"Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss"

There's another couple of threads currently running about climate change, but they've strayed somewhat off topic.
Spotted this in the Grauniad yesterday:
"Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss
Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic- sea-ice-loss
Thoughts:
1) I know, it's the Grauniad
2) these are scientists, not greenies dressed up as scientists
3) I have no particular leanings either way on the climate change argument. Some people say the amount of sea ice has hardly changed, some say it's massively reduced. I don't know who to believe.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 05:40 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

I'm going with "weather is essentially random and has unpredictable extremes" until enough real scientists say otherwise.
Here you go:
http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=winter-history
very similar to March 1962 which of course preceeded the famous winter of 1963.
Another notable one from the same link:
"1849: April, great snowstorm hit Southern England. Coaches buried in drifts. Notably late snowfall."
So this winter is nothing that hasn't happened before - it's just the tip end of an extreme. So I call "bollocks" and "desparate to keep the [global warming] dream alive".
Ask again if we get several Marches like this in short succession :-o
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just what does a spell of British weather have to do with global climate?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 08:25 Bob Martin wrote in uk.d-i-y:

My point exactly!
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[Please could you snip your quotes? Thanks]

But it's not just in the UK that we're experiencing weather extremes, it's worldwide.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:01 Mike Tomlinson wrote in uk.d-i-y:

There's "climate change" and there're "fluctuations in weather sometimes hitting extremes".
I contend we are dealing with the latter until a majority or respectable meteorologists agree otherwise.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:12:01 AM UTC, Tim Watts wrote:

e?

The documanetry I saw a while ago put most of it down to an extra 4% in hum idity is what's causing the extremes. But the underlying trend, weather ;-) it be global warming or climate change does it realy matter if we can't do anything about it other than tax whatever they choose to blame.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:12:01 AM UTC, Tim Watts wrote:

Whoops. When I saw frozen spring I thought frozen well spring and thought that sounds interesting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/03/2013 11:12, Tim Watts wrote:

It may mean that we actually get weather more appropriate to our high latitude in a world that is on average globally warmer but not for us.

That can still be a sampling effect we get much better reporting of weather extremes now than we have had in previous decades.

It is impossible to tell from any single incident, but if it keeps on happening then I think you have to accept that the climate is changing. When "hundred year floods" occur every couple of years I think you have to pay attention to the risks of building new homes on flood plains.
Plenty of homes have been built on fields that locals knew were very dodgy but that doesn't help the incomers until they get wet feet.
BTW What happened to the uninsurable flood insurance showdown?

The vast majority of respectable meteorologists have long since agreed that global warming is a real effect and that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are responsible for driving it. It is hard to decide whether or not the warmer world will be stormier with more extremes or not. You can argue it either way from a physics point of view and either could be correct depending on the circumstances - thermal gradient from pole to equator will decrease as the poles warm faster but a warmer atmosphere will carry more water vapour and with it latent heat. Vertically there may be a steeper thermal gradient at some latitudes.
There is a rearguard action by US coal, Exxon and it's deniers for hire to prevent the general public hearing what scientists have to say. They honed their disinformation skills working for big tobacco manufacturing doubt to keep the suckers smoking. And it is a very effective tactic.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:31 Martin Brown wrote in uk.d-i-y:

With everyone talking bollocks and running with an agenda (both ways) how do *I* know who to believe? My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted out.
You say a majority of meteorologists agree that greenhouse gasses are driving climate change. Do you have a link or a book/paper that says so? I'm am prepared at this stage to read something thick if I have to.
I hear equally convincing 3rd parties claiming both arguments...
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/03/2013 11:44, Tim Watts wrote:

The logically way is to ignore the arguments as none of them can be proven as the system is chaotic and the data is poor.
This means reacting to what is really happening, like insulate your house to save money as energy prices rise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/03/2013 13:21, dennis@home wrote:

Very well put.
Andy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/03/2013 2:26 PM, Andy Champ wrote:

