Naturally. Global Warming has the unique ability to create everything from catastrophic cooling to warming to warts.
That makes a nice scary story. The poles are a great deal colder than the equator, for reasons that aren't going to change--cold water isn't going away. But I'm not in a position to comment on this particular boogeyman.
ts?
vin'
h of 31,000
al thousands of over 75 year-olds perished in Britain during the coldest wi nter for nearly 50 years "
But that's merely ad hominem. Whatever their inclination, are you saying the Telegraph actively lied about the official figures?
Prime Minister David Cameron was tonight urged to spend hundreds of million s of pounds insulating homes across the UK as official figures revealed 31,
000 people died because of the freezing weather last winter.
Official figures revealed so-called "excess winter deaths" rose 29 per cent in 2012-2013 to their highest level for four years.
Meanwhile, the BBC itself is hardly square. This internal audit is all about political correctness, gender equality, prominence, and prestige of sources, rather than scientific accuracy:
It you look at a distribution for long enough, you more extreme events than if you look at it over a shorter period. Anthropogenic global warming is p utting more water vapour into the atmosphere, making more energy available to drive even more extreme weather, and extreme weather events have become more common in recent years, to a statistically significant extent.
formatting link
That may be an American habit, but in the UK they are bit more careful.
formatting link
The bridge seems to have been built around 1700, but was widened in the 19t h century, and listed as grade 2 - presumably as an ancient monument - in 1
Nothing silly about it, when it's probably correct. You can never attribute any particular example of extreme weather to anthropogenic global warming, but the one degree Celcius of anthropogenic global warming we've had so far means that there's about 7% more water vapour in the atmosphere than there used to be. That's 7% more energy to drive extreme weather events, so you get more of them, and the more extreme ones are more likely than they used to be.
l thousands of over 75 year-olds perished in Britain during the coldest win ter for nearly 50 years "
No. The very best loonies deny that anthropogenic global warming is happeni ng at all.
I can't see that I've seen anybody predict that anthropogenic global warmin g would lead the kind of kill-the-dinosaurs extinction event that killed of f every land animal weighing more than a couple of kilograms.
The kind of company John Larkin keeps may include more seriously disturbed people than most - who else would put up with him - but the worst case scen ario for anthropogenic global warming would involve the complete destructio n of human agriculture, which is carefully designed to exploit the climate we've had for the last twelve thousand years, since the current interglacia l settled in.
That would produce a population crash, and perhaps the end of civilisation as we know it, but human evolution does seem to have been driven by the nee d to adapt to rapid swings between ice ages and interglacials, so the prosp ect that a few degrees of warming would be more lethal than the eight degre es of cooling you get from an interglacial to an ice age does seem a bit fa r-fetched.
Only John Larkin would be silly enough to set up this kind of strawman.
In a sufficiently small area - though "warts" does seem to be James Arthur intentionally trying to be funny. The fact that anthropogenic global warmin g makes it more likely that the Barrants and Kara Seas (north of Finland) w ill be ice-free means that the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Northern Fr ance are much more likely to see a lot of snow in winter.
The prediction was made in November 2010, just before a month or so of earl y heavy snowfalls a lot further south than usual, and was based an analysis of a few earlier severe winters - notably 1946-47, 1962-3 and 1978-79.
Because it's inconveniently plausible?
eets?
igh of 31,000
veal thousands of over 75 year-olds perished in Britain during the coldest winter for nearly 50 years "
What makes you think that Barclay twins qualify as human? The Daily Telegra ph has been a right-wing propaganda machine for as long as I've known it, a nd pointing out that it has a habit of publishing right-wing rubbish is a p erfectly legitimate observation.
The Telegraph's speciality was lying by omission. Inconvenient official fig ures tended not to get published.
ons of pounds insulating homes across the UK as official figures revealed 3
1,000 people died because of the freezing weather last winter.
nt in 2012-2013 to their highest level for four years.
UK science journalism is mostly rubbish. It's written by journalists who do n't know anything about science and are in no position to judge scientific accuracy, even if they understood what the phrase actually meant.
At least the BBC is non-partisan. The Murdoch media appear to prefer to pub lish denialist propaganda.
"New Scientist" does much better, purely because a lot of it's stuff gets w ritten by scientist. Dutch science journalism is infinitely better, because the papers uses journalists who have had a scientific education.
Nope. That's anomalous behavior, tell (whoever) to seek counseling. Radioactive decay was observed for many decades. and no 'sorts of patterns' in the randomness is evident in 'learned papers'. Unless you mean exponential diminution of the source? Do you think that is nonexistent?
I'm literate. Paper reminders (and substitutes in other media) are easily arranged.
The Torygraph is a newspaper that makes its /profits/ by whatever means it can - as do other newspaper businesses.
The Torygraph is more that capable of distorting anything it wants to. I gave one of the more subtle mechanisms above, and one that has the advantage that it allows the proprietors to "plausibly deny" they exert editorial influence.
Less subtle distortions include lying and lying by omission.
The Torygraph has long been known for this practice, as have other newspapers.
That implies the IPCC (and their shill Sloman) should be a bit humble about their wacky models that can never be proven correct, instead of preaching fear and extinction, in order to have us pay for CO2 to..., well, to whom actually?
