Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
kerplunk said:
rovermorris999 said:
Indeed. I'd ask them how accurate the measurements are. Show me the error bars!
Indeed but the error bars affect David Rose's claim as well of course.Never mind f
king error bars!!!show me the mediteranian climate in the south of england we were warned
about
, hi time these climate cretins did something produtive or usefull instead of spouting crap and milking the tax payer for research grantsto produce moronic scare storys about melting this or rising that or some snail becomeing acified, shower of t
ts the fking lot of them......
I've just listened to a hilarious article on radio 4 talking about the 25th Anniversary of the met offices failure to predict the great storm of 87.
The presenter (Peter Gibbs) was boasting about the new super computer they have that can predict the weather 'not just for the UK, but for the whole planet' and talking about how accurate they are now. His closing statement was that it was quite impressive that they have only made one major mistake in the last 25 years ! I guess two extremely cold winters and a BBQ summer that never happened aren't really mistakes then ? Still I guess if they really do understand our chaotic weather systems, they will be able to feed this new found knowledge into their climate models and come up with 'even more' accurate doom and gloomisms. Of course if they are wrong, then we just need to provide more funds for an even more powerful super computer... Douglas Adams predicted this process rather well if I remember correctly
The presenter (Peter Gibbs) was boasting about the new super computer they have that can predict the weather 'not just for the UK, but for the whole planet' and talking about how accurate they are now. His closing statement was that it was quite impressive that they have only made one major mistake in the last 25 years ! I guess two extremely cold winters and a BBQ summer that never happened aren't really mistakes then ? Still I guess if they really do understand our chaotic weather systems, they will be able to feed this new found knowledge into their climate models and come up with 'even more' accurate doom and gloomisms. Of course if they are wrong, then we just need to provide more funds for an even more powerful super computer... Douglas Adams predicted this process rather well if I remember correctly
Neatly put, powerstroke 
and rasto, to avoid reality it looks like warmists are using those Douglas Adams opaque specs so they can't see their scaremongering predictions going up in carbon rich smoke.
With the UK's wonderful Mystic Met spinning for their new computer funding against the sixteen year no-overall-warming problem, it turns out that NOAA pulled that rug from under them all of 4 years ago as pointed out by WattsUp.
The NOAA 2008 'State of the Climate' (ho ho ho) report noted all too clearly that computer climate mdels "rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate".
Bingo, 16 years and counting (El Nino due).
NOAA and UKMO, welcome to the world of ultra-expensive climate gigo failure.
Nothing else could be expected from inadequate modelling based on junkscience.
and rasto, to avoid reality it looks like warmists are using those Douglas Adams opaque specs so they can't see their scaremongering predictions going up in carbon rich smoke.With the UK's wonderful Mystic Met spinning for their new computer funding against the sixteen year no-overall-warming problem, it turns out that NOAA pulled that rug from under them all of 4 years ago as pointed out by WattsUp.
The NOAA 2008 'State of the Climate' (ho ho ho) report noted all too clearly that computer climate mdels "rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate".
Bingo, 16 years and counting (El Nino due).
NOAA and UKMO, welcome to the world of ultra-expensive climate gigo failure.
Nothing else could be expected from inadequate modelling based on junkscience.
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 16th October 08:54
turbobloke said:
The man who cannot be pm'd/ e-mailed?!
TB - are you interested in meeting Owen Patterson to argue the 'cause'? (See above.)One taker so far but they may be willing to meet more than one of us... Dates suggested by his pps are 23rd Nov or sometime in December.
If you are, maybe you could pm me to arrange things.
turbobloke said:
Neatly put, powerstroke and rasto, to avoid reality it looks like warmists are using those Douglas Adams opaque specs so they can't see their scaremongering predictions going up in carbon rich smoke.
With the UK's wonderful Mystic Met spinning for their new computer funding against the sixteen year no-overall-warming problem, it turns out that NOAA pulled that rug from under them all of 4 years ago as pointed out by WattsUp.
The NOAA 2008 'State of the Climate' (ho ho ho) report noted all too clearly that computer climate mdels "rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate".
Bingo, 16 years and counting (El Nino due).
NOAA and UKMO, welcome to the world of ultra-expensive climate gigo failure.
