On Sunday, 9 February 2014 08:21:33 UTC, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,

Lawrence Jenkins writes

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 01:14:47 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:





Someone talking ******** on Usenet, what a surprise - NOT.



Adam we are entering a massive cooling phase-come to terms with it.



Lawrence, that is as much nonsense as the article Joe posted here. It's

time you came to terms with the fact that we are NOT "entering a massive

cooling phase". If so, why was 2013 the 6th warmest year since records

began in 1880?



--

Malcolm

Nope on what I know , deducting the AGW bandwagon nonsense and using the science of the ice core samples, I truly believe global cooling is our future; that is my opinion and you are entitled to rubbish it as I am to hold it.

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 09:35:20 UTC, Graham Easterling wrote:


And why the last decade was easily the warmest on record and why the two warmest years on record both fell into that decade and why current global temperatures are close to record values, despite ENSO neutral conditions and the PDO being negative and.........etc. etc. etc.



Most people will know my views on AGW, but blaming a few gales and a very wet winter on it are ludicrous. A few months ago the long run of quiet winter's was blamed on AGW (reduction of N-S temperature gradient etc.)



Interesting perspective here http://magicseaweed.com/news/the-50-year-storm/6070/



Also, in Penzance



E.g Gales in Penzance



1993 13

1994 14

1995 13

1996 16

1997 14

1998 22!

1999 15



then

2008 1

2009 4

2010 2

2012 2

2013 2

2014 5 so far



So which were due to AGW, 1993-1998, 2008-2013, or 2014? All apparently.



I believe global warming could become a serious problem but please step back a bit and get agrip of the bigger picture!



THere's plenty of s**t spoken, by people who should know better, on both sides of the argument



Graham

Penzance


If I'm correct the period of the late 14th Century and onwards which in western Europe at least heralded the falling temperatures into the 'LIA was marked by a long period of frequent rain deluges with storms.

On 09/02/2014 08:09, Dawlish wrote:

Note the words "......is likely", in the first sentence. No scientist of
Julia's stature would currently link a particular event, like the UK
storms, or the cold in the USA, or any one the plethora of extreme weather
events to climate change, but all know the state of play - "there is no
evidence to counter the basic premise a warmer world will lead to more
intense daily and hourly rain events."

Now go on, denier, try do the usual denier ad hominem on the excellent,
world-renowned climate scientist who has, hopefully, provided some education
for you.

'World-renowned climate scientist' sounds wonderful, but the only people
who are aware of her existence are pretty much other climate
scientists - 99% of Brits have no idea who she is.

Or attack me - but I really don't care; all I do is to show you the actual
science. Actually, no-one cares whether you learn from it, or whether you
continue to get your science from denier blogs, or from "David" on UK.railway. *))

"all I do is to show you the actual science". I must have missed that.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 15:18:21 UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 09/02/2014 08:09, Dawlish wrote:



Note the words "......is likely", in the first sentence. No scientist of

Julia's stature would currently link a particular event, like the UK

storms, or the cold in the USA, or any one the plethora of extreme weather

events to climate change, but all know the state of play - "there is no

evidence to counter the basic premise a warmer world will lead to more

intense daily and hourly rain events."



Now go on, denier, try do the usual denier ad hominem on the excellent,

world-renowned climate scientist who has, hopefully, provided some education

for you.



'World-renowned climate scientist' sounds wonderful, but the only people

who are aware of her existence are pretty much other climate

scientists - 99% of Brits have no idea who she is.



Or attack me - but I really don't care; all I do is to show you the actual

science. Actually, no-one cares whether you learn from it, or whether you

continue to get your science from denier blogs, or from "David" on UK.railway. *))



"all I do is to show you the actual science". I must have missed that.



--



Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

There comes a time when ordinary people can see that the King really is in his birthday suit. All the sophistry of the flunkies just falls on deaf ears as the scales fall from the eyes of the common folk and see as clear as day.

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 10:21:26 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
"A massive colloid period" is coming"

----------------------------------------------------

I imgagine all those fine particulates might cause some cooling ;-)


I blame Chuck Berry with no Particulate Place to Go.

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 08:46:13 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:21:33 AM UTC, Malcolm wrote:

In article ,



Lawrence Jenkins writes



On Sunday, 9 February 2014 01:14:47 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:











Someone talking ******** on Usenet, what a surprise - NOT.







Adam we are entering a massive cooling phase-come to terms with it.







Lawrence, that is as much nonsense as the article Joe posted here. It's



time you came to terms with the fact that we are NOT "entering a massive



cooling phase". If so, why was 2013 the 6th warmest year since records



began in 1880?







--



Malcolm



And why the last decade was easily the warmest on record and why the two warmest years on record both fell into that decade and why current global temperatures are close to record values, despite ENSO neutral conditions and the PDO being negative and.........etc. etc. etc.



However, a climate denier like larry is capable of convincing himself of anything. "A massive colloid period" is coming. On current evidence, that's just laughable - but then again, so are larry's views on climate change.


Warmest in our records . We do know this however

In such a tiny space of time the last 2000 years saw without any argument a very warm periods where grapes were grown , Greenland was farmed and then the LIA . We know temperatures fluctuated by a couple of degrees without any influence from human co2. We also know from the ice core samples that this current inter glacial is not only one of the coolest but well overdue to end.

We also know that the global human condition up until about 200 years ago was wretched with low life expectancy and abject misery for most thirty odd years that we lived. I look at the past misery before harnessing fossil fuels on a vast scale, I look at the ice core temperature cores for the last 600 thousand years and I say hallelujah. Without energy harnessed from fossil fuels live would hardly be worth living.

