The great cold snap of 2009/2010

[Craig 6700]

Was just about to post the same thing

 

....This striking image taken by Nasa's Terra satellite on 7 January shows the UK deep in the clutches of the current cold snap.

[Monkeys Fist 43076]

You only told us so you could cue that one up yourself.

Hate to disappoint.

Btw , darts not snooker.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok I'll stop.

[AgentAxeman 189]

 

 

Great pic!!

 

Global warming.......................... Yeah right..........................

[Happy Face 29]

Global warming.......................... Yeah right..........................

 

You might think the current weather conditions are almost Siberian – and you'd be right. Britain's most prolonged spell of freezing weather since 1981 is being caused by a huge mass of intensely cold air over north-east Russia, with easterly winds sweeping its glacial temperatures across northern Europe to the UK.

 

 

And just as in the 20th century's coldest ever winter in Britain, of 1962-63 – although not on such a severe scale – the cold is being held in place over the British Isles by what is known as a "blocking anti-cyclone", a static area of high pressure over Greenland which is preventing the usual warmer, damper westerly winds from reaching us across the Atlantic.

 

The present situation is known as an "Omega block" as it consists of two high-pressure systems which on a weather map resemble the two arms of the Greek letter Omega – the Greenland one, and the Siberian anti-cyclone itself (whose stillness and clear skies are causing its intense cold, as much as 48C below zero in some places).

 

So if it is the longest cold snap for 29 years, does that prove that the idea of global warming is a non-starter? Funnily enough, it doesn't. For once you look at current meteorological conditions across the whole world, a different picture emerges.

 

The map from the UK Met Office (it is the most recent one) shows a global picture of land surface temperature "anomalies" last week – that is, temperatures which are above or below the seasonal average. The shading from blue to black shows temperatures that are below the 1961-1990 average, while yellow through to red shows temperatures which are above it.

 

There, clearly marked in black, is the intense Siberian cold, with some readings of 10C below normal or even more, and you can follow the freeze westwards through Scandinavia to Britain, parts of which are shown as more than 3C below the norm.

 

But look at the rest of the world – in north-east America and Canada, in north Africa, across the Mediterranean, through to south-west Asia, temperatures are very much above normal – in many places by more than 5C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10C.

 

Closer to home, while we shivered yesterday, in Madrid the temperature was 10C against a seasonal average of 9C, and in Rome it was 13C, compared to an average of 11C. The weather's natural variability means it is impossible to draw long-term conclusions about a changing climate from any single episode, be it of hot, or cold.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...it-1858998.html

Edited January 8, 2010 by Happy Face

[AgentAxeman 189]

Global warming.......................... Yeah right..........................

 

You might think the current weather conditions are almost Siberian – and you'd be right. Britain's most prolonged spell of freezing weather since 1981 is being caused by a huge mass of intensely cold air over north-east Russia, with easterly winds sweeping its glacial temperatures across northern Europe to the UK.

 

 

And just as in the 20th century's coldest ever winter in Britain, of 1962-63 – although not on such a severe scale – the cold is being held in place over the British Isles by what is known as a "blocking anti-cyclone", a static area of high pressure over Greenland which is preventing the usual warmer, damper westerly winds from reaching us across the Atlantic.

 

The present situation is known as an "Omega block" as it consists of two high-pressure systems which on a weather map resemble the two arms of the Greek letter Omega – the Greenland one, and the Siberian anti-cyclone itself (whose stillness and clear skies are causing its intense cold, as much as 48C below zero in some places).

 

So if it is the longest cold snap for 29 years, does that prove that the idea of global warming is a non-starter? Funnily enough, it doesn't. For once you look at current meteorological conditions across the whole world, a different picture emerges.

 

The map from the UK Met Office (it is the most recent one) shows a global picture of land surface temperature "anomalies" last week – that is, temperatures which are above or below the seasonal average. The shading from blue to black shows temperatures that are below the 1961-1990 average, while yellow through to red shows temperatures which are above it.

 

There, clearly marked in black, is the intense Siberian cold, with some readings of 10C below normal or even more, and you can follow the freeze westwards through Scandinavia to Britain, parts of which are shown as more than 3C below the norm.

 

But look at the rest of the world – in north-east America and Canada, in north Africa, across the Mediterranean, through to south-west Asia, temperatures are very much above normal – in many places by more than 5C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10C.

 

Closer to home, while we shivered yesterday, in Madrid the temperature was 10C against a seasonal average of 9C, and in Rome it was 13C, compared to an average of 11C. The weather's natural variability means it is impossible to draw long-term conclusions about a changing climate from any single episode, be it of hot, or cold.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...it-1858998.html

 

pffffft, maybe they are having higher than normal temps in the places mentioned, but a lot of the world is having below average temps ie. here, china etc.........

