Top UK Politician Boris Johnston Mayor of London suggests AGW is miniscule. Sun to blame.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by bigyin

 

Yeah, ouch - a politician who says global warming is a farce. That smarts.

There are already plenty of politicians who deny man made climate change. They're called Republicans.

Meanwhile guess what - those pesky global warming scientists also predicted this weather, back in mid-October. It's because the Arctic already seems to be destabilizing, wheeee!

If some of you McExperts actually ever paid attention, instead of as usual just chuckling to yourselves over all the "alarmism", and only listening to whatever it is you want to hear, you might have noticed:

The Arctic's warming trend is beginning to affect the climate farther south, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said this week in its annual Arctic Report Card.

"There is evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes," wrote the report's authors, a team of 69 international scientists.

Extreme cold and big snowfalls can be blamed on the Arctic changes, according to NOAA.

So while everybody's freezing in the UK, the Arctic has been downright balmy.

Temperatures that are warmer in the Arctic than in Europe in December.

Do you want to just blame that on the Sun too?

edit on 20-12-2010 by mc_squared because: (no reason given)

Its funny because i DISTINCLY REMEMBER, because it was drilled into our heads enough that, the UK can expect WARMER WETTER WINTERS in future because of Glodal Warming.

Global warming may be occurring, i would deny that, but whats causing it is the million dollar question. I shall go back to my original train of thought...

All the cows in the world combined produce more harmful greenhouse gases that is pumped into our atmosphere than humans cause. Whats worse is that METHANE traps heat 4 times as much as Carbon Dioxide.

If we are so so so so so bothered about this "Global Warming" situation, why not just do the obvious????

reply to post by jrmcleod

yes that is very true till the tipping point is reached then its anyones guess. We have gone pass the tipping point a long time ago just a question of when for the new weather patterns to evolve and new weather pattterns are being observed at the arctic

You would think that they would begin to have realised by now that the computer models they are using are fatally flawed by GW assumptions and are consistently producing embarassingly bad forecasts - still being a leftist/ eco idealogue, means never having to admit you are wrong, no matter how disasterous the results are.


Warm Bias: How The Met Office Misled The British Public
Saturday, 18 December 2010 14:16 Dr. Benny Peiser
E-mail Print PDF

Met Office 2008 Forecast: Trend of Mild Winters Continues

Met Office, 25 September 2008: The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.

Reality Check: Winter of 2008/09 Coldest Winter For A Decade

Met Office, March 2009: Mean temperatures over the UK were 1.1 °C below the 1971-2000 average during December, 0.5 °C below average during January and 0.2 °C above average during February. The UK mean temperature for the winter was 3.2 °C, which is 0.5 °C below average, making it the coldest winter since 1996/97 (also 3.2 °C).

Met Office 2009 Forecast: Trend To Milder Winters To Continue, Snow And Frost Becoming Less Of A Feature

Met Office, 25 February 2009: Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: "Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.

"The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850."

Reality Check: Winter Of 2009/10 Coldest Winter For Over 30 Years

Met Office, 1 March 2010: Provisional figures from the Met Office show that the UK winter has been the coldest since 1978/79. The mean UK temperature was 1.5 °C, the lowest since 1978/79 when it was 1.2 °C.

Met Office July 2010: Climate Change Gradually But Steadily Reducing Probability Of Severe Winters In The UK

Ross Clark, Daily Express, 3 December 2010: ONE of the first tasks for the team conducting the Department for Transport’s “urgent review” into the inability of our transport system to cope with snow and ice will be to interview the cocky public figure who assured breakfast TV viewers last month that “I am pretty confident we will be OK” at keeping Britain moving this winter. They were uttered by Transport secretary Philip Hammond himself, who just a fortnight later is already being forced to eat humble pie... If you want a laugh I recommend reading the Resilience Of England’s Transport Systems In Winter, an interim report by the DfT published last July. It is shockingly complacent. Rather than look for solutions to snow-induced gridlock the authors seem intent on avoiding the issue. The Met Office assured them “the effect of climate change is to gradually but steadily reduce the probability of severe winters in the UK”.
Met Office 2010 Forecast: Winter To Be Mild Predicts Met Office

Daily Express, 28 October 2010: IT’S a prediction that means this may be time to dig out the snow chains and thermal underwear. The Met Office, using data generated by a £33million supercomputer, claims Britain can stop worrying about a big freeze this year because we could be in for a milder winter than in past years… The new figures, which show a 60 per cent to 80 per cent chance of warmer-than-average temperatures this winter, were ridiculed last night by independent forecasters. The latest data comes in the form of a December to February temperature map on the Met Office’s website.

