The Weather Outlook

Remove ads from site

Ulric
11 February 2012 14:52:13

PW speaks the truth, with all the facts that are at hand. Those who defend the hockey stick, should be beaten black and blue with one, iin order to knock some much needed sense into their skulls.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

 

No need for that now is there?

Solar is only worth it if your roof has toenail fungus.
polarwind
11 February 2012 15:26:14

Well, Tom has said this many times, but, he has explained his position - nevertheless, "the science is settled" has often been said as a "sweeping statement".

As regards me "making a sweeping statement" - Tom's reply was "Most scientists working in the field would agree with that..."

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Your capacity for selective misquoting is becoming tiresome Dave.  Tom went on to say:

"...we know enough to say that substantial warming (you know the figures) is very likely this century but due to uncertainty in the feedbacks there is a substantial spread in the possible warming figures."

Which is precisely the point.  The basic science is indeed settled and the evidence is mounting that it is correct.  The details continue to be developed/understood and the way that nature responds to the GHG forcings is being better understood.  As I said before only a one-sided sceptic (yes, you) would claim the greater understanding will only show the core science to have overstated the risk.  Anyone being truly open would accept the risks on both sides.  Anyone being truly open would acknowledge the folly of tinkering with a global system whose workings we don't properly understand - as opposed to the sceptic/denialist "We don't know so let's keep pushing it until something breaks. approach.

 

I agree "the truth" should be the aim. "Selective evidence" however is not a one sided ploy as it seems to be a forte of the "consensus". Take the case of the research considered in the new thread here - Quote:- "Only two of the eight types of temperature proxies analyzed indicate 20th century warming exceeded that of the Medieval Warming Period." Now these proxies have been around for some time now (I believe).  Is that research the first to question the accuracy of essentially, the tree proxies? Probably not, but, anyone who has had an interest in past climate would question the hockey stick as related to the medieval warm period - as I have and do. 

The corruption of "sceptic" was of course a slur perpetrated by the "convinced" - when it was deliberately associated with "denialist". Your attack on me in your last sentence, is just another example of your personal crusade against the "unconvinced".

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Pleased you referenced the new thread - I have posted there that you are being yet again distorted in your professed openness.

As for the last sentence, that's just a nonsense, sorry.  You demonstrate and do so repeatedly that you are indeed a 'sceptic' as you have defined it and not 'unconvinced'.  Your renewed tirade against the hockey stick is further proof of your biased position.  Your lame pleas of being nothing more than a humble seeker of th e truth are wearing thin, and doing so for all to see.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

It's no wonder that several sceptic posters on here, no longer take part, because of your unerring ability to desemble almost anything that is written. Is this a learned skill, or, does it come naturally?

Your referrence regarding Tom, conveiently ignores the bit where I said - "but, he has explained his position". That is disembling.

Where did you get my "professed openness" from? Your ability to assess other peoples' character and make statements thereof, is astounding and is an obvious tactic this moves the debate from science. This is nothing more than disembling.

You then go on to say I'm a "one sided sceptic", which ignores what I have said perhaps five or six times about my position. Even in my post I acknowledged  that the recent "rate" of warming was "unprecidented" - which hardly fits the "one sided sceptic" description. Your memory, is either selectively short or like a sieve or .........are you disembling again? 

And finally, "lame pleas" "humble seeker of the truth" is just humbug, or put another way, disembling. I don't do "humble".

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)

"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat

Dave,Derby

AIMSIR
11 February 2012 15:43:05

Some people have managed to, or seem to want to turn the term sceptic into a dirty word.
I have noticed it's constant association with denialist(and all that it implies) recently.
It is very unscientific and abuse of the English language.imo

Edit:I could say the same for terms like warmists or greenies.

