182 replies to this topic

[TheLastLazyGun]

Br Cornelius, on 20 January 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

Opinion aint worth a fig unless backed up with facts and references.

Br Cornelius

The FACTS are that there is no Global Warming, as even the Global Warming-obsessed Met Office recently admitted (but they were so embarrassed to do so they released the news on Christmas Eve when they knew there would be no newspapers to report it the next day).

See the opening post if you don't believe me.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 21 January 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

TheLastLazyGun, on 21 January 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

The FACTS are that there is no Global Warming, as even the Global Warming-obsessed Met Office recently admitted (but they were so embarrassed to do so they released the news on Christmas Eve when they knew there would be no newspapers to report it the next day).

See the opening post if you don't believe me.

Global warming is still occuring and the met office did not say anything other than it was. There is still a clear upward trend in mean surface temperature and there is still a steady accumulation of energy in the planetary system with a net energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
Simply shouting a wrong opinion doesn't magically make it right.

The opening post is a piece of reportage which misrepresents what the MET office actually said.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 21 January 2013 - 02:11 PM.

[Doug1o29]

TheLastLazyGun, on 20 January 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

And it had been confidently predicting temperature rises of at least 0.2 degrees per decade, with a succession of years exceeding even the record-breaking high of 1998...... until it admitted on Christmas Eve that it got those predictions disastrously wrong and that there is, in fact, no global warming.  But by releasing the info on Christmas Eve, it was obviously too embarassed to admit it.

1998 was the FOURTH hottest year on record.  2005, 2007 and 2010 were hotter.  Between 1976 and 1998, globally averaged mean temperatures rose 0.73 degrees C, or 0.332 degrees per decade.  Since 1998, the rate of rise has been 0.042 degrees per decade.  Slower, but still increasing.  (Data source:  NCDC).

Quote

‘Somewhere in the world, a weather record is being broken almost every day. This is normal. What’s not normal is when people try to impose on it some kind of invented trend.’

Try this:  for the next year, record day-by-day which days set new heat records and which ones set new cold records.  A year from now, report back here and tell us whether heating or cooling set the larger number of records.
Doug

[wimfloppp]

theres a lot of ice in my garden

[Doug1o29]

TheLastLazyGun, on 20 January 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

If the ice caps are supposed to be melting, nobody's told Antarctica that.

Ice is NOT melting at the South Pole.  In fact, there is more and more ice there all the time.

A friend of mine in the geology department was close enough to see the Larson B ice shelf collapse.  In fact, he was too close.  The ship's captain was censured for putting his vessel in danger.

Quote

What has not been reported much in the media is that in September 2012 - just four months ago -  there was more ice in Antarctica than ever recorded in that month.

I just did a brief literature search for articles pertaining to total ice volumes in the Antarctic.  I found lots of paleo studies, but only two (both published in 2005) pertaining to current ice volumes.  They are:  Cook, A. J., A. J. Fox, D. G. Vaughn and J. G. Ferrigno. 2005.  "Retreating Glacier Fronts on the Antarctic Peninsula over the Past Half-Century."  Science 22 April 2005.  Vol. 308. No. 5721.  pp. 541-544; and Alley, R. B., P. U. Clark, P. Huybrechts and I. Joughin.  "Ice-Sheet and Sea-Level Changes."  Science 21 October 2005.  Vol. 310. No. 5747, pp. 456-460.

With all due respect, I doubt there has been time since September for a study of the 2012 ice volumes to have been completed.  I therefore, question the validity of your claims.  Please present some evidence that you know what you are talking about.

Quote

As meteorologist Anthony Watts explains here, http://wattsupwithth...-exceed-losses/ new data show ice mass is accumulating on the Antarctic continent as well as in the ocean surrounding Antarctica (see the image below).

The new data contradict an assertion by global warming alarmists that the expanding Antarctic sea ice is coming at the expense of a decline in Antarctic continental ice.

Please cite the original research articles for your statements.  Anthony Watts is not a climatologist and only lists one now-discontinued weather-forecasting award, among his professional accomplishments.  His attempt at scientific publishing ended with his article failing peer review.  Mr. Watts' reputation includes his penchant for misquoting and distorting the work of others.

