PDA

View Full Version : Yet another cold Winter



BlasterBates
4th October 2010, 08:29
hmm looks like we might be for another corker.

Britain 'in for another big freeze winter' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8039977/Britain-in-for-another-big-freeze-winter.html)

But note this would be just weather, Britain gets warmer every year and mild winters are now the norm, this is just a one off.

shaunbhoy
4th October 2010, 08:36
hmm looks like we might be for another corker.

Britain 'in for another big freeze winter' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8039977/Britain-in-for-another-big-freeze-winter.html)

But note this would be just weather, Britain gets warmer every year and mild winters are now the norm, this is just a one off.

Wow!! We haven't had one of those since last year!!
Still, I am sure sasguru will be along shortly to set us straight on these recurring anomalies!

:rollin:

MrMark
4th October 2010, 08:37
hmm looks like we might be for another corker.

Britain 'in for another big freeze winter' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8039977/Britain-in-for-another-big-freeze-winter.html)

But note this would be just weather, Britain gets warmer every year and mild winters are now the norm, this is just a one off.

The "experts" find it difficult enough to predict weather two days ahead. Still, better safe than sorry, I'm going to dig out my hot water bottle, scarf, blanket and slippers. Something to keep me warm as I listen to a radio of a winters' night..:smokin
Oh, I may invest in a few bottles of hot toddy too.

Old Greg
4th October 2010, 09:38
hmm looks like we might be for another corker.

Britain 'in for another big freeze winter' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8039977/Britain-in-for-another-big-freeze-winter.html)

But note this would be just weather, Britain gets warmer every year and mild winters are now the norm, this is just a one off.

I think the clue is in the 'global' part of global warming.

BoredBloke
4th October 2010, 09:42
Would this be those same experts who predicted a roasting hot summer instead of the pile of cack we got.

DimPrawn
4th October 2010, 09:44
If we have more cold winters across large parts of the world, people will use their heating more, resulting in huge increases in CO2, which will raise the global temperature even more.

I suggest a new tax on central heating systems to be applied during the winter months to offset this effect.

Think of the children!

TimberWolf
4th October 2010, 09:50
Why don't people get tax breaks and subsidies for buying thermal clothing as they do with cavity wall insulation? Or a free hat as with loft insulation? Then turn their heating off. Much cheaper.

shaunbhoy
4th October 2010, 09:55
My solution would be to remove the winter heating allowance from people over a certain age...........say 60 for example. THAT ought to save a few bob, and will also result in a lot less crinklies clogging up Doctor's surgery when you want to get attention.
As long as it is fair.

MrMark
21st November 2010, 15:42
Snow coming by next weekend. Allegedly...

scooterscot
21st November 2010, 15:58
Just stacked 2 tons of wood into the cellar for the wood burner... :smokin

norrahe
21st November 2010, 16:11
Just stacked 2 tons of wood into the cellar for the wood burner... :smokin

Need to move my outside wood into the wood bin now it's almost empty of last couple of years wood.

Don't particularly mind if the weather is bad again, as long as whatever new gig I get allows me to work from home, last year I couldn't get past our drive or road

TimberWolf
21st November 2010, 16:25
I bought a slanket from Amazon yesterday, as none of the shops I looked in yesterday stocked it. The slanket appears to be superior to the snuggie.

norrahe
21st November 2010, 16:31
I bought a slanket from Amazon yesterday, as none of the shops I looked in yesterday stocked it. The slanket appears to be superior to the snuggie.

Tempted to get one.

TimberWolf
21st November 2010, 16:37
Tempted to get one.

Free delivery from Amazon.

norrahe
21st November 2010, 16:39
Free delivery from Amazon.

you on commission? :laugh

TimberWolf
21st November 2010, 16:41
you on commission? :laugh

I'll let you know how I get on. It should arrive in 2 - 4 days.

scooterscot
21st November 2010, 16:49
I bought a slanket from Amazon yesterday, as none of the shops I looked in yesterday stocked it. The slanket appears to be superior to the snuggie.

What tat!

The economy is saved long live consumerism.

