News24 have been running a lot of programming on climate change today.
I've only seen some snippets but I haven't been very impressed by some
of what the "experts" have been saying. For example, one of this
country's leading scientists in the subject has just said that the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 40 percent
since the industrial revolution. I have no idea what the true figure is
but, bearing in mind that the main greenhouse gas by volume is water
vapour, that figure of a 40 percent increase must surely be wrong. He
was probably referring to gases other than water vapour but that's not
what he said and it does make a big difference.

My main gripe is that most of the "experts" are being very positive
about what "will" happen, even down to quite precise regional detail.
There's not a lot of uncertainty being expressed. The theme seems to be
that "our models show that this will happen and we are confident that
our models are accurate". If only it were that simple :-(

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England

I am not very keen on this either Norman. It seems like a good old fashioned
bit of BBC bias in favour of the greenhouse effect climate change brigade.
They all conveniently forget that in the early middle ages there was a
spell of warming much greater than we have today. There was no
industrialisation around then. However, they all ignore that side of the
argument deliberately.

Gavin.

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
...
News24 have been running a lot of programming on climate change today.
I've only seen some snippets but I haven't been very impressed by some
of what the "experts" have been saying. For example, one of this
country's leading scientists in the subject has just said that the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 40 percent
since the industrial revolution. I have no idea what the true figure is
but, bearing in mind that the main greenhouse gas by volume is water
vapour, that figure of a 40 percent increase must surely be wrong. He
was probably referring to gases other than water vapour but that's not
what he said and it does make a big difference.

My main gripe is that most of the "experts" are being very positive
about what "will" happen, even down to quite precise regional detail.
There's not a lot of uncertainty being expressed. The theme seems to be
that "our models show that this will happen and we are confident that
our models are accurate". If only it were that simple :-(

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England

Norman. I was watching this morning the BBC breakfast news coverage of the
global warming topic. Their news man Bill Turnbull was talking live from
Kew gardens and then supposedly linked to a colleague in the Maldives. The
whole tone of his report was "when sea levels rise" "in fifty years from now
the sea would be over my head" and so on. In fact there wasn't one piece of
objective evidence that the sea had risen at all. As far as I can ascertain
sea levels for that area in the Indian Ocean have shown no appreciable rise
in twenty years. I am prepared to be contradicted though. Back to the news
item, I was expecting the journalist to be showing evidence of how far the
sea level had risen but there was nothing but this bold statement that it
will rise by as much as aprrox 6ft in fifty years!




"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
...
News24 have been running a lot of programming on climate change today.
I've only seen some snippets but I haven't been very impressed by some
of what the "experts" have been saying. For example, one of this
country's leading scientists in the subject has just said that the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 40 percent
since the industrial revolution. I have no idea what the true figure is
but, bearing in mind that the main greenhouse gas by volume is water
vapour, that figure of a 40 percent increase must surely be wrong. He
was probably referring to gases other than water vapour but that's not
what he said and it does make a big difference.

My main gripe is that most of the "experts" are being very positive
about what "will" happen, even down to quite precise regional detail.
There's not a lot of uncertainty being expressed. The theme seems to be
that "our models show that this will happen and we are confident that
our models are accurate". If only it were that simple :-(

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England

Obviously there is a concerted campaign around public awarness......awarness
that some some sort of further tax levy will be introduced.

What is it now? a special lane for shared cars? no doubt eventually the
single car user will have to pay. Mind you it could prove amusing with
'proffessional' passengers selling their services to enable drivers to use
the 'fast tracking lanes.






"Gavin Staples" wrote in message
...
I am not very keen on this either Norman. It seems like a good old
fashioned
bit of BBC bias in favour of the greenhouse effect climate change brigade.
They all conveniently forget that in the early middle ages there was a
spell of warming much greater than we have today. There was no
industrialisation around then. However, they all ignore that side of the
argument deliberately.

Gavin.

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
...
News24 have been running a lot of programming on climate change today.
I've only seen some snippets but I haven't been very impressed by some
of what the "experts" have been saying. For example, one of this
country's leading scientists in the subject has just said that the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 40 percent
since the industrial revolution. I have no idea what the true figure is
but, bearing in mind that the main greenhouse gas by volume is water
vapour, that figure of a 40 percent increase must surely be wrong. He
was probably referring to gases other than water vapour but that's not
what he said and it does make a big difference.

