BBC News Article: 2009 One Of 5 Warmest On Record

[Devonian]

I reckon it would be a safe bet to say that 2009 lies somewhere near the bottom in terms of temps if you take the entire history of earth. But we can cherry pick the last 150 years I suppose to prove a point. Even if there is no real point.

Oh, indeed, it's a lot cooler now that at the big bang. What relevancy that has though beats me.

I state again. Who cares?

Clearly you don't?

And if we all took your attitude give it a few years and there will be no whales, or large cats, or elephants, or cod, or tuna, or forests. I mean why care about them and their numbers? And if no one cares they WILL go.

The trouble is while I'm sure (though less than I was) you'd be appaled to see your local Dartmoor river turned into an open sewer (as i would) it was a 'who cares' approach, the led to the Thames being a open sewer and London smogs, a lack of appreciation of cause and effect - and it most certinly wasn't the 'who cares' lot that solved those problems! You might not care what we shove willy nilly into the atmosphere, but plenty of people do because they see what it does and if they didn't we'd be in an even bigger mess :unsure:

So we get to actually surf in the sea in England without a full wetsuit and risk of hypothermia. Sounds ideal to me. If I can turn my garden into a vineyard, even better.

If the Met Office want to change peoples opinions, perhaps they should get their presenters to say something other than "...at least its mild..."

But, it has been mild...

You know what, that is exactly what I was thinking the other day! The BBC always start crying when there is a hint of a 0.0001c temperature rise in the next 100 years, saying it's the end of the world. But when it's 16c in the middle of January they have beaming smiles on their face!

Not so - and given your signature I'm amazed you don't know that.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Devonian

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Oh, indeed, it's a lot cooler now that at the big bang. What relevancy that has though beats me.

Clearly you don't?

And if we all took your attitude give it a few years and there will be no whales, or large cats, or elephants, or cod, or tuna, or forests. I mean why care about them and their numbers? And if no one cares they WILL go.

The trouble is while I'm sure (though less than I was) you'd be appaled to see your local Dartmoor river turned into an open sewer (as i would) it was a 'who cares' approach, the led to the Thames being a open sewer and London smogs, a lack of appreciation of cause and effect - and it most certinly wasn't the 'who cares' lot that solved those problems! You might not care what we shove willy nilly into the atmosphere, but plenty of people do because they see what it does and if they didn't we'd be in an even bigger mess

But, it has been mild...

Just because I don't care if the earth warms up, doesn't imply I don't care about other things. Although I'll wager that with all the recent rain the rivers will resemble a sort of sewer with the run off from the fields. As for the Thames, I think it was probably more a case of 'what shall we do with it?' At the time it was better in the river than in the streets.

I am of the opinion that the earth will warm regardless of what we do to a certain point and then it will cool down again, then it will warm up again. Just as it always has.

With regards what we put in the atmosphere, what would you rather have us do? Stop producing anything? Kill all the animals? Stop breathing? It's all very well people saying stop doing this, stop doing that, but wheres the alternatives?

and besides, just because alot of people believe in a theory, does not validate it.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Thundery wintry showers]

The "at least it will be mild" phenomenon is tied in with increased subjectivity in weather presentation and has a lot more to do with the BBC than with the Met Office.

The BBC's stances are not entirely contradictory because we are comparing short-term weather with long-term climate. The BBC preaches that we should be concerned about long-term climate change because of the side-effects that may well ensue. But in its forecasts, it is trying to tailor the forecast to the assumed preferences of the average viewer (i.e. dry, sunny and 21C with a breeze at 3 knots from the south-west, all year around) which naturally lends itself to saying "at least it will be mild" in winter but also talking apologetically about temperatures nudging 27C (81F) in summer. This is IMHO wholly separate from its stance on AGW.

I don't see much wrong with the climate change-related content in the article. The La Nina episodes have indeed contributed to the lack of warming over the last decade (though it could be argued that lack of strong El Nino events is a more accurate description, as the 1980s & 1990s were exceptional for dominance of El Nino over La Nina and the 2000s have merely been near-neutral). Where I do disagree is with the attempts to defend the Met Office's forecast of a "barbecue summer". It was only a barbecue summer in East Anglia and south-east England, and while temperatures were above average, in many parts of the country the positive anomaly was larger by night than by day. Let's face it- they were wrong, and in itself, that's not much of an embarrassment as there is currently no such thing as a high-accuracy long range forecast system, and their track record remains as good as anyone else's.

[Methuselah]

Just one thing, Ian...I can recall many forecasts from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that ended with the accursed phrase: at least it'll be mild! :unsure:

[Devonian]

With regards what we put in the atmosphere, what would you rather have us do? Stop producing anything? Kill all the animals? Stop breathing? It's all very well people saying stop doing this, stop doing that, but wheres the alternatives?

