[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnI3Hp0fJhE]
The Met Office web site prominently has a tab titled “Climate Change.” Below are some highlights.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
Recent Comments
- arn on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- Gordon Vigurs on Thing Of The Past Returns
- Greg in NZ on Thing Of The Past Returns
- Robertvd on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- arn on Thing Of The Past Returns
- conrad ziefle on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Greg in NZ on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- czechlist on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- arn on Up Is Down
- arn on Up Is Down
Does it bother them that they and their “super computer” are consistently wrong?
Remember when the IPCC report touted “thousands” of scientists? We’re down to 152?
More fun, their little graph displays a downward trend towards the end, but they insist it hasn’t stopped in spite of their evidence they present. Maybe someone should clue the clueless that down on the graph mean cooler.
Their comment on the atmospheric mix and companion pic is……well sophomoric at best, intentionally misleading at worst.
I WANT WHAT THEY’RE SMOKING!!!!!!
Whatever they’re smoking, they’re doing it out in the cold and the rain.
This should explain the MET attitude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0
Well seeing how it is the British weather service this might answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0
Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7F2X3rSSCU&feature=related
Nothing but slick superficial marketing hype. Their highly questionable little temperature graph really fails to move me. Look at the values. Just fuzz around zero; and most likely jacked-with and certainly nothing to note much more worry about.
I really would like to see an honest statistician’s error bars on that bottom graph. I mean with due consideration of changing instrument error from 1850 thru present, and all the other actual sources of error.
I would guess that the plus or minus .4 to .5 would be dwarfed by error bars of at least an order of magnitude larger, if it was possible to estimate. However, most honest scientists would conclude that it is not possible to estimate the errors since the data is such trash.
the only thing consistent about GCMs are that none of them agree with eachother…and none of them agree with reality.
so in that sense, yes, they are reliable.
Wow, if I were IBM I’d be wincing at the first photo.
It is not just climatology. There’s been lots of questionable economic modelling lately too. Between both I think the public are rapidly coming to the view that supercomputers are very very fast and efficient producers of garbage.
As climate legislation takes a progressively larger portion of government resources the electorate will realize that a life based on Unicorns & Pixie Dust is not what the Greens predicted it will be.
When it starts to really hurt, I mean really hurt, when California furloughs government employees for a week or two a month without pay, when families loss their homes because they cannot pay their electric bills there will be no hole deep enough for the CAGW proponents to hide.
The die is cast. There is a CAGW freight train going off the rails and the economic implosion is unavoidable.
Pass me the pop-corn.