TykeMerc
21st November 2010, 17:03
The "experts" find it difficult enough to predict weather two days ahead. Still, better safe than sorry, I'm going to dig out my hot water bottle, scarf, blanket and slippers. Something to keep me warm as I listen to a radio of a winters' night..:smokin
Oh, I may invest in a few bottles of hot toddy too.

Don't forget the sunglasses, safari suit, linen shirts and factor 97 sun block in case the global warmists are correct...

Troll
21st November 2010, 17:08
I bought a slanket from Amazon yesterday, as none of the shops I looked in yesterday stocked it. The slanket appears to be superior to the snuggie.This one?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41l%2BigEFW6L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

TimberWolf
21st November 2010, 17:20
This one?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41l%2BigEFW6L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Which one?

minestrone
21st November 2010, 17:31
Got the underside of my ground floor insulated about 4 weeks ago, massive difference in the heat now in the house, 4 chimney balloons as well. I think I will save the 350 quid that cost in a year.

We have a modern extension to the house and it is much colder in there. They knew how to build houses in 1908.

d000hg
22nd November 2010, 02:29
hmm looks like we might be for another corker.

Britain 'in for another big freeze winter' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8039977/Britain-in-for-another-big-freeze-winter.html)

But note this would be just weather, Britain gets warmer every year and mild winters are now the norm, this is just a one off.Yes two years in a row is certainly pretty compelling. I mean, 2 data points is all you need for a graph. It's amazing to me how people working in IT can fail to have even the most basic understanding of statistics, considering most have surely done at least GC(S)E maths.
Everytime we get a post on some released statistics, some dumbo seems to think "I don't fit the trend, therefore it's rubbish" is a good counter-argument. That kind of inability to think makes Sas look like the intellectual colossus he claims to be :tongue

shaunbhoy
22nd November 2010, 07:35
That kind of inability to think makes Sas look like the intellectual colossus he claims to be :tongue

It would take a heck of a lot more compelling data than THAT!

:laugh :laugh

BlasterBates
22nd November 2010, 08:03
Yes two years in a row is certainly pretty compelling. I mean, 2 data points is all you need for a graph. It's amazing to me how people working in IT can fail to have even the most basic understanding of statistics, considering most have surely done at least GC(S)E maths.
Everytime we get a post on some released statistics, some dumbo seems to think "I don't fit the trend, therefore it's rubbish" is a good counter-argument. That kind of inability to think makes Sas look like the intellectual colossus he claims to be :tongue

yeah the 4 years in a row is just an outlier....:wink

...and the expanding antarctic and arctic ice and plunging global temperature, and below average temperatures in South America and Australia is also just a bit of weather...

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002

of course how silly of me.

Has nothing to do with the sun, I realise that :)

AS the HAD CRUT temperature trend England shows since the sun went quiet

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html

The trend is still upwards, err isn't it?

d000hg
22nd November 2010, 12:25
yeah the 4 years in a row is just an outlierYes, 4 years is not statistically significant. I don't know why you find that so hard to understand. If you look at all the graphs floating around CUK recently, including ones you (IIRC) posted, you'll see they wiggle all over the place. That's why establishing a trend is difficult.

BlasterBates
22nd November 2010, 13:21
Yes, 4 years is not statistically significant. I don't know why you find that so hard to understand. If you look at all the graphs floating around CUK recently, including ones you (IIRC) posted, you'll see they wiggle all over the place. That's why establishing a trend is difficult.

Well if you were to look at the HADCRUT temperature record I posted above, you would notice that England has been cooling for about ten years actually, and the last 4 years have been noticeably cooler in the winter. But even 10 years is a short time, as was the 15 years of warming preceding it that have scientists claim heralds a unstoppable global warming.

..and in fact as Phil jones said, there hasn't been any warming for 15 years (as you can see that HADCRUT global temp trend which shows it flattening off), it could be that the record solar maximum between 1980-2000 might have contributed to the mild temperatures

Lets see what happens to that curve over the next 20 years. It is almost back to where it was in 1940.

filthy1980
22nd November 2010, 13:30
Well if you were to look at the HADCRUT temperature record I posted above, you would notice that England has been cooling for about ten years actually, and the last 4 years have been noticeably cooler in the winter. But even 10 years is a short time, as was the 15 years of warming preceding it that have scientists claim heralds a unstoppable global warming.

