Tweet
Originally posted by Greedy666
View Post
Chook.
-
They get the facts from being educated. I'd like to know where you get yours?
Chook. -
I get mine from working in the elements everyday Chook.Originally posted by Chook:266202
Fact is, the last 3 or so years have not been as warm as the 5 or so before that.
I couldn't give a **** what some scientist wants to tell me, I've felt it for myself and that's what I'll go on because at the end of the day, the only **** I trust is me.
Stop sitting in that climate controlled office looking up these long winded stories, Chook man.
Get outside and feel the shit for yourself.Comment
-
Central Coast has been shitload cooler these last 5 years greedy i agreedy....but other parts of the world are most likely adding to these statisticsOriginally posted by Greedy666 View PostComment
-
I'll take the scientists and their years of research over your licked finger in the wind thanks all the same Greeds.Originally posted by Greedy666 View Post
Chook.Comment
-
I watched this show once that looked back at the history of the earths climate, millions of years & it showed that the cycle was volcano's letting off enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere causing the planet to heat up to the extent of there being no frozen North & South poles but with that it also eventually blocked out all the sunlight to the Earth causing the world to go into darkness & freeze over. It would then stay in this state for hundreds of thousands of years slowly clearing the CO2 whilst in the mean time the inner core of the earth is now under so much pressure that volcanos start to erupt warming the earth again.Originally posted by Greedy666 View Post
I personally believe that the world go's through cycles but I feel man is also playing a significant role in farking it all up.
But the facts are that all animals destroy ther own habitats.Comment
-
As a Scientist can I say the problem is educating people from non scientific backgrounds as to the processes of climate change,the term global warming leads people astray.In some areas of the world the result will be colder weather at times than normal...how can this be you say, scientific bulls..t again you say. No think of it this way, MORE energy from the sun being absorbed by the whole earth because of the greenhouse effect. Banks of frozen freshwater (eg polar ice) melt. THIS IS CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND; THIS THEN INTERFERES WITH THE MIXING AND SO MODERATING OF OCEAN TEMPERATURES.Oceans are buffers to stop dramatic differences in temperatures on the land.By mixing they moderate our regions climates.Reduced mixing means colder & warmer oceans .Think of extreme La Nina and EL Nino ...RaptorComment
-
That's a complete fallacy. Humans are the only animal that destroy it's own habitat.Originally posted by Mickey Lane View Post
Chook.Comment
-
Which will lead to far more extreme weather patterns, longer droughts, etc?Originally posted by Raptor View Post
Chook.Comment
-
-
Oh no. THE SKY IS FALLING. Quick run for the hills. Afterall the one millionth of a degree change over a 100 yrs which may be attributed to us Australians may cause a 2012 end of the world epidemic.
Global warming alarmist woops make that climate change alarmist are on par with those scientific nutters who were predicting the end of the world apocalypse on the 21/12/12. schizoids the lot of them.
All this is FEAR FEAR FEAR. No wonder nutters like that sandy hook school shooter are inspired. Wake up zombies....Comment
-
Rocky Rhodes your the classic far right ignorant fool. No scientist EVER said it was going to be the end of the world on 21st dec 2012. Sorry, scientists read scientific journals to learn more about topics, not Murdoch press. I bet you can't see the irony in your comment...it's the far right "nutters" who defend the gun laws. Your comment comes from fear of things you don't understand , everyone can have their say and as Malcom Turnbull shows their are liberals who are informed, it's funny how often people comment on environmental and economic issues when they don't understand the processes involved...RaptorComment
-
20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists
Time has proven that even 22 years ago climate scientists understood the dynamics behind global warming well enough to accurately predict warming, says an analysis that compares predictions in 1990 with 20 years of temperature records.
After an adjustment to account for natural fluctuations, the predictions and the observed increases matched up, the current research found.
The predictions in question come from the first climate assessment report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990. The IPCC is an internationally accepted scientific authority on climate change, drawing on the expertise of thousands of scientists, so its reports carry special weight. The most recent assessment report came out in 2007.
The accuracy of the 1990 predictions is notable because scientists, 22 years ago, relied on much more simplistic computer models than those now used to simulate the future, said one of the researchers behind the current analysis, Dáithí Stone, now a research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He worked on the analysis while at the University of Cape Town and University of Oxford.
What's more, two decades ago, scientists could not have anticipated a number of potentially climate-altering events. These included the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, which spewed sunlight-blocking particles into the atmosphere, as well as the collapse of industry in the Soviet Union or the economic growth of China, Stone and David Frame, of Victoria University Wellington in New Zealand, write in work published online today (Dec. 9) in the journal Nature Climate Change.
