In your face evidence of climate change

[ludo]

Guam said:

What you cant do is predict the climate with any sense of forecastable accuracy, there is no way currently to eradicate the risk of spurious correlation in the data being used for modelling, as too many variables are not understood to a significant degree of confidence.

GCMs are not correllation based models, but are based on an approximation of the underlying physics, so that seems an odd criticism, could you expand on that?

Guam said:

One of the main drivers of climate is the ocean and we are still in relative infancy in understanding how that is functioning, let alone the solar cycles short term cycles are better predictors due to the observations of solar prominences, over a number of years by the astronomical community) long term cycles can only be gleaned from geological data and that data is poo pooed by the "true believers"

Better predictors in a statistical sense (i.e. better correllated)?

[turbobloke]

A bit of expansion as requested by ludo.

Modelling status quo as per IPCC AR4 SPM Page 16 (LOSU = level of scientific understanding as self-assessed by the IPCC)

Forcing	LOSU
greenhouse gases	high
ozone	high
stratospheric water	low
surface albedo	med-low
total aerosol	low
linear contrails	low
solar irradiance	low

So: ozone was high LOSU but Rex just blew that apart so now lmed-low but improving.

Single figures extent only, no mention of solar eruptivity or quite a lot besides as shown by this moderately comprehensive list of climate forcings:

• Background cosmic ray flux

• Cosmic ray flux enhancement from local supernovae

• Solar magnetic cycles (cosmic ray attenuation / cloud formation / albedo)

• Sunspot cycles (radiation)

• Meteorite and cometary impacts

• Cosmic dust accretion (Sun)

• Changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun i.e. elliptical eccentricity

• Changes in the angle of tilt of the Earth upon its axis

• Shorter duration 'wobbles' of the Earth upon its axis

• The changing shape of the Earth [the Earth's mean dynamic oblateness parameter)

• The changing rotational velocity of the Earth's core, and the planet itelf

• Lunar tidal slowing of the Earth's rotation, previously >465d in 1 year

• Changes in the Earth's magnetic field

• Tectonics including volcanism

• Changes in the circulation patterns of the oceans

• Changes in ocean salinity and chemistry as a coupled atmosphere system

• Changes in ice-sheet stability

• Changes in sea-ice thickness

• Changes in atmospheric water vapour, the most important 'greenhouse' gas of all

• Clouds and cloudiness other than crf

• Natural variations in atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide and methane

• Changing albedo (reflectivity of Earth) through natural landscape change

• Surface radiative energy fluxes

• Vegetative emission of volatile organic aerosols

• Non-linear coupling / feedback links for all of the above in various combinations

• Chaotic attractors linked to the chaotic nature of the coupled ocean-atmosphere climate system

Modelling end of term report - could do much better, get a real job

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 4th August 11:05

[nigelfr]

NHyde said:

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 ?

As I said: You can't read a text. If you look at my post you would notice that I had moved away when the 1987 storm hit: the clue is in the phrase "A decade later, there was a bigger storm in the same town, but I wasn't there..." Sorry if that was too subtle for you. You do realise that a decade after 1977 is 1987 don't you?

And you ask what part of AGW caused those storms: none. There wasn't any AGW then. You do understand that weather happened before AGW, don't you? I really don't get your point. Is it something along the lines: some scientists believe AGW may lead to more storms. Storms occurred in the past, before AGW. Gotcha, AGW can't be real? If not, please show us your chain of logic.

[JMGS4]

Guam said:

What you cant do is predict the climate with any sense of forecastable accuracy,

Well said sir!
EXACTLY, even a three day weather forecast is so miserably innacurate that one can consign (virtually) all forecasts to the bin.
So how the HELL do these idiots think they can forecast a doomsday event like a predicted massive sea-level rise...
It's about as full of fantasy as a fairy tale!!!Sorry, modern tribalist religion!

[ludo]

JMGS4 said:

Guam said:

What you cant do is predict the climate with any sense of forecastable accuracy,

Well said sir!
EXACTLY, even a three day weather forecast is so miserably innacurate that one can consign (virtually) all forecasts to the bin.
So how the HELL do these idiots think they can forecast a doomsday event like a predicted massive sea-level rise...
It's about as full of fantasy as a fairy tale!!!Sorry, modern tribalist religion!

