Oou look GrahamS, all those examples you have given are 119g/km…

I must have cherry-picked my data 😀

Also they all would have cost nearly FOUR times as much under the old "non-green" version of VED (£125 vs £35), making them an ideal choice for struggling families. 😉

lol 🙂

doffs cap to grahamS and mark is correct half your taxes are actually subsidies
Out of interest why do you hate wind turbines so much?

are you guys still on this? – the rest of us have been snowboarding.

it's cold, and it snowed a couple of times: that's weather.

it doesn't usually do this: that's climate.

an Italian friend of mine has just come back from Sicily, where it's unusually warm for this time of year; he was expecting some snow, he got 18dC.

what about all these 'green' taxes then? – i can't think of any that impact me directly, but if my office manager thinks we can afford to have the heating set to 25 then i think we should have a few more green taxes…

Well 'ahwiles' – a single year is weather when its cold – but i seem to remember it being widely covered that the floods in Cumbria were a sign of 'climate change' but when does it become a climate trend.
It seems the IPCC's assertion that the earth will warm at 2°C per 100 years was based on the temperature trend from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. And as such they can't understand why the temperature records for the last 10 years show no warming, and have declined when their models show it should have warmed.

for example

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

mike

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary–presumed–vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone–Mike Schlesinger maybe??–was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building – MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F: 650 725 4387
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[4]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics' views.

[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl
imate-change/

BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.

Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

Narasimha

——————————-
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
Stanford University
Tel: 415-812-7560

—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [7]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [8]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[9]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

—
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [10]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

References

1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
2. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
3. mailto:ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
6. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
7. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html
9. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
10. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

note also that Schneider, who earlier was linked to as showing that sun spots have no effect on the climate is there emailing to say that with no sunspots theres a few watts less forcing

10 years ago we had articles like this saying

Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

is this thread about the snow?

It seems the IPCC's assertion that the earth will warm at 2°C per 100 years was based on the temperature trend from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. And as such they can't understand why the temperature records for the last 10 years show no warming, and have declined when their models show it should have warmed

it seems that someone wants to misrepresent the IPCC -or lie – it is just another innaccurate slur
The e-mails the first one looks like someone joking about the cold weather the rest insignificant as they want to challenge deniers -surprising that eh It also said

Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat??

Hopefully enough pictures for you to grasp.

Lord Summerisle,

What exactly are you trying to show with the e-mails you have posted?

Apart from the fact you can't read?

Only point I picked up was that one e-mail pointed out that lack of sunspot activity accounted for "a few tenths of a watt less forcing" which you say at the bottom is evidence that sunspots account for a "few watts" of forcing.

I don't really know exactly what the significance of that is, but I do note you got it wrong.

Amazing isn't it that some people can occasionally write things that come across wrong in e-mails (and forum posts), that other people then pounce on as "evidence" of something or other?

Someone post the pirate graph. It's overdue.

Please, not the pirate graph.

I think you'll find the pirate graph is widely discredited due to the fact that it only shows a continuing upwards trend in temperature against a decline in pirate numbers. Latest peer reviewed data clearly shows the global temperature in decline dur to increase in Somali Pirate action.

😀

who realy cares, its snowing ,

Lord Summerisle, you need to stop citing blogs and random emails, it isn't doing your arguement any favours. If you want some more sophisticated ammunition go and read about whether the Greenland icesheet ever reached any sort of equilibrium after the last glacial maximum.

If you're geniunely interested though, and not just trolling for kicks, some other things you might want to look up are methane clathrates, ice stream surges in Antarctica, rates of glacier retreat and high latitude temperature anomalies.

Also for future reference the Y axis scale on that flash graph you posted a few pages ago is nonsense. It says it's currently -31 degrees C ?

Again, my point stands true. You can't prove global warming due to man exists, neither can i prove the contrary. So please just accept that neither are correct instead of the usual burn him he's a heretic or daily mail reader nonsense!

Good to see that Paul Hudson has caused a commotion amongst climate scientists, makes a nice change from the strained 'banter' with the other Look Leeds presenters before he tells us what the weather was like yesterday in the Yorkshire area.

