Absence of Global Warming 'may be set to continue' – UK Met Office. Or it may not.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: MysterX

That came later, when it was apparent the world wasn't getting warmer, just getting more 'weather' of extremes.

Our understanding of it evolved because our science got better.

It's getting better huh? Tell me, if the models and science are so good, why are the predictions always wrong?

a reply to: TheBulk

Burden of proof lies on you mate.

Show us how the climate models are flawed. Show us how the concept behind radiative forcing is flawed.

a reply to: TheBulk

So, the world "suffers" from completely natural cycles that have always existed? Honestly, it make me angry what this new age religion has done to science.

So was the pea souper a naturally occurring event that comes around every hundred million years or so? No. WE caused that.

And does the smog that blankets L.A, New Delhi or Shanghai occur every hundred million years or so? No. WE caused that.

I'd like to know your definition of a natural cycle because pollution is NOT a part of a natural cycle.

a reply to: Cinrad

That is a strange article. I get the feeling when reading it that there is something off especially when I click the links and it takes me to huge reports instead of the info they claim they are referencing.



Oh...hahaha I see that is a blog.


Here I found something a bit better on the same met office report from BBC.

Enjoy!


The next two years could be the hottest on record globally, says research from the UK's Met Office.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Cinrad

I"m still amazed that people think Global Warming actually means the world is just 'warming' all together, all at the same time.

This about sums up what people who rail against climate change believe. They don't understand the science, don't care to learn apparently, so they use nonsensical stories and sources to prove their point.

Which is wrong.

The Earth is suffering from CLIMATE CHANGE. This means it can be colder or warmer. It means that we are to experience more SEVERE weather be it hot or cold. Which we have been, increasingly, over the last 20 years.

And like...98% of scientists agree. There were temperate records all over the world in the last 2 years.
~Tenth

But climate change was always real, everywhere also experiences extreme weather at some time. I've lived in Northern Ireland for 55 years, and no decade even, was the same as the last. And what's it been like here since 2010, with the Jet Stream out of kilter, nearly every day now, the Jet Stream features as a part of the weather forecast, years ago it was hardly ever mentioned in forecasts, however we were taught about it in school, but then we were taught about the Gulf Stream in the same breath as well. However, nobody talks about the Gulf Stream in the same breath as the Jet Stream on the weather forecasts, in fact nobody talks about the Gulf Stream on the forecasts at all...funny that?
So what's going on with the Met Office as per the link on this thread? Are they suddenly becoming very open, or honest here, or are they becoming at odds with other areas of climate research like GISS and Gavin Schmidt?
Are they going to lose the BBC forecasting contract nearly a century old? answer to that is Yes, announced in late August.

a reply to: MysterX

The climate discussion, historically was 'Global warming'..it was always Global warming, never climate change.

That came later, when it was apparent the world wasn't getting warmer, just getting more 'weather' of extremes.

You say though that the real point is climate change, regardless of what the actual cause of that change is...i'd argue that the cause is crucial not incidental.

For years, it was 'Man made Global warming'...then that changed to 'Man made Climate change'...now it's just climate change.

Actually, no.

Republican spinmaster Frank Luntz is the reason why Global Warming became Climate Change.

The Guardian - Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy (my bold):

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

There goes the entire premise of your post. As you can see, the GOP knew that they didn't have science on their side but they judged accurately that they could count on the willful ignorance of right-wingers to keep the propaganda war alive.

Pretty ironic that a dozen years after right-wing politicians changed a term for sheer propaganda purposes, the change is being incorrectly attributed to scientists and declared as proof that climate scientists have been backpedaling.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
It's not a theory. The reasons WHY are still up for debate sure, but Climate Change is real, and it's happening right now.

~Tenth

Agreed. The problem stems not just from "deniers", but also from claims made by "believers" in human induced climate change, both of whom have spread massive amounts of false information.

The change is real, why is another matter altogether.

a reply to: Gothmog

The past few days have been pretty good in SWGA.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: tothetenthpower

The climate discussion, historically was 'Global warming'..it was always Global warming, never climate change.

That came later, when it was apparent the world wasn't getting warmer, just getting more 'weather' of extremes.

That's not true. The world is getting warmer, and getting more extreme.