Duh, predicting the weather is more difficult than predicting the climate. Well done, you have just demonstrated that you don't know the difference between climate and weather.

[chris watton]

Guam said:

[
If you really do believe that which you are postulating you should be dumping that Elise mate and getting an electric car, as otherwise your whole approach is a little hypocritical dont you think?



Cheers

No chance, it seems all Socialists adopt a George Orwells' Animal Farm approach to their flakey reasoning, and they all see themselves as Napoleon in that story.

[ludo]

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

What you cant do is predict the climate with any sense of forecastable accuracy, there is no way currently to eradicate the risk of spurious correlation in the data being used for modelling, as too many variables are not understood to a significant degree of confidence.

GCMs are not correllation based models, but are based on an approximation of the underlying physics, so that seems an odd criticism, could you expand on that?

Guam said:

One of the main drivers of climate is the ocean and we are still in relative infancy in understanding how that is functioning, let alone the solar cycles short term cycles are better predictors due to the observations of solar prominences, over a number of years by the astronomical community) long term cycles can only be gleaned from geological data and that data is poo pooed by the "true believers"

Better predictors in a statistical sense (i.e. better correllated)?

Exactly the point TB myself and others have been making, they are "approximations" based on someones opinion, there isnt even enough hard data to take a simplistic line of best fit approach right now. I admire your intrangigence in the face of such well founded crtitique but the whole precept is fundamentally flawed (and always has been).

This is NOT "Science" in the accepted sense, as the hypotheses are incapable of being proven or disproven it is opinion, educated or otherwise. Our concerns on the skeptical side are driven by the fact that policies and taxation are being (and have been) set on the basis of a "smoke and mirrors" approach to the problem. This "new religion" is causing real hurt to real people without any proven benefits (other than the funding benefits to "researchers", and the Increased donations to Greenpeace, friends of the earth etc.

Governments need potential catasrophric consequence to assist in diverting voters from real issues (cold war anyone)? War is a normal political tool, however the threat of global death is a much more attractive proposition as it requires no bodybags to achieve and has the same desired effects.

As for the technical information I will leave that to TB as he is doing a stirling job of blowing craters in your arguements and there is only so much of that any thread can take.

In other words, you have no answer to the points I made.

Guam said:

If you really do believe that which you are postulating you should be dumping that Elise mate and getting an electric car, as otherwise your whole approach is a little hypocritical dont you think?

Duh, you don't think perhaps that the fact I have a sports car suggests that perhaps I am not an eco-mentalist? Fossil feuls are a resource that should be used responsibly, just like any other, you'd have to be needlessly puritanical to say they shouldn't be used for enjoyment, they just shouldn't be wasted. Whether we use fossil fuels is a balance between the benefits gained and the environmental costs. Perhaps you are taken in by the constant "true believer" ad-hominems?

[nigelfr]

NHyde said:

Can you not put your green goggles away? We are dealing with historical facts here , which now is coming in to the public domain. It is not local weather , it is regional , in this case north of the equuator( That is half the world in case your models do not show it) http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/3... .

I hold the same opinion of journalists(having been married to one) as I do of ecomentalists, however , sometimes they do have a habit of exposing things which otherwise remain hidden unless they are in the pay of the establishment. The sad thing these days , is that the esatablishment controls the media , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inq... 1984 anyone ?

Get your atlas out old chap and have a look at the Northern hemisphere, check your abstract: find it refers to Northeast Atlantic region. Look for that on the map (hint it's probably a blue bit). Now compare that to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. Now far be it from me to claim that your "bit" is small, but compared to North American, Central America, Europe, most of Asia, the North Pacific and the other three quarters of the Atlantic, I believe that you are rather exaggerating the size/importance of your part. What was it you said? Oh yes "It is not local weather , it is regional , in this case north of the equuator( That is half the world in case your models do not show it) "

BTW you do realise that it's global climate change we're talking about?

Now I know joined up thinking is a skill that you're trying hard to develop, so I won't answer this question for you. See if you can work it out. You said:"The sad thing these days , is that the esatablishment controls the media , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inq... 1984 anyone ?"

Now, if the establishment controls the media, how come you read about this in, ooh er, the media?

