On Jan 4, 11:21*am, Natsman wrote:
On 4 Jan, 11:54, Dawlish wrote:





On Jan 4, 9:15*am, Joe Egginton wrote:

Without AGW would this present cold period, be much colder ?

There's a $64,000 question and a good one to ask. Of course, the
answer must be that we don't fully know, but I've been having my
suspicions!

Our present weather is, of course, all about local synoptics Joe and
it's important to look further afield, as well as in hindsight, when
considering how cold it is. Presently, there are below average temps
in the UK and parts of Western Europe, but it is and has been much
warmer than average in the Eastern Med and further to our east too
(18C forecast in Tashkent for the next 2 days and 15C already there
today). Southern Greenland still has above average temps (-30C at
Summit, however), but there is heavy snow in Beijing with below
average temps, whilst Japan's temperatures look about average. Would
they all be a little cooler if it wasn't for GW? Well, on a world
scale, yes; there will be more places warmer than cooler than they
would have been 50 years ago, as the world is clearly warmer, so
*perhaps* we'd be colder too if we'd been experiencing exactly the
same synoptics in 1962/3.

It will be interesting to see the comparative temperatures for the
Northern Hemisphere in December, then in January, then for the winter
as a whole and it will be easier to make comparisons from that, rather
than from looking at our weather ATM. It will be even better to see
what has happened globally in December, then in January. Despite our
localised cold, I'd expect both months to fall in the top 10 warmest
since records began and they may well end up close to the warmest ever
- as was November and as have been so many months over the last 5
years.

The final question is whether the worldwide warming is caused by
people. I'd go 1/10 on that one. Most climate scientists would agree,
or go even more likely, saying that AGW *is* caused by CO2. A few
scientific sceptics would say it was less likely and perhaps odds
against and an even smaller number of outright denialists would say
that AGW was simply not happening.

Dawlish, it's about time you extricated your warmist head from the
sand of fact.
It really doesn't take much investigation to ascertain that all that
the AGW lobby are saying is at least suspect, probably false and at
worst propagandist lies.
Strange, isn't it that most of the scientific evidence I'VE seen is
more believable, and far more sensible than the unsubstantiated,
fiddled, mislaid and "adjusted" data produced by and on behalf of the
AGW lobbyists. *It's a political agenda, nothing less, with undue
emphasis placed on a nonsensical presumption that a vital life-
sustaining gas is "harmful" and raising worldwide temperatures and sea
levels, if anything there is probably a paucity of atmospheric of
CO2. *If it wasn't so sadly preposterous, it would be laughable. *The
science isn't settled, nor will it probably ever be. *Atmospheric
physics and chaos do not humbly submit to human fallibility and
computer modeling. *It's all nonsense, and you know it. *Have you seen
Chris Monckton's open letter to Rudd (the Australian PM)? *He really
says it all, without shrieking, with measured argument and with
humility. *I'd sooner believe in him alone than a dozen or more
Dawlishes. *But I suppose reading that sort of balanced information
would be anathema to you and your kind. *CO2 is an unwarranted
scapegoat for something which is, well, probably not really happening
at all. *Don't try and fix what ain't broke.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An odd reply, not unexpected, but completely at odds with most climate
scientists (who I suppose are "my kind" as they feel the same way that
I do about CO2, and many are much more sure than I am, regarding its
role in our changing climate). When you talk about "balance" would
that be the kind of balance that puts Lord Monkton; the hereditory
peer with no climate credentials whatsoever, in the same tiny minority
of denialists with whom you agree, compared to the overwhelming
numbers of actual climate scientists with whom I agree (though like
you? An odd kind of balance, but one which a denialist has to use, I
suppose. It's no good hitting on me for your frstrations about being
in that minority.

I can't help your beliefs, but like so many scientists, I think you
and yours are wrong and, fortunately, for the present world and the
generations to come, no-one is lsitening to you.