..and in fact as Phil jones said, there hasn't been any warming for 15 years (as you can see that HADCRUT global temp trend which shows it flattening off), it could be that the record solar maximum between 1980-2000 might have contributed to the mild temperatures

Lets see what happens to that curve over the next 20 years. It is almost back to where it was in 1940.


you're not suggesting that there was some sort of agenda behind the global warming theory are you??? :eek:

BlasterBates
22nd November 2010, 13:37
Climate is a "wiggly" line and when it wiggles downwards for 10 years you can claim an ice age and when it wiggles upwards for 10 years you can claim unstoppable warming.

It is quite interesting to see these claims over the last 100 years, of "worrying" climate trends, reminds me of ancient religious sects using eclipses of the sun to prove the existence of their particular God.

Aman
22nd November 2010, 15:54
Got the underside of my ground floor insulated about 4 weeks ago, massive difference in the heat now in the house, 4 chimney balloons as well. I think I will save the 350 quid that cost in a year.

We have a modern extension to the house and it is much colder in there. They knew how to build houses in 1908.

What did you use for underfloor insulation?

I didn't think underfloor insulation would make that big a difference but I fitted new underlay (seventh heaven) in one room and noticed a difference.


I've had people up to price insulation but they all refused to go under the floor as there isn't much space.
Not sure bmost appropriate wasy to insulate the internal lath and plaster walls and the lath and plaster ceiling. I need a solution that'll improve the mu value, have a good fire rating yet not require ripping the walls and ceiling apart.

DimPrawn
22nd November 2010, 16:18
Global warming is here, experts agree - News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/global-warming-is-here-experts-agree-1584272.html)

Thursday, 30 November 1995

"The recent warming has been greatest of the mid-latitude continents in winter and spring," the report says. Britain's experience in recent mild winters fits well with that.

:laugh

:winker:

Spacecadet
22nd November 2010, 16:32
Global warming is here, experts agree - News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/global-warming-is-here-experts-agree-1584272.html)

Thursday, 30 November 1995

"The recent warming has been greatest of the mid-latitude continents in winter and spring," the report says. Britain's experience in recent mild winters fits well with that.


Obviously that evidence was wrong
New evidence suggests that cold winters = global warming

There's nothing wrong with getting the evidence incorrect but there is something wrong with not agreeing with the scientific consensus

BlasterBates
22nd November 2010, 16:49
Global warming is here, experts agree - News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/global-warming-is-here-experts-agree-1584272.html)

Thursday, 30 November 1995

"The recent warming has been greatest of the mid-latitude continents in winter and spring," the report says. Britain's experience in recent mild winters fits well with that.

:laugh

:winker:


I like this one from that article in 1995:


The warming is set to accelerate into and through the next century, with temperature rises faster than any of the past 10,000 years.


...and what was it Phil Jones said recently:


...for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.

EternalOptimist
22nd November 2010, 17:08
I have had this great idea.

rewrite the Warmists statements, assuming that they have been right all along, but taking all the politics, religion, empire building and spin and crying wolf out of the equation


Phil Jones - 'well we have this model, its been validated by some other models, so we know its right, and it proves that temperatures will go up , but by so little no one will notice. and then they will go down again'

Viner - 'Snow will become a rare event, your children will not know what it is when they see it. Actually I mean your childrens childrens children. And even then it will snow. obviously'

Gore - 'There will be no ice at the North pole in 2013. but hey, thats not so unusual, it happens all the time' , but it will be worse because of agw.

Pachuri - 'The Himalayan glaciers will not melt in 35 years, that was a bit of a mistake, the scientists who pointed it out are not 'voodoo' scientists. But that doesnt mitigate the fact that the Himalayan glaciers will melt sooner with agw, than they otherwise would have. I cant tell you when, because we havnt built a model to tell us just yet.

SaSGoru - Sea levels will obviously rise as the ice melts. just not as much or as fast as has been hyped up. And the negligible increase so far, proves yet again, that I am right. Cretins


:rolleyes:

MrMark
22nd November 2010, 19:52
SaSGoru - Sea levels will obviously rise as the ice melts. just not as much or as fast as has been hyped up. And the negligible increase so far, proves yet again, that I am right. Cretins


I'm beginning to see SasGuru in a new light. He's the modern day version of Nostradamus.

shaunbhoy
22nd November 2010, 20:32
I'm beginning to see SasGuru in a new light. He's the modern day version of Baldrick.

