Temperatures somewhat above the seasonal norm......

[1949threepence 3,286]

47 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

But are you sure that's a result of the gulf stream, rather than climate change? If Europe experiences the same things we do, then the latter is almost certainly the cause IMO.

Oh it was definitely 100% the action of the gulf stream, and the track of the resultant deep depressions an expression of it. 

The talk now is of reduced salinity at the surface which will have the effect of slowing the overturning circulation. It hasn't really happened yet, but climate modellers are convinced that it will. However, at present there is really no evidence to support such a change as a fact yet in being. 

 

[DaveG38 364]

Over the years, I've taken a passing interest in climate issues, not to a point of being able to claim expertise, but enough for me to consider the issue as a whole. My impression is that the studies of climate change tend to focus on the recent past, generally correlating with the industrial revolution, rather than focus on the more distant past, and as result it seems to me that conclusions are drawn on too narrow a set of data. This is not to say that there are not studies of the distant past, but rather that those don't appear to me to inform the discourse on this subject at the present time.

To give an example, towards the end of the last period of glaciation, about 12,000 years ago, the earth began to warm, but suddenly plunged back into bitter cold for a period known as the Younger Dryas. This lasted for about 1000 years, and towards the end of this time, the earth suddenly warmed by 4 degrees C in 25 years!! Nobody, as I understand it, claims to understand what might have caused this rapid warming through any natural phenomena, yet according to the record of the Greenland ice cores, it definitely occurred. This is just one example of variation that is not well understood, yet which must undeniably be ascribed to anything other than man's activities. Hence, it may be that today's warming may be nothing to do with Man.

When I add in the obvious fact that climate science is very much statistical in its approach, and relies on a great deal of interpretation for its conclusions, I find myself sceptical about the conclusions. This is not through any dogma on my part, but simply because I like scientific conclusions to be based on verifiable facts and the replicability of experiments to demonstrate a position, and this is simply not easy to do with climate science. My position, therefore, is that I don't deny the facts of climate change: increased CO2, sea temperatures and levels, glaciers melting etc. but I remain unconvinced that Man in his arrogance assumes it must be because of us.

Now stands back to await the brickbats!! 

[Martinminerva 196]

No brickbats from me.

A propos of not very much...

I have no definite opinions or expertise on climate science, but likewise would like the media generally to consider facts over a longer spell of time; and being a Classicist, I can confirm that Europe at least was warmer than today in the Roman period. Viz. commercially viable vineyards as far north as Yorkshire proven by archaeology and southern mainland Italy was malarial proven by skeletal analysis. I believe those more expert than me suggest in that Roman period Europe was at least two further degrees centigrade warmer than now.

[Peckris 2 1,839]

1 hour ago, Martinminerva said:

No brickbats from me.

A propos of not very much...

I have no definite opinions or expertise on climate science, but likewise would like the media generally to consider facts over a longer spell of time; and being a Classicist, I can confirm that Europe at least was warmer than today in the Roman period. Viz. commercially viable vineyards as far north as Yorkshire proven by archaeology and southern mainland Italy was malarial proven by skeletal analysis. I believe those more expert than me suggest in that Roman period Europe was at least two further degrees centigrade warmer than now.

Mostly true - yes, wine grapes were grown in British vineyards during the Roman occupation (I did Classics too!). Europe was warmer before the Little Ice Age, whose start date is not exactly known - the consensus seems to be mid-mediaeval but possibly as late as Tudor age - but ended in the mid-19th Century.

However I'd take issue with "in that Roman period Europe was at least two further degrees centigrade warmer than now." The global average temperature for the last 2000 years is shown in this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg which indicates we are in a new situation compared with 'recent' (2 millennia!) history.

