« Previous | Main | Next »

Storms follow hottest day since July 2006

Paul Hudson | 16:07 UK time, Tuesday, 28 June 2011

Thunderstorms have continued to affect parts of East Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, East Anglia and the Southeast of England this afternoon, following yesterday's heat.

Temperatures across Yorkshire and Lincolnshire on Monday reached 32C (90F) for the first time since July 2006.

Both Robin Hood airport (the old Finningley RAF base) in South Yorkshire and Humberside airport reached their peaks shortly after lunchtime before cloud moved in from the Southwest, as did Leconfield in East Yorkshire and Waddington in Lincolnshire.

The temperature levels were amongst the highest in the country, beaten only by Gravesend in Kent, where 33C (91F) was recorded.

Today, Leconfield has managed only 17C (63F) - a 15C drop compared with yesterday.

Today's rainfall is adding to what has already been a wet month across many areas. At Coningsby in drought-order hit Lincolnshire, up to and including today, 76mm of rain has been recorded, compared with the average of 54mm.

More rain is needed, but June's rainfall has provided some short term relief following the exceptionally dry spring.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    I hear Harry took off his long johns yesterday it was that warm.

  • Comment number 2.

    17 degrees in one day, what is that going to cost if we have to pay a trillion pounds to mitigate a 2 degree rise in a hundred years. Oh how the head spins, almost as much as the IPCC.

  • Comment number 3.

    Delighted to say I have survived both days. It was slightly more pleasant on the motorbike yesterday than today. On the other hand I am pretty sure I could not survive a 2 degree rise in average global temperature whatever the heck that means

    smoke me a kipper

  • Comment number 4.

    While the UK has been experiencing unusually warm weather, global temperatures as measured by the AQUA CH5 (14000') satellite figures.
    At one stage it looked as if this year's temperatures were going to go above last year's for the end of June, but over the last 4 days at least, they have flattened out, in a similar manner to last year. On June 21st., this year's temperature got to within 0.067 degrees of last year, but on the 25th., the gap had increased to 0.247 deg.

    Still awaiting the HadCRUT3 figure for May. The last word I had was that there had been a delay in the receipt of data from some countries and that they were having some "minor problems with the database". Personally I don't recall the monthly figures ever being this late.

  • Comment number 5.

    Sorry, should have read:

    While the UK has been experiencing unusually warm weather, global temperatures as measured by the AQUA CH5 (14000') satellite figures appear to be levelling off.
    At one stage it looked as if this year's temperatures were going to go above last year's for the end of June, but over the last 4 days at least, they have flattened out, in a similar manner to last year. On June 21st., this year's temperature got to within 0.067 degrees of last year, but on the 25th., the gap had increased to 0.247 deg.

    Still awaiting the HadCRUT3 figure for May. The last word I had was that there had been a delay in the receipt of data from some countries and that they were having some "minor problems with the database". Personally I don't recall the monthly figures ever being this late.

  • Comment number 6.

    Sorry if this is off topic but the Catlin Arctic survey has just come up with some new information

    http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/2011/06/28/initial-analysis-on-arctic-data/

    "Data from Catlin Arctic Survey 2011, collected during an eight-week expedition from March to May, indicates the temperature of Arctic seawater below 200 metres depth has decreased by a ‘surprising’ one degree Celsius in comparison with previous observations."

    Following the standard cooling is really warming argument they go on to state

    "This may conversely be accelerating the Arctic sea ice melt, which could have a knock-on effect for the currents that circulate heat and nutrients around the world’s oceans."

  • Comment number 7.

    it certainly was a scorcher- the humidity was the killer for me; nightmare trying to sleep.

    Certainly shows how large variations in temp can happen over a really short time scale.

  • Comment number 8.

    #6. - NeilHamp wrote:
    "Sorry if this is off topic but the Catlin Arctic survey has just come up with some new information"
    Since the Catlin Arctic Survey has always had a pro warming bias, it doesn't surprise me that no matter what they found, it would prove things are getting worse.
    There was a short item about this on the "Today" programme yesterday, which left me puzzled, and this article leave me non the wiser.
    Strangely, there is nothing yet on the BBC website by Richard Black, and actually very little that I can find on any U.K. based website, although I did find the following:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/06/28/arctic-ice-melting.html
    From what I can glean from these articles, what they seem to be saying is that cold water from melting ice is sinking and forcing warmer water upwards, but does that explain the initial melting? Also, there is no specific mention of any layer of water actually increasing in temperature.
    A part which I find particularly puzzling is this:
    "He continued: “What was most surprising was the degree of change; even the most incremental differences in ocean temperatures matter. To put this temperature change in context, global sea temperatures rose by only 0.25 of a degree Celsius in the last 30 to 40 years but this was enough for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report to state the oceans are warming.”"
    One minute we are talkign about a 1c fall in temperature, and the next a rise of 0.25c rise over 30-40 years. Maybe some vital pieces of information have been lef out of these articles.
    I guess we are going to have to wait until the full analysis of the data is done.


  • Comment number 9.

    I am reminded of the old definition of an English summer as two (or is it three) hot days, followed by a thunderstorm. Unfortunately, I am currently unable to find an attribution for this definition.

  • Comment number 10.

  • Comment number 11.

    Re 2. ukpahonta wrote:
    "17 degrees in one day, what is that going to cost if we have to pay a trillion pounds to mitigate a 2 degree rise in a hundred years. Oh how the head spins, almost as much as the IPCC."

    The significance in a 2 degree rise in global temperature, or even UK temperature, is that it would be sustained. The 17 degree drop in one day is short term variation (weather) around an existing mean (climate).

  • Comment number 12.

    Quake #11

    thanks for reminding us we are all going to DIE for our wickedness

    smoke me a kipper

  • Comment number 13.

    Get real. How does a plant or animal know what the temperature was last week?

  • Comment number 14.

    oh and just remind me, we the great unwashed of Yorkshire Lincolnshire and Humberside, over the last few years what has caused us more problems - days that were too hot or days that were too cold?

    and either way don't we need affordable energy to deal with such extremes?

    smoke me a kipper

  • Comment number 15.

    On the other thread people were saying the UK needed to research the threat of a solar minimum. But now we know there is no such threat because temperature dropped 17C yesterday and everything was fine? A solar minimum of course isn't going to drop UK, let alone global, average temperature anything near 17C.

  • Comment number 16.

    "ukpahonta wrote:

    17 degrees in one day, what is that going to cost if we have to pay a trillion pounds to mitigate a 2 degree rise in a hundred years. Oh how the head spins, almost as much as the IPCC."

    Possibly the silliest post on here for some time. Temperature can vary much more than that through a single day. Does this poster really think that is what the science suggests we should try to limit?


    But isn't this post a bit of a non story? Thunderstorms and cooler weather following hot - hardly unexpected or outside expected natural variation.

  • Comment number 17.

    Re 13.
    Species seem sensitive enough to be distributed with latitude which covers only a few degrees change in average temperature. Southern England vs Scotland for example where the annual average temperature difference is slight, but we don't get all the same species, even though those species can survive daily temperature fluctuations such as 17C

  • Comment number 18.

    QuaesoVeritas wrote in a previous post that is unfortunately now closed for comments so limits my ability of reply. I apologise if this is more off topic than most of the other already off topic posts here. If QV considers it needs further discussion, it might be more appropriate to reply through my blog.

    QV said;
    “Which is just as insulting to me, since it implies that I am not rational!”

    Do you disagree that calling someone who accepts the opinion of the position of the world’s scientific academies a ‘warmist’ IS rational?