I checked your link.  Mr. Watts' article is about floating sea ice.  Sea ice cover is an ephemeral condition that can completely reverse itself in as little as a year's time.  The important metric here is GLACIAL ICE VOLUME.  Again, I doubt that any studies of glacial ice volume have been completed that would show the situation as of last September.  Mr. Watts is misleading his gullible followers.

Citing a fiction writer as your source will not help substantiate your claims.

Quote

no ice left at all in the Antarctic by the end of summer 2012.  Again, they've been shown to be well and truly wrong.

What is the original source of this claim, or did you just make it up?
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 21 January 2013 - 04:07 PM.

[Doug1o29]

TheLastLazyGun, on 21 January 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

The FACTS are that there is no Global Warming, as even the Global Warming-obsessed Met Office recently admitted (but they were so embarrassed to do so they released the news on Christmas Eve when they knew there would be no newspapers to report it the next day).

See the opening post if you don't believe me.

There are about a half-dozen lists of globally averaged temperature anomalies.  I have two of them (The Goddard Institutes' (NCDC) list and the HadCrut3) on my desk as I write this.  All show roughly the same thing:  between 1976 and 1998, global temperatures rose about 0.7 degrees C. and have risen another 0.05 degrees since then.  If you are going to make wild claims about there being no such thing as global warming, you need to present a dataset to back up your claim.  To the best of my knowledge, no such dataset exists.  It's time to put up or shut up.
Doug

PDSI address is:
http://www1.ncdc.noa...rd964x.pdsi.txt

Global Temperature Anomalies address is:
http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt

Hadley-Crutcher 3 address is:
http://www.cru.uea.a...hadcrut3ggl.txt

[Br Cornelius]

Antarctic Ice volume is on the increase because there has been an increase in precipitation/snowfall due to a change in the prevailing weather patterns around the continent. This change is because more moist WARM air is been carried into the Antarctic interior where due to the high mountain ranges it is forced out of the clouds due to the lapse rate.

The growth of Antarctic land ice is directly caused by Global warming. Many areas of Antarctic sea ice are in fact on the retreat due to rising antarctic sea surface temperatures.

Global warming = Climate change. Not all climate change is in a predictable direction ie warmer.

Br Cornelius

[BFB]

Little Fish, Doug and BR

Have any of you heard of any hypothesis for why this "standstill" is occurring?

In Denmark we are puzzled, the best hypothesis we have heard of is the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate. But even this hypothesis leaves many of our questions unanswered.

Any of you heard of a better hypothesis?

P.S sorry if you already have posted one - to lazy to read all of the posts.

Edited by BFB, 22 January 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[Doug1o29]

BFB, on 22 January 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Have any of you heard of any hypothesis for why this "standstill" is occurring?

Heard of one (actually a combination of three), but don't know if it's any better:

1.  High sulfur emissions from Chinese power plants.
2.  Decreasing solar activity.
3.  Energy being dissipated by increased storm activity.

Sorry I don't have the reference.
Doug

[Br Cornelius]

BFB, on 22 January 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Little Fish, Doug and BR

Have any of you heard of any hypothesis for why this "standstill" is occurring?

In Denmark we are puzzled, the best hypothesis we have heard of is the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate. But even this hypothesis leaves many of our questions unanswered.

Any of you heard of a better hypothesis?

P.S sorry if you already have posted one - to lazy to read all of the posts.

I think the essential driver of climate change is completely unchanged as attested by the continued energy imbalance and the steady accumulation of heat in the deep oceans. I think its simply a bifibralation of that famous internal climate variability. In effect we are seeing an unpredicatable chaotic state change to a different climate regime.

Br Cornelius

[TheLastLazyGun]

GLOBAL WARMING - WHY THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING As the world approaches the close of a decade of stable temperatures, with recent hints of cooling, in New Zealand and elsewhere, ordinary citizens are starting to realise that there is no substance to the hysteria about human-induced "global warming" created by their governments for political reasons, fanned by news media more interested in attracting readers and viewers with doom and gloom reports of impending catastrophe than presenting the simple facts. Take a few minutes to read this item, to see how you have been misled.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Hon Secretary, Terry Dunleavy MBE, 14A Bayview Road, Hauraki, North Shore City 0622
Phone (09) 486 3859 - Mobile 0274 836688 - Email - \n terry.dunleavy@nzclimatescience.org.nz This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

http://www.climatescience.org.nz


Want to know why the
pendulum has swung on global warming hysteria?

