Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Politics And AGW/GW

Recommended Posts

If, from the very beginning, the METO had been as moderate as this latest offering, then why do they feel the need to produce this now?

Because it's what they've always said and they wanted to reinforce that?

Please can you show me where the Met Office have consistently done otherwise? This is a genuine question. I can find no evidence of the Met Office being anything other than moderate, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please can you show me where the Met Office have consistently done otherwise? This is a genuine question. I can find no evidence of the Met Office being anything other than moderate, ever.

I think that's the wrong question, there, Roo. The MetO, given their field, and level of expertise, should have been calling for the moderation of the extremists that exist on both ends of the debate a long long time ago; I think that they have now done that is a major leap forward, and I think you are correct in saying that the MetO have always had a moderate stance.

So, the question should be, I reckon, find me evidence of where the MetO have rapped the extremists over the knuckles, before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that's the wrong question, there, Roo. The MetO, given their field, and level of expertise, should have been calling for the moderation of the extremists that exist on both ends of the debate a long long time ago; I think that they have now done that is a major leap forward, and I think you are correct in saying that the MetO have always had a moderate stance.

So, the question should be, I reckon, find me evidence of where the MetO have rapped the extremists over the knuckles, before?

Sorry VP but it is exactly the right question...so many people have accused the Met Office of being extreme in the past, suggesting that this piece represents a change in view: I would like them to show me proof that this is the case.

I would suggest that the Met Office have been leading by example in the past and did not see themselves as climate police. Perhaps they finally feel that the extremist nonsense is now too big a danger to ignore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would suggest that the Met Office have been leading by example in the past and did not see themselves as climate police. Perhaps they finally feel that the extremist nonsense is now too big a danger to ignore?

Agreed. There is certainly some utter drivel flying around these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. There is certainly some utter drivel flying around these days.

Does that mean we've heard the last from Hansen and Gore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry VP but it is exactly the right question...so many people have accused the Met Office of being extreme in the past, suggesting that this piece represents a change in view: I would like them to show me proof that this is the case.

I would suggest that the Met Office have been leading by example in the past and did not see themselves as climate police. Perhaps they finally feel that the extremist nonsense is now too big a danger to ignore?

Roo, you're barking at the wrong person here. I have never said the METO are, or have been extreme.

VP is absolutely correct in saying many of the "sceptics" gripes are fundamentally as a result of the extremist views dominating this subject and that the METO have historically done little to quash that, despite being in a position to do so.

Whether or not the METO see themselves as climate police is irrelevant, they are the leading frontman of this debate, in this country, simply by dint of who they are and what they do. If climate science is to be deemed credible both now, and in the future then it needs to be more moderate than it has been. There have been outrageous claims for the future made on this subject; when a leading authority does little or nothing to rein those claims in, then rightly or wrongly, this can be interpreted as concordance. With authority comes responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also,why have they chosen now,so late in the day to intervene? I'll tell ya - because things ain't going to plan,that's why. Does anyone seriously believe they'd have piped up and berated the crazed alarmists if warming was actually occuring and looked liked continuing to do so? Uh hu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I mentioned the other day how what was originally 'global warming' had morphed into the one-size-fits-all 'climate change' in the face of non-rising temps,I was hastily reminded of what the 'CC' bit of the IPCC stood for. I countered that the key property of CO2 was it's ability to raise temps,and at no time has it ever been intimated that it could equally lower them. This being so,the 'climate change' bit of the IPCC has always been accepted as meaning warming,right? What foresight they must have had,knowing that when the tide turned they could retain that title yet still appear credible (to some,that is!). Sometimes I really feel like I've been well and truly 'Tango'd' - the Agw types will always come up with something or other to turn things around to making it look like they knew what they were doing all along - and whatever,really whatever happens then CO2 is still somehow at the root of it. Sure the original meaning of 'IPCC' wasn't 'Intergovernmental Panel on Carbon Control'?

Whilst I partly agree with you, LG...What evidence is there, apart from a couple of not quite so hot hot years as we were expecting, that the tide has indeed turned?

And how much of that (blip?) is likely down to ENSO, I wonder? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?

Honest question.

:)

CB

Because I think the basic science, how the GH effect works, the forcing effect of changes to ghg's, is right - because of that I think 1C for a doubling of CO2 almost a given. Because the uncertainties, feedbacks, clouds, are likely to mean it's >1C . Because we've seen warming already in line with predictions. And because I don't think AGW is a conspiracy. My honest view (that's if you don't think I'm part of that conspiracy) is 2-4C for a doubling of CO2. Lets the accusations of 'scaremonger' rip!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets the accusations of 'scaremonger' rip!

Dear Sirs,

I have never seen such blatantly alarmist tendencies. You will be hearing from my solicitor.

Yours,

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

P.S. And now I am off to see 'The Tiger who came to Tea' which I believe to be one of the most outrageous pieces of fabricated theory known. 'The tiger drank all the water in the taps'? I ask you....the Met Office surely should have spoken out against such blatant lying years ago instead of allowing it to fester, unchecked, for 40 years. Brainwashing our children with this kind of extremism is just not on....blah....blah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst I partly agree with you, LG...What evidence is there, apart from a couple of not quite so hot hot years as we were expecting, that the tide has indeed turned?

And how much of that (blip?) is likely down to ENSO, I wonder? :)

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg

And how much warming was down to ENSO? Heat never got into the oceans 'cos of some arcane CO2 effect - it got there 'cos of the sun. And note that El Nino is a cooling of the ocean as it gives up it's accumulated heat to the atmosphere. Been going down ever since the blip of the 'big one' - while CO2 emissions have continued to rise. Now what's wrong with that picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg

And how much warming was down to ENSO? Heat never got into the oceans 'cos of some arcane CO2 effect - it got there 'cos of the sun. And note that El Nino is a cooling of the ocean as it gives up it's accumulated heat to the atmosphere. Been going down ever since the blip of the 'big one' - while CO2 emissions have continued to rise. Now what's wrong with that picture?

I have put the same question forward many times LG, but sadly no one seems interested in answering it. That's the problem with AGW, ENSO is responsible for cooling, but not warming. Can any warmist please explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have put the same question forward many times LG, but sadly no one seems interested in answering it. That's the problem with AGW, ENSO is responsible for cooling, but not warming. Can any warmist please explain?

If ENSO is responsible just for cooling how do you explain the warmth of 1998 (globally averaged)? There is a AGW trend of about .2C/decade, on top of that is natural variability like ENSO. No one is saying anything other than EN causes warming LN causes cooling - and, as I say, AGW trend and natural variability on top of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If, from the very beginning, the METO had been as moderate as this latest offering, then why do they feel the need to produce this now?

Perhaps because they didn't feel at the time that it was necessary, or didn't really consider it a priority- an error that they have now corrected. Chances are it has nothing whatsoever to do with the recent slowdown in global temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg

And how much warming was down to ENSO? Heat never got into the oceans 'cos of some arcane CO2 effect - it got there 'cos of the sun. And note that El Nino is a cooling of the ocean as it gives up it's accumulated heat to the atmosphere. Been going down ever since the blip of the 'big one' - while CO2 emissions have continued to rise. Now what's wrong with that picture?

Plenty of course, LG...But whether ENSO is responsible for warming-cooling cycles has nothing to do with CO2...Personally, I think that the ENSO signature is a bit of a two-bladed red herring as far as the AGW debate is concerned. Sorry for the mixed metaphor. :)

I have put the same question forward many times LG, but sadly no one seems interested in answering it. That's the problem with AGW, ENSO is responsible for cooling, but not warming. Can any warmist please explain?

See my answer to LG above...I'm not a 'warmist'. I am a sceptic! :)

If ENSO is responsible just for cooling how do you explain the warmth of 1998 (globally averaged)? There is a AGW trend of about .2C/decade, on top of that is natural variability like ENSO. No one is saying anything other than EN causes warming LN causes cooling - and, as I say, AGW trend and natural variability on top of that.

Percisely! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I think the basic science, how the GH effect works, the forcing effect of changes to ghg's, is right - because of that I think 1C for a doubling of CO2 almost a given. Because the uncertainties, feedbacks, clouds, are likely to mean it's >1C . Because we've seen warming already in line with predictions.

But why do you think the basic science is right? Why do you think the forcing effect of changes to ghgs is right?

And because I don't think AGW is a conspiracy. My honest view (that's if you don't think I'm part of that conspiracy) is 2-4C for a doubling of CO2. Lets the accusations of 'scaremonger' rip!

Oh please, Dev - you do yourself no favours with this kind of rubbish - I never said anything about a conspiracy. In fact I'm pretty darned sure I have never ever said anything about a conspiracy, and there has never been any insinuation (certainly on my part) that you were a part of any conspiracy. And you accuse skeptics of making strawmen...?

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But why do you think the basic science is right? Why do you think the forcing effect of changes to ghgs is right?

Why? because I've studied it (as an amateur, just like most of us here) and I think it's right. I'm not (cue VP?) an expert but I think the experts (Met O, NOAA etc) are right. Just like I think a lot of other things I've learnt are right. If something makes sense I don't as a rule think it's wrong if it doesn't I'll challenge it.