 

so it all averages out.

 

justification journalism imo!

[Happy Face 29]

Global warming.......................... Yeah right..........................

 

You might think the current weather conditions are almost Siberian – and you'd be right. Britain's most prolonged spell of freezing weather since 1981 is being caused by a huge mass of intensely cold air over north-east Russia, with easterly winds sweeping its glacial temperatures across northern Europe to the UK.

 

 

And just as in the 20th century's coldest ever winter in Britain, of 1962-63 – although not on such a severe scale – the cold is being held in place over the British Isles by what is known as a "blocking anti-cyclone", a static area of high pressure over Greenland which is preventing the usual warmer, damper westerly winds from reaching us across the Atlantic.

 

The present situation is known as an "Omega block" as it consists of two high-pressure systems which on a weather map resemble the two arms of the Greek letter Omega – the Greenland one, and the Siberian anti-cyclone itself (whose stillness and clear skies are causing its intense cold, as much as 48C below zero in some places).

 

So if it is the longest cold snap for 29 years, does that prove that the idea of global warming is a non-starter? Funnily enough, it doesn't. For once you look at current meteorological conditions across the whole world, a different picture emerges.

 

The map from the UK Met Office (it is the most recent one) shows a global picture of land surface temperature "anomalies" last week – that is, temperatures which are above or below the seasonal average. The shading from blue to black shows temperatures that are below the 1961-1990 average, while yellow through to red shows temperatures which are above it.

 

There, clearly marked in black, is the intense Siberian cold, with some readings of 10C below normal or even more, and you can follow the freeze westwards through Scandinavia to Britain, parts of which are shown as more than 3C below the norm.

 

But look at the rest of the world – in north-east America and Canada, in north Africa, across the Mediterranean, through to south-west Asia, temperatures are very much above normal – in many places by more than 5C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10C.

 

Closer to home, while we shivered yesterday, in Madrid the temperature was 10C against a seasonal average of 9C, and in Rome it was 13C, compared to an average of 11C. The weather's natural variability means it is impossible to draw long-term conclusions about a changing climate from any single episode, be it of hot, or cold.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...it-1858998.html

 

pffffft, maybe they are having higher than normal temps in the places mentioned, but a lot of the world is having below average temps ie. here, china etc.........

 

so it all averages out.

 

justification journalism imo!

 

Yeah, your "It's cold = no global warming" rationalising is far more thought out than the met office's global research into warming trends.

 

Newcastle are top of the league so we must be a well run club.

[AgentAxeman 189]

Newcastle are top of the league so we must be a well run club.

 

 

you been listening to Dekka again??

 

na, still dont believe a tenth of the global warming crap we are being fed on a daily basis. dont forget, we as a nation were told 15yrs ago that bannanas would be growing wild in britain by now and has it happened?

 

there may well be some truth to global warming but ive yet to see anything conclusive. sure ive been told by a lot of politicians and scientists, but on the other hand theres just as many nay saying it.

 

christ, -9atm. cold this morning!!

 

[Craig 6700]

Global warming.......................... Yeah right..........................

 

The press have done a 'job' on you haven't they?

 

All the summits and conferences refer to it as 'climate change'. It's only in the media it gets referred to as 'global warming'.

 

Regardless it's all a load of bollocks anyway. Thousands of years ago this planet froze over - it'll no doubt happen again at some point in the future and no fucking bureaucrat in a suit telling us what we can and can't emit into the atmosphere is going to make a squat of difference.

 

I read an article a couple of weeks back that suggested the human responsibility of global CO2 emission is less than 25% - the rest is naturally produced. One of the biggest causes is methane from animal farts - pigs especially so shouldn't we simply deal with the problem and cull the pigs?

 

Or will we upset yet another bunch of environmentalists?

 

I'm not saying 'man' is entirely blameless. But we're by far and away not the only cause.

[Happy Face 29]

Newcastle are top of the league so we must be a well run club.

 

 

you been listening to Dekka again??

 

na, still dont believe a tenth of the global warming crap we are being fed on a daily basis. dont forget, we as a nation were told 15yrs ago that bannanas would be growing wild in britain by now and has it happened?

 

Source?

 

there may well be some truth to global warming but ive yet to see anything conclusive. sure ive been told by a lot of politicians and scientists, but on the other hand theres just as many nay saying it.

 

christ, -9atm. cold this morning!!

 

 

There's universal agreement on warming. The science is incontrovertible. I don't know how you can keep a straight face and suggest "just as many" deny it.

 

There is debate around how the trend will continue going forward, the cause, the methods that might be used to slow/reverse it and how dramatic our response should be.

[Holden McGroin 6785]

I was reading something a few weeks ago how we should all be veggies thus having a larger supply of methane gas.

