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 'on pause' but set to resume

global warming on pause resume oceans temperatures

  • Please log in to reply
183 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 37,654 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Que Sera, Sera - Whatever will be, will be..

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:34 PM

Global warming has been on "pause" for 15 years but will speed up again and is still a real threat, Met Office scientists have warned.

Surface temperatures around the world have not increased on average since the late 1990s, causing some sceptics to suggest that climate change is not happening as quickly as experts predict.

But in a set of three new reports, the Met Office claims that global warming has been disguised in recent years by the oceans, which have absorbed greater amounts of heat and prevented us from noticing the difference at surface level.

http://www.telegraph...-to-resume.html

Posted Image

#2    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,713 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:47 PM

I am a little dubious as to the actual dataset used in this article. If by "Late 1990's" have they excluded 1996 from the dataset?


#3    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Unsafe at Any Speed

  • Member
  • 24,111 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:28 PM

Can you really wonder that the "Climate Change Skeptics" sometimes think that the Experts are simply trying to make the data, whether or not it actually proves anything, fit their predetermined theory, and of inventing excuses if the facts don't seem to fit what their theory insists that they should?

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#4    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,957 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:40 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 22 July 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

Can you really wonder that the "Climate Change Skeptics" sometimes think that the Experts are simply trying to make the data, whether or not it actually proves anything, fit their predetermined theory, and of inventing excuses if the facts don't seem to fit what their theory insists that they should?
Complex systems do not behave in a straight line response, get over it.
It is the job of scientists to account for circumstances as they arise.

The essential statistical fact to hold onto is that climate change signals can only be reliably discerned over a minimum of 30 year periods - and this is measured by tests of significance which show whether the data is strong enough to be described as a trend. The last 15years has had a slight upward trend but the level of variability has been so great that it fails the test of whether that trend is significant. this means that the data from the last 15 years can tell us almost nothing about the century and a half period of anthropogenic climate change.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#5    moonshadow60

moonshadow60

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maine

  • "There comes a time when you have to choose between turning the page or just closing the book"... James Wilson

Posted 23 July 2013 - 01:59 PM

So they are saying "global warming" is on hold, but climate change continues, doesn't it?


#6    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,086 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:12 PM

View Postmoonshadow60, on 23 July 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

So they are saying "global warming" is on hold, but climate change continues, doesn't it?


Climate change is a constent state of affairs, it is always happening.  The term global warming is used to blame climae change on man.  As stated by corneleus, the global warming crowd cannot accept anything unless they can blame it on man.   The artcle clearly states there is no global warming.

But, that can't be right must be something wrong with the numbers.  Either they lift something out, 1996, or he data is wrong.

I am a mormon.  If I don't use mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the mormon faith. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#7    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,086 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:15 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 22 July 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:


Complex systems do not behave in a straight line response, get over it.
It is the job of scientists to account for circumstances as they arise.

The essential statistical fact to hold onto is that climate change signals can only be reliably discerned over a minimum of 30 year periods - and this is measured by tests of significance which show whether the data is strong enough to be described as a trend. The last 15years has had a slight upward trend but the level of variability has been so great that it fails the test of whether that trend is significant. this means that the data from the last 15 years can tell us almost nothing about the century and a half period of anthropogenic climate change.

Br Cornelius


In anotger thread you were arguing that fifteen years was good enough and centuries were bad data.  But was when tge data was reversed.

I am a mormon.  If I don't use mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the mormon faith. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#8    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,115 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:16 PM

What is a person with policy responsibilities to do when they get these kinds of conflicting signals from the experts?


#9    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,957 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:25 PM

View Postdanielost, on 23 July 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

Climate change is a constent state of affairs, it is always happening.  The term global warming is used to blame climae change on man.  As stated by corneleus, the global warming crowd cannot accept anything unless they can blame it on man.   The artcle clearly states there is no global warming.

But, that can't be right must be something wrong with the numbers.  Either they lift something out, 1996, or he data is wrong.
Climate scientists study both natural and anthropogenic forcings so they can quantify them. If they could account for the climate change with natural forcings there would be no postulated AGW and we would not be discussing it. At best natural forcing account for 50% of climate change.

Your characterization of climate science and climate scientists is profoundly ignorant.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#10    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,957 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:27 PM

View Postdanielost, on 23 July 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

In anotger thread you were arguing that fifteen years was good enough and centuries were bad data.  But was when tge data was reversed.
Show me that thread - since my argument for 30years as been the standard statistical measure of climate has been consistent for well over two years at this stage. It is lifted right out of the basic definition of what climate is as opposed to what weather is.

The definition as used by the IPCC;

Quote


Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.[5]



Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 23 July 2013 - 02:31 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#11    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,957 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:28 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 23 July 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

What is a person with policy responsibilities to do when they get these kinds of conflicting signals from the experts?
Climate scientists are remarkably consistent in what they are telling policy makers. Its is a small rump of paid lobbyists who are muddying the water with seeds of doubt.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#12    Godiva58

Godiva58

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2012

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:38 PM

May I humbly posit that this article is a perfect example of how dogmatic materialism restricts one's ability to look,examine,test and propose alternate scientific theories. In our very own solar system,there are significant climatic changes happening on the other planets that do not stand up to the position that here on planet earth, CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. There are climatic changes taking place on Terra, but to place the blame on man is disingenuous. While certainly human kind has not been kind to our environment, there are larger forces at work.
It's kind of the "can't see the forest for the tree's" effect.


#13    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,115 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:38 PM

I think you are right, and am prone to go that way; imagine being in a committee meeting where some real money is at stake and the water is so muddy.


#14    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,957 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:43 PM

View PostGodiva58, on 23 July 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

May I humbly posit that this article is a perfect example of how dogmatic materialism restricts one's ability to look,examine,test and propose alternate scientific theories. In our very own solar system,there are significant climatic changes happening on the other planets that do not stand up to the position that here on planet earth, CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. There are climatic changes taking place on Terra, but to place the blame on man is disingenuous. While certainly human kind has not been kind to our environment, there are larger forces at work.
It's kind of the "can't see the forest for the tree's" effect.
Can you detail the climate change of other planets ? Is there climate change throughout the solar system which cannot be accounted for by local conditions or seasonal cycles ?

Until you can address these points you do not have an argument.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#15    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,957 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:46 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 23 July 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

I think you are right, and am prone to go that way; imagine being in a committee meeting where some real money is at stake and the water is so muddy.
The problem is that economists have already detailed and quantifiede how real money will be lost if we remain passive. Is it right for them to follow the advice of the richest industries in the world at the cost of the long term prosperity of the whole of mankind. Climate scientists are a small and relatively poor lobby up against the combined weight of heavy industry. It is a critical time on which we need to make wise choices rather than expedient ones.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users