[1949threepence 3,286]

15 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

Over the years, I've taken a passing interest in climate issues, not to a point of being able to claim expertise, but enough for me to consider the issue as a whole. My impression is that the studies of climate change tend to focus on the recent past, generally correlating with the industrial revolution, rather than focus on the more distant past, and as result it seems to me that conclusions are drawn on too narrow a set of data. This is not to say that there are not studies of the distant past, but rather that those don't appear to me to inform the discourse on this subject at the present time.

To give an example, towards the end of the last period of glaciation, about 12,000 years ago, the earth began to warm, but suddenly plunged back into bitter cold for a period known as the Younger Dryas. This lasted for about 1000 years, and towards the end of this time, the earth suddenly warmed by 4 degrees C in 25 years!! Nobody, as I understand it, claims to understand what might have caused this rapid warming through any natural phenomena, yet according to the record of the Greenland ice cores, it definitely occurred. This is just one example of variation that is not well understood, yet which must undeniably be ascribed to anything other than man's activities. Hence, it may be that today's warming may be nothing to do with Man.

When I add in the obvious fact that climate science is very much statistical in its approach, and relies on a great deal of interpretation for its conclusions, I find myself sceptical about the conclusions. This is not through any dogma on my part, but simply because I like scientific conclusions to be based on verifiable facts and the replicability of experiments to demonstrate a position, and this is simply not easy to do with climate science. My position, therefore, is that I don't deny the facts of climate change: increased CO2, sea temperatures and levels, glaciers melting etc. but I remain unconvinced that Man in his arrogance assumes it must be because of us.

Now stands back to await the brickbats!! 

You might find this link interesting. It details UK conditions for the period from 4000BC to just after AD. It points to the fact that the climate has always been very variable.

Another link about climate changes over recent centuries, here was written in 1967 at a time when fact and logic entered the equation, as opposed to the biased hysteria of the present day.

[Peckris 2 1,839]

6 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

You might find this link interesting. It details UK conditions for the period from 4000BC to just after AD. It points to the fact that the climate has always been very variable.

Another link about climate changes over recent centuries, here was written in 1967 at a time when fact and logic entered the equation, as opposed to the biased hysteria of the present day.

Interesting. However, also consider this which has been doing the rounds on social media and shows that warnings about climate change were around in 1912 - and earlier - though their forecasts of timescales were badly out.

I also remember a dramatic edition of The News Of The World in 1970 which used as its headline the name of a then drama series on BBC - Doomwatch - and carried severe warnings and predictions of scientists of the time, about environmental disasters caused by man's activities. Unfortunately, the archive of NOTW hasn't been digitised yet and print copies of past editions are very expensive, or else I'd give you a link to that particular issue.

[1949threepence 3,286]

53 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Interesting. However, also consider this which has been doing the rounds on social media and shows that warnings about climate change were around in 1912 - and earlier - though their forecasts of timescales were badly out.

I also remember a dramatic edition of The News Of The World in 1970 which used as its headline the name of a then drama series on BBC - Doomwatch - and carried severe warnings and predictions of scientists of the time, about environmental disasters caused by man's activities. Unfortunately, the archive of NOTW hasn't been digitised yet and print copies of past editions are very expensive, or else I'd give you a link to that particular issue.

Then of course, in 1974, the BBC were predicting another ice age. Something they would cringe at being reminded of these days. 

The article you link to is interesting, but it's the same old thing, Co2 emissions. It shows a very limited and blinkered view of climate change. There are many other considerations with something as complex as the global weather machine.    

[1949threepence 3,286]

A video narrated by Leonard Nimoy about the forthcoming ice age, late 70's.

He's deadly serious as well. Honestly you couldn't make it up. All these people, including the Co2 emission bods, are all so utterly convinced of their own righteousness.

 

 

[Peckris 2 1,839]

Yeah, that's funny.

Here's what brings climate change home to me: we as individuals tend to think vertically; in normal urban/suburban conditions we can see for no more than a few hundred metres, but if we look up we can see the sky, and that's a HUGE distance!