+1
--
Learn why we are suffering..
www.zeitgeistthefilm.com/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 13:21 dennis@home wrote in uk.d-i-y:

+1

Indeed.
From the UKIP energy document I posted a link to earlier:
"The 2008 Climate Change Act: This Act is one of the most expensive ever passed in peace time, threatening costs of £18 billion a year for forty years. We must repeal this Act as it underpins all these damaging taxes and red tape policies."
Now - that is one claim I'd like to research in detail. Seems a bit "headliney". But if it is true, let's see what else we could do with 18 billion in one year.
Cost of triple glazing a house - dunno for sure, but if we run on a double glazing job is perhaps £10k for an average house and triple is 50% more, then we could re-glaze 1.2 million aaverage houses in a year.
In 18 years we could have the whole country done.
Assume perhaps we target all single glazed houses - and make it a grant system where everyone gets some fraction, enough to induce most people to do it and put the difference into free roof insulation and grants for "difficult" roofs that may need celotex between the rafters.
Then perhaps wall lining for solid wall houses.
And keep going in the order of best return at the instant.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

re

ey

ng

how

nd

e
,
No. The same believers, in league with a whole host of Nimbys will fight tooth and nail to not allow double glazing of listed buildings, etc. So we also need to legislate to charge an extra 50% on their energy bills.

do

See above.

See above.

See above :-(
MBQ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/03/13 14:50, Tim Watts wrote:

BUT it wouldn't save as much energy as building a nuclear power station for that money would generate.
picking the low hanging fruit of wildly lossy houses and grossly gas guzzling cars is easy. But there comes a point where there are only slim pickings left. My house is already pretty well insulated and short of heat recovery ventilation and a massively expensive heatpump installation its hard to know how to save more.
we may be able to shave 30% off energy use. Maybe 50%, but that's it.
If that costs more than building an entire fleet of nuclear shit that will run the whole grid - 30% of our energy goes into the grid - we are achieving less for more cost.

well put double glazing at the bottom. This house is fully compliant with 2001 insulation standards and it was built single glazed. It is packed the the gills with rockwool and celotex tho.
Draughtproof first, the loft insulation, then cavity wall, then boiler upgrade, then insulate the ground floor.
Only when you have done that is it worth double glazing -0 and a set of heavy triple lined curtains does more and costs less, anyway.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/03/2013 11:44, Tim Watts wrote:

The best the IPCC managed was to ask loaded questions, then use very broad categories, rather than actual percentages of responses, to try to imply that the answers to them showed that the majority of scientists agreed. Reading the results carefully, I am inclined to think that about 2 out of 3 of the contributors were willing to concede that human activity may have had some, unquantified and not necessarily significant, effect on the climate.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/03/13 13:47, Nightjar wrote:

