 Poster: A snowHead
|
tuxpoo, I was just about to post the same link, following a 30-second Google search.
Seany, the current understanding of the majority of scientists regarding GW may well be right. I'm not one so I cannot tell. But you still assert that the scientific debate is over (using solid debating skills, may I add). That's a damn high level of certainty that you claim. As far as I can see, we are far from understanding the climate as well as we understand pure physics.
You (or others) may well believe that the weight of evidence for GW is so great that we need to act now rather than regret later. That's a more reasonable proposition, but then it's not anymore a purely scientific one - others can counter it with economic or political arguments.
Incidentally, I'm not an all-round opponent of GW theory. I've read somewhere an intriguing idea: that the additional energy in the system due to GW is for now being used up mainly in melting the ice caps, and that once much of this melting has taken place, the increase in temperature could be much faster. For my non-scientifically trained mind this seems possible (and scary).
What I do object to is the imposition of huge economic costs to counter GW and the emergence of a culture of guilt regarding energy use. All this while the developing world is pumping out additional CO2 much faster than we can cut our own emissions. In the country I grew up in, the population was asked to make similar energy savings while the industry was profligate in its use of energy. At a global level, this seems to be the case now - the solutions being proposed are too circumscribed by politics, in some cases for good reason. (What about giving the Chinese a few hundred billion to invest in greener energy production techniques? What about switching en masse to nuclear power? No? I guess it's easier to ask everyone in Western Europe and the US to drive a Prius and insulate their homes, but I don't think it will make as much difference).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Like most climate debates, this has gone off the rails - if it were ever on any.
It might help if the protagonists could state precisely what proposition(s) they are arguing for or against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
Like most climate debates, this has gone off the rails - if it were ever on any.
It might help if the protagonists could state precisely what proposition(s) they are arguing for or against. |
I believe that the Earth is, on balance, experiencing a warming cycle. As can happen during an inter-glacial period. This may or may not have come to an end, the time sample is too short IMO.
This may be due to the well documented historic fluctuations, or it may in the short term be partly due to mans activities.
What I, and others, object to is the stance of some which say it's beyond discussion (ie it's mans "fault") so stop arguing against it.
What I also object to is the terminology being used ("Heretic", "Denier" etc) and that many well respected scientists won't say what they believe due to this, and the possible withdrawal of funding. This is a deliberate attempt to stifle debate. It has thus become more of a political/financial/agenda driven subject than a scientific one.
Up until 1998/2000 the MMGW supporters had a good case, since then, not so. Whether this is a blip in the inexorable rise of Earths temperature, who knows. But many have quite openly questioned it, as a proper scientist would do. And they have been shouted down. This is not in anyones interest unless you can gain from doing so.
Personally I have a well founded suspicion of some of my fellow creatures ability to forward themselves at the expense of the wider population. Generally when you are told to sit down, be quiet, and take your medicine, it's good for you, despite your own misgivings, alarm bells start to ring.
In a nutshell, though by no means in its entirety.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Seany, here is what the Met Office Hadely Centre say global temperatures has done since 2000. The trend is?
 "
^Anomaly to 1961-90 base period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
its amuses me to see old editions of gardeners world planting stuff that can only grow on mercury due to global warming. then a few years later watching half the country spend most of its time under 2 feel of flood water. naturally by then global warming had switched from turning the country into a desert to causing lots of rain and flooding.. hurrah.. now the flooding seems to have stopped i guess we are left with it being extra windy or fog.. yes that will do.. climate change fog.!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The list purports to be "Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming". The 1st paper on the list is:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v316/n6029/abs/316591a0.html
The abstract is:
| Quote: |
| During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic−time series for this period has been obtained using 18 O data from an Antarctic ice core. |
How does this support the anti-AGW argument?
Why would you autmatically believe that some random bloke off the internet is telling you? Don't you think it is worthwhile reading what he has to say and critically exmaining the evidence before making your mind up? Not just saying 'oooh, this looks impressive, must be right!'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| tuxpoo wrote: |
Somehave free previews.
Im sure you will find fault in them all.
|
Of course he will.
His mind is completely closed on this, since so far as he is concerned, "the science has been done and the results are in". |
<head><desk><head><desk>
So wanting to critically examine the list is evidence of a closed mind is it? Who is the one who has really made up their mind already here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| tuxpoo wrote: |
Somehave free previews.
