I enjoy gifs

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 

* Wonderful. You can't be bothered to argue ........... but then go on to argue.Please sort yourself out.

**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: polarwind 

Whatever, Dave.

You stick with your ill-conceived personal view of the climate system and I'll stick with the core science rather than the plethora of mostly denialist and sceptic blogs.

As Tom has said often enough, the scientific papers are what matter - not the sceptics' often selective quoting and misrepresentation of those papers.

As regards your continued failure to recognise my point, let's try again.  I'll try to keep the point simple for you, in the hope that you might understand.

Four's post said:

Another study finds no increase in extreme weather events - which are now being touted as the main threat from AGW

Whereas the paper to which he referred makes it clear that the researchers were investigating evidence of increase climate variability.  Not only that, but their work was focussed on "south central Europe".   Certainly the paper makes no reference to increased extreme weather events.**

Furthermore their work covered a period of between 180 and 250 years. Now I may be wrong here but would you expect to see a clear signal for an AGW-induced greater extent of climate variability in this period?***

So, you would seem to have got this wrong - not for the first time.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Did you actually read the Abstract?

Four read and reported on the abstract correctly imo, - because there is no hesitation in this statement from the abstract, which confirms no increased extremes of weather -

Quote: The second finding is similar but concentrates on the recent three decades which are of particular interest because they are the first 30- years with (AGW) dominating shows no widening of the PDF (probability density function) compared to the preceding ones.

'Selective quoting and misrepresentation' does happen but not in this case as regards the paper.

** The paper does make reference to increased extreme weather events. The abstract in the very first sentence, makes it totally clear that 'increased extreme events' is exactly what the paper is about.

Quote from Abstract: The paper uses the data potential of very long and homogenized instrumental climate time series in the south central Europe for analyzing one feature which is very dominant in the climate change debate - whether anthropogenic climate warming causes or goes along with an increase of climate extremes.

Further on the abstract goes on -

The main goal is the analysis of trends or changes of high frequent interannual and interseasonal variability. In other words, it is features like extremely hot summers, very cold winters, excessively dry or wet seasons which the study aims at.

*** I think you "would expect to see a clear signal for an AGW-induced greater extent of climate variability in this period", but it seems the researchers didn't find one- perhaps you are thinking here in terms of a period between 180 and 250 years ago rather than the whole period since the starting dates of individual series, which were 'between 180 and 250 years ago'? You could have got a clue from the fact that the paper specifically mentions the last three decades....etc

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=l446053m40t06j43&size=largest 

Abstract. 
The paper uses the data potential of very long and homogenized instrumental climate time series in the south central Europe for analyzing one feature which is very dominant in the climate change debate - whether anthropogenic climate warming causes or goes along with an increase of climate extremes. The monthly resolved data of the HISTALP data collection provide 58 single series for the three climate elements, air pressure,air temperature and precipitation. that start earlier than 1831 and extend back to 1760 in some cases.  Trends and long-term low frequent climate evolution is only shortly touched in the paper. The main goal is the analysis of trends or changes of high frequent interannual and interseasonal variability. In other words, it is features like extremely hot summers, very cold winters, excessively dry or wet seasons which the study aims at.  The methods used are based on detrended highpass series whose variance is analyzed in discrete 30-year windows moving over the entire instrumental period.  The analysis of discrete subintervals relies on the unique number of 8 (for precipitation 7) such "normal periods:.  The second approach is based on the same subintervals though not in fixed but moving windows over the entire variability during the past 250 years in the region.  The second finding is similar but concentrates on the recent three decades which are of particular interest because they are the first 30- years with dominating shows no widening of the PDF (probability density function) compared to the preceding ones.  The third finding is based on the moving window technique.  It shows that interannual variability changes show a clear centennial oscillating structure for all three climate elements in the region.  For the time being we have no explanation for this empirical evidence.  We argue that if should not be an artifact of any remaining data problems, but of course a centennial cyclic e  ect based on 250 years of data only is not really well consolidated in  terms of sample length.  But it is a least an interesting new feature and the subject is open for scientific discussion and for further studies dealing with circulation e  ects, long-term memories in the oceans etc.

I have a nasty feeeling we wont win a game, I am even a tad concerned that in 3 games we will struggle to muster 3 goals

Probaly for the best that would be, about time a touch of realism entered the English game and the FA

I'm thinking 4 points from the group. Not enough to qualify.

Well the 1-0 win will be via an og and then a 0-0, better than I predict

What a strange question, given that I stated what it said in the abstract.

You may have read it but seem not to have understood it.

Once again - the paper refers to climate variability not extreme weather events.

How much clearer does it need to be? 

Your quote suggests you don't understand what you have read either.  The quote is NOT a reference to extreme weather events but seasonal variability.  The paper makes this absolutely clear. 

