General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Dartmoor_Matt]

http://www.metoffice...r20091210b.html

The MetO have been peering into their crystal ball again and have seen that......

1) 2010, globally will be warmer than 2009, globally.

2) About half of the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far (1998).

It should be interesting to see how it all pans out.

I have to say that the next 5-10 years are going to agree with one way or the other (natural vs human influence)

Maybe if the MO are wrong we can stop funding them through our taxes? (I understand they come under the MOD budget, so perhaps we can send some more helicopters to Afghanistan!)

[Methuselah]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html

The MetO have been peering into their crystal ball again and have seen that......

1) 2010, globally will be warmer than 2009, globally.

2) About half of the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far (1998).

It should be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Indeed it will, nog...It's also testable.

[Solar Cycles]

I have to say that the next 5-10 years are going to agree with one way or the other (natural vs human influence)

Maybe if the MO are wrong we can stop funding them through our taxes? (I understand they come under the MOD budget, so perhaps we can send some more helicopters to Afghanistan!)

I've been saying this for a long time, if they where self sufficent, instead of relying on the state to fund them, then they may be more reluctant to come out with absurd comments!

[Methuselah]

I've been saying this for a long time, if they where self sufficent, instead of relying on the state to fund them, then they may be more reluctant to come out with absurd comments!

Why is it 'absurd'?

[Solar Cycles]

Why is it 'absurd'?

Simple peeps,their projections have been way off the mark up to now. Why would this guess be any different?

[Methuselah]

Simple peeps,their projections have been way off the mark up to now. Why would this guess be any different?

We'll find out very soon...

[VillagePlank]

Simple peeps,their projections have been way off the mark up to now. Why would this guess be any different?

I've seen that said quite a bit. Can you point me to a corroberative link, please? For the life of me I can't find anything on this one way or the other ..

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.timesonli...SS&attr=3392178

Ooooh, you'll not like this then guys.

not that I'm not appreciating you'll global cool down 'an all but we're suppose to be waiting for 2015 for a resumption in the warming aren't we?

If this pans out and we post a lower Nino index than 97' but a higher global temp (in this global cool down of ours) will it convince some fence sitters that something else is at play here?

I mean, low solar, negative PDO (and it's 30 yrs of cold).Personally I'm surprised that this year is posting as hot as it is with all the talk I heard of 'plateau' and 'cooling'.....what give guys? Urban heat islands? Dodgy scientists? AGW?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/next-year-forecast-to-be-hottest-on-record-1838184.html

Edited December 12, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

'.....what give guys? Urban heat islands? Dodgy scientists? AGW?

You're getting there.

[Gray-Wolf]

You're getting there.

Cheers L.G.......I keep trying/am very trying

[paul tall]

Climate change is an industry.

They were caught with their pants down and the game is up.

[SleepyJean]

What I don't get is if the Met Office can't even predict the weather now (which has happened a number of times in my recollection), and get the seasonal forecasts wrong on a regular basis, why does everyone seem to trust their forecasts for 20 or 30 years hence? I can't get my head around that.

I do know that "weather is not the same as climate", but to me that is not the case. Weather is climate on a local basis, surely. Like a smaller scale version.

I'll put my ear defenders and body armour on now, shall I? I bet I will get it pointed out to me why I am so wrong.

[Methuselah]

Genuine scepticism is the linchpin of the Scientific Enterprize, GW-Denial is an industry...

[VillagePlank]

What I don't get is if the Met Office can't even predict the weather now (which has happened a number of times in my recollection), and get the seasonal forecasts wrong on a regular basis, why does everyone seem to trust their forecasts for 20 or 30 years hence? I can't get my head around that.

I do know that "weather is not the same as climate", but to me that is not the case. Weather is climate on a local basis, surely. Like a smaller scale version.

I'll put my ear defenders and body armour on now, shall I? I bet I will get it pointed out to me why I am so wrong.

This is a very valid point, and is, probably, best dealt with by analogy.

Imagine a box with lots of particles flying around inside it. If there are only one or two, then we can compute what they are doing fairly well. However, as the number of particles inside in the box grows, then it becomes exceedingly hard to absolutely impossible to deduce anything like what the cumulative effect of those particles, by first principles, might be doing.

However, Maxwell, after reading Rudolf Clausius' ideas on using probability laws to deduce the role of particle collisions, went on to show what statistics and probability implied for the measurable properties of a gas (a gas is lots of particles bobbing around in our 'box')

Later, Boltzmann, demonstrated that the moving particles of gas must be invariant to certain statistics; which means that given a great number of particles, then the 'average' behaviour of those particles must conform .

If you consider the weather as the set of particles we can see that we can't tell from day to day what the weather might do- it is hard to forecast the weather, but it is not necessarily hard to forecast the statistics of the weather. The statistics of the weather is what we know as climate.

Actually, it's really hard to forecast climate, but it is doable whilst weather, at this current time, and rather like all those particles bobbing around, is much harder - perhaps not doable for all sorts of reasons of which sensitivity to initial conditions being the primary reason.

I hope this helps? A corrolary question that I find is hardly ever asked is 'where is boundary between weather and climate?' I suspect the answer is where probability skill for weather forecasting falls below 95% or some other such figure.

Edited December 13, 2009 by VillagePlank

[osmposm]

.......Maybe if the MO are wrong we can stop funding them through our taxes? (I understand they come under the MOD budget, so perhaps we can send some more helicopters to Afghanistan!)

