More bullcrap from the idiots at the Met Office

[DimPrawn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8405025.stm

Keeping global temperature rise under 2C (3.7F) will be almost impossible unless carbon emissions begin to fall within a decade, analysis suggests.

The conclusion comes from a study by the UK Met Office (UKMO).



The same ones that told us about the "barbeque summer"?



Does anyone here actually believe this bulltulip anymore?

[EternalOptimist]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8405025.stm

Keeping global temperature rise under 2C (3.7F) will be almost impossible unless carbon emissions begin to fall within a decade, analysis suggests.

The conclusion comes from a study by the UK Met Office (UKMO).



The same ones that told us about the "barbeque summer"?



Does anyone here actually believe this bulltulip anymore?

Thinking of changing my sig


'Carbon Dioxide causing Global Warming is like the dawn causing the sun to rise. It's cause and effect. Except the opposite.'

[Andy2]

A rise of 2 degree will do wonders for this cold miserable weather
bring it on

[TimberWolf]

unless carbon emissions begin to fall within a decade, analysis suggests.

Carbon emissions are going to increase hugely as poorer countries get richer and more populous and as as we turn to coal.

[hyperD]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8405025.stm

Does anyone here actually believe this bulltulip anymore?

Considering the Met and everyone else gets their "homogenised" data from the same 3 institutions, and as studies of those Hadley CRU emails have shown that they have "lost" the raw data and have spiked the results,...

... then no.

WattsUpWithThat

[xoggoth]

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. To predict reasonably accurately when it will boil, you only needs masses of 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.

[DimPrawn]

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?

How many times do we have to hear about the simulation without considering they are fiddling the data going into the simulation until the simulation gives the output they are looking for?

[EternalOptimist]

well if it's so difficult to make micro predictions because of the complex variables, why make them and be left looking foolish ?

[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.

[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.