+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Maybe you read it differently to me. But my reading of it he appears to be saying that climate change makes these events more likely to happen. He doesn't say that today is 100% climate change, he says that climate change makes it probable we will experience lots of days like this.
I didn't blow this point up, yourself and rudy decided to seize on it. I can't see where what I said is that far different from the article you link. Trends show climate change is real, not an individual day or 2. Those trends are happening.
I'm not being obtuse. I made a simple distinction between individual days and trends.
I hate analogies, but here's one anyway.
The sea wall and railway track at Dawlish has been smashed to pieces semi regularly for over a hundred years. If you picked one of the recent destructions at random it wouldn't really show anything out of the ordinary as it's happened through history. The strong proof that the climate is changing is the regularity with which it is now being destroyed.
I can't for the life of me work out why you have such an issue with what I'm saying. We're both in agreement that climate change is happening.
No it’s massively outside the average temperatures we saw throughout most of history. There was a step change after the start of the industrial revolution.
The Earth heated up and cooled down prior to that but it was within a limit mostly caused by the slight changes in the earth’s position in its orbit.
What evidence do you want to see, it can be seen on plenty of charts or in the individual data points.
What makes you think it isn’t man made?
Maybe I could have been clearer, my writing style is not the best and it's compounded by trying to type quickly whilst on the train. But I emphatically did not say that today is not due to climate change. In my first message i said it could be or could not be, but that the trends suggest we are in for much more extreme weather like this.
In my second message I was more explicit and said i thought it was highly likely that today was caused by climate change but we can't be 100% sure. My point really was just that an individual event can't be judged on its own, it's the accumulation of them that is the strong proof.
The reason I make this point is because the deniers are always quick to jump on a run of mild days to proclaim their 'what climate change ' nonsense' whilst completing disregarding the trends that show we are heating up. Just think it's important not to fall into the dame habits as them by proclaiming the importance of an individual day or 2.
I do read it a bit differently and I think we're getting into semantics now. I was really just querying why you felt the need to dismiss the association between the current short-term record temperatures and climate change as "poor science", when an eminent Met Office scientist is, it seems, drawing precisely the same links.
I think it's actually poor science to demand it's 100% proven before connecting the two as I don't think that is actually how science works. Experts in the field researched it, predicted it and it's now happening. That's really where we are and why we're talking about it in this way I think.
I'm making the distinction between individual days and trends. That's the same as your guy in the article is doing. It's the accumulation of record days that are worrying. 1 or 2 hot days is something and nothing, the fact they keep happening is the worry.
I'm not demanding it's 100% proven, I was pointing out that it can't be proven over a 2 day sample. The semantics are not coming from me, my point had remained the same. You have decided you disagree with what I'm saying despite the fact that we actually agree.
Be thankful it's not snowing.
Imagine trying to shovel snow in this heat!
The scientists aren't suggesting it's proven over 2 days, but lots of armchair commentators and a few idiots on the news are. That was literally my point, that I disagree with people who hold up 2 days as proof. I fully accept the scientific concensus, I've never suggested otherwise. I can't for the life of me understand why the 2 of you are so determined to jump all over this.
You obviously don't. Because I've never once said I don't believe in the scientific concensus that climate change is real and happening. My one and only point was that 2 days are not the proof.
The blabbering on point you make is quite frankly pathetic. It was an interesting article, it's not his or my fault that you don't understand it.
Anyway, I'm out. Because I can't for the life of me actually understand where the point of difference between us is.
It’s funny that the comments on the daily mail website parrot the poor points being made in here:
It’s just 2 days
It’s called summer stop moaning
Have you ever been to Benidorm it’s warm there
The earth has always got hotter and colder
No evidence it’s man made