182 replies to this topic

[BFB]

Quote

The Met Office has downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.


A new scientific model has revised previous figures for the next five years downwards by around a fifth.

The forecast compares how much higher average world temperatures are likely to be than the “long-term average” from 1971-2000.

It had been thought that this would be 0.54C during the period 2012 -2016 but new data puts the figure for the 2013-2017 period at 0.43C.

This figure is little higher than the 0.40C recorded in 1998, the warmest year in the Met Office Hadley Centre’s 160-year record – suggesting global warming will have stalled in the intervening two-decade period


http://www.telegraph...gures-show.html

[notoverrated]

is this good? legit question, i seriously don't know what this means.

[questionmark]

notoverrated, on 09 January 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

is this good? legit question, i seriously don't know what this means.

If the ice caps keep on melting at the same rate they are now it is not good, the cold released by melting ice there should have brought down temperatures. If they stop melting it is as we will have a new "normal" that nature can adjust to. If they keep on melting as soon as they are gone temperatures will raise again.

The bets are that they will keep on melting.

Edited by questionmark, 09 January 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

My bet is that global warming has reached some sort of tipping point, and that there is nothing mankind can do to reverse the process.  Not sure whether he ever could have reversed the process.

[BFB]

i'm sorry but we are no where near the tipping point yet

[Hasina]

My say is we as a species have changed the environment to suit ourselves while at the same time damaging it for many other established species, this will just cause change and upheavel, extinction, etc. Other species have done it in the past. How do you think we got a oxygen majority atmosphere? Cause it was the waste product of an organism.

[Br Cornelius]

BFB, on 09 January 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

i'm sorry but we are no where near the tipping point yet

I think we are nearer than many would like to think.
The loss of summer Arctic sea ice will likely have massive effects on the weather systems of the Northern Atlantic (I think it already is). The loss of permafrost is destabalizing the methane deposits which will produce another jolt in temperatures. Already we are seeing the Rainforests tipping into been net carbon/methane emitters from their naturally carbon neutral state. All of this on top of significant carbon releases from flash fires caused by the increasingly frequent heatwaves.

So many significant tipping points are on the horizon - I do not share your optimism.

Br Cornelius

[BFB]

Br Cornelius, on 09 January 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

I think we are nearer than many would like to think.
The loss of summer Arctic sea ice will likely have massive effects on the weather systems of the Northern Atlantic (I think it already is). The loss of permafrost is destabalizing the methane deposits which will produce another jolt in temperatures. Already we are seeing the Rainforests tipping into been net carbon/methane emitters from their naturally carbon neutral state. All of this on top of significant carbon releases from flash fires caused by the increasingly frequent heatwaves.

So many significant tipping points are on the horizon - I do not share your optimism.

Br Cornelius

I agree, but we haven;t reached the tipping point yet. I would say 7 more years of not cutting down emissions and then we there. 2020 i believe would be the tipping point

[Little Fish]

this article says a computer model predicts a 0.03C rise in the next few years, which essentially means there will have been no global warming for 20 years, and you all claim this means thermageddon.
"by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades."
get some perspective people.

co2 will have increased about 10-15% over this 20 year period which means that co2 is not the deadly gas you all think it is, or to say the same thing differently, something else controls the temperature.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 January 2013 - 09:02 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 09 January 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

this article says a computer model predicts a 0.03C rise in the next few years, which essentially means there will have been no global warming for 20 years, and you all claim this means thermageddon.
"by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades."
get some perspective people.

co2 will have increased about 10-15% over this 20 year period which means that co2 is not the deadly gas you all think it is, or to say the same thing differently, something else controls the temperature.

We  discussed why the current pause is not significant and that the trend is still upwards - did you forget. The article focuses on that anomalous year of 1998 to make the point that the upward trend has slowed - but we know that choosing a start date like 1998 skews the short term trend to such a degree that it distorts the overall result. Bad stats again.
However the current ongoing wild weather across the globe is evidence that the effects are starting to manifest at an increasing rate. Statistically each of those extreme weather events is adding to an overall trend of rising catastrophic weather.

Br Cornelius

[The New Richard Nixon]

I don't trust the met office, they always get it wrong

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 09 January 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

We  discussed why the current pause is not significant and that the trend is still upwards - did you forget. The article focuses on that anomalous year of 1998 to make the point that the upward trend has slowed - but we know that choosing a start date like 1998 skews the short term trend to such a degree that it distorts the overall result. Bad stats again.
However the current ongoing wild weather across the globe is evidence that the effects are starting to manifest at an increasing rate. Statistically each of those extreme weather events is adding to an overall trend of rising catastrophic weather.

Br Cornelius

so, you concede there has been no global warming for the past 16 years, and yet (you claim) the weather has become "increasingly wild", and you conclude that global warming has caused this "wild" weather. do you see the error in your logic?

http://wattsupwithth...png?w=960&h=720

Edited by Little Fish, 09 January 2013 - 10:49 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish - I concede nothing. This excellent video deflates the claim that AGW has stopped by analysing the residual after natural forcings are removed;



Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

of course you concede nothing, tis the way of a believer.

you claim the weather has recently got wilder which you blame on global warming.
the majority of the indices show zero global warming over the last 16 years, therefore any recent change in extreme weather cannot be due to global warming (whether natural or AGW). since the "global temperature" has been stable for 16 years, any recent extreme weather you point to must be within normality.

and the "skeptical" "science" video is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
"we take away what we think volcanoes, the sun and el nino caused, what's left must be due to humans"

http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 09 January 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

of course you concede nothing, tis the way of a believer.

you claim the weather has recently got wilder which you blame on global warming.
the majority of the indices show zero global warming over the last 16 years, therefore any recent change in extreme weather cannot be due to global warming (whether natural or AGW). since the "global temperature" has been stable for 16 years, any recent extreme weather you point to must be within normality.

and the "skeptical" "science" video is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
"we take away what we think volcanoes, the sun and el nino caused, what's left must be due to humans"

http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance

Just because you don't accept climate scientists have a legitimate and informative role in  attributing natural forcings doesn't mean that they can't - afterall it is the whole of their job to distinguish and differentiate all the trend including natural ones.
El Nino and La Nina have no effect on surface temperature then ?
Neither do volcanoes ?

Extreme weather events have been on a higher and increasing rate for more than the 16years. They are a response to the continued elevated temperature regime we currently live under.

Your a funny man.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 09 January 2013 - 11:25 PM.