Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

The whole theory is based on assumptions IMO. 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Our lowest official England support travelling to Ukraine/Poland just 3,000 which is deffo due to fears of what's instore at the other end, forget the economic crisis England Fans would be there, I'd imagine 500 of that 3,000 are the hardcore.

Last week I heard France had only sold 28 tickets YES 28 not 28,000.

Amazing how these 2 Countries known for football violence on a widescale get the oppertunity to host such a tournament.

I remember watching Ross Kemp on Gangs and he travelled to Poland, Some of the scenes were unbelievable, makes our old 70s & 80s Hooligans look tame, or a Chelsea v Spuds Meet

Originally Posted by: Jonesy 

Dave, I thought I made it quite clear by highlighting in bold the part with which I disagreed.  For the avoidance of doubt, it was not the paper it was Four's assertion that extreme weather events were being put forward as the main threat.  Clearly that is nonsense - it is indeed A threat but as Tom says, the main one is global temperature increases and associated sea level rise.

Originally Posted by: four 

Hodgson has avoided dropping another clanger by not replacing Barry with Henderson. I rate Jagielka - a no-nonsense, all-action defender who can play the DM role.

Watch him now have a stinker of a tournament!

Originally Posted by: Saint Snow 

I'm gonna have to chuck my 4 happen'eth in here.

I do not think anybody believes that the AGW driver in any way challenges 'natural' drivers atm? (except in the Arctic?) but it is a driver that is a constant pressure and that pressure grows over time. Natural drivers wax and wane and so either augment or detract from the AGW driver over their phase. They either combine (and cancel) or combine (and augment) or appear as singles but all along you now need to add in the AGW forcing.

Some folk pooh pooh the notion of 'tipping points' but I find them very difficult to dismiss. Take the Arctic for e.g. If we have warm phase on warm phase plus the AGW Driver we could find a massive collapse event occurring in Greenland say (or massive methane release off Siberia). Even when the naturals subside the impacts of that warm forcing (above and beyond what pure natural could muster) remains and feeds back into the system (be it sea level hike/ocean current impacts or ,for the methane, temp hikes due to GHG forcing) making it ever easier to find disruption outside of pure 'natural further down the line.

The last 'El -Nino' was nothing special but due to the global temp hikes since the 'super' Nino of 98' this moderate Nino pushed temps to near those achieved by the super of 98'. The next El-Nino will surely punch through this record global temp without much hassle? And if we were to have another 'Super Nino'?

The slow 'drip drip' melting of the Arctic ice mass allowed for the mass loss we saw in 07' (25% higher than ever recorded) Did we recover any mass since that time? What will happen when we see the next 'perfect storm' synoptic (3 to 13yrs away)? if we think ice loss is now messing in global circulation then what will such an event will lead to in global circulation?

The changes in the Arctic have been a mixture of natural and AGW but the slow 'drip,drip' of AGW wins out due to it's constant presence even amid negative natural phases. The same with Global temps. Cold phases used to show but I would very much suspect that the past 13 years should have been a cooling phase (akin to the 60's/early 70's?) but the presence of the upward trend has effectively offset this 'cooling' leaving what we have seen. Should I be proven correct then what will the next 'warm phase' be like? normal or warmer than we have ever seen before (in our recorded history)?

We are now at a point to test the 'tipping point' theory for real. I feel we have already seen the first in the Arctic sea ice with ice mass tripping over the 'tipping point' in the mid 80's. One of the next ones we may see will be Methane loss over the Arctic. This will occur either during our next global 'warm phase' with permafrost melt ponds putting significant increases in methane output into the atmosphere as to lead to a sudden global warming leading to continued releases and further warming negating 'natural negative temp forcings' leaving only warming, the other would be massive sudden releases of hydrate from the offshore submerged permafrosts off Siberia. We must be mindful that Arctic methane releases now equals the combined outputs from all the worlds oceans.

To recap, AGW is small but constant and growing. eventually it will outweigh any 'natural cold drivers' and this will be hastened by it combining with 'natural warm drivers'.