Matt, I don't think we do 'fund them through our taxes': the Met Office runs an operating profit, and has done for many years. Things get more complex when you bring capital assets & investment into the equation; but nowadays the government runs (or attempts to run) these executive arms, or "trading funds" as they describe them, on at least a quasi-business basis, and this page http://www.shareholderexecutive.gov.uk/performance/metoffice.asp suggests that by their own assessment, at least, it gives a satisfactory return on capital. At least I think that's what it's saying, but I'm no business expert, and it may all be bullsh*t.....certainly the last sentence of this para seems to contain a modicum of bovine feculence** (or at least wishful thinking):

Agreement on the funding of the Met Office’s new supercomputer has been a key achievement in the year, as it will allow the Office to run forecasts at a much higher resolution of 1.5 km. This will create the only facility in the world to offer seamless prediction from tomorrow through the next 100 years.

**I wish I could find a nice faecal euphemism beginning with 'a', then we could call it an 'MBA' - suggestions, please, over in Grammarians' Corner...but please note that mere synonyms (and there are plenty relating to ars* & an*l) will not do.

EDIT: With apologies to any here who worked long and hard to get one: I have good friends who have MBAs, and some of them are almost normal.

Edited December 13, 2009 by osmposm

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Matt, I don't think we do 'fund them through our taxes': the Met Office runs an operating profit, and has done for many years. Things get more complex when you bring capital assets & investment into the equation; but nowadays the government runs (or attempts to run) these executive arms, or "trading funds" as they describe them, on at least a quasi-business basis, and this page http://www.sharehold...e/metoffice.asp suggests that by their own assessment, at least, it gives a satisfactory return on capital. At least I think that's what it's saying, but I'm no business expert, and it may all be bullsh*t.....certainly the last sentence of this para seems to contain a fair amount of bovine feculence (or at least wishful thinking):

Agreement on the funding of the Met Office's new supercomputer has been a key achievement in the year, as it will allow the Office to run forecasts at a much higher resolution of 1.5 km. This will create the only facility in the world to offer seamless prediction from tomorrow through the next 100 years.

Yeah, I found that just now to, although on the met office website it does state it is funded by the MOD, but do need to recover their costs through trading.

Also interesting that their 'value' includes lives saved... at £1.4million per life. Would be interesting to know how they arrive at either of those figures.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html

how long before the sceptic camp embrace that it isn't the sun wot done it?

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://www.independe...ts-1839867.html

how long before the sceptic camp embrace that it isn't the sun wot done it?

When it's proven that this is the case...?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

When it's proven that this is the case...?

CB

Well Svensmark didn't seem to have the heart to join the debate in Denmark now did he (at least his pacemaker works.....unlike his theories.....).

and back in April;

Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion".

since then of course we've had a run of very hot global months..........does that mean thinking doesn't need to change???

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Well Svensmark didn't seem to have the heart to join the debate in Denmark now did he (at least his pacemaker works.....unlike his theories.....).

And you don't have the heart to admit the father of consensus climate change, Arrhenius, is also the father of consensus eugenics, either.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Well Svensmark didn't seem to have the heart to join the debate in Denmark now did he (at least his pacemaker works.....unlike his theories.....).

Ah - and Svensmark's solar hypothesis is the be-all and end-all of solar hypotheses, of course. How foolish of me.

And as for good ol' Svante...

Well Svensmark didn't seem to have the heart to join the debate in Denmark now did he (at least his pacemaker works.....unlike his theories.....).

and back in April;

Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion".

since then of course we've had a run of very hot global months..........does that mean thinking doesn't need to change???

Ah - the old "Instant Cooling" idea. I thought we'd been through all this...?

[Gray-Wolf]

And you don't have the heart to admit the father of consensus climate change, Arrhenius, is also the father of consensus eugenics, either.

I hear eugenics is quite big in India (poor girlies) and we abort evert more 'defective' children in the developed world (kleft palet?....no way, in with the food blender....).

We may squirm at the subject but it appears to be all around us so I struggle to follow your thrust V.P.?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I hear eugenics is quite big in India (poor girlies) and we abort evert more 'defective' children in the developed world (kleft palet?....no way, in with the food blender....).

We may squirm at the subject but it appears to be all around us so I struggle to follow your thrust V.P.?

So you're a fan of eugenics then, are you?

Of course, if we're to dissociate ourselves from political and moral arguments then perhaps it should also be pointed out that eugenics was bad science, through and through.

The idea was that you could eradicate stupid people by sterilising the current stupid population (or that was a part of it, at least). This is nonsense, as we all know. Extremely smart people can still breed extremely dull children...

Edited December 14, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

Ah - the old "Instant Cooling" idea. I thought we'd been through all this...?

Must have missed that C-Bob there was I thinking that it was more than Harvard and the Smithsonian that thought evaporation and incoming solar did the 'iris' thing to balance out the minuscule variance on solar output....how foolish I have been. Tell me again about this variable delay in impact and how it squares with the 'instant' impacts (was it just a L.I. idea or was it real?).

So you're a fan of eugenics then, are you?

Just a casual observer C-Bob, remember I care for a tri-somi 10P+ impacted child so be gentle on me? Remember words are oh so easy ,it is our actions that define us as men.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

We may squirm at the subject but it appears to be all around us so I struggle to follow your thrust V.P.?

Just joining in - let's attack the person (someone didn't turn up at some meeting) with an attack on another person. Both true, but as for their meaning? Personally, I prefer to play the ball and not the man,

Edited December 14, 2009 by VillagePlank