OT: The lying BBC

On the ludicrous '90 Second News' on BBC1 there was an item about the hot weather, concluding with the words "Experts fear that these temperatures indicate that climate change is reaching crisis point."
Yes when it's cold they say, "Climate and weather are two different things."
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/07/2016 21:14, Bill Wright wrote:

Buried away on Today, someone pointed out this morning that this June was the hottest on average since records began, and averaged 1.8C warmer than pre-industrial average temperatures.
Do you remember the ice age that was on the way when we had all those cold Winters in the 1960s? Apparently that was one of the early signs of global warming. :-/
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/07/16 21:20, John Williamson wrote:

Except it wasn't

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I remember a prog introduced by Magnus Magnusson in 1975 that said we were heading towards another ice age and they had the evidence to prove it.
--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, we are, we are in a cycle of ice ages. But global warming is decades, not millennia.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/07/16 09:21, Bob Martin wrote:

Well its in between. we had the Roman warm period, and the mediaeval warm period, with colder climate in between, and are now in a modern warm period.
And before that the Holocene optimum.
3-400 years seems to be a cycle time, although it's not periodic as such.
--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:57:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

It's typical climate alarmist spin. While it's true that June was the hottest June on record, globally, according to NOAA data (the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Group at U. of East Anglia, HadCRUT haven't reported their June result yet), and it's also true that the last 16 months have been the hottest on record, it glibly ignores, or at best plays down the fact that we're just coming out of a particularly strong El Nino effect. The following table, showing the warmest 16 months, is taken from the NOAA data at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/p12/12/1880-2016.csv
Date        Deviation from 1901-2000 average, °C
1998 Feb        0.8632 2015 Aug        0.8714 2015 Jun        0.875 2016 May        0.8768 2015 Feb        0.8799 2007 Jan        0.8826 2015 Mar        0.8953 2016 Jun        0.8987 2015 Sep        0.9196 2015 Nov        0.9637 2015 Oct        0.9896 2016 Jan        1.046 2016 Apr        1.0802 2015 Dec        1.1189 2016 Feb        1.1963 2016 Mar        1.2203
I've graphed the NOAA global climate temperature data here:
http://i67.tinypic.com/2ltcnn.jpg Click on the image to enlarge it.
You can see that for most of this century, temperatures are flat and bump along at around 0.7 °C above the 1901-2000 average, but they start to increase from early in 2015, reaching a peak in February this year corresponding to the maximum in El Niño, and are now beginning to fall sharply as El Niño subsides. It's hardly surprising that an El Niño peak superimposed on an existing temperature plateau gives the highest temperatures ever recorded, but this has nothing to do with the theory that global warming is continuing or that it's due to anthropogenic CO2. As La Niña kicks in, and temperatures actually go below the plateau for a while, there will be silence from the climate alarmists.
Note that there were equally strong El Niño events in 1972, 1983, and 1997/8, the last being responsible for the high global temperature for February of that year, the first entry in the table above. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
AFAIK, climatologists have no explanation for El Niño events, which casts doubt, at least in my mind, that they understand or have a valid explanation for the global warming over the period 1975 - 2000 either, or the flattening off since then.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was mentioned on the BBC report I heard. Not ignored. Except by the likes of Bill.
--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:43:29 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

Which is why I said 'or at best plays down the fact that we're just coming out of a particularly strong El Nino effect'. I saw the BBC news item too, and the implication was very much that what we're seeing ATM was evidence for on-going global warming, rather than simply being due to a strong El Niño. It annoyed me, and prompted me to go into the NOAA site to get the actual data and make my own judgement. I normally use HadCRUT, but it doesn't yet include June's figures.
I'm not suggesting the BBC is actually at fault, let alone lying, because they just repeat what they're fed by the climatologists, and as has been said here often enough, when it comes to getting technical stuff correct, media reporters are clueless. So they can't really be blamed.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except by Bill. Who has a long long history of this. When the BBC reports on something he doesn't want to know about. Or not when it is something he does.
--
*You know you're a redneck if your home has wheels and your car doesn't.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well ... or can they? I used to expect better from the BBC.
If they were to abandon their constant-news-feed model, by which they breathlessly report anything that seems like it might cause a ripple (or better still: a tidal wave) to attract the attention of the public, then they might give themselves chance to appraise and evaluate news before reporting it to us.
We're in a phase of the media whereby the reporters/correspondents/news readers / editors/ producers all consider themselves more important than what they're reporting (but darling; I have a *career* to think of!). Bring back Kenneth Kendall - that's what I say.
They should have a top-left-hand-corner flag on every news item, coloured like the Met Office Weather Warnings, signifying "rock solid" through to "shaky, but it's tasty".
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But they should have presented it the other way, made it clear that that unusual result was the result of el Nino, not man made global warming.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course, Wodney. Especially for you and others who need things presented as if to a 5 year old.
--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/07/2016 11:10, Chris Hogg wrote:

They don't, all of it is based on mathematical models that are tweaked to account for observations and then run into the future to predict results.
The trouble is that when they first started to model it they got alarming results which they now have to have when they change the model or the model is considered broken.
The earlier models failed to predict the future correctly for the last few years but the alarmist results are still valid for some reason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. Models don't *tell* you anything. They make predictions, and whether those predictions are worth a damn depends on the assumptions the models make, whether the modellers have set up the boundary conditions correctly, whether everything relevant is part of the model, how good the data is that is input to the model, and I expect other things too.
We're never told whether any of the above conditions are met or indeed what are.
--
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:11:59 +0100, dennis@home

Primarily the Beer-Lambert law applied to the atmosphere. It's pretty simple in its basic form and has been around since the early 1700's, but only in the last half century or so has it been applied to the atmosphere. http://tinyurl.com/zlc52be It's basically very simple, but the exponent contains many terms that are difficult to measure accurately and are subject to wide uncertainty and debate.

It all looked so good in the early days, when the 'hockey stick' curve actually fitted the results, particularly for the period 1975 - 2000. But even then, they had to postulate positive feedback, aka a forcing factor, to get the curve to fit the data and implicate CO2. Without feedback, CO2 on its own could not account for the degree of warming observed (this is not disputed and is accepted on both sides of the argument).
But then it all went awry, but climatologists are reluctant to abandon the theory, despite its failure, because it worked at one time and they're desperately clinging on to it.

The acid test of any theory is that the results it predicts should match the observations, which ATM they don't. Climatologists are getting increasingly desperate and thrashing around wildly, invoking this or that new factor or discovery to convince themselves the theory is still valid. Straw and drowning man are words that come to mind.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, hypothesis actually, not theory. It only might become a theory when the predictions *do* match the observations.
--
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your
intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:22:31 +0100, Tim Streater

Admonishment accepted! :-) It's an easy mistake, that I know I've made before.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/07/2016 22:05, Woody wrote:

And I remember, some years ago, reading in a well-established publication the research that revealed that each ice age had been preceded by a period of 150-250 years (pretty short in geological terms) of abnormally high temperatures. Magnus might still be proved right.
I have also never heard anyone panicking about climate change explain why the Vikings could colonise their newly discovered "Green land" while temperatures were a lot higher than we are seeing now, without sparking the runaway climate disaster that they are now predicting.
The climate has never been constant in the past, so why should anyone be trying to treat it as such now?
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:39:21 +0100

Just because trees fall over in the forest on their own doesn't mean lumberjacks don't exist. The current rate of change is way beyond anything seen in the climate records including all the warning periods.
--
Spud



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.