    Besides you started with the name calling.

    “Do you not think that I know the difference between a rolling average and a rolling linear trend?”

    To be honest I’m not sure I do. Why is one (rolling linear) better than the other? Scientists tend to use the first, so why should anyone accept yours as a better measure?

    “I notice that you regularly seem to use the term "climate denier" in your blog, so I appear to have been too easy on you in my above post.
    What does "climate denier" mean?”!

    It has nothing to do with holocaust denial – and to assume so indicates some sort of persecution complex I would think.

    It is a term to distinguish a genuine sceptic from someone who denies the conclusions of sound peer reviewed science.

    Genuine sceptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views.

    Of those who argue against the theory of AGW on here, you seem more aligned with the former than the latter but you still assume that your restricted analysis of the science is a more rational base than the conclusion of most of the worlds top climatologists and scientific academies.

    Lets get something straight – I simply accept the science. I would rather not but it is the rational thing to do. I am neither a ‘warmist’ nor a denier. If the Royal society concludes that climate change isn’t anthropogenic or isn’t the problem it claims it is then that is my position because I accept that they are in a far better position to determine the most likely than I.

  • Comment number 19.

    quake @ 17
    "Species seem sensitive enough to be distributed with latitude which covers only a few degrees change in average temperature. Southern England vs Scotland for example"

    perhaps it's a cultural sensitivity!

  • Comment number 20.

    Lazarus says . .
    "It has nothing to do with holocaust denial – and to assume so indicates some sort of persecution complex I would think."

    Yeah - right. The term 'denier' is pejorative and cannot be regarded as neutral in intent. It has no positive connotations whatsoever. It's disparaging, an insult cast freely about by many with intent to harm and belittle. That this term has been so readily adopted by some, says much about the weakness of the pro AGW argument.

    and then says . . .
    "Lets get something straight – I simply accept the science. I would rather not but it is the rational thing to do. I am neither a ‘warmist’ nor a denier. If the Royal society concludes that climate change isn’t anthropogenic or isn’t the problem it claims it is then that is my position because I accept that they are in a far better position to determine the most likely than I."

    yes - we are all individuals. (Monty Python)

  • Comment number 21.

    The HadCRUT3 figures for May have been published at last.
    Global = 0.322c, down from a revised 0.399c last month.
    NH = 0.392c, down from a revised 0.504c
    SH = 0.253c, down from a revised 0.294c
    The above global temperature is broadly in line with NASA/GISS, but the fall
    is similar to that of NCDC/NOAA.
    It leaves the rolling 2011 mean slightly up from 0.298c to 0.303c,
    and the 12 month mean down from 0.399c to 0.383c.
    Finally, at the risk of upsetting some others here, it leaves the 10 year rolling
    linear trend down from -0.689c/century to -0.765c/century, and the 50 year
    linear trend up from 1.398c/century to 1.401c/century.
    These figures assume that there has been no retrospective changes in the
    historical data, which I haven't had a chance to check yet.

  • Comment number 22.

    16. - Lazarus wrote:
    "Possibly the silliest post on here for some time. Temperature can vary much more than that through a single day. Does this poster really think that is what the science suggests we should try to limit?"
    But you took the bait!


  • Comment number 23.

    @ lazarus
    "If the Royal society concludes that climate change isn’t anthropogenic or isn’t the problem it claims it is then that is my position because I accept that they are in a far better position to determine the most likely than I "

    The very definition of an appeal to authorty.

  • Comment number 24.

    #18. - Lazarus wrote:
    I apologise if this is more off topic than most of the other already off topic posts here."
    I don't think there are any rules regarding specific topics. This isn't USENET.
    It is a weather blog, so in my opinion anything related to weather is acceptable, but something about football wouldn't be, unless of course it was about a football match postponed due to the rain!
    "Do you disagree that calling someone who accepts the opinion of the position of the world’s scientific academies a ‘warmist’ IS rational?"
    Sorry, I can't get my head around what you mean by that.
    "Scientists tend to use the first, so why should anyone accept yours as a better measure?"
    Not sure if I said it was better, but it is different, and provides a different perspective.
    "Genuine sceptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views."
    But they don't deny the "climate", they deny aspects of "climate change". The term "climate denier" is completely meaningless. Why not say "climate change denier"?
    "Lets get something straight – I simply accept the science. I would rather not but it is the rational thing to do."
    So are scientists never wrong? At one time, it was "rational" to believe that the sun went around the earth, and most scientists believed that.
    You surely don't believe EVERYTHING that scientists say?
    Strangely, I am the opposite to you, I would rather believe the science but I can't believe what I believe is flawed science. Also, for some reason, "climate scientists" are the only ones I don't genearally trust implicitly.





  • Comment number 25.

    #13. - Jack Hughes wrote:
    "Get real. How does a plant or animal know what the temperature was last week?"
    I don't understand - what is this referring to?

  • Comment number 26.

    QV, Just found HadCRUT3 myself

    The Met Office forcast +0.44 global temperature anomoly for 2011
    The last 7 months of 2011 will have to average +0.54 for this to be achieved

    Once again to ensure that our forcasts remain on record I post our predictions made for 2011 at the start of the year


    Met Office +0.44
    SmokingDeepThroat +0.39
    quake +0.36
    ukpahonta +0.35
    Gadgetfriend +0.30
    NeilHamp +0.27
    QuaesoVeritas +0.25 (revised)
    millinia +0.24
    Joe Bastardi +0.2
    Ken Sharples +0.18
    LabMunkey +0.18
    nibor25 +0.15

    As you note QV, 12 month mean is +0.38.
    Quake and Smokingdeepthroat are still looking good

  • Comment number 27.

    Using the 12 month mean back through 2010 is not the best prediction for the rest of this year. 2010 was one of the hottest years on record.

    The last 7 months of 2008 might be a more realist set of temperatures for the rest of this year. This would give a global anomly of +0.36.

    quake wins again

  • Comment number 28.

    #27. NeilHamp wrote:
    "Using the 12 month mean back through 2010 is not the best prediction for the rest of this year. 2010 was one of the hottest years on record.
    The last 7 months of 2008 might be a more realist set of temperatures for the rest of this year. This would give a global anomly of +0.36."
    I would agree that 2008 would be better guide than 2010, but it is interesting that the last 7 months have to exceed those of 2010 by 0.1c for the UKMO forecast to be correct.
    It's hard to tell how things are going. Are the low satellite increases and falls in the other anomalies during May a sign that temperatures are starting to fall again? The latest satellite figures would suggest not.
    I notice that my original prediction for this year, before I revised it, was 0.302c, which is almost exactly where this year is now. I wish I had stuck to my guns.
    If the rest of the year were to stay the same as May, the final figure would be
    0.314c.



  • Comment number 29.

    "Today, Leconfield has managed only 17C (63F) - a 15C drop compared with yesterday."

    Global cooling. What more proof do we need?

    A drop of 15 C in a day is equal to a drop of 150 C per decade; or 1,500 C per century.

    AGW is over; kicked into touch in a single day by weather in Leconfield, wherever the hell that is.

  • Comment number 30.

    21. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "[the latest HadCRUT3 figure] leaves the 10 year rolling linear trend down from -0.689c/century to -0.765c/century, and the 50 year linear trend up from 1.398c/century to 1.401c/century."

    That is one way of looking at it. But as we have discussed before, a ten year 'rolling' trend has some disadvantages when considering a long term data set.

    UAH prefer to use a decadal trend based on 'all' their data since 1979 (not just the past 120 months). If you apply that process to HadCRUT3 you get a current temperature trend of +0.14 per decade, or +1.4 C per century if you prefer.

