Feeds

back to article Inside the new climate row as Mystic Met Office goes cool on warming

Britain's Met Office has come under fire for two pieces of crystal-ball gazing involving global temperature and British rainfall. On Christmas Eve, the Met's temperature prediction for the UK was quietly revised downwards, and only merited a press release this week after physics blog Tallbloke's Talkshop noticed the change. …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Good news and bad news

It's good news they built a better model, and bad news that they'd prefer us not to have seen the results. However, if, the new prediction is accurate, and we really have had a 20 year period without a significant rise in temperature, then climate scientists will have one important question to answer:

If natural cycles can completely mask the global warming signal for 20 years, is it not likely that they can *enhance* the global warming signal for a similar period?

My guess is that a significant portion of the warming of the 80s and 90s will turn out to have been caused by natural cycles, and that when they're accounted for we'll end up with a climate sensitivity of ~2c for a doubling of CO2 over pre-industrial levels.

13
4
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Good news and bad news

Given a choice between 'your guess' and some well-researched models and forecasts by scientists who have studied the subject for many years, I think my money goes on the Met office scientists.

7
10
Bronze badge

Re: Good news and bad news

"If natural cycles can completely mask the global warming signal for 20 years, is it not likely that they can *enhance* the global warming signal for a similar "

Well, yes. but the problem is that the warming has been going on for rather longer than 20 years.

Remove the cycles and look at the underlying trend.

5
4

natural cycles

The point that natural cycles, if they exist (as the Met Office is now agreeing with skeptics on), can both accelerate and stall temperature rises is an excellent one.

The alarmists are now saying "sure temperatures are stable now, but that just means they'll go up in a hurry later on".

That's likely to be correct, but misses the point.

The point is that what we care about is the possibility that warming is being caused by humans AND will be harmful AND that we could do something about it by decreasing our activities. If it turns out that the rapid warming in the 80s and 90s wasn't caused by us then there will be very little that we can do about any future rapid warming anyway, and we'll just have to learn to live with it.

Climate scientists work out all the natural things that they can think of that affect the climate, put them into mathematical models, and then just ASSUME that any temperature rise in excess of that was caused by us, and specifically by our CO2 emissions. This has in the past caused them to think that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial times could cause a temperature increased of 3 degrees or 4 degrees or even in some scary reports 6 degrees.

If you instead assume that there is an approximately 60 year natural cycle that is flattening temperatures now and caused them to rise faster in the 80s and 90s (and decrease in the 50s and 60s), and continue to assume that all the rest of the unaccounted-for change was caused by CO2, what you come up with is that a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial times might cause a 1.5 degree temperature increase.

That's a lot less scary than 4 or 6 degrees. And we've already seen 0.8 C of that.

There is also the possibility that there are more yet longer cycles not yet accounted for in the models. Good temperature records only go back 150 years, but there is considerable anecdotal evidence of an approximately 1000 year cycle that we're in the rising part of.

5
1
Silver badge

Re: Good news and bad news

That's what they said about phlogiston. And the Piltdown man.

1
1
Silver badge

@itzman: Phlogiston And Piltdown Man

I think that comparing the "scientific research" used to support AGW, with the phlogiston theory and the Piltdown Man hoax is very appropriate, really. And although you did not mention it, phrenology especially, where random bumps on your head are taken to have real significance, rather like the Met Office takes random points on a chart to be meaningful in some way....

4
2

the underlying trend

"Remove the cycles and look at the underlying trend."

The problem is we don't have enough hard data to know whether the underlying trend is accelerating, or just part of a longer cycle.

We do know that there have been some pretty amazingly big temperature extremes in the last 20 or 30 million years. And that the Earth has not raced off to become another Venus or another Mars in the process … it's corrected itself somehow and come back to what we have now.

20 or 30 million years seems like a very long time compared the couple of thousand years of recorded history, until you realize that mammals have been around for 200 million years and great apes (i.e. very like us) for 40 million years. They didn't have our technology to help them adapt to extremes, but they survived them.