Can I mention return to mean again yet or is everyone still looking at Pirate graphs?

And you hainey cannot prove that the moon isn't made of cheese.

Your "point" does not stand "true" because your "point" is that you are not interested in scientific evidence.

There is "proof" and there is "balance of evidence"

You prefer "denial"

You can't prove global warming due to man exists, neither can i prove the contrary.

That's not how science works, as has been explained many times. 🙄

There is NO proof that there is climate change due to man. Just interpretation of data in a certain way.

The moon isn't made of cheese – do you REALLY think that helps your argument? Seriously? Like other comments gravity, the world is flat etc. Its only designed to try and rubbish any opinion that anyone has against climate change due to man.

Gravity – there is proof
The world not being flat – there is proof
The moon not being made of cheese – there is proof
Climate change DUE TO MAN – there is NO proof.

That's not how science works, as has been explained many times.

Science uses data and interprets it in a certain way. Just like a multitude of scientists take ice core sample data, historical and current temperature readings and conclude that we are in a natural cycle.

So some people have taken the same data, and interpreted it in different ways and there is now debate as to who is right – no one can prove the other wrong, hence why you can't categorically say either way!

show me your proof of gravity

proove to me the moon isnt made of cheese in the middle

Grow up and enter an adult debate!

well thats a great answer by someone who doesnt have the first clue how science works

I would suggest that you have absolutly no grasp of science fundamentals and are just trolling if you have to ask questions like that.
You need to go back and repeat your GCSE Physics exam that is assuming you are old enough to have taken it yet.

how science works

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it

can you lot go out and ride a bike to relax now please and just accept that other people have different beliefs than you. You can't change an entrenched view (on either side) so why bother trying?

if you don't want to ride a bike, build a snowman. It may be something to tell the grandchildren about if the species lasts that long.

Bikes?

yep bikes, you know the things that eveyone on here has in common that use vast ammounts of energy to collect the raw material, refine it, manufacture all the bits and bobbins,paint them using enviormentally damaging VOC laden paints, ship round the world to greedy consumers who then post about man made climate change and how we should all reduce our carbon footprint on the tinterweb using electricity powered by burning bits of dinosaur dug up from the ground.

think that about sums it up. 😀

😆

I would suggest that you have absolutly no grasp of science fundamentals

Funny that seeing as how I have a science phd, 5 years research experience and now teach it

HOLY CRAP!?

And you are asking on an internet forum if the moon is made of cheese?

Quick, someone call Ofsted.

at least I can read, I said proove to me the middle of the moon isnt made of cheese.

Oh come on, your not doing yourself any favours by coming on here and professing to be the all knowing Dr Science and then asking me to prove that the centre of the moon is not made from cheese?

Is it just a deflection technique away from the real debate as to why you can't prove global warming due to man.

no it isnt its as idiotic a your view that seeing as how man made climate change cannot be proved its not true or you dont accept it. IMO your making yourself look stupid. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE unless we find another earth and eliminate man and even then we would need to repeat it.

So you agree, that there is no proof of man made climate change?

I don't know why you are getting so worked up!?

there's evidence but its not and cannot be proven so asking for it to be proven is overly simplistic tabloid stupidity.

There is evidence of climate change, yes. Due to man? – No proof.

At least we agree on that.

Now with the whole moon made of cheese thing………

there is evidence that climate change is man made too, there's evidence that the centre of the moon is not made ofcheese but there is no proof. Do you really not get it?

Through samples, scans and monitoring moonquakes they are able to ascertain the percentage composition of the moon, the percentage iron content at the core and this is also backed up my mass analysis due to the diameter, volume and orbit the moon has in relation to the earth. ALso there is the small factor that cheese comes from cows and is a man made product. So yes there is proof that in fact the centre of the moon is in fact not made of cheese no matter what you think.

Where as with climate change they have collected data on temperature rises but in fact they can not actually prove this is due to man, only assume it is. Where as in fact a lot of scientists that contradict this and say this it is actually in keeping with natural cycles.

I don't think you will find ANY scientist out there who would agree with you that the centre of the moon is made from cheese

Where did you study again?