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

#76    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:06 PM

Reading the leaked AR5 chapter 2 on the hydrological cycle, it generally shows that where data sets are robust and long term they show clear trends in precipitation (up or down) with many well monitored areas showing increases in precipitation and extreme precipitation events. Geographically the trends are extremely localized and variable (as would be expected for geographically determined drivers).  Overall confidence in the result for the global average has reduced as more weaker data sets (ie historically poorly monitored areas) have been integrated into the overall dataset and their own weak confidence interval effect the overall confidence interval of the global mean value.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#77    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 10 January 2013 - 08:09 PM

Reducing our carbon footprint is not a bad thing. Its about living healthy and leaving a planet thats in good shape to our children. Itll already take generations to fox the damage we have done to mother earth.


#78    Leah G.

Leah G.

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,966 posts
  • Joined:03 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:15 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 10 January 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Sorry but the evidence disputes that position.

Br Cornelius

Well, you asked and I'm telling the truth from a lay person's position. Perhaps your evidence is extremely pointed? It makes for a very narrow view. Just old lady logic.


#79    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:15 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 10 January 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

Reducing our carbon footprint is not a bad thing. Its about living healthy and leaving a planet thats in good shape to our children. Itll already take generations to fox the damage we have done to mother earth.
Carbon emissions is simply a symptom of a sick lifestyle. CO2's rise mirrors declines in every environmental indice.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#80    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:16 PM

View PostLeah G., on 10 January 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Well, you asked and I'm telling the truth from a lay person's position. Perhaps your evidence is extremely pointed? It makes for a very narrow view. Just old lady logic.
I have spoken widely to the older generation and they have all reported a changed in local long term climate, with a total loss of predictability. Maybe living on the extreme west of Europe on the receiving end of the Gulf stream/Jet stream its just more visible

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 10 January 2013 - 08:18 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#81    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 10 January 2013 - 08:36 PM

Ive seen in a change in my local climate in the 30 years Ive lived here.


#82    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:27 PM

the MET office has issued a strongly worded statement direct at Delingpole refuting that they ever made any claim of a standstill in Global warming. Strongly worded for a generally diplomatic Government body;

Quote

Mr Delingpole then inaccurately states that the Met Office has conceded ‘there is no evidence that ‘global warming’ is happening’. We have not said this at any point.

Further on in the print version of the article (although amended online), Mr Delingpole says “According to the Met, Britain is apparently experiencing more rain by volume and intensity than at any time since records began.” Although he is right in saying the Met Office has published preliminary observationswhich show an increase in the intensity and volume of rain, we are clear that this relates to a period from 1960 onwards – not ‘since records began’ as he claims.

http://metofficenews...ession-article/

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#83    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 11 January 2013 - 09:06 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 10 January 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

the MET office has issued a strongly worded statement direct at Delingpole refuting that they ever made any claim of a standstill in Global warming. Strongly worded for a generally diplomatic Government body;

http://metofficenews...ession-article/

Br Cornelius
you've quoted delingpole claiming met office saying "since records began", can;t find him saying that, but that is clearly what the met office were implying anyway.

here is what the met office said:
"Provisional statistics from the Met Office show 2012 was the second wettest year in the UK national record dating back to 1910, and just a few millimetres short of the record set in 2000."
http://www.metoffice...ther-statistics

and then they show a graph from 1960, cherry picking the start point of 1960 as the met office did in the link above to show a deceptive graph, does not 'put 2012 into perspective', look at the whole series since 1766 and its just within normal variabilty.

here is the UK full rainfall records since 1766, which show 2012 as within normal variability.
http://notalotofpeop.../01/image14.png

...makes me wonder conclude what the met office is up to.

Edited by Little Fish, 11 January 2013 - 09:18 AM.


#84    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:32 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 January 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

you've quoted delingpole claiming met office saying "since records began", can;t find him saying that, but that is clearly what the met office were implying anyway.

here is what the met office said:
"Provisional statistics from the Met Office show 2012 was the second wettest year in the UK national record dating back to 1910, and just a few millimetres short of the record set in 2000."
http://www.metoffice...ther-statistics

and then they show a graph from 1960, cherry picking the start point of 1960 as the met office did in the link above to show a deceptive graph, does not 'put 2012 into perspective', look at the whole series since 1766 and its just within normal variabilty.

here is the UK full rainfall records since 1766, which show 2012 as within normal variability.
http://notalotofpeop.../01/image14.png

...makes me wonder conclude what the met office is up to.
Primarily refuting the meme that there has been no global warming since 1998 and that global warming has stopped, and refuting specific misrepresentations by Delingpole. Delingpole believes that the MET is a key component in a global conspiracy to deceive the public about AGW - they say they are just doing their job of reporting and predicting the weather climate.

Extreme precipitation events is what is of most interest in the context of AGW, and what it is most important for the MET to accurately predict. Flooding is what people worry about and Britain has seen more flooding in the last decade than for at least a 100yrs. However let us not forget that Britain spent nearly half of the year in one of the most sever droughts for a 100yrs which has to be considered when assessing rainfall events. All that rainfall was crunched into half a year and consisted of many sever precipitation events - leading to a persistent level of flood warnings across the country.