Yet... if you were to travel 15 miles to see someone, you'd think nothing of it. What's 15 miles after all? But if you were to travel 15 miles vertically, you'd be in a very thin part of the atmosphere where the oxygen/pressure ratio would mean you'd have virtually no oxygen to breathe. Everest is 5 miles high and most people need supplementary oxygen there. I've read that 75% of the total mass of the Earth's atmosphere is in the first 10km.

Our planet's atmosphere is comparatively thinner than the peel around an apple. We interfere with it at our peril!

Edited August 20, 2022 by Peckris 2

[1949threepence 3,286]

2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yeah, that's funny.

Here's what brings climate change home to me: we as individuals tend to think vertically; in normal urban/suburban conditions we can see for no more than a few hundred metres, but if we look up we can see the sky, and that's a HUGE distance!

Yet... if you were to travel 15 miles to see someone, you'd think nothing of it. What's 15 miles after all? But if you were to travel 15 miles vertically, you'd be in a very thin part of the atmosphere where the oxygen/pressure ratio would mean you'd have virtually no oxygen to breathe. Everest is 5 miles high and most people need supplementary oxygen there. I've read that 75% of the total mass of the Earth's atmosphere is in the first 10km.

Our planet's atmosphere is comparatively thinner than the peel around an apple. We interfere with it at our peril!

Well no, it's not funny at all. It merely emphasises how viewpoints on climate change over time - and not very much time in the grand scheme of thingse either - and all are the result of dogmatic thinking. Back then you would have been shouted down for suggesting that the Earth was warming up. Now it's the opposite.

The truth is that we don't control the weather and our influence over it is very marginal at most. To attempt to drastically alter all our lives based on this thinking, is utterly insane.  

[Peckris 2 1,839]

9 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Well no, it's not funny at all. It merely emphasises how viewpoints on climate change over time - and not very much time in the grand scheme of thingse either - and all are the result of dogmatic thinking. Back then you would have been shouted down for suggesting that the Earth was warming up. Now it's the opposite.

The truth is that we don't control the weather and our influence over it is very marginal at most. To attempt to drastically alter all our lives based on this thinking, is utterly insane.  

Not true. Despite Nimoy's ridiculous assertion (which, by the way, is one effect of climate change - even though the global average temperature is increasing, there are associated variations which can cause effects like snow where you wouldn't normally see it) 'global warming' has been a "thing" since long before that stupid video was made.

It would be utterly insane to ignore the global increase in temperature whether or not it's entirely manmade, or whether or not CO2 is the biggest culprit.

[1949threepence 3,286]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

Not true. Despite Nimoy's ridiculous assertion (which, by the way, is one effect of climate change - even though the global average temperature is increasing, there are associated variations which can cause effects like snow where you wouldn't normally see it) 'global warming' has been a "thing" since long before that stupid video was made.

It would be utterly insane to ignore the global increase in temperature whether or not it's entirely manmade, or whether or not CO2 is the biggest culprit.

We don't ignore it, but we don't make the lives of the public so miserable as a result, that the entire collective quality of life is reduced. That's insanity. 

Were it not for these daft green agenda targets, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in now vis a vis shortage of energy supply. We'd be self sufficient with no need to import from anywhere. 

ETA: that wasn't the only video on a new ice age by the way. Just a convenient one to post. I'd place serious money that if you'd heard it at the time, you wouldn't have been dismissing it because of global warming. Because GW never became a thing until about 1989, just 10 years after a threatened ice age. You couldn't make some of this stuff up if you worked on it for a century.    

Edited August 20, 2022 by 1949threepence

[Nick 325]

Another interesting video from the US about the July 2022 weather statistics produced by NOAA.  The most interesting bit starts about 7 minutes in.

 

[oldcopper 238]

19 hours ago, Nick said:

Another interesting video from the US about the July 2022 weather statistics produced by NOAA.  The most interesting bit starts about 7 minutes in.