No body thinks that AGW equates to CO2 alone. If you look at land use changes across the tropical zone you can see the scale of 'man made' changes occurring there. in my school days (1970's) we were campaigning to 'save the Rainforest's' but the destruction there continues apace. If you look at the local impact on weather/climate across a Forrest and a pampas it does not take much to expand this into a regional then global impact on weather/climate.

When we look at the sub Saharan increase in desert due to mans unsustainable agriculture there over the same period we see another 'local' climate change. How many 'local' climate changes equates to a global change?

Nature used to have a kind of ad hoc balance. Now it has had this balance impacted by changes that are far faster and extensive than She can soak up and cope with. The Carbon reserves that we have releases are on top and above of the 'natural carbon cycle ' as was must throw this system off balance? If we believe the geological record then such releases by similar deposits being subducted at plate margins ( and the carbon released in volcanic activity) have lead to global climate change of a scale similar to those predicted by most of the leading authorities studying AGW.

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

I'm gonna have to chuck my 4 happen'eth in here.

I do not think anybody believes that the AGW driver in any way challenges 'natural' drivers atm? (except in the Arctic?) but it is a driver that is a constant pressure and that pressure grows over time. Natural drivers wax and wane and so either augment or detract from the AGW driver over their phase. They either combine (and cancel) or combine (and augment) or appear as singles but all along you now need to add in the AGW forcing.

Some folk pooh pooh the notion of 'tipping points' but I find them very difficult to dismiss. Take the Arctic for e.g. If we have warm phase on warm phase plus the AGW Driver we could find a massive collapse event occurring in Greenland say (or massive methane release off Siberia). Even when the naturals subside the impacts of that warm forcing (above and beyond what pure natural could muster) remains and feeds back into the system (be it sea level hike/ocean current impacts or ,for the methane, temp hikes due to GHG forcing) making it ever easier to find disruption outside of pure 'natural further down the line.

The last 'El -Nino' was nothing special but due to the global temp hikes since the 'super' Nino of 98' this moderate Nino pushed temps to near those achieved by the super of 98'. The next El-Nino will surely punch through this record global temp without much hassle? And if we were to have another 'Super Nino'?

The slow 'drip drip' melting of the Arctic ice mass allowed for the mass loss we saw in 07' (25% higher than ever recorded) Did we recover any mass since that time? What will happen when we see the next 'perfect storm' synoptic (3 to 13yrs away)? if we think ice loss is now messing in global circulation then what will such an event will lead to in global circulation?

The changes in the Arctic have been a mixture of natural and AGW but the slow 'drip,drip' of AGW wins out due to it's constant presence even amid negative natural phases. The same with Global temps. Cold phases used to show but I would very much suspect that the past 13 years should have been a cooling phase (akin to the 60's/early 70's?) but the presence of the upward trend has effectively offset this 'cooling' leaving what we have seen. Should I be proven correct then what will the next 'warm phase' be like? normal or warmer than we have ever seen before (in our recorded history)?

We are now at a point to test the 'tipping point' theory for real. I feel we have already seen the first in the Arctic sea ice with ice mass tripping over the 'tipping point' in the mid 80's. One of the next ones we may see will be Methane loss over the Arctic. This will occur either during our next global 'warm phase' with permafrost melt ponds putting significant increases in methane output into the atmosphere as to lead to a sudden global warming leading to continued releases and further warming negating 'natural negative temp forcings' leaving only warming, the other would be massive sudden releases of hydrate from the offshore submerged permafrosts off Siberia. We must be mindful that Arctic methane releases now equals the combined outputs from all the worlds oceans.

To recap, AGW is small but constant and growing. eventually it will outweigh any 'natural cold drivers' and this will be hastened by it combining with 'natural warm drivers'.

No body thinks that AGW equates to CO2 alone. If you look at land use changes across the tropical zone you can see the scale of 'man made' changes occurring there. in my school days (1970's) we were campaigning to 'save the Rainforest's' but the destruction there continues apace. If you look at the local impact on weather/climate across a Forrest and a pampas it does not take much to expand this into a regional then global impact on weather/climate.

When we look at the sub Saharan increase in desert due to mans unsustainable agriculture there over the same period we see another 'local' climate change. How many 'local' climate changes equates to a global change?

