UK Met Office Overstating Global Warming. Official.

[subversive science]

The daily weather forecast is a prediction that has a margin of error to it, yet we're not calling weather forecasts invalid. All models have uncertainties. Climate scientists are very open about the uncertainties in both their models and the PROJECTIONS that are derived from the models; otherwise, their work would not pass peer review. Also, climate scientists will tell you there are a range of warming scenarios based on the uncertainties in the models and the projections. There is just pretty uniform consensus that the planet is warming and we are responsible.

Even with the pause in surface temperature increase, the heat content of the upper ocean has continued to increase.

[mistermack]

Funnily enough, you've just brought what's so ridiculous about climate predictions into focus.

Weather scientists give a one-day forecast, a five-day forecast, and a long-range forecast.
Their confidence is strong for the one day, a bit iffy for the five-day, and the long-range forecast is usually called speculative.

Climate scientists do the exact opposite. Without any justification at all, they claim more certainty, the longer range their predictions are. And conveniently for them, it takes decades to disprove that bollocks. Even failing over fifteen years is ''nothing'' to the climate alarmists.

[Seth]

I thought they were the same thing?

Not really.

I apologise if I am wrong. I haven't been keeping up with your loony rants lately..

It's quite alright, I understand that the subject matter is far above your intellectual bell-curve location. Keep at it though, you might eventually learn something.

[Seth]

The daily weather forecast is a prediction that has a margin of error to it, yet we're not calling weather forecasts invalid. All models have uncertainties. Climate scientists are very open about the uncertainties in both their models and the PROJECTIONS that are derived from the models; otherwise, their work would not pass peer review. Also, climate scientists will tell you there are a range of warming scenarios based on the uncertainties in the models and the projections.

In other words, when you combine all the models and margins of error what you end up with is nothing more than a wild-assed guess as to what will happen in the future that ranges from 800 degree lead-melting Venus-like conditions predicted to have happened already by the "climate scientists" way back in the 1970s (I remember that bit of scaremongering very clearly...it's one of the things that shocked me out of my proletarian head-nodding indoctrination in believing anything some ecozealot said about the environment) to a new global ice-age that will wipe out civilization in less than ten years.

I don't trust climate scientists because they have a serious financial motivation to carry water for the one-world-government global warming alarmists. Also because I have a modicum of intelligence and can look at a "prognostication" (I won't dignify them as "predictions" because they fall in the same category as reading goat entrails at this point) and see the oracle's own admission that they don't have a fucking clue that is manifest in the margin of error and discern that they are pandering to those who fund their research, all of whom pander to the governments who fund such studies as a part of the political objective of further indoctrinating and frightening the public into obedience to the all-knowing, all-seeing Great and Wonderful Oz hiding behind the green curtain.

There is just pretty uniform consensus that the planet is warming and we are responsible.
As for the "pretty uniform consensus," pretty much the entire scientific world agreed that the sun revolved around the earth for a good long time.

Even with the pause in surface temperature increase, the heat content of the upper ocean has continued to increase.

Strange, because I heard that it's not, and that scientists are grappling for a way to say that the ocean warming has somehow mysteriously moved to the deep ocean instead, where, conveniently, they can't measure it.

[Tero]

Ah, the usual "I heard". Is it peer reviewed? We'll take your word if you ask the source.

The warming in 20 years is about twice what the yearly fluctuation is.

[Seth]

Ah, the usual "I heard". Is it peer reviewed? We'll take your word if you ask the source.

The warming in 20 years is about twice what the yearly fluctuation is.

Which 20 years? What yearly fluctuation.

And so what? No temperature excursion actually observed so far has fallen outside the established historical ranges of temperature over long periods. Quite literally all the panic is based on prognostications of what MIGHT happen in the future. Well, the last 16 years keeps driving a stake through the heart of all this prognosticatory alarmism. That's simply an observable fact.