|
Post by thingychambers69 on Oct 10, 2009 0:44:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 10, 2009 1:29:04 GMT
Well well - for the BBC that is close to a total volte-face
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Oct 10, 2009 13:12:41 GMT
Well well - for the BBC that is close to a total volte-face Thing is, this was not reported on any of the BBC's main news channels. Its still a wall of silence when it comes to global cooling. Russian Scientists have predicted it, so why has that not been reported. It all seems geared to only report AGW (whoops! sorry, I mean Climate Change). Even in this report, they state that AGW is real and will continue after this 'natural' cooling. They are not willing to consider any alternatives. It all stinks. I just don't know. My gut feeling is that Copenhagen will be signed off. We in the West will end up spending shitloads of money on stuff that won't make any difference. Cap and trade probably won't even lower CO2 levels. Wasn't it reported that there was a drop in the increase of CO2? Didn't they blame the recession? Didn't they ignore the fact that India and China's economies are still growing? Did anyone else hear this?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 10, 2009 15:42:16 GMT
thingychambers69 writes "Thing is, this was not reported on any of the BBC's main news channels. Its still a wall of silence when it comes to global cooling. Russian Scientists have predicted it, so why has that not been reported.
It all seems geared to only report AGW (whoops! sorry, I mean Climate Change). Even in this report, they state that AGW is real and will continue after this 'natural' cooling. They are not willing to consider any alternatives.
It all stinks."
When on reuns a marathon, one has to take a first step. You must remember that some 10 years ago, or so, senior members of the BBC had a high level meeting with a group of scientists, headed by Lord May, then the President of the Royal Society. As a result of that meeting the BBC adopted an official editorial policy of only reporting in favour of AGW.
Paul Hudson probably could not have had his piece reported if he did not make a nod towards AGW. The significant fact is that some sort message against the warmaholic religion has been reported somewhere on the BBC, Never mind where.
I gather Paul Hudson does the weather for BBC North. I wonder if anyone on this blog routinely hears his broadcasts, and can say whether he says anything sort of anti-warmaholic on a routine basis.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 10, 2009 16:47:50 GMT
Let us assume that things start cooling as NASA and others are now cautiously forecasting albeit with caveats.
There are AGW proponents that have been foaming at the mouth saying that sceptics are hazarding their children's futures and demanding 'sceptics' be put on trial for 'crimes against humanity'. Can you see these people ever saying - "We apologize we were wrong" ?
What about politicians who have slammed huge 'carbon' taxes onto industry and travel? All the politicians are largely trying to out-green each other and signing treaties and giving away sovereignty over energy decisions and their country's industries. Can you see these politicians saying that they were wrong and voting to repeal the taxes and treaties?
There are many people astride the AGW tiger - and they would find it extremely difficult to dismount even with pack ice in the Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico.
I expect that we will hear a lot of "yes but when it stops getting cold it will get really really warm"
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 10, 2009 16:54:38 GMT
It doesn't even seem to be getting colder.
We are in a solar minimum with what skeptics will be first to admit, a "weak el nino", and yet temperatures in the past 3 months according to satellite and surface records are comparable with 2002/2003 when we had a solar max and a strong el nino.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 10, 2009 17:43:06 GMT
It doesn't even seem to be getting colder. We are in a solar minimum with what skeptics will be first to admit, a "weak el nino", and yet temperatures in the past 3 months according to satellite and surface records are comparable with 2002/2003 when we had a solar max and a strong el nino. Hold up 3 fingers SoCold - then read my post for that number of words then look up the word that you get to with the last finger. To assist you the word is in italics that means the letters are leaning like this
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Oct 11, 2009 10:17:29 GMT
Let us assume that things start cooling as NASA and others are now cautiously forecasting albeit with caveats. There are AGW proponents that have been foaming at the mouth saying that sceptics are hazarding their children's futures and demanding 'sceptics' be put on trial for 'crimes against humanity'. Can you see these people ever saying - " We apologize we were wrong" ? What about politicians who have slammed huge 'carbon' taxes onto industry and travel? All the politicians are largely trying to out-green each other and signing treaties and giving away sovereignty over energy decisions and their country's industries. Can you see these politicians saying that they were wrong and voting to repeal the taxes and treaties? There are many people astride the AGW tiger - and they would find it extremely difficult to dismount even with pack ice in the Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico. I expect that we will hear a lot of "yes but when it stops getting cold it will get really really warm" [glow=red,2,300]I want to put a simple question : What is needed to happen that ordinary people would have straight and real proof that AGW is a piece of *** ?[/glow] I follow here few threads and all I can say is that there is still no THEORY about AGW and even Global cooling (yet). During my 40 years in Medicinal Chemistry I can say that if we would ACT like climatologists than god save patients who receive and need new and better medicines. Even with all precautions and huge amounts of research we can make mistakes sometimes but if we do our job their way than I would reccomend everyone a good old Aspirin if get cancer. Science follow a very simple, almost straight path : Idea=>experiments/measurments=>hypothesis=>theory. If hypothesis can't be proved by repeated confirmations of experiments/measurments than it is not a theory. And even theories can sometimes later vanished due to new and better experiment's & techniquies, advances in other fields of science etc. We here in EU are faced with corrupted polititians making decisions which all like a Soviet Union made a lot during its lifetime. And now I can see also you Americans have jumped on the same train. Anyway I have some hopes you ( Americans) are still a nation devoted to freedom and won't alllow some (trilion kind) of money seekers to make garbage from real science. My best regards from Slovenia
