Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread

andretmzt wrote:...taking the piss out of the Met Office is not strawberry floating on.

Yes it is. It's perfectly fine to criticise the Met Office. I fail entirely to see why you consider them some kind of sacred cow beyond all reprimand, especially given their poor (some might suggest laughable) reputation as far as long-term (and even some short-term) forecasting goes. Their recent inability to accurately forecast the wettest April in 100 years is just one more sorry example from this shining beacon of ACGW propaganda.

Please, stop replying. That way he has to go back to scrawling all of his propaganda theories onto the corkboard wall in his house and we dont have to suffer it.

StayDead wrote:

andretmzt wrote:I said I'd never post here again but strawberry float it, the climate stuff I can accept but taking the piss out of the Met Office is not strawberry floating on.

Can you explain to us all, through any medium you want, could be from someone's blog for example (i.e. you can get someone else to explain it if you want), why the surface temperature of Venus is warmer than that of Mercury despite it being much further away from the Sun?

Could it not be possible that the planet itself generates more heat from underground?

As much as I disagree with Cal, that's a strawberry floating awful cartoon and plays up perfectly to his image of pro-CC bods as elitist strawberry floats.

Urgh.

Cal wrote:

andretmzt wrote:...taking the piss out of the Met Office is not strawberry floating on.

Yes it is. It's perfectly fine to criticise the Met Office. I fail entirely to see why you consider them some kind of sacred cow beyond all reprimand, especially given their poor (some might suggest laughable) reputation as far as long-term (and even some short-term) forecasting goes. Their recent inability to accurately forecast the wettest April in 100 years is just one more sorry example from this shining beacon of ACGW propaganda.

Care to explain to those who don't know how the Met Office works out whether their forecasts are any good, how this relates to other providers of weather forecasting products, for example the Japanese Meteorological Agency, how it also relates to the targets set by the government? Could you also perhaps suggest why a meteorological agency should predict the weather a month ahead of time when it is mathematically impossible for the weather to be predicted past a time frame of 14 days at best, 10 in practice?

Also this:

andretmzt wrote:Can you explain to us all, through any medium you want, could be from someone's blog for example (i.e. you can get someone else to explain it if you want), why the surface temperature of Venus is warmer than that of Mercury despite it being much further away from the Sun?

andretmzt wrote:Care to explain...etc

I understand that you subscribe to the 'argument by appeal to authority' school of debate, andretmzt. I get that. I really do. You want me to admit I'm not a meteorologist so that you can have your 'ah-ha!' moment and, one supposes, as some kind of 'expert' yourself you can then claim the intellectual high-ground and score a few points. I know how this works - as a climate sceptic I am very used to being patronised by... well, let's just say by people who consider themselves 'experts' in their given areas of study.

So... *sigh* ...no, I'm not a trained meteorologist and I don't have a degree in climate science. If you wish to make the case that my lack of qualification precludes me from holding a valid opinion on the work of the Met Office, on climate science, etc, that is entirely your prerogative and I respect that - but I also respectfully disagree.

I can 't attempt to answer your deliberately technical questions because, as you well know, I'm not a trained meteorologist. All I can offer are my views, based on what others have written and commented upon in the media and elsewhere.

I hope I've demeaned myself sufficiently to satisfy you, since this seems to have been the only logical outcome, given my obvious lack of expertise, you could have reasonably sought. And, just so you know - I will be more than happy to prostrate my lack of qualifications before you again, the next time you attempt to patronise me with a technical question you are more than fairly sure I will not be equipped to answer.

I think I just gave you a year's worth of sig-worthy quotes to use against me, fella.

I don't know anything about Quantum Physics, but I feel I should disagree with the so-called "experts" on it. Not because I have any real reason to, but because I don't like that too many scientists agree on it.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:I don't know anything about Quantum Physics, but I feel I should disagree with the so-called "experts" on it. Not because I have any real reason to, but because I don't like that too many scientists agree on it.

Too bloody right. You should make your own mind up about it.

One would think that, as a 'climate change' sceptic, one would spend one's time reading about the science behind the very thing one likes to post about so that one would not have to pathetically dodge any questions that one is given that are 'technical' in their nature.

It's almost like you relish being the uneducated dissident. How the strawberry float can you possibly make an educated critique of the Met Office (or any weather forecasting agency) if you have no idea how that agency works, how weather forecasting works, how weather systems work, how forecasting is limited by the very nature of chaotic weather systems, etc.

Cal, spend less time reading opinion puff pieces and more time reading scientific books and that way, you'd be able to contribute more to the thread than control+see, control+vee.

Well in that case could you please refrain from criticising the Met Office who I admit are pretty crap at making long-range forecasts. However based upon the WMO rankings they only fall behind the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting for the performance of their forecasts. I am also not aware of any glaring errors in their < 5 day forecasts in recent times.