    Even a slight decline in a decade-long temperature set is of little significance as long as the prevailing temperatures remain well above the long term average; which in this case they have done. Since the mid 20th century there have been several episodes of temperature rise, followed by a plateau, followed by a rise again.

    We appear to be on a 'staircase' of temperature rise.

    One last thing: connected to earlier posts: the May 2011 HadCRUT3 figure now places Jan-May 2011 as the 13th warmest year in this 162 year data set; well within the top 10% of Jan-May temperatures on record.

    The Jan-Apr 2011 HadCRUT3 figure was the 14th warmest year to date, so Jan-May data now moves this moves up a notch. Gavin Schmidt over at RealClimate said 2011 would easily fit inside the top 10 warmest years on record. He is already right using GISS data. Do you think he will be right using HadCRUT3?

  • Comment number 31.

    An interesting little heatwave.

    Notice that unlike most heatwaves which come in on a southeasterly wind, this one was a steady and rather rare, south/ southwesterly. On a southeasterly, East Yorks is usually well down the league table of top temperatures - even compared to Scotland (due to the North Sea of course).

    Hot southerlies are invariably short lived- and soon seem to break down before an approaching front (as this time) or if the settled weather continues soon revert to persistant east/southeasterlies. Hence we are almost never the hottest part of Britain.

    Rare exceptions, like this week include that hot day in May last year (Hull reached 29c if I remember). And the famous 3rd August 1990 when many parts of the county reached 34c, probably the highest temp recorded locally for some time (perhaps of all time?).

    In the majority of hot summers, this region is often strikingly cooler than most of southern and western Britain, particularly as the Southeasterly wind as well as being sea cooled, is often remarkably strong for anticyclonic conditions.

  • Comment number 32.

    #30. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "That is one way of looking at it. But as we have discussed before, a ten year 'rolling' trend has some disadvantages when considering a long term data set."
    And some advantages. One thing I didn't mention was that the last time the 10 year linear trend was as low as -0.765c/century, was March 1977. Otherwise, measured over a 10 year period and using HadCRUT3, temperatures are currently falling faster than they have done for about 34 years. It doesn't matter if you measure the trend per century or per decade, they are still falling.

    "The Jan-Apr 2011 HadCRUT3 figure was the 14th warmest year to date, so Jan-May data now moves this moves up a notch. Gavin Schmidt over at RealClimate said 2011 would easily fit inside the top 10 warmest years on record. He is already right using GISS data. Do you think he will be right using HadCRUT3? "
    I have previously said that I think it will be 11th based on HadCRUT3 and I see no reason to change that. The GISS anomaly fell faster than the others last month, so I think Schmidt will be wrong by that measure too, and I look forward to his explanation.

  • Comment number 33.

    @Lazarus

    I see your sense of humour does not extend to the topic of climate change. Perhaps this is the problem of those of the deep indoctrination. I take it that the topic is too serious for you to take light heartedly whereas the majority of us looking in from the outside can see the absolute shambles that is reportedly a consensus opinion from a scientific body.

    My advice is to take a step back, relax a little, there are far greater problems to face in this country than trying to gain brownie points on the worlds stage by aiming for a carbon reduction target that everyone is starting to realise is not achievable and potentially crippling for a modern industrial nation.

    There was a report on the Today program this morning that the target of a 3% annual reduction was not achieved last year. The actual figure was a 3% growth mainly due to the cold start to winter. The report did state though that if the 'anomoly' of the cold winter was removed then the figures flat lined which was not good enough. My money is on this winters 'anomoly' also increasing the figures, and the winter after, and the one after that.

    This is why the 80% reduction figure is a joke, nobody, to my knowledge has any studies put forward for government policy direction that even consider a cooling period. Perhaps you could provide direction Lazarus?

  • Comment number 34.

    newdwr54@30 said . .
    "Since the mid 20th century there have been several episodes of temperature rise, followed by a plateau, followed by a rise again.
    We appear to be on a 'staircase' of temperature rise."

    Yes, and this is readily explained by the 20thC solar cycle peaks being historically high, including the last one around the turn of the century. This cycle looks like being low, in which case the reduction in forcing should start showing itself the temps before 2020.
    The first signs should be seen in ocean heat content - once that sets course and trends down, atmospheric temps will follow. On the other hand, if we get a low solar cycle and the OHC trends upwards between 2005 - 2020, then that would bolster the AGW case significantly.

  • Comment number 35.

    It doesn't say much for science, when scientists aren't considering the temperature of the sun, versus our orbit around it, when measuring the temperature of our world. The scientists need to be more objective in this case. The "hockey stick theory", is another useless theory. I am all for protecting the rain forests and the Uk has done its bit in the last 100 years, by doubling our forest coverage.

  • Comment number 36.

    #30. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "The Jan-Apr 2011 HadCRUT3 figure was the 14th warmest year to date, so Jan-May data now moves this moves up a notch."
    Actually, I don't know why you say that the Jan-May data moves this up a notch.
    As far as I can tell, the first 5 months are still only the 14th warmest, between 1990 (0.291c) and 1995 (0.304c). NB, this is based on a simple average of the monthly figures.
    So far, the closest years to 2011 have been 1990, 1995 and 2000, which ended up with annual figures of 0.248c, 0.275c and 0.239c respectively, again based on the official UKMO annual figures. Average = 0.254c.

  • Comment number 37.

    ukpahonta. Too right. But too many people have a lot to loose, by Global warming by man being proofed to be a hoax. On top of that their professional knowledge is going to be called into question, when they got a simple calculation wrong. They will be getting very stressed now, knowing they are on the loosing side.

  • Comment number 38.

    #35. - timawells wrote:
    "I am all for protecting the rain forests and the Uk has done its bit in the last 100 years, by doubling our forest coverage."
    I am afraid it doesn't signify much, compared with the destruction of the actual rain forests. I say something on the BBC news channel about how Brazil's economy is booming, and how a billionaire out there is making himself even richer by stripping the country of it's natural resources to supply to China with raw materials. I don't suppose he cares much about "climate change". As long as the God of economic growth is being worshipped, the planet doesn't stand a chance.
    In reality, we may have more trees in the U.K., but in reality the countryside is less diverse due to the industrial farming methods required to support an ever growing population.

  • Comment number 39.

    Don't recall seeing or hearing about Brazil on any News outlets!

    Tuesday, June 28th 2011 – 06:34 UTC
    South Brazil freezing: temperatures below zero force closure of schools

    Several cities in the south of Brazil recorded on Monday temperatures below zero Centigrade which caused the death of a man and forced the closure of schools, according to official reports.
    [...]
    In the state of Santa Catarina temperatures dropped to below zero with the lowest in the city of Urubici, minus 4.5 degrees with 90 kilometres gusts of wind that pushed the cold factor to minus 27 degrees. Ponds and streams in the area were covered with a thin coat of ice.

    In Florianopolis, capital of Santa Catarina and a renowned sea resort, thermometers registered 6 degrees below zero and further south in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, bordering with Uruguay, several locations emerged covered in snow, which forced education officials to close schools until next Wednesday.

    “We’ve had snow before but never this cold factor. Some schools opened but by 10:00 in the morning everybody was gone because of the intense cold, nobody could stand it”, said the mayor of Sao Jose, Erivetto Sinval Velho.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/snowy-brazil-again/

    Of course the 2 day heatwave will take priority in the news because..... it's in this country I presume.

  • Comment number 40.

