Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming at a standstill


  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

#106    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,694 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:54 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 12 January 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

You say it exactly as I always tell others !

Anything we do or cause is natural because we are part of nature. No one will consider a termite hill to be an unnatural thing, but they do consider a skyscraper to be unnatural.
Simply because something is natural doesn't make it desirable. We have the ability to change our behaviour and hence avoid the negative outcomes of our behaviour. There is nothing inevitable and out of our control about the changes we are experiencing - and referring to it as natural simply because we are part of nature is a semantic cop out which allows us to consider doing nothing to change our behaviour.

We are an advanced species equipped with the ability to apply cognitive reasoning to our environment and modify our behaviour to achieve the best outcomes rather than cause an inevitable decline in our environment. Anything less is a denial of our natural intelligence.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#107    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,035 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:37 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 12 January 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

Simply because something is natural doesn't make it desirable. We have the ability to change our behaviour and hence avoid the negative outcomes of our behaviour. There is nothing inevitable and out of our control about the changes we are experiencing - and referring to it as natural simply because we are part of nature is a semantic cop out which allows us to consider doing nothing to change our behaviour.

We are an advanced species equipped with the ability to apply cognitive reasoning to our environment and modify our behaviour to achieve the best outcomes rather than cause an inevitable decline in our environment. Anything less is a denial of our natural intelligence.

Br Cornelius

I didn't suggest that anything that's natural must therefore be desirable. When a viper injects its poison into my arm, it's acting naturally, though not much desirable (from my side of the experience).

You draw the wrong conclusion from what I said. This is only about people always saying that man (often) behaves unnatural.

We simply cannot: what we do, how we act is still as natural as can be. Just like our intelligence.

That the results of what we do is not always desirable doesn't make it less natural.


#108    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 January 2013 - 01:49 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 January 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

My statement was very specific to the UK. i have not studied in any detail trends in other areas.
I claimed only that this happened this year and in Britain, and so it masked the extreme precipitation events this year in Britain.

Similar things are happening across Europe however.

As I have abundantly demonstrated (with peer reviewed papers) - there are increasing trends in extreme precipitation events in regions across the globe.

Br Cornelius
here is your statement which i challenged "Extreme weather events have been on a higher and increasing rate for more than the 16years", you're now only pointing to one year in great britain. anyone can find an "extreme weather event" somewhere on the globe any day of the week.

the facts is, the ipcc's review of the scientific literature does not recognise floods or droughts to have changed in frequency or magnitude, so you seem to be stating your fears, not evidence. the climate has always fluctuated, a little more rain or little less rain is normal. in a warming world a little more rain would be expected, but this would be beneficial for life.

furthermore, the AMO is a ~70 year cycle and we are at the peak now, so countries bordering the atlantic would be expected to have a little more rain than some decades ago. i've already explained that this "masking" is a mistake of logic, since if it were true on a global scale that rainfall is falling in crunched periods we would equally see more droughts globally but we don't according to the latest from the ipcc.

Edited by Little Fish, 12 January 2013 - 02:31 PM.


#109    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:16 PM

View PostHasina, on 12 January 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

Care to explain this: Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.” This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.
that is opinion not evidence, bradley was one of the inventors of the now discredited michael mann hockey stick graph that erased the medieval warm period and little ice age. let's just assume for a minute we care what bradley says, he is saying that the sun affects regional rainfall but not temperature. how then do you explain the medieval warm period which was at least as warm as it is today? it wasn't due to co2. what about the little ice age? the dark age cold period? the minoan warm period? the roman warm period? look through the historical record and you'll find a ~1000 year cycle in temperature fluctuation, there is no correlation with co2, and there is not enough solar knowledge to rule out the sun, as has been stated there has been little study of UV and the shorter bands of UV fluctuate orders of magnitudes greater than TSI.

what you are doing in ruling out cosmogenics with your charts from "sceptical" "science" is assuming the thermal lag of the oceans between absorbing heat and releasing it so the thermometers can read it is zero. what if the thermal lag of the oceans is 50 years? how does that affect your charts and what would it say about the next 50 years?

Edited by Little Fish, 12 January 2013 - 02:45 PM.


