In your face evidence of climate change

[NHyde]

nigelfr said:

NHyde said:

"A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. One paper, published by Dr Dennis Wheeler, a Sunderland University geographer, in the journal The Holocene, details a surge in the frequency of summer storms over Britain in the 1680s and 1690s.

Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850. "

Now I know that both of you place far more belief in computer models than historical observations, but pray explain how these storms occured in the Little Ice Age and what influence AGW or CO2 had on it .

You really don't get it do you: there's a difference between local weather and global climate. Big storms happen, calm days happen, it rains, the sun shines: that's weather. The biggest storm I ever experienced was in 1977, that was in South East England. A decade later, there was a bigger storm in the same town, but I wasn't there, so as far as I'm concerned the weather has been milder there since 1977.


Your really are totally uncritical when you quote something in your favour: take the following sentance that you quote: "A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. "

It says, questions have been raised about climate change theories. Now, what is important to know is which particular climate change theories? The rest of the article gives some clues: "Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850."

So it appears that the questions raised refer to the belief of many scientists that storms are a consequence of global warming.

That is all that you can derive from the quotes you mention. IT doesn't cast doubt on the underlying theory of global warming.

As an aside,I would actually prefer it if the article was more precise: what do they mean by "many"? Even "scientists" is a bit imprecise: all scientists? Climate scientists?

Nige , just reread your diatribe , I would have thought that you biggest experience of weather was the Michael Fish storm (Hurricane) of 1987 but what the hell would I know , as I had left school before then and was taught not indoctrinated!!

Whatever, answer the question , what part of AGW caused the storms of the mid 17th century ?

[Blib]

[sigh] I remember when this was (almost) an ad hominem free zone. [/sigh]

[10 Pence Short]

Far be it from me to suggest that the Earth has been merrily cooling down and heating it up all by itself for millions of years.

If it warms up, it warms up, if it cools down, it cools down. How arrogant of us to assume we're influential enough to stop things.

[im]

turbobloke said:

Reply to im

Note that 'ludo is a cock' was an example of what TB has NOT said on here but your isolated quote suggests otherwise.

It was purely to facilitate the 'joke' that followed - no misrepresentation intended.

I assume your talking about the oceans acting as huge 'carbon sinks' when you say they are far more important than the rain forests?

I constantly seem to hear about this mythical piece of the Amazon forest "the size of Wales" being felled every year though so I'm presuming that eventually - in the not to distant future - all of these Wales sized bites will add up to 1 Amazon rain forest and it'll be 'good night vienna'.

[10 Pence Short]

I didn't think Vienna was in the Amazon?

[turbobloke]

Blib said:

sigh I remember when this was (almost) an ad hominem free zone. /sigh

You mean when people accepted the cut and thrust banter of internet debate without whining about ad hominem? It started when our handful of True Believers, whose tactics usually depend on it, decided that a bit of reverse psychology might help their pitiful cause. Same goes for cherry picking and selective quoting. It's all they whine about these days, but you can't really blame them for endless distractions when there's no observational global climate data in support of their position.

10 Pence Short said:

Far be it from me to suggest that the Earth has been merrily cooling down and heating it up all by itself for millions of years.

If it warms up, it warms up, if it cools down, it cools down. How arrogant of us to assume we're influential enough to stop things.

Steady on old chap them kinda comments is taxable. Spot on all the same.

[mybrainhurts]

ludo said:

unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Biased fudge springs to mind here.

I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.

I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.

If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.

Odd, don't you think?

Have you checked their sources, old boy..?

[Blib]

I remember 'Global Cooling' and the onset of a new ice age being taught to me at school in the seventies.

We were quite excited at the time as, during the last ice age, the glaciers got as far south as North FInchley, which was just up the road from our school.

[Jasandjules]

10 Pence Short said:

I didn't think Vienna was in the Amazon?

Only when UltraVox are giving a concert?

[ludo]

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Biased fudge springs to mind here.

I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.

I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.

If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.

Odd, don't you think?

Have you checked their sources, old boy..?

So in the seventies, were you reading the primary scientific litterature or were you reading the reports in the media? It was an invention of the media, the survery of the primary scientific litterature of the time shows it was a misrepresentation of the balance of opinion. If you want to disprove that, feel free to do your own survey of the scientific journals of the seventies and get back to us.

[Blib]

I freely admit that I'm not the cleverest bloke on here by a long chalk. Many of the posts and most of the graphs that TB, Ludo et al. place on the various threads about MMGW go flying over my head.

