Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[Guided Missile]

There are only two possible explanations for how anybody could draw such an illogical conclusion based on prof. Collins' comments. They are either monumentally stupid, or they have an agenda to peddle. Hmmm, which could it be I wonder.

????

One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming.

My guess is that it is monumental stupidity

[Hokie]

Just some background reading about what these climate models actually are. The article is written for the layman (at least one who can read something longer than 3 paragraphs and think about it) and is from what I think most would regard as a non-political scientific source. I think some of you may find it interesting and useful in understanding complex models. I think I have mentioned before, I do not work in climate modeling, but professionally have spent most my career simulating physical models of complex systems, and the article is spot on in the general theme of how they are made, compared, and how they are used to generate predictions.

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/

[Sheaf Saint]

Bite on this:

 

Michael Fish lives...

 

Two questions...

 

1. How exactly does a 2007 paper which details how a new model which incorporates natural variability improves on an old one that doesn't support your argument?

 

2. What the f*ck has Michael Fish got to do with it?

[Sheaf Saint]

????

My guess is that it is monumental stupidity

 

Mail headline: "No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office's most senior experts"

 

What the professor actually said: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."

 

Do you not see the disconnect here?

[Guided Missile]

????

My guess is that it is monumental stupidity

 

Looks like I was right....

[Whitey Grandad]

Mail headline: "No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office's most senior experts"

 

What the professor actually said: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."

 

Do you not see the disconnect here?

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or something.

[Guided Missile]

Mail headline: "No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office's most senior experts"

 

What the professor actually said: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."

 

Do you not see the disconnect here?

Yeah, I see that your brain is disconnected from reality...

[Sheaf Saint]

Yeah, I see that your brain is disconnected from reality...

 

So predictable. You can't address the point with any reasoning so you just lash out with another childish insult.

 

Are you this much of a c*nt in real life as well?

[Guided Missile]

Finally....

 

[Sheaf Saint]

Finally....

 

 

And your point is what exactly?

[Guided Missile]

And your point is what exactly?

The Met Office is about as accurate today as it was 27 years ago.

 

Are you this stupid in real life as well?

[Sheaf Saint]

The Met Office is about as accurate today as it was 27 years ago.

 

Are you this stupid in real life as well?

 

I'm just trying to understand how your reference to an inaccurate weather forecast from 1987 relates to your contention that the Mail article you quoted kills this thread, as if it somehow disproves the theory of AGW.

 

If you could provide some actual deductive reasoning to reinforce your position that would be really helpful. But you have proven time and time again that you can't.

[Guided Missile]

1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming

FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

 

2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die

FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

 

3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).

FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

 

4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.

FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

 

5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.

FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

 

6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet

FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

 

7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'

FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

 

8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.

FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

 

9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.

FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.

The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

 

10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.

Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

[Guided Missile]

Back to the Future:

 

[aintforever]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or something.

 

You seriously can't see what is incorrect about the Mail headline?

 

I do wonder about what sort of weirdos frequent this message board.

[Graffito]

Mail headline: "No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office's most senior experts"

 

What the professor actually said: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."

 

Do you not see the disconnect here?

 

You are quite right. For the DM to conclude from the professors statement that global warming did not cause the storms is faulty logic.

[Graffito]

1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming

FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

 

2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die

FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

 

3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).

FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

 

4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.

FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

 

5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.

FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

 

6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet

FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

 

7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'

FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

 

8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.

FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

 

9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.

FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.

The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

 

10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.

Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

What a load of b@llocks. The inclusions of the Mencken quote is interesting. May we conclude from this that you think the Met Office wants to rule the world.

[Guided Missile]

You are quite right. For the DM to conclude from the professors statement that global warming did not cause the storms is faulty logic.

I guess you don't accept IPCC AR5 report, then?

 

Key statements from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.

 

Here are a few:

 

 

• “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
  
• "There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
  
• “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
  
• “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
  
• “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
  
• “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
  
• “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
  

[Whitey Grandad]

You seriously can't see what is incorrect about the Mail headline?

 

I do wonder about what sort of weirdos frequent this message board.

 

Of course I can. You can't say if it did or didn't cause the storms, hence my quoted aphorism.

[Guided Missile]

May we conclude from this that you think the Met Office wants to rule the world.

The Met Office are running scared because they are so fu ck!ng useless and p!$$ our taxes away on computer games. With their forecasting skills they couldn't predict the day of the week...