#110    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,694 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:19 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 January 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

here is your statement which i challenged "Extreme weather events have been on a higher and increasing rate for more than the 16years", you're now only pointing to one year in great britain. anyone can find an "extreme weather event" somewhere on the globe any day of the week.

the facts is, the ipcc's review of the scientific literature does not recognise floods or droughts to have changed in frequency or magnitude, so you seem to be stating your fears, not evidence. the climate has always fluctuated, a little more rain or little less rain is normal. in a warming world a little more rain would be expected, but this would be beneficial for life.

furthermore, the AMO is a ~70 year cycle and we are at the peak now, so countries bordering the atlantic would be expected to have a little more rain than some decades ago. i've already explained that this "masking" is a mistake of logic, since if it were true on a global scale that rainfall is falling in crunched periods we would equally see more droughts globally but we don't according to the latest from the ipcc.
Extreme precipitation  events are showing trends across Europe, I think you should wait to see the real AR5 report before drawing much confidence in it. However there is a clear increase in flooding events across Britian in the last decade.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#111    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,694 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:24 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 January 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

that is opinion not evidence, bradley was one of the inventors of the now discredited michael mann hockey stick graph that erased the medieval warm period and little ice age. let's just assume for a minute we care what bradley says, he is saying that the sun affects regional rainfall but not temperature. how then do you explain the medieval warm period which was at least as warm as it is today? it wasn't due to co2. what about the little ice age? the dark age cold period? the minoan warm period? the roman warm period? look through the historical record and you'll find a ~1000 year cycle in temperature fluctuation, there is no correlation with co2, and there is not enough solar knowledge to rule out the sun, as has been stated there has been little study of UV and the shorter bands of UV fluctuate orders of magnitudes greater than TSI.

what you are doing in ruling out cosmogenics with your charts from "sceptical" "science" is assuming the thermal lag of the oceans between absorbing heat and releasing it so the thermometers can read it is zero. what if the thermal lag of the oceans is 50 years? how does that affect your charts and what would it say about the next 50 years?

Micheal Manns Hockey stick has been substantiated at least  5 times. The only people who claim to have discredited are people like Watts. There is absolutely no evidence that UV is driving climate change - and tghe only evidence so far shows completely the opposite. Thermal inertia is a real fact of basic physics

Stop repeating the same discredited lies over and over again. All of the things you are using are straw clutching exercise.
When you can account for where the energy accumulating in the planetary system caused by the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere is ending up, you will start to have an argument. This is the basic fact of AGW which no skeptic has ever really explained. They are all talking about details within the planetary system which are directly consequent to this one basic fact. Until then you are just cycling the same incredible stories over and over again.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 12 January 2013 - 06:28 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#112    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:33 PM

By the title of this thread thats a canary sign. In a biological/nuclear situation the canary stops breathing just before you do. So standstill is ominous to a deathnail or a downward spiral as mother Earth struggles to keep from tipping over that summit of no return.


#113    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,694 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:38 PM

Reading up on the behaviour of complex systems is essential to understanding climate. Change is never linear and gradual, it flip flops between stable meta-states before transitioning into a new higher energy stable state. Its almost impossible to accurately predict what the new stable meta-state will look like. We are currently in that state of flip flop before launching into the unknown.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 12 January 2013 - 06:39 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#114    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:48 PM

Yeah the complex stats are beyond me Br. I agree theres much to be gleamed from stats/formulas but if the fundamental model is solid the rest is just continuing to support a proven theory.

For me its about what world am I going to live my child and at this point my childs children. I fully expect my child to be as much a fighter as I am. These schmucks that are destroying this world arent listening very well.


#115    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:06 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 January 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

that is opinion not evidence, bradley was one of the inventors of the now discredited michael mann hockey stick graph that erased the medieval warm period and little ice age. let's just assume for a minute we care what bradley says, he is saying that the sun affects regional rainfall but not temperature. how then do you explain the medieval warm period which was at least as warm as it is today? it wasn't due to co2. what about the little ice age? the dark age cold period? the minoan warm period? the roman warm period? look through the historical record and you'll find a ~1000 year cycle in temperature fluctuation, there is no correlation with co2, and there is not enough solar knowledge to rule out the sun, as has been stated there has been little study of UV and the shorter bands of UV fluctuate orders of magnitudes greater than TSI.

what you are doing in ruling out cosmogenics with your charts from "sceptical" "science" is assuming the thermal lag of the oceans between absorbing heat and releasing it so the thermometers can read it is zero. what if the thermal lag of the oceans is 50 years? how does that affect your charts and what would it say about the next 50 years?
Notice you're talking about era's when humanity came back from the brink of some sort of 'extinction' or civilization ending catastrophe. The Medieval period we spent much of energy burning fires, the dark ages the same, but it was to stop the spread of plague, all that ash, continually going up into the atmosphere.

There was a story on UM once, the front page even, that showed during the Roman period of history, the Earth heated up, then when it fell, so did temperatures, minutely but they did.

Secondary, this whole idea that the charts aren't showing everything. They show absolutely zero correlation between the sun and the Earth's heating. Zero. Zip. None. Sometimes the suns activity goes up yet the Earth's temp goes down. There's no correlation between the data you want to bring to the table, while there's perfectly good data that does correlate. The CO2 levels humans produce and the Earth's heating.