[NJS 4411]

I read an article a couple of weeks back that suggested the human responsibility of global CO2 emission is less than 25% - the rest is naturally produced. One of the biggest causes is methane from animal farts - pigs especially so shouldn't we simply deal with the problem and cull the pigs?

 

Yes but the existence of domesticated animals is down to us so that isn't a get-out.

 

I think the thing that concerns people who are aware of climate cycles is that the earth has bounced back from all of the "natural" ones but theres no idea whether theres something different about man-made effects that could fuck it completely.

 

As for the current conditions it should be obvious but theres a difference between climate and weather - the last decade was still the warmest since the cliched records began.

[AgentAxeman 189]

Global warming.......................... Yeah right..........................

The press have done a 'job' on you haven't they?

 

 

Maybe Craig, Maybe....

[AgentAxeman 189]

I don't know how you can keep a straight face and suggest "just as many" deny it.

 

 

I can keep a straight face whilst suggesting that because.............

 

 

.............there ARE many scientist around the world who disagree.

 

 

admitedly, many of them are on the payroll of petrol companies!!

 

 

i tells ya, its just another big stick used by our socialist masters to implement the redistribution of wealth policy!

 

 

thought i would tag this on...

 

It's brass monkeys time as hell freezes over

 

Whatever they agreed at Copenhagen to tackle 'global warming' has obviously worked. It hasn't stopped snowing since.

 

Britain is experiencing its harshest winter in decades. Across the world, from the Far East to the U.S., it's the same story.

 

In America's Deep South, the Mississippi River is frozen solid and Florida has experienced record low temperatures. Yet the 'climate change' fanatics still insist that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the planet is getting hotter.

 

Britain may be in the grips of a freezing winter, but the song of the climate change campaigner has not fallen silent

 

The Met Office, which is little more than a full-time government-funded global warming pressure group, said this would be a mild winter - just as they predicted a 'barbecue summer' before much of Britain disappeared under flood water. They can't get the weather right from one day to the next.

 

But we are asked to believe their forecast for the next 60 years is 100 per cent accurate.

 

Ah, say the 'experts', there's a difference between 'weather' and 'climate'. They are forced to resort to semantics to sustain their insistence that the science is settled, even though they are all sitting there shivering like brass monkeys. They'd still cling to their belief in man-made warming if Hell froze over.

 

Even the BBC Trust is waking up to the idea there are two sides to every story and has belatedly ordered an inquiry into whether or not the Corporation's 'global warming' coverage is biased.

 

Let me save them the time, trouble and expense: yes, it is.

 

 

a bit off topic but nontheless relevent

Edited January 8, 2010 by AvatarAxeman

[Happy Face 29]

I read an article a couple of weeks back that suggested the human responsibility of global CO2 emission is less than 25% - the rest is naturally produced. One of the biggest causes is methane from animal farts - pigs especially so shouldn't we simply deal with the problem and cull the pigs?

 

Yes but the existence of domesticated animals is down to us so that isn't a get-out.

 

I think the thing that concerns people who are aware of climate cycles is that the earth has bounced back from all of the "natural" ones but theres no idea whether theres something different about man-made effects that could fuck it completely.

 

As for the current conditions it should be obvious but theres a difference between climate and weather - the last decade was still the warmest since the cliched records began.

 

The earth will survive, no matter what...at least as long as the Sun does. The human race on the other hand....

 

Strange to think that for all our claims of intelligence humans have only managed two hundred thousand years on this rock before looking like we're on the downhill slope. Even going back to the beginning of our evolution, we've only managed 6.5 million years since diverging genetically from Chimpanzees.

 

Sharks are still going strong after 420 million years! Dinosaurs lasted 165 million years before nature did for them.

[Lazarus 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[NJS 4411]

The earth will survive, no matter what...at least as long as the Sun does. The human race on the other hand....

 

Strange to think that for all our claims of intelligence humans have only managed two hundred thousand years on this rock before looking like we're on the downhill slope. Even going back to the beginning of our evolution, we've only managed 6.5 million years since diverging genetically from Chimpanzees.

 

Sharks are still going strong after 420 million years! Dinosaurs lasted 165 million years before nature did for them.

 

I first started to read up on evolution about 4 years ago, mainly so I could argue against creationists with confidence. Now though I find the whole subject absolutely fascinating and the timescales are probably the most mind-bogglling thing about it.

 

Despite all the shit, I generally feel "proud" of how far our species has come in the last 10k years but even then as you say that's only 5% of our total time which is fuck all compared with the full total.

 

I still expect us to be wiped out - whether by something we do or by nature which has proven before what a bastard it is - the only question is whether we escape the planet first.

[TheMoog 0]

The earth will survive, no matter what...at least as long as the Sun does. The human race on the other hand....

