“Freak Climate Change” Could Maybe Possibly Affect Great Britain

We now have more extreme climatologist language

UK weather WARNING: Britain faces MORE powerful storms throughout autumn
BRITAIN could face more powerful storms this autumn and winter thanks to freak climate change, according to experts.

The entire gist of the article is, get this, that weather could happen! Can you imagine that? Weather! And it’s freaky deaky!

The article itself is just stupid, and I don’t have the energy, or caring, to highlight more of it.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

20 Responses to ““Freak Climate Change” Could Maybe Possibly Affect Great Britain”

  1. Jeffery says:

    You’re right – weather occurs. And is influenced by global warming.

  2. Jl says:

    Too bad speculative future scenarios aren’t science.

  3. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Is it your contention that any prediction based on science is flawed?

    • Rotterdam says:

      Any prediction is wrong. Based upon science the Hurricane was supposed to strike Miami. That was their prediction. It did not. It missed Miami and struck elsewhere.

      Any prediction based upon almost anything will be wrong much more often then it is right.

      Prediction:

      Definition of predict

      transitive verb
      :to declare or indicate in advance; especially :foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason.

      Wrong more often then they are right. Its not gonna rain. How many times have you heard that one. It is gonna rain. How many times have we heard that one.

      It is my contention that any prediction is flawed, no matter the basis behind the prediction.

      • Jeffery says:

        Rot,

        Do you accept that smoking may cause cancer? Or that unprotected sex may result in an STI?

        Science is hard pressed to predict which smoker will get lung, throat or bladder cancer but can reasonably predict for every 100,000 smokers how many will develop cancer.

        Do you believe that since there were lung cancer cases before there was smoking falsifies the theory that smoking causes cancer?

        If you really think that the eye of a hurricane missing by fifty miles falsifies the theory of greenhouse gas caused global warming, there is little to discuss unless you’re open to learning.

        • Rotterdam says:

          You go from global warming to cigarettes causing cancer in about 25 words.

          One has nothing to do with the other. One can predict that the earth will get warmer based upon a set of criteria. But a prediction does not take into consideration many variables that could happen. For example, let us say that a super volcano errupts somewhere in the world. The predictive analysis is now out the window because the resulting ash will create a global cooling event that might lower the temperature by several degress.

          A comet could strike the planet ending this debate as the result beside being world wide catastrophe would also induce another ice age.

          Predictions are just what they imply. We predict that the world is going to warm by x degrees without taking into account a 1000 variables that we understand very little about.

          Is the globe warming? Sure it is. But your making a certain set of statements and IM calling you on them. You can not predict with certainty any event with so many variables such as will all smokers get cancer, which smokers will get cancer any more then you can say that given the current expulsion of co2 into the air the temperature on the planet in 2100 will be X. While you might scientifically be able to say the co2 levels will be X there are just too many variables to PREDICT accurately the actual temperature of the planet in 83 years from now.

          Why? Because their are too many variables that might drastically alter any predictive model run that does not take into account the continued clearing of forests or an asteroid, massive volcanic erruptions, world war 3, Nuclear winter, a pandemic of massive proportions or any number of a 1000 other things. North Korea might choose to launch an emp event over north America resulting the the USA responding in kind to not only China but Russia. Who might then emp The EU and South America causing a world wide black out which would all but halt co2 interjection into the atmosphere. But Im just predicting any number of these events COULD happen. Will they? Who knows. Certainly no one I am aware of. but if they do happen. Anyone of them it would completely destroy any predictive models that scientists now use to say with absolute certainty that the world is doomed by 2100.

          “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
          a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
          Albert Einstein

          They have yet to prove him wrong. Yet in the field of Global warming their have been 1000’s of experiments that do not reach the same EXACT conclusion as the next paper. While they might be close. Being close is not the same thing as being right. Therefore AGW remains a theory that 1000’s of scientists try to continue to prove to be true.

          And while the consensus might be that the globe is warming and that co2 causes the globe to warm the results of too many predictive models with a single new variable injected into the equation translates to a different outcome causes the whole science is settled meme of AGW to be called into question, over and over again.

          • Jeffery says:

            You make the correct observation that there are several variables that contribute to the heat content of Earth, and many of these variables are difficult to predict (e.g, volcanoes, comets/asteroids, solar changes…).

            the resulting ash will create a global cooling event that might lower the temperature by several degress

            Fortunately, scientific theory and observations allow you to predict that particulates and aerosols from a large volcanic eruption can cause temporary cooling! Of course, predicting the occurrence of a large volcanic eruption is more difficult. Similarly, scientific theory (based on laboratory experiments) and observations allow one to predict that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to increased heat retention.

            It’s clear that an increase in CO2 will cause warming, ignoring all other variables. The models are refined by taking into account as many variables as possible. Yes a catastrophic comet or asteroid strike could kill all humanity – based on scientific theories. It is not scientific to count on an asteroid strike to stop global warming. Maybe Allah will decide to reverse the molecular interactions between CO2 and infrared radiation, but to rely on that to stop global warming is not scientific.