Take a few minutes to read this:

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature
http://www.nytimes.c....=1&oref=slogin which acknowledges what climate realists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years. Mortal strike two against dangerous, human-caused warming.

At this news, the rare balanced commentaries that hitherto have been but a trickle through cracks in the monolithic dam of climate alarmism have coalesced into a steady, fissured flow, and there is an imminent likelihood of total dam collapse. Interestingly, at the same time, the fierce discussion about the pros and cons of dangerous human-caused change that has formerly been conducted almost exclusively on the internet (including particularly blogs and video outlets like YouTube) is starting to spread to the more mainstream press.

For instance, critical analyses of global warming science reality and policy options have recently been provided by two leading articles in the National Business Review ;
http://www.nbr.co.nz....ming-cancelled
http://nzclimatescie....id=265Itemid=1
and others on Muriel Newman’s Centre for Political Research website
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest92.htm
and in the New Zealand Herald
http://www.nzherald.....ectid=10508067
Christchurch Press
http://www.stuff.co....0160a12735.html
and U.K. Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph....climate130.xml
and NZ Farmers Weekly
http://www.farmerswe...ticle/7384.html

Finally, and most belatedly of all, even radio and TV commentators are now starting to provide a broader and better balanced perspective on the global warming issue.

Nzone Tonight is a nightly news and current affairs programme broadcast by Shine TV, a NZ Christian broadcaster that aims to provide a balanced and truthful review of all the day's news suitable for family viewing. In mid-April, Nzone broadcast a current affairs discussion about global warming between host Alan Lee and Australian Professor Bob Carter. Since being posted on YouTube



this video has attracted 15,000 worldwide viewers, and during its first three weeks has become the most viewed, most discussed and most favoured - and the number two top rated - New Zealand News and Politics video clip of the month. Amongst other supportive comment, one US viewer noted that “I did enjoy the respectful nature of the interview. I do wish this interview was shown on every network in this country, and at every school!”
http://newsbusters.o....limate-realism

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 30 January 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Br Cornelius, on 21 January 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Antarctic Ice volume is on the increase because there has been an increase in precipitation/snowfall due to a change in the prevailing weather patterns around the continent. This change is because more moist WARM air is been carried into the Antarctic interior where due to the high mountain ranges it is forced out of the clouds due to the lapse rate.

The growth of Antarctic land ice is directly caused by Global warming. Many areas of Antarctic sea ice are in fact on the retreat due to rising antarctic sea surface temperatures.

Global warming = Climate change. Not all climate change is in a predictable direction ie warmer.

Br Cornelius

I saw an article last night (I think it was in a back-issue of "Science.") that explains that Antarctica's lack of warming everywhere except the Antarctic Peninsula, is due to the ozone hole (which still exists) affecting polar atmospheric circulation.  I was planning to bring it with me today, but forgot it.  It also explained the warm-up of the Antarctic Peninsula.
Doug

[questionmark]

Doug1o29, on 30 January 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

I saw an article last night (I think it was in a back-issue of "Science.") that explains that Antarctica's lack of warming everywhere except the Antarctic Peninsula, is due to the ozone hole (which still exists) affecting polar atmospheric circulation.  I was planning to bring it with me today, but forgot it.  It also explained the warm-up of the Antarctic Peninsula.
Doug

A few years back that was reported in several journals, and makes perfect sense: Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, therefore the lack of it (ozone hole) must lead to cooling...or at least to lesser warming than there where the ozone is still intact. And it is precisely that what leads the argument carbon dioxide (also a greenhouse gas) has nothing to do with it ad absurdum.

[Doug1o29]

TheLastLazyGun, on 30 January 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

GLOBAL WARMING - WHY THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING As the world approaches the close of a decade of stable temperatures, with recent hints of cooling, in New Zhttp://www.nytimes.c...r=1&oref=slogin which acknowledges what climate realists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessmealand

The article I mentioned in Post 178 also had a couple paragraphs on why New Zealand isn't warming. I can see I need to remember to bring it with me so I can post the reference.