[ludo]

nigelfr said:

NHyde said:

Can you not put your green goggles away? We are dealing with historical facts here , which now is coming in to the public domain. It is not local weather , it is regional , in this case north of the equuator( That is half the world in case your models do not show it) http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/3... .

I hold the same opinion of journalists(having been married to one) as I do of ecomentalists, however , sometimes they do have a habit of exposing things which otherwise remain hidden unless they are in the pay of the establishment. The sad thing these days , is that the esatablishment controls the media , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inq... 1984 anyone ?

Get your atlas out old chap and have a look at the Northern hemisphere, check your abstract: find it refers to Northeast Atlantic region. Look for that on the map (hint it's probably a blue bit). Now compare that to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. Now far be it from me to claim that your "bit" is small, but compared to North American, Central America, Europe, most of Asia, the North Pacific and the other three quarters of the Atlantic, I believe that you are rather exaggerating the size/importance of your part. What was it you said? Oh yes "It is not local weather , it is regional , in this case north of the equuator( That is half the world in case your models do not show it) "

BTW you do realise that it's global climate change we're talking about?

Now I know joined up thinking is a skill that you're trying hard to develop, so I won't answer this question for you. See if you can work it out. You said:"The sad thing these days , is that the esatablishment controls the media , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inq... 1984 anyone ?"

Now, if the establishment controls the media, how come you read about this in, ooh er, the media?

and that all the work was funded by, er... the establishment!

[nigelfr]

JMGS4 said:

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!!

Do try and keep up: we've been discussing this for a couple of days now. You're getting a bit overexcited: "The data source is confirmed as providing a valuable addition to climatic sources, and is additionally important because it is based on regular daily observations and made at sea-an area very poorly represented for this time period." http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/3...

But it's not global coverage. It has helped by recording the frequency of summer storms in that period and also by showing that a hurricane can move in a direction that was not thought possible. This has encouraged some scientists to review their claims of some of the possible consequences of MMCC, but not the causes.

[ludo]

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

If you really do believe that which you are postulating you should be dumping that Elise mate and getting an electric car, as otherwise your whole approach is a little hypocritical dont you think?

Duh, you don't think perhaps that the fact I have a sports car suggests that perhaps I am not an eco-mentalist? Fossil feuls are a resource that should be used responsibly, just like any other, you'd have to be needlessly puritanical to say they shouldn't be used for enjoyment, they just shouldn't be wasted. Whether we use fossil fuels is a balance between the benefits gained and the environmental costs. Perhaps you are taken in by the constant "true believer" ad-hominems?

In other words do as I say rather than do as I do, YOU can act responsibly however the rest of us have to be punished to feed YOUR incorect view?

Strewth you are making hard work of this aren't you? I am not telling anyone how to behave, I am discussing the science. I just prefer the AGW debate, if we are going to have one, to be based on a reasonably accurate view of the science (from both sides), and as free as possible of misrepresentation, incorrect scientific arguments and ad-hominems. If you think I am calling for some draconian measures then I am right, you have been fooled by the constant ad-hominems.

[nigelfr]

chris watton said:

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

That's a new one on me. Please enlighten me.

[hairykrishna]

ludo said:

Strewth you are making hard work of this aren't you? I am not telling anyone how to behave, I am discussing the science. I just prefer the AGW debate, if we are going to have one, to be based on a reasonably accurate view of the science (from both sides), and as free as possible of misrepresentation, incorrect scientific arguments and ad-hominems. If you think I am calling for some draconian measures then I am right, you have been fooled by the constant ad-hominems.

There's no point denying it. If you disagree with the all knowing Turbobloke and dare to suggest that you agree with the vast majority of people who actually study the climate full time then you obviously must be some kind of lentil munching hippy.

[chris watton]

nigelfr said:

chris watton said:

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

That's a new one on me. Please enlighten me.

Lifted from another thread:

a few threads back said:

beanbag said:
It's appalling. But since the UK is now a police state, it doesn't surprise me one little bit.

It's the next part however that shocks me the most using children against their own parents and then presenting their "crimes" at school to the teacher. What wouldn't surprise me is if the teacher then recorded these "crimes" to the government, and they in turn got a visit from some left-wing enviromentalist government agency representative.