Where did I mention the word 'climate' here above?
That's at least correct...
Those words are totally yours.
You don't even have to know a lot about climate just to see that what they are doing with their models is wrong. You can not predict a future that diverges from history with a model based on history alone.
That's what you pretend. In hard science however, if the results of n models differ in whole units from each other, it's generally accepted that at least n-1 models are wrong and that things are not yet enough understood.
But not in IPCC 'science'. There it's enough if you can show a scary graph giving the people a bogeyman to fear and preparing them to pay heavily for 'protection'.
That's the whole scheme played out here.
}snipped a lot of more Black+Mouthing (again){
It would if it were up to you, calling people names all the time. It shows a bad character and a bad personal education and a bad loser.
Joey Hey is in characteristics form. The IPCC doesn't own any climate model s.
If Joey Hey had taken the trouble to find out anything about the IPCC befor e slagging them off, he'd know that they exist to review the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and report on it to our political masters, via the U N.
The climate models are built and maintained by researchers, some working fo r universities, others for national meteorological centres. The UK has one
formatting link
arch
as does the US.
formatting link
The IPCC does exploit their published output (and the output from lots of o ther research organisations) but strictly as consumers, rather than owners.
The models aren't in the least "whacky". They can be proven useful - which is all you can expect of model that is simplified enough to be useful.
Joey Hey may be trying to flatter me by claiming that I'm somebody's "shill ". I get my information from exactly the same web as Joey Hey does (though I do know a bit more about what I'm looking for - as does pretty much every body, since Joey Hey is singularly ill-informed).
For someone who thinks he needs to bash some non-native English speaker around about every lingual mistakes he makes, this is quite a stupid error.
}snip{
Here's another one.
}snip{
How's this for style? It even hurts _my_ eyes.
}snip{
Courtesy and considerate behaviour have their place, but if James Arthur took them seriously, he wouldn't post as much pernicious nonsense...
Two things:
Courtesy and consideration have little to do with pernicious nonsense.
You don't seem to take courtesy and considerate behaviour very seriously in the first place.
}snipped some pernicious nonsense{
For an apparent native English speaker, you make some stupid mistakes that would make anyone who is in the slightest way a bit sensitive about courtesy and consideration a lot more humble in his totally unhelpful and counter-productive critique of non-native writers as soon as they make the slightest mistake.
Climate models chop the atmosphere in to manageable lumps, and each having a temperature, a wind-speed, a water vapour content,a CO2 level, a solar ra diation input, and infra-red radiation output, a water droplet content, and so forth and uses physics to model how such an atmosphere of discrete lump s would evolve. History does tell us which models work best, but the models are a physical models, not devices for extrapolating trends.
You certainly aren't worried enough to find out anything about what is actu ally being done, and are happy when the fruits of your rather sparse imagin ation 'confirm' everything you want to believe.
The pretense here is all yours. You pretend to know what you are talking ab out, but couldn't tell the difference between a Hadley Cell and and a Madde n-Jullian oscillation. One of them is 236 years ...
A remarkable generalisation, which could only be made by somebody of truly remarkable ignorance.
It isn't the IPCC's "science". They merely exist to review the science, and make it intelligible to politicians. In an ideal world, they'd make intell igible even to people of your limited intelligence and remarkably restricte d background knowledge, but in your case that would probably need a brain t ransplant.
Only in your conspiracy theory universe. Back in the real world, the IPCC i s just there to inform everybody, but particularly politicians. Nobody on t he IPCC gets a cent more if they do it better, or a cent less if they do it worse.
The people who are trying to influence public opinion are the fossil fuel e xtraction industry, who won't be able to make nearly as much money if we st op digging up fossil carbon and burning it as fuel. The fact that they give a lot of money to the "Merchants of Doubt" is a documented fact, and the m oronic ideas vented by half-wits like you is unfortunate evidence that the money is being spent to some effect.
You would like me to call you clever - but in order to earn that kind of na me you'd have to do something clever - like showing some sign that you had even an elementary understanding of the subjects that you pontificate about .
At the moment you merely recycle dim rubbish you seem to have soaked up fro m a down-market denialist web-site, which makes you a gullible half-wit.
So you think you are an expert on English style as well as climate science. Both misconceptions are gross self-flattery.
Exactly, Courteous and considerate people don't post pernicious nonsense, i f they have enough sense to recognise pernicious nonsense when they see it. You don't. James Arthur should be able to work out which parts of right-wi ng re-education sound like pernicious nonsense to everybody else.
I do. It's just that you don't recognise quite how pernicious your nonsense is.
Representative democracy requires you to pick the candidate who comes close st to representing your point of view. In the US you get to pick between tw o alternatives who might get elected, or you can waste your vote on somebod y who won't get elected.
Proportional representation gives you more flexibility. In Australia we hav e a "single transferable vote" system, which allows - and requires - you to put a sequence of numbers against the various candidates names. The "donke y vote" - about 10% - start at the top of the ballot paper and goes down to the bottom. while the "reverse donkey vote" - about 5% - start at the bott om and go up to the top.
In Australia, voting is compulsory, so John Larkin's attitude would cost hi m money (though not a lot).
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.