Climatologists

I was wondering if climatology is the new astrology, and if climatologists use tea-leaves or chicken entrails.

Was watching the BBC series "A year at Kew" (fuck off, I like plants, OK).

In summer 2006 they set about bolstering their tree collection to make up for losses during the 1987 storm and the hot summer of 05. The consulted with all the leading climatologists in the UK, who concluded.......

"you should buy lots of southern med, and north african trees because the UK will be having desert summers from now on, getting drier each year, because of global warming"

Fast forward 12 months, half the country is under water and the very same climatologists start saying "we're going to see more and more summer rain and flooding because of global warming"

Now, regardless of my own personal view that global warming is perfectly natural, (after all, the Thames stopped freezing 150 before the invention of the land-rover), with only a partial input from animal species (ie us, yes, we're a naturally occuring species and we have effects on our environment, it's funny that we defend every other species right to do this but chastise ourselves for it)......there is something wrong here.

One of the more concrete conclusions of chaos theory is that you can tell how accurate your weather forecasts is when you make it. Meteorologists and climatologists use a large array of different climatic models. When all the models consistently agree, the atmosphere is behaving in a linear and predictable manner, BUT if they all give different results, the atmosphere is being all non-linear and chaotic and no fucker knows what it's going to do next (they should SAY this on the weather forecast..."we're sure of this one" or "this is based on human intuition cos the computers are saying they're fucked if they know").

Clearly, if the story can change diametrically in 12 months, these guys should just admit they're pulling this shit out of their ringpieces or getting it off Septic Peg's star-line.

Yes

No need to drone on and on and on about it FFS!

Humans having been running around saying 'that's it, we're all going to die' for years. We're probably not.

I always think that people secretly admire the idea of us all going at the same time. Saves all that costly worrying about wills and grief and things.

What I've noticed is that many seem to be stuck on the present uprising in warming (i.e. "An Inconvient Truth"), but they fail to really look at climate on the whole in the very large picture. I think this is where the main discourse is within the science.

One thing I think is funny is how people really believe that breaking our dependence on oil will 'save the planet'. As if an other energy used won't add 'unnnatural' byproducts...

EdelBrock wrote: What I've noticed is that many seem to be stuck on the present uprising in warming (i.e. "An Inconvient Truth"), but they fail to really look at climate on the whole in the very large picture.

Uh, An Inconvenient Truth isn't just looking at a "current" uprising in warming, it's situating the climate trends of the industrial age within the global climate over the last 650,000 years.

One thing I think is funny is how people really believe that breaking our dependence on oil will 'save the planet'. As if an other energy used won't add 'unnatural' byproducts...

So what "unnatural" byproduct does wind energy add? What about wave energy-- what "unnatural" byproducts does that add? Geothermal? Solar? Energy conservation?

Doctor? wrote: Septic Peg's star-line.

Ah, good old Septic Peg - from the same man who brought us 'Its a PUPPET' nice!

As far as the climate thing - i dont know - i just look out my window & decide which jacket to wear.

Me kids still enjoy my Septic Peg impression tho' - even though they never saw the original (maybe BECAUSE they never saw it. . . )

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: What I've noticed is that many seem to be stuck on the present uprising in warming (i.e. "An Inconvient Truth"), but they fail to really look at climate on the whole in the very large picture.

Uh, An Inconvenient Truth isn't just looking at a "current" uprising in warming, it's situating the climate trends of the industrial age within the global climate over the last 650,000 years.

One thing I think is funny is how people really believe that breaking our dependence on oil will 'save the planet'. As if an other energy used won't add 'unnatural' byproducts...

So what "unnatural" byproduct does wind energy add? What about wave energy-- what "unnatural" byproducts does that add? Geothermal? Solar? Energy conservation?

Just for the sake of being awkward, what "unnatural" byroduct does fossil fuel produce? I mean, all that CO2 we're realeasing, where did it come from in the first place, ah yes, the very same atmosphere.

CuanaD - D-plus wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Septic Peg's star-line.

Ah, good old Septic Peg - from the same man who brought us 'Its a PUPPET' nice!

As far as the climate thing - i dont know - i just look out my window & decide which jacket to wear.

Me kids still enjoy my Septic Peg impression tho' - even though they never saw the original (maybe BECAUSE they never saw it. . . )

She

only talks like

that cos she's getting

£4.99

a ....................... min............ute.

Doctor? wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: What I've noticed is that many seem to be stuck on the present uprising in warming (i.e. "An Inconvient Truth"), but they fail to really look at climate on the whole in the very large picture.

Uh, An Inconvenient Truth isn't just looking at a "current" uprising in warming, it's situating the climate trends of the industrial age within the global climate over the last 650,000 years.

One thing I think is funny is how people really believe that breaking our dependence on oil will 'save the planet'. As if an other energy used won't add 'unnatural' byproducts...

So what "unnatural" byproduct does wind energy add? What about wave energy-- what "unnatural" byproducts does that add? Geothermal? Solar? Energy conservation?

Just for the sake of being awkward, what "unnatural" byroduct does fossil fuel produce? I mean, all that CO2 we're realeasing, where did it come from in the first place, ah yes, the very same atmosphere.

Edelweiss's quotes, not mine.

But to answer your question, it's the sequestered fossil carbon we're returning to the atmosphere that is increasing the carbon load of the atmosphere.

Yes, it came from the atmosphere...millions of years ago. And has been sequestered away from the atmosphere, as fossil carbon. Until now.

The thing is that us oxygemes are rather new rund here, so really we don't give a stuff for any "natural" condition of the planet, it's just "I'm alright jack".

They ought to invest money in turning down the sun if they really wanna make a difference.

Well, we could go back to the natural atmosphere that existed before cyanobacteria polluted the planet with all of that oxygen...But I don't think we'd like it very much.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: What I've noticed is that many seem to be stuck on the present uprising in warming (i.e. "An Inconvient Truth"), but they fail to really look at climate on the whole in the very large picture.

Uh, An Inconvenient Truth isn't just looking at a "current" uprising in warming, it's situating the climate trends of the industrial age within the global climate over the last 650,000 years.

One thing I think is funny is how people really believe that breaking our dependence on oil will 'save the planet'. As if an other energy used won't add 'unnatural' byproducts...

So what "unnatural" byproduct does wind energy add? What about wave energy-- what "unnatural" byproducts does that add? Geothermal? Solar? Energy conservation?

First off, 650,000 years may seem like alot to us, but not much to Earth history. Climates (or more correctly glaciations) take millions of years to get to and then change to inter-glaciations. Al glazes over alot of what is know in climatology and loves to hit more on just the recent Cenozoic period... which is a blip in Earth (climate) history. He talks little about feedbacks and the reality in that the climate is a difficult thing to predict... as chaos theory really is at play. He puts the Hollywood fear-factor into his movie and while none of his information is completely incorrect... he is only giving the amount to put fear into the public.

The 'unnatural' byproduct of any of these is the haressing of energy and using it elsewhere. Solar requires more solar panels, which impact the enviroment by taking away habitats to place these panels. The panels have poor albedo, so in essence we will be absorbing more heat from the sun, using more energy that would have been 'naturally' reflected from the Earth, thus heating the Earth more. This added energy is used to power many things that themselves create heat and impact the environment. Not to mention that solar panels are used to recharge batteries, which need mining to get the materials, and then we have the hazardous waste in their disposal. Each of these adds energy in an 'unnatural' way to the enviroments we surround. That we think we can live in and around an environment and not impact it is completely a pipe-dream.