Averages = climate
and then you comment that they can't predict the weather.Which is either a non-sequitur or confusion between weather and climate.
I can predict that over the next 52 weeks, Euromillions will pay out a first prize, on average, of 15Million per week.I cannot predict what the jackpot payout on Friday will be.It may be 0 or it may be 28 Million.There is a not very subtle difference here.It is way easier to predict averages than specifics.The Met office predict that the climate will be warmer on average in 50 years, but cannot tell you for sure what the weather will be on saturday
Averages = climate. But, those averages should also include land areas. How can anyone predict the climate for specific regions of the UK, and differentiate between those specific areas. That's local, therefore it's weather.
I've highlighted the averages vs specifics. the MET office are making predictions about specific regions of the UK. That's my point.
Using your analogy of Euromillions, I'll bet you can't predict where, geographically, those prizes will be over the next 52 weeks.
Also, can you predict what what the average Euromillions pay out will be in the year 2050?
Nope, it's climate. Weather is localised in time, not necessarily space.Specific regions of the UK have their own climates, so it's not unreasonable to apply any overall trends to them individually.
An interesting article on a scientific site -
Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
Also a scientific paper that disputes the greenhouse effect
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
I've read a reasonable amount of the paper but I'm not a physicist so can't comment on it's accuracy but it is a peer journal.
How do mean, which is it?
Neither statement contradicts the other. The UK may end up with a colder climate (this is at the extreme end of the CC predicated outcomes). The UK may end up with a warmer climate (this is at the deemed more likely end of the outcome range). It may even be that some parts of the UK become cooler and some warmer (a disruption of the Gulf Stream, if it happens, will probably make NW Scotland much cooler, even though southern Britain has become Mediterranean). Britain is a big island, with several climate zones.
Nothing is certain. Climate shift is highly probable. Weather disruption during the shift is highly probable. Click to expand...
This is a notorious paper which does not even need to be refuted. Its simply wrong at many levels. Despite the attributions, it does not seem to have been properly peer-reviewed, or even taken seriously.
It treats the atmosphere as though it is a fixed more-or-less rigid cloak around the earth, when in fact it plays a major role in physical heat distribution through convection and horizontal air currents. In fact, their model of the Earth is more like the Moon, which is at the temperatures which their paper would predict if its figures were put through their equations.
They bring up the old chestnut of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which itself is a dead giveaway, because that issue (again barely a starter anyway) has been put to bed ages ago.
I know Ive been hauled over the coals for this before, but I make no apologies for bring up Venus yet again. Venus is a classic proven example of the runaway greenhouse effect in action. Any paper such as this which claims to deny the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect simply must show how else Venus came to be the way it was. They do not mention her at all (there is a reference in a title within the bibliography, but that is nowhere near sufficient for a paper which makes these claims).
They do make one valid statement though. The greenhouse effect has been shown after all not to apply to greenhouses. They heat up by quite a different mechanism.
I'm afraid I haven't yet read the other source which you quote.
What do you mean by it not being properly peer reviewed? If that is the case could or not also be that papers supporting agw are also not properly peer reviewed. The peer review process is what is often used as a defence of attacks on climate papers. I was not aware that it could be subdivided into properly and improperly peer reviewed.
Also how do you know it's not been taken seriously are there links to this? I don't understand enough of the laws of thermodynamics but I am keen to learn more and I would appreciate if you tell me where I can look at info that tells me what is wrong with his calculations (though I freely admit it may go over my head).
Assuming for a moment that he is correct then the Venus theory may have to be reconsidered. It is after all only a theory and given the hostile nature of the venutian atmosphere studying it is difficult. I would still argue that at least on part the temperature of Venus is due to the planets proximity to the sun.
It's not hard physics. It statistical quackery based on 1970s financial modelling using manipulated data for political reasons.
They are not comparing like with like though. That's the whole point! //static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif
LOL! Your innocence is touching.
I see I am going to have to give you an example:
Take 10 weather station records (temp in °C, location in brackets):
A 20 (Urban)
B 16 (Mountain)
C 19 (Coastal)
D 21 (Suburban)
E 16 (Rural)
F 12 (Mountain)
G 23 (Airport)
H 18 (Rural)
I 21 (City Centre)
J 19 (Small Town)
The average = 185/10 = 18.5°C
Now quietly 'delete' some of the cooler records from the data set, (after all, no one's looking) leaving:
A 20 (Urban)
C 19 (Coastal)
D 21 (Suburban)
G 23 (Airport)
I 21 (City Centre)
The average is now 104/5 = 20.8°C
Bingo! Instant proof of global warming. Which is exactly what they've been up to. If you want a different temperature, you just cherry pick a different range of stations.
Also, you will never hear the expression 'margin of error' with any climate stat they put out. That would imply an element of doubt, and they don't want that.
For a start, it's not 'the world's science community', it's just a small offshoot based mainly in the UK and the US.
For the high ups it's a mixture of greed, eco-marxist 'enviromentalist' idiology and self importance. For everyone else involved, well I guess they have a mortgage to pay and children to feed like everyone else. If idiot politicians want to throw millions of taxpayers money at them, so be it. The UEA leak of the emails shows they're not all happy with what's going on though.
The bottom line is that NASA GISS and the Met Office as so penetrated at a management level by activists that their data can't be trusted as far as you could throw them.
There needs to be a wholesale clear out of the political appointees and charlatans in both organisations. That Micky Mouse organisation the IPCC should be disbanded too.