Gandalf The White
11 February 2012 15:59:50

It's no wonder that several sceptic posters on here, no longer take part, because of your unerring ability to desemble almost anything that is written. Is this a learned skill, or, does it come naturally?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Well, that works both ways. I had largely given up responding to some of the nonsense in here.  The behaviour and antics of certain sceptic, denialist and simply contrarian posters has become tedious and repetitive and isn't getting us anywhere.  It's no wonder that some useful knowledgeable contributors have disappeared from here is it?  Again your memory is selective, how convenient for you.    You don't criticise the nonsense that Four 'contributes' or the grenade-throwing one-liners that Solar Cyles drops in here, nor the patently faulty science pedalled by Stephen (in fact quite the opposite in his case, you seem almost to be a member of his fan club).

Yet more evidence of your lop-sided scepticism...

 

Your referrence regarding Tom, conveiently ignores the bit where I said - "but, he has explained his position". That is disembling.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Sorry dave, this is simply wrong.  Perhaps you need to go back and see what you wrote rather than what you might think or wish you had written.   In relation to the point I was making my statement is 100% correct.

 

Where did you get my "professed openness" from? Your ability to assess other peoples' character and make statements thereof, is astounding and is an obvious tactic this moves the debate from science. This is nothing more than disembling.

You then go on to say I'm a "one sided sceptic", which ignores what I have said perhaps five or six times about my position. Even in my post I acknowledged  that the recent "rate" of warming was "unprecidented" - which hardly fits the "one sided sceptic" description. Your memory, is either selectively short or like a sieve or .........are you disembling again? 

And finally, "lame pleas" "humble seeker of the truth" is just humbug, or put another way, disembling. I don't do "humble".

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Well, you are the one who keeps trying to maintain that you accept AGW but then spend the rest of your time focussing your attention on every bit of research that might show that AGW is either not occurring or is overstated or that the warming is due to other factors.

So, I am not attempting - and nor do I need to - read your character. A bizarre obervation if I may say so.   I am taking what you post and citing the inconsistency.   I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.  Maybe you're the only one allowed wrongly to attribute motives to people???

You say you don't do "humble" - which is fine.  I don't do dissembling.  That's a fancy way to try to defect attention from the points I am making.

If you want to show your supposed impartiality find me some posts or threads that you have made/started that suggest the AGW threat may be greater than currently expressed.   I think you might struggle.

And therein lies the point I am making.

It may be unpalatable to you but it's the truth.

 

 

 

Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
11 February 2012 16:00:00

Some people have managed to, or seem to want to turn the term sceptic into a dirty word.
I have noticed it's constant association with denialist(and all that it implies) recently.
It is very unscientific and abuse of the English language.imo

Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

 

As it is used in the blogosphere 'sceptic' is indeed a 'dirty' word simply becasue it doesn't mean sceptical

AIMSIR
11 February 2012 16:02:47

Some people have managed to, or seem to want to turn the term sceptic into a dirty word.
I have noticed it's constant association with denialist(and all that it implies) recently.
It is very unscientific and abuse of the English language.imo

Originally Posted by: TomC 

 

As it is used in the blogosphere 'sceptic' is indeed a 'dirty' word simply becasue it doesn't mean sceptical

Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

Indeed Tom.

It is an abuse of the English language.

We are all sceptics for good reason.

But not necessarilly denialsts at the same time.

That would be impossible.

Gandalf The White
11 February 2012 16:57:53

Some people have managed to, or seem to want to turn the term sceptic into a dirty word.
I have noticed it's constant association with denialist(and all that it implies) recently.
It is very unscientific and abuse of the English language.imo

Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

 

As it is used in the blogosphere 'sceptic' is indeed a 'dirty' word simply becasue it doesn't mean sceptical

Originally Posted by: TomC 

Indeed Tom.

It is an abuse of the English language.

We are all sceptics for good reason.

But not necessarilly denialsts at the same time.

That would be impossible.

Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

Hi Tony

Indeed.

But it is impossible for a sceptic to be a genuine sceptic if their focus is entirely on one side of the argument.  That is why the distinction between sceptic and denialist sometimes becomes blurred.

A true searcher for the truth would find equal merit in arguments either side of the core proposition being debated, would they not?

Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



beaufort
11 February 2012 16:58:40

 

 

 

AIMSIR
11 February 2012 17:28:55

Some people have managed to, or seem to want to turn the term sceptic into a dirty word.
I have noticed it's constant association with denialist(and all that it implies) recently.
It is very unscientific and abuse of the English language.imo

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

 

As it is used in the blogosphere 'sceptic' is indeed a 'dirty' word simply becasue it doesn't mean sceptical

Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

Indeed Tom.

It is an abuse of the English language.

We are all sceptics for good reason.

But not necessarilly denialsts at the same time.

That would be impossible.

Originally Posted by: TomC 

Hi Tony

Indeed.

But it is impossible for a sceptic to be a genuine sceptic if their focus is entirely on one side of the argument.  That is why the distinction between sceptic and denialist sometimes becomes blurred.

A true searcher for the truth would find equal merit in arguments either side of the core proposition being debated, would they not?

Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

I can't argue against that Peter.

Mabey we should keep away from Loaded Truth.

AIMSIR
11 February 2012 17:39:26

 

 

 

Originally Posted by: beaufort 

Media tells us everything.

Gandalf The White
11 February 2012 17:57:05

 

 

Originally Posted by: beaufort 

Glad it was you and not Four trying to make another point using poor science....

Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



Solar Cycles
11 February 2012 18:30:51

PW speaks the truth, with all the facts that are at hand. Those who defend the hockey stick, should be beaten black and blue with one, iin order to knock some much needed sense into their skulls.

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

 

No need for that now is there?

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Sorry Ulric I had posted that from my ipad, but the damn smily hasn't worked.

four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
12 February 2012 07:54:27

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-forecasts-to.shtml

The anomaly of -0.093C below the 30 year running mean equates to approximately +0.16C above the more standard 1961-1990 time period.

As regards 2011 as a whole, according to the Met Office, 2011 was the 12th warmest year in their 150 years of global temperature records with an anomaly of 0.346C.

This compares to their 2011 forecast of 0.44C.

Although this discrepancy is within the stated margin of error, it is the 11th year out of the last 12 when the Met Office global temperature forecast has been too warm.

In all these years, the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the forecast are within the stated margin of error.

But all the errors are on the warm side, with none of the forecasts that have been issued in the last 12 years ending up too cold.

And, in my opinion, that makes the error significant.

North York Moors weather 
Gray-Wolf
12 February 2012 09:48:34

Maximum temperatures at Svalbard 24 Jan till 10 Feb:

Pinched this from Nevens Blog to highlight the 'Arctic' side of things.

Koyaanisqatsi

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Devonian
12 February 2012 09:53:38

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-forecasts-to.shtml

The anomaly of -0.093C below the 30 year running mean equates to approximately +0.16C above the more standard 1961-1990 time period.

As regards 2011 as a whole, according to the Met Office, 2011 was the 12th warmest year in their 150 years of global temperature records with an anomaly of 0.346C.

This compares to their 2011 forecast of 0.44C.

Although this discrepancy is within the stated margin of error, it is the 11th year out of the last 12 when the Met Office global temperature forecast has been too warm.

In all these years, the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the forecast are within the stated margin of error.

But all the errors are on the warm side, with none of the forecasts that have been issued in the last 12 years ending up too cold.

And, in my opinion, that makes the error significant.

Originally Posted by: four 

Not a bad article, he goes on to find explanations for the errors. 

Devonian
12 February 2012 09:54:56

Maximum temperatures at Svalbard 24 Jan till 10 Feb:

Pinched this from Nevens Blog to highlight the 'Arctic' side of things.

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

And, of course, it's had an remarkably warm last 12 months as well.

four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
12 February 2012 10:07:54

You seem to suggest it's an indicator of unprecedented arctic warming, but that is only a small part of the Arctic which has been warmer as a consequence of the persistent anticyclone to our east.

I think Paul Hudson makes a sound point that something is not right if the Met Office super-computer predicts warmer than happened 11 times out of 12.
i.e. it's skewed to predict warmer, because the models say it should be warmer.
 

North York Moors weather 
Gray-Wolf
12 February 2012 10:18:14

I think the areas ,north and south, that used to have ice and are now open water, is significant esp. if there are 30c anoms over the open waters?

