Reply to: We apologise for the late arrival of Global Warming....

[EternalOptimist]

Meanwhile, in the real world, the rats are leaving the sinking ship

The NYT has closed down it's environment desk
Al Gore has sold his TV company to the enemy (big oil)
A whistleblower has leaked the draft of the next IPCC report
And Green malthusian hysteria takes knock after knock

[pjclarke]

That's right, and somehow 11 x 10^23 Joules of heat found their way from those open front doors into the ocean...



Sheesh.

[BlasterBates]

The reason for elevated temps in the USA:

Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

In simple terms if you have thermometer that was surrounded by forest and is now surrounded by air conditioners and houses emitting heat then it will register a higher temperature.

One can notice the effect in Winter that when you stand next to someones open door you may feel warmer.

I´m not sure that I would get unduly hyterical about it, or necesarily believe a rather far fetched theory of "runaway global warming".

[EternalOptimist]

People used to worry about questions about threats that were being posed by the Greens, nowadays people worry about the threat posed by the Greens

[pjclarke]

How can the met office tell us, with a straight face, that they dont know why global warming has stalled

There is no 'stalled', the 20 year trend is positive, and in line with projections,

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

There have been claims of a flat trend over shorter periods, e.g. the last 16 years, however in a trend analysis the robustness of the trend calculation is dependent on the number of data points and 15-16 years of data is unlikely to achieve the 95% confidence which is the usual threshold for 'statistically significant'. So a common piece of misdirection is to conflate 'a warming trend that does not achieve significance' with 'no significant warming'. Be truly 'sceptical'.

these are the fools who told us that new jersey would be under 15m of water in 2040

Blaster reproduces yet again his favourite piece of p*sspoor science journalism from over a decade ago, and we have this claim, which in the absence of a source I guess is a mangling of an interview question with Jim Hansen about the West Side Highway, neither remotely representative of what the primary literature is telling us. Why is that?

When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question

Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway

BTW, this is the West Side Highway a few weeks ago

[Old Hack]

A hockey stick.

Or something.

Maybe it was a cricket bat.

Yes.

That's it.

Playing cricket changes the climate.

By George I've got it.

Off to write my nobel prize winning paper.

*yawn*

[Old Hack]

You're missing the point; second wettest (not by much) after 4 months of serious drought...

[Old Hack]

second wettest ?

what caused the first

Rain

[EternalOptimist]

second wettest ?

what caused the first

[Old Hack]

That's my point , entirely. Things change.

They change for natural reasons, always have, always will do.

Why and where do you get the notion that the climate should be stable ?

And judging climate by your own experience is human, but its not scientific. The met office has records going back to 1776, and this last years rain in England is not unusual.

I don't think you understand my point: If things change every year, if records break every year, then there is change afoot. I know the climate is a constantly shifting beast, but if the trend is moving up all the time, then there's something going on. I don't think the climate, for a minute, is stable, but I do think the changes have been fast and furious of late.

Last years rain WAS unusual, i.e. it was the second wettest on record. Second I hear you say, but this was after a long, and unusual drought, so we got the second wettest year on record, after 4 months of record drought; rain-drought-rain. The very thing you mocked them saying.

[EternalOptimist]

The white line


The white line is the met office predictions. notice how everytime they produce a new graph, the old predictions are changed to make them look accurate.

according to the met office, they even predicted the mt pinutobo volcano

[EternalOptimist]

That's my point , entirely. Things change.

They change for natural reasons, always have, always will do.

Why and where do you get the notion that the climate should be stable ?


And judging climate by your own experience is human, but its not scientific. The met office has records going back to 1776, and this last years rain in England is not unusual.

[Old Hack]

I think the tax payer stumps up about 200m per year iirc.

and for OH and the other hard of thinking - somewhere, every day, some record is being broken. It's been the same since time began

but one surely must raise an eyebrow at continued breaking of records in the weather, no? If every year records are being broken, in the weather, surely this means something is changing.

I'll resist the opportunity to add, for the hard of thinking.

Its not just that

these are the fools who told us that new jersey would be under 15m of water in 2040
thats just 17 years away now folks.

The UK would have rain - drought - rain.

27 years away EO, 27.

And last year, didn't we have, rain, drought, rain. I, personally, cannot remember so much rain. When I moved into West Somerset, on the levels, I was told not to worry about snow, then we had 2 weeks of constant snow, with old people saying they'd not seen anything like it.


Of course, you have the States continually getting hotter summers, and more storms. Australia recording record summer after record summer.


But nothing's wrong. Every year records keep getting broken, it's just whay happens, there's no trends being set.





By the way, The Met Office makes a profit per se. In the way it records its benefits. It charges the CAA and other Aviation authorities, including the European one. It is paid for other services, of a more clandestine nature, and other countries pay for it's use. They also charge for their Maritime service, and have premium rate numbers for marine forecasts.

According to the PA Consulting Group, the Met Office costs us £88m a year, but returns £363m. A profit. The Hadley centre and the costs of its new supercomputers were not considered part of it's annual costs.

However, I am not a supporter of climate change, nor do I mock it, as I am not a scientist. But what I do do, is look at what's happening with my own eyes and even I think the weather has changed over the past 40 years. It just has. Whether this is just a normal variance, or climate change (possibly the same thing), it just has changed.

[DimPrawn]

Replace the Met Office with this.

[Paddy]

In 2012 the UK had the most daily average temperatures since records began.