FTFY

TimberWolf
23rd November 2010, 13:28
I'll let you know how I get on. It should arrive in 2 - 4 days.

My Alaskan blue Slanket arrived today, earlier than predicted by Amazon, as usual.

First impressions: Jeez, this is just a freaking blanket, how do you put it on, how does it do up at the back?

The material is good quality (as far as I can tell) fleece and it's huge, even on my 6'2" frame. Even the sleeves are much longer than my arms. I wouldn't want to go wandering around in it though, unless I wanted to collect a lot of dust and trip over. You put it on by putting your right arm in the right arm hole, when it's facing you, and your left in the left, i.e. opposite of normal, assuming I'm doing it right. A weird feeling, as you feel like a surgeon or a loony asylum inmate*. It does not bode well that I do not have rubber gloves. As it's mostly blanket, it means the back will be open when you put in on, which seems a bit weird, though that's easily rectified as there is spare material to play with. There's even enough to make a hood.

10 minutes after seeing it my view has gone from, oh carp, to hmm, seems okay. 7/10

Edit: 8/10 now.

*Does anyone need operating on?

suityou01
23rd November 2010, 21:46
Good news about the slanket. :D

Does anyone have a link to one of those real time snow watch web sites? I have googled and am not getting anything good - just some crap twitter mashup nonsense.

norrahe
23rd November 2010, 21:58
Good news about the slanket. :D

Does anyone have a link to one of those real time snow watch web sites? I have googled and am not getting anything good - just some crap twitter mashup nonsense.

Accuweather (http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/index.asp) is usually dependable

suityou01
23rd November 2010, 22:04
Accuweather (http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/index.asp) is usually dependable

Thanks Norr but this looks like a forecast web site. Is there a real time bit I missed? :confused:

norrahe
23rd November 2010, 22:48
Thanks Norr but this looks like a forecast web site. Is there a real time bit I missed? :confused:

The do at present time, this one (http://www.xcweather.co.uk/) seems to do real time and you can access the various weather stations data

Doggy Styles
23rd November 2010, 22:51
The only way to forestall global warming is lots of steamy cauldrons with some sort of brew in them. I don't know what yet, that's the final piece of the jigsaw.

TimberWolf
23rd November 2010, 23:57
Tonight's weather forecast was that if you don't get snow this week (wherever you are), you stand a better chance next week <wry knowing grin to camera>. Sounds as if winter has come early. Again.

suityou01
24th November 2010, 10:53
I found google earth has a weather option. Live radar, weather conditions. Awesome. :D

d000hg
24th November 2010, 11:24
My feet are cold. I work from home on the ground floor (coldest part) and refuse to put the heating on in the day. 14 degrees right now, feels less.

DimPrawn
24th November 2010, 11:25
My feet are cold. I work from home on the ground floor (coldest part) and refuse to put the heating on in the day. 14 degrees right now, feels less.

Why? Are you poor or worried about Carbon?

Do you starve yourself too?

cailin maith
24th November 2010, 11:27
My feet are cold. I work from home on the ground floor (coldest part) and refuse to put the heating on in the day. 14 degrees right now, feels less.

Bloody hell man, am sure it doesn't cost that much to have it on for a few extra hours?!

TimberWolf
24th November 2010, 11:41
My feet are cold. I work from home on the ground floor (coldest part) and refuse to put the heating on in the day. 14 degrees right now, feels less.

Thermal socks + slippers +slanket = 12 degrees no problem.

d000hg
24th November 2010, 11:46
Why?Just because you can afford something doesn't mean you should buy it.


Bloody hell man, am sure it doesn't cost that much to have it on for a few extra hours?!Heating the whole 3-storey house is inefficient for one person. It's the principle of the thing, damnit.

13 now.

cailin maith
24th November 2010, 11:47
Just because you can afford something doesn't mean you should buy it.

Heating the whole 3-storey house is inefficient for one person. It's the principle of the thing, damnit.

13 now.