Edited by Hasina, 12 January 2013 - 07:10 PM.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#116    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,694 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:11 PM

Quote

The year started with hose pipe bans and warnings of drought. It has ended as the wettest in England since records began. The Met Office said yesterday that at 1,095.8 millimetres the average rainfall across England in 2012 had already breached the previous high of 1,093mm in 2000.

With a further deluge expected over the final few days, it is also likely 2012 will be the third wettest in the UK as a whole since records began in 1910, and it still could be the wettest.

...........


Six of the 10 wettest years in the UK have now occurred since 1998. The wettest on record is 2000 when 1,337.3mm of rain fell. It is followed by 1954 and then 2008, with 1,295mm. This year’s average UK-wide rainfall is 1,291mm, with much more than another four millimetres likely.

http://www.independe...rd-8431832.html

Quote

Record Rains Leave 28 Dead, 4 Missing in South Japan Floods

Precipitation in Aso city on the southern main island of Kyushu reached a record 50.75 centimeters (20 inches) for a 24- hour period, Japan Meteorological Agency said in a statement yesterday. Heavy rain warnings were issued for Fukuoka, Saga and Nagasaki prefectures on the island, the agency said on its website today. As much as 5 centimeters of rain per hour are expected in Fukuoka city today, the agency said.


http://www.bloomberg...pan-floods.html

Quote

Venice Flooding In 2012 6th Highest On Record

This is the fourth time the city has been struck by dangerously high water levels since 2000, and Environment Minister Corrado Clini has insisted global climate change is to blame.

http://www.ibtimes.c...t-record-871560

Quote

Duluth experiences one of worst floods on record

From June 17 to 20, the arrowhead of Minnesota and northwest Wisconsin were inundated with 8-10 inches of rain. In Duluth, 7.24” of rain fell Tuesday and Wednesday, the wettest two-day period on record. Massive flooding swept through the region.


....


What we can credibly say and support with facts is that events like the Great Duluth Flood of 2012 “fit” within the overall pattern of climate changes we’re observing in Minnesota.



  

http://www.washingto...Z0nsV_blog.html

Quote

On Floods, China Blames Climate Change



Recent record rainfall hit 126.4 millimeters in one hour in Beijing, while it was not very different from the 115 mm record in Hong Kong, 107 mm in Wuhan, Central China’s Hubei province, and 185 mm in Jinan, East China’s Shandong province, Wu said.

The China Daily reported Friday that a late July rainstorm in Beijing led to a stellar 541 mm of rain in one part of town.  A 16-hour soaking brought 170 mm of precipitation on average to the city and killed at least 79 people.  Statistics show that the rainfall intensity in northern provinces in China has increased in recent years, especially after 2008, Wu said.


http://www.forbes.co...climate-change/

Anyone else seeing a pattern developing here ?

Records records records ... they fall like skittle's in a warmed world.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 12 January 2013 - 08:31 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#117    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,299 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:18 PM

A few thoughts here:  Michael Mann's work has been reviewed and substantiated at least five times.  At the moment there is a squabble brewing between Mann and nearly every dendrochronologist I know of to the effect that Mann has inapproriately excluded "0" rings from one of his analyses.  This would have the effect of raising the temperature estimates of earlier years on the time series.  In effect, the criticism is that Mann's estimate of temps during the MWP ARE TOO HIGH.

As I understand the Met's Report, they are revising their estimates of future global temperatures downward.  That's not the same as saying that warming has stopped.  It's just saying that they don't expect it to be as bad as they originally thought.  Now we need to wait and see what happens.

By the end of February we should know whether the current drought i the southwest US fits the "standard model" or something else.  The standard model is the one without warming in it.  In other words, this is a test of whether warming is affecting weather.

The data for 2012 isn't out yet, but as of 11/30/12, 2012 was the fifth warmest year on record.  Fourteen of the fifteen warmest years have occurred since 1997 (inclusive).  The long-term trend remains upward, but at a rate below that of the 1980s and 1990s.

If you are 27 years old or less, you have never experienced a month that was colder than the 1951-1980 average for that month.

There is a nine-year peiodicity in tree-ring widths for shortleaf pines in the central US.  That nicely matches the length of the solar cycle (Over the last 170 years, the solar cycle's average length has been about nine years, rather than the commonly-published eleven years; before 1848, sunspot data is not reliable.).
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#118    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:20 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 12 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

A few thoughts here:  Michael Mann's work has been reviewed and substantiated at least five times.  At the moment there is a squabble brewing between Mann and nearly every dendrochronologist I know of to the effect that Mann has inapproriately excluded "0" rings from one of his analyses.  This would have the effect of raising the temperature estimates of earlier years on the time series.  In effect, the criticism is that Mann's estimate of temps during the MWP ARE TOO HIGH.