      • david7134 says:

        Rotter,
        Jeff thinks of he says science that we get scared and don’t understasnd. The guy knows very little science despite the fact that he says he cured cancer. What he does know is how to arrange killer parties to get his paid doctors to approve his very expensive drugs that he promotes.

        • Jeffery says:

          dave,

          How about you?

          Do you accept that smoking may cause cancer?

          Science is hard pressed to predict which smoker will get lung, throat or bladder cancer but can reasonably predict for every 100,000 smokers how many will develop cancer.

          • Rotterdam says:

            see my post above. you are using actuarial life tables to predict these. Secondly even a prediction of this magnitude is not always true. For example if the science predicts that XXX number of people per 100,000 will get cancer but it actually turns out to be yyy that get cancer then your predictive analysis is simply guess work based upon extensive scientific calculations.

            If you can be proven wrong even once then your theory is not a theory but simply a guess based upon past extrapolation of data.

            Otherwise every year the exact same numbers of people would be stricken with cancer. Exactly. To the person. If this is not the case then your right. You are simply trying to PREDICT the future based upon observation and science which is flawed because it is not entirely accurate.

          • david7134 says:

            Jeff,
            What does smoking have to do with this? For that matter, as I have said before, cholesterol does not cause any illness but for 50 years we have been told that it was evil. Now we know the opposite is true and it was people like you that intentionally provided erroneous information and deadly treatments.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Rot,

    Scientific theories are predictive. The hypothesis that tobacco use caused increased cancer incidence was formulated decades ago based on preliminary observations linking certain cancers to tobacco. Subsequent evidence, both population observations and biochemical/ cell biology experiments largely confirmed the link. Today there is a scientific consensus that tobacco use increases the risk of developing cancer. For 100,000 cigarette users today, one can predict the number who will develop lung cancer in 40 years (compared to a matched group of non-users). Are you saying the theory is falsified because the prediction is not accurate enough, i.e., after 40 yrs, 10,011 users developed lung cancer but the theory model predicted only 10,000?

    Are you saying that the theory of greenhouse gas/global warming is falsified because Hurricane Irma hit the Keys worse than Miami, although some of the computer models had the eye hitting Miami?

    You are correct in stating that a scientific theory can be falsified with a single confirmed observation. Can you specify the bit of scientific evidence that falsifies the theory that increased greenhouse gases will cause increased heat retention of the Earth?

    • Dana says:

      If “scientific theories are predictive,” doesn’t that mean that the theories are flawed when the observed results do not fit the predictions?

  5. Jeffery says:

    It depends on what you mean by “not fit the predictions”.

    If 10,211 smokers develop cancer when the model predicted 10,000 would you consider that a falsification of the theory that tobacco causes cancer?

    The prediction from the CO2/global warming theory is that increased atmospheric CO2 will cause the atmosphere to warm. Further, based on the well-characterized physical interaction between CO2 and infrared radiation, scientists can calculate how much energy will be retained in the system. It gets trickier as you add in variables as Rot re-iterated – water content, convection, uptake of heat by our massive oceans, ocean currents, volcanoes, changes in the Sun’s output, and other variables either unknown or of lesser import, that also help determine the overall global temperature.

    Clearly the average global surface temperature has been increasing for the past century or so, and the rate of increase appears to have accelerated the past few decades. As Rot pointed at the models do not take into account future nuclear winters, volcanic eruptions, asteroid strikes or aliens turning off the Sun. These future events are notoriously difficult to predict. It is much easier to predict what the atmospheric CO2 concentration will be depending on potential future CO2 emission scenarios. It is also easier to predict what effect that CO2 concentration will have on atmospheric heat retention.

    TEACH lies to his hapless readers by continually posting Roy Spencer’s fraudulent graph of actual vs modeled average global surface temperatures which supports the Denialist meme that 95% of models are false. Is that your basis for claiming the Earth is not warming as predicted by the theory?

    Can you specifically cite your source for “the observed results do not fit the predictions”? It’s not clear what you mean.

    • david7134 says:

      Jeff,
      Have you noticed that anyone who disagrees with you and other liberals are frauds, when the opposite is true.

  6. Jl says:

    “Is any prediction based on science flawed?” Good one, J. Predicting things that mostly never come true isn’t science to begin with, it’s crystal ball gazing. I can predict things by using the words “may”, “could”, “might”, “maybe”, etc. and have a 50% chance of being right. That’s not science, that’s climate astrology.

    • Jeffery says:

      j,

      The theory of CO2/global warming predicts warming and it’s warmed. Do you now admit it’s warming? If so, why?

  7. Jl says:

    Predictions have failed miserably, J. But you probably already knew that. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/13/the-abject-failure-of-official-global-warming-predictions/

    • drowningpuppies says:

      That article is way over little jeffvckery’s little head.
      Besides he doesn’t read anything anyway that disproves his erroneous sophomoric assumptions.
      .

  8. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Prove it, but no WUWT allowed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9456 access attempts in the last 7 days.