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

On 4 Jan, 10:15, Joe Egginton wrote:
Without AGW would this present cold period, be much colder ?

Joe, there IS no AGW, so an academic question, which I think negates
an answer.

CK.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:15:02 +0000, Joe Egginton wrote:

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

Irelevant this winter is "weather" not "climate".

The decadedal temps published recently in here where interesting
fairly steady for the first 80 years, then the last couple of
decades, relatively large decade on decade rises.

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.

"Natsman" wrote in message
...
On 4 Jan, 10:15, Joe Egginton wrote:
Without AGW would this present cold period, be much colder ?

Joe, there IS no AGW, so an academic question, which I think negates
an answer.

CK.
-----------------------
You may be right, but YOU do not know that. IMHO of course. Open discussion
never negates any answers, unless of course one is a bigot.
Dave

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.

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

"Joe Egginton" wrote in message
...
Without AGW would this present cold period, be much colder ?

Without warming and the same synoptics of course it would have been colder
how can it not be?

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.

On 4 Jan, 12:52, Dawlish wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On the contrary, more and more people are questioning alleged "global
warming" simply because they are aware that it's not happening as the
alarmist would have them believe.
It IS nonsense, and there are plenty in the scientific community who
believe that.
Your "science" is at odds with reality - always has been, and always
will be with your attitude.
The "denialists" are really those who refuse to believe in the fact
that the science is far from settled, and that they have to manipulate
their own data to fit models, which in turn are "adjusted" to fit the
required outcome. And minority? I really don't think so. the jig is
up for AGW - the writing is on the wall, writ large, and I think that
2010 will be the year that the swing away from this nonsense will gain
momentum. You obviously can't convince the sheeple of your dogma, as
is being increasingly revealed. Common sense will, eventually
prevail, even if it takes a while and costs everybody a fortune in
unnecessary taxation and reduced living conditions. You won't be
changing the climate, ever.

CK

On Jan 4, 5:37*pm, Natsman wrote:

On the contrary, more and more people are questioning alleged "global
warming" simply because they are aware that it's not happening as the
alarmist would have them believe.
It IS nonsense, and there are plenty in the scientific community who
believe that.


The balance, again, is enormously in favour of those who feel that CO2
has the major part to play, or is the cause. That has nothing to do
with "attitude", but is a fact.


Your "science" is at odds with reality - always has been.....

My science is the science of the vast majority of climate scientists.
A fact which you refuse to acknowledge, but is again, a fact, whether
you acknowledge it, or not. The rest of your post unfortunately turns
into a typical political, conspiracist, tiny minority, denialist rant.
Again, I'm sorry if you believe otherwise to so many scientists, but
there are so few in the scientific community that believe in this
"cover-up" and that AGW is "nonsense". Again and with respect, this is
not *my* dogma. I don't even fully believe that CO2 is the cause, but
it is the belief (not dogma) of most scientists as it is founded on
very good evidence, which, as scientists they find convincing.

The "denialists" are really those who refuse to believe in the fact
that the science is far from settled, and that they have to manipulate
their own data to fit models, which in turn are "adjusted" to fit the
required outcome. *And minority? *I really don't think so. the jig is
up for AGW - the writing is on the wall, writ large, and I think that
2010 will be the year that the swing away from this nonsense will gain
momentum. *You obviously can't convince the sheeple of your dogma, as
is being increasingly revealed. *Common sense will, eventually
prevail, even if it takes a while and costs everybody a fortune in
unnecessary taxation and reduced living conditions. *You won't be
changing the climate, ever.

It is highly likely that I will not be changing the climate and I
agree, commonsense will prevail and fortunately for all of us, it
already is. *))