My main gripe is that most of the "experts" are being very positive
about what "will" happen, even down to quite precise regional detail.
There's not a lot of uncertainty being expressed. The theme seems to be
that "our models show that this will happen and we are confident that
our models are accurate". If only it were that simple :-(

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England

The horrendous complexity and uncertainties of climate change are never
dealt with in any news or factual program when the issue crops up.

I agree with all that's been said. I will also add that I didn't think much
of the talk on Greenland's ice sheet. What they failed to mention, is that
the interior temperatures of Greenland have been steadily falling. It's
only the coastal areas that are warming, likely due to changes in wind and
ocean circulation and possibly, nothing to do with global warming. Several
other area's within the Arctic Circle have recorded less sea ice but
substantially more snow.

The other side of the coin is that the Hadley Centre don't just have one
single model. They have several, some of which show a very dramatic and
severe cooling of Western Europe, similar to that of the "Little Ice Age"
and that is based on a weakening of the Thermohaline Circulation and a
freshening of the seas in the North Atlantic region. A measurable reduction
has already been detected within the THC and therefore, one has to conclude
that: A. This trend will continue and B. At some point in the next 20 - 50
years, this country will experience much colder winters, irrespective of
what happens in the rest of the world!

Shaun Pudwell.


"Lawrence" wrote in message
...
Norman. I was watching this morning the BBC breakfast news coverage of the
global warming topic. Their news man Bill Turnbull was talking live from
Kew gardens and then supposedly linked to a colleague in the Maldives. The
whole tone of his report was "when sea levels rise" "in fifty years from
now
the sea would be over my head" and so on. In fact there wasn't one piece
of
objective evidence that the sea had risen at all. As far as I can
ascertain
sea levels for that area in the Indian Ocean have shown no appreciable
rise
in twenty years. I am prepared to be contradicted though. Back to the news
item, I was expecting the journalist to be showing evidence of how far the
sea level had risen but there was nothing but this bold statement that it
will rise by as much as aprrox 6ft in fifty years!




"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
...
News24 have been running a lot of programming on climate change today.
I've only seen some snippets but I haven't been very impressed by some
of what the "experts" have been saying. For example, one of this
country's leading scientists in the subject has just said that the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 40 percent
since the industrial revolution. I have no idea what the true figure is
but, bearing in mind that the main greenhouse gas by volume is water
vapour, that figure of a 40 percent increase must surely be wrong. He
was probably referring to gases other than water vapour but that's not
what he said and it does make a big difference.

My main gripe is that most of the "experts" are being very positive
about what "will" happen, even down to quite precise regional detail.
There's not a lot of uncertainty being expressed. The theme seems to be
that "our models show that this will happen and we are confident that
our models are accurate". If only it were that simple :-(

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England

Yn erthygl , sgrifennodd
Norman Lynagh :
My main gripe is that most of the "experts" are being very positive
about what "will" happen, even down to quite precise regional detail.
There's not a lot of uncertainty being expressed. The theme seems to be
that "our models show that this will happen and we are confident that
our models are accurate". If only it were that simple :-(

This is presumably for the same reason that they don't tend to use
percentages in shorter term forecasts. You hear people even on this
ng saying "let me know what WILL happen, not what might". I dare say
this is the popular view, and the BBC (as usual it seems) are pandering
to it.

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk

They also seem to ignore any other possibility for the causes of the present
measured warming such as Solar activity changes. This surprises me,
particularly with US Govt scientists, some of whom like to play down the CO2
issue. Nowhere have I ever seen any question even as to whether last summers
Northern Hemisphere heat combined with the highest ever recorded activity on
the surface of the Sun may possibly have had some link!

--
Pete

Please take my dog out twice to e-mail

---------------------------------------------------------------
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer and
do not represent the views, policy or understanding of any
other person or official body.
---------------------------------------------------------------

"Gavin Staples" wrote in message
...
I am not very keen on this either Norman. It seems like a good old
fashioned
bit of BBC bias in favour of the greenhouse effect climate change brigade.
They all conveniently forget that in the early middle ages there was a
spell of warming much greater than we have today. There was no
industrialisation around then. However, they all ignore that side of the
argument deliberately.