So, Four read it and misinterpreted it in his comment - either deliberately or otherwise.  I'm struggling to understand why you haven't acknoweldged the difference between variability of climate and extreme weather events?

Or are you suggesting that a lack of evidence of a shift to more seasonal variability is equivalent to a lack of extreme weather events?  If so, that would be a most curious leap.

Wilshere's a fantastic player with a great future. Rodwell's no slouch, either. Pity both are injured.

All this rubbish about what squad Roy selected and he should of gone with a young squad etc.. when you look at the squad if he had left out Lamps, JT, Gerrard, Barry and Perhaps Cole who is still one the best LBs in the world we simply don't have enough strength and depth coming through, especially in the centre of the park which is the most important area in International Football, Wiltshire is a talent but Injured apart from that perhaps Rodwell and Huddlestone but again Injured and Rodwell seems to pick up an Injury every season.

Hopefully Parker fully fit and we go with parker and Gerrard which is what most were wanting anyway. atleast now the Lampard and Gerrard thing can't be an excuse/

I still believe if England can get out of the Group we could spring a suprise and get to the Semi's after that it's a lottery, stranger things have happened, just look at Chelsea winning the Champions League and I tell you what half the jealous mugs that slated us won't give a flying **** how England played aslong as they win it ( FICKLE)

Quite, hence why I didn't mention them. The squad is piss-poor on the whole. Too many average players and shallow as hell. Of course, the main reason the England squad is so poor can be traced right back to the ugly Prem and it's filthy lucre

And also because of how Soccer Schools/Training is run in this country, we stop them from playing, especially in Midfield, it's all dogmatic rubbish.

You go to Holland and Spain and watch how the youngsters train it's amazing, hopefully the new rule about smaller pitches and goals used in this country for kids now will start to work in 20yrs time LOL

That's been in practice for years though. All the clubs in this area have been playing on smaller pitches with smaller goals for at least the last ten years and probably longer, and that's up to 13 y/o. Nationwide it's up to 11 y/o and always has been.

There's certainly a lack of football being promoted from some quarters, but, in my experience, most clubs are trying to do the right thing. The main issue is there just aren't the careers out there, and that goes back yet again to money. Why bring a youngster through when you can just go and buy a ready made one abroad? Whilst that attitude prevails all the clubs with money will be fighting each other to this aim and it's quick fix at the expense of homegrown talent

Parker out now, apparently. Oh well.

With Lampard and Barry injured plus Parker (who must be a risk) i do wonder why Carrick was not one of the reserves ! Gerrard and Parker for me are probably Englands choice midfield pairing, however if we lose one of them we are going to be in the shit.

Qualification will be very tough given our squad. However Hodgson is a very good manager and i do believe he will make England hard to beat, this may well be good enough to scrape thru the first phase picking up 3pts from Sweden and look to get pts off France and Ukraine. 5pts could well be enough from a very tight group.

I had heard that Carrick said to Hodgson that he wasn't interested in being a bit part player, however, with the current injuries he'd start each game

He didn't want to be on standby and wanted to go on Holiday instead, I can understand he may feel gutted but I don't condone any player that does that, same with Richard's apparently.

I wouldn't of crawled back and ask if I was Hodgson either so fair play on that.

If Parker is not fit this might act in England's favour in a funny way because I think we might go more offensive but then again he may well play Jones in a holding role.

                             ...... your season (seasonal) or series of seasons can mean 'event'. And this is how I and no doubt, Four, interpreted/used the word.

I have done a little research on the word 'event' and it does seem to be a difficult word in terms of duration. But there is no doubt that 'events' can be of long duration.

So now we know the definition of 'ecstacy to agony':

"Frank Lampard ruled out of Euro 2012 by injury"

"Jordan Henderson called up as Lampard's replacement"

You can almost feel the French shaking at the news of young Jordan's inclusion

I don't even know who else is in England's group, apart from the French.

As for Henderson, the fact he's there is good on one level because it means 'Fat F[censored]' isn't.

Woy has missed a golden opportunity to rid this nation of the old guard once and for all. Thankfully, they're dropping like flies anyway.

Yeah because we was so good last Saturday against Denmark wasn't we  It's fine getting rid of the Old Guard if you can replace them, However we don't have the strength and depth to replace them and when you get someone like Jordan Henderson as a next best then we really are in trouble.

Shame the "tank" Huddlestone aint fit

 When all the young guard get in I'm sure the fickle plastic fans will have a new target boo boy. That's how sad and f**ked up a Nation we are ( London Riots showed that )

P.S SMerc ...Remember your not going to be watching the England games so it should effect you one little bit

I'm glad he's not. There's a big campaign coming up next season. Euro 2012 is a distraction.

Very true and that was the reason I was hoping " The Old Guard" Wouldn't get called up/selected for England I.E JT & Frank.

I might be tempted to watch England-Belgium tomorrow night, I'll admit. But only if Vertonghen is on the team sheet.