Article said:
Energy firm recruits children as 'climate cops'

Last week's Sunday Times carried a large advertisement for the German-owned energy company npower, inviting children to "save the planet this summer" by becoming "climate cops". A picture showed a sleeping dad, with a notice on his head warning in a childish scrawl that he had been found guilty of "climate crime" by "falling asleep with the tv still on".

For more "interactive games and fun downloads", readers were invited to contact npower's Climate Cops website. This explains in comicbook format how children can spy on their parents, relatives and neighbours to catch them out in seven "climate crimes", such as leaving the TV on standby, putting hot food in a fridge or freezer (as is recommended by hygiene experts) or failing to use low-energy light bulbs.

Children could record these offences in a "climate crime case file", while teachers are offered a full "learning resource" pack for use in schools, including a PowerPoint presentation and posters for classroom walls.

When my colleague Richard North asked the Advertising Standards Authority how they squared this with their rules prohibiting "marketing communications" which "undermine parental authority", they replied (as he records on his EU Referendum blog) that they had "considered you (sic) objections but do not feel it have (sic) breached our Codes on the basis you suggest".

My own advice to children tempted to become "climate cops" is that they might begin by looking at npower's own record as operators of 13 fossil fuel power stations.

Its coal-fired Aberthaw power station in Wales, for instance, emits more CO2 in two months than is notionally saved in a year by all the 2,000 wind turbines now disfiguring Britain's countryside. If merely going to sleep in front of the TV is a "climate crime", why haven't the directors of npower put themselves behind bars long ago?
It's very enterprising.

The Nazi's used this exact same method against the Jews and other enemies of the state.

It's so nice to see it being brought back into service some 60 years on.

Hopefully, the children will also be able to shoot their parents in the back of the head with a Luger and have the fantastic joy of watching them slide into the pit with all the other bodies of the environmental crimals. Although it would be far more economical to bring back gas chambers I'm not sure they would pass the modern emissions requirements.

Viva the new Hitler Youth.

[ludo]

Guam said:

ludo said:

JMGS4 said:

Guam said:

What you cant do is predict the climate with any sense of forecastable accuracy,

Well said sir!
EXACTLY, even a three day weather forecast is so miserably innacurate that one can consign (virtually) all forecasts to the bin.
So how the HELL do these idiots think they can forecast a doomsday event like a predicted massive sea-level rise...
It's about as full of fantasy as a fairy tale!!!Sorry, modern tribalist religion!

Duh, predicting the weather is more difficult than predicting the climate. Well done, you have just demonstrated that you don't know the difference between climate and weather.

Theres that Arrogance again, try to make the naysayers seem dumb, you really need a new approach (or am I sensing desperation here)?

O.K., so the ad-hominems didn't take long

Guam said:

The basic Idea of the process is similar (although localised rather than Global) both require an understanding of the variables to a degree that doesnt yet exist to be able to arrive at a predictable outcome. Both are impacted by seeming random events which will produce variations in the predicted outcomes, however neither of them as yet are capable of differentiating between an expected outcome and random variation in the data?

Statistically both areas at the climate level and the met level have issues in their modelling. However to be fair to the Met Office their short term forecasting is much improved statistically speaking, its their medium and long term forecasts which come unglued (they admit this when you visit them in Bracknell). And that with some of the best computing capability on the planet and with much more extensive recording than the climatologists have at THEIR disposal!
Cheers

The point is that GCMs work by simulating the weather, not predicting it. The physical models can generate synthetic weather with similar statistical properties, but can't predict the actual weather as they can represent the initial conditions with anything like sufficient accuracy. However, climate is the statistical properties, not the unpredictable chaotic variation that we call weather. Saying that we can't predict climate because we can't predict weather is simply an indication of ignorance of the principles on which GCM based projections are made.

[JMGS4]

ludo said:

JMGS4 said:

Guam said:

What you cant do is predict the climate with any sense of forecastable accuracy,

Well said sir!
EXACTLY, even a three day weather forecast is so miserably innacurate that one can consign (virtually) all forecasts to the bin.
So how the HELL do these idiots think they can forecast a doomsday event like a predicted massive sea-level rise...
It's about as full of fantasy as a fairy tale!!!Sorry, modern tribalist religion!

Duh, predicting the weather is more difficult than predicting the climate. Well done, you have just demonstrated that you don't know the difference between climate and weather.