    Quaesoveritas. I would love to go back to how the countryside was when I was a child in the 1960's or even longer ago in the 1940's, but in those days people lived in squalid conditions in City's. We have to some how get a balance. But things aren't as bad as many people make out. You aren't talking about regime change in Brazil are you, these people will eventually catch on, many people in their country must think like you and me. Finding a clean fuel for cars, would be the greatest factor for reducing pollution and reducing asthma, especially in children.

  • Comment number 41.

    #39. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "Tuesday, June 28th 2011 – 06:34 UTC
    South Brazil freezing: temperatures below zero force closure of schools"

    This seems to tie in with an area of below normal temperatures over most of the southern part of South America. According to this projection, it's likely to remain there for a while:
    http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/raw_temp.html#picture
    Of course, it is the middle of winter there, and the antarctic region does seem to have above normal temperatures in parts an below in others. Not entirely sure what the maps anomalies are relative to.

  • Comment number 42.

    #41 QV

    Seems to be a replica of the UK experience last winter:

    'Predictions by MetSul Meteorology were confirmed, and southern Brazil was reached in late June by a powerful mass of polar air; that accompanied the cyclone that brought winter storm conditions to the region. '

    Could only be coincidence as the two regions are completely unrelated to any external forcings and there will shortly be a post, possibly linking to sceptical science, proving that both incidents, according to model outputs, are a direct response to increased man made CO2 altering the climate.

  • Comment number 43.

    #40. - timawells wrote:
    "You aren't talking about regime change in Brazil are you, these people will eventually catch on, many people in their country must think like you and me."
    I doubt if regime change would make any difference, since any new regime is unlikely to be any better. Not sure what I am advocating. I suppose it's "responsible capitalism", but that seems unlikely. However, I don't think that the rights to the Earth's resources should ever be "owned" by an individual person, or nation, to make huge amounts of money, but governments are prepared to go along with that, because it provides short-term economic prosperity.
    Because all governments appear to be totally inept, and there is no alternative, I think that ultimately the world is doomed, but NOT because of "climate change", which is the least of our worries.

  • Comment number 44.

    #42. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "Could only be coincidence as the two regions are completely unrelated to any external forcings and there will shortly be a post, possibly linking to sceptical science, proving that both incidents, according to model outputs, are a direct response to increased man made CO2 altering the climate."
    I presume you are being ironic?

  • Comment number 45.

    #44 QV

    Your powers of deduction far exceed those of others who post here and should be commended.

  • Comment number 46.

    "It doesn't say much for science, when scientists aren't considering the temperature of the sun, versus our orbit around it, when measuring the temperature of our world"

    Why would you consider the temperature of the Sun when measuring the temperature of something else entirely?

  • Comment number 47.

  • Comment number 48.

    The Catlin 'Expedition' was, and remains, a joke.

    Regardless of data, 'uncorrected', showing no significant warming since 1998, there still remains claims of finding evidence of such.

    The latest I have seen is the sighting of the jellyfish species Portuguese Man of War in the waters of Cornwall. Scientists have claimed that this is the first time that this species has been found in these waters. Perhaps these so called scientists would be better served talking to the local fisherman instead of basing a claim on one sighting. I can remember being told about these jellyfish whilst a kid, aged about 5, paddling from a Cornish beech. We could even see them on very calm days floating about 50 yards off shore ready to catch the unwary swimmer.

    I am no 70.

    So not the first time nor the last for this species to be in British waters.

    This June seems to be like any other to me, a few fine warm days followed by a couple of thundery ones. Same old, same old.

    And Paul it is RAF Finningley not Finningley RAF airbase.

  • Comment number 49.

    #47. - ukpahonta wrote:
    No mention of the fact that the only reason our CO2 emissions are so low is that we have transferred a large part of our manufacturing industry to China.
    No mention of the fact that despite continued global growth in greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations over the last 10 years, temperatures are actually falling.
    It amazes me that we still seem to be ploughing on with the CO2 reduction agenda based on climate model predictions, when there is absolutely no recent evidence that those models are accurate. In fact, when there is positive evidence that they are inaccurate.
    Someone will have to mention "the elephant in the room" eventually.

  • Comment number 50.

    "Scientists have claimed that this is the first time that this species has been found in these waters"?

    who?

  • Comment number 51.

    Quake. Anybody with sense would realise that if you put a heater at the far side of the room and this side of the room feels that heat, that it is the heater at the distant side of the room causing the heat. Common sense, but too simple for academically educated people to understand.

  • Comment number 52.

    #51 timawells

    Far too logical and simple an argument, how do you expect to obtain research funding for something that's common sense.

    Follow the lead of others and add a bit of complexity, you will have to study the 0.004% dust in the room which you suspect if left un-vacuumed will trigger a tipping point that will burn the house down. Now you're talking of a study worthy of funding.

  • Comment number 53.

    Re 51.

    The issue is identifying the cause of the temperature *change*, not the cause of the absolute temperature level.

    In terms of the heater if the room has gotten hotter but the heater hasn't increased output are you still going to be blaming the heater?

  • Comment number 54.

    #53 Quake

    Yes, of course. The room will equilibriate to the energy state of the heater even if the heater is maintained at the same output.

    The cause of the temperature change is the continual output of energy from the heater. The level of heat disapated by the heater does not change but the amount of energy continually being pumped through, electricty, to maintain that heat level has to go somewhere so the rest of the room continually absorbes the energy until it reaches equilibrium, distance related, with the heater.

    Simples eh!

  • Comment number 55.

    The reason the temperature increased was that the window was closed, nothing to do with the heater.

    This is an example about how the most obvious thing isn't necessarily the right one.

  • Comment number 56.

    Ukpahonta. I could have put it better myself. What parallel universe do you live in Quake, does it have different universal laws to us.

  • Comment number 57.

    #55 quake

    'This is an example about how the most obvious thing isn't necessarily the right one.'

    My appologies, this is a post modern thingamy isn't it.
    So we can close the window turn off the heater and the temperature will continue to increase.... because we are all bad humans.

    Now I understand it makes perfect sense!

  • Comment number 58.

    timawells. We haven't really thought this through enough.

    If the electricity supplied to the heater is from a coal fired generator then the window won't open and the temperature in the room increases until life is unsustainable.

    If the electricity supplied is from a wind turbine then the window automatically opens and the room maitains a cuddly liveable temperature helped by the fact that the power supplied is intermittent and not enough to keep the heater at its rated capacity.

    Dang we really should spend more time and tax payers money to look at this in greater depth. I hope you have learnt from this my friend.

  • Comment number 59.

    You are basically claiming that any change in room temperature must be caused by the heater. That isn't true. Room temperature can change even if a heater is left on constant output. A window being opened is just one other thing that can influence the room's temperature. Another would be the weather outside turning colder.

    Equally it is not true that any change in global temperature must be caused by the sun. For example large volcanic eruptions cool the Earth. By your reasoning scientists are mad to attribute the cooling post Pinatubo to the eruption. They should have just assumed the Sun's output had decreased.

    You accuse scientists of doing the *right* thing!

  • Comment number 60.

    Off Topic,but still weather related,
    About two weeks ago,whilst walking in the Park here in Preston, I noticed al the Rowan
    (Mountain Ash) trees were in full red fruit. The middle of June seems a bit early, and
    I wondered if the old saying of an early and prolific fruit is a sign of a cold Winter to
    follow?
    I note in passing that the Rowan was associated with witchcraft and pagans.
    Druids use the Rowan wood for staffs and the branches are still used for dowsing.
    Makes you think ..

  • Comment number 61.