Bollocks, I'd rather be warm. You are bonkers, stick the heating on, you'll be lovely & toasty in to time.

DimPrawn
24th November 2010, 11:57
Bollocks, I'd rather be warm. You are bonkers, stick the heating on, you'll be lovely & toasty in to time.

WSS.

Some really weird fookers on this webshite.

d000hg
24th November 2010, 11:59
Bollocks, I'd rather be warm. You are bonkers, stick the heating on, you'll be lovely & toasty in to time.Well you and DP are soft & pampered. I'd rather spend the cash elsewhere. Like single-malts.

SupremeSpod
24th November 2010, 12:07
Well you and DP are soft & pampered. I'd rather spend the cash elsewhere. Like single-malts.

Get a decent job and then you can afford both.

PRC1964
24th November 2010, 12:07
Just because you can afford something doesn't mean you should buy it.

Heating the whole 3-storey house is inefficient for one person. It's the principle of the thing, damnit.

13 now.

Umm... Why not just heat the room you're in?

DimPrawn
24th November 2010, 12:12
Get a decent job and then you can afford both.

WHS.

TimberWolf
24th November 2010, 12:16
Set fire to a pile of paper money and cut out the middle man.

d000hg
24th November 2010, 17:05
Get a decent job and then you can afford both.I can afford to run the heating. I choose not to. I could afford to leave all the lights and the TV on 24/7 and buy food to throw away as well... but why bother?


Umm... Why not just heat the room you're in?I do have a little oil radiator but it's a bit crap. The central heating doesn't have per-room settings - well I could turn off every single radiator but one during the day, then turn them back on at night...

12 degrees now. Unlike these softies though I solved the problem by putting on a jumper. Unless my fingers go numb what's the problem?

shaunbhoy
24th November 2010, 17:30
I'd rather spend the cash elsewhere. Like single-malts.

Good shout. And today's "Malt of the Day" is......................Auchentoshan!!!!

http://www.royalmilewhiskies.com/images/products/0010000038118_L.jpg

Zippy
24th November 2010, 17:58
I can afford to run the heating. I choose not to. I could afford to leave all the lights and the TV on 24/7 and buy food to throw away as well... but why bother?

I do have a little oil radiator but it's a bit crap. The central heating doesn't have per-room settings - well I could turn off every single radiator but one during the day, then turn them back on at night...

12 degrees now. Unlike these softies though I solved the problem by putting on a jumper. Unless my fingers go numb what's the problem?

I tend to agree. It's not about the money as an extra £100-200 or so isn't important. The energy cos are taking the piss with their prices at the moment so am reluctant to hand over any more money than we have to.
I was given a halogen heater a while back. It heats up the living room quite nicely and I'm not lining the pockets of the incompetant energy cos by heating areas I'm not using. The central heating still comes on in the mornings - when it really matters.
Those on a tighter budget can light a few candles.

SupremeSpod
24th November 2010, 18:11
I can afford to run the heating. I choose not to. I could afford to leave all the lights and the TV on 24/7 and buy food to throw away as well... but why bother?

I do have a little oil radiator but it's a bit crap. The central heating doesn't have per-room settings - well I could turn off every single radiator but one during the day, then turn them back on at night...

12 degrees now. Unlike these softies though I solved the problem by putting on a jumper. Unless my fingers go numb what's the problem?


I tend to agree. It's not about the money as an extra £100-200 or so isn't important. The energy cos are taking the piss with their prices at the moment so am reluctant to hand over any more money than we have to.
I was given a halogen heater a while back. It heats up the living room quite nicely and I'm not lining the pockets of the incompetant energy cos by heating areas I'm not using. The central heating still comes on in the mornings - when it really matters.
Those on a tighter budget can light a few candles.

Each to his/her own.

Personally I like a warm home. Admittedly I'm only in it for 3 nights a week :o :laugh

Zippy
24th November 2010, 18:20
Each to his/her own.

Personally I like a warm home. Admittedly I'm only in it for 3 nights a week :o :laugh

Yes, and you've got something more interesting than central heating to keep you warm.

TimberWolf
24th November 2010, 19:33
My mother bought herself a portable gas heater for use in the conservatory, and when she told me on the phone I told her it was a death trap and generally tried to put her off. The compromise was that she would leave the door to the house ajar a bit. I'm not sure whether I was overreacting though. It does have a CO detector, though I'm not sure I'd trust it.