3
0

Re: Good news and bad news

"Well, yes. but the problem is that the warming has been going on for rather longer than 20 years."

The global warming hypothesis was based on 17 years of temperature increase. Remember in the 70's climate scientists were screaming "beware the impending ice age".

I love how alarmists make such ridiculous statements then accuse skeptics of ignoring the science!!!

5
1

Re: the underlying trend

Actualy we do.

If you remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI the rise in temperatures is almost perfectly linear.

There is no doubt that the underlying trend is warming steadily.

How can it possibly not be? It would mean that everything we understand about the basic laws of physics would have to be wrong.

By the way - can anyone explain how the Arctic Ice Volume has fallen by 70% in the last 25 years if the worled isn't warming?

Whatever the natural forcings and cycles that are masking the underlying trend they work both ways and will eventuraly accelerate the warming - obviously.

And past climate change and the causes are not relevant to todays AGW. And screw 'surviving' - I want to stay rich, fat and comfortable thank you. Climate change is going to wreck the world's economy before anything else.

2
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: the underlying trend

@Leslie Graham: you sound very confident of something which only cultists are confident about. You say remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI but have you? Which planet did you manage this? Or are you assuming that climate scientists know everything about climate (or even enough)? And that is the assumption which trips every cultist up. You like them know nothing.

I am not saying deniers are right, they are just as blind. The only ones who know the truth can certainly say we know little and can predict less. The certainty of any of this climate science is limited and does not produce a working model. This is proven because nobody yet has a working model. Not even close.

Would you believe someone who claims to understand quantum mechanics? Or do you demand proof? So far MMCC scientists have proven that there is a lot going on and a lot of variables. The climate refuses to bend to simple rules which predict we all die from overheating the earth.

You say its either warming or the laws of physics must be wrong. Creationists made an attempt at proving god made man because a step in evolution was missing. Science found the missing link and proved the creationist wrong. Just as you make claims that you are right or physics is wrong (its your lack of knowledge which is wrong), you really need to wait for scientists to do the real work and find the truth.

"Whatever the natural forcings and cycles that are masking the underlying trend they work both ways and will eventuraly accelerate the warming - obviously."

I like this line. It says that whatever (the unknown) forcings and cycles. If you dont know what they are, and based on so many wrong predictions and models you dont know what they do either- how do you know? You say these are masking the trend, but that means you cant find the trend and blame these whatevers you dont understand. You claim it will accelerate the warming - obviously. But you obviously dont know anything about the mechanics nor results so cant predict anything. So how are you certain?

I am sorry to rip your comment apart but the fact is if we know nothing we could do harm by trying to do good. An extreme example is what if global temperatures suddenly change in any direction? We wont know anything to solve the problem because climate science is currently religious cult. The perversion of science and the ruined reputation of the title scientist all because people wanted to make money flogging windfarms can easily cause us harm, not good. Think dark ages

3
1
Silver badge

Re: the underlying trend

Graham is right. Not only is ocean heat content rising but so is sea level. Surface temperature is influenced on short timescales by enso and the 11 year solar cycle. Accounting for these factors global warming appears to be continuous since the 70s.

BTW the idea scientists in the 70s were all predicting global cooling is a myth. Most were predicting warming even back then and the consensus has strengthened since.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

@Nom

Sorry but you believe he is right. Just as you believe that a theory sold on a lie (blatant lies) with no working model and a consistent downward revising to be a fact. The goalposts to prove MMCC wrong move all the time. Anything that happens is claimed as proof but if the few measurable expectations dont happen then the theory is assumed correct but something is masking the results.

Here is a neat trick- find out what is masking (changing) the result then you can start talking in facts. Otherwise we can claim there is an ice age coming because if you remove the sun, which is masking the effects, we will be an ice rock in space.