[Whitey Grandad]

My son did some work with the Met Office and asked them about global warming. They said they would be happy with getting the weather right for the next four days let alone forty years.

[aintforever]

Of course I can. You can't say if it did or didn't cause the storms, hence my quoted aphorism.

 

So you agree the Mail headline is incorrect then?

[Whitey Grandad]

So you agree the Mail headline is incorrect then?

 

Badly worded.

[aintforever]

Badly worded.

 

LOL

 

you cock

[Sheaf Saint]

1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming

FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

 

2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die

FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

 

3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).

FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

 

4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.

FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

 

5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.

FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

 

6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet

FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

 

7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'

FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

 

8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.

FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

 

9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.

FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.

The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

 

10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.

Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

 

Oh dear f*cking lord GM. Seriously????

 

A very quick google search reveals that this is all copied and pasted from an article on the Alliance of British Drivers website (and that's really going to be an impartial place, isn't it ) which contains precisely ZERO references to any documents or research data which substantiate the claims made in it.

 

You sir, are a f*cking joke. You cannot debate with any degree of reason or logic which stands up to the premise/inference test. When faced with requests to provide evidence to support your claims you either ignore them or you reply with a puerile insult. When you do manage to find some evidence which you believe supports your position and it is easily debunked, again you either ignore it or just reply with spiteful ad hominem attacks. Anybody who has studied science at degree level, as you claim to have, knows that all of the this is gross bad practice and guaranteed to destroy any credibility your arguments may have.

 

If you used valid reasoning and logic to arrive at your conclusions, and could demonstrate that logic by supporting your claims with credible evidence that speaks for itself, there would be absolutely no need for you to act like such a c*ck towards anybody who disagrees with you, but you can't.

 

If you've got a degree in chemistry then I'm the queen of f*cking Sheeba. I take my leave of you now, as I don't see how anything positive can be gained by engaging with you any further.

[aintforever]

Alliance of British Drivers :lol:

[Whitey Grandad]

LOL

 

you cock

 

Mail, innit.

[Guided Missile]

If you've got a degree in chemistry then I'm the queen of f*cking Sheeba. I take my leave of you now, as I don't see how anything positive can be gained by engaging with you any further.

Game, set and match....

[Guided Missile]

The damning evidence that the Met Office hasn't got a clue is here...

[Verbal]

A very quick google search reveals that this is all copied and pasted from an article on the Alliance of British Drivers website (and that's really going to be an impartial place, isn't it ) which contains precisely ZERO references to any documents or research data which substantiate the claims made in it.

 

You sir, are a f*cking joke.

 

Just hilarious - made even more absurd by the cretinous attempt to pass it off as his own work. What a hopeless fraud.

[Guided Missile]

Just hilarious - made even more absurd by the cretinous attempt to pass it off as his own work. What a hopeless fraud.

Oh look, another climate Nazi. Funny how they congregate together, like flies on the turd of the climate change scam...

[badgerx16]

The damning evidence that the Met Office hasn't got a clue is here...

"This Outlook provides an indication of possible temperature and rainfall conditions over the next 3 months. It is part of a suite of forecasts designed for contingency planners.

The Outlook should not be used in isolation but should be used with shorter-range and more detailed (30-day, 15-day and 1-to-5-day) forecasts and warnings available to the contingency planning community from the Met Office"

[Verbal]

Oh look, another climate Nazi. Funny how they congregate together, like flies on the turd of the climate change scam...

 

Wrong again. I'm very much a falsificationist on the issue of climate change, as I suspect many are. I'd like nothing more than to be presented with genuine, consistent evidence that practically the whole community of atmospheric scientists is wrong.

 

Unfortunately climate change denial has been unable to mount any but the most pathetic of challenges because it is dominated by spivs in the pay of the energy industry, misguided conspiracy theorists, and at the very bottom of the pile, mere frauds like you who do nothing more than act as feeble, unthinking echo chambers for whatever dross can be dragged from the net.

 

Still, I suppose you deserve some credit (!) for passing off other people's cretinous ideas as your own. It takes real courage to selflessly carry the can for that.

[Sheaf Saint]

Game, set and match....

 

And in your warped mind that's how you win arguments is it? By proving yourself so unworthy of even debating with that people give up?

 

Just... wow.

