Reply to: More bullcrap from the idiots at the Met Office

[shaunbhoy]

Good to have you back SAS. Whereya been?

He has been having a makeover on his Lobotomy.

[suityou01]

Ah good managed to round up the village idiots in one place. The van will be here soon to take you back to the Flat Earth meeting at 9 and don't forget the "Why vaccinations are evil" symposium at 10 pm, followed by the "Israelis responsible for 9/11 seminar" at 11.
Cretins.

Good to have you back SAS. Whereya been?

[sasguru]

Ah good managed to round up the village idiots in one place. The van will be here soon to take you back to the Flat Earth meeting at 9 and don't forget the "Why vaccinations are evil" symposium at 10 pm, followed by the "Israelis responsible for 9/11 seminar" at 11.
Cretins.

[xoggoth]

I have now completely changed my mind on global warming three times in 50 minutes.

It certainly appears that water vapour is not properly accounted for, the Kyoto protocol apparently never bothered to calculate the GWP (its radiative potential).

On the other hand the figures in that "convincing" thing about water vapour are actually not entirely convincing on eaxmination, because they appear to assume the high concentration at the surface apples to the whole atmosphere but it does not. In total, the amount of atmospheric H2O is only about 10 times the amount of CO2. Assuming (in the absence of a figure) they have similar GWP that means a doubling of CO2 would produce a 10'C temperature rise.

I am not seriously suggesting it really is that back of envelope simple, but just to point out that the anti brigade appear to be trotting out as many dubious "facts" as the other side and people need to start exercising a bit of detachment on the issue.

PS And CO2 accounts for only 50% of warming of all manmade pollutants including CFC's, CH4, ozone etc. That makes a 20'C rise and then all the CH4 will come out of the soil and subsea and.... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh we are all going to die in a 350'C cauldron.!!!!!!!!!!

[DimPrawn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...on-record.html

Lord Lawson of Blaby pointed out that temperatures have been constant since 2001 and accused the Met Office of “misrepresenting” the data to support the argument for global warming.

"As a result of the absence of any recorded 21st century warming trend, the formulation now favoured by climate campaigners is that the last decade has been the warmest since records began,” he said. “It is rather as if the world's population had stopped rising and all the demographers could say was that global population had been the highest ever recorded.”

[threaded]

Totally agree with all your points Xogg as always, except for this one: there appears to be some evidence that there has been a little massaging of the climate change models to fit the desired outcome, and through mutual peer reviews, has been unnoticed:

A look at the source code

Soory, but I noticed it, and posted such here as soon as the 'hockey stick graph' first came out. Anyone with even the lightest history education could see the Roman and Middle Age warm periods and the Little Ice Age were missing. Doesn't take much to smell a rat.

[EternalOptimist]

Take a look at leading sceptic Lord Monkton's interview. In the opening sentences he says that, as the total effect of all greenhouse gases is only 18'C it is absurd to suggest that the extra few % man adds is relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto

All very convincing except the greenhouse rise (over what it would be with no CO2 or H2O in the atmosphere) isn't 18'C but 33'C and there is little argument over that point.

Rather more convincing is this point about H2O which is by far the major greenhouse gas. If scientists are ignoring water vapour, that would be totally absurd.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I havnt read the linkys xxog, because of ale inhibitions.

but the water vapour argument has always been one of the sceptics major whinges. My own question, which i have joked about, but its a serious question, is this. Even if the planet is warming, even if carbon dioxide levels are rising, even if you have a greenhouse theory, prove to me its causal and not a correlation

hic

[xoggoth]

Take a look at leading sceptic Lord Monkton's interview. In the opening sentences he says that, as the total effect of all greenhouse gases is only 18'C it is absurd to suggest that the extra few % man adds is relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto

All very convincing except the greenhouse rise (over what it would be with no CO2 or H2O in the atmosphere) isn't 18'C but 33'C and there is little argument over that point.

Rather more convincing is this point about H2O which is by far the major greenhouse gas. If scientists are ignoring water vapour, that would be totally absurd.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[sasguru]

Indeed, I'm not necessarily arguing that all data is being used correctly or honestly or that there is total proof, just that Dim's argument is one of many common anti arguments that is total bulltulip.

.

