BBC back peddling on Climate Change/Global Warming

reply to post by Danbones


Another Point of View:

True or False

We have had many ice ages in the past and we will have many ice ages in the future.

reply to post by Danbones

It seems the ANarctic Ice was NOT predicted by the same Global Warming models that didn't predict the recent snowy UK winters

Climate models aren't weather forecasts but warming actually does indicate increased precipitation (snow).

Warmer water means more water vapor rises up into the air, and what goes up must come down.

www.npr.org...

You really need to get off of the really stupid stuff that some people think global warming represents and try to understand it better. It might improve your credibility.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones

 

are there extraterrestrial civilizations you aint tellin us about?

No. But maybe you should actually read something before you post it. It may improve your credibility.

Your source:

It is curious that the theory depends so much on sparse information – what we know about the climates on other planets and their history – yet its proponents resolutely ignore the most compelling evidence against the notion. Over the last fifty years, the sun’s output has decreased slightly: it is radiating less heat.

www.skepticalscience.com...

edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

my cred?
lol, phage
The other planets are heating up..I never said I know for certain why
and direct heat output may not be the driver of planetary temperature change while some other solar related factor may be...
the term was SOLAR ACTIVITY which like a magnetic stove which heats without heat but through magnetism and charge etc

As has been indicated by Pier Corbin who has BEEN CORRECTLY forcasting the weather while the beeb has not
but that's the kiss of death for your position re "man made"

Welcome to WeatherAction! On our site you can keep up with the latest news, videos, comments and reports of weather and related solar activity

....Our forecasts, which have independently proven peer-reviewed significant skill - unlike all others in the field (see forecast accuracy ) - are based on our revolutionary Solar-Lunar-Action-Technique (SLAT) which is increasing in scope and skill as our researches advance. Useful presentations on SLAT and WeatherAction forecasts are in the

www.weatheraction.com...

Better check that cred yourself mate

reply to post by Danbones

the other planets are heating up..I never said I know for certain why

No one knows if they are or they aren't, let alone why. But we do know the Earth is because we have records that go back a while. Not so much for other planets.

the term was SOLAR ACTIVITY which like a magnetic stove which heats without heat but through magnetism and charge etc

No. Not much inductive heating from the Sun. It's radiative heating, mostly from infrared.

as has been indicated by Pier Corbin

You mean Piers Corbyn. Since he won't provide any information about how he comes up with his forecasts it's pretty hard to tell exactly what he indicates. His forecast are right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Funny thing about that. Flip a coin.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by bigyin

 

So are you saying the sea is rising or not ?

Afraid of a little reading are you?

or, is it that you're genuinely confused?

:-)

edit on 2/12/2013 by Spiramirabilis because: decided - you must be confused - right? :-)

Question too tricky for you ?

Thats the thing with paid scientists they can come up with whatever answer you want.

Even if it doesn't bear any relationship to what is staring them in the face in the real world.

A few days ago on our local weather programme the presenter told us that there could be snow the next day. Then he said he couldn't be sure because they had 2 computer models and one showed snow and the other showed rain ..... which just goes to show that the weathermen can't tell what the climate is going to be the next day because it depends which computer they look at.

The thing with scientists is they change their mind all the time. They teak their computer models and come up with different results. Which is fine, except it means that what the scientists were saying a few years ago is now wrong. Which also means that what they say now will be wrong in a few years.

reply to post by bigyin

The thing with scientists is they change their mind all the time.