But 22 years ago, scientists understood one crucial factor:
"The prediction basically depended on how much carbon dioxide was already in the atmosphere, and that has been what's important," Stone said. [The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted]
What matters is the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution; short-term changes in emissions have relatively little effect on overall warming, Frame and Stone write.
Other climate scientists have come to the same conclusion; one recent paper warned significant emissions cuts must happen soon to limit warming to a manageable level.
The 1990 report offered a best estimate of an increase of 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) by 2030, which at the halfway point in 2010, translates to warming of 1 degree F (0.55 degrees C).
Stone and Frame compared this expected increase to two sets of temperature records for 1990 through 2010, which showed increases of 0.63 degrees F (0.35 degrees C) and 0.7 degrees F (0.39 degrees C), respectively.
The 1990 prediction did require an adjustment, since it did not take into account natural variability — which includes the chaotic nature of weather as well as longer-term natural patterns, such as the El Niño/La Niña cycle.
When Frame and Stone took natural variability into account, they found that the observed warming was consistent with the IPCC's best estimate for warming.20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists
Time has proven that even 22 years ago climate scientists understood the dynamics behind global warming well enough to accurately predict warming, says an analysis that compares predictions in 1990 with 20 years of temperature records.
After an adjustment to account for natural fluctuations, the predictions and the observed increases matched up, the current research found.
The predictions in question come from the first climate assessment report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990. The IPCC is an internationally accepted scientific authority on climate change, drawing on the expertise of thousands of scientists, so its reports carry special weight. The most recent assessment report came out in 2007.
The accuracy of the 1990 predictions is notable because scientists, 22 years ago, relied on much more simplistic computer models than those now used to simulate the future, said one of the researchers behind the current analysis, Dáithí Stone, now a research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He worked on the analysis while at the University of Cape Town and University of Oxford.
What's more, two decades ago, scientists could not have anticipated a number of potentially climate-altering events. These included the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, which spewed sunlight-blocking particles into the atmosphere, as well as the collapse of industry in the Soviet Union or the economic growth of China, Stone and David Frame, of Victoria University Wellington in New Zealand, write in work published online today (Dec. 9) in the journal Nature Climate Change.
But 22 years ago, scientists understood one crucial factor:
"The prediction basically depended on how much carbon dioxide was already in the atmosphere, and that has been what's important," Stone said. [The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted]
What matters is the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution; short-term changes in emissions have relatively little effect on overall warming, Frame and Stone write.
Other climate scientists have come to the same conclusion; one recent paper warned significant emissions cuts must happen soon to limit warming to a manageable level.
The 1990 report offered a best estimate of an increase of 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) by 2030, which at the halfway point in 2010, translates to warming of 1 degree F (0.55 degrees C).
Stone and Frame compared this expected increase to two sets of temperature records for 1990 through 2010, which showed increases of 0.63 degrees F (0.35 degrees C) and 0.7 degrees F (0.39 degrees C), respectively.
The 1990 prediction did require an adjustment, since it did not take into account natural variability — which includes the chaotic nature of weather as well as longer-term natural patterns, such as the El Niño/La Niña cycle.
When Frame and Stone took natural variability into account, they found that the observed warming was consistent with the IPCC's best estimate for warming.
http://www.livescience.com/25367-fir...-accurate.htmlComment
-
Don't bother raptor, rhodes is a tard of the highest order and proves it every time he posts.Originally posted by Raptor View Post
Chook.Comment
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...DDavid%2BRose0
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
By David Rose
PUBLISHED:21:42 GMT, 13 October 2012| UPDATED: 13:59 GMT, 16 October 2012
Comments (958)
Share
.
.
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
global temperature changes
Research: The new figures mean that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
More...
Wettest start to autumn for 12 years as South West continues to be battered by torrential rain
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
Disagreement: Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia, dismissed the significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’
Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.
Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.
Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.
At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.
Flawed science costs us dearly
Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Surprising: News that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years will come as something of a shock. This picture shows drifting ice in Canada
Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.
The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.
They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.
Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.
It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.
This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.
But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.
‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.
‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
Headache: The evidence is beginning to suggest that global warming may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed - a conclusion with enormous policy implications for politicians at Westminster, pictured
Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.
Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’
Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.
Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’
He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.
Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.
Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.
Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.