There are many myths in this debate, from both sides. This is the same problem as disproving god. What happened before the big bang? Science doesnt know. Science disproved a huge amount of 'gods' domain so the goal posts moved again.

Please enter the world of science. Have the theory, make measurable predictions, measure those predictions against the real world. If they fail (as with current MMCC theories so far) then they are wrong. Not masked results, nor in need of data fudging or a PR stunt but wrong. Go away and figure out why your theory is wrong and try again. When you get a working theory it can then be used to find something called truth. Truth is when the model matches the real world and so can be applied.

So far Nom you have belief. But none of the scientific section above. When a consensus is 97% made up of less than 100 of 1000's of respondents from an even larger group it is not a consensus. When the consensus requires bribes it is not a consensus. The redefining of science and consensus should not be necessary if MMCC is a good theory.

There is plenty real polution and waste in this world which needs to be resolved. But instead we throw money at god botherers offering to save us from the impending doom from their limited knowledge and belief. And once the predictions of doom are made the science then works on it. And then we have another disproven 'fact' of MMCC. And then your goal posts move again

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Another ignorant MP

>"By putting out the information on Christmas Eve they were just burying bad news – that they have got their climate change forecast wrong," said Stringer.

Wrong. We don't yet know if they got the old forecast wrong or if the new forecast will be right or wrong - and we won't know until the period forecasted for has passed and can be compared with the actual observed values. They have changed their forecast in the light of further research. Seems reasonable.

7
10
Gold badge
Meh

Re: Another ignorant MP

"We don't yet know if they got the old forecast wrong or if the new forecast will be right or wrong "

It's not the model. It's the way the results were announced.

Press conference to announce "Global temperatures rising. We're doomed" Vs (emailed in) "We're changing the climate models a bit as they may have been a bit high."

4
2
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Another ignorant MP

...They have changed their forecast in the light of further research. Seems reasonable...

Not exactly.

They have pushed out a new lower forecast BUT STILL KEPT THE OLD ONE.

This way, whatever the temperature does, they can claim to have predicted it. That doesn't sound reasonable - it sounds like heads I win, tails you lose...

3
4

Re: Another ignorant MP

No they haven't.

If you create a forecast for a particular date and time, if you revise that forecast and republish it, then the previous forecast is invalidated, it is superceded ! It has to be, there is no other logical viewpoint.

You can't have two or more different forecasts for a point in time which are 'current'.

The idea they still kept the old one is rubbish.

The Met.Office forecasters understand this, they're very proceduralised (if that is a word) : they have to be, they produce daily forecasts for the aviation business, both civil and military. You can not cause confusion by having multiple current forecasts, there must be NO ambiguity. Airlines, airports, the military have to make decisions based on those forecasts, as time passes to towards a particular prediction point in the future, the Met. Office will issue revised forecasts as they rerun the NWP models several times per day and it's incumbent upon the airlines, the military and other users of the forecasts to use those newer (and hopefully more accurate) forecasts. That's business as usual.

Every forecast that is made by the Met.Office has a TOI : Time of Issue to prevent the sort of confusion you are talking about.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Another ignorant MP

re: "By putting out the information on Christmas Eve they were just burying bad news"

From the Met Office website:

"Since 2007, the Met Office Hadley Centre has prepared a decadal forecast every year, out for the next 5 to 10 years, as part of its deliverables to DECC and Defra. To ensure that the forecast starts from the most recent state of the climate system, it is run during December and posted on the Met Office Research pages by the end of the year. Because this is still at the cutting edge of research, the forecast is not publicized, but in the spirit of openness and transparency, it is available to anyone who wishes to view it. "

2
0

Global warming...

The problem is weather is an exceptionally complex system. Most predictions of globall warming tend to focus only on a few of the million possible variables. Also, it doesn't help that various organisations are pushing their model while denigrating the models of other organisations in what I think can only be because of the grant money being made available.

