zoidberg
Well-known member
I don't expect I'll be here 'for so long'.....
How about you?
How about you?
Met Office porkies
- Thread starter zoidberg
- Start date
RunAgroundHard
Well-known member
That depends on many variables, only some of which I can control. On average, just over a decade. Then again, maybe now.
franksingleton
Well-known member
I have read through the detail quoted in the article. I have also looked at UK climate maps and data. The writer of the article is either being stupidly ignorant or, equally stupidly, trying to conjure up a story where none exists. If this is the best that Daily Skeptic can do then I have to wonder at the mentality of anyone who takes them seriously.
At Historic station data there is a list of 37 stations for which the Met Office has a reliable record. They also have data of varying quality from many more. For historical continuity, the Met Office maintains the Central England Temperature series going back to 1660.This was initially run by the late Professor Gordon Manley. The data quoted in the silly Daily Skeptic “story” were produced in a similar way but for far shorter periods.
In brief, data are quoted where there are reliable long term data series. Other data series have been derived using statistical and other techniques in order to combat gaps in observed data series. A real problem is how to explain what these data mean to someone jaundiced in their attitude and who is trying to make mischief. You are falling into the trap of taking such people seriously. You are overlooking the review process that covers all aspects of science.
As well as anyone, and better than most, I am well aware of thee difficulties in handling data series. I also know that different techniques have been used. I know that the University of California at Berkeley approached the problem with a sceptical and fresh set of minds. Their results are virtual identical to those of the various national organisations.
zoidberg
Well-known member
I'm not the only one, Frank.
This ould mischief-maker has often been exhorted 'not to believe everything read on the internet'..... and, if I don't take myself very seriously, there's no good reason for anyone else to do so.
Go enjoy your day.
'No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should'
franksingleton
Well-known member
We all know that. D J Trump, for one, is a major culprit whose actions will affect the world as a whole disastrously. It will not be too long before Florida becomes uninhabitable.
Good advice that you ignore when it suits you. Try believing some basic physics.
Unfortunately, the universe is not unfolding as it should. Some people ignore the facts through ignorance. Some do so wilfully. It is no use quoting a poem written nearly 100 years ago. Max Ehrmann lived before the satellite era.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
..
Last edited:
zoidberg
Well-known member
FrankSingleton, m'dear, I assure you I have a long history of believing in both basic and more advanced physics. My well-practised belief systems helped me, as operational aircrew, survive all the Junior Pilots that 3 airforces could throw at me, day and night, fair weather and foul.... and, on occasion, some foreign devils shooting at me. I've yet to decide which were more hazardous to my health and well-being....
I believe I've earned my
Here's another wee bittie doggerel which is rather more than twice the antiquity of the oft-quoted lines by Max Ehrmann...
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion
It still has, I believe, some validity even today.
franksingleton
Well-known member
No need to be patronising. We seem to be of similar ages although I may be a little the older.
In which case you will understand the physics of climate change. So why trumpet a garbage Daily Skeptic article?
The physics of climate has nothing to do with belief systems. It is hard fact.
Maybe good poetry but of no relevance in the disastrous situation now existing.
lustyd
Well-known member
While I agree with your sentiment, science doesn't generally use the word fact since it implies immutability, and a scientist would never use the term hard fact. I am confident that most of what we understand about both weather and climate will change in the next 100 years since the subject is very much in its infancy.
oldbloke
Well-known member
At your(our) age that may be so. The world , however, will go on after you shuffle off this mortal coil, and there are plenty of people to whom the state of the world in 70yrs is of some importance
franksingleton
Well-known member
At Scientific Consensus - NASA Science NASA says -
“With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”’
A few years ago, evidence on what is happening was based largely on air temperature records over land a sea and sea temperature. Whilst I and many others knew about the provenance of the data, and accepted the results, there was always understandable doubts due to the quality of the data. Even the totally independent studies at Berkeley did not dispel doubt.
However, nowadays we have direct measurements from satellite of absorption of heat by the various GHGs. Measurements by different sensors on different satellites managed by different countries come up with the same results. The facts are as solid as seeing planets orbiting the sun and that the gravitational effect of the moon is so much less than the earth. While NASA and Hadley Centre scientists will continue to say “extremely likely”, they cannot make any suggestions about alternative explanations.
