England’s first ever red warning for extreme heat on Monday and Tuesday.

[Baloo]

Not quite sure where he contradicts what I'm saying. He says that the likelihood of extreme weather is growing at a worrying rate.

That's what makes climate change such a worrying issue and one that I hope we get on top of.

Well, he also seems to be linking the current record high temperatures directly to climate change. Which I understood you thought was poor science.

[Doucas]

I haven't argued against climate change. It's the correlation to the man-made hypothesis that I query. I also made a comment previously in this thread re. the real dangers to the planet - pollution, litter, plastic, widespread insect loss. All these will wreck the planet in the next decade but it doesn't concern climate activists and politicians as they head off for yet another climate change summit in their jets.

So do you not think Co2 causes a greenhouse effect? Why not?

[A Quiet Monkfish]

All those things you mention concern climate scientists though?

What makes you think climate change isn’t a real danger to the planet?

What’s your evidence it isn’t man made? Do you think the exponential increase of temperatures the like of which have never been seen post industrial revolution is just a coincidence?

What's the evidence it's man made ? And the 'exponential' increase you refer to is something like 1 degree in 220 years.

[chrisp_1927]

Well, he also seems to be linking the current record high temperatures directly to climate change. Which I understood you thought was poor science.

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.

[lardy]

I haven't argued against climate change. It's the correlation to the man-made hypothesis that I query. I also made a comment previously in this thread re. the real dangers to the planet - pollution, litter, plastic, widespread insect loss. All these will wreck the planet in the next decade but it doesn't concern climate activists and politicians as they head off for yet another climate change summit in their jets.

It's just so strange to me that you can list a number of things that are man made threats to the planet but be so confident that climate change isn't one of them.

[lardy]

What's the evidence it's man made ? And the 'exponential' increase you refer to is something like 1 degree in 220 years.

Where is the evidence that widespread insect loss is man made?

And if it isn't, what can we do about it?

[chrisp_1927]

You’re just being deliberately obtuse. Today is another point on that pattern, the fact today is happening is driven by climate change.

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.

[rudy gestede]

What's the evidence it's man made ? And the 'exponential' increase you refer to is something like 1 degree in 220 years.

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?

[rudy gestede]

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.

Because you’re trying to say today isn’t caused by climate change when it is and there is plenty of evidence to make that claim.

[chrisp_1927]

Because you’re trying to say today isn’t caused by climate change when it is and there is plenty of evidence to make that claim.

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.

[Baloo]

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 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.

[chrisp_1927]

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.

[Baloo]

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.

Yes, I think we all understand the distinction between days and trends, even the Met Office scientist who started blabbering-on about climate change over "something and nothing".

[rudy gestede]

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.

But no one is proving it over a two day sample it’s the latest list in things caused by climate change.

If it was just today and nothing else it wouldn’t be “good science” but it isn’t it’s the latest outlier in years of outliers.

[Wash DC Blue]

Be thankful it's not snowing.
Imagine trying to shovel snow in this heat!

[chrisp_1927]

But no one is proving it over a two day sample it’s the latest list in things caused by climate change.

If it was just today and nothing else it wouldn’t be “good science” but it isn’t it’s the latest outlier in years of outliers.

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.

[chrisp_1927]

Yes, I think we all understand the distinction between days and trends, even the Met Office scientist who started blabbering-on about climate change over "something and nothing".

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.

[Baloo]

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.

I really didn't accuse you of that. I've said a number of times that I simply responded to your reference to 'poor science'. It really is as simple as that but we keep skirting around it. Anyway, let's move on.

[Rjk]

What's the evidence it's man made ? And the 'exponential' increase you refer to is something like 1 degree in 220 years.

there is lots of evidence that it is man made? do you genuinely not know what it is?

[bobh]

Be thankful it's not snowing.
Imagine trying to shovel snow in this heat!

Finally a sensible post.
Who'd have thought a thread about the weather would turn out to be a 15-pager (so far!)

[chrisp_1927]

I really didn't accuse you of that. I've said a number of times that I simply responded to your reference to 'poor science'. It really is as simple as that. Anyway, let's move on.

Agreed, was bad wording on my part tbf.

[JamesWales]

Finally a sensible post.
Who'd have thought a thread about the weather would turn out to be a 15-pager (so far!)

With these kind of threads, I find that when it rains, it pours.

[rudy gestede]

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

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Finally a sensible post.
Who'd have thought a thread about the weather would turn out to be a 15-pager (so far!)

Threads on the weather have been getting longer and longer. This one may, might, could, be a record. Before 1999 there were NO threads about the weather.

Are these threads a result of man made activity ? I'd say so..

[rudy gestede]

People love a drama, and the past two weeks the media, politicians, etc. have been acting like the big drama queens they are. Next they'll be painting red crosses on our doors and have bin men come road calling for the dead - then again they'll probably leave them in the gutter for being put in the wrong colour coffin..

3rd of March 2020 says anyone worrying is a drama queen

Ah, yes, we'll be back to Brexit and the 17 million of us who were duped next.

Probably doesn't apply to you because I think from what you said some time back, you used to work in the Patent office/ONS [???] - forgive me if I'm wrong - but as it stands the FTSE has lost 30% in the last 4 weeks. If people with personal pensions were buying annuities today they could have lost 30% of their pension fund. Why ? because everyone runs around making a huge drama, coming across all serious like they're Churchill in 1940, when the reality is 6 people have died in the UK in the past month - all from other complications.

4th March 2020 compares it to brexit

If “A Quiet Nostradamus” is sticking to form I can only assume the sun will engulf is about this time next week