Ludo, I'd advise you to improve your relatively poor understanding of the english language, see following


Weather
1: the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
Climate
2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) i.e. weather

So they are inextricably bound together....they are the same, just differntly quantified.

By the way implying someone is a heretic shows a very poor and blinkered understanding of the general situation or discussion, or even an inability to inherently understand the discussion.
Why not bring back the stake and burn all non-believers?
It's such arrogant and uninformed statements that make all you quasi-religionist alarmists just totally unbelievable.
I'd no more believe Tiny bLIAR than any person who dourly refuses to answer an oft repeated question by one of his critics and just blusters and is disingenuous.
You should join the Labour Party, you match the mendacity of Brown/Blair and Byers rather well.
THE QUESTION!!!!
Where is the human signal????

[NHyde]

Nige , you cannot criticise anyone re their ability to read a text, please read one word at a time what I had written

I hold the same opinion of journalists(having been married to one) as I do of ecomentalists, however , sometimes they do have a habit of exposing things which otherwise remain hidden unless they are in the pay of the establishment. The sad thing these days , is that the esatablishment controls the media , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inq... 1984 anyone

So what part of the word "unless" do you ( and ludo)not understand ?

The link which is something else you seem incapable of understanding, I have copied for you below , and shows a part of the "media" coming under government control.

Comprehension was obviously not on the curriculum at your school.

The Government has spent almost £2 million to fund programmes that are all but indistinguishable from regular shows, The Sunday Telegraph has established.

But unlike normal documentaries, the programmes are commissioned by ministers with the purpose of showing their policies or activities in a sympathetic light.

The media watchdog Ofcom has disclosed that it had opened an investigation into one of the programmes, Beat: Life on the Street — about the Government’s controversial Police Community Support Officers, to see whether it breached its broadcasting code.

Media freedom campaigners, broadcasters and opposition politicians expressed alarm over the Government-funded documentaries.

The Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow said: “I find it extraordinary. So the Government is funding commercial television productions highlighting government policy? Presumably they don’t criticise government policy.”

The Government has funded at least eight television series or individual programmes in the past five years.

Subjects range from an Army expedition to climb Everest to advice for small businessmen on how to improve their company’s fortunes.

However, the show about PCSOs and a newly commissioned programme about Customs and Immigration officers are particularly controversial because they deal with sensitive political issues and policies.

Beat: Life on the Street, which was supported with £800,000 of funding by the Home Office for its first two series, portrayed PCSOs as dedicated, helpful and an effective adjunct to the police — despite the controversy about their role.

One Whitehall source admitted of the documentary: “It allows the Government to have more air time and get its message across to people.”

Ministers are so pleased with the way the series, which drew in audiences of three million people on ITV and changed the public’s perception of the officers, that they commissioned a third series, to be broadcast next year.

But The Sunday Telegraph established that the programmes appeared to break Ofcom’s broadcasting code by not making it clear that they were funded by the Home Office.

In a further apparent breach of Ofcom rules, this time on independence, Home Office officials were directly involved in the making of the series.

They were allowed to view a second edit of individual programmes and were able to suggest changes to some of the “terminology” and “language” used in the narration.

The Conservatives condemned the Government funding of programmes as an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money.

David Ruffley, the shadow police minister, said: “People want the Government to put police on our streets, not propaganda on our television sets.”

The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom said that it was a disturbing trend in Government attempts to influence television programming.

But a Home Office spokesman said: “Documentaries of this nature play an important role in informing the public, openly and transparently, about the work of the police and UK Border Agency.

“The Home Office do not influence the content of these programmes after they are commissioned and they adhere to Ofcom’s strict guidelines on this kind of programme.”

A spokesman for ITV said: “As with all advertiser-funded programmes, Beat: Life On The Street is subject to a strict process to ensure it meets all the regulatory requirements set out under the Ofcom code on sponsorship, to ensure transparency and editorial independence by the broadcaster.”

[IainT]

ludo said:

nigelfr said:

NHyde said:

Can you not put your green goggles away? We are dealing with historical facts here , which now is coming in to the public domain. It is not local weather , it is regional , in this case north of the equuator( That is half the world in case your models do not show it) http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/3... .

I hold the same opinion of journalists(having been married to one) as I do of ecomentalists, however , sometimes they do have a habit of exposing things which otherwise remain hidden unless they are in the pay of the establishment. The sad thing these days , is that the esatablishment controls the media , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inq... 1984 anyone ?