Of course, there are uncertainties about how it will happen. On the Today programme this morning, Liz Bentley of the Royal Met Society, gave a good description of the observed effects of the Arctic warming faster than sub-tropical latitudes. That may well have been foreseen in IPCC report, I cannot recollect seeing it.
As I am not in any official capacity, I am free to say what the experts know is fact.
lustyd
Well-known member
You can say whatever you like, I was simply pointing out that scientists don't use that term because we don't know what we don't know and our understanding changes over time. Real scientists, especially in fields like physics, weather and climate, use phrases like "we currently believe that...".
It used to be a "fact" that nothing escapes from black holes, I remember it quite clearly. Hawking radiation has shown that not to be true at all and black holes do eventually seem to lose all of their mass.
Sometimes measurements support a theory, and occasionally new information comes along and shows the theory is incomplete or incorrect.
The reason scientists use this language, is that when discussing with those who have a less full understanding of a subject, telling them it's a "hard fact" can lead to your becoming entirely discredited when proven wrong. If you say "our current understanding is" then your understanding can change over time.
franksingleton
Well-known member
Maybe it is a matter of semantics and I should not have used the word “hard”. Indisputable? It is a fact that planets are in orbit around the sun. Is it a theory that this is due to gravity? I would suggest that it is a fact. Hard, indisputable? Nobody has an alternative explanations.
Similarly, it is a fact that the atmosphere is getting warmer. It is a fact that GHGs absorb infrared heat. It is a fact that we have artificially increased the amount of GHGs. Indisputable facts? On a reduction ad absurdum basis, I think that IPCC should make the facts clear to all. The chances of an alternative explanation are as remote as finding an alternative reason for planets orbiting the sun.
oldbloke
Well-known member
Of course Hawking Radiation is very much theoretical
johnalison
Well-known member
As Frank says, it is a matter of semantics. To be pedantic, in scientific circles a theory or theorem is not a speculative subject but one accepted as the best current solution by the scientific community. Hence, we have quantum theory and the theory of natural selection, both of which are generally accepted as facts, as far as we can tell. This of course causes a lot of confusion among those not aware of the difference from demotic use, which various kinds of sceptic or conspiratorially-minded people like to take advantage of.
oldbloke
Well-known member
I think, might be wrong, that Lusty is just being argumentative ( less certain about Zoid) . The trouble is that there are a lot of people , some in positions of power and/ or influence who are vocal deniers . Are we near " no-one has the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theatre,
To be fair, there are plenty of people who use the pretty well substantiated theory of man made global warming to pursue their own political or financial agendas.
To be fair, there are plenty of people who use the pretty well substantiated theory of man made global warming to pursue their own political or financial agendas.
lustyd
Well-known member
I was just highlighting that if you want to moan at people about science then there are good ways to do it and bad ways to do it. JohnAlison’s wording is far better because it’s less confrontational and is less certain. We are far from certain where climate change is concerned, it certainly looks like we’re right and the current evidence backs up the current theories but that could easily change with more data. Right now we have an incredibly small amount of data to be making such confident statements.
I would agree that questioning it right now is in poor taste unless an actual scientist.
zoidberg
Well-known member
In my considered view, there's a great deal of stridency and assertion surrounding the matter - an intensity more akin to 'religious fanaticism', even sectarianism, than sober evaluation of the range of 'known unknowns'.
I am a citizen, and it is people such as I - and you - who are expected to pay for the claims and demands of this latest group of High Priests. And their 'shopping list' has some eye-watering numbers attached, with some eye-watering salaries and stipends.
A deep suspicion properly attaches to those who cry 'Repent for the End is nigh!' - as it should.
Last edited:
johnalison
Well-known member
The fact that you have considered your view gives it no more weight. It does seem to be the case that there are many who have used their, otherwise correct, stance on global warming to advance their own careers and sense of moral superiority, just as there are those who are attempting to do the reverse, though their motives are completely incomprehensible to me. The presence of people with ulterior motives is of no relevance to the point at issue. All that matters is the scientifically-accepted figures and whatever conclusions can be drawn from them.
Stemar
Well-known member
I don't know about the "eye-watering salaries and stipends", I've always understood scientific salaries are normally on a fixed scale, though the budget for their research may well be eye-watering. What matters is that what we're all (maybe not us, but our children or grandchildren) going to pay already because we as a species aren't doing enough, is even more eye-watering. If we don't get our act together, it'll be even worse.