However, I have gleaned, rightly or wrongly, that the pro MMGW camp base their conclusions on powerful computer generated predictions based on current understanding of climate.

My question is this.

As far as I know, no one has much more than the most basic understanding of how our planet's complete climate operates. So, how can anyone extrapolate anything from the figures pumped into computers primed with an incomplete model with confidence?

Apologies if I've missed something fundamental here.

Thanks.

[turbobloke]

Blib said:

As far as I know, no one has much more than the most basic understanding of how our planet's complete climate operates. So, how can anyone extrapolate anything from the figures pumped into computers primed with an incomplete model with confidence?

Apologies if I've missed something fundamental here.

Thanks.

Nothing missed, your suspicions are accurate. Models are expensive politically backed computer games, pure GIGO, advocacy more than science.

Fiddle Factor & Fudge Ltd couldn't do a better job.

[ludo]

Blib said:

I freely admit that I'm not the cleverest bloke on here by a long chalk. Many of the posts and most of the graphs that TB, Ludo et al. place on the various threads about MMGW go flying over my head.

However, I have gleaned, rightly or wrongly, that the pro MMGW camp base their conclusions on powerful computer generated predictions based on current understanding of climate.

The projections of future climate are indeed based on model output, however, there isn't really any other way of making objective forecasts. However, there is a variety of evidence that AGW is happening that doesn't depend on the models, see e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=105

[Blib]

ludo said:

Blib said:

I freely admit that I'm not the cleverest bloke on here by a long chalk. Many of the posts and most of the graphs that TB, Ludo et al. place on the various threads about MMGW go flying over my head.

However, I have gleaned, rightly or wrongly, that the pro MMGW camp base their conclusions on powerful computer generated predictions based on current understanding of climate.

The projections of future climate are indeed based on model output, however, there isn't really any other way of making objective forecasts. However, there is a variety of evidence that AGW is happening that doesn't depend on the models, see e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=105

That wasn't my question.

[ludo]

Blib said:

ludo said:

Blib said:

I freely admit that I'm not the cleverest bloke on here by a long chalk. Many of the posts and most of the graphs that TB, Ludo et al. place on the various threads about MMGW go flying over my head.

However, I have gleaned, rightly or wrongly, that the pro MMGW camp base their conclusions on powerful computer generated predictions based on current understanding of climate.

The projections of future climate are indeed based on model output, however, there isn't really any other way of making objective forecasts. However, there is a variety of evidence that AGW is happening that doesn't depend on the models, see e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=105

That wasn't my question.

Sorry, it appeared that you were starting from an incorrect premise (that AGW is based solely on GCMs, it isn't)

Blib said:

As far as I know, no one has much more than the most basic understanding of how our planet's complete climate operates. So, how can anyone extrapolate anything from the figures pumped into computers primed with an incomplete model with confidence?

It is not correct to say that no one has much more than the most basic understanding of how our planet's complete climate operates. Like all science, climatology is provisional and progressive, as research is performed our understanding and ability to model the climate improves. All models are incomplete, it is the nature of modelling (statistical modelling is what I do for a living), the question is whether the models are sufficiently complete to provide useful predictions. I'd say they do (e.g the prediction of the consequences of Pinatubo). Of course if you listen to the sceptic camp, you will only hear of their failings, if you only listen to the eco-mentalists you will only hear of their successes. If you listen to the scientists you will hear both.

What we can't do is predict the weather with any accuracy more than a couple of days in advance (and even that is difficult). However that is not the same thing as predicting climate, which is far easier (you only need to get the long term statistics right, rather than the chaotic detail).

[JMGS4]

All you MMGW fans and true-believers should read this. More information than any skewed false computer predictions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-Nelso...

The Royal Navy is probably the best source for ACCURATE climate data EVER!! Mind you GoreOn wasn't around then nor were the IPCC idiots when this data was accurately recorded, and they have blatantly ignored it from the beginning as it doesn't fit into their fantasy religion!!

[chris watton]

Don’t expect straight answers, there aren’t any, but don’t worry, in 20 years time, after the ‘New Ice Age’ and ‘MMGW’ theorists have retired on their government funded pensions, there will be another new ‘Worse than previously thought’ made up threat, probably too much static in the air due to all the electric cars causing fictional problems in order to tax and pick on people who’s electric motor produces too much power, or some such nonsense – or people who live in a house with more than one room will be castigated for ‘extravagant lifestyles’

That is, if you all last that long, what with children being encouraged to snitch on their own parents for ‘Climate Crimes’!