Nothing else could be expected from inadequate modelling based on junkscience.
meh drawing trends using the 97/98 'El Nino of the century' peak as the start point is a bit of a yawn (it's deja vu all over again). Let us know when you've got something that looks a bit more robust and less of a statistical fluke. and rasto, to avoid reality it looks like warmists are using those Douglas Adams opaque specs so they can't see their scaremongering predictions going up in carbon rich smoke.With the UK's wonderful Mystic Met spinning for their new computer funding against the sixteen year no-overall-warming problem, it turns out that NOAA pulled that rug from under them all of 4 years ago as pointed out by WattsUp.
The NOAA 2008 'State of the Climate' (ho ho ho) report noted all too clearly that computer climate mdels "rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate".
Bingo, 16 years and counting (El Nino due).
NOAA and UKMO, welcome to the world of ultra-expensive climate gigo failure.
Nothing else could be expected from inadequate modelling based on junkscience.
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 16th October 08:54
btw the 16yr claim is false and the Daily Fail have been getting a bit jiggy with that graph of theirs. Despite claiming to be a graph beginning at the start of 1997 it actually starts in August so that's 15yrs, not 16.
Why did they start it in August? Well here's the data with the missing months of '97 included so you tell me:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1997...
kerplunk said:
meh drawing trends using the 97/98 'El Nino of the century' peak as the start point is a bit of a yawn (it's deja vu all over again). Let us know when you've got something that looks a bit more robust and less of a statistical fluke.
btw the 16yr claim is false and the Daily Fail have been getting a bit jiggy with that graph of theirs. Despite claiming to be a graph beginning at the start of 1997 it actually starts in August so that's 15yrs, not 16.
Why did they start it in August? Well here's the data with the missing months of '97 included so you tell me:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1997...
Hi KP - stepping away from arbitary starts and ends for trend lines. At what point will the divergence of CO2 emissions and temperatures have to reach for you to doubt the CAGW theory? There is no correlation with CO2 and temperatures over the last 15 years (still warm does not equal warming! - talking of 8 of the ten last whatever's is deliberately side stepping the question. There has been little or no warming - the question was not "is it still warm" ) . btw the 16yr claim is false and the Daily Fail have been getting a bit jiggy with that graph of theirs. Despite claiming to be a graph beginning at the start of 1997 it actually starts in August so that's 15yrs, not 16.
Why did they start it in August? Well here's the data with the missing months of '97 included so you tell me:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1997...
With no correlation (not to be confused with negative correlation) how secure is the CAGW theory in your own mind?
"meh drawing trends using the 97/98 'El Nino of the century' peak as the start point is a bit of a yawn (it's deja vu all over again)"
It's a sixteen year period. The timing of it, start point and end point, matter not.
Warmists do understand this, surely?
The key point about climate model failure at the 95% confidence level is not about a trend, it's about a period of time with no overall warming.
If the query was raised within a lack of understanding, not good; if it was raised with understanding, as an attempt to mislead or obfuscate, not good.
Not to worry, an El Nino is brewing and the temperature rise can be indicated (by warmists, again) with no explanation as to the natural origin (again). Same old.
It's a sixteen year period. The timing of it, start point and end point, matter not.
Warmists do understand this, surely?
The key point about climate model failure at the 95% confidence level is not about a trend, it's about a period of time with no overall warming.
If the query was raised within a lack of understanding, not good; if it was raised with understanding, as an attempt to mislead or obfuscate, not good.
Not to worry, an El Nino is brewing and the temperature rise can be indicated (by warmists, again) with no explanation as to the natural origin (again). Same old.
Jinx said:
Hi KP - stepping away from arbitary starts and ends for trend lines. At what point will the divergence of CO2 emissions and temperatures have to reach for you to doubt the CAGW theory? There is no correlation with CO2 and temperatures over the last 15 years (still warm does not equal warming! - talking of 8 of the ten last whatever's is deliberately side stepping the question. There has been little or no warming - the question was not "is it still warm" ) .
With no correlation (not to be confused with negative correlation) how secure is the CAGW theory in your own mind?
Hi,these are reasonable questions, but not easy to answer (and a pity you use the CAGW acronym - what does catastrophic entail exactly?)With no correlation (not to be confused with negative correlation) how secure is the CAGW theory in your own mind?
As a 'warmist' I think the planet is likely to carry on warming and the current plateau is a just a pause caused by natural variabilty (and possibly some man-made effects eg, aerosols) but that doesn't preclude me from having doubts. When it comes to making predictions it would be irrational not to have doubts wouldn't it - and especially so for a layman. I don't know how to quantify 'doubt' and it can vary so I won't try to. Similarly for the 'how long' question there's so many variables, and ifs and buts, it would take more effort than I'm prepared to put in to give even a half-decent answer.