Im sure you will find fault in them all.
|
Of course he will.
His mind is completely closed on this, since so far as he is concerned, "the science has been done and the results are in". |
<head><desk><head><desk>
So wanting to critically examine the list is evidence of a closed mind is it? Who is the one who has really made up their mind already here? |
time and again you refuse to even take anything else apart from your belief system.
it's got to be peer reviewed and also by people you agree with.
you have a belief, not science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
Seany, here is what the Met Office Hadely Centre say global temperatures has done since 2000. The trend is?
"
^Anomaly to 1961-90 base period. |
Here's the long-term trend and what the Met Office say about it:
| Quote: |
| Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming. |
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
So your interpretation of a short time period is more correct than the long-term trend calculated by the Met Office is it? I'd note here that the Met Office point out the complexity of the subject and don't point to a cherrypicked graph and say 'look, the line has gone a bit flat, that must mean that there'll be no future warming'.
Here's a more meaningful graph showing the trend:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact2.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| mugen wrote: |
time and again you refuse to even take anything else apart from your belief system.
it's got to be peer reviewed and also by people you agree with.
you have a belief, not science. |
You've googled some stuff off the interweb and believe it supports your position without reading or understanding it. I wanted to critically examine it, in a scientific way. Now who has the belief system? a) You b) me.
(Answer: a) You)
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Wed 6-05-09 13:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
time and again you refuse to even take anything else apart from your belief system.
it's got to be peer reviewed and also by people you agree with.
you have a belief, not science. |
You've googled some stuff off the interweb and believe it supports your position without reading or understanding it.. I wanted to critically examine it, in a scienitific way. Now who has the belief system? a) You b) me.
(Answer: a) You) |
no, you made the statement that the results were in and it was conclusive.
regardless what it is to assume the results are conclusive is not science, it is belief.
i believe that things should be tested and tested again. understanding develops over time so to suggest something is conclusive that is as complicated as climate beggars belief.
i would suggest it is not conclusive and that understanding over time will change.
if you've ever read a text book from the early 1900's you'd realise how quickly attitudes and understanding develop and change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
A RealClimate blogger? No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Seany wrote: |
Here's the long-term trend and what the Met Office say about it:
| Quote: |
| Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming. |
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
So your interpretation of a short time period is more correct than the long-term trend calculated by the Met Office is it? I'd note here that the Met Office point out the complexity of the subject and don't point to a cherrypicked graph and say 'look, the line has gone a bit flat, that must mean that there'll be no future warming'.
Here's a more meaningful graph showing the trend:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact2.html |
It's not clear to me that the Met Office is an infallible source of wisdom. It predicted hot, dry summers for 2007 (I believe that one was meant to be the hottest ever) and 2008 - in the event we had cool, damp squibs. It's done the same for 2009 - we shall have to wait and see. It also predicted a much milder past winter than the one we ended up with. ISTM at least a possibility that their predictions are biased by an over-estimation of the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming, which they tirelessly publicise.
I have a problem with "THE trend". It implies that a single straight line can meaningfully model past conditions and that it can be projected into the indefinite future. I don't think the climate works like that, seeming to oscillate on a whole variety of timescales.
The Met Office graph is just as cherry-picked as the one starting in 2000, starting as it does at the end of the Little Ice Age. It would tell a different story if it began in the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period or the Holocene Optimum or the Allerød Period...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| CANV CANVINGTON wrote: |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
.
.
this is the rest of the article. you can get any side of any arguement you want off the internet |
<scratches>
SO if they cant actually agree on what temperature it is today! How the hell is can they know what it is going to be in 15, 25, 50 etc years time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Seany wrote: |
The list purports to be "Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming". The 1st paper on the list is:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v316/n6029/abs/316591a0.html
The abstract is:
| Quote: |
| During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic−time series for this period has been obtained using 18 O data from an Antarctic ice core. |
How does this support the anti-AGW argument?
Why would you autmatically believe that some random bloke off the internet is telling you? Don't you think it is worthwhile reading what he has to say and critically exmaining the evidence before making your mind up? Not just saying 'oooh, this looks impressive, must be right!'. |
Not getting access to the actual paper its difficult. But looking at papers that link to it. It may (if we could see the paper) show a trends for climate change that imply current trends are within normal boundaries for temperature change.