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

Blib said:

I freely admit that I'm not the cleverest bloke on here by a long chalk. Many of the posts and most of the graphs that TB, Ludo et al. place on the various threads about MMGW go flying over my head.

However, I have gleaned, rightly or wrongly, that the pro MMGW camp base their conclusions on powerful computer generated predictions based on current understanding of climate.

The projections of future climate are indeed based on model output, however, there isn't really any other way of making objective forecasts.

Of course there is, unless you blinker yourself through ignorance or choice.

You look at the evidence and data and as a result you ignore the obviously inconsequential plant food gas red herring, and look instead at the natural climate forcings that have dominated climate for millennia and continue to do so - solar irradiance and eruptivity forcings have periodicities, Milankovitch forcings have periodicities, beyond that the timescales are too long to bother with.

The website linked to by ludo hopes its readers are suitably propagandised already, and will therefore fall for...

Plant food gas levels are rising...so what if it's not having any visible impact on climate (it isn't)

Plant food gas causes warming...NO it doesn't, there is no eopsode of warming CAUSED by carbon dioxide levels shifting, temperature shifts always precede plant food gas shifts...the site wants you to assume there is, it also wants you to forget that plant food gas is a weak greenhouse gas that's already shot its bolt

The earth has warmed consistent with AGW...no it hasn't, the degree of expected warming has been cut back time and again, now we've had six years of cooling overall that were not predicted before the fact by any models as they failed to account for solar eruptivity forcing and placed too much belieeeeeeef in positive feedback when there isn't any in sight

Bullet point mania...

• Surface weather station measurements - are full of errors (McKitrick & Michaels) which overestimate warming by at least 100%, soviet cold station data has been lost so more systematic errors

• Satellite measurements show that the troposphere is warming...BUT by a minuscule amount below model predicitons, and the tropical troposphere warming predicted by teh models is nowhere

• The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory (this cannot be explained by solar variability) unfortunately it is under-predicted, the stratosphere has cooled by more than predicted

• Temperatures at the ocean surface and at various ocean depths show warming as far down as 1500 meters...which is very difficult to explain in terms of MMGWT

• Sea level rise...is way below predictions and continues to decline in rate Ssince the interglacial started, it also shows no discontinuity when carbon dioxide emissions increase, model predictions are wrong

• Greenland and Antarctica show net ice loss...WRONG Antarctica is gaining mass at a rate of 27 billion tonnes/year (Joughin & Tulaczyk, Wingham et al)

• Sea-ice loss in the Arctic is dramatically accelerating...in the summer? D'oh, sea ice gains are back, ask Wrong Way Flanagan, keep up perlease - and remember the previous episodes of ice loss in the nineteenth century and 1920s were just as pronounced as the loss being reversed - and entirely natural

• Acceleration of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, particularly within the last few years...is that a typo? Accelerating decline (as below)? Then bing bong wrong again, there are glaciers advancing (Friddjovbreen) only a few km away from glaciers retreating (Blomstrandbreen) in the arctic so how is this global change?

• The rise of the tropopause...wants us to assume cause and effect (ehy?)

• Poleward migration of species...again so what, there is no cause and effect link to MMGW (which doesn't exist)

• Increased intensity of hurricanes as expected from rising sea surface temperatures...WRONG as explained by former IPCC scientist and NOAA hurricane expert Dr Chris Landsea in his resignation letter, the IPCC lied about this - there is no human signal in hurricane data

• Accelerating decline of glaciers throughout the world...while others nearby advabnce? How global that is

• Rise in temperatures at greater depths in the permafrost...again wants us to assume cause and effect to non-existent MMGW

• Rapid expansion of thermokarst lakes throughout parts of Siberia, Canada and Alaska...as aboev this is getting repetitive

And the rest, assumed cause and effect, if the reader isn't propagandised already they won't fall for it.

Conclusion: there is clear empirical evidence (for AGW or MMGWT whatever the junk science is called)...no there isn't - as above - nor is there any REAL evidence for MMGWT in terms of a human signal in global climate data. This is an absolute sh!tter for True Believers as it effectively refutes their theory / religious belief, and is tehrefore dismissed or downplayed or weasel worded away, it won;t disappeat though and True Believers will be reminded of it constantly

What a lot of hot air that MMGWT site is

[randomman]

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

Blib said:

I freely admit that I'm not the cleverest bloke on here by a long chalk. Many of the posts and most of the graphs that TB, Ludo et al. place on the various threads about MMGW go flying over my head.

