This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Chat > Just Chat - General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Snow thing of the past"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

"Snow thing of the past"

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: "Snow thing of the past"
    Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 4:56pm
Really?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21063003

Quote A "rare" red warning for snow has been issued by the Met Office for parts of Wales on Friday.


Yes, yes... weather not climate... *nods head sarcastically in agreement*

There should be less snow, not more.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
wain View Drop Down
P1
P1
Avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2012
Location: EGGD
Points: 643
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 5:13pm
yes and here in bristol we are on amber. if we get it everyone else is stuffed. got loads of window cleaning to do tomorrow, dont think its going to happen though....Wink
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 6:50pm
Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:

Really?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21063003

Quote A "rare" red warning for snow has been issued by the Met Office for parts of Wales on Friday.


Yes, yes... weather not climate... *nods head sarcastically in agreement*

There should be less snow, not more.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
 
Sorry, but after all these years of listening to this climate change trolling from you, I can restrain myself no longer. I really do think you have a brain the size of a pea.
 
No climate scientist has ever said the UK would never get any snow. Quite the contrary.
 
More EXTREME weather, including cold weather, in the UK, as a result of climate change, is highly likely, due to the diversion of the jet stream, and in the longer term disruption to the gulf stream.
 
Not that a bit of snow for a few days in January is extreme anyway, it's not. It's normal winter weather.
 
Climate change: The GLOBE in terms of LONG TERMAVERAGE temperature getting warmer.
 
GLOBAL warming is NOT invalid because the UK had snow in January 2013.
 
 
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 9:07pm
Quote I really do think you have a brain the size of a pea.

I stopped caring when interesting debates turned into personal attacks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

They said this 13 YEARS AGO:

Quote However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.


Anyway... we know you prefer computer models to hard facts. How long is "a few years"? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 1,000 years?

I'm not waiting for the above to become true - got better things to do!

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
Slopey View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar
AirHauler Developer

Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Points: 8280
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slopey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 9:13pm
It's not really an interesting debate though - one liners about a non-relevant weather feature, common at this time of year in the UK regardless of the global situation, doesn't really cut it does it.

It might snow here, as you'd expect in Jan/Feb, but then in Australia they have temperatures higher than ever recorded. Again, that doesn't prove climate change and could be a local phenomenon due to a confluence of local weather systems.

But pointing at the snow and trying to use it to disprove climate change is not informed debate.
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 9:17pm
Quote But pointing at the snow and using it to disprove climate change is not informed debate.

Agreed.

Let me re-state for the millionth time.

I do *NOT* dispute WARMING is occurring. WE ARE STILL LEAVING THE LAST ICE AGE.

That is not in dispute.

What I dispute is this:

THE CAUSE!

i.e. everything MMGW/Climate Change says that CO2 is the CAUSE, and worse, all warming since the 40s is due to man!

The scientists from the British Antarctic Survey doing the ground work say CO2 rise LAGS temperature. Ice cores show the same thing. Long-term historic analysis shows the same thing.

Why do they keep perpetuating lies?

The biggest joke of them all is the idea that by reducing man-made sources of CO2 emissions, we can stop the planet warming AT ALL.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
Slopey View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar
AirHauler Developer

Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Points: 8280
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slopey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 9:20pm
Quote
Quote But pointing at the snow and using it to disprove climate change is not informed debate.


Agreed.


Errm, in your first post, you did exactly that.
AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 9:21pm
I know. Did you not consider the possibility it was deliberate?

I'm being as ridiculous as the IPCC in my claims. At least someone is paying attention.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
Slopey View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar
AirHauler Developer

Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Points: 8280
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slopey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 9:36pm
So you're posting a sarcastic/frivolous comment, then claiming it's an "interesting debate" 3 posts later? Just to then follow up that it was nothing of the sort a few more posts later?




AirHauler Developer
For AH2 queries - PLEASE USE THE EA Forums as the first port of call.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 10:18pm


To drag this back to a debate then, read this and post your thoughts?

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/science-gets-stratosphere-wrong

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2013 at 11:31am
Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:



To drag this back to a debate then, read this and post your thoughts?

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/science-gets-stratosphere-wrong

Best regards,
Vulcan.
 
Okay,you want our thoughts?
 
Once again you have visited a climate change denier website. The website was set up by Doug L Hoffman, a well known republican climate change denier. He also wrote a book [and made money] with the same title. He is a LAWYER, he is NOT a climate scientist. If you visit climate change deniers websites then what will you find?
 
Once again you haver demonstrated a classic tendency toward "confirmation bias". You routinely vist known climate change deniers websites, and routinely ignore all responses that opose your viewpoint.
 
 
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2013 at 11:37am

Quote Agreed.

Let me re-state for the millionth time.

I do *NOT* dispute WARMING is occurring.
 
So, you claim you were just kidding when you implied global warming wasn't happening... because we "should be getting less snow".
 
Don't make us laugh. Time and time again you have appeared on the forum and claimed that a cold snap is evidence of no warming. Just being ironic then as well were you?
 
This, and the fact that you ignore all responses to your claims, and then keep coming back and spouting the same tripe, convinces me that you are basically just trolling the forum.
 
What do you hope to achieve? Same claims, same responses, same lack of a counter argument from you... no one benefits, everyone is irritated.
 
Quote I stopped caring when interesting debates turned into personal attacks.

Well what do you expect, when you keep making the same claims over, and over, and over again. While ignoring any response that doesn’t confirm your belief or hypothesis.

Classic confirmation bias.

You drive us nuts!

I'll ignore the "we are coming out of an ice age" comment, as I have answered that a thousand times, and you are still ignoring me.

 
 
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2013 at 3:35pm
I see that in two threads so far you have completely ignored the very serious point that the base data is COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE, and you have no comment on it so far.

The base data is what underpins ALL arguments, pro- and anti-, and you should be very concerned that basic data is corrupted and thus unreliable for ANYTHING, but instead you just write what you did above.

That is what I mean about personal attacks.

"Debate the topic, not the man". If you have to debate the man, well...

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
Magic Man View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: South Wales
Points: 5336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Magic Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2013 at 6:11pm
Under the red zone here, wasn't that bad actually, at least so far. About 5/6 inches.

How about tax reductions for those of us with 4x4's
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2013 at 8:48pm
Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:

I see that in two threads so far you have completely ignored the very serious point that the base data is COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE, and you have no comment on it so far.
Vulcan, this is easy, but I'll spell it out for you anyway. The websites you link to are climate change denier websites. The conclusions on those websites are by climate change deniers. The climate change deniers are NOT climate scientists. They have no qualifications in this field and thus do not have the training to interpret the science. The individual you linked to before was a TV weather man and the one in the link above a lawyer, a lawyer who made tons of money selling a book about his personal theories. If you think the interpretation of the science by these, non qualified, dubious individuals is a good source of information, then you are beyond help. 
I listen to qualified climate experts... not TV weather men and lawyers telling you the data is unreliable, not TV weather men and lawyers, rubbing their hands with glee as they make money selling books..


Quote "Debate the topic, not the man". If you have to debate the man, well...
 
Sorry, but when "the man" keeps ignoring all counter arguments to his claims as if they have never happened, and keeps on posting exactly the same posts over, and over, and over again, I most certainly will debate the man, because in this case, "the man" is driving all of us stark raving mad.
Repeating the same thing, like you do, over and over again, while ignoring the responses of others, must be a sign of some kind of psychological malady, surely.
 
Mark Hudson, a professional scientist who contributes to the forum, who understands the scientific method far better than either of us, did his damnedest to talk sense into you. Unfortunately, he too found it impossible to reason with you. Mark no longer has any time for your nonsense and has basically given up trying to talk sense into you. 
 
Just like you do with me, you ignored all of the points Mark raised. You are trolling the forum, you have been for years.
 
 
When you can debate properly and offer a reasonable counter argument to our replies, you will be taken seriously. Until then, your posts are just an annoyance.
 
 
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2013 at 2:36pm
Quote I listen to qualified climate experts... not TV weather men and lawyers telling you the data is unreliable, not TV weather men and lawyers, rubbing their hands with glee as they make money selling books..

Did you even read the report? THEY ARE SCIENTISTS/MATHEMATICIANS.

Sheesh...

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2013 at 9:34am
Mathematicians are not climate scientists.
 
In addition, this link...
 
 
Is a website and article written by Doug Hoffman, a lawyer. Not a climate scientist. Doug Hoffman, a lawyer, is attempting to interpret data he doesn't have the qualifications to interpret. He also makes money selling books, lectures etc, promoting anti climate change.
 
Do you understand the motivation? 
 
In addition, from your previous topic...
 
This link...
 
 
 
Is from a climate change denier website, set up by a Republican TV weather man, climate change denier. The web site was funded by the infamous and utterly discredited Heartland Institute. And the "research" referred to, was by Michael Beanstock an economics professor Michael Beanstock is well known for his anti climate change stance.
 
In addition, N. Paldor and Y. Reingewertz, Beanstock's co authors, are also known climate change deniers. Also both economists.
 
If you wish to visit websites set up by discredited organisations, and run by TV weather men, and believe what you read, go ahead.
 
If you wish to refer to mathematicians, lawyers, and economists with agendas, while ignoring qualified climate change scientists, go ahead.
 
But don't be surprised when the opinions you get are diametrically opposed to the truth.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Magic Man View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: South Wales
Points: 5336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Magic Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2013 at 12:17pm
Excellent counters my man - good post! Thumbs%20Up
Back to Top
MarkH View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Location: UK
Points: 1570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MarkH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2013 at 7:55pm
I second that Mr Magic
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 9:22am
Don't worry, he'll be back with one of his usual responses. Something we've no doubt discussed many times before, a response he's chosen to ignore because it doesn't back up his crazy theories.
 
This topic reminds me of his 9/11 "the US government did it" nonsense. Don't ask a structural engineer, oh no, ask someone with zero qualifications in the field, who's trying to make loads of dosh selling videos, books etc. Wacko
 
Who does this sound like...
 
 
Quote

Confirmation bias

 
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down