I wouldn't suggest that the answer to a fire is the frying pan...

So, I think, like we did with the Thames, we need to be more responsible.

and besides, just because alot of people believe in a theory, does not validate it.

I don't think science is a popularity contest. AGW scepticism is another matter...

[Nick L]

Not so - and given your signature I'm amazed you don't know that.

It was a sarcastic exaggeration, apologies but sarcasm doesn't really translate through type!

[Devonian]

It was a sarcastic exaggeration, apologies but sarcasm doesn't really translate through type!

Ahh, my bad :unsure:

[Chris Knight]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091124a.html

Might as well have the meto's latest press release to highlight how they view the occurrence of climate change

A statement from the Met Office, Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society.

The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world-class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change, now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As three of the UK’s leading scientific organisations, involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen and beyond.

Hmm, not a mention of UEA CRU there - perhaps I detect a certain distancing by Julia Slingo there. Damage limitation? :unsure:

[Thundery wintry showers]

Just one thing, Ian...I can recall many forecasts from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that ended with the accursed phrase: at least it'll be mild!

Aye, I remember you pointing this out earlier! It's more a question of emphasis IMO- the ITV have placed a strong emphasis on that side of their presentation ever since I started watching forecasts around 1993/94, but I recall the BBC only using the phrase quite infrequently during the 1990s, and then toning it up towards ITV levels since the turn of the century.

Regarding the statement from the Met Office, one aspect of it isn't very clear. Are they saying that the scientists overwhelmingly agree with the IPCC estimates of AGW, with a rise of 3 to 5C expected unless we cut down our emissions and perhaps 2 or 3C otherwise? Or is it a more generalised stance that the scientists overwhelmingly agree that AGW exists? The former is a much stronger (and more potentially controversial) interpretation than the latter.

[snowking]

Im neither a sceptic nor a believer, im very much on the fence

But the two quotes I pulled out of the story at the beginning of the thread are simply ridiculous. There is absolutely no point in stating that there is a 50% chance of next year being the warmest on record because it is not statistically important....there is always going to be a 50% chance that next year is the warmest ever....equally theres a 50% chance of it being the coolest ever. Thats just common sense

If I see concrete proof of the fact that the temperature is going to rise continuously, then i may fall the side of the fence of going with the global warmalists (not even sure thats a word, but it is now!). However there is far too much counteractive research, which typically does not get publicised enough, to the global warming arguement. Off the top of my head the research carried out by Prof. Phillip Stott in 2005 with antarctic ice cores jumps to mind.

I think the other issue is that we focus (largely due to the media bias) on where the globe is warming. Im sure not many people will be aware that new zealand, for example, have just had their coldest period for 70 years in may/june. Last winter there was similarly cold there too.

Like i say i sit neither side of the fence, I just get sick an tired of a bias toward stories purely around the warming side of climate change and misleading press releases

Kris

Edited November 25, 2009 by snowking

[stewfox]

Oh, indeed, it's a lot cooler now that at the big bang. What relevancy that has though beats me.

Clearly you don't?

And if we all took your attitude give it a few years and there will be no whales, or large cats, or elephants, or cod, or tuna, or forests. I mean why care about them and their numbers? And if no one cares they WILL go.

The trouble is while I'm sure (though less than I was) you'd be appaled to see your local Dartmoor river turned into an open sewer (as i would) it was a 'who cares' approach, the led to the Thames being a open sewer and London smogs, a lack of appreciation of cause and effect - and it most certinly wasn't the 'who cares' lot that solved those problems! You might not care what we shove willy nilly into the atmosphere, but plenty of people do because they see what it does and if they didn't we'd be in an even bigger mess

But, it has been mild...

Not so - and given your signature I'm amazed you don't know that.

Why do people think if you have a doubt about global warming or the evidence produce or the spin put on that evidence you some how don't care ???.

Maybe instead of spending trillions on reducing CO2 you might want to spend that on people/communities, an odd idea I know in this fat over cooked western world.

I don't think most people are coolnest fanatics they just want the truth and no spin. These are important issues.