Get your atlas out old chap and have a look at the Northern hemisphere, check your abstract: find it refers to Northeast Atlantic region. Look for that on the map (hint it's probably a blue bit). Now compare that to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. Now far be it from me to claim that your "bit" is small, but compared to North American, Central America, Europe, most of Asia, the North Pacific and the other three quarters of the Atlantic, I believe that you are rather exaggerating the size/importance of your part. What was it you said? Oh yes "It is not local weather , it is regional , in this case north of the equuator( That is half the world in case your models do not show it) "

BTW you do realise that it's global climate change we're talking about?

Now I know joined up thinking is a skill that you're trying hard to develop, so I won't answer this question for you. See if you can work it out. You said:"The sad thing these days , is that the esatablishment controls the media , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2490854/Inq... 1984 anyone ?"

Now, if the establishment controls the media, how come you read about this in, ooh er, the media?

and that all the work was funded by, er... the establishment!

Which makes it less relevant or reliable than 'research' funded by the other establishment?

[ludo]

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

If you really do believe that which you are postulating you should be dumping that Elise mate and getting an electric car, as otherwise your whole approach is a little hypocritical dont you think?

Duh, you don't think perhaps that the fact I have a sports car suggests that perhaps I am not an eco-mentalist? Fossil feuls are a resource that should be used responsibly, just like any other, you'd have to be needlessly puritanical to say they shouldn't be used for enjoyment, they just shouldn't be wasted. Whether we use fossil fuels is a balance between the benefits gained and the environmental costs. Perhaps you are taken in by the constant "true believer" ad-hominems?

In other words do as I say rather than do as I do, YOU can act responsibly however the rest of us have to be punished to feed YOUR incorect view?

Strewth you are making hard work of this aren't you? I am not telling anyone how to behave, I am discussing the science. I just prefer the AGW debate, if we are going to have one, to be based on a reasonably accurate view of the science (from both sides), and as free as possible of misrepresentation, incorrect scientific arguments and ad-hominems. If you think I am calling for some draconian measures then I am right, you have been fooled by the constant ad-hominems.

Definitely not the approach you were taking in the earlier parts of this thread, in all fairness, whenever the counterarguments have arisen you have repeatedly stepped aside from the data and tried to put down the poster, question their capabilities, or their understanding of the process.

Care to give an example, I'll happily discuss it with you.

Guam said:

Are you now saying that in actuality you are on the fence then regarding this issue?

You really are making hard work of this. In this debate, there are only two positions that seem to be unsupportable from a scientific perspective, and those are the polarised stances on either side. However, that doesn't mean that anyone is on the fence either. There are a variety of issues, each has differing degrees of uncertainty, each has varying degrees of support from the data. To boil it down to a single contunuum from sceptic to ecomentalist is an over-simplification. I am interested in the science, not the pseudo-politico posturing, I'll leave that to others.

Guam said:

If so that does at least justify the Elise (nice car BTW)

They are indeed, the handling justifies and Elise, no other justification required

[ludo]

JMGS4 said:

ludo said:

JMGS4 said:

Guam said:

What you cant do is predict the climate with any sense of forecastable accuracy,

Well said sir!
EXACTLY, even a three day weather forecast is so miserably innacurate that one can consign (virtually) all forecasts to the bin.
So how the HELL do these idiots think they can forecast a doomsday event like a predicted massive sea-level rise...
It's about as full of fantasy as a fairy tale!!!Sorry, modern tribalist religion!

Duh, predicting the weather is more difficult than predicting the climate. Well done, you have just demonstrated that you don't know the difference between climate and weather.

Ludo, I'd advise you to improve your relatively poor understanding of the english language, see following


Weather
1: the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
Climate
2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) i.e. weather

So they are inextricably bound together....they are the same, just differntly quantified.

Yes, they are linked. Climate is the long-term average behaviour of the weather. The atmosphere is chaotic, which means that a small change in initial conditions can result in substantial changes in the atmosphere over a relatively short time. That is why weather is difficult to prodict. However, the climate, being the average, is what is left when you average out the chaotic component, leaving only the signal that is due to the external forcings and internal feedbacks. That is why climate is easier to predict, the difficuly chaotic component is the bit you don't need.