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 11, 2009 20:38:37 GMT
We here in EU are faced with corrupted polititians making decisions which all like a Soviet Union made a lot during its lifetime. And now I can see also you Americans have jumped on the same train. Anyway I have some hopes you ( Americans) are still a nation devoted to freedom and won't alllow some (trilion kind) of money seekers to make garbage from real science. My best regards from Slovenia Here we are dealing with some nefarious dealings between our scientists, EU scientists, and Russians. . . .pumping out phony scare science. Probably just the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Oct 13, 2009 6:20:51 GMT
Re: western politicans: To defeat your enemy one must become like the enemy. The consequence of the struggle wherein one becomes the enemy, in order to be avoided, must be acknowledged. The question is whether the failure of western powers in this regard may lead to social and economic ruin.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Oct 13, 2009 19:15:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 13, 2009 20:15:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 13, 2009 21:11:23 GMT
Interesting There have been intermittent reports of the Gulf Stream stopping then restarting. Could it be something to do with the AMO going negative?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 13, 2009 21:40:05 GMT
Maybe I'm wrong, but if the Gulf Stream stopped a few weeks ago don't you suppose that NOAA would have put out a press release by now?
Looking at the still anomaly maps, without the benefit of NOAA's analysis, a huge cold anomaly should form starting around Georges Bank and extending across the North Atlantic if the GS were to "stop." It is a volume of moving water, as I recall, equivalent to all the rivers on the face of the Earth ... fishermen would have made some noise about it, too, by now I would think.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 13, 2009 23:56:31 GMT
Maybe I'm wrong, but if the Gulf Stream stopped a few weeks ago don't you suppose that NOAA would have put out a press release by now? Looking at the still anomaly maps, without the benefit of NOAA's analysis, a huge cold anomaly should form starting around Georges Bank and extending across the North Atlantic if the GS were to "stop." It is a volume of moving water, as I recall, equivalent to all the rivers on the face of the Earth ... fishermen would have made some noise about it, too, by now I would think. Perhaps I should have provided citations but I was traveling: "In a sure-to-be widely publicized paper in the Dec. 1 Nature, Bryden et al. present results from oceanographic cruises at 25°N across the Atlantic showing a ~30% decline in the ocean overturning circulation. These cruises have been repeated every few years since 1957, and the last two cruises (in 1998 and 2004) show notable changes in the structure of the deep return circulation. In particular, the very deepest part of the return flow (at around 3000 to 5000 m) has reduced and moved up in the water column compared to previous decades. How solid is this result and what might it imply for climate?"www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/decrease-in-atlantic-circulation/and of course NOAA did notice (even if you didn't ) "After observing water levels six inches to two feet higher than originally predicted, NOAA scientists began analyzing data from select tide stations and buoys from Maine to Florida and found that a weakening of the Florida Current Transport—an oceanic current that feeds into the Gulf Stream—in addition to steady and persistent Northeast winds, contributed to this anomaly."www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090831_tides.html"The weakening of the Gulf Stream confirms what climate models have predicted for some time. However, the decrease is worse than people thought, says Dutch climate researcher Bas Eickhout. If this trend continues, it could get a lot colder in northwest Europe: "That might mean that the warm water doesn't come as far north as it used to and turns south earlier. That will have an immediate impact on the climate, things will cool down.""static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/westerneurope/eur051203-redirectedA more generalized but interesting paper - which inter-alia may annoy glc et al "A LONG RECORD OF ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGES—Ice cores extracted from the two-mile thick Greenland ice sheet preserve records of ancient air temperatures. The records show several times when climate shifted in time spans as short as a decade. ""DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC—Subpolar seas bordering the North Atlantic have become noticeably less salty since the mid-1960s, especially in the last decade. This is the largest and most dramatic oceanic change ever measured in the era of modern instruments. This has resulted in a freshening of the deep ocean in the North Atlantic, which in the past disrupted the Ocean Conveyor and caused abrupt climate changes. (B. thingyson, et. al., in Nature, April 2002)"www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986There are a heap posts in some blogs of 'Gulf Stream Stopping' or intermittent or rerouted flow etc I find it interesting that some observations appear to be bearing it out.
|
|