Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Little Fish

No warming for 15 years

91 posts in this topic

Boy, Al Gore is going to be p***ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently no one has been to arkansas. it's supposed to be winter here but we've been having temperatures in the 60's and 70's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HERE IS MY ABSOLUTELY UGLY RAGE ON THIS....AND IT IS UGLY...

There is always going to be...unfortunately...extremist...those that refuse to acknowledge a commonality of cause and effect. It is as if they almost cannot allow themselves to accept the fact that humans can and often do manifest themselves as a virus...a plague.

I get where you're going with this post, but population is tied completely to food supplies and available resources. The population will stall and go down by itself if food supplies are ever strained. We might not believe it, but third world countries are producing tons of food, and the populations are answering that.

However I don't think there will ever be a point again where available food supplies limit population. Food technology is also only going to get better, and maybe even stranger. Maybe someday we'll all be eating pills, or have greenhouses in space.

I think we'll hit a wall simply on how many people we can actually fit on this earth and yet still let everyone be satisfied and to let everyone be an individual. There is obviously a physical limit in that regard which will be reached first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently no one has been to arkansas. it's supposed to be winter here but we've been having temperatures in the 60's and 70's

Is Oklahoma close enough? It hit 70 here yesterday.

I am still trying to locate the Met office study that Little Fish and the Daily Mail referred to. It seems that none of the folks who are crowing about the study know who said what or where they said it. As of today, I have not seen references to it in the literature. That doesn't mean that we won't see some in a month or two - publications are often several months behind events.

At any rate, I did find a comment by Gareth Jones that in order for a reduction in solar output to produce a 0.13-degree drop in temperatures, we would have to see solar outputs below those of the Maunder Minimum. The average rate of warming from 1981 to present was 0.02714 degrees. At that rate, warming will offset solar cooling in about six years and three months. Or, if you use the average from 1997 to present (0.01775 degrees per year), warming will offset solar cooling in seven years and four months. It is a little bit early to start claiming victory.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Met Office have debunked this: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

Here is what sourcewatch have too say about the author: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Rose

I contacted the met office. They deny their research said any such thing. Apparently, there was no research article.

The Daily Mail mentioned the HadCRUT3 dataset, which is one of six that are available online. The records are in a zip file, so you will have to have a special program to read them. I'm working on that now. I'll report back after I figure out how to open it and have analyzed the last fifteen year's data.

It is far easier for Watts and Rose to make up BS stories than it is to debunk them. That is why I don't pay much attention to what they're saying.

ALWAYS CHECK THE ORIGINAL SOURCE!

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Met Office have debunked this: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

Here is what sourcewatch have too say about the author: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Rose

how does that "debunk" the article?

4 year old account, 1st post...hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HADLEY_CRU.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HADLEY_CRU.jpg

Nice picture, but I need the numbers.

Just guessing from the appearance of your graph: the variation is too large to allow any statement to be made at all. That's another thing I can do with the numbers: calculate the maximum and minimum rates of change. Bet at 95% confidence, the top estimate comes up positive and the bottom one comes up negative.

At any rate, it doesn't appear that this solar cycle is going to get low enough to set any hundred-year records.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how does that "debunk" the article?

The met office, the supposed sponsor of the research paper that nobody can find, says it ain't so. They also said that David Rose "has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997." In other words: David Rose deliberately distorted their work.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The met office, the supposed sponsor of the research paper that nobody can find, says it ain't so. They also said that David Rose "has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997." In other words: David Rose deliberately distorted their work.

Doug

so he didn't report what they wanted him to report

and what they wanted him to report was "projections" which have no influence on the past temperaturs and their previous projections were incorrect and given the model projections they refer to are based on solar and co2 forcings which are being disputed and probably wrong since the model projections didn't predict temperatures not increasing over the last 15 years, it isn't any wonder the projections were not reported. also noted is that it doiesn't contradict the article's assertion that there was no trend in temperature change over the last 15 years, despite co2 having gone up even more than it went up in the 15 years prior the last 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get where you're going with this post, but population is tied completely to food supplies and available resources. The population will stall and go down by itself if food supplies are ever strained. We might not believe it, but third world countries are producing tons of food, and the populations are answering that.