Here's just one simple scenario for you though and quite near-future - if El Nino develops in the coming months and it's a reasonable strength one (not high stength, just reasonable) and it doesn't cause record-breaking temps that would certainly increase my doubts.
kerplunk said:
Here's just one simple scenario for you though and quite near-future - if El Nino develops in the coming months and it's a reasonable strength one (not high stength, just reasonable) and it doesn't cause record-breaking temps that would certainly increase my doubts.
Interesting - but inferring something from your post, why would a single instance of decreased (or increased) natural variability in climate have any relevance to your faith in non-existent manmade warming? Still, if it helps you to acclimatise to the reality of natural climate change and an absence of any visible, measurable manmade component, it can't be a bad thing.turbobloke said:
"meh drawing trends using the 97/98 'El Nino of the century' peak as the start point is a bit of a yawn (it's deja vu all over again)"
It's a sixteen year period. The timing of it, start point and end point, matter not.
Warmists do understand this, surely?
The key point about climate model failure at the 95% confidence level is not about a trend, it's about a period of time with no overall warming.
If the query was raised within a lack of understanding, not good; if it was raised with understanding, as an attempt to mislead or obfuscate, not good.
Not to worry, an El Nino is brewing and the temperature rise can be indicated (by warmists, again) with no explanation as to the natural origin (again). Same old.
No August 1997 to August 2012 really is a 15 year period, honestly - I've counted it on my fingers and toes.It's a sixteen year period. The timing of it, start point and end point, matter not.
Warmists do understand this, surely?
The key point about climate model failure at the 95% confidence level is not about a trend, it's about a period of time with no overall warming.
If the query was raised within a lack of understanding, not good; if it was raised with understanding, as an attempt to mislead or obfuscate, not good.
Not to worry, an El Nino is brewing and the temperature rise can be indicated (by warmists, again) with no explanation as to the natural origin (again). Same old.
I don't think I've missed the point about trends at all. If I was a highly motivated pseudo-sceptic, with the 97/98 super el nino in mind I would have it down on my 'to do' list to start checking the 15yr trends towards the end of 2012 cos that represents good odds of an easy propoganda win against those cerazy scientists.
As a 'warmist' though I think it's likey to be a statistical fluke and ephemeral. We'll only know who is right when it's some way back in the rear-view mirror.
kerplunk said:
As a 'warmist' though I think it's likey to be a statistical fluke and ephemeral. We'll only know who is right when it's some way back in the rear-view mirror.
By which time we will of destroyed thousands of jobs and killed loads of OAPs with stupidly high energy costs while also killing the value of my house due to some stupid fking windmills wrecking the peace and quiet of the countrysideturbobloke said:
Interesting - but inferring something from your post, why would a single instance of decreased (or increased) natural variability in climate have any relevance to your faith in non-existent manmade warming? Still, if it helps you to acclimatise to the reality of natural climate change and an absence of any visible, measurable manmade component, it can't be a bad thing.
I was asked a question about temperature-related AGW doubt and answered accordingly. AGW requires the temperature to increase and that increase should be most apparent when natural cycles are on an upswing. to the reality of natural climate change and an absence of any visible, measurable manmade component, it can't be a bad thing.kerplunk said:
No August 1997 to August 2012 really is a 15 year period, honestly - I've counted it on my fingers and toes.
The interval is fifteen years, but the period (as posted) includes the years at the start and end of the interval and so covers 16 years 
kerplunk said:
I don't think I've missed the point about trends at all. If I was a highly motivated pseudo-sceptic, with the 97/98 super el nino in mind I would have it down on my 'to do' list to start checking the 15yr trends towards the end of 2012 cos that represents good odds of an easy propoganda win against those cerazy scientists.
Clearly you have missed the point.The issue here is not in any way concerned with what surrounds the 15 year
interval - or 16 year period - and whether or how a selection of that period for closer inspection might influence any perspective on a wider trend.The mere existence of an interval or period of time of that length with no overall warming shows that climate models fail as specified.
Propaganda? See RC and SC.
kerplunk said:
As a 'warmist' though I think it's likey to be a statistical fluke and ephemeral. We'll only know who is right when it's some way back in the rear-view mirror.
If you were a statistician you would realise that use of a 95% confidence level told you what you needed to know in that regard. It is far from likely to be a 'fluke'.It's odd that, with no visible / measurable human signal in the data, you still manage to believe IPCC estimates of their belief in their own viewpoint, which use percentages and certainty / uncertainty. How can that be
In the case of IPCC it's pure garbage and therefore easy to spot.