    To Ken Sharples #60

    This berry thing and cold winters is one of the oldest falacies in the book! Unless you believe the sentimental drivel the "nature looks after its own" or believe that trees are gifted with foresight beyond human reasoning - how could it possibly be true?

    Large berry crops are mainly a result of successful pollination at flowering time. Generally this will be influenced by weather which encourages a good population of pollinating insects at the time i.e. warm settled weather in spring (abundant this year). So this years good spring is your most likely explanation.

    Having said that, Rowan rarely seems to fail to fruit and is probably self pollinated to at least some degree, which probably explains why it is native as far north as northern Scotland.

    Nevertheless your observation is interesting in that June is indeed rather early for ripening and it is certainly more advanced than rowan trees hereabouts. In nature notes written in 1906, an author in Scotland observes rowan berries "making themselves conspicuous" on 25th August! This does suggest, even allowing for latitude, a considerable advance of ripening dates today compared with a century ago. This is the sort of thing which is being observed quite widely in nature and is taken - rightly or wrongly - as corroborative evidence of climate change.

    So, yes, it does make you think.

    Keep looking!

  • Comment number 62.

    #60. - Ken Sharples wrote:
    "About two weeks ago,whilst walking in the Park here in Preston, I noticed al the Rowan (Mountain Ash) trees were in full red fruit. The middle of June seems a bit early, and I wondered if the old saying of an early and prolific fruit is a sign of a cold Winter to follow?"
    I think that it is accepted that the amount of fruit etc is more a result of past weather patterns than future ones. Otherwise, how would a tree or other plant be able to predict the future better than we can? It may be the result of a previous hard winter (some sort of trigger), and it is possible that a cold winter is more likely if the previous one was cold, or vice versa, i.e. if the climate was entering a cooling or warming phase.
    Having said that, this year does seem to be running ahead of schedule, so I did wonder if this meant an early winter or just an extended summer.
    That's the beauty of the English climate, the natural variability makes it more interesting.

  • Comment number 63.

    Heh, Heh, you do have a tendency to twist issues around and make claims on other peoples behalf don't you Quake.

    So your window must have a greater influence on the room than the energy output of the heater is what you are saying.

    You go for that, I'll keep my stock pile of wood ready for the effects of turning the heater down thank you very much.

  • Comment number 64.

    if the window is the arctic then it's already open - and now the fire looks like it's going out. Could get chilly!

  • Comment number 65.

    Looking north from Rotherham some beautiful clouds at midnight

  • Comment number 66.

    ukpahonta. Did you hear about the guy in a mental hospital who thought he was a corpse. The psychiatrist asked if corpses bled, the patient said no. After the psychiatrist stuck a pin in the patient and he bled, the patient said corpses do bleed. I think you get the what I am saying.

  • Comment number 67.

    Perfectly.

  • Comment number 68.

    36. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "#30. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "The Jan-Apr 2011 HadCRUT3 figure was the 14th warmest year to date, so Jan-May data now moves this moves up a notch."
    Actually, I don't know why you say that the Jan-May data moves this up a notch.
    As far as I can tell, the first 5 months are still only the 14th warmest.."

    Just checked this and you are right. I must have miscalculated. Jan-May 2011 is still 14th in HadCRUT. According to GISS it is still the 8th warmest on record. Anything from 0.54 or above in June would put it 7th. 0.58 would tie it for 6th, such is the slight level of difference between the top 10.

  • Comment number 69.

    The AQUA CH5 temperature figures haven't been updated since June 25th., but at that point, the cumulative anomaly, relative to the average previously quoted in the data files (but no longer quoted), was +0.151 deg.
    Based on years 2003-2010, that figure is equivalent to a UAH figure of approximately 0.2c., or a HadCRUT3 figure of +0.45c, which would make this June the 6th warmest on record, according to both UAH and HadCRUT3.
    Having said that, this estimate is based on the average relationships between AQUA CH5 and UAH and between UAH and HadCRUT3, and since in practice the actual relationships vary considerably, so it probably means that the estimate is not very reliable.
    There is also a slight question over the reliability of the AQUA CH5 temperature figures. During early June they suggested for a time that temperatures were above those for 2010, but those figures were subsequently revised downwards, without any real explanation and in fact, so far, this years figures have never exceeded those of 2010.
    Another pointer is that over the last 10 years, June HadCRUT3 anomalies have been on average 0.038c higher than May anomalies, with a maximum of about +0.1c, which suggests that a HadCRUT3 figure of up to 0.42c for this June wouldn't be out of the question.

  • Comment number 70.

    Sorry about my peculiar post last night - I couldn't find the term at the time but I think I was looking at Noctilucent Clouds. Never seen them before that I remember.

  • Comment number 71.

    newdwr54,

    Thanks,

    I hadn't seen your post when I posted my estimate for June, but if I am correct, that will presumably mean that 2011 stays in 14th place.
    I'm not sure if your figure of 0.54 or above is for GISS or HadCRUT3, but while a HadCRUT3 figure of 0.54 is not impossible, it seems unlikely.
    Certainly, based on recent experience the June HadCRUT3 figure will show an increase over May, since falls between May and June are very unusual.

  • Comment number 72.

    63. ukpahonta wrote:

    "So your window must have a greater influence on the room than the energy output of the heater is what you are saying."

    That's not what quake was saying. All other things being equal, in a room with a heater running and all its windows open, gradually closing each window will progressively reduce heat escape from the room and cause its temperature to rise.

    This will happen without there being any increase in the output of the heater. Gradually closing windows provides a ready explanation for the steady build up of heat in the room, even though there is no increase in the heater's output.

    I repeat, this analogy applies *only* in circumstances where all other things are equal. In reality variations in outside temperature, wind direction, the number of people in the room, etc will all have short term influences on its moment-to-moment temperature.

    But when all else is even, then progressively closing the windows of a room will tend to exert a gradually increasing trend on its temperature over time, even when the heater's output remains constant.

  • Comment number 73.

    71. QuaesoVeritas:

    All the speculative figures @68 refer to GISS. Interestingly, if your 'possible' 0.42C HadCRUT figure for June is accurate, then it would move 2011 (ytd) up to 12th warmest on that record. This might set up an interesting second half to 2011 re Schmidt's prediction?

  • Comment number 74.

    At the risk of upsetting other "sceptics" here, I must say I have to agree with quake and newdwr54 on the heater analogy.
    If the output of the heater and other factors remain constant, once the equilibrium point has been reached, there should be no further increase in temperature.
    If there is an increase in temperature, and the output of the heater is unchanged, then there must have been a change in one of the other factors, e.g. insulation.
    I think the Earth should have had time to reach an equilibrium temperature by now.
    Also, of course, we do know that the output of the heater (i.e. the sun), isn't constant, although we may not know the precise relationship of the output to temperature.
    This does not mean that I have been suddenly "converted" to a "warmist" stance, as I have only ever argued that the actual rate of warming, predicted rate of warming, and the predicted effects of that warming on the climate have been exaggerated.
    Clearly the science isn't settled on this subject, otherwise we wouldn't need at least 3 IPCC climate scenarios and up to 22 different climate models to predict future temperature. Apart from the fact that most of those models produce inaccurate results.

  • Comment number 75.

    #73. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "All the speculative figures @68 refer to GISS. Interestingly, if your 'possible' 0.42C HadCRUT figure for June is accurate, then it would move 2011 (ytd) up to 12th warmest on that record. This might set up an interesting second half to 2011 re Schmidt's prediction?"
    I'll take your word on the ytd 12th position.
    However, since there is a bit of a gap between annual 11th and 10th, I am still sticking with 11th. Also, remember that it has to achieve top 10 "easily", for Schmidt to be entirely correct.
    Please don't raise your hopes based on my estimate!

