Har Har Har Global warming crap

[mistermack]

And you do? You have credentials in climate scienxe? Did they pass you up for funding?

You've failed to make any technical points here which were not borrowed from Daily Mail. Not a peer reviewed journal.

So unless you claim a world wide conspiracy, you have nothing.

Quite right. You're making a completely pointless point. I've never done original climate research. Not has anybody I know. Nor have the IPCC.
They read the work of others, and give their opinion. EXACTLY as I do.
Even if I had done original climate research, it wouldn't make ANY difference to whether I could predict what the world's climate will be like in fifty years time. I would still have to read the work of others to give an opinion.

As far as peer review goes, the climategate fiasco proved that the system has a gigantic bias.
Peer review might operate well in all other branches of science. But climate is now religion, not science. Peer review is done, only so long as it supports the god of AGW.

[macdoc]

sure - Yes Virginia there really is a santa claus.....

most get over fairy tale worldviews when they are 10 are so.

A few cling to nonsense.

You drive and fly on the same physics that we have changed the climate with.......better mistrust those scientist and engineers too after all we don't everything there i is to know about aerodynamics.

You know no one can know when a plane will simply fall out of the sky..
....it's called credibility....try it sometime.

It's getting warmer
we're responsible

deal with it...

[mistermack]

sure - Yes Virginia there really is a santa claus.....

Pathetic straw man

most get over fairy tale worldviews when they are 10 are so.

Pathetic and COMPLETELY untrue. Any atheist should know that.

A few cling to nonsense.

As above. Pathetic.

You drive and fly on the same physics that we have changed the climate with.......better mistrust those scientist and engineers too after all we don't everything there i is to know about aerodynamics.

Pathetic, stupid, ludicrous, utterly ridiculous. Is that the standard of your knowledge of physics?

You know no one can know when a plane will simply fall out of the sky..

You really are pushing the bounds of stupidity with that post.

....it's called credibility....try it sometime.

If you want credibility, for fuck's sake don't post such drivel.
This is the problem with you. You post acres of stuff filched from bloggers, trying to give an impression that you know a bit.
But then when you write your own words, and it's nothing but arse-gravy.

[Tero]

>>As far as peer review goes, the climategate fiasco proved that the system has a gigantic bias.<<

There was no climate gate fiasco. Well, there was again Daily Mail.

UK Met Office
On 23 November 2009, a spokesman for the Met Office, the UK's national weather service, which works with the CRU in providing global temperature information, said there was no need for an inquiry. "The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."
On 5 December 2009, however, the Met Office indicated its intention to re-examine 160 years of temperature data in the light of concerns that public confidence in the science had been damaged by the controversy over the emails.[79] The Met Office would also publish online the temperature records for over 1,000 worldwide weather stations.It remained confident that its analysis would be shown to be correct and that the data would show a temperature rise over the past 150 years.

The MET office has issued no corrections.

[mistermack]

What I would say to that is firstly, what is the significance of 150 years?
If you look at ANY graph of human CO2 production, you will find that it's been fairly insignificant, till 1950, coincidentally the year of my birth. That's not surprising, because that's when mass-production of petrol and cars really took off.



Sources: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2012)
International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook (2012)

http://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/inter ... historical

So AT LEAST 90 of those 150 years are totally irrelevant. Why are they constantly mentioned? Because about half of the warming happened in those years. If they only talk about the RELEVANT years, the last 63, they can only point to half of the warming.

It's that kind of dishonest tactic that shows up the true hidden agenda behind some of these supposedly neutral organisations.
If there is no hidden agenda, why are they so blatantly misleading? Are you people blind?

As far as the Met Office is concerned, it showed it's hand by the quiet way that they slipped out the fact that global warming HAS paused for the last 16 years, and that they have MASSIVELY downgraded their estimates for future warming.

What they don't say, is '' we got it wrong '' or '' our previous estimates were far too high '' or, '' the models were wrong.''
Even though that is exactly what happened.