WHS.
But then it's well known that Dim's intellectual capacity is such that his opinions have the same impact and validity as a chihuahua farting in a hurricane.

[DimPrawn]

Totally agree with all your points Xogg as always, except for this one: there appears to be some evidence that there has been a little massaging of the climate change models to fit the desired outcome, and through mutual peer reviews, has been unnoticed:

A look at the source code

Basically what I was saying. Construct a reasonable model/simulation that scientists will agree is based on reasonably sound science and mathematics.

Fudge the data in to get the result that the government is looking for and providing massive funding for.

Everyone's a winner, except the taxpayer, the planet and the poor people of the world.

Whilst trillions $$$ is wasted burying Carbon instead of protecting the environment and looking after people.

[hyperD]

It another fallacy that there is complete impunity to twiddle model values to suit the theory. A proper error analysis, the study of range of error in the basic variables and assumptions used and their effects on the conclusion should be an important part of any credible simulation and one would certainly hope that a study that did not contain such an analysis would not be taken seriously on peer review.

Totally agree with all your points Xogg as always, except for this one: there appears to be some evidence that there has been a little massaging of the climate change models to fit the desired outcome, and through mutual peer reviews, has been unnoticed:

A look at the source code

[Paddy]

I have discovered that there is a relationship between car tyres and Co2. The more car tyres ware down, the more it creates Co2. Ban car tyres now!

[xoggoth]

I live on a different one and am not affected.

[xoggoth]

Indeed, I'm not necessarily arguing that all data is being used correctly or honestly or that there is total proof, just that Dim's argument is one of many common anti arguments that is total bulltulip.

In most of the arguments for and against, I find it is more often the anti arguments that are either incorrect or irrelevant. The volcano argument is simply wrong. The fact (assuming that it is a fact) that what we are now experiencing is so far in line with historic fluctuations in temperature due to sun activity is not an argument against man made warming, only an argument that the warming on its own is not proof.

It another fallacy that there is complete impunity to twiddle model values to suit the theory. A proper error analysis, the study of range of error in the basic variables and assumptions used and their effects on the conclusion should be an important part of any credible simulation and one would certainly hope that a study that did not contain such an analysis would not be taken seriously on peer review.

Whether one believes it or not I can't see why there is so much heat on the issue as, a few things like carbon capture aside, the solutions to global warming are things we need to do anyway due to reducing fossil fuel reserves and the way that most of those are controlled by potentially hostile powers.

It is probably the way that this issue is being used politically, by companies and study groups making money, by governments using pointless "green" taxes to grab more of our money so that they can fritter it away, by developing countries to demand even more access to our wealth, by daft student types and ernest greenies padding their egos with the latest fad.

PS Theory. The heat generated over the manmade global warming argument is contributing to manmade global warming. Please send donations to xoggoth Towers so I can study this possibility. Your planet is at stake.

[Spacecadet]

Geeeeeeeeeeeez Dim! How many times do we have to hear this stupid argument from those who clearly know nothing about the basic physical principles involved or about simulation?

For the umpteenth time it is far, far simpler to predict macro effects, eg the planet will get warmer, than micro effects, eg what the weather in the UK will be like in the next 3 months, because the number of variables that affect the latter are so much greater.

It is like making predictions about a pot of water on a stove. It needs very little data to know that it will get hotter and eventually boil. It is a bit more difficult to predict reasonably accurately when it will boil, that needs masses or water and pan, a measurement of gas flow and some calculations of the average heat transfer. It is extremely difficult to predict with reasonable accuracy at what point it will start to boil first, that also depends on uneveness of the flame, effect of draughts, centralisation of the pan on the burner, roughness, thickness and reflectivity of the metal, dirt in the water etc.

Many arguments against man made global warming are similarly ignorant. The most telling one, never mentioned because people don't understand it, is that the vertical profile of atmospheric temperature does not fit the theory.

Or you could say that so far we've taken a few temperature measurements from the pot of water (which may or may not be on a stove) and because there has been a possible tiny increase we are now saying that the water is going to boil even though it's known that the water hasn't boiled in a very long time and the temperature has fluctuated many times with out it boiling.

There has been nothing yet to convince me that the science or quality of data collected so far is enough to draw a proper conclusion.
We have at most 100 years of accurate first hand data which is being compared against 10's of thousands of years of proxie temperature records.