No Warming Since 1995 - Jones?

[Tombo]

It seems I struck a nerve. All of the warmy apologists are crawling out of the woodwork on this one

Surprisingly I largely agree with your interpretation. At least unlike Akrasia you are not trying to claim he was talking about the temperature of his bath water. However you should also mention he stated that the heat could be escaping into space i.e. global cooling.

I fully support putting more funding into climate science (and all other branches of science too) provided funding is not provided on a 'please provide the required answer' basis and that also some of the funding is designated to determine if the right machine is being used for the job.

What Ibis will have you believe is akin to a weather forecaster predictnig a sunny day and then walking outside and getting soaked with rain and complaining that it can't be raining, because his model predicted it would be sunny and that they really needed to fix the data that was appearing to show that it was raining because it must be wrong.

If this is simply Ibis erroneous defence of Trenberth, then it is par for the course.

If it is in fact Trenberth's defence of himself, then it is more to fodder for the dung pile of "climate science" as it has been shown to be practiced in the Climategate emails.

[feargach]

What's comical is that you admit that a longer series than 15 years is necessary, yet still stand by a ludicrously short 15-year period because that is the only way to tweak the figures to prevent reaching the 95% significance level.

You claim to respect science, but when you are first challenged on scientific grounds you collapse like a bad flan.

[Tombo]

What's comical is that you admit that a longer series than 15 years is necessary, yet still stand by a ludicrously short 15-year period because that is the only way to tweak the figures to prevent reaching the 95% significance level.

So exactly how long is "needed" in your view?

[joel]

[quote=Tombo;2500660]

That is comical in the extreme.

Trenberth clearly stated that they couldn't account for the energy budget, which meant that EITHER:

The alarmist theory was wrong and there wasn't as large a build up in energy in the system as they have modelled, OR

The alarmist theory as modelled was correct and our phyisical measurments of thhe real world are wrong.

So, the choice was models are wrong somwhere or observed data is wwrong somewhere.

His defence is that the models must be correct, with absolutely no justification.

The data and the models don't add up - we should not have witnessed an aaprent pause in warming over the last 10-15 years that observed data shows. To refuse to revist the model is simply stupidity. This is why skeptics just look at you guys and develop palm prints on their faces.

The science IS right!: BBC News - Climate change human link evidence 'stronger' Even more right than in 2007.

Naturally, you'll agree with the science (110 research papers!).

[Tombo]

[quote=joel;2500838]

The science IS right!: BBC News - Climate change human link evidence 'stronger' Even more right than in 2007.

Naturally, you'll agree with the science (110 research papers!).

What is this "the science" you speak of? If it isn't produced to be questioned and probed it isn't science. Let's take a cursory look at the flavour of this according to the reports:

"[Our paper looks at] not just the temperatures but also the reducing Arctic sea ice and it includes changing rainfall patterns and it includes the fact that the atmosphere is getting more humid.

"And all these different aspects of the climate system are adding up to a picture of the effects of a human influence on our climate."

The Met Office study said that it was harder to find a firm link between climate change and individual extreme weather conditions - even though models predicted that extreme events were more likely.

According to the report: "Extremes pose a particular challenge, since rare events are by definition, poorly sampled in the historical record and many challenges remain for robustly attributing regional changes in extreme events such as droughts, floods and hurricanes."

Well, what immediately jumps out is that since 2007 there is every reason to believe:

• We can't see any trace of AGW in tropical storm activity over time
• In climate related insurance damage over time
• In Australia's drought
• In Arctic sea ice or global sea ice
• In reported floods (thinking Bangladesh here)

So it make me wonder if this UK Met paper is as rigourous as their forecast that this winter in the UK would be warmer than average (that was "the science" too I presume) and it turned out to be the coldest in decades.

Sorry, you'll have to do better than the latest "it's worse than we thought" tabloid junk science.

[Akrasia]

You claim to respect science, but when you are first challenged on scientific grounds you collapse like a bad flan.

Hmmmmmmm flaaan

[Akrasia]

[quote=Tombo;2500874]

What is this "the science" you speak of? If it isn't produced to be questioned and probed it isn't science. Let's take a cursory look at the flavour of this according to the reports:




Well, what immediately jumps out is that since 2007 there is every reason to believe:

• We can't see any trace of AGW in tropical storm activity over time
• In climate related insurance damage over time
• In Australia's drought
• In Arctic sea ice or global sea ice
• In reported floods (thinking Bangladesh here)

So it make me wonder if this UK Met paper is as rigourous as their forecast that this winter in the UK would be warmer than average (that was "the science" too I presume) and it turned out to be the coldest in decades.

Sorry, you'll have to do better than the latest "it's worse than we thought" tabloid junk science.

And this is why you are labeled a denier.

It's not tabloid junk science, it was a review of peer reviewed literature published in a peer reviewed journal.

(however, if it was posted on wattsupwiththat then it would incontrovertible evidence?)

[Tombo]

[quote=Akrasia;2500974]

And this is why you are labeled a denier.

It's not tabloid junk science, it was a review of peer reviewed literature published in a peer reviewed journal.

(however, if it was posted on wattsupwiththat then it would incontrovertible evidence?)

Who is in denial herE?

Arctic ice extent has been increasing since 2007.
There is no discernable influence from AGW to global weather events.

Who is denying these facts? Not me.

[imokyrok]

[quote=Tombo;2500986]

Who is in denial herE?

Arctic ice extent has been increasing since 2007.
There is no discernable influence from AGW to global weather events.

Who is denying these facts? Not me.

Where on earth are you getting your list from Tombo. Not from that report anyway.

I would like to see the full review though. That BBC report only gives the barest flavour and isn't really telling us anything we don't know already. Maybe the UK met office has it on their website.

[Tombo]

[quote=imokyrok;2501022]

Where on earth are you getting your list from Tombo. Not from that report anyway.

I would like to see the full review though. That BBC report only gives the barest flavour and isn't really telling us anything we don't know already. Maybe the UK met office has it on their website.

I look to the data and the actual research, instead of either media outlets or these types of compendiums of research. The BBC is in fact spouting stuff that we know is NOT true (in partciular about the most recent trends in Arctic ice, global extreme weather etc.)

What I have stated is easily verifiable with a little bit of genuine skeptical enquiry.