"Children will never again see snow"

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Interestingly, in spite of what happened in the UK last January and is happening again now, 2010 is shaping up to be one of the warmest years on record. For the planet, that is, not for the UK. There's a reason why they call it Global Warming!

Dave P.

Quite so - the whole issues is about what is happenng to the climate on a planetary scale , local issues like it being slightly colder than usual in the uk are irrelevant.

Some GW scenarios have the odden feature melting / not reforming, and if that were to happen the UK would lose the gulfstream and be significantly colder ( a climate about like labrador) as a result - but that wouldnt mean that GW wasnt happening

[Dorts]

Few people go against the idea that the planet is in a warming phase, it has been since the end of the last Ice-age, about 10-15,000 years ago. There have of course been fluctuations of mini ice-ages and warming periods since that time.
Nothing that is happening at the moment is alarming and there is nothing to suggest that it will change drastically in the future. As I said earlier, over the last century or so we have experienced a warming of 0.6 to 0.7 degrees C, or thereabouts. Where the argument lies is with co2 and the effect that man-made emmisions may have on our climate.

The human component of greenhouse warming (which has been worked out many times by many scientists), is just 0.1 degree Fahrenheit or one tenth of one degree. So our contribution to the total greenhouse effect is very small. The large exchanges of carbon that take place in nature dwarf the human contribution.

As the 31,000 plus scientists who signed the Protest Petition have stated,
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”

Most of what has been stated by climate scientists who agree with AGW appears from my research, to be based on a very narrow view of the factors that determine our climate, whereas those who are slightly more sceptical seem to have a much broader view of things.

I have always been of the opinion that you should never make up you mind about anything until you have the maximum amount of information available.
Global Warming scientists have been telling us for some years now that the 'debate is over,and the facts are in'. What a load of clap-trap. Science, exploration, research, development and invention would all come to an end if such a ridiculous view about anything were ever to be taken seriously.
Dorts.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Dorts

Where the argument lies is with co2 and the effect that man-made emmisions may have on our climate.

So basically your entire reason for ridiculing the prediction of Dr Viner (and your reason for starting this thread), is that you personally disagree with the view that CO2, and presumably other emissions are a potential problem?

My opinion would be that if there is even the slightest possibility that CO2 (and other) emissions may have an adverse effect then we should act on this and do what we can to reduce emissions - even if this action does come at a cost. The same is true of all other effects that humans are having on the planet.
The "it may be beneficial" argument doesn't have any relevance in my opinion (and sound more like an attempt to get out of doing something). There are a lot of things that humans could do that may be beneficial to other organisms, but it is unlikely that these benefits will be felt by all organisms.

In reality what we should be doing is trying to make sure that all of our actions have as little effect as possible.

[rossy]

absolute codswallop, children will never see snow again, and as for climate change, thats another load of tosh, and dont give me they can predict long range weather forecasts, they cant predict the correct forecast for the next day, example, TODAY will be mainly fine, what happend it snowed for 3 hrs, good call when someone put , their minds get frazzled, scientists that is, the problem is people are like sheep and are brainwashed, or easily led, and listen to these clowns, bit like the people who run the country, and how many porkies have they telling, nothing will change my mind on this matter , but in 100 years the same debate will still be ongoing i dare say, rossy

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by RoyW

So basically your entire reason for ridiculing the prediction of Dr Viner (and your reason for starting this thread), is that you personally disagree with the view that CO2, and presumably other emissions are a potential problem?

My opinion would be that if there is even the slightest possibility that CO2 (and other) emissions may have an adverse effect then we should act on this and do what we can to reduce emissions - even if this action does come at a cost. The same is true of all other effects that humans are having on the planet.
The "it may be beneficial" argument doesn't have any relevance in my opinion (and sound more like an attempt to get out of doing something). There are a lot of things that humans could do that may be beneficial to other organisms, but it is unlikely that these benefits will be felt by all organisms.

In reality what we should be doing is trying to make sure that all of our actions have as little effect as possible.

Roy. My main reason for starting this thread and questioning Dr. Viners statement is that if experts are to continue to make such sweeping statements, as for example 'Children will never see snow again' or 'next winter will be mild' ( Met. Office, summer 2009) to name just two of very many, they cannot then expect us to take them seriously when they claim that due to increased man-made co2 emmisions, our climate is heading for catastrophy.
Also I enjoy the opportunity to debate such issues that WAB offers.

Dorts.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Dorts

..... starting this thread and questioning Dr. Viners statement is that if experts are to continue to make such sweeping statements, as for example 'Children will never see snow again' ............

That's not actually what you quoted originally:

"Climate expert Dr David Viner, ........ made the expert prediction that snow would soon become a “rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said."

There is an intrinsic difficulty with quoting from nespapers - reporters want to keep things simple so they reduce all science to their own minimal levels of understanding.

In fact the stratement that snow will become a rarity to children has become increasingly true for the half a century that I remember. In my childhood (1950s, early '60s) snow occurred annually, it extended over several weeks and it was often very heavy. The occurrence of snow declined thereafter and my children only saw one major snowfall in the late 1980s. After that they saw the odd half day of sleet and occasional dusting of powder. Snow, to them, was in fact a 'rare and exciting event'!

So, if you're going to quote newspaper reports, take them with a pinch of salt. If you want scientific exactitude go to the papers, reports and data ....

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Dorts

............
The human component of greenhouse warming (which has been worked out many times by many scientists), is just 0.1 degree Fahrenheit or one tenth of one degree. .....................

Why the sudden switch to degrees Fahrenheit? Quoting from a USAmerican source?

[STYRBJORN]

The land area of the UK is 0.1% of the total land area of the planet. What happens here is of nugatory importance in the global picture.
Climate data are based on the international recording stations set up by the British Meteorological Office in 1850. A 160 year baseline is more than "a few years figures."

[brendaward]

Nobody can make an accurate prediction of what mother nature will do. She is unpredictable and does not always conform to mathematical equations.

[bigdave60dog]

Ok, So here`s a theory for you.
The "Gulf Stream" flows from the Gulf of Mexico and warms up our shores. If it did not do that we would have similar weather to Labrador or thereabouts. As it travels water evaporates from the solution thus increasing salinity. The increased salinity causes the water to "sink" to the sea bed where it makes it`s way in the opposite direction back to the Gulf whence it came. Just like a conveyor belt.That much is established fact.
Whatt if the water from the melting ice in Greenland, Icelandd and the other "lands" where ice is melting reduced the salinity enough to stop the Water "sinking". Would that slow down the Gulf Stream thus causing us to have colder winters?
Dave