Basically, they are just not being straight with the public. And yet somehow, we are not supposed to be '' sceptical ''.
And that's without any involvement of the Daily Mail, which I never read, or Climategate, which simply showed the biased mindset of '' climate scientists '', something I was already very well aware of, and had been pointing out for years.

[macdoc]

Atmospheric global warming has paused.
Not global warming.

And your still full of shit on this and you are the one that is blind....wilfully.

[Tero]

150 years is what they have data for.

MisterM did not present any evidence, as expected. "Massively" with no link is no data at all.

Climategate was fabricated and found to be without meaning. The NASA data showed the same as the disputed (by denialists) data. There is no fabricated data.

[mistermack]

You're the one who brought up the UK Met Office. Then you criticise me for not linking to them. But never mind.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224

You will find in the text that they have downgraded their forecast of global averages to +.43 deg. in 2117. Which is almost exactly what it is now. And what it was in the record year of 1998. Which is nearly 20 years of no significant increase. That is now their OFFICIAL estimate.

Go back 15 years, and see what they were forecasting then, if you think the word MASSIVELY is inappropriate.

[Tero]

There are 8 projections in the first graph. They can't all be right. Which one does the met office support?
http://www.homolog.us/blogs/blog/2012/0 ... l-warming/

The models have not changed. You put numbers in them and each model will give a slightly different number now than 15 years ago. There is more data! But very close. This is not just fudging data as you assume. Because thete has to be a conspiracy!

[mistermack]

There are 8 projections in the first graph. They can't all be right. Which one does the met office support?
http://www.homolog.us/blogs/blog/2012/0 ... l-warming/

The models have not changed. You put numbers in them and each model will give a slightly different number now than 15 years ago. But very close. This is not just fudging data as you assume. Because thete has to be a conspiracy!

I don't know. I try not to bother with blogs. It's your blog, you check it out.
I just linked the BBC write-up of the Met Office position.
Their forecast for 2017 is +0.43 deg, as I mentioned. That is, no increase from today. Zero for the next four years. The previous official Met Office prediction of the increase by 2017 was infinity percent bigger.That's Massive. Anything is massive, compared to zero.

You say that the models have no changed. Not true. They Met Office has replaced it's model, and with it, it's previous predictions. It says so in the BBC summary, which I linked for you. The new one is known as HadGEM3.

[Tero]

I don't know about your infinity percent. Not a number. These are not blogs:

Here are the predictions from the alarmists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Globa ... ctions.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
Hadle Centre, for example, is in Exeter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cen ... d_Research

[mistermack]

I don't know about your infinity percent. Not a number. These are not blogs:

Here are the predictions from the alarmists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Globa ... ctions.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
Hadle Centre, for example, is in Exeter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cen ... d_Research

I honestly don't know what you're trying to achieve.
I'm making the point that NOBODY is yet able to forecast the climate. What's the point in dragging up more predictions for me to comment on?
I'm not saying that nobody can make a forecast. Any fool can make a forecast. And out of all the crap, someone has to get it right, just by lucky chance. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Fifteen years ago, I was saying that all the predictions were just guesses. It's been proved true, and I'm still saying it now.
All they've done in the meantime is to match models backwards to previous data. They still haven't made a model that can get it right going forward.

[Tero]

You are not explaining anything yourself. Nobody has any idea what your problem is with global warming. "Har Har Har Global warming crap" pretty much sums up your understanding of the subject since numbers and graphs are meaningless.

[macdoc]

The usual bullshit.

there

Prediction versus reality

The first 31 years of this projection are thus relatively well-defined and can now be compared to the observations. We used the GISS Land-Ocean Index that uses SST over the oceans (the original one interpolated from island stations) and overlaid the graph from the KNMI Climate Explorer on the lower left-hand corner of their Fig.6.

Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols).

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

stuff it - your nattering about things you patently haven't a clue about gets wearisome

[mistermack]

Macdoc, that's a meaningless post. Just like everything else that you post. Who made the graph? Where did the data come from? Who wrote that text?
It might as well have been your granny.

I'm sorry, you just failed to reach standards that I would expect 12 year olds to easily reach.