Red or white wine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Seany, I 'cherry picked' the period you specifically mentioned as having warmed.
| Quote: |
| So you said that temp since 2000 has not increased. It has. |
That is not what is shown by the Hadley data set over the period from 2000, the trend is a fraction below flat, how is that a warming of temperature since 2000?
| Quote: |
| So your interpretation of a short time period is more correct than the long-term trend calculated by the Met Office is it? I'd note here that the Met Office point out the complexity of the subject and don't point to a cherrypicked graph and say 'look, the line has gone a bit flat, that must mean that there'll be no future warming'. |
I didn't say anything even close to what you implied, what I did say was:
| Quote: |
The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact.
However it has no bearing on comment 1, because AGW is not, never has been and never will be the only show in town. Climate is always changing and whatever underlying trend may occur due to increasing CO2 concentrations does not stop natural cycles and natural variability.
|
Specifically "because AGW is not, never has been and never will be the only show in town." is basically what you quoted from the Met Office to try and disagree with me:
| Quote: |
| Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming. |
The Met Office, NGOs, environmentalists etc took hold of the notion of trying to 'scare' the public over AGW, absurd slogans like 'Stop Climate Chaos' spring to mind, painting a picture of runaway warming and impending Armageddon. In 1998 it was Global Warming not El Nino that caused the record breaking warm year, but latterly it's La Nina that stopped us being warmer than 1998. It seems like when it's El Nino and it's warmer it's global warming, but if it's La Nina and its cooler, it's ENSO! 
That sort of thing fuels cynicism. Coupled with the picture painted by a broad coalition of ever rising temperatures, it means the current spell where there has not been clear ever rising temperature with record after record year due to inevitable natural variability in climate means even more cynicism and loss of public confidence in climate science. Can you not see the problem with that?
Belatedly even the Met Office seemed to have realised this - "Stop misleading Climate Claims":
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html
Shame she hadn't told the Met Office's own Alex Hill who the same day fed this to the Scotsman the day after the best snow weekend of the Scottish Ski Season:
| Quote: |
Skiing is 'doomed' …
Alex Hill, the chief government adviser with the Met Office, told The Scotsman there was no future for skiing in Scotland because climate change would see winters become too warm for regular snowfall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| The Met Office graph is just as cherry-picked as the one starting in 2000, starting as it does at the end of the Little Ice Age. It would tell a different story if it began in the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period or the Holocene Optimum or the Allerød Period... |
And that is the problem.
"Global Warming" is only really the issue it is because it's a threat to mankind. Over the last millenium we have increasingly crafted the world to suit our needs, this accelerating in the last 100 years or so. Any change in climate will cause catastrophic problems, because "our" Earth needs to remain at a constant. But the only problem with that is that Earth is anything other than a constant. It hasn't been in it's past and it certainly won't be in the future.
"Global Warming" is being seen from a purely arbitrary point in time. Had man reached the same level of ascendency by the Medieval Warm Period, global cooling would be the problem, and much the same kind of hysteria we're experiencing today would prevail.
I think the whole MMGW debate tells us more about the arrogance of mankind and our perceived power over nature than a genuine attempt to understand what's going on. How could anything other be in charge of our destiny but ourselves?
And with that the Politicians and anyone with an agenda move in to turn science into a circus.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BCjohnny, leaving aside their relative probability (whatever it be), I would find global cooling a much scarier proposition than an equivalent amount of global warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
time and again you refuse to even take anything else apart from your belief system.it's got to be peer reviewed and also by people you agree with.