The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2G7b3YBT5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on FacebookComment
-
What is this, amateur hour?Originally posted by Raptor View Post
Read below and work out who is the actual fool...No scientist EVER said it was going to be the end of the world on 21st dec 2012.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickm...ttles-its-cup/
With Scientists Predicting the World's End (Again), the UN Rattles Its Cup
Notice all the horrendous news about our environment? That’s a sure sign that the UN is about to throw another mega-gabfest where global leaders will shake their heads and shake down the U.S. for monies that Congress will wisely refuse to fork over.
Two weekends from now, the UN is holding its “Rio+20 Earth Summit”, the largest meeting in the history of an organization that pretty much does nothing but stage meetings. The 1992 Rio Summit produced the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was the basis for the completely failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming. It also spawned Agenda 21, a document which outlined in great detail its plans to punish and pillage producer nations and transmit their wealth to the world’s great kleptocracies.
Rio 1992 was also the basis for 19 annual “Conferences of the Parties” to the Framework Convention, all of which succeeded in doing exactly nothing measurable about climate change. The most famous of these, after Kyoto in 1997, was in Copenhagen in December, 2009.
With Alaska's Pebble Partnership, The EPA Waves The Precaution Flag Patrick MichaelsContributor
Mitt Romney Completely Misreads the Hopes and Dreams of Youth Voters Patrick MichaelsContributor
Will Mitt Romney Recycle George W. Bush's Global Warming Fiasco? Patrick MichaelsContributor
Celebrating Earth Day: Is Another Half-Acid Apocalypse On the Way? Patrick MichaelsContributor
President Obama flew there, fresh with an “Endangerment Finding” from carbon dioxide hot off of his EPA’s presses. Because it was obvious that the Senate wouldn’t touch cap-and-trade, he needed something credible in order to goad the world into a new treaty to replace the dead Kyoto agreement. Despite being treated pretty roughly by Brazil, South Africa, China and India, he declared victory—with no specifics—as the meeting drew to a close. Obama couldn’t answer many questions, though, as he had to hightail it back to Washington to beat the first of that winter’s three blizzards. He didn’t, and the image of Air Force One landing in a blinding snowstorm will forever be the icon of the Copenhagen fiasco.
The great “success” of Copenhagen was an agreement that all the participants would submit plans detailing how they would reduce their dreaded greenhouse gas emissions in six weeks. Two weeks before that deadline, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the Framework Convention, announced that, never mind, we didn’t mean it, we don’t need your silly plans, and then he resigned.
Rio+20 is intended to go beyond all this. Failure is not an option, it is guaranteed.
While the agenda has yet to be finalized at this late date, it’s more of the same hand-wringing gloom and doom followed by more of the same outstretched hands. Not surprisingly, the same fault lines that have continually plagued the UN’s are emerging. Poor nations want our money. Europe agrees with this but they’re fresh out. Our Congress wants to be re-elected and won’t cooperate. India and China plead for special treatment.
But the list is longer than ever. In addition to climate change, we now have to remediate biodiversity loss, poverty, acid oceans (no such thing), poverty, “unsustainable consumption” (honest!), poverty, the right to food, poverty, and the “right to an adequate standard of living”. If much of this sounds like the wish list of your indolent teenager, that’s about right.
My academic pals are doing their level best to flog for the UN. Just this week, and, according to the Christian Science Monitor, “timed for the Rio meeting”, Nature published a remarkable screed by a team of twenty scientists forecasting the end of the world as we know it (literally) caused largely by increasing human population.
(Hint: a policy-driven piece authored by more than ten people, accompanied by a breathless press release, and published before a UN summit is known as a “petition”.)
If this sounds anything like the Club of Rome’s sophomoric 1972 “Limits to Growth”, it is. That forecast of the end of the world as we knew it by 2000 obviously failed, using the advanced methodology of the day (harmonic analysis and multiple regressions). The new paper by Anthony Barnosky uses a “fold bifurcation with hysteresis”. That’s impressive to all the UN delegates, most of whom avoided math and science in order to boss around mathematicians and scientists.
Actually, it really means a lagged discontinuous function, something you can find in honors Algebra II.
The 1972 and 2012 ends-of-the-world are simply the same shtick with the same tactics and objectives, namely abuse of authority to give authority to a global bureaucracy. Between then and now there have been literally dozens of such silly screeds. They obviously didn’t or won’t work, just like the 1992 Earth Summit and Rio+20.
If these people were serious about greenhouse gases and hot air, they would meet online. But they are not, not after 20 consecutive failures.Comment
Comment