Spacecadet
24th November 2010, 19:37
My mother bought herself a portable gas heater for use in the conservatory, and when she told me on the phone I told her it was a death trap and generally tried to put her off. The compromise was that she would leave the door to the house ajar a bit. I'm not sure whether I was overreacting though. It does have a CO detector, though I'm not sure I'd trust it.

she could try not sitting in the conservatory when it's cold

just a suggestion like

TimberWolf
24th November 2010, 19:45
she could try not sitting in the conservatory when it's cold

just a suggestion like

It's her favourite place. She can watch the birds and the garden etc. It's also got central heating, but for reasons that escape me she doesn't use it in that room. To be honest I think it was a Jones' thing, a relative bought one and it looked nice etc. Female logic.

pjclarke
25th November 2010, 00:03
Hands up all those that believe that 'no statistically significant warming for 15 years' is the same thing as 'it has not warmed significantly for 15 years'?

The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.

FACT: The Hadcrut data has a warming trend, in line with model projections. Over this period it achieves a significance just short of the 95% level. Increase the period by a single year, or use a different dataset, eg NASA, and you achieve statistical significance.

Evidence (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/trend)
Discussion (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm)

As to the imminent cold weather, well, sorry guys, but that satire has already been done....

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms (http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/cold.html)?

d000hg
25th November 2010, 01:21
Facts? You can prove anything that's true with facts.

DimPrawn
25th November 2010, 06:50
Hands up all those that believe that 'no statistically significant warming for 15 years' is the same thing as 'it has not warmed significantly for 15 years'?

The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.

FACT: The Hadcrut data has a warming trend, in line with model projections. Over this period it achieves a significance just short of the 95% level. Increase the period by a single year, or use a different dataset, eg NASA, and you achieve statistical significance.

Evidence (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/trend)
Discussion (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm)

As to the imminent cold weather, well, sorry guys, but that satire has already been done....

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms (http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/cold.html)?

Britain's worst November freeze for 17 years is on its way! | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332822/Britains-worst-November-freeze-17-years-way.html)

The earliest prolonged cold spell for 17 years will take a grip on Britain from today.

Heavy snowfalls will begin a ‘big freeze’ that could last ten days, forecasters have warned.

Arctic conditions are expected to sweep across the country over the week, depositing up to ten inches of snow in the worst affected areas.

Forecasters say it is likely to be the earliest significant snow over a ‘large part of the country’ since 1993 and appears to indicate a trend of winter starting earlier than ever.


Take that you Charlatan!

BlasterBates
25th November 2010, 08:48
Warming was caused by cosmic rays.

New peer reviewed research, hot off the press:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf



The composite sample shows a positive correlation between statistically significant cloud changes and variations in the short-term GCR flux (Fig. 1): increases in the GCR flux
occur around day −5 of the composite, and correspond to significant localised mid-latitude increases in cloud change. After this time, the GCR flux undergoes a statistically significant decrease (1.2 GU) centred on the key date of the composite; these changes correspond to widespread statistically significant decreases in cloud change (3.5 CU, 1.9 CU globallyaveraged) over mid-latitude regions.


.... to AGW bozo's that means.

Your theory has now has massive holes in it.

DimPrawn
25th November 2010, 09:46
Warming was caused by cosmic rays.

New peer reviewed research, hot off the press:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf




.... to AGW bozo's that means.

Your theory has now has massive holes in it.


Can't tax cosmic rays, so we'll have to stick with the CO2 scam for now.

:laugh

Spacecadet
25th November 2010, 10:58
Hands up all those that believe that 'no statistically significant warming for 15 years' is the same thing as 'it has not warmed significantly for 15 years'?

The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.

FACT: The Hadcrut data has a warming trend, in line with model projections. Over this period it achieves a significance just short of the 95% level.

So it fails.
Anything you say after that is excuse making and trying to make the facts fit the expectation

d000hg
25th November 2010, 11:12
Warming was caused by cosmic rays.

New peer reviewed research, hot off the press:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdfI like how you need to mention things are peer-reviewed, the implication being most anti-GW papers are unsubstantiated drivel.