The Daily Telegraph, 28 October 2010: Its “Barbecue Summer” was a washout while its “mild winter” was the coldest for 31 years, so you might be forgiven for taking the Met Office’s latest prediction with a pinch of salt. But the official forecasters have said that this winter could be unusually mild and dry, with temperatures at least 2C more than last year’s big freeze in which snow and ice caused travel chaos across much of Britain. Although the Met Office no longer issues long-term forecasts, their latest data suggest a high probability of a warmer winter for London, the East of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The South West, Wales and most of the North of England are less likely to enjoy such relatively pleasant temperatures but still have a 40 to 60 per cemt chance of being mild. The statistics were generated by the Met Office’s new £33million supercomputer built by IBM. Forecasters used it to analyse how likely temperatures and rainfall were to be above normal for winter but not how far above.

Reality Check: December 2010 "Almost Certain" To Be Coldest Since Records Began

The Independent, 18 December 2010: December 2010 is "almost certain" to be the coldest since records began in 1910, according to the Met Office.

Met Office Predicted A Warm Winter. Cheers Guys

John Walsh, The Independent, 19 January 2010: Some climatologists hint that the Office's problem is political; its computer model of future weather behaviour habitually feeds in government-backed assumptions about climate change that aren't borne out by the facts. To the Met Office, the weather's always warmer than it really is, because it's expecting it to be, because it expects climate change to wreak its stealthy havoc. If it really has had its thumb on the scales for the last decade, I'm afraid it deserves to be shown the door.


A Frozen Britain Turns The Heat Up On The Met Office

Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 9 January 2010: Which begs other, rather important questions. Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre's predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?



A Period Of Humility And Silence Would Be Best For Met Office

Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 10 January 2010: A period of humility and even silence would be particularly welcome from the Met Office, our leading institutional advocate of the perils of man-made global warming, which had promised a “barbecue summer” in 2009 and one of the “warmest winters on record”. In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”

www.thegwpf.org...

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

A common argument heard is "scientists can't even predict the weather next week - how can they predict the climate years from now". This betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable, and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. In weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation over the whole region is the same regardless of the route. There are various difficulties in predicting future climate. The behaviour of the sun is difficult to predict. Short-term disturbances like El Nino or volcanic eruptions are difficult to model. Nevertheless, the major forcings that drive climate are well understood. In 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show good agreement with subsequent observations (Hansen 2006).

source

reply to post by loner007


Well perhaps you should inform the Met office about the silly misunderstanding they have between climate and weather.

as for the science being settled - nothing could be further from the truth!

2009, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels provided testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

“The Science is Settled”?

One implicit assumption in calculating the “costs of inaction” is that we know with reasonable confidence indeed what climatic changes will ensue as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase. With regard to climate, we often assume a common Washington mantra: with regard to global warming, “the science is settled”.

This demonstration shows how far from the truth this oft-repeated sentence actually is. One can say this. “The science is settled” inasmuch as surface temperatures have increased from the late 1970s. That this is shown in the surface record has not been in dispute, so claiming some finality for such a truism is hardly noteworthy. What is true, however, is that the rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the midrange suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled. In fact, judging from these results, it’s time for climate scientists to get back to work and generate models which will be able to estimate the recent past and present within their normal confidence ranges.

Until that is done, all we know is this: calculations of the costs of inaction, based upon models that are clearly overestimating warming to the point that they can no longer be relied upon, are likely to be similarly overestimated. In that eventuality, the costs of drastic action can easily outweigh the costs of a more measured response, consistent with what is being observed, rather than what is being erroneously modeled.

www.worldclimatereport.com...

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
What is true, however, is that the rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the midrange suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled. In fact, judging from these results, it’s time for climate scientists to get back to work and generate models which will be able to estimate the recent past and present within their normal confidence ranges.

Until that is done, all we know is this: calculations of the costs of inaction, based upon models that are clearly overestimating warming to the point that they can no longer be relied upon, are likely to be similarly overestimated. In that eventuality, the costs of drastic action can easily outweigh the costs of a more measured response, consistent with what is being observed, rather than what is being erroneously modeled.

Dr Pat "40% Oilwhore" Michaels talks BS, as usual.

Here is a comparison of the IPCC models with the temperature data in 2009:



Knowing that 2010 will be higher than 2009, and either the warmest or close in the recorded data, the models are doing fine. They estimate recent past, present and future readily within their 95% CI.

Michaels appears to be pretty masochistic, with his constant babbling of BS. Of course, I'm sure the 40% minimises the shame most would feel about so easily destroying their credibility.

reply to post by melatonin


Sure - if you are doctoring all the data sets you can produce graphs to show whatever you want - I have seen enough not to trust anything they produce!

GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data

wattsupwiththat.com...

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


And so the denier dance begins, yet again.

Bit of a step-down, no? At least Pat Michaels is more than a citizen-blog 'climatologist'.

So, yeah, in response you effectively shift goalposts and try discredit the GISS data, when in fact all the temperature series are very very similar - both surface and satellite. Tamino was recently kind enough to present the data using identical baselines for such a comparison:


Temperature series

and now it's over to you to further shift goalposts and fling more BS...