My fear is that the whole event will turn out to be cyclic but in the meantime a 'solution' will be put in force that will leave us worse off in the long run. I call this the Australian Cane Toad Effect.

17
4
Thumb Up

Re: Global warming...

Well put, bravo Sir.

4
2

Re: Global warming...

You are correct that weather is very difficult to predict but climate is less difficult. This might seem paradoxical but, roughly speaking, there are more opportunities for integration over time and space.

You make some rather vague assertions about 'other models' being denigrated. What are you referring to here?

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

But, but, but...

The Met Office has hit back at claims that it conceded there is no evidence for global warming and that its weather forecasts are inaccurate.

The forecaster has published a blog detailing an alleged "series of factual inaccuracies about the Met Office and its science" made in a Daily Mail article written by James Delingpole.

The blog provides a point by point rebuttal of the Mail story, headlined "The crazy climate change obsession that's made the Met Office a menace".

6
6
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: But, but, but...

...The blog provides a point by point rebuttal of the Mail story, headlined "The crazy climate change obsession that's made the Met Office a menace".,,,

Unfortunately, if you read the rebuttal, you will find that it doesn't rebut anything. The main response the Met Office rebuttal puts out is that: "Our 5-day forecasts are better". Which is, of course, nothing to do with the underlying issue - that the Met Office is predicting LONG-TERM weather changes based on a flawed activist-driven theory, has got them all wrong and is now lying in an attempt to cover this up.

5
4

Re: But, but, but...

I have been known on occasion (I keep it secret) to read Daily Mail online articles, (but I claim not to be purchaser of the newspaper). DM journalists are entirely clueless about anything scientific or technical. It's truly shocking. I think I only found one article that was 100% technically correct out of many, and I'm quite sure the journalist didn't write it, it must have been prepared text that was given to him. The article was so detailed about DNA I am quite sure that many of the DM's readership were left baffled by it.

Anything that can put the DM in their place, and correct their sloppiness is welcome in my opinion,

1
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: But, but, but...

Not THE James Delingpole, the one who studied English Literature at Oxford? The one who makes a living out of trying to convince the gullible that he knows better than just about every climatologist in the world?

Yup, that's him, and in the Daily Mail, too.

Must be true then.

7
7
Anonymous Coward

Frankly I think it's time that they admitted that they really don't have a clue how the climate works and refund our tax money and the overinflated gas and electricity prices we've had to pay and then jail a few people but that's never going to happen:(.

15
11

They don't have a clue, but why should they refund the tax money that has been spent?

That tax money has been used to try to improve mankind's understanding.

Are you incurring a financial loss because mankind doesn't understand how our climate works?

0
7
Anonymous Coward

talking of don't have a clue

do you really understand science and the very nature of complex models necessary to *predict* such patterns? Evidently you don't, nor do you explain the link you make between a prediction of climate and gas/electric bills. The Met Office don't charge you for your gas/electric, they simply build climate models to attempt to give people a superficial estimation of what will happen in the near future. Over time these predictions get better, and over time these predictions allow longer term forecasting ... to within error bands. What jail has to do with that I dunno

1
5
Anonymous Coward

Renwables and other alternative power sources aren't just being developed because of CO2, there is a limited amount of fossil fuels around y'know. Hence why we get our gas from the Russians now.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

That tax money has been used to try to improve mankind's understanding.

A small fraction of it is going into pure research, the rest of it is going into tax breaks for green technologies which would never be viable without them and, frankly, never will be viable on a large scale in this century or the next.

Are you incurring a financial loss because mankind doesn't understand how our climate works?

Well, yes, see above. I'm being arse raped for taxes for no good reason and then they want me to pay through the nose for my electricity AND give them a cuddle after.

7
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: talking of don't have a clue

do you really understand science and the very nature of complex models necessary to *predict* such patterns?

Yes. I've programmed some fairly complex models in my time as a software developer. WTF that has to do with my point I don't know.

