On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 1:46:32 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 13:31:44 UTC+1, Paul Garvey wrote:
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 12:12:36 PM UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Friday, 25 March 2016 11:08:57 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 10:22:49 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
In the March issue of Weather, the 'Weather news' section has an
article headed 'Will climate change delay transatlantic flights?' Now
I assumed from the title and the prevailing thoughts on the effects of
climate change that, contrary to the CEP Brooks article in Weather in
1950, the differential warming between the Arctic and the Tropics would
weaken the jet-stream, this delay to flights would be referring to
eastbound flights. On reading the article, I see my assumptions were
wrong.

The article says that eastbound flights will speed up due to the
strengthening jet-stream but west-bound ones will slow. It says that
unless emissions are cut, jet-stream winds along the flight route
between Heathrow and JFK are 'predicted to to become 15% faster in
winter, increasing from 77 to 89km/h, with similar increases in the
other seasons.'


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

And?


We all know the globs warmed ever so slightly and well within the wild
swings of the past. Are you saying only human produced C02 can reach
the parts natural forcing's can't reach.

Anyway if the jet stream is strengthening even though the extremes
between heat and cold is very so slightly less how do you know
another mechanism is not at work that is strengthening the jet stream
and causing a slight warming.

You have hijacked this thread with your stupid unhelpful remark.
Thus we now have the insufferable Martin Dixon banging on trying to
show us what a clever-clogs he is and all the usual trolls having
their two penn'orth and all of it nothing to do with the subject
which is the apparently paradoxical increase in strength in the jet
with global warming. This is far too detailed, far too boring, needs
actual meteorological knowledge. Let's talk GW, meteorology for the
non-meteorologist. Any ignorant herbert can join in. What a rabble.
This place needs a chairman.

Tudor Hughes

You mean a moderator? Or a censor, to remove all non politically
correct posts. If you can't stand your science being questioned, it
isn't very good science. We need to admit there s a lot we don't
know. Forget the arrogant posturing, it is no disgrace to admit we
don't know. And that is the first step towards increasing our
knowledge. If we assume we do know, and adopt an entrenched position,
they it is much harder to learn and progress. Most likely the
consensus is correct, but I need to be convinced, and so far I am not..



--
Visit my weather station at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/Cumulus/index.htm

Believing is the start of everything to come. - Hayley Westenra

I'm with you on that. hughes would like to *be* the moderator Martin and has tried it many times before. Unfortunately he can't be.

We should all expect our views to be challenged. The real difficulties on here happen when views are challenged and challenged robustly, then the person is not allowed off the hook (nothing wrong with that). Then some can't bear it, throw their toys out of the pram, become foul-mouthed. dreadfully abusive and threaten others. That's what we can do without.

I like your phrase' 'Most likely the consensus is correct'. I'd just go 'very highly likely correct'. I'm not convinced either, which is why I feel Alastair's position of 'AGW is a fact' utterly wrong. However, I'd say I am 99% convinced. About where the consensus probably is and my conviction has increased with the evidence in the last 5 years from being around 95% convinced.

Is that why you have two cars and no solar panels or wind turbines. Come on man if you spout your conviction in this theory then you have to put your money where your mouth is and you don't do that.

One car, dear idiot.

And yet I produce less CO2 than you do, which is hilarious.