I thought the overall "theory" of global warming was that man made CO2 caused an increase in temp.
Over the last 15 years, I'm pretty sure CO2 output has massively increased (anyone got any links?). Yet whatever way you look at it, the last 15/16 years has seen no/negligible change.
Am I completely missing something?
Over the last 15 years, I'm pretty sure CO2 output has massively increased (anyone got any links?). Yet whatever way you look at it, the last 15/16 years has seen no/negligible change.
Am I completely missing something?
London424 said:
I thought the overall "theory" of global warming was that man made CO2 caused an increase in temp.
Over the last 15 years, I'm pretty sure CO2 output has massively increased (anyone got any links?). Yet whatever way you look at it, the last 15/16 years has seen no/negligible change.
Am I completely missing something?
Indeed Over the last 15 years, I'm pretty sure CO2 output has massively increased (anyone got any links?). Yet whatever way you look at it, the last 15/16 years has seen no/negligible change.
Am I completely missing something?
According to the warmist bible, tax gas beats everything including feeble natural forcings and internal variability. We are doomed. Pay more tax, live in a cave, adopt a poverty spec lifestyle and hand over any spare wealth to a nearby hippy.
Until the warming stops for a 15 year interval, then the tax gas forcing is on holiday and will be back soon once it feels refreshed. We are doomed. Pay more tax, live in a cave, adopt a poverty spec lifestyle and hand over any spare wealth to a nearby hippy.
London424 said:
I thought the overall "theory" of global warming was that man made CO2 caused an increase in temp.
Over the last 15 years, I'm pretty sure CO2 output has massively increased (anyone got any links?). Yet whatever way you look at it, the last 15/16 years has seen no/negligible change.
Am I completely missing something?
Yes - CO2 does feck all iro of the planet's environment apart from feeding plants.Over the last 15 years, I'm pretty sure CO2 output has massively increased (anyone got any links?). Yet whatever way you look at it, the last 15/16 years has seen no/negligible change.
Am I completely missing something?
kerplunk said:
As a 'warmist' though I think it's likey to be a statistical fluke and ephemeral. We'll only know who is right when it's some way back in the rear-view mirror.
That's all you've got left. Finally. You are reduced to asking everyone to wait for a few decades when you'll be proved correct.Terrific. It must be so reassuring to sit on your side of the fence. No proof is needed. Only time. Oh, and blind faith.
Blib said:
That's all you've got left. Finally. You are reduced to asking everyone to wait for a few decades when you'll be proved correct.
Terrific. It must be so reassuring to sit on your side of the fence. No proof is needed. Only time. Oh, and blind faith.
In the meantime let us pay out billions in tax "just in case"....Terrific. It must be so reassuring to sit on your side of the fence. No proof is needed. Only time. Oh, and blind faith.
And if they are wrong?!? Can we shoot them?
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
No August 1997 to August 2012 really is a 15 year period, honestly - I've counted it on my fingers and toes.
The interval is fifteen years, but the period (as posted) includes the years at the start and end of the interval and so covers 16 years kerplunk said:
I don't think I've missed the point about trends at all. If I was a highly motivated pseudo-sceptic, with the 97/98 super el nino in mind I would have it down on my 'to do' list to start checking the 15yr trends towards the end of 2012 cos that represents good odds of an easy propoganda win against those cerazy scientists.
Clearly you have missed the point.The issue here is not in any way concerned with what surrounds the 15 year
interval - or 16 year period - and whether or how a selection of that period for closer inspection might influence any perspective on a wider trend.The mere existence of an interval or period of time of that length with no overall warming shows that climate models fail as specified.
Propaganda? See RC and SC.
kerplunk said:
As a 'warmist' though I think it's likey to be a statistical fluke and ephemeral. We'll only know who is right when it's some way back in the rear-view mirror.
If you were a statistician you would realise that use of a 95% confidence level told you what you needed to know in that regard. It is far from likely to be a 'fluke'.It's odd that, with no visible / measurable human signal in the data, you still manage to believe IPCC estimates of their belief in their own viewpoint, which use percentages and certainty / uncertainty. How can that be
In the case of IPCC it's pure garbage and therefore easy to spot.
What with questionable start points, positive trends being portrayed as zero, and other datasets showing greater warming, I'm sure you can see how someone might think the shout is lacking robustness and looks a bit 'eager'.
I'd drop the 16yr claim if I were you but suit yourself
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff