Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[Polar Maritime]

Let's just get the facts correct from the BBC link, From 2007..  "It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." 

 

Science will always move "goalposts" ( I personally don't like to use that phrase, As it makes this subject sound like a profitable business)  They constantly fine tune there analysis with up-to-date findings and analysis, Continuing to move forward with times, leaving old arguments in the past, And moving on with new knowledge. 

Edited July 3, 2014 by Polar Maritime

[drgl]

If you going to make quotes why not quote this bit too??

 

""Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Either way they said much earlier than 2040. Constantly fine tune? Please, they change their arguments (& some would say DATA!) to fit what is actually happening which makes their predictions for some 100 years in the future laughable.

 

They couldn't hit a barn door with a canon ball from 10 feet.

[Polar Maritime]

If you going to make quotes why not quote this bit too??

 

""Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Either way they said much earlier than 2040. Constantly fine tune? Please, they change their arguments (& some would say DATA!) to fit what is actually happening which makes their predictions for some 100 years in the future laughable.

 

They couldn't hit a barn door with a canon ball from 10 feet.

 

I had no need to...I quoted what I did to prove you mis-quoted the BBC, They are not arguments it's Science, It changes with/when more evidence is bought forward. Model's and Data which is fed into them will always change, That's why Science is advancing constantly. Maybe you need to research why these changes take place, So you have a clearer view on things.

[drgl]

I didn't misquote the BBC at all & to suggest I did is a complete lie. It's there at the top in a much larger & bold font in case you missed it......

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

I linked to the article so others can see exactly what it says.

 

Not arguments but science? So it's a scientific argument, to suggest otherwise is pedantry of the highest degree. They aren't facts are they?

 

It's like chasing a rainbow waiting for this ice to melt.

[jonboy]

I had no need to...I quoted what I did to prove you mis-quoted the BBC, They are not arguments it's Science, It changes with/when more evidence is bought forward. Model's and Data which is fed into them will always change, That's why Science is advancing constantly. Maybe you need to research why these changes take place, So you have a clearer view on things.

 

I always understood science to be based on experementation and use of actual known verifiable data and facts. What this is is the use of models which have shown and continue to show very poor accuracy in there projections yet we continue touse there outputs as gospel god given fact. to rely on these as a tool of policy makers is just plain wrong in my opinion and is what makes me extermely sceptical of manmade climate change.

Edited July 3, 2014 by jonboy

[Polar Maritime]

I didn't misquote the BBC at all & to suggest I did is a complete lie. It's there at the top in a much larger & bold font in case you missed it......

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

I linked to the article so others can see exactly what it says.

 

Not arguments but science? So it's a scientific argument, to suggest otherwise is pedantry of the highest degree. They aren't facts are they?

 

It's like chasing a rainbow waiting for this ice to melt.

 

I stand corrected drgl 

 

So the BBC have misquoted what the Scientists said, Not yourself, typical of the media.  

[drgl]

It depends which part of the scientists quotes you read! Herein lies the problem, years & years of being told one thing for it to change because it didn't quote work out makes one wonder if they know ANYTHING.

 

Keep betting on red and in the end red will come up

[Polar Maritime]

I always understood science to be based on experementation and use of actual known verifiable data and facts. What this is is the use of models which have shown and continue to show very poor accuracy in there projections yet we continue touse there outputs as gospel god given fact. to rely on these as a tool of policy makers is just plain wrong in my opinion and is what makes me extermely sceptical of manmade climate change.

 

I do not know any Scientist whom deem them Gospel or God given fact? Yes governments have and do use these figures to manipulate, But lets stick to the Science. 

 

drgl, Try reading the actual Scientists papers for a clearer view. Don't take any-thing otherwise or in the Media as Gospel, As they like to make it sound.

 

On that note, I'm shutting the door behind me very quietly.  

Edited July 3, 2014 by Polar Maritime

[drgl]

I've read plenty of the scientific papers. I linked to the media reports as these cut to the chase. Also, it has been proven that the scientific papers get edited to save face, they forgot about the Google cache in that case though!!!!

 

It's not really hard to see why so many remain sceptical about the whole CO2 agenda.