The cause is important. Environmental damage, pollution of land and water is a real consequence of Humanity and can rightly be termed 'Man made'..but, as changes to our climate are a historic fact, changing as it does throughout all of history (the history that is accessible to us) it has become clear 'climate change is a cycle, it always has been cyclic in nature and has nothing whatsoever to do with Humanity, unlike environmental damage, which most certainly is.

Simply a false assertion.

There is a specific physical mechanism now, caused by humans, and proven to cause global warming and climate change. Verified laws of physics with highly correlated extensive observational evidence. It's another type of environmental damage, and one with the longest and most profound negative consequences.

Back through geological history, that thing never previously happened.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
It's not a theory. The reasons WHY are still up for debate sure, but Climate Change is real, and it's happening right now.

~Tenth

Agreed. The problem stems not just from "deniers", but also from claims made by "believers" in human induced climate change, both of whom have spread massive amounts of false information.

What massive amounts of false information was promulgated by scientific "believers"?

(it's a matter of 'belief' as much as believing in atoms)

The change is real, why is another matter altogether.

Indeed, and the why is very well known now. There is specific extensive physical and biological evidence pointing to specific causes. You think scientists haven't looked for all sorts of causes?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBulk

Burden of proof lies on you mate.

Show us how the climate models are flawed. Show us how the concept behind radiative forcing is flawed.

I didnt make the predictions, nor do I support them. Show me an accurate prediction.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: TheBulk

So, the world "suffers" from completely natural cycles that have always existed? Honestly, it make me angry what this new age religion has done to science.

So was the pea souper a naturally occurring event that comes around every hundred million years or so? No. WE caused that.

And does the smog that blankets L.A, New Delhi or Shanghai occur every hundred million years or so? No. WE caused that.

I'd like to know your definition of a natural cycle because pollution is NOT a part of a natural cycle.

You seem to be confusing pollution with climate change.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBulk

Burden of proof lies on you mate.

Show us how the climate models are flawed. Show us how the concept behind radiative forcing is flawed.

I didnt make the predictions, nor do I support them. Show me an accurate prediction.

www.realclimate.org...

Roger Revelle, earlier, made a rougher prediction based on simple physics that by 2000 the effects of antropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions would be clearly noticable. He did that around 1968 when there was no empirical evidence of any trend in global warming (nor was the data collected good enough to tell).

Next, the physics of the now verified mechanism suggests that the stratosphere would cool (that happened), that poles would warm more than equator relatively (that happened), and that night time would warm more than daytime (that happened).

And the oceans would also take up much of the warming (that happened), and would be getting more acidic (that happened).

Do you think scientists who have worked on the problem for decades never thought about how to check ideas against observable facts & experiments?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBulk

Burden of proof lies on you mate.

Show us how the climate models are flawed. Show us how the concept behind radiative forcing is flawed.

How much will the seas rise? 2 inches, 2 feet? will it happen in 2 years, or 200 years?

Did you know that the seas have been rising at a fairly steady pace for over 30,000 years? And I don't think we had the capabilities to create massive amounts of C02 back then.

It's almost like.........the climate is cyclic.

Greenland used to be green. Then it wasn't. How did that happen?

Nobody with any sense denies that climate is changing. But somehow 98% of (all scientists?) are sure that man caused it. this time.

originally posted by: network dude

Nobody with any sense denies that climate is changing. But somehow 98% of (all scientists?) are sure that man caused it. this time.

It's almost like there was massive observational and experimental evidence and predictive laws of physics showing how this happens and why.

a reply to: network dude

Greenland used to be green

Point of information: naming that ice sheet "Greenland" was a medieval marketing dodge to encourage colonization.

originally posted by: network dude

Greenland used to be green. Then it wasn't. How did that happen?

And Iceland used to be covered in trees .....

Until them pesky humans turned up and chopped them all down, changing the ecosystem and creating todays desert.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude

Greenland used to be green

Point of information: naming that ice sheet "Greenland" was a medieval marketing dodge to encourage colonization.

And yet, perhaps not.

a reply to: network dude

Well there have been several ice ages since then ..... Even the last interglacial, 125ka, saw much of Greenland ice free.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: network dude

Well there have been several ice ages since then .....

Even the last interglacial, 125ka, saw much of Greenland ice free.

Ah then, maybe we humans shouldn't be adding even more anomalous warming (which didn't exist 125ka ago) to the mix then.

Wouldn't be prudent.

www.bloomberg.com...