:yawn:

ABE: if you're interested as to how GISS process data for areas which are intermittently covered with (seasonal) ice, they outline it in this paper. Page 4. Much clearer and more informative than the WTFT horde's conspiracy-laden musings.

Patrick J. Michaels (born February 15, 1950) is an American climatologist. Michaels is a distinguished senior fellow in public policy at George Mason University, and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. Until 2007 he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980.[1]

A self-described skeptic on the issue of global warming, he is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. He has written a number of books and papers on climate change, including Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992), The Satanic Gases (2000), and Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media (2004) and is the co-author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (2009).[1]


This guy is hardly a citizen blog climatologist! - I don't care what BS they come up with to explain away why they manipulate all thier data gathering, cherrypicking, smoothing, deleting, ect - it all reeks to high heaven!

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
This guy is hardly a citizen blog climatologist! - I don't care what BS they come up with to explain away why they manipulate all thier data gathering, cherrypicking, smoothing, deleting, ect - it all reeks to high heaven!

I think you must have misunderstood my post.

I never said that Pat Michaels was a blag 'climatologist'. He's an oil-funded shill.

And the rest is just a ignorant attempt to smear scientists. So far, you've posted the ignorant babblings of some random guest blogger on Watts' den of stupidity and the misleading claims of the self-confessed oil shill, Pat Michaels.

I doubt you're really in a position to make inferences about the scientific veracity of any area of climate science.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
This guy is hardly a citizen blog climatologist! - I don't care what BS they come up with to explain away why they manipulate all thier data gathering, cherrypicking, smoothing, deleting, ect - it all reeks to high heaven!

I think you must have misunderstood my post.

I never said that Pat Michaels was a blag 'climatologist'. He's an oil-funded shill.

And the rest is just a ignorant attempt to smear scientists. So far, you've posted the ignorant babblings of some random guest blogger on Watts' den of stupidity and the misleading claims of the self-confessed oil shill, Pat Michaels.

I doubt you're really in a position to make inferences about the scientific veracity of any area of climate science.

Are you waving your credentials at me - what are they by the way?

Of course you need to try and dismiss every sceptical GW voice as an oil shill or an 'amateur' - otherwise you would be forced to admit that the debate was never 'over' and the science never 'settled' - I have the education and commonsense to realise when a huge politically motivated scam is being foisted on me - as for Al Gore - I presume you also dismiss his views on GW as ignorant babblings - in his case genuinley and often demonstrated ignorant babblings.

The push to rush this through on the back of hotly contested scientific speculation and on the back of a minor 30 yr warming oscilation is transparently motivated by globalist politics, eco/marxist ideology, third world mendacity, Russian and Chinese mischieviousness and duplicity and the buying off of university depts and academics with research grants and career advancement.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Are you waving your credentials at me - what are they by the way?

Don't think I even implicitly touched on anything related to my credentials. But, seeing you ask - 50m breaststroke certificate.

You seem to keep moving goalposts, whilst completely ignoring the content of my posts.

Of course you need to try and dismiss every sceptical GW voice as an oil shill or an 'amateur' - otherwise you would be forced to admit that the debate was never 'over' and the science never 'settled' - I have the education and commonsense to realise when a huge politically motivated scam is being foisted on me - as for Al Gore - I presume you also dismiss his views on GW as ignorant babblings - in his case genuinley and often demonstrated ignorant babblings.

I think Al Gore sometimes talks crap. He's a politician, so no surprises.

I'm not remotely interested in Gore.

What debate? There's lots in science. But in climate science the existence of a human influence is as settled as any science is.

You see, the problem is that when I presented actual scientific data you ignored it and just responded with conspiracy-laden smears. Not much room for debate with such tactics, really.

The push to rush this through on the back of hotly contested scientific speculation and on the back of a minor 30 yr warming oscilation is transparently motivated by globalist politics, eco/marxist ideology, third world mendacity, Russian and Chinese mischieviousness and duplicity and the buying off of university depts and academics with research grants and career advancement.

Yeah, of course, the thousands of scientists around the world are involved in a massive conspiracy to steal your blankie, and we must listen to oil-funded shills and blag 'scientists' to grasp the troof.

As I said, not much room for debate with denialists.

Have a good yule. Ciao.

reply to post by melatonin


"There's lots in science. But in climate science the existence of a human influence is as settled as any science is."

The debate is:

How much of an influence is there compared to natural processes?

What if any are the long term implications?,

If there is a problem what are the most cost effective solutions?

None of this is settled and there is a concerted effort to stifle debate and rush through politicaly motivated 'solutions'

Merry Christmass!

Winter set to be coldest since 1910

BBC

Personally I doubt that CO2 has got anything to do with anything. All BS made up up by paid scientists, paid to prove a falsehood.

AGW should be treated as a crime scene.

Top UK Politician Boris Johnston...