Vanished global warming may not return – UK Met Office

Re: Just asking....

> Ah, I see you are confusing columnists with news.

I said "running a piece", which is accurate. And if you think editorial control doesn't extend to columnists, I think you missed a memo.

Re: Spin your first sentence, as usual

Fall, Souleymane; Watts, Anthony; Nielsen-Gammon, John; Jones, Evan; Niyogi, Dev; Christy, John R.; Pielke, Sr., Roger A. (2011). "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research 116 (D14120). Bibcode:2011JGRD..11614120F. doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.

From the summary:

Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite ‐ signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications.

(My emphasis).

NOAA produced the same result by throwing out all the stations that Anthony said were "bad" and finding that it made little difference to the trend (in fact they found that the "bad" stations were slightly lowering the temperature trend).

As to why you see no mention of that on Anthony's site, I can't imagine.

Re: @ h4rm0ny

Your problem is you are automatically assuming that global warming is a "catastrophic event" and even comparing it to a plane crash which has a much more immediate effect than the slow motion "catastrophe" that is global warming's worst case scenario.

It is more like "if there was a 38% chance that feeding your kid Gerber baby food will have consequences when he's 80, though we can't say for sure whether those consequences will mean an increased cancer risk or some freckles on his knees would you stop feeding your kid Gerber baby food?"

Humanity already lived through a much much much larger warming and much much much larger sea level rise than would occur even if every bit of ice on the planet melted. It happened around 10,000 years ago. Coastal (and not so coastal) settlements were lost to the sea and are now a few hundred feet below today's sea level, and there was flooding fast and severe enough to enter our racial memory and be written down thousands of years later in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Old Testament and so forth.

If that stood to happen today as a result of human influence I'm sure people would fret about the dire consequences for marine life from so much warming, and ignore the potential benefits of not having half of north America covered in an ice sheet two miles thick. Why is warming automatically assumed to be a bad thing in every way, and discussion of potential positive benefits is not allowed? Who says we wouldn't be better off with another degree or two? Yeah, we lose some coastal cities, but it will happen over decades so it isn't like we'll need to evacuate a million people in a week.

Re: @ h4rm0ny

@ kirovs

"Science, unlike religion, always speaks of probabilities. Very few things are quite certain (in this Universe anyway)"

Yup. We have certainty that tax credits are wealth transfer. We have certainty that wind farms dont actually work as a climate change or energy producing method (off shore being more successful). We have actual fact that bills are going up to pay for the religious approach to the problem but much less actually doing anything real about it. Because technologically we currently cant. That solves the Co2 debate although the many contributing factors to pollution can be dealt with and research into technology can be done and is advisable anyway.

"So let's say we have 38% (random number, just thought of reusing what idiots regularly misinterpret) to get significant effects from man-made, global warming such that people start dying in large numbers in few decades (our kids)."

First you conflate 2 problems. First climate change is assumed real but the end point is the unknown. Second mans contribution is assumed to be real (as it almost certainly is) but the extent here is so important it is pretty much the most important part of this question.

So to question 1- if we have a 38% chance of any significant effects of climate change we should look to solutions. Solutions is NOT monuments to a sky god, but actual real solutions. There are 2 forms of general solution: stop the change or adapt to the change. Right now assuming the Co2 is the devil and we know we dont have current technological solutions nor international cooperation we know we need research into stopping it but more likely we will need adaptation.

To question 2- we know of real pollution and are still studying its real effects. Not some mythical doom scenario but a real problem. And we can tackle some of these much cheaper and get an actual quality of life improvement. We dont know our contribution to causing the change and we are then focusing on a single gas in the hope we got it right and that one is the cause to the ignorance of all else.

"Here is my question to you. Would you put your kid on a plane that has only 38% chance of experiencing catastrophic event? After all it is less than 50%...."

This has no relation to the above. A plane is easy to identify and visible to measure. This would make it a fact of 38% not a fantasy world of maybe a gas causing an unknown effect that might have a 38% but cannot be measured.

Re: @ h4rm0ny

@ JC_

"97% of climate scientists support the theory of AGW. It isn't cultish to accept the opinion of the overwhelming majority of experts, it's sensible; pretending otherwise is delusional."

97% of god botherers believe in a deity. I still wont take their word for it no matter how delusional them and their followers call me