you have a belief, not science. |
If you knew anything about science you'd realise just how ridiculous it is to say that insisting on peer reviewed evidence is symptomatic of 'belief' rather than 'science'. Do you even know what peer review is, how it works or what it is for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| BCjohnny, leaving aside their relative probability (whatever it be), I would find global cooling a much scarier proposition than an equivalent amount of global warming. |
So do I, and if you think about the effect on Eurasia and N.America, in particular, and the subsequent consequences, so should everybody.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| It's not clear to me that the Met Office is an infallible source of wisdom. It predicted hot, dry summers for 2007 (I believe that one was meant to be the hottest ever) and 2008 - in the event we had cool, damp squibs. It's done the same for 2009 - we shall have to wait and see. It also predicted a much milder past winter than the one we ended up with. ISTM at least a possibility that their predictions are biased by an over-estimation of the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming, which they tirelessly publicise. |
Nor would they claim to be an infalible source of wisdom. The prediction for 2008 was wrong, but:
| Quote: |
| In a preliminary report, released today on behalf of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the global mean temperature for 2008 is 14.3 °C, making it the tenth warmest year on a record that dates back to 1850. |
| Quote: |
| They say this figure is slightly down on earlier years this century partly because of the La Niña that developed in the Pacific Ocean during 2007. |
| laundryman wrote: |
| I have a problem with "THE trend". It implies that a single straight line can meaningfully model past conditions and that it can be projected into the indefinite future. I don't think the climate works like that, seeming to oscillate on a whole variety of timescales. The Met Office graph is just as cherry-picked as the one starting in 2000, starting as it does at the end of the Little Ice Age. It would tell a different story if it began in the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period or the Holocene Optimum or the Allerød Period... |
You'd have a point if the Met Office cherry-picked their data or drew a straight line through some data points. But they don't. Here's another graph:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact3.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| BCjohnny, leaving aside their relative probability (whatever it be), I would find global cooling a much scarier proposition than an equivalent amount of global warming. |
So do I, and if you think about the effect on Eurasia and N.America, in particular, and the subsequent consequences, so should everybody.
John. |
Global cooling alarmists! Global cooling alarmists! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| BCjohnny, leaving aside their relative probability (whatever it be), I would find global cooling a much scarier proposition than an equivalent amount of global warming. |
So do I, and if you think about the effect on Eurasia and N.America, in particular, and the subsequent consequences, so should everybody.
John. |
Global cooling alarmists! Global cooling alarmists! |
Well...................
There is a reasonably well substantiated theory that just before we go into the next glacial period, the Earth will warm slightly (as it is now) and then be plunged into the freezer. Again as it has done historically.
And the next glacial period, if not overdue, may not be that far away.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
That is not what is shown by the Hadley data set over the period from 2000, the trend is a fraction below flat, how is that a warming of temperature since 2000?
|
Follow the trend line on this graph from 2000 onwards:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html
It also says
| Quote: |
| A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
The last time I looked at my calendar it was only May 2009 so that graph is badly drawn. Very odd website too, no provenance for the data that I can see or an 'About us' section. It doesn't have much google juice either:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1TSEA_ENUK316&q=%22climate-graphs.co.uk%22&btnG=Search&meta=
Anyway, just to remind you of what you said:
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact. |
Point 2 being:
| Quote: |
| 2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly. |
Which is wrong according to your graph, since 2000 is the lowest temparature on there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Seany wrote: |
The last time I looked at my calendar it was only May 2009 so that graph is badly drawn. Very odd website too, no provenance for the data that I can see or an 'About us' section. It doesn't have much google juice either:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1TSEA_ENUK316&q=%22climate-graphs.co.uk%22&btnG=Search&meta=
Anyway, just to remind you of what you said:
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact. |
Point 2 being:
| Quote: |
| 2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly. |
Which is wrong according to your graph, since 2000 is the lowest temparature on there. |
Unless I'm reading the graph wrong, from the end of 2000 to the end of 2007 the temperature has actually dropped. Pretty much in line with what I stated.
I'm guessing the kick up at the end of 2008 is a prediction. So no surprise there then.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| Unless I'm reading the graph wrong, from the end of 2000 to the end of 2007 the temperature has actually dropped. Pretty much in line with what I stated. |
What you are doing is moving the goalposts to make you right instead of wrong. You said 2000, not the end of 2000. Or 2001. So you were wrong. Not right.
Anyway, arbitrary local trend-lines aren't very instructive so it's worthwhile looking at the longer term:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Seany, the trend is not a linear one, and according to the AGW theory it should be. Secondly, meteorology is still a long way from having a good, reliable model (or law, if you wish) unlike thermodynamics. I'd say their predictions and models are closer to the ones used by economists (i.e. much better at explaining past events than making predictions).
The long(er) term predictions made by the met office, based on AGW model have been wrong two years in a row, and i'm sure you know, in science the main proof is being able to make accurate predictions (the proverbial pudding, if you wish). It would seem to me, that this is an oversimplification, at best, and the fact that there is such a consensus on a theory that fails at such a basic requirement of scientific standards, does not inspire confidence, to say the least
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| sugardaddy wrote: |
| Seany, the trend is not a linear one, and according to the AGW theory it should be. |
Really??? According to who???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| tuxpoo wrote: |
Somehave free previews.