However, I have gleaned, rightly or wrongly, that the pro MMGW camp base their conclusions on powerful computer generated predictions based on current understanding of climate.

The projections of future climate are indeed based on model output, however, there isn't really any other way of making objective forecasts.

Of course there is, unless you blinker yourself through ignorance or choice.

You look at the evidence and data and as a result you ignore the obviously inconsequential plant food gas red herring, and look instead at the natural climate forcings that have dominated climate for millennia and continue to do so - solar irradiance and eruptivity forcings have periodicities, Milankovitch forcings have periodicities, beyond that the timescales are too long to bother with.

The website linked to by ludo hopes its readers are suitably propagandised already, and will therefore fall for...

Plant food gas levels are rising...so what if it's not having any visible impact on climate (it isn't)

Plant food gas causes warming...NO it doesn't, there is no eopsode of warming CAUSED by carbon dioxide levels shifting, temperature shifts always precede plant food gas shifts...the site wants you to assume there is, it also wants you to forget that plant food gas is a weak greenhouse gas that's already shot its bolt

The earth has warmed consistent with AGW...no it hasn't, the degree of expected warming has been cut back time and again, now we've had six years of cooling overall that were not predicted before the fact by any models as they failed to account for solar eruptivity forcing and placed too much belieeeeeeef in positive feedback when there isn't any in sight

Bullet point mania...

• Surface weather station measurements - are full of errors (McKitrick & Michaels) which overestimate warming by at least 100%, soviet cold station data has been lost so more systematic errors

• Satellite measurements show that the troposphere is warming BUT by a minuscule amount far below predicitons, and the tropical troposphere warming predicted by teh models is nowhere

• The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory (this cannot be explained by solar variability) unfortunately it is under-predicted, the stratosphere has cooled by more than predicted

• Temperatures at the ocean surface and at various ocean depths show warming as far down as 1500 meters...which is very difficult to explain in terms of MMGWT

• Sea level rise...is way below predictions and continues to decline in rate Ssince the interglacial started, it also shows no discontinuity when carbon dioxide emissions increase, model predictions are wrong

• Greenland and Antarctica show net ice loss...WRONG Antarctica is gaining mass at a rate of 27 billion tonnes/year (Joughin & Tulaczyk, Wingham et al)

• Sea-ice loss in the Arctic is dramatically accelerating...in the summer? D'oh, sea ice gains are back, ask Wrong Way Flanagan, keep up perlease - and remember the previous episodes of ice loss in the nineteenth century and 1920s were just as pronounced as the loss being reversed - and entirely natural

• Acceleration of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, particularly within the last few years...is that a typo? Accelerating decline (as below)? Then bing bong wrong again, there are glaciers advancing (Friddjovbreen) only a few km away from glaciers retreating (Blomstrandbreen) in the arctic so how is this global change?

• The rise of the tropopause...wants us to assume cause and effect (ehy?)

• Poleward migration of species...again so what, there is no cause and effect link to MMGW (which doesn't exist)

• Increased intensity of hurricanes as expected from rising sea surface temperatures...WRONG as explained by former IPCC scientist and NOAA hurricane expert Dr Chris Landsea in his resignation letter, the IPCC lied about this - there is no human signal in hurricane data

• Accelerating decline of glaciers throughout the world...while others nearby advabnce? How global that is

• Rise in temperatures at greater depths in the permafrost...again wants us to assume cause and effect to non-existent MMGW

• Rapid expansion of thermokarst lakes throughout parts of Siberia, Canada and Alaska...as aboev this is getting repetitive

And the rest, assumed cause and effect, if the reader isn't propagandised already they won't fall for it.

Conclusion: there is clear empirical evidence (for AGW or MMGWT whatever the junk science is called)...no there isn't - as above - nor is there any REAL evidence for MMGWT in terms of a human signal in global climate data. This is an absolute sh!tter for True Believers as it effectively refutes their theory / religious belief, and is tehrefore dismissed or downplayed or weasel worded away, it won;t disappeat though and True Believers will be reminded of it constantly

What a lot of hot air that MMGWT site is :rolleyes

So its not 4x4's fault then?

[turbobloke]

randomman said:

So its not 4x4's fault then?

Erm...let's see...nope