Evidently you don't, nor do you explain the link you make between a prediction of climate and gas/electric bills.

Erm, well, these bullshit models are being used as evidence that we need to tackle a problem that hasn't been proven to a reasonable standard of evidence to exist and are directly responsible for putting my effing lecky bill up.

The Met Office don't charge you for your gas/electric, they simply build climate models to attempt to give people a superficial estimation of what will happen in the near future.

No, the Met Office are a bunch of charlatans who have helped convince our politicians to waste billions on the off-chance that there is a humanity threatening problem which needs urgent attention. The "evidence" is lamentable and based on their and other "models". Just how much more implicated do they need to be?

Over time these predictions get better, and over time these predictions allow longer term forecasting ... to within error bands.

Not until they understand WTF they are talking about and there doesn't seem to be any danger of them understanding anything so long as they are making feeble excuses for why the climate refuses to act in the way they predicted.

What jail has to do with that I dunno

It's where people who commit fraud belong. AGW is a fraud perpetrated by far left leaning, ecomentalist academics who knew perfectly well that their theory was so left field that it was self-evident garbage. They belong in jail as does any other "scientist" tempted to play such politics.

6
3

You are being arse raped for electricity costs because of the so called free-market economy, the commodities markets! That's the problem, not the cost of running the Met. Office or money being spent by the government in wanting to enourage in green technologies.

0
4

Re: talking of don't have a clue

As someone that has had close association to the world of meteorology, AC is right.

The best models the Met.Office have got are the short term forecast models (chemical vapour dispersal model (what used to be called NAME) and hurricane track prediction models), but all of these are easily verifiable, they can run the model, make the prediction and then compare reality to the prediction, so they know how accurate these models are (or not).

The behaviour of these meteorological phenomena last over a time period of days, so by gathering observation data the models can be verified, modified to improve their accuracy.

But climate, over hundreds, thousands of years is an all together very different story.

And the output of these models is being used by government to make long term strategic decisions.

The accuracy of the model is going to decrease over the run time of the model. The short term forecast models out to 3 days, 5 days become significantly inaccurate beyond the 5 days.

The Met. Office know this (and have known it for a long time) but only recently started trying to communicate to the public in the form of 'uncertainty' expressing percentages.

Anything beyond 5 days, take it with a pinch of salt.

So asking, requiring the Met.Office to produce accurate forecasts for years ahead (albeit it is an entirely different model, not just running the short term forecast model for a longer run time) and then basis an entire strategy which affects tens of millions of people is somewhat tenuous and questionable!

3
0

"Are you incurring a financial loss because mankind doesn't understand how our climate works?"

Yes - on what planet could you possibly claim otherwise?

Inflated energy prices alone feed into every good and service provided in the UK, and that's not including the billions (trillions?) in extra taxes/debt that all citizens have to pay/repay.

Seriously, I agree with spending money to expand human understanding, but your ignorance is breathtaking...

2
0
Anonymous Coward

What a surprise...

Researchers giving their paymasters the results they paid for and hiding the results when it cannot make them meet what's expected.

I'm not a climate change "denyist", any idiot can see that man's activities effect our environment, it's the degree to which it affects our climate I disagree with.

I also remember one piece on the Beeb with an interview with someone from the met office back in november saying heavy rain is normal for the time of year and wasn't an indication of global warming. Hope he didn't get a P45 for going against the party line...

8
7
Gold badge
Thumb Down

Re: What a surprise...

"Researchers giving their paymasters the results they paid for and hiding the results when it cannot make them meet what's expected."

Then they are not "researchers." They are doing PR for their employers.

4
2
Black Helicopters

Re: What a surprise...

Amazing how the vast majority of climate change professionals have held out againt the temptation to go to an oil/coal company and let the truth out for vast amounts of money, just so they can keep the lie alive and go to work everyday, isn't it?

2
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: What a surprise...