[Guided Missile]

"This Outlook provides an indication of possible temperature and rainfall conditions over the next 3 months. It is part of a suite of forecasts designed for contingency planners.

The Outlook should not be used in isolation but should be used with shorter-range and more detailed (30-day, 15-day and 1-to-5-day) forecasts and warnings available to the contingency planning community from the Met Office"

So, in other words, don't rely on our forecasting over the next three months, because it could be (and was) totally wrong. Must make most sane people wonder why any other sane person would expect the modelling geniuses at the Met to be any more accurate in the forecasting of climate trends over the next 10 years...

Edited 16 February, 2014 by Guided Missile
grammar

[Hokie]

So, in other words, don't rely on our forecasting over the next three months, because it could be (and was) totally wrong. Must make most sane people wonder why any sane person would expect the modelling geniuses at the Met to be any more accurate in the forecasting of climate trends over the next 10 years...

 

I'll bite. I won't bet money on what the single roll of a dice is going to be, or even 5 rolls of the dice. However, I'd be willing to bet you the number of 3's that will come up on 2000 rolls of the dice within 5% accuracy. Its averaging, innit? Surely you took some statistics in your chemistry degree.

[Guided Missile]

Unfortunately climate change denial has been unable to mount any but the most pathetic of challenges because it is dominated by spivs in the pay of the energy industry, misguided conspiracy theorists, and at the very bottom of the pile, mere frauds like you who do nothing more than act as feeble, unthinking echo chambers for whatever dross can be dragged from the net.

You really haven't got a clue, have you? Wipe the spittle from your lips and read the testimony of one of the "spivs", Professor Judith A. Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, in this paper. One of the few scientists who has a clue, in my opinion and if you manage to get to the end of the paper, you might learn something, although I doubt it. You've been brain washed by the Guardian and the BBC.

[badgerx16]

You really haven't got a clue, have you? Wipe the spittle from your lips and read the testimony of one of the "spivs", Professor Judith A. Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, in this paper. One of the few scientists who has a clue, in my opinion and if you manage to get to the end of the paper, you might learn something, although I doubt it. You've been brain washed by the Guardian and the BBC.

 

In the best tradition of cherry-picking quotes :

 

"If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet."

 

"It is difficult to untangle the relative roles of human-induced climate change versus natural variability in causing the Arctic sea ice decline."

 

"These simulations suggest an important role for natural variability as well as for human-induced climate change; further clarification of their relative roles awaits improved capabilities of the climate models...."

 

"While the direct forcing from greenhouse gases is well understood, possible problems are associated with the magnitudes of the water vapor feedback and the cloud feedback..."

 

"So what is the evidence for, and against, a dominant role in the climate since the mid-20th century of increasing human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations, and what are the major uncertainties? Below is my summary interpretation of the available evidence.

Evidence for:

•Long-term trend of increasing surface temperatures, formore than a century.

•Theoretical support for warming as greenhouse gas concentration increases.

•Long-term trend of increasing ocean heat content, although the trend for the past 10 years has been small in the upper 700 m of the ocean.

•Decline in Arctic sea ice since 1979, with record autumn minimum in 2012.

•Sea level rise since 1961 , although multi-decadal variability and confounding factors such as coastal land use and geologic process hamper interpretation of these data.

•Results from climate model simulations.

 

Evidence against:

•No significant increase in globally averaged temperature for the past 15 years.

•Lack of a consistent and convincing attribution argument for the warming from 1910-1940 and the plateau from the 1940s to the 1970s.

•Growing realization that multidecadal natural internal variability is of higher amplitude than previously accounted for in IPCC attribution analyses."

 

Having read the whole thing, and looked at her website I don't think Dr Curry is a 'denier', she seems to be questioning whether the systems we currently operate are capable of reliably modelling and projecting to a level that future political policies can be safey built upon.

[Saint in Paradise]

Governments and lots of individuals have jumped on this bandwagon purely to take money

from ordinary people. Paying more money to them will never ever do any good for the ordinary

people who are scared because they believe everything their Government has told them.All you

ever hear is "pay us more tax" - no real solutions ever seem to be put forward so what is really

happening to all this extra tax that is being gouged out?

[Guided Missile]

Governments and lots of individuals have jumped on this bandwagon purely to take money

from ordinary people. Paying more money to them will never ever do any good for the ordinary

people who are scared because they believe everything their Government has told them.All you

ever hear is "pay us more tax" - no real solutions ever seem to be put forward so what is really

happening to all this extra tax that is being gouged out?

