Met Office: Climate change made UK’s wet winter in 2013/4 7x more likely

[Catacol]

 

Where did you get that from?

 

The headline is indeed off, but that's an issue that is a serious pain within science journalism, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to bash climate scientists, just as we don't use the Express weather headlines to say the science of meteorology is a scam.

 

 

 

From the link knocker posted.

 

I agree with this. Science journalism can be its own worst enemy. They need to employ better wordsmiths than is sometimes the case.

 

Actually I wasnt bashing climate science - just the reporting. And the fact that the reporting leads to headlines that are not far from the Express headlines we all despise is a problem.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Catacol_Highlander

[BornFromTheVoid]

But what is reasonable to you, is not necessarily reasonable to everyone else. In general terms I agree with you - we dont want outlandish nonsense peddled on forum boards as thinly disguised attempts at subtle trolling or baiting - but at the same time we dont want the thought police dictating what is reasonable and what isnt. Your comment way up this thread was harsh. RJS posts much that is very reasonable on here - and his methods may not be to your liking. But that isnt a reason to drop the shoulder...

 

Anyone care to comment on the headline or article that was the initial topic here? 

 

So would it be reasonable for me to not read your post, then attack your character using political arguments and conspiracy theories, as long as what I said sounded vaguely reasonable?

[DAVID SNOW]

 

Where did you get that from?

 

The headline is indeed off, but that's an issue that is a serious pain within science journalism, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to bash climate scientists, just as we don't use the Express weather headlines to say the science of meteorology is a scam.

 

The study appears to show a 7 times increased likelihood on extreme 10 day rainfall events, not seasonal events. From the study itself:

 

However, a minor

(not statistically significant) shift to wetter conditions

due to anthropogenic forcings is identified for R10x,

translating to an increase in the chances of getting an

extreme event by a factor of about seven. No change

in the likelihood is found for DJF

 

 

Not a great start to anything if the "headline is indeed off"                      

 

if the 'experts'  cant even get their opening headline correct, then why should anyone take any notice of the rest??????

[knocker]

 

 

Anyone care to comment on the headline or article that was the initial topic here? 

 

Actually it was the comment in reply to my original post which started the downhill process.

 

 

I would imagine that exactly the same would have happened if squirrels were the most advanced life form on the planet, and I also expect the Paris summit to prove that they are.

 

Am I going to jail?

 

A stunning scientific critique.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not a great start to anything if the "headline is indeed off"                      

 

if the 'experts'  cant even get their opening headline correct, then why should anyone take any notice of the rest??????

 

That's not the experts though, that's just journalists. Indeed, I'd always be sceptical of the accuracy from any science journalist.

[knocker]

Not a great start to anything if the "headline is indeed off"                      

 

if the 'experts'  cant even get their opening headline correct, then why should anyone take any notice of the rest??????

 

To be precise the title of the report is:

 

Explaining extreme events of 2014 from a climate perspective

Special Supplement to the

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Vol. 96, No. 12, December 2015

 

The 'experts' didn't conjure up the title.

 

Perhaps, for the sake of moving on, we can dismiss the title and those who have read the report can post any scientific disagreements they have with the reasoning.

Edited November 6, 2015 by knocker

[stewfox]

I would imagine that exactly the same would have happened if squirrels were the most advanced life form on the planet, and I also expect the Paris summit to prove that they are.

 

Am I going to jail?

 

You can see a squirrels take on the summit here.

 

[beng]

I would imagine that exactly the same would have happened if squirrels were the most advanced life form on the planet, and I also expect the Paris summit to prove that they are.

 

Am I going to jail?

 

 

Seriously when you get to my age and you've seen various 'scare' storied peddled by media, politicians and various scientists over the years - only for them to amount to nothing, you get very sceptical when you see media and politicians jumping on a bandwagon and refusing to listen to anything that doesn't agree with their position. When that happens, experience tells me the opposite is nearly always closer to the truth.

[Methuselah]

As a previous thread, in all but name, identical to this one was locked, I'm going to close this one too.

 

Sorry peeps. Wrong thread!    

Edited November 7, 2015 by Ed Stone

[stewfox]

As a previous thread, in all but name, identical to this one was locked, I'm going to close this one too.

 

Sorry peeps. Wrong thread!    

 

 

I find with so many threads being locked it gets a bit confusing, cant we have a thread where we don't just go back to will it won't it warm ?

 

I'll post this hear and leave it alone now

 

I found the Radio 4 'debate' interesting and it may come up in the Paris summit. Is global warming where we were with passive smoking 10 yrs ago or smoking 50/60 yrs ago. Law reflects state of knowledge. If a point of law becomes establish then it becomes harder to refute and global warming is a massive area to consider

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.html

 

So for example a local traffic problem more pollution at my local level crossing (caused by cars)

 

http://bicestertag.jimdo.com/2015/08/12/up-to-13-trains-per-hour-at-crossing/

 

Could one use the attached climate change act  in furture ie more traffic will have more of a impact re environmental considerations become more important. I'm sure its going on all the time in the USA

 

https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/global-action-on-climate-change/

[knocker]

Seriously when you get to my age and you've seen various 'scare' storied peddled by media, politicians and various scientists over the years - only for them to amount to nothing, you get very sceptical when you see media and politicians jumping on a bandwagon and refusing to listen to anything that doesn't agree with their position. When that happens, experience tells me the opposite is nearly always closer to the truth.

 

I assume you mean stories like destruction of the ozone layer. And actually when one considers the media jumping on the bandwagon in the UK most of the jumping is done by the denier/anti science brigade through their mouthpieces Booker (Mail), Delingpole (Sun) and Ridley (Times) who frequently post leading articles full of misleading tripe. Further afield you have the Murdoch rags the WSJ and the Australian that do similar. Then you have the proliferation of denier blogs and the piece de resistance the group of nutters known as the Republican Party

 

So I think the public debate is skewed in favour of those who refuse to listen to the science because they have political agendas.

 

Edited November 8, 2015 by knocker