You're probably right. In which case the tax payers should require a refund for the research that hasn't been carried out. And while we're at it, we should demand our money back for their consistent failure to predict the weather. Would be cheaper and just as acqurate to employ Mystic Meg...

1
1
Silver badge

Re: What a surprise...

Research to supply confirmation bias is still research....

Its just not balanced neutral and scientific.

But then not much AGW research is..

5
3
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: What a surprise...

Who would give them vast amounts of money for collapsing a multi-billion pound industry?

Honestly, I can't think of anyone who might. They wouldn't get any awards either - all the awards committees have already signed up to AL Gore and the like. All they would get is no grant.

Perhaps that explains why there is a shortage of such people...

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Will it ever end?

I think it's time they admitted that they really don't have a clue how the climate works and throw out all the anti co2 rubbish until such times as they do have proof or otherwise. Then it'd be nice for the tax payer to have refunds for the rip off petrol, gas and electricity prices we've been forced to pay not to mention the subsidies to rich folk for bloody windmills. Then it might be nice to see a few so-called scientists do time for fraud.

Unfortunately I'm dreaming though:(.

10
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Will it ever end?

What have windmills got to do with it?

Just because businessmen managed to find a way to make money out of the scientific consensus, and politicians managed to jump on (and then off) the bandwaggon why do you assume that the totally unconnected scientific evidence is faulty?

1
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Will it ever end?

"until such times as they do have proof or otherwise"

Demonstrates that you have no idea of the methodology of the scientific fraternity; but for some strange reason you decide you know better than them.

Why's that?

2
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Will it ever end?

Just because businessmen managed to find a way to make money out of the scientific consensus, and politicians managed to jump on (and then off) the bandwaggon why do you assume that the totally unconnected scientific evidence is faulty?

It's quite simple: the "businessmen" wouldn't be doing it if the government weren't subsidising them. Businessmen, even these "businessmen", don't invest money they're going to lose and these "businessmen" knew they were on to a sure thing because their mates in the last government told them that they could rely on the subsidies - well, until they reneged on the feed-in tariffs for solar. Shame! LOL.

The economic case for windmills is based on the science and both are bullshit. Simples.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Will it ever end?

Demonstrates that you have no idea of the methodology of the scientific fraternity; but for some strange reason you decide you know better than them.

It does, does it? It's relatively straightforward for them to prove their case: produce a climate model that can predict the global temperature to within reasonable error margins over a period of, say 15 years.

You seem to be happy with having our economy and personal finances thrown into chaos on the basis of models which don't work. Why is that? Is it cos you is a moron?

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Will it ever end?

"Demonstrates that you have no idea of the methodology of the scientific fraternity; but for some strange reason you decide you know better than them."

You do realize, I hope, that "science" is one thing, and "scientists" are a different thing entirely.

0
0

Re: Will it ever end?

"It's relatively straightforward for them to prove their case: produce a climate model that can predict the global temperature to within reasonable error margins over a period of, say 15 years."

So how does one go about predicting such factors such as volcanoes, short term variations due to ENSO, changes in solar output, changes in aerosol concentration over the next 15 years?

Predictions of ENSO activity can't be made more than about a year in advance - if that - and yet it can dominate temperature variation in the short term (witness 1998 and recent La Nina years). However, because it is essentially energy sloshing back and forth between the sea and atmosphere, over the longer term it averages out.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Will it ever end?

Are you saying it cant be proved then? Because so much happens which causes changes. If you cant account for other variables then you cant analyse the one you want. We have limited data to prove change which means you have disqualified it because what is long enough?

0
0

Re: Will it ever end?

Strictly speaking, nothing in science can be proved. But leaving that aside, the matter of accounting for variability and extracting a trend from a noisy signal is not exactly uncharted territory. Standard statistical techniques can be used, just as they are used in many branches of science that you presumably don't complain about. What you can't expect to do is to perform a single run, or a few runs, of a *physical* model and expect to get an exact prediction from it. You can get rough trends which are subject to assumptions made about conditions that will apply in the future (such as volcanoes, solar output, ENSO activity etc.).