  • Comment number 76.

    #72 newdwr54

    'That's not what quake was saying. All other things being equal, in a room with a heater running and all its windows open, gradually closing each window will progressively reduce heat escape from the room and cause its temperature to rise.'

    I disagree, that is not what Quake said at all.

    I do agree with your analogy and I do agree with the fact that all variables have to be taken into consideration but what Quake actually said was:

    'In terms of the heater if the room has gotten hotter but the heater hasn't increased output are you still going to be blaming the heater?'

    Without any refference to any other variables the implication is that the heater should not be blamed for the increase in heat because it's output has remained constant.

    Once other variables are included such as the window then the argument is transposed to:

    'The reason the temperature increased was that the window was closed, nothing to do with the heater.'

    So the main source of energy is ignored from the study.

    Which further transposses to:

    'You are basically claiming that any change in room temperature must be caused by the heater. '

    So from my original implication that the room would get warmer even though the output from the heater remains constant comes the conclusion that the output from the heater can be ignored alltogether because its all down to whether the winsow is open or closed, which I totally disagree with.

    If there is a change in the major heat source then it cannot be ignored just because the current theory of heat control is the window.




  • Comment number 77.

    Further to that if you have two occassions of historical evidence that links a change in heater output to decreases in temperature of the room whether the window be open or closed then I cannot see the logic in the argument:

    'The reason the temperature increased was that the window was closed, nothing to do with the heater.'

  • Comment number 78.

    I posted this here back in march and I'm sticking to it . . .

    "So imagine a room with a 3 bar electric fire and a slow opening automatic window. The fire is set at one bar. The next bar goes on and the room heats up a bit and the window opens a tad. As the third bar goes on the room starts to get very warm and the window continues to open slowly in order to compensate. When the third bar trips off to half, the input has reduced but the room continues to warm because the window still hasn't opened enough to reach a new balance - but eventually it will."

  • Comment number 79.

    #78 lateintheday

    And our current period of scrutiny is probably the time of the third bar coming on to the present where the window may still be reacting to achieve the opening for the compensation of the third bar coming on and has not started to close to compensate for the third bar going off.

  • Comment number 80.

    #50 Quake. Reported by The Daily Telegraph from scientists of the University of Plymouth, who should know better. Date of report, about 1 week ago.

    You obviously read the wrong paper.

  • Comment number 81.

  • Comment number 82.

    I have now had a chance to check the latest global HadCRUT3 figures for retrospective changes, and there were some minor increases in figures for last September to November. While these increases were small, as a result, the 10 year linear trend is only -0.755c/century, rather than -0.765c/century as previously stated. This remains however, the fastest rate of decrease in temperatures, using this measure, since March 1977.

  • Comment number 83.

    76. ukpahonta:

    The main source of energy, whether the heater or the sun, is not ignored from the study; it remains essential to it. If you reduce the power output of the heater, then closing the windows would not be sufficient to 'increase' the temperature in the room. This would still fall (all other things being equal), only more slowly than if you left the windows open.

    If you run the heater at a constant power output, and leave all the other conditions constant, the room will not heat up indefinitely, as it is not an isolated system. The room temperature will eventually stabilise at its natural equilibrium for those precise circumstances.

    If at that point you start to tweak with the conditions (lowering heater power level, closing windows, opening blinds, etc) then the energy balance of the room changes again and eventually settles at a new equilibrium temperature appropriate to the new conditions.

    This is what AGW theory is proposing: that in 'tweaking' one of the atmosphere's climate parameters we are effectively forcing it towards a new temperature equilibrium; in this case a higher one.

    If the temperature in a continuously heated room did 'not' soon rise in response to closing some of the windows, then we would think that was very odd. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations effectively 'close windows' in the atmosphere; if the atmosphere isn't warming up in response, then I agree that we need an explanation for why not?

    As it happens, the 'heater' has been turned down slightly over the past decade or so, even though more and more 'windows' are being closed. Temperatures haven't dropped throughout that period, or else have done so very slightly. Once the heater gets turned on again, perhaps we will see a renewed and sharper rise?

    This is the worry.

  • Comment number 84.

    I disagree with your analogy of CO2 closing the windows, although it does adequately reflect the AGW view. Personally, I would liken the CO2 effect to that of a net curtain at the most with more probably, a football net size mesh. The window in my view, might possibly be the arctic/ice/albedo/SWV etc.
    The Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the planet and despite the complex and chaotic nature of the climate system, is doing exactly what one might expect thermodynamically. Hot goes to cold. The warming of the Arctic area and subsequent ice shrinkage allows for a greater release of energy from the oceans to the atmosphere and off into space.
    Of course there's only so far you can go with any analogy so I'll put this more simply. The sun heats the oceans and then the oceans dictate the atmospheric temps. Not sure that anything else is going to have enough oomph to change that relationship in the long term.

  • Comment number 85.

    I hate to use a WW2 analogy but perhaps the current position of mainstream politicians in general as regarding the Climate Scam science screams parallels with the totally fictional inventive mind of double agent Garbo who had Adolf Hitler and almost all the rest of the German high command believing everything he said regarding the invasion of France on D-Day !

  • Comment number 86.

    brossen99,

    I think we have definitely entered a "groupthink" situation as far as the "climate change" establishment is concerned.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
    I actually wouldn't go as far as saying it's a deliberate "scam", simply a collective inability amongst the proponents of "climate change", to even contemplate the possibility that they may be wrong. There is a fixation on the "science". How can they be wrong if "the science is settled" and the models, which of course are not neutral, say that they are right?
    Another way of describing it is the "herd mentality":
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality
    Who in a stampeding herd is going to stop and say "should we really be going this way?". If you do, you just get trampled on.

  • Comment number 87.

    lateintheday wrote:

    “The term 'denier' is pejorative and cannot be regarded as neutral in intent. It has no positive connotations whatsoever.”

    Why should it be neutral? If you can come up with a better word that describes people who deny the general conclusions of the world national scientific academies on climate science I’ll use it.

    lateintheday wrote:

    “yes - we are all individuals. (Monty Python)”

    As a Python fan I’m a bit bemused by your comment in response to someone who accepts the established scientific opinion. Surely denying it is more fitting for a Python sketch?

    ++++++++++++++++++

    LabMunkey wrote:

    “The very definition of an appeal to authorty.”

    Unfortunately you don’t understand the fallacy of Appeal to authority at all.

    Following your definition you can safely disregard the doctor who tells you that the red stuff spurting from a stump at the elbow is blood.

    Appeal to authority actually means using an authority to make a point even if they are unqualified in the subject the claim is about. Using Al Gore or Christopher Monckton as an expert on climate change would be using the fallacy of Appeal to authority.

    "Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy."
    http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm

    Using scientific academies who make statements on behalf of their climate studying members is not appealing to authority, it is quoting the best authorities we have on the subject.

    But if you think you know better ….

  • Comment number 88.

    QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “I don't think there are any rules regarding specific topics.”

    Thanks for saying that but Paul makes some good posts on his blog that deserve related comments. However it seems that most posts decline into a debate on climate change whether it is appropriate or not. In this case I’m very aware that my comments are facilitating exactly what I criticise.

    “"Do you disagree that calling someone who accepts the opinion of the position of the world’s scientific academies a ‘warmist’ IS rational?"
    Sorry, I can't get my head around what you mean by that.”