 

Strange to think that for all our claims of intelligence humans have only managed two hundred thousand years on this rock before looking like we're on the downhill slope. Even going back to the beginning of our evolution, we've only managed 6.5 million years since diverging genetically from Chimpanzees.

 

Sharks are still going strong after 420 million years! Dinosaurs lasted 165 million years before nature did for them.

 

I first started to read up on evolution about 4 years ago, mainly so I could argue against creationists with confidence. Now though I find the whole subject absolutely fascinating and the timescales are probably the most mind-bogglling thing about it.

 

Despite all the shit, I generally feel "proud" of how far our species has come in the last 10k years but even then as you say that's only 5% of our total time which is fuck all compared with the full total.

 

I still expect us to be wiped out - whether by something we do or by nature which has proven before what a bastard it is - the only question is whether we escape the planet first.

 

We need to get our ass to Mars

[Craig 6700]

I read an article a couple of weeks back that suggested the human responsibility of global CO2 emission is less than 25% - the rest is naturally produced. One of the biggest causes is methane from animal farts - pigs especially so shouldn't we simply deal with the problem and cull the pigs?

 

Yes but the existence of domesticated animals is down to us so that isn't a get-out.

 

I think the thing that concerns people who are aware of climate cycles is that the earth has bounced back from all of the "natural" ones but theres no idea whether theres something different about man-made effects that could fuck it completely.

 

As for the current conditions it should be obvious but theres a difference between climate and weather - the last decade was still the warmest since the cliched records began.

 

Pigs?

[NJS 4411]

Pigs?

 

Pigs are as man-made as chickens, cows and sheep.

 

I read a stat that claimed that before farming took off about 10k years ago humans and "our" animals made up 0.98% of vertebrates. Now that figure is 98%.

[Craig 6700]

Pigs?

 

Pigs are as man-made as chickens, cows and sheep.

 

I read a stat that claimed that before farming took off about 10k years ago humans and "our" animals made up 0.98% of vertebrates. Now that figure is 98%.

 

They're a derivative of wild boar.....

[Happy Face 29]

Pigs?

 

Pigs are as man-made as chickens, cows and sheep.

 

I read a stat that claimed that before farming took off about 10k years ago humans and "our" animals made up 0.98% of vertebrates. Now that figure is 98%.

 

They're a derivative of wild boar.....

 

By that rationale there's no man-made impact whatsoever because we're derivative of chimpanzee's.

 

Planet of the Apes was right

 

Damn You!! Damn you all to hell!

[Guest Stevie]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone dense to say how can we have global warming when it's -9 ootside. Oh dear.

 

Weather and climate are two separate things. You can have cold weather outside it's got nothing to do with the climate. The climate is studied over a long period of time, and over that period the temperature can go up and down, but the climate is studied over decades, and what is undeniable is that climate change has occured over the last 100 years, and has accelerated over the last 20 years, so the median temperature of the planet is nearly 1 degree c hotter than it was 100 years ago. What causes that is still inconclusive although it's more than likely a direct cause of man made emissions. I don't see how that is difficult to understand?

[NJS 4411]

Pigs?

 

Pigs are as man-made as chickens, cows and sheep.

 

I read a stat that claimed that before farming took off about 10k years ago humans and "our" animals made up 0.98% of vertebrates. Now that figure is 98%.

 

They're a derivative of wild boar.....

 

Yes but a couple of thousand wild boars running around the forests of England domesticated into a few million pigs is human intervention

[Guest Insider]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone dense to say how can we have global warming when it's -9 ootside. Oh dear.

 

Weather and climate are two separate things. You can have cold weather outside it's got nothing to do with the climate. The climate is studied over a long period of time, and over that period the temperature can go up and down, but the climate is studied over decades, and what is undeniable is that climate change has occured over the last 100 years, and has accelerated over the last 20 years, so the median temperature of the planet is nearly 1 degree c hotter than it was 100 years ago. What causes that is still inconclusive although it's more than likely a direct cause of man made emissions. I don't see how that is difficult to understand?

 

Bollocks imo

[Guest Stevie]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone dense to say how can we have global warming when it's -9 ootside. Oh dear.

 

Weather and climate are two separate things. You can have cold weather outside it's got nothing to do with the climate. The climate is studied over a long period of time, and over that period the temperature can go up and down, but the climate is studied over decades, and what is undeniable is that climate change has occured over the last 100 years, and has accelerated over the last 20 years, so the median temperature of the planet is nearly 1 degree c hotter than it was 100 years ago. What causes that is still inconclusive although it's more than likely a direct cause of man made emissions. I don't see how that is difficult to understand?

 

Bollocks imo

How have you come to reach that opinion, what factors do you think caused it and why?