Again, when looking at data it really helps to use the right scale to actually understand what is happening on the ground.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 January 2013 - 11:38 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#85    Starseed hybrid 1111

Starseed hybrid 1111

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Joined:28 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:salinas,ca

  • "Take the Red Matrix pill" be your own authentic self neo

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:13 PM

global warming a myth and not real people!!!the planet earth is heating up yes but its not because of humans.its a natural reactional and process mother earth takes.but we can do our part to help mother earth to not pollute it more and destro the ozone layer.we could start by planting trees,flowers,grass and many other things.lets take care of mother earth our loving planet people.global warming is a natural process and by the way all other planets are heating up as well now ask yourself people is it bercause of humans or we people too?global warning is a scheme and made up thing by the U.S.A goverment and THE SECRET SOCIETIES AS A DISTRACTION!!!WE ARE BEING TRICKED,LIED AND MANIPULATED AS WELL!!!

Edited by King Cobra 1408, 11 January 2013 - 10:15 PM.


#86    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,032 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:23 PM

View PostKing Cobra 1408, on 11 January 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

global warming a myth and not real people!!!the planet earth is heating up yes but its not because of humans.its a natural reactional and process mother earth takes.but we can do our part to help mother earth to not pollute it more and destro the ozone layer.we could start by planting trees,flowers,grass and many other things.lets take care of mother earth our loving planet people.global warming is a natural process and by the way all other planets are heating up as well now ask yourself people is it bercause of humans or we people too?global warning is a scheme and made up thing by the U.S.A goverment and THE SECRET SOCIETIES AS A DISTRACTION!!!WE ARE BEING TRICKED,LIED AND MANIPULATED AS WELL!!!
Your source that it's not caused by man?

Edited by Hasina, 11 January 2013 - 10:24 PM.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#87    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,748 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:33 PM

I think the warming is still happening. My roses still have leaves, in January. My korean azeala still has green leaves, in January. I have never seen this before.
Nature beats science for letting us know what is happening.

Do I think this warming is anthropogenic? Nope.

How Solar Activity Affects Our Planet
http://www.redorbit....t-earth-011013/
In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

And

Recent Starbursts Discovered Near The Milky Way's Galactic Center
http://www.redorbit....s-sofia-010913/
Using the airborne telescope on the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, astronomers have learned that a series of recent starbursts had taken place in the central region of the Milky Way.

Edited by regeneratia, 11 January 2013 - 10:36 PM.


#88    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 11 January 2013 - 10:34 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 11 January 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Primarily refuting the meme that there has been no global warming since 1998 and that global warming has stopped, and refuting specific misrepresentations by Delingpole. Delingpole believes that the MET is a key component in a global conspiracy to deceive the public about AGW - they say they are just doing their job of reporting and predicting the weather climate.

Extreme precipitation events is what is of most interest in the context of AGW, and what it is most important for the MET to accurately predict. Flooding is what people worry about and Britain has seen more flooding in the last decade than for at least a 100yrs. However let us not forget that Britain spent nearly half of the year in one of the most sever droughts for a 100yrs which has to be considered when assessing rainfall events. All that rainfall was crunched into half a year and consisted of many sever precipitation events - leading to a persistent level of flood warnings across the country.

Again, when looking at data it really helps to use the right scale to actually understand what is happening on the ground.


Br Cornelius

you claim precipitation is crunched into smaller periods of the year leading to more droughts and floods, and this is hidden in the global precipitation data which remains static.

...but this would mean there are more droughts globally, but global droughts show no change:

"Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, November 2012

...we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation7 that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles8 that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. The results have implications for how we interpret the impact of global warming on the hydrological cycle and its extremes, and may help to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI-based drought record in recent years"
http://www.nature.co...ature11575.html

and the IPCC draft 2013 on global floods and global droughts:

"low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale"

"there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding”

"The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"

Edited by Little Fish, 11 January 2013 - 10:40 PM.


#89    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,032 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:36 PM

View Postregeneratia, on 11 January 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

I think the warming is still happening. My roses still have leaves, in January. My korean azeala still has green leaves, in January. I have never seen this before.
Nature beats science for letting us know what is happening.

Do I think this warming is anthropogenic? Nope.

How Solar Activity Affects Our Planet
http://www.redorbit....t-earth-011013/
In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

And

Recent Starbursts Discovered Near The Milky Way's Galactic Center
http://www.redorbit....s-sofia-010913/
Using the airborne telescope on the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, astronomers have learned that a series of recent starbursts had taken place in the central region of the Milky Way.
From your first link:

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.

And your second link has nothing to do with global warming or climate change.

Edited by Hasina, 11 January 2013 - 10:38 PM.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#90    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,032 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

  • JINKIES

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:08 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 11 January 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:



you claim precipitation is crunched into smaller periods of the year leading to more droughts and floods, and this is hidden in the global precipitation data which remains static.

...but this would mean there are more droughts globally, but global droughts show no change:

"Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, November 2012

...we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation7 that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles8 that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. The results have implications for how we interpret the impact of global warming on the hydrological cycle and its extremes, and may help to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI-based drought record in recent years"
http://www.nature.co...ature11575.html

and the IPCC draft 2013 on global floods and global droughts:

"low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale"

"there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding”

"The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"
This is kind of like saying, 'well, yeah, you have the same number of zits, but it doesn't matter that they're all centered around your nostrils!' The numbers might not have changed, but where the droughts and floods are happening is.

Posted Image

~MEH~





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users