Denialists,  choose to say that because so many variables can influence weather, and climate, then it is just too hard to work out, so just forget about it, just hope nothing changes, and that humans stay lucky.

However, scientists (the reputable ones, not the cranks peddling recycled lies as opinion) do try to analyse and quantify various influences, and have been pretty successful to that end, so much so that we can make highly educated guesses, about what may happen under varying circumstances.

So, if you are really interested why the Thames froze over you could probably find out the "why" of the matter, by going to a reputable site that real scientists contribute to, and ask them, and they would explain how certain combinations of variables produce certain results.

Put simply, until we break through expected thresholds, or "tipping points", at which stage we could expect to see more extreme, and more bizzarre weather events, we will still continue to have the normal variability of weather that we have always experienced, with some very mild years, and some very severe years.
The simple fact is that these natural variations will be overlaid upon a changing, warmer, background, which continues to rise independent to these short term fluctuations.

Interestingly, the UK, even while being gripped by a particularly cold winter, still experienced an annual temperature of 0.6 degrees above it's long term average temperature.

So as far as the Thames freezing over, we can note it as occurring due to an extreme weather event, but I look forward to what is probably an even rarer, and more unlikely event, Denialists taking notice of real science instead of relying upon baseless opinions from disreputable sources.
I fear it will not be the Thames, but rather Hell, frozen over, before we witness that happening.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 13^th, 2010 at 9:03am:




That's gold, Jerry, gold. (h/t helian)   'So much so that we can make highly educated guesses'... That is a classic!!!

You are right, let's give 'em a coupla more billions so we can sit at their knees on cold/hot/mild/rainy/dry nights as they make more and more highly educated guesses. Worth every penny. Not only, but also... so much so.

Soren wrote on Jan 13^th, 2010 at 7:56pm:



I'll leave the guesswork to you soren. My personal paradigm is to make measurements as accurately as possible and use that data to make the most accurate predictions possible.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 9:43am:


Soren,  

Once again you are again demonstrating a gross ignorance of the concept of measurement precision and accuracy.

Give me strength (insert icon for tearing out tufts of hair)- you now seem to be implying that you can somehow apply the same level of precision to every single parameter in the known universe?

So for example you could measure the anal temperature of a rat with exactly the same precision as the Intelligence Quotient of Viscount Christopher Monckton. Even though the numbers would be very similar  
(using Fahrenheit degrees - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), the basis for the determination of precision is totally different in each case.


You can measure the mass of a bunch of bananas quite precisely. You can measure the CO2 content of the atmosphere quite precisely (you use a bugger** Gas Chromatograph ffs), but when it comes to integrating a series of highly variable flows which vary according to season, then it's much more difficult to measure. The  precision level is extremely low.

Please get a clue.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 1:34pm:


Note the sly change from measuring atmospheric CO2. It now comes bundled with oceanic changes. I was talking about measuring atmospheric CO2 content. That's the easy one. The difficult one is measuring the ocean flows. You need to focus.


OK. Do you think that there is a great deal of error in measuring the global CO2 content of the atmosphere?  Go on, I'll give you enough rope. Explain why.....

While you're at it, tell me just how much variation there is between Southern Hemisphere monitoring stations which conduct independent measurements of CO2 concentration. You should be capable of Googling that information.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 9:43am:


You're not going to squirm out of that one Soren. That is what you said above.  You're comparing one set of measurements with a totally unrelated set of measurement and you were implying that because a measurement of 6% in one was difficult, somehow this meant this fact had some bearing on a totally unrelated measurement. 

You're the one that's comparing apples and pears (or gas concentration to water flow) - not me.  

Muso, Mozz, Darwin and the rest of the crew hot for AGW - it occurs to me that warmerists like you have invested yourselves into the truth of AGW. To you, it is a personal matter. To doubt it is to question your entire outlook and self-esteem. I think that is why warmerists lapse into personal abuse, heckling and invective - for you doubting  AGW comes across as questioning you, personally, in your self-understanding.

For a sceptic like me, there is no self-esteem at stake, whether AGW turns out true or false.