Hocus Pocus

What are we denying exactly may I ask? Theres a lot of denying going on this thread for sure but it’s not from those posing questions.

Quite simply put one can be to dependent on a simulated outcome particularly when climate modelling is warming the atmosphere some 67% more when compared to the other observational datasets.

There’s a difference between useful and dependence.

Computer modelling isn’t a theory but merely an estimation.

It was the consensus at the time before new scientific knowledge superseded it, and that’s kind of my point what is today’s consensus is tomorrow’s old hat. That’s not that I’m implying the theory on CO2 is wrong but merely the modelled projections most likely are.

There was once a theory that Peptic Ulcers were caused by spicy foods.

Denier sites........ Judith Curry is a climate scientists held in the highest esteem for goodness sake and who mentioned that man isn’t responsible for some of the warming, he’s not responsible for all by the way but at a best guesstimate around 0.4c of the present warming trend. That still doesn’t answer what caused the warming during the RWP/MWP, we can’t just dismiss naturals and lay all our eggs into one basket. Yes CO2 levels are contributing to SOME of our warming how much probably the above you but hot we get is the answer that still remains uncertain despite the nonsense above.

Take it up with Judith she’s very approachable you know, this mountain of evidence you keep,referring to only highlights that we're warming just like we did back during the MWP/RWP ( arguments about whether it was global or not for another thread ). Also whose mentioned cooling per se we know we’re still in a warming trend but what does that mean it’s all down to man or not? Whilst on the subject I do believe the AMO is a big player, in NH temps at least so combined with the projected Grand Solar Minimum we should get a good idea on just how significant mans role in warming is at least.

You are indeed correct and JAMSTEC does have a cold bias at this time of year, having said that all long range models have inbuilt biases be it warm or cold so none of them are worth the bandwidth really. Just for fun is fine though

So if a man believes in god his credentials aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, wow confirmation bias of what I just said above. Also Judith has produced numerous articles for previous IPCC reports yet remains sceptical of the modelled ( that’s the key word here ) outcomes at the higher end of temp rises. So we now have a situation which sees the uncertainties in global temperature projections being replaced with a “We’ve only got 12 years before temps breach the 1.5c threshold, you couldn’t make it up perhaps they are after all these are algorithms we’re talking about right not a set in stone prediction. I await the next twelve years with a wry smile on my face and will comeback to this then.

The NAO imdex is correct 2/3 times so here’s hoping this is the other one.

Here is Judith’s response to the aforementioned report. https://judithcurry.com/

So what does that make those scientists your oblivious to who do speak out then?

Like I said it’s now 0.8c which is widely accepted by most. As for being a deniers site well like I said I could cite respected scientists such as Judith Curry who knows more than anyone posting here or for that matter most working within the circles of climate science, as does Roy Spencer. Just because you disagree with those doesn’t make them less credible. This is why climate science is unlike any other scientific field, it’s become a closed shop of nodding dogs where questions on outcomes are met with with an almost hostile reception. As for a consensus amongst climate scientists, well I have a copy of the just what was asked of these scientists in forming a consensus and it was based on a simple question of “do you think man has contributed to today’s warming”. Of course the answer is yes but there is no consensus on outcomes merely a range of temps in which we may or may not see.

I think this article explains well some of the issues however I expect some will dismiss the source if it’s nit directly from the IPCC. I could cite Judith Curry or Roy Spencer but feel the same responses will only flame the divisions, hence why I rarely bother with climate science as there’s no middle ground. http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/08/reliable-cru-nasa-best-noaa-land-temp-data-conflict-by-up-to-90-0-8c-spawning-large-uncertainty/

That’s not up to date and it currently sits at 0.8c BFTV. It did get close to 1c with the super nino event buthas since fallen back into line. My question on why all of a sudden the uncertainties are now certainties remains unanswered.

So many variables to take into account at the best of times but with a impending Grand Solar Minimum and a AMO due to switch to its overall negative phase things look like they could get interesting, or not.

It depends on what you class as evidence, for me evidence is based on facts somwith that in mind the only facts we can truly agree in is the globe has warmed and no doubt man is responsible for some of that warming just how much is open to debate as is how much warming we’ll continue tosee. This headline of seeing a further 0,7c rise before 2030 is highly unlikely considering we’ve only seen a 0.8c rise over the last 150 years and counting, Whatever happened to the huge uncertainties on how much warming we’ll continue to see, this was always the IPCC mantra but suddenly we’ve seen a change of tune, why is the question we should be asking.

Not all the experts agree on the IPCC findings and don’t give me that big oil malarkey as science is ever evolving and never rests on its laurels. The only thing of any certainty is that we’ve warmed and man has caused some of this the rest is speculative at best.

It reminds me of the old joke of keeping a picture of your mother in law in your wallet to stop your kids pinching any money.

Around 3” snow here and looking like we could get a few more inches over the next 24 hours. ?

The cold continues for many in the North, no deep cold uppers from the weekend but surface cold will keep temps a few degrees above freezing during the day with snow comtnuing to be a risk for the next 5-7 days. Excellent for the time of year.

Easterlies rarely deliver for our region on the whole , we need a strong convective flow with embedded troughs or a frontal attack. At the moment I think most of us will see falling snow but amounts may not amount to that much away from elevation.

It’s not an hobby to start with. ?

If that verified we may as well give up. ?