From the BBC:
A review from the UK Met Office says it is becoming clearer (1) that human activities are causing climate change.
It says the evidence is stronger now (2) than when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change carried out its last assessment in 2007. The analysis, published in the Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change Journal, has assessed 110 research papers on the subject. (3) It says the earth is changing rapidly (4), probably (5) because of greenhouse gases. In 2007 the IPCC's report concluded that there was "unequivocal" evidence (6) that the Earth was warming and it was likely (7) that it was due to burning of fossil fuels.
1) I thought the science was already settled? How much stronger can the evidence be?
2) Even stronger than 'settled'? Wow!
3) So they just had a quick flick through other stuff, did they? Very original.
4) 'The earth is changing'? Not just 'the weather' but 'the earth'?
5) 'Probably'? I thought the science was (cont. page 94)
6) There's also 'unequivocal evidence' that it hasn't warmed since 1995, sort of.
7) 'Likely'? I thought the science w(see page 94).
Friday, 5 March 2010
Top marks for persistence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I suspect the new meme - that 'the earth' is changing- is so they can claim all those earthquakes as proof of global warming too...
In the immortal words of Devil's Kitchen, 'f***ing hellski'.
I would be impressed if the Met Office - in seeking to restore some credibility - attempted to disprove AGW and pronounced itself unable to do so (giving us the raw data, the amended data and the computer algorithms on which it bases its conclusions). But, of course, that requires practising "science" rather than politics and putting its government funding (and gongs for its senior staff?) at risk.
BTW, MW, don't be too hard on the BBC. Louise Gray of the Telegraph - never outdone in the recycled press release stakes - also issues the good news from the Met Office in her column today.
I just cannot believe this crap. I know that the BBC has a "house policy" to push AGW, but the report itself?? Since all the revelations of data manipulation have become public my personal opinion (for what it's worth as a retired physicist) is that the temperature record could just as easily be a work of fiction as one of fact and that until the whole damned job is re-done, in public, by people who actually know what the fuck they're doing, we don't know whether the planet is warming, cooling, or just being its normal slightly variable self.
Spopt on, Pogo. It's all really crap science, pursued by duds, with added crookedness.
If they had turned the page, they'd have seen that the Met Office also says that any prediction beyond a week is rubbish.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8551416.stm
Chuckles,
It's because of Exponential Error.
Lossy Recursive simulations suffer from an increase in error related to the number of recursive steps * accuracy of each step.
It acts in the same way as inflation destroys the purchasing power of a currency unit.
Everyone with a computer degree should be quite aware of this.
ACO, I'm sure that will insist that it is all corrected by the repeated averaging, or the blind faith. Or something.
Lubos Motl has a bit of fun analysing their rigorous review:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/met-office-claims-to-have-found-agw.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+(Lubos+Motl's+reference+frame)
To do that they'd have to average over the whole domain, not cherry pick...
More care needed here:
1) They say clearer, you say settled. Why have you changed their words ?
2) See 1) above
3) Would you rather politicians did science or scientists? Granted most scientists have a vested interest. Its their job and ego at stake. The stakes are higher for politicians
4) If you understand the carbon cycle you would not ask this question unless credibility was not important to you
5) If you understand the core science you would know that there is no claim on certainty. Its a risk analysis
6) Do you understand the core science ?
7) See above. Only the greens and browns are certain. It is their religion or vested interests at stake respectively
Climate change theory is moot. Even if 100% certain it is the effect of the deeper problem in monopoly capitalism and monopoly socialism. The failure of the market and welfare state.
http://gco2e.blogspot.com/2009/11/wages-do-not-rise-with-rent-as_24.html
We'd rather scientists didn't do politics.
We do understand the carbon cycle, basically as it gets warmer CO2 is less soluble in sea water and is emitted to the atmosphere.
(CO2 has an atmospheric half-life of 8 years).
Basically this matches CO2 to the long-term temperature record with the required amount of lag far better than CO2 causes warming does.
AC1
Aha. Fatal error that the even original deniers now claim is actually true! I'll let you go figure unless you request help.
I'd rather politicians or pretend politicians didn't do science too. Are we in agreement on this point ?
The problem for both sides of the false theory is that both listen and believe what they want to hear. This is so visible in the erroneous language used. If the obvious facts do not match the vested interest or religion, then we do all we can to avoid the obvious facts. A bit like once upon a time getting burnt at the stake for saying the sun revolves around the earth when any farm hand at the time knew it didn't.
Again, I'm ambivalent. Its a waste of time either supporting it or not. True or false it is the deeper problem that is a far greater threat and will soon end in tyranny in many more places.
Lets focus energy on that and stop wasting time ?
RS: "A bit like once upon a time getting burnt at the stake for saying the sun revolves around the earth..."
Which religion was that?
MW: Which Religion ? roman catholic
It appears we may have been down this road before. Some of you may remember the ozone controversy the blame was put on refrigerator gasses and aerosol sprays. I believe it is now the perceived wisdom that was not the root cause, it was due mostly to cows f*@&ting.
Antisthenes: You quote several "apparently self evident truths"
To save time the biggest is that cows farting is a problem. When it is really burping.
Ozone was resolved through the Montreal Treaty. It worked because there were no antagonised vested interests to lose out.
That we are going through this once again is a real issue. We know what the problem is. Simple. Move on.
CFCs were banned because of lobbying from a company that made an alternative, and their CFC patent was running out.
RS, didn't the Roman Catholics burn people for claiming that "the earth revolves around the sun"?
AC1 - Yes I can believe that.
MW - Oops yes correct. I have no evidence it happened. But you see the point
Post a Comment