This release made me laugh 24/11/09

http://www.metoffice...r20091124a.html

Take one point you can take ten easily

-----------------------------------------------

Arctic summer sea-ice cover declined suddenly in 2007 and 2008, prompting the realisation that this environment may be far more vulnerable to change than previously thought

---------------------------------------------

How about the truth

Artic ice summer sea ice cover declined to a record low in 2007 but showed signs of recovery in 2008 and further recovery in 2009

Anyway lets go spend billion and trillions on stuff we don't need to do. We can all look at the 200ft high flood defences for a 3mm rise in sea level and watch the starving at the same time

http://climatesanity...ver-underwater/

Im neither a sceptic nor a believer, im very much on the fence

But the two quotes I pulled out of the story at the beginning of the thread are simply ridiculous. There is absolutely no point in stating that there is a 50% chance of next year being the warmest on record because it is not statistically important....there is always going to be a 50% chance that next year is the warmest ever....equally theres a 50% chance of it being the coolest ever. Thats just common sense

Thanks for this, I had to get my head around it but its true

You cant say its unlikley to be the coolest year on record as we dont know, I think

Edited November 25, 2009 by stewfox

[Thundery wintry showers]

Stewfox,

Try reading people's posts properly. The attitude that Dartmoor_Matt was being criticised for wasn't having doubts about (A)GW and/or the evidence behind it. It was for adopting a "who cares" approach to it, which is something completely different. The "who cares" approach is a symptom of the head-burial, wanting to keep things as they are in our nice little comfort zone, and trying to downplay the benefits of action that disrupts the status quo at every opportunity. It is possible to be an AGW sceptic without coming close to falling into that trap.

Your continued twisting of the future possibilities, assuming the least possible degree of AGW, the least bad possible consequences and the maximum possible expenditure on it- I don't see how that's any less bad than the scaremongerers who are determined to preach worst-case AGW scenarios? For example the projection of 3mm rises in sea level are laughable, given that sea levels have already risen by a lot more than 3mm over the last decade or so (true, the rise hasn't been major, but if it's been rising in the last decade even though the globe hasn't been warming...)

Regarding the IPCC Reports, the summary for policymakers gets political and thus can be accused of giving more weight to certain aspects of the scientific research than others. But the main body of the reports themselves consist of detailed literature reviews, giving the current state of the science including the various points of view given in various papers. Having read some chapters of the reports they do seem pretty close to being non-biased, even though the conclusions for policymakers may not be.

[PeteG]

But the two quotes I pulled out of the story at the beginning of the thread are simply ridiculous. There is absolutely no point in stating that there is a 50% chance of next year being the warmest on record because it is not statistically important....there is always going to be a 50% chance that next year is the warmest ever....equally theres a 50% chance of it being the coolest ever. Thats just common sense

Kris

You may think its common sense but I think you're wrong.

There's a 50/50 chance of any one year being warmer or cooler than any other single year but the chances of it being the coolest or warmest on record have to be much lower than that. If there's 150 years of records what are the odds of a particular year being warmer (or colder) than any of the others, certainly not 50%.

[VillagePlank]

There's a 50/50 chance

No, there isn't.

[Methuselah]

Hi Snowking,

You sound like the kind of person that most of us are...trully sceptical...And by 'sceptical' I mean on-the-fence; in that, as long as the evidence (either way) is less than nonequivocal, being on-the-fence is the logical way to be...IMO?

That said, I think that you are little off-beam when you say thet there's a 50% chance of any one year being either the hottest or coldest in 150 years...Indeed (someone put me right should I be talking out my a**e, please ) if that really were the case, our climate would oscillate (between extremes) like a yoyo???

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Stewfox,

Try reading people's posts properly. The attitude that Dartmoor_Matt was being criticised for wasn't having doubts about (A)GW and/or the evidence behind it. It was for adopting a "who cares" approach to it, which is something completely different. The "who cares" approach is a symptom of the head-burial, wanting to keep things as they are in our nice little comfort zone, and trying to downplay the benefits of action that disrupts the status quo at every opportunity. It is possible to be an AGW sceptic without coming close to falling into that trap.

Wrong.

I know the world is warming, has warmed, might warm, probably will warm. My belief is, and I'm only going to say this once more for the benefit of people who either can't or can't be arsed to listen, that the world was always going to warm it will then cool down again, whether we speed up this action is irrelevant, sooner or later there will be a tipping point that will lead to the cooling down again. There are various possibilities to this, but some might say the melting of greenland's icecaps will be the one.

So, its not so much burying my head and not wanting change. I say bring it on, if only to show that human kind is just a very small part of it all. I don't see the point in bringing economies to their knees (more than already) to 'save' the environment, when it was all going to happen anyway. I'm pretty sure it'll cope. But either way, until that point no-one will know, only guess from what their computers say. Which is usually 'no'.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Essan]

I think that you are little off-beam when you say thet there's a 50% chance of any one year being either the hottest or coldest in 150 years...Indeed (someone put me right should I be talking out my a**e, please ) if that really were the case, our climate would oscillate (between extremes) like a yoyo???

I think that mathematically there's a 50% chance that any given year is warmer (or colder) than the one before.