As opposed to people who won't change their mind no matter how much the evidence contradicts them?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones

 

the other planets are heating up..I never said I know for certain why

No one knows if they are or they aren't, let alone why. But we do know the Earth is because we have records that go back a while. Not so much for other planets.

the term was SOLAR ACTIVITY which like a magnetic stove which heats without heat but through magnetism and charge etc

No. Not much inductive heating from the Sun. It's radiative heating, mostly from infrared.

as has been indicated by Pier Corbin

You mean Piers Corbyn. Since he won't provide any information about how he comes up with his forecasts it's pretty hard to tell exactly what he indicates. His forecast are right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Funny thing about that. Flip a coin.

edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage, yes Im spelling chalenged
please post corbyns peer reviewed accuracy stats
he bets on his own forcasts
the beeb...well, not so much

WeatherAction is involved in the Global Warming /Climate Change debate where we point out that the world is now cooling not warming and there is no observational evidence in the thousands and millions of years of data that changes in CO2 have any effect on weather or climate. There are no scientists in the world who can produce such observational data. There is only effect the other way, namely that ocean temperatures control average CO2 levels. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London has expressed interest in what we say: see article

Thank you, Piers Corbyn, MSc (astrophysics), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS
Director WeatherAction

www.weatheraction.com...


OK here I'll post Corbyns accuracy assesment:

Weather Action forecasts are the only long-range weather forecasts that have proven skill verified by independent academic statisticians and published in scientific literature.
Early Weather Action (Solar Weather Technique) skill was independently verified in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34....
See below for full independently Audited Assessment report of WeatherAction world extreme events forecasts March to Sept 2008 showing a success rate of 85% in forecasting of generally relatively unusual extreme events in narrow time windows

www.weatheraction.com...

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Since you don't (won't - can't) support what scientists are predicting -

Thats just the thing, though not all scientists agree, and the data was
tainted. The AGW "scientists" were caught changing the data, manipulating
it to skew it so they could use it falsely to try and garner support for their cause.

Won't change anything - time will tell

If the governing agencies really believed that, why dont they do something about the
real problem, which is the pollution and I mean all of it including the pesticides?

You can't be serious?

It's enough to make a drama queen weep

Yes I am, there are real dangers ahead with the pollution especially from
the pesticides that are wiping out the bee populations.

As I said, if you really think the sky is falling ( and I meant no derision to you btw)
then I could hope you see how off base the focus on AGW, and none on actual
Climate Change (which is real and normal for this panetary system) and pollution.

reply to post by Danbones

please post corbyns peer reviewed accuracy stats

There aren't any. Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong. But saying there will be a storm next January is sort of silly.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bigyin

 

The thing with scientists is they change their mind all the time.

As opposed to people who won't change their mind no matter how much the evidence contradicts them?

Lost your argument with ad hominem attack .... sorry ..... next

reply to post by bigyin

Ad hom? Where?
Scientists adjust theory to fit data.
Deniers...deny.

reply to post by Phage


If you can't argue without resorting to bully tactics then go away.

The fact is sea levels are not rising, and certainly not rising at the rates scientists said they would 20 years ago when all this AGW yak yak was invented.

So you tell me, are you saying sea levels are rising or not.

Its a simple question but a very important one.

I'm not interested what bent scientists say about sea levels ..... all i need to do is go down to the shore and look for myself and what I see is the sea is the same or maybe less high than it was.

For global warming to be true the sea has to rise. It isn't rising.

reply to post by burntheships

thank you for a real reply burn the ships

Thats just the thing, though not all scientists agree, and the data was
tainted. The AGW "scientists" were caught changing the data, manipulating
it to skew it so they could use it falsely to try and garner support for their cause.

I so want you to understand something - the people on your side of this argument are clinging - clinging desperately - to any thing they can pick out of all this. Look at the numbers - that's all you need to do. This is right in front of you - and second guessing is preventing any real progress being made in all this

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science. Desmogblog (s.tt...)

www.desmogblog.com...

Read my first post in this thread - just read it - 2 links - 2 articles

As I said, if you really think the sky is falling ( and I meant no derision to you btw) then I could hope you see how off base the focus on AGW, and none on actual Climate Change (which is real and normal for this panetary system) and pollution.