Nature used to have a kind of ad hoc balance. Now it has had this balance impacted by changes that are far faster and extensive than She can soak up and cope with. The Carbon reserves that we have releases are on top and above of the 'natural carbon cycle ' as was must throw this system off balance? If we believe the geological record then such releases by similar deposits being subducted at plate margins ( and the carbon released in volcanic activity) have lead to global climate change of a scale similar to those predicted by most of the leading authorities studying AGW.

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

A work colleague of mine is off to the Championships , he is on a bus from S****horpe driving across to the tournament,  he said they aren't worried about the Poles, whats interesting is that he told me there are more going that the number you have quoted, I will ask him tomorrow about the numbers.

As for some of the scenes seen , have to say I went up and down the UK in the late 80's and saw some horrendous scenes , worse than what has been shown

Originally Posted by: Jonesy 

Must be Unofficial Members then or those going without buying tickets from the FA. The total I have quoted is FA Sales.

It's the first time so close to a Tournament that I can login to the FA site and Buy Tickets for a Euro Game, Can actually buy a England v Ukraine one on the 11th June, Now as that's the Host Nation and against Ukraine that tells it's own story.

And at present England v France is not sold out, now on the day it will be but they won't be England and France fans

Originally Posted by: Jonesy 

Oh no, they are official members and get tickets from the FA, I will ask him when I get in to work, not saying you are wrong but im sure he said sales were good

Originally Posted by: Jonesy 

so lampard is injured and jordan henderson is waiting in the wings should he not recover - god help us

Originally Posted by: speckledjim 

I can't be bothered to argue with you Dave.* These arguments are becoming pointless, tedious and repetitive. Four trawls the Internet in pursuit of biased pieces and you conveniently overlook his inaccurate statements or try misguidedly to endorse them.

Putting words into people's mouths doesn't mean that's what is being said. I appreciate it helps your personal construct to believe that severe events are a major issue but it's just your position and not reality.**

Fact: global warming is the major threat***
Fact: severe weather is not caused solely by the clash of different airmasses****
Fact: there will still be significant temperature contrasts in a warmer world.

There's little merit in trying to defend a piece that is so clearly flawed & even less merit in trying to defend Four's typically biased comment. As for pedantic, you have the gold medal in that....

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

**Wrong again. There are lots of instances where it has been argued by 'the convinced' that more extreme weather is to be expected from AGW - and discussed many times in this forum, where I and others have said that more extremes of weather also, goes with a more meridional jetstream. Check out your climate history. More extremes of weather, because of AGW, has been pushed by the political wing of 'the convinced' to a large extent - this is not my construct. I have just responded as Four and others have done. This is not to say that there isn't, with AGW, more energy in the system - just that it's the greater contrast or difference in air mass characteristics that leads to more extreme weather and a more meridional jetstream gives much more opportunity for this to happen. Higher temperatures are a serious threat, but a part of the picture where other drivers that lead to more extreme weather events, cannot be ignored.

*** As associated with sea level rise - yes. **** Agreed - I have just said as much.

With regard to your last 'fact' - yes again, but on the major scale, the IPCC forecasts are for the polar regions to warm most which means overall less temperature contrasts and therefore, in my book, less cyclogenesis. Warming in itself will mean changes in circulation patterns and shifts in climate zones as well as sea level rise.

You mention Four seeking out bias pieces: The piece Four mentioned was the research - this wasn't bias was it? It's a pity but typical, that you choose to ignore the paper, which was the essence of his post - here - and concentrate on a loose detail of his combative post.

I'll put aside, atm, your more personal innuendos.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Originally Posted by: speckledjim 

Henderson is the best we have is he?

Shows how little talent we have coming through IMO

Originally Posted by: Gooner 

Originally Posted by: Gooner 

Hmmm yes. Obviously that is Lampards International career over, there was a lot of talk about the partnership with Gerrard but nothing much came of it.

Downing struggles to cross a road let alone that white thing he plays with. Carroll has his Caravans to tow , it really is a lack lustre squad,,,,,,BUT hey that is what might suit Roy Boy

Originally Posted by: Gooner