[Polar Maritime]

I've read plenty of the scientific papers. I linked to the media reports as these cut to the chase. Also, it has been proven that the scientific papers get edited to save face, they forgot about the Google cache in that case though!!!!

 

It's not really hard to see why so many remain sceptical about the whole CO2 agenda.

 

By miss-quoting Scientists? 

[drgl]

You could be pedantic & say he never said "ice free by 2013", but what he did say is there for all to see.....

 

 

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

 

 In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly 

Professor Peter Wadhams

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

 So the BBC could have had an even more alarming headline, but then it goes on........

 

 

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

 Like I said, bet on red long enough...................

[drgl]

Oh dear indeed. Have you read Rose and Delingpole recently? I'm afraid this will have to be my last post on this particular subject as your last two posts aren't even thinly disguised as debate.

 

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: The Daily Mail

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/12/30/climate-change-misinformer-of-the-year-the-dail/197340

 Not sure why it was deleted from the other thread but who quoted the DM? The quote was from the BBC which was quoting scientists. 

Edited July 3, 2014 by ajpoolshark
*sigh*

[4wd]

Astonishing example of unwarranted adjustments to temperature data (Paul Homewood)http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/ 

 

the adjustments have added an astonishing 1.35C to the annual temperature for 2013. Note also that I have included the same figures for 1934, which show that the adjustment has reduced temperatures that year by 0.91C. So, the net effect of the adjustments between 1934 and 2013 has been to add 2.26C of warming.

 

[keithlucky]

Global Warming continues at a standstillRSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to June 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.

Edited July 3, 2014 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

Enough said

Edited July 3, 2014 by keithlucky

[drgl]

We have just see our own flooding ( due to blocked/repeating weather patterns) , China's massive flooding ( due to blocked/repeating weather patterns), central european flooding ( due to blocked/repeating weather patterns) and now the mid west/Canada flooding ( due to blocked/repeating weather patterns). All of this is on the back of the weather disruption we have seen over the past decade of low snow cover/sea ice levels in the Arctic and evidence showing 'extra heat' entering into the climate system from this loss of albedo.

 

We are a 'Weather Site' and as such I had imagined that anything that could interfere with 'understanding' the weather would be a subject we were all over. I appear to be very wrong in this assumption with a very vocal ( and unpleasant ?) minority taking it upon themselves to stand opposed to the wealth of scientific observations we have today?

 

I know i have a 'side' in this 'debate' but it does appear to me that the directive that the 'paid misleaders' gave to 'challenge every post/ mention of climate change' has really borne fruits with the current climate of majority exclusion from the debate a direct result.

 Hmm, concentrate of the flooding & forget the harsh winters we ourselves have just had & the recent north american freeze (that apparently was nothing special, I'd have thought any cold what so ever would be special given the predictions that some had made, never mind, that was bad science, it's moved on).

 

Paid misleaders? Yep I'd agree with that, where we disagree is who are the paid misleaders.

Edited July 4, 2014 by drgl

[cheeky_monkey]

 Hmm, concentrate of the flooding & forget the harsh winters we ourselves have just had & the recent north american freeze (that apparently was nothing special, I'd have thought any cold what so ever would be special given the predictions that some had made, never mind, that was bad science, it's moved on).

 

Paid misleaders? Yep I'd agree with that, where we disagree is who are the paid misleaders.

recent North American freeze wasn't anything special

[drgl]

So you keep saying. Was the winter of 2010 in the UK nothing special either? Considering not so long ago we were being told snow in winter in the UK would become a thing of the past I'd say a winter like that was special.

 

 

Last month was the coldest December documented for the UK since nationwide records began 100 years ago, the Met Office has confirmed.

For central England, it was the second coldest December since 1659.

 

Not bad for a world that has apparently warmed so much & is continuing to do so. Even more impressive if you consider how much heat towns & cities that didn't exist in 1659 generate.

 

 

 

Winter 2013-2014 was one of the coldest on record in parts of the Midwest, according to the government's official monthly climate report released Thursday.

 

http://www.weather.com/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313

 

No doubt if certain states record record heat there will be a fanfare about that!

