Comments on: Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

By: joenitwit

joenitwit — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:09:24 +0000

Global warming? I’m a big fan, I hate the cold.

More Global Warming!

Dinosaurs had it best. Nice and toasty warm. Global Warming also releases CO2 from the oceans which makes the plants grow better meaning more food for all of us.

MORE CO2!

We are just now coming out of a mini-Ice-age in the Northern Hemisphere, thank goodness. Most global warming comes at the poles, not at the equator. This moves the tropic zones further north making northern (and southern) lands more habitable and livable and more productive for food production, another plus to global warming. Global warming can solve the global food shortage crisis!

The oceans might rise a little but it will happen over decades so we probably will hardly notice. Average costal decay is one foot per year which will deprive us of much more land than ocean rise. Not much there to worry about.

Harsh weather has to do with differential atmospheric temperatures. If we warm the poles, the difference in temperature between poles and equator will decrease making harsh weather decrease. Another great benefit of global warming.

Global Warming – man’s best friend. Bring it on!

By: David Nutzuki (@DavidNutzuki)

David Nutzuki (@DavidNutzuki) — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:08:44 +0000

Want to stop climate change? Either become a god or boycott this and other climate change fear mongering.

By: Tibor SKardanelli

Tibor SKardanelli — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:54:34 +0000

One thing is true, we cannot check hypothesis as we do in physics, you can check gravitation law, you can’t check prediction on climate. To overcome this limitation we use models and computers, the problem is that they bear in their design the prejudices of their designers, and therefore the only feedback they really show is a positive feedback on the initial prejudice: this is not science. And I think it is worth to stress on the fact these models do not take into account cloudiness which is just an fitting variable.
This is what it could be read in a Nature editorial:
“At a workshop last week in Oxford, UK, convened by the Attribution of Climate-related Events group — a loose coalition of scientists from both sides of the Atlantic — some speakers questioned whether event attribution was possible at all. It currently rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming. One critic argued that, given the insufficient observational data and the coarse and mathematically far-from-perfect climate models used to generate attribution claims, they are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all. And even if event attribution were reliable, another speaker added, the notion that it is useful for any section of society is unproven.

Both critics have a point, but their pessimistic conclusion — that climate attribution is a non-starter — is too harsh. It is true that many climate models are currently not fit for that purpose, but they can be improved. Evaluation of how often a climate model produces a good representation of the type of event in question, and whether it does so for the right reasons, must become integral to any attribution exercise. And when communicating their results, scientists must be open about shortcomings in the models used.”
http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428

By: Tibor SKardanelli

Tibor SKardanelli — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:37:06 +0000

For instance but there are many more as the book of Leroy Ladurie I mentioned earlier. Can you explain your rational ? These remnants show temperatures in the Alpes were at least as mild as today at this time. You’ll find also papers about medieval remnants found under the glacier “La mer de glace” near Chamonix.
Mann would have be inspired to take these clues into account before producing his graph (it is true is aim was maybe not science), even Briffa admits they made errors http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract

By: clivebest

clivebest — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:55:18 +0000

@candmoneil

You are quite right and I should have written :

“There is no evidence of any warming (or cooling) trend in the data”.

By: suffolkboy

suffolkboy — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 12:26:46 +0000

I took a snippet of my post and jammed it into Phil Jones and found a list of alleged temperature series which do not represent reality: they had been tampered with by the introduction of bogus warming by deliberate malicious software. Phil has now agreed to roll back the data by removing the malware and over the course of the next few years the climate models, the data used to tune them, and their short-term climate guesses, will, we all hope, become more accurate. The police have now moved the investigation from the alleged “theft” of e-mails and escalated it to a major financial fraud investigation.

Your posts are typical of the poor investigative procedures adopted by corrupt politicians and opportunistic companies determined to milk this racket to the bitter end: just shouting louder that black is white won’t solve the mess.

By: omnologos

omnologos — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:01:36 +0000

There is no room in the data for any warming or cooling trend that anybody would reasonably find noteworthy, let alone newsworthy.

By: clivebest

clivebest — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:22:01 +0000

I think the MO may have adopted a strategy of silence.regarding their dubious statistically claim. This can be contrasted with CERN who despite clear propaganda value, refused to confirm the discovery of the Higgs Boson until they were 100% sure of a 5 sigma signal.

By: candmoneill

candmoneill — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:25:00 +0000

“There is no room at all for any warming (or cooling) trend in the data.”

No, the data means there is room for no warming, not that there is no room for warming. Lack of sufficient statistical significance simply means we are not as certain as the required standard, it doesn’t mean we can make statements of certainty like “there is no room at all for any warming”.

By: Roy Everett

Roy Everett — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:51:08 +0000

The graphs you linked to are merely rough calculations based on an incorrect model fed with tampered data in order to ensure continued funding. They are unconnected to reality, despite the site name. To continue to wilfully call the resulting output “data” after Jones and many others pointed out the errors would be to collude in the AGW fraud and to risk imprisonment. BTW, it hasn’t “warmed” in fifteen years in the real world.