As I understand the Met's Report, they are revising their estimates of future global temperatures downward.  That's not the same as saying that warming has stopped.  It's just saying that they don't expect it to be as bad as they originally thought.  Now we need to wait and see what happens.

By the end of February we should know whether the current drought i the southwest US fits the "standard model" or something else.  The standard model is the one without warming in it.  In other words, this is a test of whether warming is affecting weather.

The data for 2012 isn't out yet, but as of 11/30/12, 2012 was the fifth warmest year on record.  Fourteen of the fifteen warmest years have occurred since 1997 (inclusive).  The long-term trend remains upward, but at a rate below that of the 1980s and 1990s.

If you are 27 years old or less, you have never experienced a month that was colder than the 1951-1980 average for that month.

There is a nine-year peiodicity in tree-ring widths for shortleaf pines in the central US.  That nicely matches the length of the solar cycle (Over the last 170 years, the solar cycle's average length has been about nine years, rather than the commonly-published eleven years; before 1848, sunspot data is not reliable.).
Doug
Source for all this data?

Posted Image

~MEH~


#119    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,694 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:48 PM

Quote

The number of events that produced on the order of $1 billion or more in damages in 2011 is the largest since tracking of that statistic began in 1980, even after damages are adjusted for inflation. NOAA estimates that there were at least 14 such events in 2011. (The previous record was nine, set in 2008; an average year would see three or four.) Collectively, the 14 events resulted in approximately $55 billion in damage.2 Furthermore, many events produced less than $1 billion in damage, but are not included in the tally, although they collectively represent additional significant financial losses. Why did we see such expensive damage last year? There are likely a number of contributing factors, including upward trends in population and infrastructure, migration to vulnerable areas, and climate change. The contribution of each of these factors remains an important research issue.
Of course, the economic losses are far from the full picture. Weather- and climate-related disasters in the US claimed more than 1000 lives in 2011, almost double the yearly average. For the victims, each of the events was a huge tragedy. For our country, as for all countries, the events are an unprecedented challenge to the safety of our citizens, the bottom line for our businesses, and the smooth functioning of our society. Timely, accurate, and reliable weather warnings and forecasts are essential to our nation’s ability to plan for, respond to, recover from, and prosper in the aftermath of disaster. Short-term forecasts are critical, but so are forecasts of slowly evolving events like prolonged droughts, snow- and ice-melt flooding, and heat waves.
We’ve emphasized how unusual 2011 was, but was it an anomaly or part of a broader change? Should we expect more of the same in the future? Globally, according to the insurance company Munich Re, the number of extreme meteorological and hydrological events, defined in terms of economic and human impacts, has more than doubled over the past 20 years.3
.........
Multiple studies and assessments5 have found links between changes in global climate and changes in regional events such as heavy rainfall,6heat waves,7 and flooding.8 Global climate change is also likely to influence local phenomena, including severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, but the nature and degree of the influence are uncertain, particularly for tornadoes.9 The trend toward more frequent extreme weather events only underscores how important it is that we enhance our ability to predict and manage them.

http://www.physicsto..._s1?bypassSSO=1

The patterns are clear for those with eyes to see.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 12 January 2013 - 08:54 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#120    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:19 PM

View PostHasina, on 12 January 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Notice you're talking about era's when humanity came back from the brink of some sort of 'extinction' or civilization ending catastrophe. The Medieval period we spent much of energy burning fires, the dark ages the same, but it was to stop the spread of plague, all that ash, continually going up into the atmosphere.

There was a story on UM once, the front page even, that showed during the Roman period of history, the Earth heated up, then when it fell, so did temperatures, minutely but they did.
seems you are trying to attribute past warmings on humans too. co2 hadn't changed much over that period. far too few people at that time who had a much smaller impact. not rational. the last 10,000 years the climate has been far more stable than any other period in the history of the planet.

Quote

Secondary, this whole idea that the charts aren't showing everything. They show absolutely zero correlation between the sun and the Earth's heating. Zero. Zip. None. Sometimes the suns activity goes up yet the Earth's temp goes down. There's no correlation between the data you want to bring to the table, while there's perfectly good data that does correlate. The CO2 levels humans produce and the Earth's heating.
the point i'm making with regard to the sun is that you don't know the response time from changes in solar activity to when you feel it. the earth is 70% water, so most of its energy goes into the deep oceans and which warm the atmosphere at a later date when the winds get stronger "squeezing out" the heat in the form of el ninos etc, so there is a lag which would mean a immediate and perfect correlation between solar activity and temperature would not be expected. when you look at be10 and c14 records (proxies for solar activity) over longer periods you see a extremely high correlation with temperatures. looking over time periods shorter than the lag period will give you uncorrelated graphs. if the lag is 50 years, then your grpah could imply the world is going to get much colder over the next 50 years, there has been no global warming for the last 16 years, this could very well be the peak before the drop.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users