 

It is difficult for people to overcome the psychological barrier that people in authority or their beloved media are lying to them by data manipulation or suppression. This has happened in other areas such as covid and the racial politics both in the US and here, in fact it seems that if the globalists decree something to be so, scientists and bureaucrats will find it so.

The ONS got criticism for misleading everyone about the vaccinated vs unvaccinated take up of ICU beds last year - a blatant manipulation to give the largest possible ratio of unv'ed to v'ed. I wonder if the public was informed at all that it was a fake correlation?  And this was from the ONS, all experts in statistics!. 

[Peckris 2 1,839]

On 8/21/2022 at 12:27 AM, 1949threepence said:

We don't ignore it, but we don't make the lives of the public so miserable as a result, that the entire collective quality of life is reduced. That's insanity. 

Were it not for these daft green agenda targets, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in now vis a vis shortage of energy supply. We'd be self sufficient with no need to import from anywhere. 

ETA: that wasn't the only video on a new ice age by the way. Just a convenient one to post. I'd place serious money that if you'd heard it at the time, you wouldn't have been dismissing it because of global warming. Because GW never became a thing until about 1989, just 10 years after a threatened ice age. You couldn't make some of this stuff up if you worked on it for a century.    

What we need for self sufficiency - AS WELL AS alternatives like wind/wave/solar power - is the new (i.e. modern designs not 1950s) form of nuclear power. See Bill Gates on the subject:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Bill-Gates-Backed-Firm-Raises-750M-To-Develop-Small-Nuclear-Reactors.html

[1949threepence 3,286]

On 8/21/2022 at 7:57 PM, Nick said:

Another interesting video from the US about the July 2022 weather statistics produced by NOAA.  The most interesting bit starts about 7 minutes in.

 

Very interesting and shows deliberate confirmation bias in action. 

[Peckris 2 1,839]

On 8/21/2022 at 7:57 PM, Nick said:

Another interesting video from the US about the July 2022 weather statistics produced by NOAA.  The most interesting bit starts about 7 minutes in.

 

https://h2bh.home.exetel.com.au/who-said/tony-heller/

[oldcopper 238]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/12/remember-all-those-breathy-predictions-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/?sh=43dac38daa19

I'm sure that link has examined those claims as well.......or is it all one-way traffic with some people. I wonder if Tony Heller ever made those claims? Or if any climate alarmists have ever taken trends out of context then simulated impending armageddon? Surely not!

[alfnail 682]

Weather is a bit of a shock to the system this week, especially after the amazing Summer we had!

We've had cavity wall insulation installed, have a wood burning stove and solar panels, and a smart meter to guide us with fuel usage.

We also had a 3 day break away this week (with heating just on a low setting), but still managed to clock up £80 for the last 7 days.......here in sunny Bournemouth.

Anyone know where we went:-

  

 

[1949threepence 3,286]

9 hours ago, alfnail said:

Weather is a bit of a shock to the system this week, especially after the amazing Summer we had!

We've had cavity wall insulation installed, have a wood burning stove and solar panels, and a smart meter to guide us with fuel usage.

We also had a 3 day break away this week (with heating just on a low setting), but still managed to clock up £80 for the last 7 days.......here in sunny Bournemouth.

Anyone know where we went:-

  

 

Is it somewhere in Poland, Ian? Never been there, but a few years, 2017 I think, someone I know did, and showed me pics on his phone of the trip - one of which I seem to remember, was remarkably similar to the one above. Tribute to pedestrians or some such?

It is cold, but this is nothing compared to December 2010, which, with a sub freezing mean, was the coldest December since 1890. This one isn't yet in the same class. Just  a bit nippy. 

What makes it different, of course, is the cost of energy. Personally I'd advise anybody to not go cold. There will be so many, that arrangements will have to be made for them.   

[1949threepence 3,286]

9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Personally I'd advise anybody to not go cold. There will be so many, that arrangements will have to be made for them.   

Although I appreciate that it's very much more immediate and difficult for those on prepayment meters. Fortunately there are "warm banks" that people can use.