Gavin.

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
...
News24 have been running a lot of programming on climate change today.
I've only seen some snippets but I haven't been very impressed by some
of what the "experts" have been saying. For example, one of this
country's leading scientists in the subject has just said that the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 40 percent
since the industrial revolution. I have no idea what the true figure is
but, bearing in mind that the main greenhouse gas by volume is water
vapour, that figure of a 40 percent increase must surely be wrong. He
was probably referring to gases other than water vapour but that's not
what he said and it does make a big difference.

My main gripe is that most of the "experts" are being very positive
about what "will" happen, even down to quite precise regional detail.
There's not a lot of uncertainty being expressed. The theme seems to be
that "our models show that this will happen and we are confident that
our models are accurate". If only it were that simple :-(

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England

What about the report from northern Alaska where the average temperatures
had risen 8C over the last forty years resulting in the thawing of the
permafrost. Apparently this 'permafrost' until now, had been frozen since
before the last ice-age.

They are having to move a whole town because the land is now eroding away.
_______________________________
Nick

Worcester
45 AMSL



"Shaun Pudwell" wrote in message
...
I agree with all that's been said. I will also add that I didn't think
much
of the talk on Greenland's ice sheet. What they failed to mention, is
that
the interior temperatures of Greenland have been steadily falling. It's
only the coastal areas that are warming, likely due to changes in wind and
ocean circulation and possibly, nothing to do with global warming.
Several
other area's within the Arctic Circle have recorded less sea ice but
substantially more snow.

The other side of the coin is that the Hadley Centre don't just have one
single model. They have several, some of which show a very dramatic and
severe cooling of Western Europe, similar to that of the "Little Ice Age"
and that is based on a weakening of the Thermohaline Circulation and a
freshening of the seas in the North Atlantic region. A measurable
reduction
has already been detected within the THC and therefore, one has to
conclude
that: A. This trend will continue and B. At some point in the next 20 - 50
years, this country will experience much colder winters, irrespective of
what happens in the rest of the world!

Shaun Pudwell.


"Lawrence" wrote in message
...
Norman. I was watching this morning the BBC breakfast news coverage of
the
global warming topic. Their news man Bill Turnbull was talking live
from
Kew gardens and then supposedly linked to a colleague in the Maldives.
The
whole tone of his report was "when sea levels rise" "in fifty years from
now
the sea would be over my head" and so on. In fact there wasn't one piece
of
objective evidence that the sea had risen at all. As far as I can
ascertain
sea levels for that area in the Indian Ocean have shown no appreciable
rise
in twenty years. I am prepared to be contradicted though. Back to the
news
item, I was expecting the journalist to be showing evidence of how far
the
sea level had risen but there was nothing but this bold statement that
it
will rise by as much as aprrox 6ft in fifty years!




"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
...
News24 have been running a lot of programming on climate change today.
I've only seen some snippets but I haven't been very impressed by some
of what the "experts" have been saying. For example, one of this
country's leading scientists in the subject has just said that the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 40
percent
since the industrial revolution. I have no idea what the true figure
is
but, bearing in mind that the main greenhouse gas by volume is water
vapour, that figure of a 40 percent increase must surely be wrong. He
was probably referring to gases other than water vapour but that's not
what he said and it does make a big difference.

My main gripe is that most of the "experts" are being very positive
about what "will" happen, even down to quite precise regional detail.
There's not a lot of uncertainty being expressed. The theme seems to
be
that "our models show that this will happen and we are confident that
our models are accurate". If only it were that simple :-(

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:40:57 +0000 (UTC), "Lawrence"
wrote:

Obviously there is a concerted campaign around public awarness......awarness
that some some sort of further tax levy will be introduced.

What is it now? a special lane for shared cars? no doubt eventually the
single car user will have to pay. Mind you it could prove amusing with
'proffessional' passengers selling their services to enable drivers to use
the 'fast tracking lanes.



In the US some drivers allegedly use blow-up life-size sex dolls sat (upright!)
in the passenger seat to fool the enforcement cameras and agencies.

JPG