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 10:35:20 UTC+1, Graham Easterling wrote:


And why the last decade was easily the warmest on record and why the two warmest years on record both fell into that decade and why current global temperatures are close to record values, despite ENSO neutral conditions and the PDO being negative and.........etc. etc. etc.



Most people will know my views on AGW, but blaming a few gales and a very wet winter on it are ludicrous. A few months ago the long run of quiet winter's was blamed on AGW (reduction of N-S temperature gradient etc.)



Interesting perspective here http://magicseaweed.com/news/the-50-year-storm/6070/



Also, in Penzance



E.g Gales in Penzance



1993 13

1994 14

1995 13

1996 16

1997 14

1998 22!

1999 15



then

2008 1

2009 4

2010 2

2012 2

2013 2

2014 5 so far



So which were due to AGW, 1993-1998, 2008-2013, or 2014? All apparently.



I believe global warming could become a serious problem but please step back a bit and get agrip of the bigger picture!



THere's plenty of s**t spoken, by people who should know better, on both sides of the argument



Graham

Penzance


Here here! There is too much **** spoken in the name of GW, so much in fact we have totally lost sight of the original science and turned it into a joke.

Time to get back to discussing the raw facts IMO.

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:18:21 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 09/02/2014 08:09, Dawlish wrote:



Note the words "......is likely", in the first sentence. No scientist of

Julia's stature would currently link a particular event, like the UK

storms, or the cold in the USA, or any one the plethora of extreme weather

events to climate change, but all know the state of play - "there is no

evidence to counter the basic premise a warmer world will lead to more

intense daily and hourly rain events."



Now go on, denier, try do the usual denier ad hominem on the excellent,

world-renowned climate scientist who has, hopefully, provided some education

for you.



'World-renowned climate scientist' sounds wonderful, but the only people

who are aware of her existence are pretty much other climate

scientists - 99% of Brits have no idea who she is.



Or attack me - but I really don't care; all I do is to show you the actual

science. Actually, no-one cares whether you learn from it, or whether you

continue to get your science from denier blogs, or from "David" on UK.railway. *))



"all I do is to show you the actual science". I must have missed that.



--



Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

Then read what I post about climate science, in response to these idiots, more accurately, dear boy.

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:38:57 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 08:46:13 UTC, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:21:33 AM UTC, Malcolm wrote:



In article ,







Lawrence Jenkins writes







On Sunday, 9 February 2014 01:14:47 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:























Someone talking ******** on Usenet, what a surprise - NOT.















Adam we are entering a massive cooling phase-come to terms with it.















Lawrence, that is as much nonsense as the article Joe posted here. It's







time you came to terms with the fact that we are NOT "entering a massive







cooling phase". If so, why was 2013 the 6th warmest year since records







began in 1880?















--







Malcolm







And why the last decade was easily the warmest on record and why the two warmest years on record both fell into that decade and why current global temperatures are close to record values, despite ENSO neutral conditions and the PDO being negative and.........etc. etc. etc.







However, a climate denier like larry is capable of convincing himself of anything. "A massive colloid period" is coming. On current evidence, that's just laughable - but then again, so are larry's views on climate change.





Warmest in our records . We do know this however



In such a tiny space of time the last 2000 years saw without any argument a very warm periods where grapes were grown , Greenland was farmed and then the LIA . We know temperatures fluctuated by a couple of degrees without any influence from human co2. We also know from the ice core samples that this current inter glacial is not only one of the coolest but well overdue to end.



We also know that the global human condition up until about 200 years ago was wretched with low life expectancy and abject misery for most thirty odd years that we lived. I look at the past misery before harnessing fossil fuels on a vast scale, I look at the ice core temperature cores for the last 600 thousand years and I say hallelujah. Without energy harnessed from fossil fuels live would hardly be worth living.

The ridiculous; "tiny space of time" denier crock. Just hilarious.

Why does every single National science academy on earth feel that the present period shows anomalous warming and that the warming has very little to do with the last 2000 years.

They're all stupid, I suppose and they don't know anything..........but you and yours know ever so much more; don't you? Read the avalanche of science and it will explain this to you. Ignore the avalanche of science and focus on any tiny little part which might appear to back the denier cause, without any real scrutiny, like the OP and you can convince yourself of anything - as I've said.

On 09/02/2014 17:23, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:18:21 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 09/02/2014 08:09, Dawlish wrote:



Note the words "......is likely", in the first sentence. No scientist of
Julia's stature would currently link a particular event, like the UK
storms, or the cold in the USA, or any one the plethora of extreme weather
events to climate change, but all know the state of play - "there is no
evidence to counter the basic premise a warmer world will lead to more
intense daily and hourly rain events."

Now go on, denier, try do the usual denier ad hominem on the excellent,
world-renowned climate scientist who has, hopefully, provided some education
for you.

'World-renowned climate scientist' sounds wonderful, but the only people
who are aware of her existence are pretty much other climate
scientists - 99% of Brits have no idea who she is.

Or attack me - but I really don't care; all I do is to show you the actual
science. Actually, no-one cares whether you learn from it, or whether you
continue to get your science from denier blogs, or from "David" on UK.railway. *))

"all I do is to show you the actual science". I must have missed that.

Then read what I post about climate science, in response to these idiots, more accurately, dear boy.

Nope, I won't be wasting my time doing that.



--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire