Skip to content

Paul Hudson Falls At Last Hurdle

January 27, 2014
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t A C Osborn

 

image

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Met-Office-global-forecasts-too-warm-in-13-of-last-14-years

 

The BBC’s Paul Hudson comments on the continued warm bias in the Met Office’s global temperature forecasts.

Rather disappointingly though, he uncritically rehashes a couple of the excuses put about to explain the temperature standstill.

 

1) Lack of observational data in the Arctic.

This, of course, is the nonsense put out by Cowton & Way. GISS, through their 1200km smoothing of temperatures, fill in all of the Arctic, but still have exactly the same pause as all the other datasets.

 

2) The ocean ate my heat

The Met Office paper, that Paul refers to, states plainly:

 

The scientific questions posed by the current pause in global surface warming require us to understand in much greater detail the flows of energy into, out of, and around the Earth system. Current observations are not detailed enough or of long enough duration to provide definitive answers on the causes of the recent pause, and therefore do not enable us to close the Earth’s energy budget. These are major scientific challenges that the research community is actively pursuing, drawing on exploration and experimentation using a combination of theory, models and observations

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

 

The message could not be clearer. Even if the heat has gone into the oceans, it simply would not be possible to measure it. At least the Met Office are honest enough to admit this, and the fact that therefore this is no more than a theory.

They also admit that they have not the slightest idea of why global warming has stalled.

It is extremely disappointing that Paul Hudson does not make this clear himself.

7 Comments
  1. Green Sand permalink
    January 27, 2014 11:27 pm

    Typo?

    “Rather disappointingly though, he uncritically a couple of the excuses put about to explain the temperature standstill. “

  2. John F. Hultquist permalink
    January 28, 2014 4:56 am

    I just checked. This is 2014. Why does the Met Office use 1961 – 1990 for an average? Maybe they can catch up if we send them a calendar by Josh.
    {Oh, currently sold out! Way to go Josh.}

  3. January 28, 2014 10:08 am

    Paul mate, I don’t think Paul H needs to make it more clear, as an argument stands by it’s own weight. It’s not any stronger just cos it’s stamped by the authority of Paul H. He lives among the warmist world of BBCand the brainwashed powerful so has to walk a tightrope, but if he leaves anything out, the argument becomes fully formed in the blog comments.

  4. Green Sand permalink
    January 28, 2014 12:43 pm

    Mr Homewood are you responsible?:-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

    “Sorry, that page was not found”

    404

    “Please check the address and try again”

    • Green Sand permalink
      January 28, 2014 12:53 pm

      Forget it Paul, site back up

  5. Brian H permalink
    January 29, 2014 8:26 pm

    “into the ocean beneath the surface”.

    Well, dubble-duh. Maybe 1′ beneath? Or just where, and how?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: