[Closed] Global warming anybody?

last year the north pole melted - all those trillions of tonnes of ice cold water went somewhere...

At least 2 of them fell into my back yard 2 weeks ago and haven't left yet.

so ironically, it may well be that all the snow is evidence of global warming.

and if this easterly wind hangs around during summer, all the roads will melt in the heat...

No idea, but why anybody would think that an increase in average global temperature has to mean an increase in temperatures everywhere all the time is beyond me. Weather is a dynamic system. So, surely, putting more energy into the system would just lead to bigger swings i.e. more extreme periods of hot/cold or wet/dry weather.

Quite what this has to do with bikes though is a mystery to me.

[url=

Isn't it called 'climate change' these days though?

And haven't global temperatures actually increased in recent history?

It was 54 degrees centigrade in Australia January 2013

They had to use a new colour for the charts...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/purple-alert-australian-heatwave-forces-climate-experts-to-use-new-colour-to-represent-extreme-temperatures-8443297.html

Global warming... 🙄

Yes thx1138, youare completely correct. It is now refereed to as climate change. Unfortunately the average idiot on the street does not really understand the concept. Of course, year on year we are seeing more intense weather events, however, because they cant wear shorts the whole year round in wherever in the UK, they don't believe that anything is happening.

The next thing the average idiot will complain about CO2 and how that is unimportant. They almost never understand the wider picture that we live in an "environment" and when we fu** it up its not pleasant to live in anymore.

Climate Change FFS.

chief9000 - Member

Global warming...

Yes thx1138, youare completely correct. It is now refereed to as climate change. Unfortunately the average idiot on the street does not really understand the concept. Of course, year on year we are seeing more intense weather events, however, because they cant wear shorts the whole year round in wherever in the UK, they don't believe that anything is happening.

What makes you think there are now more 'intense weather events' ?

[url= http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/ ]some pretty graphs for you[/url]

And no, I'm not a denier, though I am naturally skeptical of this, as I am with any piece of information. I'm just getting the arse ache with the relentless onslaught of guff from the media every time there is weather of some kind or floods, droughts, snow, heatwaves, long winters, crap summers etc telling me it must be down to [s]AGW[/s] [s]CC[/s] AEWE.

[img] [/img]
ITS CLIMAGEDDON!!!!!1

Sometimes it snows....in April.

Sometimes it snows in May (where i live, which may not be near where you live, but is important to me).

And no, I'm not a denier, though I am naturally skeptical of this, as I am with any piece of information.

That sounds like how scientists are.

I think a lot of it could be solved by sacrificing a few weather forecasters as an offering to the weather gods.

shitest global warming I've ever shivered thru

It is a bit weird ill admit.

Just come back from 2 weeks in Madeira and its a bit warmer there for sure.

Back home on the Coast it should be aves of 13C, so were 10C off that at the mo.

Global warming is a fraud.

They had to rebrand it climate change when the date didn't support warming.

Climate change is yet another fear tactic used by the elite, to keep the masses inline, and line the pockets of bankers etc with carbon credits and also serves nicely to deindustrialise the West.

It's bullshit for you folks that believe everything you read in newspapers or see on the BBC.

Even David ****ing Attenbrough feeds you the shit... and you lap it up.

quick, everyone start desperately googling for vaguely related links to prove there is no such thing!

Burn the unbeliever!

Here's something interesting to watch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qnnqt

Some original thinkers onboard. 2 points raises, like any other successful organism we change our environment, nothing new there. We shouldn't try to stop it happening, but adapt to the change.

"Climate change" is a business like any other, make no mistake.

i know insulting Sir David lets get him

However I cant fault his grasp of science 😉

Even David **** Attenbrough feeds you the shit... and you lap it up.

TBH your comment :

[b][i]Climate change is yet another fear tactic used by the elite, to keep the masses inline, and line the pockets of bankers etc with carbon credits and also serves nicely to deindustrialise the West.[/b] [/i]

suggests that you have been fed shit by David Icke which you have clearly been lapping up.

Check how close to your views David Icke's views are :

[b][i]'The latest megalomaniacal threat from the financial globalists wants to saddle the world economy with a cost of trillions of dollars that benefits favorite corporatists. The phony global warming cult has a core purpose.

Their objective is to drive down the standard of living for non-elites and prevent the use of fossil fuel energy. The fallacious science used to create a disinformation scare for politically unsophisticated “True Believers” is a direct result of transnational money manipulators.[/i][/b]

[url= http://www.davidicke.com/articles/the-money-scam/78997-a-14-trillion-extortion-for-a-global-warming-scam ]A $14 Trillion Extortion for a Global Warming Scam[/url]

Do you want to talk about lizards now?

Edited in response to the deleted post.

[tannoy] Kaesae to the forum[/TANNOY}

...They had to rebrand it climate change when the date* didn't support warming.

*data?

let me guess, there's been no warming since 1997?

kaesae = van cough cough?

Haven't seen kaesae for ages, thought he was banned or something, or spending his time on wacky conspiracy theories, and foil helmets.

I also assumed banned but I meant more they were kindred spirits. However [ I cannot believe i will say this] K man was far more grounded and polite 😯

I liked kaesae. His threads were hugely popular and he stimulated debated. Although some of his views were a little unusual.

It is truly frightening that you believe everything you have been told.

Also a concern that you cannot debate without resorting to insults..

So closed minded and indoctrinated that you buy everything that mainstream media and government tell you. Truly this frightens me.

Anyway, you carry on, pretend you have won, extinguish the debate, everyone will agree with your mainstream installed view.. The End.

Pathetic.

Also a concern that you cannot debate without resorting to insults..

I would suggest that : [i]"Even David **** Attenbrough feeds you the shit... and you lap it up."[/i]
isn't particularly polite.

kaesae = van cough cough?

I've reviewed this and I'm confident that's not the case.

Haven't seen kaesae for ages, thought he was banned or something, or spending his time on wacky conspiracy theories, and foil helmets.

At least one of those things may be true.

I'd be more inclined to listen to the people who say we are changing the climate if they would actually agree on how we are changing it. 💡

Whether you believe in CC/GW or not, I think we can all agree that waste is bad and being more economical with natural resources is good.

Burning fossil fuels for energy can't be good in anyone's book, what we need is a good clean source of energy, like nuclear. Unfortunately people are scared of it.

So closed minded and indoctrinated that you buy everything that mainstream media and government tell you.

Two things:

1) why do you assume we get our info from mainstream media?

2) If something were true, surely mainstream media and government would agree on it and be telling us? Therefore, you can't believe something is false simply because you're being told it.

They had to rebrand it climate change when the date didn't support warming.

No, they had to rebrand it because thick ****s like you looked out of the window at snow and said 'how can there be global warming? It's snowing!' 🙄

molgrips - Member

No, they had to rebrand it because thick **** like you looked out of the window at snow and said 'how can there be global warming? It's snowing!'

No, they rebranded it because they made claims that didn't come true.

I've reviewed this and I'm confident that's not the case.

It is truly frightening that you believe everything you have been told.

Also a concern that you cannot debate without resorting to insults..

So closed minded and indoctrinated that you buy everything that mainstream media and government tell you. Truly this frightens me.

Anyway, you carry on, pretend you have won, extinguish the debate, everyone will agree with your mainstream installed view.. The End.

Pathetic.

For those who aren't enjoying our unseasonably cold March/April, T ? H

Temperature does not equal Hydrogen? 😕

I'd be more inclined to listen to the people who say we are changing the climate if they would actually agree on how we are changing it.

This!

Back in 2004, the scientists were telling us this:

[i]The snow is disappearing from Snowdon, scientists have claimed.
A study of the snowline on Wales' icon mountain has found its winter cap has retreated over the past 10 years.[/i]

and, importantly that:

[i]The figures indicated that this winter Snowdon is on track to have less snow than any of the last 10 years.
The results appear to back the growing body of evidence to support climate change.[/i]

and that:

[i]"What we have found is that it is not so cold as it used to be...Minimum temperatures do not plunge as low as they used to which means that the range of temperatures we experience has decreased...And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past."[/i]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4112137.stm

Now - thats all pretty unequivocal! Then in 2007, we were being told that:

[i]Snowdon may lose its snow cover within 13 years as a result of climate change,[/i]

and that:

[i]Snow has been disappearing for some time from the peak, the highest in Britain south of the Highlands, but the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) disclosed that this winter's accumulation is the lowest since records began 14 years ago. With only a couple of snowfalls this winter, the total depths measured are way down on previous years and, if the trend continues, any kind of the cover could disappear by 2020.[/i]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/snowdon-will-be-snowfree-in-13-years-scientists-warn-432596.html

