Jerry is now on my banned senders list

Global warming? Try telling that to the hundreds of millions of people in North America, Britain, Europe and Asia (even South Korea) experiencing blizzards and sub-zero temperatures.

Sorry. I just can't help myself.

MBQ

Sorry. I just can't help myself.

MBQ

Admitting that is the first and crucial stage to recovery, now consider who can help you :-)

Cheers, Simon

I thought the theory of global warming was based on average temperatures, not maximum and/or minimum.

No, it's a theory based on manipulated temperatures.

MBQ

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote: [...]

Not at all. Since temperatures vary, the numbers must be averaged in various ways to determine trends. That is, the data must be smoothed. The lay person sees that as manipulation. The statistician sees it as separating the signal from the noise.

Example: One of the techniques is the fast Fourier transform, which is used in software to clean up audio recordings. Bringing out the original sound as closely as possible is of course manipulation of the data. Couldn't be done any other way. FFT also underlies digital radio tuning, data error correction, etc.

The trouble with statistics is that the methods that work (and they do work, really, they do) are counter intuitive. Humans are very bad at seeing long term trends in near-random data (or random data, which is why casinos thrive.)

And we're even worse at understanding chaotic processes. Climate is a chaotic process. One of its features is that its cycles will follow an average pattern more or less closely, but from time to time will depart quite far from it. Another feature is that it can flip into a new pattern very quickly. It used to be thought that "very quickly" meant on the order of a few thousand years, but both refinements of the models and field data (most notably from Greenland ice cap bores) indicate that the flip can happen in about 100 years. The first hints that this might be occurring were found in climate models devised in the early 1980s, but climatologists then believed that it was an artifact of the crudeness of the models and the lack of data. They have since changed their minds, not because they want to gain fame as doom sayers, but because the data didn't fit their preconceptions.

Global warming is a natural phenomenon. It's what happens when a few parameters change (such as atmospheric CO2 and methane concentration). A feed back cycle can accelerate the changes in those parameters, and the climate changes radically.

The only truly uncertain question about global warming is how fast it's happening. Predictions made in the 80s-90s are turning out to be wrong. For example, the arctic ice is disappearing much faster than predicted. The Inuit are worried about that. You should be, too.

cheers, wolf k.

This is not the manipulation that is being referred to; it is the massaging of the prime data (which has then been deleted) to make the smoothed average come out to fit the theory!!

Jeff

It is.

The Greenland ice shelf and the Arctic ice cap are melting. This affects the Gulf Stream which is what keeps Britain unusually warm for such a Northern latitude. A shift in the gulf stream will cause major global changes because it is part of the Global current Conveyer.

London is at 51.5 degres North, whick places the UK at the same latitude as Labrador.

I live in up-state New York which gets colder winters than the UK is getting even now, at 41.5 degrees North.

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

The UK has in the historical past been covered in ice and yet at different times been capable of growing grape vines. It's all one great cyclical happening - the earth warms up, then cools down. We flatter ourselves to think that our activities will impact significantly on nature.

John.

IMO that is a comfortable delusion, but a delusion nonetheless. Since the latter half of the 20th Century there has been a significant uptick in global temperatures which appears to be without precedent and without any credible explanation other than human activity. This is not really a surprise given the numbers of humans now on the planet and the ever increasing amounts of energy those humans consume (which means, to a good first approximation, turn into heat) per capita.

But of course the energy lobby might be right and the scientists wrong. As far as I'm concerned, though, it's better to go with the scientists since if they are wrong the only consequence is that we have unnecessarily saved some energy. As an engineer I am conditioned to think of reducing energy consumption in terms of increasing efficiency, and this is pretty much my day job. If we believe the energy lobby and they are wrong then we are into a situation where a vast and vastly complex multivariable system has been thrown into disarray, and we do not have a clue how to bring it back or how long it would take. It's not a tough call. Guy

What about Lincolshire? I assume they have the best Poachers' Pie recipes :-)

Well, true, but it can be hard to convince people of it when they get a long, cold winter. Flashbacks to 1947 (yes, I remember that!) and 1963, when I was at Uni.

It actually just seems to be an excuse for our government to increase taxes which in their eyes is perceived to be "doing something". In practise, they're doing nothing!

Not really, its more a problem with "vast and vastly complex multivariable system " with explained and unexplained cycles. Temperature estimates from the past that are debatable but not debated. Our scientists are just beginning to measure and understand what has been happening but it is being taken as a done deal. The politicians and others have picked it up and are trying to appear to do something about it. As usual theyre making a mess as each country and interest group tries to get fame or fortune out of it. So we get these wind farms put up and no allowance as to what problems they cause or real understanding of cost vs benefit. Carbon trading going on where a major steel companty will make millions (or billions) because they cut back production due to the recession. Power companies sending out vast numbers of free low energy bulbs to sit in cupboards but paid for by higher energy bills. Then as Paul says, more taxes to pay for other ill thought out schemes, and of course more civil servants to administer them.

Which part is the disaster as the fools rush in - oh no we are the fools as we are paying for nothing useful.

Cheers, Simon

I disagree, and even the actual temperature records (as opposed to inferred temperatures from ice cores and so on) also seem to disagree. Guy

Unfortunately temperature records dont go back far enough to be anywhere near meaningful.

Cheers, Simon

Depends what you mean by meaningful. But my point stands: if we believe the energy lobby, and they are wrong, we are screwed. If we believe the scientists and they are wrong then we've been more efficient than we needed to be. Not a tough call. Guy

Average, plus a widening of the extremes. Here in Northland NZ we normally have warm summers and rain easing to about 50% of the time. Instead, it's ****** hot and we've had no rain=

since July. Meanwhile, in the South Island they're having snow/hail/storms intersper= sed with 30 degree C days. (plus icebergs that have broken away in Antarctic= a) In Britain you've almost lost the Gulf Stream which raises your average temperature so "global warming" will mean a considerable drop in your average temperature.

Greg.P. NZ