For the answer to why Venus is hotter than Mercury, its what an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and a lot of it will do. So if carbon dioxide is able to effectively raise the surface temperature of Venus by ~350 degrees above what it should be based upon how reflective the surface is and how close it is to the sun, would it be reasonable to assume that any increase in carbon dioxide on Earth could produce a similar effect?

andretmzt wrote:I said I'd never post here again but strawberry float it, the climate stuff I can accept but taking the piss out of the Met Office is not strawberry floating on.

Can you explain to us all, through any medium you want, could be from someone's blog for example (i.e. you can get someone else to explain it if you want), why the surface temperature of Venus is warmer than that of Mercury despite it being much further away from the Sun?

Thick atmosphere traps heat, there is still ice on the surface of Mercury.

andretmzt wrote:Well in that case could you please refrain from criticising the Met Office who I admit are pretty crap at making long-range forecasts.

I can't refrain from criticising them, as you know. That would be morally wrong, especially given their obvious short-comings, their publicly-funded status and their vocal, politicised stance on CAGW. I know you will understand this, if you know anything about the Met Office and it's close links to government policy. I can readily admit I'm no weather expert, however, and do so again unreservedly.

Tineash wrote:

StayDead wrote:

andretmzt wrote:I said I'd never post here again but strawberry float it, the climate stuff I can accept but taking the piss out of the Met Office is not strawberry floating on.

Can you explain to us all, through any medium you want, could be from someone's blog for example (i.e. you can get someone else to explain it if you want), why the surface temperature of Venus is warmer than that of Mercury despite it being much further away from the Sun?

Could it not be possible that the planet itself generates more heat from underground?

Although he isn't right it is sort of true.

The surface of Venus is pretty "new" as in it has been constantly re-covered by volcanic actions. The gas produced from these has meant the atmosphere is so thick that heat is trapped with has also caused the extreme pressure.

>no idea what Im talking about
>moral obligation to criticise experts

Falsey wrote:>no idea what Im talking about
>moral obligation to criticise experts

I finally understand this meme!

Wait a minute...

Global warming/climate change on Venus, despite no humans on Venus.

Conclusion - global warming/climate change on earth not man made.


I drew this conclusion myself, based on science and logic.

Lime wrote:Wait a minute...

Global warming/climate change on Venus, despite no humans on Venus.

Conclusion - global warming/climate change on earth not man made.


I drew this conclusion myself, based on science and logic.

Fucksake, he's going to quote that in a few pages now. With bits bolded and italicised.

Cal wrote:I can't refrain from criticising them, as you know. That would be morally wrong, especially given their obvious short-comings, their publicly-funded status and their vocal, politicised stance on CAGW. I know you will understand this, if you know anything about the Met Office and it's close links to government policy. I can readily admit I'm no weather expert, however, and do so again unreservedly.

I am quite interested what you think their short comings are and would it be possible for you to point me to a link or two which shows that the Met Office has a stance on anthropogenic climate change that could be considered to be politically motivated. The funding of the Met Office is a bit more complicated than you make out. Of course the government does provide some funding, as the Met Office is part of the civil service. However the Met Office is obliged to operate as a business, thus it looks to make a profit and indeed it does. The weather forecasts we also see on the TV, on the Met Office website and so on are paid for by the government, thus can not really be considered to be funded in the strictest sense.

Oh and an answer to this would be nice thanks:

andretmzt wrote:For the answer to why Venus is hotter than Mercury, its what an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and a lot of it will do. So if carbon dioxide is able to effectively raise the surface temperature of Venus by ~350 degrees above what it should be based upon how reflective the surface is and how close it is to the sun, would it be reasonable to assume that any increase in carbon dioxide on Earth could produce a similar effect?

Rik is also pretty much right, although I don't know about the volcanic action stuff. Venus is so hot now that the carbonate rocks can be baked, releasing more carbon dioxide so by bringing new carbonate rocks to the surface, volcanic action could speed this process up.

andretmzt wrote:...would it be possible for you to point me to a link or two which shows that the Met Office has a stance on anthropogenic climate change that could be considered to be politically motivated.

Joined by observers from intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations as well as the media, attendees meet under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This is an international environmental treaty with the objective of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous man-made interference with the climate system.

...This year, COP17 meets in Durban, South Africa from 28 November to 9 December 2011.

The Met Office is once again supporting UK government negotiations at the conference, providing scientific expertise which will feed into the negotiations for politicians to determine and agree upon appropriate action.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/cop

To pretend the Met Office is anything other than an agency of government policy is plainly silly. Especially when you stop to consider the vast sums of taxpayer money involved in the whole sorry business...

11 April 2012

£60 million of investment in the Met Office Hadley Centre’s Climate Programme was announced by the Government today aimed at maintaining the UK’s place as a global leader in climate research and modelling.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker said:

“As we face the impacts of climate change over the coming decades it is vital that we understand what the future holds and the dangers we face. The Met Office Hadley Centre has helped to make the UK a world leader in climate science and I am determined that the Government continues to support their work. This investment will significantly improve their capacity to produce the ground breaking robust evidence for which they are internationally renowned.”

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/n ... 2_046.aspx

You follow the money, you quickly discover the politics.