There are different approaches to statistical analysis. If you want to analyse the data as pure data without trying to understand the variations, you are going to need a longer time interval. On the other hand, if you look at the work that Forster and Rahmstorf have done, they use multiple regression to remove the known factors and are able to demonstrate an underlying trend now that is unchanged from before this supposed period of stalled temperatures.

Another fairly straightforward way to look at this is given by http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming I would strongly recommend that you read this if you are genuinely interested in the questions you are asking. This is mainly considering the El Nino/La Nina effects, but the basic thing it shows is that the La Nina troughs are on an upward trend which is the same as the upward trend of El Nino peaks, which is the same as the upward trend of average temperatures. The reason things look like they have stalled in recent years is that La Ninas have dominated and there was a massive El Nino in 1998. You ask how long is long enough? Well, assuming these trends continue, at some point we are going to see El Nino years and those are going to be well above the 1998 peak and the troughs of future La Ninas are also generally going to be above that 1998 peak and still rising.

Final point related to this: the effects of La Nina, declining solar output, higher than expected aerosols all should be pointing towards *declining* energy input. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why we aren't seeing that rather than seeing surface temperatures remaining at high levels, increasing ocean heat content, melting ice caps, etc.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Burb

Thank you for your reply. I dislike the statement that nothing in science can be proved because they dont assume the existence of a god because they cant figure out what is actually happening. That is left to religion.

I appreciate the information you posted but I want to know what facts can be relied on. We are told that MMCC is real but we are regularly told that the expectation didnt happen. Often strongly didnt happen. I also agree that the ice caps seem to suggest there is a shift, but we dont understand why. I like that as an answer and I like the effort applied to figure it out. But when someone cops out saying its co2 and we have graphs to prove it, even after this has been done multiple times and shown to be fraud I lose interest.

I would hold vastly more respect for the climate science if the produced a theory, tested it, then either accept it is wrong (which is the case so far) or that it seems to apply currently so work on its application. Yet so far the only fact we have is that all the theories are so far wrong. We have what looks like an important climate shift, this could be very important to understand. But massaged results and blatant lies do not tell us anything.

I also get irritated when multiple sources of data say totally different things. I blame both the cult of the MMCC and the cult of the nothing happening. I hear lies on both sides and yet the truth seems lost in the noise.

I am very unhappy with climate science because it has become politics. The term scientist is tarnished and harmed by this climate politics. And I would prefer money was not wasted on wrong theories when the right one may require the money for an actual solution.

Your statements on needing a long enough interval make sense, but that is not the line toed by the climate politics. We have x days to save the earth is a regular feature. Or some irreversible tipping point will be hit in x amount of time. But we also have the actual temperatures and observations doing less than the predictions. The harm isnt arriving. We keep being told to go to france and stand on a hill to be saved from the doom by a UFO that never happens.

Seen in context I dont think anyone could reasonably understand what is going on until the politics is destroyed and the science is all that is left.

0
0

Re: @Burb

@AC "Your statements on needing a long enough interval make sense, but that is not the line toed by the climate politics. We have x days to save the earth is a regular feature."

You need a long enough interval if you want to see an unequivocal trend in temperatures that is obvious to the man in the street. There is plenty of other scientific evidence to indicate that something is happening now but the problem is that it is less accessible to most people. The reason for the 'x days' sort of thing is that the longer that action is delayed, the harder it is going to be to do something if and when the problem is finally accepted. Maybe you are right and it's all a giant scientific conspiracy - I'd be happy if it were! But my sceptical nature suggests to me that enough scientists know what they are talking about and are not making things up. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

BTW as far as politics is concerned, there is plenty of evidence of political funding of the 'sceptic' viewpoints and in general there is a history of interference by political think tanks in areas of scientific research that have a potential for giving rise to regulations on business activities.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.