But that would mean if this were the warmest year on record there'd be a 50% chance next year would take the title and in reality I don't think it quite works like that.

In a 150 year series there is presumably a 150/1 chance that any given year will be warmest?

Anyway, I really hope the MetO are wrong, or at least are using the Piers Corbyn school of maths whereby if 2010 is the warmest year on record they are right and if it's not they are also right - since by default they also predict a 50% chance it will not be the warmest

[Devonian]

Wrong.

I know the world is warming, has warmed, might warm, probably will warm. My belief is, and I'm only going to say this once more for the benefit of people who either can't or can't be arsed to listen, that the world was always going to warm it will then cool down again, whether we speed up this action is irrelevant, sooner or later there will be a tipping point that will lead to the cooling down again. There are various possibilities to this, but some might say the melting of greenland's icecaps will be the one.

So, its not so much burying my head and not wanting change. I say bring it on, if only to show that human kind is just a very small part of it all. I don't see the point in bringing economies to their knees (more than already) to 'save' the environment, when it was all going to happen anyway. I'm pretty sure it'll cope. But either way, until that point no-one will know, only guess from what their computers say. Which is usually 'no'.

But, you know don't you...

Edited November 25, 2009 by Devonian

[Dartmoor_Matt]

But, you know don't you...

I know lots, as I'm sure you do... but I reckon there's even more we don't know.

[Essan]

I don't see the point in bringing economies to their knees (more than already) to 'save' the environment

It's a much repeated straw man that I've never understood. What's wrong with bringing the economies of Russia and Iran to their knees? Who else suffers economically if we become less reliant on fossil fuels; spend less money on imported gas and oil; develop new cheaper technologies to sell to the world?

[Thundery wintry showers]

That's where my suspicions of "head burial" come in, because one obvious reason for setting up that kind of black and white strawman (either we continue "as is" or we bring economies to their knees) is to find a way to reject action so as to justify keeping things as they are (or to justify not caring less about it, via inferring that it can't be helped- the "that's life" approach is a common defence mechanism against worrying about things). Of course it isn't necessarily the only reason but it's a common reason for that kind of thing.

Thing is, even if Dartmoor_Matt's predictions are right (and they may well be), if the world warms by, say, 4C in the space of 100 years before cooling again, the impacts on future generations are going to be very different from what they will be if the world warms by only 1C in 200 years. Amount and rate of change are both important.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

It's a much repeated straw man that I've never understood. What's wrong with bringing the economies of Russia and Iran to their knees? Who else suffers economically if we become less reliant on fossil fuels; spend less money on imported gas and oil; develop new cheaper technologies to sell to the world?

So, because we don't like the Governments of those nations, the millions that live there should suffer just so you can ease your conscience on climate change. Good call.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Whether it would bring the economies of Russia and Iran to their knees depends on whether their economies are solely reliant upon fossil fuels. But I suggest that if we continue maintaining the status quo, many economies will fall to their knees when fossil fuel reserves run scarce and in the meantime we haven't developed alternatives that meet even one-tenth of the energy demands that fossil fuels fulfil.

It is no good "letting the markets decide" here for instance, because the markets will only move en-masse towards reducing reliance on fossil fuels when it becomes uneconomical to do so in the short term. The problem here being "short term".

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Whether it would bring the economies of Russia and Iran to their knees depends on whether their economies are solely reliant upon fossil fuels. But I suggest that if we continue maintaining the status quo, many economies will fall to their knees when fossil fuel reserves run scarce and in the meantime we haven't developed alternatives that meet even one-tenth of the energy demands that fossil fuels fulfil.

It is no good "letting the markets decide" here for instance, because the markets will only move en-masse towards reducing reliance on fossil fuels when it becomes uneconomical to do so in the short term. The problem here being "short term".

Between 2006-2008 oil revenues accounted for 70% of Irans governments income and 80% of its export earnings. So yes. It would.

As for developing new technologies, is it not the case that most new technologies come about when there is the pressure to develop them? Besides, we have one, its nuclear, but the Greens don't like that option either, and the wind turbines haven't exactly led to the closing of coal power stations have they?

The markets would move as soon as there was a commercial reason to do so. While oil is still cheap, there isn't one. If OPEC actually got around to doing what they keep saying, maybe there would be.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

Aspects of the media, always takes things out of proportion.

However the BBC article quoted at the start of the thread, doesn't.

So what have the sceptics done, attacked headline grabbing nonsense (which isn't anything to do with the story nor the bbc), called AGW a con, called it propaganda etc.

The Globe is very warm compared to recent history, except it, get use to it and move on, or show that Spencer, RSS, NOAA, NCDC, Hadley and NASA are all wrong.!

I agree:]

you pretty much wrote what i was just thinking! XD