It's not that climate change is not normal - it's that it's been accelerated and influenced by the things we do

I have to point out - pollution is what we're talking about. Maybe a case of semantics then for some? Yes burningships - it's the pollution

I don't mean to be derisive either - it's time we all got past that, so - let's let it go

I do think the sky is falling - I don't know how fast - but it's falling. And I'll tell you something - I wish I was wrong. I hope I am wrong - I'd happily rather be the village idiot than be right about this

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says..

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

the other planets may be heating they may be cooling the debate is the same as it is for earth granted
HOWEVER please note:

the link where you question my cred makes a good point in the comments section:
with all the reasons scientists are using to justify the climate change in othe planets...
Q:How come its only MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE when it comes to the debate about EARTH?...
A:carbon credits

reply to post by bigyin

I'm not interested what bent scientists say about sea levels ..... all i need to do is go down to the shore and look for myself and what I see is the sea is the same or maybe less high than it was.

All I have to do is look out my window. A bit higher maybe over the past fifteen years but not much. But other places are seeing greater changes. You see, like temperatures and precipitation, water levels are not the same every where. They are affected by things like winds and currents (along with tides, of course).

But the general trend with sea level, like the general temperature trend, is a rise.
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones

 

please post corbyns peer reviewed accuracy stats

There aren't any. Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong. But saying there will be a storm next January is sort of silly.

silly?

you can download the PEER REVIEWED stats at the link provided
www.weatheraction.com...

reply to post by Danbones

the link where you question my cred makes a good point in the comments section:

Actually I didn't question your credibility but I did say you might improve it by reading something before you post it to make sure it says what you think it says.

with all the reasons scientists are using to justify the climate change in othe planets...

What other reasons?

A:carbon credits

No, it's A: Because other factors are considered and there is quite a lot of evidence that human activity is the greatest factor involved.

reply to post by bigyin

you tell me then - are the waters not rising?

:-)

my initial post to you was genuine - if you don't want to go there (or if you feel you can't) then - let's just not

if you decide you want a real back and forth - you come back with a real reply

your local weather man - by the way - is not part of the solution:
Forecasting Denial: Why Are TV Weathercasters Ignoring Climate Change?

It's been a busy year for TV weathercasters: July was the hottest month ever recorded in the United States, unprecedented wildfires scorched the West, the worst drought in 50 years parched two-thirds of the county. Then, in October, Hurricane Sandy slammed into New York and New Jersey. Yet the cause of much of the meteorological mayhem – global warming – was rarely mentioned on air. The reason: There's a shockingly high chance that your friendly TV weatherman is a full-blown climate denier. Read more: www.rollingstone.com...

reply to post by Danbones

you can download the PEER REVIEWED stats at the link provided

You mean Piers reviewed?
I don't see any statistics. I see a list of forecasts.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by burntheships

 

thank you for a real reply burn the ships

Your very welcome, and thank you.

Thats just the thing, though not all scientists agree, and the data was
tainted. The AGW "scientists" were caught changing the data, manipulating
it to skew it so they could use it falsely to try and garner support for their cause.

I so want you to understand something - the people on your side of this argument are clinging - clinging desperately - to any thing they can pick out of all this. Look at the numbers - that's all you need to do. This is right in front of you - and second guessing is preventing any real progress being made in all this

Here, out of respect I must strongly disagree with you. The data is there to support
AGW denial.

Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.

Here's the killer admission:


Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer:

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

I hope you take time to read that, and all of the links included.
Its far too in debth to put into one post, and deserves a thread of its own.

The gig is up, GW is a dieing religion.

I do think the sky is falling - I don't know how fast - but it's falling. And I'll tell you something - I wish I was wrong. I hope I am wrong - I'd happily rather be the village idiot than be right about this

Again, read the latest from the IPCC itself, and the info about the leak.

I do happen to agree that we are in a freefall, however its not from Global Warming,
its from pollution which is destroying the eco systems of the planet.

I wish I was wrong.