Oh please, Dev - you do yourself no favours with this kind of rubbish - I never said anything about a conspiracy. In fact I'm pretty darned sure I have never ever said anything about a conspiracy, and there has never been any insinuation (certainly on my part) that you were a part of any conspiracy. And you accuse skeptics of making strawmen...?

CB

I know you haven't just pre-empting the usual suspects. I did say 'if' as well :) . Lets be honest here, the net is riddled with people making accusations of scaremongering (or worse, sometimes much worse) of people who think like I do and NW is no exception. I'm sick of it, sometimes I let that show at perhaps the wrong place :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? because I've studied it (as an amateur, just like most of us here) and I think it's right. I'm not (cue VP?) an expert but I think the experts (Met O, NOAA etc) are right. Just like I think a lot of other things I've learnt are right. If something makes sense I don't as a rule think it's wrong if it doesn't I'll challenge it.

Fair enough - I was just curious as to the source of your convictions that would lead you to being "surprised". You see, I have studied it, also as an amateur, and something strikes me as being somewhat wrong with the conclusions. It's not necessarily the science itself that I have problems with (though it is sometimes :) ), but I think there are some fairly shaky conclusions being made.

I'm not suggesting that "I'm right, you're wrong" though - I'm highlighting the fundamental difference between us. I don't know how to resolve this difference without appealing directly to the science. Have you had the time to look through the leaky integrator thread, and if so do you have any thoughts on the principle?

:)

I know you haven't just pre-empting the usual suspects. I did say 'if' as well :) . Lets be honest here, the net is riddled with people making accusations of scaremongering (or worse, sometimes much worse) of people who think like I do and NW is no exception. I'm sick of it, sometimes I let that show at perhaps the wrong place :D

Fair enough, I guess. I think it's generally best to respond to accusations as and when they occur rather than preemptively, so as to not give people the wrong impression! :D

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S. And now I am off to see 'The Tiger who came to Tea' which I believe to be one of the most outrageous pieces of fabricated theory known. 'The tiger drank all the water in the taps'? I ask you....the Met Office surely should have spoken out against such blatant lying years ago instead of allowing it to fester, unchecked, for 40 years. Brainwashing our children with this kind of extremism is just not on....blah....blah

A fine example of why I give up. I'm utterly convinced some of you pro AGW lot don't want a reasonable conversation on any of this, far happier to throw stuff like this around. And whilst I'm having a bit of a rant, I've heard "conspiracy" mentioned by far more pro AGW folk than sceptics.

TWS: chances are it has everything to do with the recent slowdown in temperatures; the METO like many others were all too happy to put out press releases emphasising the warmth of, say for example 2006. We've had endless "warm" stuff released with no mention of "natural variation", yet when temps are going down it suddenly is held up as something to consider. It should also have featured as strongly in the "warming" announcements. Double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite happy to concede that many climate science groups- including the MetO- have been guilty of presenting one side of the story more than the other in the past (including the relatively recent past), giving the impression that the science is more settled and clear-cut than it really is. Not as much as the media, but they certainly haven't been innocent.

Re. the Devonian exchanges, I think the current scientific consensus is the most likely position to be "right", out of all of the possibilities. However, I also think that the range of possibilities is so large that there is still plenty of scope for them to be wrong. I mentioned somewhere that the IPCC's uncertainty ranges grow with each report that is released, and I think it still has room for future growth- despite the continued improvements to understanding of the atmosphere and in climate models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm quite happy to concede that many climate science groups- including the MetO- have been guilty of presenting one side of the story more than the other in the past (including the relatively recent past), giving the impression that the science is more settled and clear-cut than it really is. Not as much as the media, but they certainly haven't been innocent.

Re. the Devonian exchanges, I think the current scientific consensus is the most likely position to be "right", out of all of the possibilities. However, I also think that the range of possibilities is so large that there is still plenty of scope for them to be wrong. I mentioned somewhere that the IPCC's uncertainty ranges grow with each report that is released, and I think it still has room for future growth- despite the continued improvements to understanding of the atmosphere and in climate models.

If everyone else was as reasonable and ego-less as you TWS, we'd all have progressed much further on this forum. It is so nice to chat to someone who has obviously looked at the whole subject, without viewing it through polarised specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWS I've followed the IPCC from the start and there predictions have not grown in their uncertainty. Quite the reverse actually. The spread has increased upwards but the probabilities for the middle section between 2C and 4C have increased considerably.

sorry I'll butt out now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...