Also, a LOT of crap papers get put out there, it doesn't mean they're worth anything... just read scientific american for crackpot theories on physics and cosmology.

EternalOptimist
25th November 2010, 11:19
I like how you need to mention things are peer-reviewed, the implication being most anti-GW papers are unsubstantiated drivel.

Also, a LOT of crap papers get put out there, it doesn't mean they're worth anything... just read scientific american for crackpot theories on physics and cosmology.

Tis true. There is a lot of tripe out there on both sides of the debate. Some of the sceptic blogs are cringe making. I think that as being a sceptic becomes respectable we are suffering from our own brand of bandwagon jumpers, and its not nice.

To give him his due, pj has made one promise, he will join the ranks of the sceptics if the recorded temperatures fall outside the IPCC forecasts for a significant period of time
cant say fairer than that



:rolleyes:

BlasterBates
25th November 2010, 11:27
I like how you need to mention things are peer-reviewed, the implication being most anti-GW papers are unsubstantiated drivel.

Also, a LOT of crap papers get put out there, it doesn't mean they're worth anything... just read scientific american for crackpot theories on physics and cosmology.

...talking of unsubstantiated drivel, that reminds me



In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. "It's not acceptable ... [it's] not best practice," Jones said.

He acknowledged that the stations "probably did move" but insisted he did not know this when he wrote the 1990 paper.

EternalOptimist
25th November 2010, 11:37
The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.



Thats right. so the temperature record falls withing the bounds of natural variability, which is what the sceptics have been saying all along.


:rolleyes:

BlasterBates
25th November 2010, 12:44
Well it's a change of tune isn't it?

What we were told was cosmic rays have no impact at all on climate, and now it was a major driver over the last 1000 years, where glaciers were further back than they are today.

http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/

What else have the AGW also got completely wrong then?

...and meanwhile the temperature plunges globally, and more cold temperature records are broken:

AMSU-A Temperatures Trends from NOAA-15 (http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002)

http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/record-cold-in-south-america-causes-loss-of-life-cattle-deaths-and-gas-shortages/

Blistering cold cracks records | Calgary & Alberta | News | Calgary Sun (http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/11/23/16282731.html)

Lets see where the global temperature go in the next couple of years.

But it certainly looks like AGW is in it's death throes.

TimberWolf
25th November 2010, 14:31
The bloody fan on my computer is driving me nuts. For some reason it comes on when the temperature drops below about 10 degrees. I thought cold was good for computers.

pjclarke
25th November 2010, 17:30
What we were told was cosmic rays have no impact at all on climate

Told by who? Not the IPCC. If this were the case then CERN would not be spending millions researching the link. But they are (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html) so this is just a straw man argument.

BlasterBates
25th November 2010, 17:59
Why? Every decade since the sixties has been warmer than the last, fourteen of the fifteen warmest years in the series occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2009). The planet is now half a degree warmer than it was in the Seventies (and that is a LOT of extra heat in the system).

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/images/policymakers/global_hadcrut3.gif

What possible difference will two more years make?


I notice how 1998 is the hottest year, and we seem to be climbing back down again.

The globe has warmed before...how else do you explain glacial variations, an argument you pointedly ignore because you have no answer.

Your graph just confirms it showing the later years creeping back down again.

Why don't you check out the evidence pointed out by Easterbrook pointing to warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

Why were the glaciers further back then?

There are cycles the go on for hundreds of years, which your graph just goes to support.

Amazing that climate twerps actually produce a graph that refutes their own hypothesis.

EternalOptimist
25th November 2010, 18:01
Why? Every decade since the sixties has been warmer than the last, fourteen of the fifteen warmest years in the series occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2009). The planet is now half a degree warmer than it was in the Seventies (and that is a LOT of extra heat in the system).

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/images/policymakers/global_hadcrut3.gif

What possible difference will two more years make?

Why look at temperatures over then next couple of years ???
the answer is blindingly obvious. We need to track the actual recorded temperatures, to see if they match the predictions made by the IPCC and the models.

I would also like one thing to be clarified. Pachuri was rightfully villified for claiming that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 35 years. He accepted the error but has not told us when they will actually go into melt down. Maybe you can tell us ?