I can even point you to two official government documents that specifically state that snow coverage on Snowdon is a [b]key indicator[/b] of climate change

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_073021.pdf

http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=88430&filetype=pdf

and then we get the Welsh Minister in 2007 stating

[i]Welsh environment minister Jane Davidson said last night she was shocked by photographs taken ten years apart, one showing Snowdon covered in snow and the other more recent picture, without its white peaks.[/i]

in an article that also states

[i]Experts predict that the impact of global warming on the weather will mean increased temperatures, hotter, drier summers, [b]milder winters with less snow[/b] and more intense rainfall[/i]

"http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2007/11/21/snowdonia-shows-signs-of-global-warming-55578-20137434/

allied to this photo:

http://www.greendiary.com/photos-reveal-global-warming-sweeping-snow-out-of-snowdonia.html

So - sorry, but when this happens:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-21952080

Its simply revisionist nonsense to move the goalposts and tell us that the colder, snowier weather is down to climate change, as the global warming alarmists have quite undeniably and quite consistently been telling us for the last decade that the opposite would be true.

No, they rebranded it because they made claims that didn't come true.

a) evidence for that?
b) they've been making claims about the middle or the end of the century. It's only 2013.
c) they aren't making 'claims' they are making models that suggest certain outcomes, and trying to tell you about it. They can't help it if the general **** public doesn't understand what they are trying to say.

Back in 2004, the scientists were telling us this:

So you expect scientists to learn nothing in 9 years?

Its simply revisionist nonsense to move the goalposts and tell us that the colder, snowier weather is down to climate change

What?

Warmer air holds more moisture, which can mean more snow.

And for at least the last decade they've been telling us we'll get more intense extreme weather with climate change, but in about 50 years' time. So wtf are you talking about?

Warmer air holds more moisture, which can mean more snow.

But in just 2007, they told us:

Experts predict that the impact of global warming on the weather will mean increased temperatures, hotter, drier summers, [b]milder winters with less snow[/b] and more intense rainfall

And, [u]quite specifically[/u], that decreased snow coverage was a key indicator of climate change in wales

Ok. So the local predictions weren't right.

Does that mean the whole thing is a fraud?

It's not that hard to grasp that suggesting a trend of warming winters doesn't necessarily mean guaranteeing that every single winter from now on will be milder than the previous one, is it?

Anyway, I'm not really a denier or an advocate but I reckon that when you're talking about something as complex as the global climate it's perfectly possible that you might get temporary localised exceptions to overall trends, so I don't think the fact this winter's been quite harsh is necessarily proof of anything.

Ok. So the local predictions weren't right.
Does that mean the whole thing is a fraud?

Nope, but it means that if you're fundamentally out in your conclusions, you go back to the drawing board to figure out why you're wrong.

Its a classic case of the real world data not matching the model - and that tells you that there's something wrong with your model

yes it tells me it cannot predict yearly weather on snowdon. Is this a surprise to you? The model may well be flawed in telling us exactly what will happen but that does not mean AGW is not happening.
For example smoking causes cancer but if 1 million people start smoking i cannot tell you how many will die, when or who - it does not make the model of smoking causing cancer fundamentally flawed or wrong. We may adapt the modles to the real world data but we wont be adapting it to the point we conclude it does not cause cancer. this is what is happening with climate models and when it does you claim it is indicative the model is wrong.

when he says in the future it could - it is a statement of what MIGHT happen and no timescale is given. I suspect he meant a slightly longer timeline than the next
as for linking the lack of snow to that article [ your first is 2004 it seems we dont get as much snow as this year which you are welll aware is weather.
to refuse to accept global warming because they cannot tell you how much snow there will be on Snowdon in say 2023 is a somewhat silly position to argue.

ps your quotes all involve the journalist telling us what experts think will happen rather a direct quote from an actual "expert". I think we can accept that journos are well known for their purveying of complicated information with simplified soundbites

sbob - Member

Temperature does not equal Hydrogen?

temperature does not equal heat.

this:

[img] [/img]

isn't a model, it's the last 30 years of global temperature.

so, do we accept the data, and say the world hasn't warmed since 1997?

or, do we accept the data, and say the world has been warming for 3 decades?

or, do we say that climate scientists are making it all up to cash in on all those massive research grants/to please their lizard over-lords