Hell even I will concede that the effect of human activities on climate is non zero. I'll even admit there is a certainty that excess CO2 in the atmosphere will make a small difference as well. As will the fart that my dog has just let off.
But that's a far cry from blaming the future of the entire planet on him fr nicking that catfood.
Enron and Gore started this going to sell GAS instead of COAL. they freaked a bit at windmills till they realised
- windmills dont reduce the need for fossil fuel - windmills work better with gas, anyway.
And the best way to disguise the fact that it was all dreamed up for profit by fossil fuel companies was to claim that anyone who opposed it was funded by fossil fuel companies for profit.
So you bunged a few million to greenpeace, FOE, renewable energy/climate research this that an the other. To generate a steady stream of 'on message' articles all peer reviewed by your eco chums. Its all blindsiding. The important thing as to ensure everybody used more GAS.
So, attack coal attack nuclear and attack oil, and gouge away>
The russians recognised it immediately. They have lots of GAS. Great. They are master propagandists. It's their old CND network that is the greenpeace and FOE of today. Yes, that's the one that told you that reactors are atomic bombs waiting to happen, that nuclear power is just another name for nuclear weapons, that atomic fallout would destroy all life on the planet and there was no such thing as a safe level of radiation. Is it a coincidence that the Guardians financial decline started at the same time the USSR disintegrated?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:37:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think that the effect of humans on this planet is vastly overimagined, when you consider how long the planet has been here.
Age of planet: 4,500,000,000 years ago. Life on earth: 3,800,000,000 years ago (apprx). Mankinds industrial age: 300 years ago.
So you are asking me to believe that *one* species, can lay waste to a planet in 3,800,000,000 / 300 years ? I certainly believe that one species can lay waste to *itself* in that time, but that's not "climate change".
The climate changes all the time. 2,000 years ago the Romans grew white grapes in Yorkshire. Try doing that now. 300 years ago the Thames froze over *every* winter. 10,000 years ago you could walk from Spain to Scotland - and we know people did. Try that now.
Even the experts admit climate change is truly chaotic. Which means you can't factor in or out anything mankind does.
Incidentally, there is NOTHING wrong with wanting to live in a more sustainable way. It's something we should be putting all our effort into. Not because of climate change though. Just because it's more sensible in the long run.
One day, someone will write a book, or make a film. It will start with the idealism and hope after the second world war. It will chart how well meaning, sincere folk started to realise that we can't just rape the planet and not pay. These evolved into the counterculture of the 60s, which were derided, mocked and ridiculed by mainstream society.
Then, somewhere between the 60s, and the 90s, a sort of critical mass was reached - maybe the 1984/5 Band-Aid/Live-Aid phenomenon ? Either way, somehow, people in suits with wire-rimmed glasses and red braces had an epiphany. They realised you could actually SELL being green. You could slap the word "organic" on a food and double the price. So they did.
What was brilliant about this, was that it was the environmentalists that were effectively paying for the marketing. Every Greenpeace ad about the environment would see a jump in sales of "Eco" this, and "Green" that.
And our lords and masters looked upon this, and they saw it was good.
And thus it came to pass that the 1980s misbred young executives that were heavily advertised became the advisers and policy consultants of the 90s.
And lo verily, did the notion of "Green taxes" be dreamt up. For they did see, that whilst Joe Public might be narked about an extra penny on income tax, the same Joe Public would queue up to "save the planet".
I'm sorry, but personally I think the worlds public have been hoodwinked on a massive scale. "Green energy" is a good example. It's doing fuck all for the planet (in fact it's a net carbon contributor) but it's doing wonders for the firms that build the kit, and wonders for the upper- middle classes who actually get paid up to 40p/unit for the electricity that they put into the grid which is charged at 10p/unit.
Everyday I see many small things that could save a shed load of energy. Very simple things. But guess what ? There's no money in it for anyone, so it's ignored. Which leads me to my view of life. "If it *really* mattered ..."
If reducing emissions *really* mattered, you'd have a planning and tax system which encouraged work from home, and staggered working hours. That would cost very little, but - guess what ? No money in it. In fact you'll find behind the scenes the road and rail lobby would HATE any idea like that. So it's left alone.
When the government *acts* like it matters, then I will.
What I find particularly depressing, is people who are a victim of bad science in one area, appear to be willing to fall for it in another.
I manage to avoid long debates on climate change now, by just saying: "Define climate. Define change".
FWIW I have a more Gaian view of things. We live in a symbiosis with everything on earth, including the Earth. And just like a body with an infection, if we start to make the Earth poorly, then it's immune system will start to kick in to eradicate us. Or, alternatively, like a cell about to divide, we somehow manage to become 2 cells. But that requires interplanetary travel on a scale way beyond out capabilities. Especially if our offspring are more content to watch Celebrity Big Brother rather than design a better mousetrap.
Here endeth the rant for today
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/03/13 15:46, Jethro_uk wrote: . 10,000 years ago you could walk from Spain to

I reckon that's going to happen if this eurobollocks goes on much longer.
they will have to walk,. we wont be able to afford to drive em.

But not at any cost.

not much to disagree with.
Especially about the establishment looking at the radical movements of the 60's not with fear, but with profit in mind. I lived it and I saw it happening.
Not that I was politically active then, but those that were..got hoodwinked royally.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.