Quote

and elsewhere, ordinary citizens are starting to realise that there is no substance to the hysteria about human-induced "global warming" created by their governments for political reasons, fanned by news media more interested in attracting readers and viewers with doom and gloom reports of impending catastrophe than presenting the simple facts.

I provided you with two references to the best datasets, in fact, two of the only six datasets that exist on the subject of global warming. They both say it's getting warmer - still. Instead of hype, why not present some evidence?

I'll answer that question: there isn't any evidence to support a hypothesis of cooling. In fact, the evidence won't even support the contention that warming has stopped.

Quote

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

According to NCDC's list of globally averaged temperature anomalies, 2012 was 0.11 degrees C. warmer than 1997. You need to do some fact-checking before you repeat this hype.

The increase in CO2 concentration from 1998 to 2008 was 5.6%; between 1998 and 2012 it was 6.1% (366.63 ppmbv in 1998 to 390.50 ppmbv in 2012). CO2 is not the only thing affecting warming. So what happens when some of the things that are now depressing temperature (sunspot cycle, sulfur pollution in China, etc.) are no longer operating? The solar cycle will peak out late this year. And the Chinese are adding scrubbers to their power plants. Guess we're gonna find out.

At any rate, Oklahoma just got an inch of rain. That makes a little over three inches since last July (Our normal annual rainfall is a little over 30 inches.). In another month, several of our small local towns will run out of water - you turn on the tap and nothing comes out. None for cooking; none for drinking; none for anything. The larger towns will start running out in July. The Weather Service is predicting 100-degree weather for April! It's getting real easy to believe in global warming/climate change around here. And the US govt is predicting that Lake Mead will be dry by 2021!

Guess what the climate models predict for this area: it will become a desert. Here's how we tell if they're right: "normal" drought cycles have severe freezes during late January and February every other year. We had such a freeze in 2011. This is January 30 and the temperature is 70 degrees outside. If this is a "normal" drought cycle, we should see a hard freeze (<10 degrees F. for at least two days) within the next month. The Gay Nineties Drought had two consecutive years without this hard freeze (1897 and 1898). That's one out of the last nine cycles, so it's not an iron-clad test. Either way, the drought will continue for another three or so years, even if it is "normal," so we'll find out.

Quote

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

The greenhouse hypothesis says that warming will be greatest in the dryest areas. That's exactly what we see. The Arctic has warmed over four degrees since 1976. Here, it's less pronounced, but still 0.7 degrees C. since then. Again, global temps have actually INCREASED about 0.05 degrees C. since 1998. So, warming continues.

You also need 30 years of data before you can produce an estimate of the "current" situation. That means you start your dataset in 1982 or before.

Regarding that list of articles you referenced:  couldn't find an actual scientific article, eh?  They are all popular press items, written by anybody EXCEPT climate scientists.  The New York times is well-known for its pro-big business, pro-pollution, anti-regulation editorial policies.  Try to find a reputable source.

I'm running out of time.  I'm rewriting a paper on the Ouachita Regional (tree ring) Chronology which I just got back from the reviewer.  He promises to have my ice storm paper back to me on Friday.  I don't have to read about climate change written by know-nothing newspapermen.  I can read it directly from the rings of pine trees.  And they say there has been a reduction in ice storms in the central US over the last 30 years.  I don't even have to look at Weather Service data; though, it says the same thing.  I am hoping to have these papers (three of them) accepted for publication by summer, hopefully, in "Tree Ring Research."  I'll post the references when that happens.

In the meantime, try posting some references that actually support your claims.  Not one of those articles referenced a dataset - any dataset - that could support what they were saying.  They're just blowing smoke.  Try to refute the science, but be warned that you will need science to do that.
Doug

[BFB]

questionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

A few years back that was reported in several journals, and makes perfect sense: Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, therefore the lack of it (ozone hole) must lead to cooling...or at least to lesser warming than there where the ozone is still intact. And it is precisely that what leads the argument carbon dioxide (also a greenhouse gas) has nothing to do with it ad absurdum.

The ozone hole is actually the reason why Antarctica been "protected" by GW. What Doug means by "polar atmospheric circulation" is that the polar vortex has intensified and therefore affected Antarctica weather patterns. When the ozone hole disappear the polar vortex intensity will reduce and Antarctica will warm.

Edited by BFB, 04 February 2013 - 11:01 AM.