards like they did in the 80s and 90s.

Forgive my ignorance but is the graph a comparison against the years 1961 till 1991? If so why choose only those years and how significant can this be?
 
There was a saying in the mines of SW Durham many years ago about somebody who wouldn't accept irrefutable logic during the "crack at the kist" that he would argue that "black's white and shit's no colour." The twisted logic of some of the warmists on here suggests that the saying can still have application.
 
Forgive my ignorance but is the graph a comparison against the years 1961 till 1991? If so why choose only those years and how significant can this be?

It's from the 1800s

There was a saying in the mines of SW Durham many years ago about somebody who wouldn't accept irrefutable logic during the "crack at the kist" that he would argue that "black's white and shit's no colour." The twisted logic of some of the warmists on here suggests that the saying can still have application.

What twisted logic to you refer to Tony? Give examples.
 
Greensboro - it's not really a town. It's more of an extended strip mall.

Gan a few miles up 29 and you'll come to chez nous.

If you are there for a few more weeks make sure you spend some time on the Outer Banks. Its a great place to be in the early spring but it gets over run with vacationers after that.
 


Insignificant findings by a semi-retired minerals consultant.
Mr
McIntyre does not have an advanced degree, nor any qualifications whatsoever in relation to climatology. McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." The same mcintyre who resorted to calling al gore fat:

"Gore has gotten a little stout over the years and a little jowly, as though he was subconsciously morphing into a shape more suitable to lead a penguin army."

What was that Tony was saying about personal abuse? Shite. He is also one of the key people in the George C Marshal Institute, an organisation which has received over $1million from Exxon. The George Marshall Institute primarily focused on defense issues, advocating funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and Star Wars. GMI works on a range of issues, including civic environmentalism, climate change, national defense, bioterrorism, and missile defense. GMI has since branched out and is one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk climate change.
 
Gan a few miles up 29 and you'll come to chez nous.

If you are there for a few more weeks make sure you spend some time on the Outer Banks. Its a great place to be in the early spring but it gets over run with vacationers after that.

I've been here for abut 18 months now Tony - the outer banks is absolutely spectacular. The first time I went there I went for an early morning dip in the ocean. I nearly shit myself when I seen a fin in the water and scrambled out - absolutely papping it. The killer shark turned out to be a friendly dolphin - and I noticed there were about 20 of them swimming in front of the sunrise.

Amazing place.

It reminded me a lot of South Shields.
 
it puzzles me how there wasn't more global warming in the past.you know when every house had a coal fire.thousands of factories spewed copious amounts of smoke into the atmosphere as did the trains,.there were more coal fired power stations.surely we should have been roasting our bollocks off in those days.
 
it puzzles me how there wasn't more global warming in the past.you know when every house had a coal fire.thousands of factories spewed copious amounts of smoke into the atmosphere as did the trains,.there were more coal fired power stations.surely we should have been roasting our bollocks off in those days.

I would honestly have a read before forming hardened fast opinions
 
it puzzles me how there wasn't more global warming in the past.you know when every house had a coal fire.thousands of factories spewed copious amounts of smoke into the atmosphere as did the trains,.there were more coal fired power stations.surely we should have been roasting our bollocks off in those days.

Logon or register to see this image
 
I would honestly have a read before forming hardened fast opinions
eh? who says i've formed an opinion? it was more or less a question.also read what?

that's interesting that graph.a sharp rise at the start of the 1950's.over a hundred years after the start of the industrial revolution,and still rising yet up till then we surely we were burning more fossil fuels into the atmosphere than we have since?
 
eh? who says i've formed an opinion? it was more or less a question.also read what?

that's interesting that graph.a sharp rise at the start of the 1950's.over a hundred years after the start of the industrial revolution,and still rising yet up till then we surely we were burning more fossil fuels into the atmosphere than we have since?

No, the industrial revolution started from a zero point and grew to full industrialisation of entire nations and the industrial revolution commencing in far larger countries than the UK. It is a global issue, not one only considering industrialisation of the UK.
 
I've still not heard a legitimate reason as to why the IPCC process and the subsequent conclusions are to be doubted.

In this instance, for what reason can we not trust the conclusions of thousands of climate experts?

No, the industrial revolution started from a zero point and grew to full industrialisation of entire nations and the industrial revolution commencing in far larger countries than the UK. It is a global issue, not one only considering industrialisation of the UK.

Indeed:

Logon or register to see this image
 
Last edited:
eh? who says i've formed an opinion? it was more or less a question.also read what?

that's interesting that graph.a sharp rise at the start of the 1950's.over a hundred years after the start of the industrial revolution,and still rising yet up till then we surely we were burning more fossil fuels into the atmosphere than we have since?

Think about cars and our demands for heat, light and power in the home, added to increased population and demand for manufactured goods. Those are the main drivers of the huge increase.
 
it puzzles me how there wasn't more global warming in the past.you know when every house had a coal fire.thousands of factories spewed copious amounts of smoke into the atmosphere as did the trains,.there were more coal fired power stations.surely we should have been roasting our bollocks off in those days.

What they said!

I would also guess that while you are right in thinking that the old coal fires and steam trains seemed to dump a lot of pollution into the air (London called The Smoke, Edinburgh Auld Reekie), it was in fairly isolated chunks of the planet a couple of hundred years ago. Remember America wasn't invented until 1776, and I seem to remember being taught that the Austrians and Frogs got their arses kicked by Prussia at the end of the 19th century because Prussia had used the new fangled technology of their train network to ferry troops around, implying that many other places in Europe didn't have much of a network by then.
 
tell me I am not allowed to question the basis of this disaster ridden bullshit that is forced down our throats on a daily basis.

Good to see that you come to the debate with an open mind though :roll::lol:
 
What they said!

I would also guess that while you are right in thinking that the old coal fires and steam trains seemed to dump a lot of pollution into the air (London called The Smoke, Edinburgh Auld Reekie), it was in fairly isolated chunks of the planet a couple of hundred years ago. Remember America wasn't invented until 1776, and I seem to remember being taught that the Austrians and Frogs got their arses kicked by Prussia at the end of the 19th century because Prussia had used the new fangled technology of their train network to ferry troops around, implying that many other places in Europe didn't have much of a network by then.

And it was belching a lot of particulate pollution into the air, which has actually been greatly reduced these days. Add up all of the coal fires in the UK in the 50's and they probably wouldn't amount to much more than the amount Drax burns through. Just that Drax has filters to remove the dust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top