Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Well, I didn't say anything about what you mentioned but that it was "green electricity".

You hardly can blame a conservative town council for not allowing photovoltaiks - or do you?

But it isn't always "conservative towns that do this.

(As an aside: do they use those alphabeth marks in France now as well?)

The effects have been dramatic. By 2009 China is predicted to overtake the United States as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. India has recently become the fourth biggest polluter, but its steeply rising emissions will see it in third place within a few years.

Why TV weather forecasters don't mention the warming

Mark Lawson
Monday March 26, 2007
The Guardian

Just as world cups - even without murder investigations - are good news for sports broadcasters, bringing their subject to a wider audience than usual, so global warming should be the best thing that has happened to weather forecasting. And yet what ought to be a golden age of the TV meteorologist clearly isn't. The star names of the art - Bill Giles, Ian McCaskill, Michael Fish, Ulrika Jonsson, John Kettley - are all retired or redeployed from their television maps.

Is it really possible to imagine any of the current cloud-spotters - Philip Avery, Rob McElwee, Alex Deakin, Elizabeth Saary - becoming a sufficient post-weather celebrity to front a peak-time documentary called Am I a Sex Addict? in the way that Ulrika did last week? Or becoming the subject of a hit single, such as John Kettley Is a Weatherman by a Tribe of Toffs?
But this cloud over television's shortest yet most watched programmes has been caused by two aspects of broadcasting policy. The first was a decision to put technology before personality, typified by the BBC's spectacular but still largely incomprehensible virtual weather map. One reason Francis Wilson makes less impact at Sky is that he stands in front of a wall of dissolving images, which, like the BBC's operatic technology, leaves the viewer unsure whether it all means that sweaters should be worn in Nuneaton.

A bigger problem, though, is that TV meteorologists are discouraged - by convention and regulatory guidelines - from editorialising about the weather. If a February heatwave is followed by an arctic March, with days in between on which Noah would feel at home, these can only be presented as "bit of a surprise for the time of year" or "seasonal extremes". The forecasters are not allowed to talk about the most important part of their story, which is why the weather might be happening.

It's as if the sports programmes were only allowed to say that Bob Woolmer was "unexpectedly unavailable" to coach the next Pakistani game. Just as the subject of weather gets really hot, TV restricts itself to cold technology and facts.

Global Warming is real.

Entertain the notion that global warming is a natural trend and you still have to look at the human factors. Technology etc. You can't say that we aren't putting an unatural amount of carbon in the atmosphere. you can't deny a temperature trend. You can't deny how this trend is affecting the climate of the earth.

People argue that the global average temp is not a function of CO2 that it is quite the opposite. I just can't buy that. If that were the case we could recreate an experiment in a lab enviroment where CO2 is produced by a change in temp.

Global Warming is real.

Interesting report in the same paper's G2 section:

Quote:

Why TV weather forecasters don't mention the warming

Mark Lawson
Monday March 26, 2007
The Guardian

Just as world cups - even without murder investigations - are good news for sports broadcasters, bringing their subject to a wider audience than usual, so global warming should be the best thing that has happened to weather forecasting. And yet what ought to be a golden age of the TV meteorologist clearly isn't. The star names of the art - Bill Giles, Ian McCaskill, Michael Fish, Ulrika Jonsson, John Kettley - are all retired or redeployed from their television maps.

Is it really possible to imagine any of the current cloud-spotters - Philip Avery, Rob McElwee, Alex Deakin, Elizabeth Saary - becoming a sufficient post-weather celebrity to front a peak-time documentary called Am I a Sex Addict? in the way that Ulrika did last week? Or becoming the subject of a hit single, such as John Kettley Is a Weatherman by a Tribe of Toffs?
But this cloud over television's shortest yet most watched programmes has been caused by two aspects of broadcasting policy. The first was a decision to put technology before personality, typified by the BBC's spectacular but still largely incomprehensible virtual weather map. One reason Francis Wilson makes less impact at Sky is that he stands in front of a wall of dissolving images, which, like the BBC's operatic technology, leaves the viewer unsure whether it all means that sweaters should be worn in Nuneaton.

A bigger problem, though, is that TV meteorologists are discouraged - by convention and regulatory guidelines - from editorialising about the weather. If a February heatwave is followed by an arctic March, with days in between on which Noah would feel at home, these can only be presented as "bit of a surprise for the time of year" or "seasonal extremes". The forecasters are not allowed to talk about the most important part of their story, which is why the weather might be happening.

It's as if the sports programmes were only allowed to say that Bob Woolmer was "unexpectedly unavailable" to coach the next Pakistani game. Just as the subject of weather gets really hot, TV restricts itself to cold technology and facts.

That's certainly focused only on the situation in the UK.
(Bob Woolmer was murdered a couple of days ago.)

Real meteoroligists know that they can't predict the weather beyond a few daya, and that they do not relly understand or know just what are or will be the one to five year trends in the weather or why.

Only the GW cultists believe this information is known and available. Unfortunately that is a lie.

georgeob1 wrote:

Real meteoroligists know that they can't predict the weather beyond a few daya, and that they do not relly understand or know just what are or will be the one to five year trends in the weather or why.

Only the GW cultists believe this information is known and available. Unfortunately that is a lie.

I didn't think that weather forecast was the topic of this column.

But that night certainly have been so.

Real meteoroligists know that they can't predict the weather beyond a few daya, and that they do not relly understand or know just what are or will be the one to five year trends in the weather or why.

Real Meteorologists make weather predictions in far advance of a few days. Ask a weather man if next year it will snow in Missouri, he wil say yes. Ask one in Oklahoma if there will be tornadoes in the future, they will say yes. How do they know? It's a pattern. they don't ned to know the exact minute they wil strike a year from now, but they can exact it to within two months (a conservative guess) I bet.

Fair enough. I just object to the notion that GW is a shot in the dark.

The columnist was advocating that weather forecasts become less "technical" and include more propaganda about climactic trends and why they are occurring.

Unfortunately that information is not known by science - only the true believing cultists have access to that kind of certainty.

A bigger problem, though, is that TV meteorologists are discouraged - by convention and regulatory guidelines - from editorialising about the weather. If a February heatwave is followed by an arctic March, with days in between on which Noah would feel at home, these can only be presented as "bit of a surprise for the time of year" or "seasonal extremes". The forecasters are not allowed to talk about the most important part of their story, which is why the weather might be happening.

It's as if the sports programmes were only allowed to say that Bob Woolmer was "unexpectedly unavailable" to coach the next Pakistani game. Just as the subject of weather gets really hot, TV restricts itself to cold technology and facts.