However I don't think there will ever be a point again where available food supplies limit population. Food technology is also only going to get better, and maybe even stranger. Maybe someday we'll all be eating pills, or have greenhouses in space.

I think we'll hit a wall simply on how many people we can actually fit on this earth and yet still let everyone be satisfied and to let everyone be an individual. There is obviously a physical limit in that regard which will be reached first.

The new LED technology is encouraging people to grow food in grow boxes in their living rooms. City dwellers are growing veggies on roof tops and in community gardens and greenhouses in increasing numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so he didn't report what they wanted him to report

and what they wanted him to report was "projections" which have no influence on the past temperaturs and their previous projections were incorrect and given the model projections they refer to are based on solar and co2 forcings which are being disputed and probably wrong since the model projections didn't predict temperatures not increasing over the last 15 years, it isn't any wonder the projections were not reported. also noted is that it doiesn't contradict the article's assertion that there was no trend in temperature change over the last 15 years, despite co2 having gone up even more than it went up in the 15 years prior the last 15 years.

Sounds more like he picked out the bits which suited him best instead of giving the overall picture Happens all the time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds more like he picked out the bits which suited him best instead of giving the overall picture Happens all the time :)

do you realise the models they use to "predict" future warming fail to hindcast previous temperatures? that is if you run them with real data from the past, they don't show actual temperatures of the past, ie, the models don't work. the bit that they can't account for they attribute to co2. its circular reasoning, and certainly not science.

did you follow the peter laux thread, notta one warmist on this forum was able to provide any empirical evidence for co2 causing warming. that tells me people believe gw on no rational basis other than an appeal to religious end times catastrophy fatalism and cultist groupthink, I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but show me the evidence that co2 is "going to boil the oceans" as nasa's multimilloniare ecoactivist james hansen said recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you realise the models they use to "predict" future warming fail to hindcast previous temperatures? that is if you run them with real data from the past, they don't show actual temperatures of the past, ie, the models don't work. the bit that they can't account for they attribute to co2. its circular reasoning, and certainly not science.

did you follow the peter laux thread, notta one warmist on this forum was able to provide any empirical evidence for co2 causing warming. that tells me people believe gw on no rational basis other than an appeal to religious end times catastrophy fatalism and cultist groupthink, I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but show me the evidence that co2 is "going to boil the oceans" as nasa's multimilloniare ecoactivist james hansen said recently.

It does not offend me. I am not a believer in global warming. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted the met office. They deny their research said any such thing. Apparently, there was no research article.

The Daily Mail mentioned the HadCRUT3 dataset, which is one of six that are available online. The records are in a zip file, so you will have to have a special program to read them. I'm working on that now. I'll report back after I figure out how to open it and have analyzed the last fifteen year's data.

It is far easier for Watts and Rose to make up BS stories than it is to debunk them. That is why I don't pay much attention to what they're saying.

ALWAYS CHECK THE ORIGINAL SOURCE!

Doug

What !?!?! .. And spoil the conspiracy theories... what a party pooper you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you realise the models they use to "predict" future warming fail to hindcast previous temperatures? that is if you run them with real data from the past, they don't show actual temperatures of the past, ie, the models don't work. the bit that they can't account for they attribute to co2. its circular reasoning, and certainly not science.

did you follow the peter laux thread, notta one warmist on this forum was able to provide any empirical evidence for co2 causing warming. that tells me people believe gw on no rational basis other than an appeal to religious end times catastrophy fatalism and cultist groupthink, I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but show me the evidence that co2 is "going to boil the oceans" as nasa's multimilloniare ecoactivist james hansen said recently.