Or maybe you guys aren't interested now that it's not a useful tool to terrify the general populace.



:rolleyes:

TimberWolf
25th November 2010, 18:28
There's another month to go before [6 months of] winter starts too.

DimPrawn
25th November 2010, 20:15
There's another month to go before [6 months of] winter starts too.

True, but then we can look forward to the barbeque summer.

pjclarke
25th November 2010, 20:23
I notice how 1998 is the hottest year, and we seem to be climbing back down again.

Hardly ...


This year is so far tied for the hottest year in a record dating back to 1850 in a new sign of a warming trend, the three major institutes which calculate global warming estimates told Reuters. ... "I would not be surprised if most or all groups found that 2010 was tied for the warmest year," said Nasa's Dr James Hansen.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/25/2010-joint-hottest-year-global-warming)


The globe has warmed before...how else do you explain glacial variations, an argument you pointedly ignore because you have no answer.


Of course the planet has been warmer before, for example in the Eemian (when Hippopotamuses roamed England and when sea levels were 5-7m higher), however civilisation, agriculture and our infratructure developed during the Holocene, a period of remarkable climatic stability. To quote Jim Hansen, writing in the Philosophical Journals of the Royal Society


Earth's climate is remarkably sensitive to forcings, i.e. imposed changes of the planet's energy balance. Both fast and slow feedbacks turn out to be predominately positive. As a result, our climate has the potential for large rapid fluctuations. Indeed, the Earth, and the creatures struggling to exist on the planet, have been repeatedly whipsawed between climate states. No doubt this rough ride has driven progression of life via changing stresses, extinctions and species evolution. But civilization developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12 000 years in duration. That period is about to end.
Source (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf)


Why don't you check out the evidence pointed out by Easterbrook pointing to warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

Because life is too short; there is more than enough interesting material from reliable sources to keep me occupied before turning to the likes of widely-debunked Don Easterbrook. As I have pointed out many times he fabricates evidence and manipulates graphs.


Easterbrook’s analysis is hopelessly flawed, and one is left to wonder just why he would intentionally shoot down his own credibility with such sloppiness. Any support of this work on internet sources is not a support of any actual science or data, but an appeal to authority. Source (http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/easterbrook-and-the-coming-global-cooling/) Click (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/don_easterbrook_hides_the_incl.php) Click (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2010/05/27/cooling-gate-the-100-years-of-warming-easterbrook-wants-you-to-ignore/)

pjclarke
25th November 2010, 20:55
I would also like one thing to be clarified. Pachuri was rightfully villified for claiming that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 35 years. He accepted the error but has not told us when they will actually go into melt down. Maybe you can tell us ?

Or maybe you guys aren't interested now that it's not a useful tool to terrify the general populace.

Well, the error went un-noticed and unremarked for over 2 years so terror levels were presuambly manageable, were you aware of this prediction before this year? Be honest now.


In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report). There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.

If you're really interested in the glaciers, the actual picture is complicated but see here (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/a-distraction-of-himalayan-proportions-1876420.html) and here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html) :-

Or you might prefer David Bellamy's considered thoughts (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/).

Paddy
26th November 2010, 06:33
BBC News - Met Office says 2010 &#039;among hottest on record&#039; (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368)

Strange that they choose to say this when it snows, they did the same last time it snowed!


This year is heading to be the hottest or second hottest on record, according to the Met Office.

It says the past 12 months are the warmest recorded

The Met Office says it is very confident that man-made global warming is forcing up temperatures.

BlasterBates
26th November 2010, 07:53
Of course the planet has been warmer before, for example in the Eemian (when Hippopotamuses roamed England and when sea levels were 5-7m higher), however civilisation, agriculture and our infratructure developed during the Holocene, a period of remarkable climatic stability. To quote Jim Hansen, writing in the Philosophical Journals of the Royal Society


I notice that you have yet again ignored the the evidence on Swiss alpine glaciers being further back 1000 years ago, that is somewhat later than when the hippos were roaming Britain.

You don't really have an answer to that one.

But it isn't just the Swiss glaciers, the ice cores in Greenland and in Antarctica, and glaciers elsewhere exhibit similar variation, just check the literature it's all in there.