The Climate Change Debate Thread

[ibis]

The Daily Telegraph

Anyone who takes that outpost of irrational climate denialism seriously as a commentator on Global Warming has no credibility to start with.

Quote me from the article where this new climate change defence comes from since I am not bothered enough to read the rag myself.

He's the same researcher whose work is cited in the BBC article discussed on the other thread - about the jet stream blocking giving locally colder winters - so I suspect it's the same research being discussed.

[sharper]

Quote me from the article where this new climate change defence comes from since I am not bothered enough to read the rag myself.

I just read both and I can't find any evidence to support the assertion

i.e. Harry Mount says

There’s a wonderful little nugget in today’s Telegraph, where Professor Mike Lockwood, a space physicist at Reading University, predicts that we’re about to go through the coldest winters for 300 years. But, he says, they’d be even colder if it weren’t for global warming. So the climate changers get to have their cake and eat it.

He basis this on an article written by Laura Roberts which has quotes from Professor Lockwood here Coldest weather in 30 years marks the start of a series of extreme winters - Telegraph

The claim seems to be based on this quote

"This year's winter in the UK has been the fourteenth coldest in the last 160 years and yet the global average temperature for the same period has been the fifth highest," said Prof Lockwood, a space physicist at the University of Reading's department of meteorology. "We have discovered that this kind of anomaly is significantly more common when solar activity is low," he added. "Temperatures should not fall as low as they did in 1684 but we can expect an increased number of cold winters."

Of course he's not saying anything close to "it'd be even colder if not for global warming".

[Tombo]

Just for those who don't pay attention. The alarmist AGW model for the world climate continues to fail. The models say that the planet should have contined to increase its net energy balance (i.e. warmed in a proper physical sense), but all actual measurements available disagree.

Where is the warming? It is only the warmies who insist the the models are correct and the actual physical measurements must be wrong.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: The Missing Heat




Forget what you are told, nobody can explain why the planet hasn't warmed as much as the alarmist Dangerous AGW hypothesis claim it should.

[fiannafailure]

Forget what you are told, nobody can explain why the planet hasn't warmed as much as the alarmist Dangerous AGW hypothesis claim it should.

I can, you linked to data on near surface ocean temps, look a little deeper.

The laws of physics cannot be broken, but you do need to apply yourself a little to understand them.

[sharper]

Just for those who don't pay attention. The alarmist AGW model for the world climate continues to fail. The models say that the planet should have contined to increase its net energy balance (i.e. warmed in a proper physical sense), but all actual measurements available disagree.

Where is the warming? It is only the warmies who insist the the models are correct and the actual physical measurements must be wrong.

The graph you posted clearly shows the net energy balance has increase. You seem to think the black line is a model projection, it's actually based on satellite measurement.

The "missing energy" is the difference between what's observed to be absorbed and what's observed to be radiated. We know the energy is in the system on that basis but have no measurements of where it is.

The rest of your post is the usual "They can't explain everything therefore my crackpot theory is right!" argument used by quacks everywhere.

[Tombo]

The graph you posted clearly shows the net energy balance has increase. You seem to think the black line is a model projection, it's actually based on satellite measurement.

The "missing energy" is the difference between what's observed to be absorbed and what's observed to be radiated. We know the energy is in the system on that basis but have no measurements of where it is.

The rest of your post is the usual "They can't explain everything therefore my crackpot theory is right!" argument used by quacks everywhere.

No,

The chart shows (the top line) the modelled net energy balance - what should be observable, countable, measurable.

The blue shows what we can account for. what we can measure.

The gap shows the energy that should be present in the system onde the warmy hypothesis, but can't be found.

[sharper]

The chart shows (the top line) the modelled net energy balance - what should be observable, countable, measurable.

So you say, the graph says

After 2000, observations from the top of the atmosphere ( 9) (black, referenced to the 2000 values)

The black line is satellite observation of the upper atmosphere.

So we have a clearly labelled graph and you actually want to claim a component of it is not what it's labelled as but what you assert it is? You then further assert based on your "interpretation" (which runs contrary to what's stated) that it shows that the models are wrong.

Really? That's your argument?

[owedtojoy]

Just for those who don't pay attention. The alarmist AGW model for the world climate continues to fail. The models say that the planet should have contined to increase its net energy balance (i.e. warmed in a proper physical sense), but all actual measurements available disagree.

Where is the warming? It is only the warmies who insist the the models are correct and the actual physical measurements must be wrong.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: The Missing Heat




Forget what you are told, nobody can explain why the planet hasn't warmed as much as the alarmist Dangerous AGW hypothesis claim it should.

Roger Pielke Jnr. is a figure with a major chip on his shoulder as regards climate science. He is not quite a denialist, but feels he is not getting the respect he deserves, so often he sounds just like a denialist, while denying he is one. Prof. R. Tol of the ESRI, he who writes occasionally in the Irish Times is a partner of his. Always read with caution.

The FP Guide to Climate Skeptics | Foreign Policy

So what's new? Not a lot really. Deniers/ sceptics/ whatever have been predicting the imminent collapse of climate science for umpteen years, and it still has not happened. But they bang on. You can read the scientific perspective on the missing energy here:

Tracking the energy from global warming

Where is global warming going?

[owedtojoy]

Johann Hari, one of the best journalists around, gives a brilliant summation of "Climategate" and the recent House of Commons, Oxburgh Reports clearing the scientists involved:

Climategate Claptrap, II

Best quote:

Looking back, the historian Allan Brandt said the conservative-corporate machine that conned people into thinking smoking was safe pulled off "the crime of the century." We are now witnessing the crime of the twenty-first century, using the same strung-out old script.

[owedtojoy]

I mixed up Roger Pielke with his father above. Much of a muchness.

The full Pielke-Trenbeth exchange is here:

Is There “Missing” Heat In The Climate System? My Comments On This NCAR Press Release Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.