Koyaanisqatsi

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

AIMSIR
12 February 2012 10:20:03

I think the areas ,north and south, that used to have ice and are now open water, is significant esp. if there are 30c anoms over the open waters?

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

Interesting weather indeed.

Should this not be on the weather thread?.

I dont see a climate trend here.

There are 30c anomalies elsewhere at the moment.Interesting weather for the weather thread indeed.

Gandalf The White
12 February 2012 14:10:16

You seem to suggest it's an indicator of unprecedented arctic warming, but that is only a small part of the Arctic which has been warmer as a consequence of the persistent anticyclone to our east.

I think Paul Hudson makes a sound point that something is not right if the Met Office super-computer predicts warmer than happened 11 times out of 12.
i.e. it's skewed to predict warmer, because the models say it should be warmer.
 

Originally Posted by: four 

Would that be in the same way that you are skewed to dismiss anything that suggests the planet is warming?

Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
12 February 2012 17:11:08

I don't see any relevance Gandalf.
Wrongly predicting it would be warmer that many times is unlikely to be pure chance.
"half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record" also seems highly unlikely and verging on scaremongering.
Why make such predictions if no agenda behind it.

North York Moors weather 
Devonian
12 February 2012 18:23:55

I don't see any relevance Gandalf.
Wrongly predicting it would be warmer that many times is unlikely to be pure chance.
"half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record" also seems highly unlikely and verging on scaremongering.
Why make such predictions if no agenda behind it.

Originally Posted by: four 

Because that's what the predictions are....

polarwind
12 February 2012 18:26:39

I don't see any relevance Gandalf.
Wrongly predicting it would be warmer that many times is unlikely to be pure chance.
"half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record" also seems highly unlikely and verging on scaremongering.
Why make such predictions if no agenda behind it.

Originally Posted by: four 

Absolutely spot on.

If the models can't get it right at short time scales how wrong might they be at forecasting climate change over longer time periods? And climate drivers outside the obvious ones, are greatly more subtle and numerous than the weather drivers, including the complexities of trends of weather types, ocean temperatures and sun cycles and further complicated by the lag and attenuation of the various imputs and outputs.

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)

"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat

Dave,Derby

Devonian
12 February 2012 18:35:54

I don't see any relevance Gandalf.
Wrongly predicting it would be warmer that many times is unlikely to be pure chance.
"half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record" also seems highly unlikely and verging on scaremongering.
Why make such predictions if no agenda behind it.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Absolutely spot on.

If the models can't get it right at short time scales how wrong might they be at forecasting climate change over longer time periods? And climate drivers outside the obvious ones, are greatly more subtle and numerous than the weather drivers, including the complexities of trends of weather types, ocean temperatures and sun cycles and further complicated by the lag and attenuation of the various imputs and outputs.

Originally Posted by: four 

PW I'm sorry but you stating things doesn't mean you're right - if you were right, if you had worked out climate better than they (as your post implies) you'd be working at Hadley in Exeter.. The models are doing well and if you read the rest of article four partly quoted you'll find Paul Hudson goes on to explain what is going on.

 

 

Gandalf The White
12 February 2012 18:39:45

I don't see any relevance Gandalf.
Wrongly predicting it would be warmer that many times is unlikely to be pure chance.
"half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record" also seems highly unlikely and verging on scaremongering.
Why make such predictions if no agenda behind it.

Originally Posted by: four 

I see your membership of the consiracy theorists remains fully paid up.

Your thinking demonstrates rather more about your agenda than it does about a non-existent Met Office one.

The evidence speaks for itself - there is a warming trend.  Within the warming trend there are natural warming and cooling cycles, not all of which can be predicted accurately. 

Until we reach 2016 it might be wise not to rubbish the predictions for the period to 2015.  Even if in 2016 the forecast proves to have been wrong then it will still be because of natural cooling cycles, not because the level of GHGs has miraculously dropped.  Unless you dispute the basic science more GHGs mean more heat retained in the atmosphere.

 

Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



Remove ads from site