Im sure you will find fault in them all.
|
Of course he will.
His mind is completely closed on this, since so far as he is concerned, "the science has been done and the results are in". |
<head><desk><head><desk>
So wanting to critically examine the list is evidence of a closed mind is it?
|
Not in the least.
But you haven't shown the slightest sign of being prepared to accept there might even be any evidence to "critically examine".
It is your repeated statements along the lines of "The science is done. The results are in" which is the sign of a closed mind.
| Quote: |
Who is the one who has really made up their mind already here? |
You. I don't think anybody else is saying that Man made climate change is not happening, just that we aren't yet sure.
While you are saying that it is an absolute, just as certain as Newton's laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact. |
Point 2 being:
| Quote: |
| 2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly. |
Which is wrong according to your graph, since 2000 is the lowest temparature on there. |
OK now your being absurd, so trend doesn't matter, but cherry picked individual years do. That's weather not climate, never mind cherry picking.
Are you are simply trolling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seany wrote: |
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| Unless I'm reading the graph wrong, from the end of 2000 to the end of 2007 the temperature has actually dropped. Pretty much in line with what I stated. |
What you are doing is moving the goalposts to make you right instead of wrong. You said 2000, not the end of 2000. Or 2001. So you were wrong. Not right.
Anyway, arbitrary local trend-lines aren't very instructive so it's worthwhile looking at the longer term:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html |
Oh, wow. Really starting to struggle now eh Seany....................
Ok then, by the very end of 2008 temperature has pretty much returned to the level it was at the beginning of 2000.
In that period of time, MM CO2 has increased in a fairly linear manner.
Proponents of MMGW contend, nay proclaim, that MM CO2 is directly causing GW.
So as to my original question, how do you reconcile the two.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With regards to the article linked above about the divergence of GISS and Hadley temperature records, here is that in graphical format:
If we have increasing divergence in current temperature records, how can it be proclaimed so confidently that the models have been right this decade as Sir David King did the other week:
| Quote: |
| "We need to get Engineers and Scientists working on solutions - after all since I spoke to you in 2001/2 over those 8 years, all our predictions have been very accurate indeed" |
How can the predictions of warming be very accurate if scientists can't agree if there has been warming or not over the period. A lot of people could do with reading and heeding the Met Office Press Release about miss-leading climate claims.
The science may be nailed on the effect of CO2, but it is not the be all and end all of climate and there is plenty of other factors man made and natural which lead to climate variability that are not at all well understood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| But you haven't shown the slightest sign of being prepared to accept there might even be any evidence to "critically examine". It is your repeated statements along the lines of "The science is done. The results are in" which is the sign of a closed mind. |
Well, provide me with some science to critically examine. Provide one or two of your best pieces of anti-AGW science.
I guess I'm in good company in being 'closed minded', Nasa, Met Office, all those governments that signed up to Kyoto and their chief scientific advisers, the Royal Society and all of these scientific academies that endorsed the IPCC findings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
I honestly don't know what I think I'm doing getting my science and scientific opinion from scientists. Obviously I should believe non-experts, armchair pontificators, lobbyists and the usual assortment of cranks, nutters, malcontents and contrarians that run climate 'sceptic' blogs.
| alex_heney wrote: |
| I don't think anybody else is saying that Man made climate change is not happening, just that we aren't yet sure. |
Yeah, right.
| alex_heney wrote: |
| While you are saying that it is an absolute, just as certain as Newton's laws. |
Not an absolute, but the evidence is overwhelming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| Seany wrote: |
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact. |
Point 2 being:
| Quote: |
| 2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly. |
Which is wrong according to your graph, since 2000 is the lowest temparature on there. |
OK now your being absurd, so trend doesn't matter, but cherry picked individual years do. That's weather not climate, never mind cherry picking.
Are you are simply trolling? |
Hang on, you made a specifc claim and I pointed out that you were wrong. Becasue you were. I also pointed out that the long-term data was more important and you changed the subject back to the post 2000 data set because it supports your argument over a cherry picked period!! Who's trolling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