    Perhaps I didn’t explain myself particularly well. In the post “Deluge follows drought order” (message 67) you called me a ‘warmist’. When I said it would be more accurate to describe me – someone who accepts the position of the world’s scientific academies - a rationalist (message 86) you accused me of insulting you by implying you are not rational. So firstly you started the insulting but secondly, do you disagree that calling someone who accepts the position of the world’s scientific academies a ‘warmist’ IS rational? I’d suggest that is the most rational position for a non expert in the field to take and they don’t deserve to be called names because of it.

    “Not sure if I said it was better, but it is different, and provides a different perspective.”

    But if it isn’t the perspective that those researching the climate use then what value is it? Of course you are entitled to take any perspective you want but that just becomes your unqualified opinion and any sceptic wouldn’t accept it as comparable or even credible.

    "Why not say "climate change denier"?"

    Fair point. If I ever use the term 'climate denier' I mean 'climate change denier' – someone who denies/rejects at least some aspects of the general accepted scientific conclusions of published climate change science.

    “So are scientists never wrong? At one time, it was "rational" to believe that the sun went around the earth, and most scientists believed that.”

    And it would have been rational as non scientists to have believed that as well. It would have been irrational to have assumed something entirely different until the body of science tipped in favour of a different paradigm. If anything else was the case you would be just as rational to believe in creationism because a scientifically qualified minority does, or any other quackery you can think off.

    “You surely don't believe EVERYTHING that scientists say?”

    I certainly do not. I only believe in the generally accepted scientific theories. Every research paper published can add to our scientific understanding. If it confirms the prevailing theory then it adds to that body of evidence. If it contradicts the theory or is an original theory entirely then I find it interesting but it would not be rational to let one piece of research overturn established science. Better to wait until it is confirmed by other research and becomes the established theory – cold fusion is one example - interesting but yet to be scientifically accepted into the main stream.

    “.. for some reason, "climate scientists" are the only ones I don't genearally trust implicitly.”

    Why? The theory of ACC is now supported by many scientific disciplines and many lines of converging empirical evidence. The “climate scientists” are as qualified in their fields as any other researching scientists. The fact that just about every country's National Academy and most prestigious scientific organisations have made clear statements regarding climate change show that the worlds most qualified people trust the conclusions of this science. But not you?

    You are the closest on here to being a true sceptic that does not accept the prevailing scientific opinion. You have a genuine interest in the data but I honestly don’t understand how you reject the qualified conclusions based on the data.

  • Comment number 89.

    I would tend to agree with Lateintheday@84 although would add that from the 800,000 year ice core temperature reconstruction that the indication would be there is a natural feedback control opening and closing the window to maintain Earths temperature within a temperature band that is favourable to life.

    Within that timespan there have been far greater influences on the temperature that have been naturally corrected than mans carbon emissions.

    The CO2 scenario although looking to be scientifically sound, IMHO the modelled effects, as we have no empirical confirmation, are greatly exaggerated.
    Man definitely does have an influence on the planet and we should be looking at minimising that influence but CO2 is not the demon that it's made out to be.

  • Comment number 90.

    84. lateintheday wrote:

    "I would liken the CO2 effect to that of a net curtain at the most with more probably, a football net size mesh."

    I don't get this analogy, because CO2 intercepts 'outgoing' radiation, warming the atmosphere in a similar way to which closing a window warms a room. A net, like a mesh curtain, would reflect or absorb 'incoming radiation', having an overall cooling effect on the room.

    The melting of Arctic sea ice reduces the amount of UV energy reflected back into space from that area. It also allows for greater absorption and re-emission of energy from the oceans to the atmosphere. However this energy does not go directly 'off into space'. A large amount of it is first recycled by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    The more concentrated atmospheric greenhouse gases become, the more IR energy gets 'delayed' on its journey into space. This is the (admittedly imperfect) analogy of 'closing the windows'.

    So while it is true that the sun heats the oceans and that these drive much of the globe's climate, it is also the case that more IR energy is being re-emitted from the oceans to the atmosphere, and therefore more is being recycled in the atmosphere and re-radiated back down to the surface, including the ocean surface.

  • Comment number 91.

    #88 - Lazarus wrote:

    "Perhaps I didn’t explain myself particularly well. In the post “Deluge follows drought order” (message 67) you called me a ‘warmist’. When I said it would be more accurate to describe me – someone who accepts the position of the world’s scientific academies - a rationalist (message 86) you accused me of insulting you by implying you are not rational. So firstly you started the insulting but secondly, do you disagree that calling someone who accepts the position of the world’s scientific academies a ‘warmist’ IS rational? I’d suggest that is the most rational position for a non expert in the field to take and they don’t deserve to be called names because of it."
    I had no intention of insulting you by referring to you as a "warmist", but I do think the term is a good description of those who believe in AGW implicitly, and is more accurate than "climate denier", to describe those who don't.
    "But if it isn’t the perspective that those researching the climate use then what value is it? Of course you are entitled to take any perspective you want but that just becomes your unqualified opinion and any sceptic wouldn’t accept it as comparable or even credible."
    You seem to have a very restricted view of research. I may be "unqualified" but I don't see why any sceptic wouldn't accept it as credible. I can understand how any non-sceptics might NOT accept it, since it challenges their views. If your attitude were to be adopted then there would never be any novel research on any subject. You would have dismissed Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein and thousands of as "unqualified", although of course, I am not putting myself in the same category as them.
    I am having to split this into several parts due to size.

  • Comment number 92.

    Part 2
    #88 - Lazarus wrote:
    "If I ever use the term 'climate denier' I mean 'climate change denier' – someone who denies/rejects at least some aspects of the general accepted scientific conclusions of published climate change science."

    When I went to your blog, I found the term "climate denier" several times. I see that you have now changed this to "science deniers", "skeptics/deniers" or simply "deniers, but previously you seemed to prefer "climate deniers". I accept your word that when you use the term "climate deniers" you are not attempting to associate this with "holocaust deniers", but the term "climate deniers" is so widely used by those who support "climate change", that I can't believe it is a coincidence. Maybe you have just copied the others who use this term but I can't believe that you haven't realised before that the term is completely meaningless, in that in using it, you are saying that people are denying that the climate exists. Did you not realise that you were missing out a crucial word?

    "And it would have been rational as non scientists to have believed that as well. It would have been irrational to have assumed something entirely different until the body of science tipped in favour of a different paradigm. If anything else was the case you would be just as rational to believe in creationism because a scientifically qualified minority does, or any other quackery you can think off."

    So you only ever believe anything if it is the opinion of the majority of scientists? If that attitude is adopted, then there would never be any progress in science, since it would be assumed that there was no point in doing any new research.

    "I only believe in the generally accepted scientific theories. "
    Virtually EVERY theory is ultimately superseded by a better one, otherwise science would ossify.

  • Comment number 93.

    Part 3
    #88 - Lazarus wrote:
    "The theory of ACC is now supported by many scientific disciplines and many lines of converging empirical evidence. The “climate scientists” are as qualified in their fields as any other researching scientists. The fact that just about every country's National Academy and most prestigious scientific organisations have made clear statements regarding climate change show that the worlds most qualified people trust the conclusions of this science. But not you?"
    Myself and the majority of people, and a lot of qualified scientists too.
    I think one reason I don't trust "climate scientists" is that they appear to have a political agenda beyond their research. It may not be their fault. It may be the fault of the media and self-appointed spokespeople, but I don't see scientists rushing to dispel factual inaccuracies.

