Really? Perhaps you should spend more time studying the topic
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.........ROTFLMAO.........oh fecalhead, ya gotta stop wit dat shyt......I nearly pissed myself laughing at that one......
and less time shaking those Blue-Green environaut pom-poms eh???
Faced with the inevitability that the Jig will Soon be Up --- The alarmists are gonna INSIST that CO2 based Global Warming WILL WIN THE DAY -- saving humanity from freezing their sorry skeptical buns right off..
You have become a willing example of WHY I CHOSE that quote in my footer.. Because you ATTACK expecting lies and deceit because that's just what liars expect...
Next time -- check it out before you look silly..
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are really funny today, little retard....that last line....omg...
This post of yours, besides being hilarious, is a good example of just how screwed up and confused you are. You, very ironically (unconsciously), advise someone else that they "
should spend more time studying the topic" and then you demonstrate what that means to you by posting some idiotic drivel from a newspaper article without ever checking up on the accuracy of that drivel. LOL. You are such a good example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.
That reporter for the Mail, David Rose, is a denier cult nutjob and a major liar. His article was so full of errors, lies and fraudulent statements that the Met Office, whose studies he was supposedly quoting, took the very unusual step of publicly responding to his bullshit.
Met Office in the Media
29 January 2012
(not under copyright)
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.”
Global average temperatures from 1850 to 2011 from the three individual global temperature datasets (Met Office/UEA HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC
Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.
It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
I don't know WHY you think that LARGER BOLDED type is gonna work to intimidate folks like me or make you look smarter.
I don't use larger type to "
intimidate" you, fecalhead, I use it because
you're a retard and you
need that emphasis. Unfortunately you're too retarded to comprehend what you read anyway, as this post of yours demonstrates pretty conclusively.
The MET did NOT DENY any of the analysis they did to predict a COOLING CYCLE.
You have no idea what the Met Office did or did not do, you clueless retard. You're getting all of your information from newspaper accounts written by liars.
And the author (Rose or whoever) did NOT MAKE UP those statements clarifying the MET press release.
Oh but that denier cult douchebag Rose did in fact make up lots of stuff, moron. Starting with the headline.
"
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years"
First off, NASA scientists have never said anything that even implies that the Thames will be freezing over again. Second, the claim that the Met Office figures show no warming in 15 years is a total lie. A very obvious lie too since the very first two paragraphs of the Met Office's press release say:
2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a predicted likely range of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.
The middle of this range would place 2012 within the top 10 warmest years in a series which goes back to 1850.
First paragraph of Rose's error filled article:
"
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years." - LIE
Second paragragh:
"
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century." - LIE
Third paragraph:
"
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." - LIE
Actual Met Office releases:
"New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases."
"Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases."
"The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun. It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C."
He had INTERVIEWED and QUOTED several different RESPECTABLE scientific sources that disagreed with the MET conclusions over THE DEGREE of NET WARMING/COOLING that was gonna occur.
LOLOLOLOL. Yeah, denier cult reporter Rose interviews several denier cult kooks and cranks who pose as scientists but have little or no credibility in the world scientific community.
Henrik Svensmark
"The rebuttals to Svensmarks cosmic ray theories and hypothesis generally included lack of confirmation and unsupported claims."
Dr Nicola Scafetta
Ties to several AGW denying front groups linked to or sponsored by the fossil fuel industry;
Heartland Institute,
SPPI.
His findings are disputed by the rest of the scientific community - "
Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature"
Judith Curry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot
They can holler all they want about their attempt to show that it will still warm "a little" even if there is a massive NATURAL shift in climate cooling due to the sun.
It is not going to warm "
a little", fecalhead, it is going to warm
a lot. There is no "
massive NATURAL shift in climate cooling due to the sun", there may be a minor shift in the solar influence on Earth's climate. As the Met Office actually said:
"The study in question...confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases."
What is NOT GENERALLY disagreed about is the CRUX of the MET report. That accelerated warming predicted by CO2 alone and touted as gospel by the IPCC is gonna largely disappear for the next decade or so..
Total bullshit based only on your inability to comprehend what the scientists are actually saying. That inability apparently comes from both the fact that you've been brainwashed by some clever propaganda and by the fact that you're incredibly retarded and completely ignorant about science.
Once again for the retard...
"The study in question...confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. "
And that is that rough times are ahead for the "Church of CO2"
Actually it is the "Cult of Reality Denial" that is having rough times now as temperatures soar and droughts intensify. Your cult is fast sliding down the poop chute of history into the septic tank of failed ideological craziness. You are on a par with the Flat Earth Society.
as NATURE shows how much of an effect she has on NATURAL cycles of the climate. And the Top Clergy have to circle the wagons to find a rational way NOT to look stupid over the next 20 years or so....
You denier cult retards have been looking stupid for the last 20 years or so and you will soon be looking even more stupid as the climate change crisis deepens.
I don't think you fully grasped the SCOPE of what the MET was quibbling about in that "reply". It did NOT affect the major prognostication that they are on record as making.
You're obviously far too retarded to have any idea what the Met Office actually said. Too bad you're such a gullible little cretin.
