On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:37:15 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 23:57:16 UTC+1, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2016 12:51:35 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2016 00:10:14 UTC+1, 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

In the cold light of day Tudor, you come across as a tad toffee nosed
over the issue. If someone raises a thread on AGW then surely anyone
should be able to comment. In the case of Graham he obviously takes
that stand point that AGW exclusively is happening and its affecting
the speed of the jet stream (funnily enough as I type I'm playing
some music on the PC software and its West Side story and the 2Jet
Song! how odd all totally random.

Anyhow I find you're comments on Richard uncalled for, but since
Richard has come out the closet so to speak and declared some
scepticism over this issue he has possibly polarised some people

Richard? What's a Dixon between friends? Sure it wasn't PC George?

Look, I'm getting thoroughly ****ed off with you anti-AGW nutters.
Not only do you (plural) talk complete and utter ******** but you
selfishly hijack other threads for your own ends. Global Warming is a
subject for people whose knowledge of weather can be summed up as
"Bugger all, m'lud." There is ample and widespread evidence of that
in all spheres of life. There are plenty of places where you can rant
and rave to your heart's content. Find one. Or you could send a
carefully reasoned letter to the University of East Anglia.

Tudor Hughes.

Ah, but not all of those things have a political dimension. In a
coutry where there is pleny of money to fight climate change and
middle eastern wars, but not enough to support diabled people. And
"fighting climate change" is costing us a pretty penny. It had better
be worth it. But one suspects those making the decisions know they
won't be around when the chickens come home to roost.

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

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

Martin although OT&OT your remark "not enough to support disabled people" although a good point in highlighting money wasted of AGW subsidies the mantra that goes around saying the disabled are treated poorly is a fallacy in fact disabled people are treated very well in this country probably one of the best countries on the planet for disabled people.

If you are on Income support which has now switched to ESA and if you then qualify for disability living allowance which has now switching over to PIP .

Well if you are on the middle rate DLA/PIP Care component or the high rate component then you will receive over £17,000.00 per year income with the knock on benefits of severe disablement allowance and enhanced .


Now to have 17,000.00 in your pocket after tax and NI and then after your rent or mortgage has been paid (that's separate HB) and to have your 'white goods paid for plus all repairs and transport costs were taken into consideration you would have to be on a salary of around 60 thousand , especially in London.

Fortunes are being spent on the severely disabled in fact t many people have to keep their savings below £16000 or housing benefit will stop..

Don't get me wrong it 's awful for a family or youself to be severely disabled but this country via social services I can quote one case where I've toted up the costs of personal benefits, housing benefit and then care costs . The total to keep two severely disabled mentally adults living is a residential two bedroom flat is nearly half a million pounds per year.

The recent argument about IDS was that the DLA care was being switched over to PIP and there was a plan to drop the lower payment however that had no bearing on the two higher rates that then trigger two more payments.

Sorry to go off beam but I see so much misinformation on this topic that its has to be set straight, You only have to mention 'disabled', global warming , 'poverty', deprived children and so on and all rationale goes out the window.


I have much to say but I'm keeping quite .

What you just did is called conflation. I call it far right wing idiocy and complete denial. Funny though.

PS I'm keeping quite well too.