    "You are the closest on here to being a true sceptic that does not accept the prevailing scientific opinion. You have a genuine interest in the data but I honestly don’t understand how you reject the qualified conclusions based on the data."
    Because I see the obvious discrepancies between the conclusions and reality. In most cases, I accept the data but not the conclusions resulting from those data, as in the case of the paper which said that because heavy rainfall events had increased over the last 30 years, that must be due to "climate change". In that case, the figures were correct, but in my opinion the conclusions are incorrect. I also know enough about computer models to know that the outputs are not neutral, as is demonstrated by the general inaccuracy of their results.

  • Comment number 94.

    93. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "I think one reason I don't trust "climate scientists" is that they appear to have a political agenda beyond their research.."

    I think this may be a good point. The 'appearance' of a political agenda may be all that it is, in most cases, but nevertheless this has been sufficient to cause many people to dismiss AGW as a politically motivated hoax.

    It is also the case that, if true, then AGW has very profound implications for the lifestyles of those of us living in developed and developing countries. But if it's 'true', then it's 'true' and the scientists can only call it as they find it.

    Nicole Hodgson gave an interesting perspective on this problem in ABC's The Drum yestarday: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2778378.html

  • Comment number 95.

    newdwr54,

    "Nicole Hodgson gave an interesting perspective on this problem in ABC's The Drum yestarday: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2778378.html"

    Why is this article illustrated with an image of a city surrounded by parched ground?
    What is that supposed to illustrate? Which IPCC scenario predicts that will happen?

    If the truth is so obvious, I don't know why such people feel the need to continually attack the misguided sceptics, since the "truth" will become obvious in due course anyway. Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

  • Comment number 96.

    Quaesoveritas I will believe Man made global warming when I get evidence that it is true, I did believe it in 2006, but gained evidence since that it wasn't true. I don't believe the establishment on many things, Weapons of Mass destruction was one such argument, that they have been proofed wrong on and many more will follow. What happened to three months of barmy weather from the 1st of June onwards, weren't the met office behind that one. By the way I will turn the heater off in the room, as it is wasting energy and at this moment in time the sun is shining outside, it will safe on my carbon emissions.

  • Comment number 97.

    Newdwr54 says. . .'So while it is true that the sun heats the oceans and that these drive much of the globe's climate, it is also the case that more IR energy is being re-emitted from the oceans to the atmosphere, and therefore more is being recycled in the atmosphere and re-radiated back down to the surface, including the ocean surface."

    Water vapour, by dint of atomic population is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas on Earth. It absorbs and re-emits IR radiation at similar wavelengths to CO2.
    In your model, the oceans are continually re-heated through back radiation of IR rather than primary heating through UV wavelengths. It seems entirely possible that the warming of the oceans throughout the 20thC could be attributed to the increase and sustained high level of solar activity throughout the period. The subsequent release of IR from the oceans being gradual (controlled by weather/ENSO/seasons) and the eventual escape to space, slowed by the increases in water vapour rather than CO2.
    in the AGW view, any increase in solar activity should be fully compensated by our climate system over the length of each cycle. The step changes in temp suggest to me that this is not the case.

  • Comment number 98.

    • QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    “I do think the term (warmist) is a good description of those who believe in AGW implicitly”

    How could it be when I just accept the general science? If the science said anthropogenic emissions wont add to global temps or an ice age was coming, that is what I will accept – which means calling such a person a' warmist' somewhat misleading.

    “You seem to have a very restricted view of research.”

    Not at all. I’m a sceptic pure and simple. Any ‘research’ that hasn’t been peer reviewed can’t count for anything against research that is. Even then one piece of research that goes against generally accepted science, while interesting, no matter how thorough, can’t overturn a large body of research until that single piece is confirmed and changes the generally accepted science. That view isn’t ‘restricted’, it is the only rational view to take. In no way does such a view dismiss novel research in the way you claim it could.

    “ Maybe you have just copied the others who use this term but I can't believe that you haven't realised before that the term is completely meaningless, in that in using it, you are saying that people are denying that the climate exists. Did you not realise that you were missing out a crucial word?”

    Of course I have just copied others. You may think a crucial word is missing but I assumed it was implicit. I will try to be more thoughtful in future but perhaps you will consider your ‘warmist’ use as well?

    “So you only ever believe anything if it is the opinion of the majority of scientists? If that attitude is adopted, then there would never be any progress in science, since it would be assumed that there was no point in doing any new research.”

    You have made a logical jump too many to reach such a conclusion. As I said above such an attitude does not stop novel research. Research funding is not determined by such attitudes. But you have missed the point. Are you seriously saying you generally accept novel research that goes against scientific opinion? Do you believe in cold fusion? Lay lines? Telepathy? There have been positive peer reviews on all these but so far the evidence from any confirming research remains elusive. So I wont accept it until it is, but judging by your position it seems that you might.

    “Myself and the majority of people, and a lot of qualified scientists too.”

    I think you will find that it is only a sizeable minority of unqualified people. Most do not disbelieve in AGW AFAIK. How many is a ‘lot’ of qualified scientists? It is only reasonable to accept scientists with a track record in peer reviewed publication into climate related subjects. I doubt you can find a dozen such qualified scientists while there are thousands of researchers the world over.

    “I think one reason I don't trust "climate scientists" is that they appear to have a political agenda beyond their research. It may not be their fault. It may be the fault of the media and self-appointed spokespeople, but I don't see scientists rushing to dispel factual inaccuracies.”

    I only partly agree with this. The research has been hijacked by politics and politically influenced media. The research is as unbiased as any other including other contentious research like evolution, cloning, stem cell research etc. But the science remains clear – there are multiple independent lines of research all supporting the theory of anthropogenic induced global warming.

  • Comment number 99.

    97. lateintheday wrote:

    "In your model, the oceans are continually re-heated through back radiation of IR rather than primary heating through UV wavelengths."

    That's not what I said, with respect. What I said was that reduced Arctic Sea ice has opened up large areas of ocean to direct UV heating; whereas previously the ice had reflected this off into space.

    Some of that UV heat energy is absorbed by the ocean, some of it is radiated off to the atmosphere as IR heat energy. A large proportion of IR radiated off the ocean is absorbed by greenhouse gases, and effectively re-cycled as heat in the atmosphere before eventually escaping to space.

    Some of this IR is re-radiated back to the surface, including the ocean surface. In areas where the sea surface is colder than the atmosphere above it, some heat will be transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean surface. However, by far most ocean heating comes from direct UV radiation due to ice melt, and the more ocean that is exposed to UV, the more heat is absorbed.

    "It seems entirely possible that the warming of the oceans throughout the 20thC could be attributed to the increase and sustained high level of solar activity throughout the period."

    The IPCC report agreed that early-mid 20th century warming was mostly caused by increased solar input, however after 1960 this relationship breaks down. If late 20th and early 21st century warming is the result of heat trapped in the ocean during the early 20th century, this has never been demonstrated by any peer reviewed paper.

    The major 'step changes' in temperature since 1960 have all been rises. If solar output has been in decline since the late 1950s, then why hasn't there been a corresponding fall in temperatures?

  • Comment number 100.

    Just to elaborate on the last point above:

    If increased solar output was directly responsible for the near-immediate increase in global temperatures observed in the early part of the 20th century, then why wasn't there a near-immediate 'decline' in global temperatures when solar output decreased sharply post 1960?

    The idea that heat trapped in the oceans since the early 20th century has caused all the observed warming since 1960, when solar output declined, does not explain why temperatures appeared to rise directly in relation to increased solar input, but did not appear to fall directly in relation to decreased solar input.

    That is inconsistent.

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.