They didn't spend it on flood prevention, just windmills.

[Guided Missile]

Having read the whole thing, and looked at her website I don't think Dr Curry is a 'denier', she seems to be questioning whether the systems we currently operate are capable of reliably modelling and projecting to a level that future political policies can be safey(sic) built upon.

EXACTLY....

 

....or, in my words "The Met Office are running scared because they are so fu ck!ng useless and p!$$ our taxes away on computer games. With their forecasting skills they couldn't predict the day of the week..."

[Guided Missile]

The Climate Change Levy adds around 3-6% to business energy bills and generates nearly a billion a year in tax receipts for the UK government. This is the real argument. When will people wake up to this gigantic scam and realise why the climate change b0ll0x is being perpetuated?

[Minty]

This thread is utterly pointless now, except for GM to copy and paste stuff without any intention of backing it up or debating it properly. I even tried to PM him to ask why he doesn't do so, and why he completely direspects everyone else, but apart from telling me that he'd respect me when I respected him (and a look back at the whole thread clearly shows that I've always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to join a debate), he pretty much ignored me again.

 

So I'm left with only one conclusion, that he is on some kind of wind-up. Anyone with a genuine interest in wanting to change others views on a subject would take more care and interest in debating points to try and sway opinion. Anyone with half a brain (yes, I've finally lowered myself to his level) would realise that to take his approach and just fire off childish insults to anyone who tries to engage with you, has pretty much lost the argument already... you can't have a discussion like this on a child/adult level, it needs to be adult/adult, but while he behaves this way it's pointless. It also devalues some of the other posters who try to engage in debate but find the conversation diluted by it.

 

SO I think we've moved way beyond debating whether climate change might be human-influenced or not, and now the issue is more about what exactly is GM's agenda, or even just his reason for posting so incessantly?

[buctootim]

This thread is utterly pointless now, except for GM to copy and paste stuff without any intention of backing it up or debating it properly. I even tried to PM him to ask why he doesn't do so, and why he completely direspects everyone else, but apart from telling me that he'd respect me when I respected him (and a look back at the whole thread clearly shows that I've always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to join a debate), he pretty much ignored me again.

 

You're lucky - he tried to threaten me by PM, that he'd turn up on my doorstep and discuss things personally. When I pointed out he was 60, short and a bit old for that kind of behaviour he went oddly quiet again.

[Guided Missile]

You're lucky - he tried to threaten me by PM, that he'd turn up on my doorstep and discuss things personally. When I pointed out he was 60, short and a bit old for that kind of behaviour he went oddly quiet again.

 

 

I don't know your name, only the village where you live, but I would really appreciate if you would delete personal references about me, including my company name, to avoid me reporting you to the mods.

 

Failing that, let me know your mobile and address I will pop round and discuss the issue in person,

 

Regards,

 

John

 

Never did receive a reply...

[badgerx16]

.....why the climate change b0ll0x is being perpetuated?

 

Yet the Judith Curry article you linked to above supports the general hypothesis that there is human induced climate change, whilst questioning whether it is as predominant an influence as some others suggest.

[Graffito]

Professor Collins' response to the Mail article.

 

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/met-office-in-the-media-16-february-2014-response-by-professor-mat-collins-and-the-met-office/

[Guided Missile]

The Met Office is running scared and I'm not surprised, considering the totally biased and unscientific approach of their Pantomime Dame....

 

The report by the Met Office states that “As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.”

 

The Met Office's chief scientist, said for the first time that "Climate change almost certainly lies behind this winter's torrential rains and violent storms."

Edited 17 February, 2014 by Guided Missile

[Guided Missile]

The saddest excuse for the failure of climate modelling has to be this laughable extract from the Met's statement:

 

With respect to changes in storminess, the good news is that recent advances in climate science are starting to pay dividends. Improved spatial resolution in models – that means that they can model weather and climate in more spatial detail – is allowing the models to represent some of the key factors that drive regional weather patterns. As the Met Office report states ‘With a credible modelling system in place it should now be possible to perform scientifically robust assessments of changes in storminess, the degree to which they are related to natural variability and the degree to which there is a contribution from human-induced climate change.’

 

Jesus H. Christ, talk about a dog ate homework moment...

[Whitey Grandad]

That's like saying that Weather Change lies behind changes in the weather.