The evidence they showed to debunk Al Gore was that while yes co2 and temperature rise are related, they say FIRST THE TEMP GOES UP and because of that the co2 is released from the oceans en masse and goes up as a result of the temperature, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not offend me. I am not a believer in global warming. :)

I am a believer in global warming and in global cooling, but I think the far greatest cause is solar activity, but green house gasses may contribute. I would rather see data that contrasts the warming and cooling of all the planets in the solar system with earth to see what that ratio would be, taking into account the effect of the earths atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you realise the models they use to "predict" future warming fail to hindcast previous temperatures? that is if you run them with real data from the past, they don't show actual temperatures of the

You would be completely incorrect. The whole point of models and forecasting is to use various methods to match what happened as closely as possible and then project that into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a believer in global warming and in global cooling, but I think the far greatest cause is solar activity, but green house gasses may contribute. I would rather see data that contrasts the warming and cooling of all the planets in the solar system with earth to see what that ratio would be, taking into account the effect of the earths atmosphere.

Well, when I say I am not a believer in GW , I mean I dont think we humans are contributing that much to the weather. The climate has changed regularly throughout the history of the planet. I believe most of the climate change, if there is one just now, is mainly due to natural causes over which we have no control. So basically, I think we agree :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be completely incorrect. The whole point of models and forecasting is to use various methods to match what happened as closely as possible and then project that into the future.

are you saying the models correctly hindcast? because the information I have is that they do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you saying the models correctly hindcast? because the information I have is that they do not.

There are about 300 climate models, all of which have varying degrees of accuracy. One uses the model that most-accurately predicts the things that one is interested in, e.g. the Canadian Arctic in winter, or the central U.S., etc.

One cannot say that a given model does or doesn't work unless one specifies the situation in which it is being applied and the standards by which it is being judged; the world of climate models is not black-and-white, but shades of gray. Whether it is useable is judged by how much variation it "explains" (r^2), what it's standard error is and what the probability of a Type I error is. You must specify these numbers. Without them, it is impossible to tell whether the model in question does the job you're trying to get it to do. Without these specifications, resulting discussions are so much meaningless drivel.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're blowing smoke again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're blowing smoke again.

Sorry if my explanation went over your head, but I really don't know how to put it in simpler terms.

BTW: if you take that graph you posted above and start it in 1998 instead of 1997, you can make it show a decline in temps. Or, if you start it in 1995, it will show an increase.

The current hiatus in global warming (whether that's a total halt, or just a reduction in the rate of increase) has lasted 14 years. The 1950s hiatus lasted from 1951 to 1976, 26 years, during which global temps actually declined slightly. The 1950s one turned out to be a temporary lapse in a 92-year run. It's a little early to decide that global warming has ceased.

Many research projects take decades, sometimes longer. There's a Continuous Forest Inventory project in Michigan that has been running since the 1920s - about 85 years. The growth-and-yield project I work on has been running since 1987 (not counting two years of prep work that preceded it) and we are getting ready for the 25-year update (It is about to be revamped for purposes of studying carbon sequestration.). I have personally invested 10 years in the ice storm project and my sponsors have spent nearly $250,000 on it. That should put ten-thousand-dollar prizes into perspective. Completing the ice storm project will be worth far more to me financially and I will have a much higher certainty of collecting it. I suspect that other researchers are in similar situations. Nobody wants to jeopardize his career for a publicity stunt.

Another problem: the research projects that support human causes of global warming have mostly been carried in cooperation with, or under the auspices of, the IPCC. Those who reject IPCC findings out-of-hand will be inclined to dismiss their findings without a hearing. While I have some doubts about the IPCC (It seems to be a little on the alarmist side.), it does do some good research. Like the case with climate models, one blanket statement does not cover the subject.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you avoided the question with your appeal to complexity.

btw the ipcc does not do any research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.