[cheeky_monkey]

So you keep saying. Was the winter of 2010 in the UK nothing special either? Considering not so long ago we were being told snow in winter in the UK would become a thing of the past I'd say a winter like that was special.

 

 

Not bad for a world that has apparently warmed so much & is continuing to do so. Even more impressive if you consider how much heat towns & cities that didn't exist in 1659 generate.

 

 

http://www.weather.com/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313

 

No doubt if certain states record record heat there will be a fanfare about that!

 I spent the last 6 years living in North America and I can tell you yes it was a cold snowy winter in parts of the USA but that's not that unusual other parts were very much milder than normal (California had its mildest winter on record)and snowless but no one reports that. What I find strange is the last winter in North America attracted far more attention this side of the pond than it did over there.

[drgl]

Science moves on...when it suits??

 

http://freepatriot.org/2013/12/11/russians-un-global-warming-proponents-deny-new-record-low-minus-135-8-antarctica-censor-sensors/

 

 

Global warming critics are doing all that they can to discredit this one. A new record low temperature has been set in Antarctica. The temperatures at Antarctica reached in August 2010 when it hit -135.8 degrees. It came close to breaking the record again in July  of 2013.

A whole new way of looking at arctic temperatures is being developed, and it isn’t helping advance the theory of  global warming one bit. Scientists discovered that the temperatures were falling so low in certain areas of Antarctica that the ice was shrinking from the cold.

Assume the remote monitoring of ice cover is OK though....

[drgl]

I see the failure of understanding the difference between weather and climate is coming around for the ninth time. But still a quick glance to see if anything has changed, Good lord last winter was the 33rd coldest on record in the US. Who would've believed it?

I see the failure to understand climate & weather are intrinsically linked is coming around for the ninth time

 

 

 

climatenoun [C or U] (WEATHER)    /ˈklaɪ.mÉ™t/

the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place : 

 

or have they changed the meaning of that word too?

[4wd]

Goddard has a nice graph on US temperatures fiddling to help the cause.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/onwards-and-upwards-at-the-us-government/



 

[4wd]

 

 

RossP says:July 3, 2014 at 1:48 amThat animated graph is Steve at his best and I just do not understand how anyone –Stokes, Mosher, Zeke etc. can say anything is wrong with it. It is fully referenced using NASA’s own data. It should be front page of the Washington Post ( well 4 separate graphs in print media ).Reply

 

[keithlucky]

So 1st or 2nd warmest June bla bla according to hadley When you think about what CET really is its actually a bit pointless it in an age when readings can be had from all round uk. So why do Hadley do it? is it because when you join the Hadley version of CET onto the Manley version of CET you get a nice 'warming' upslope chart?...For Hadley to join onto Manley CET their version and present it as the same thing is a trick Hadley CET goes back to 1974. They should not use the Manley CET to draw trendlines onto their post 1974 method which is different from the method Manley used. So anyone using Manley and Hadley data together to draw trendlines is lies 'the Hadley trick'. Manley method CET ended in 1974 . Hadley have no right to claim their method as an 'extension' of Manley CET. Hadley calling their method CET is wrong.

Edited July 4, 2014 by keithlucky

[reef]

So 1st or 2nd warmest June bla bla according to hadley When you think about what CET really is its actually a bit pointless it in an age when readings can be had from all round uk. So why do Hadley do it? is it because when you join the Hadley version of CET onto the Manley version of CET you get a nice 'warming' upslope chart?...For Hadley to join onto Manley CET their version and present it as the same thing is a trick Hadley CET goes back to 1974. They should not use the Manley CET to draw trendlines onto their post 1974 method which is different from the method Manley used. So anyone using Manley and Hadley data together to draw trendlines is lies 'the Hadley trick'. Manley method CET ended in 1974 . Hadley have no right to claim their method as an 'extension' of Manley CET. Hadley calling their method CET is wrong.

 

You get a warming on the Hadley series for the same reason you get a warming on every other series: the temperature has increased.

 

Phillip Eden runs a provisional CET based on the Manley sites:

 

http://www.climate-uk.com/provisional.htm

 

There's no question its become warmer (my own records back to 1980 show the same), the cause however is open to debate.