210 replies to this topic

[Shady]

I highly recommend this, it's very interesting and informative.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

...

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute.

Link

Edited by Shady, 10 February 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[waldo]

Shady... haven't you been bit enough by British Tabloids... and David Rose?

[Shady]

Shady... haven't you been bit enough by British Tabloids... and David Rose?

So instead of confronting the actual data released by EAU, you instead focus on the so-called british tabloids etc. Not suprising.

[cybercoma]

Temperatures also dipped in the middle of the 20th century. That doesn't mean the trend is reversing.

[waldo]

Temperatures also dipped in the middle of the 20th century. That doesn't mean the trend is reversing.

no, not at all - this isn't even a question of dips or trend reversals. Rather, it's the continuing saga of a journalist (not a scientist, not even a journalist with a scientific background) predisposed to ply his personal denier beliefs.

until your response I hadn't intended to give this Shady nonsense any consideration. Again, written by one David Rose - a nefarious, ne'er-do-well from a British tabloid noted for regularly publishing tripe. If you haven't followed many of the climate change threads closely, you wouldn't be familiar with many similar efforts by Shady - Rose was/is one of his regular go-to-tabloid guys whenever he feels a need to pump his personal CC/AGW denial.

in any case, if you actually read the Rose tabloid "article", you will find it devoid of who/what is actually making the claim concerning the British Met Office data release... in fact, the article is devoid of any real substance or detail. Even if one didn't look at the actual Met Office data, anytime the year 1997/1998 is flagged, one is immediately alerted to the cherry-picking best, given the effective anomaly that 97/98 was in terms of being one of the warmest years on record. But, of course, the article found a home as it's been spun hundreds of times across the blogging denialsphere. What you will realize from the following official Met Office response to that article, is that the claim has been made entirely by the "journalist", David Rose, himself... and he purposely ignores the Met Office responses to his own inquiries of them.

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:

A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

(note: HadCRUT3 is the global historical surface temperature anomalies dataset within the grouping of Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets)

[sharkman]

waldo, this really is your religion. Quit worshipping the earth, man.

[waldo]

waldo, this really is your religion. Quit worshipping the earth, man.

I appreciate you hold disdain for accuracy and truth, particularly when it squashes your denialist leanings

[Michael Hardner]

waldo, this really is your religion. Quit worshipping the earth, man.

I think it's a question of believing in politics vs science. The skewed reporting is done either for political points, or possibly to get readership from people who already believe in the thesis. Either way, it's bad reporting. Why wouldn't they publish the MET office response ?

[sharkman]

No, it's about certain activist types who get so carried away by this one issue. It drains the life out of people and they become bitter tree clingers. Not that this has happended to Waldo. Yet.

[waldo]

waldo, this really is your religion. Quit worshipping the earth, man.

No, it's about certain activist types who get so carried away by this one issue. It drains the life out of people and they become bitter tree clingers. Not that this has happended to Waldo. Yet.

not that I give a rats-patooey on anything you have to say... nice to read your walk-back!

by the by, any reason you refused to answer Michael's question: "Why wouldn't they publish the MET office response"

[sharkman]

Because his question had nothing to do with the issue I raised. Michael needed to be corrected about where my comment took him. Although I admit I hadn't seen it before he raised it.

[waldo]

Because his question had nothing to do with the issue I raised. Michael needed to be corrected about where my comment took him. Although I admit I hadn't seen it before he raised it.

so, you "corrected" Michael over his emphasizing politics vs. science and why the referenced British tabloid skewed reporting was done... you "corrected" him, hey? Of course, your "correction" didn't have a thing to say about Michael's actual comment - did it?

and was your reference to my "religion and worshiping", also one of your, "corrections"?

[sharkman]

Well, in so much as I am hoping you don't become a bitter tree clinger, yes.

[waldo]

Well, in so much as I am hoping you don't become a bitter tree clinger, yes.

hope away...

and why do you accept this example of skewed reporting? You ignored Michael's original question to you in that regard, you ignored my pointing out you ignored Michael's question, and you ignored my direct challenge to you on it. What is it about this type of skewed reporting that you're so prepared to blindly accept it? Does it suit your own particular, as you describe, "religion and worship"? Does it?

[Shady]

Waldo's issue shouldn't be with any journalists in this case, but others...

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute.