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 2
Zeta Reticulum

Global warming stopped 16 years ago

69 posts in this topic

And your opnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, the peer reviewed Snail at it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it... when looking at the front pages on Earth disasters and the environment you see this:

it stopped it goes and it stopped again... wow

Make up your mind dudes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it... when looking at the front pages on Earth disasters and the environment you see this:

it stopped it goes and it stopped again... wow

Make up your mind dudes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree dude. Not sure if the earth is warming or not. Climate has changed for sure though. Summer's gotten shorter and wetter but also warmer while winter has become longer and colder in this part of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree dude. Not sure if the earth is warming or not. Climate has changed for sure though. Summer's gotten shorter and wetter but also warmer while winter has become longer and colder in this part of the world.

well, frankly it seems as if global warming (or Climate change) is to blame for absolutely everything. They kept telling us that there'd be hot, dry summers, so it would be like the Mediterranean. It's rained, every year since, all summer. They tell us that that's because of, um, Global change, or climate warming. I, too, wish that they'd make up their mind. :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree dude. Not sure if the earth is warming or not. Climate has changed for sure though. Summer's gotten shorter and wetter but also warmer while winter has become longer and colder in this part of the world.

well, frankly it seems as if global warming (or Climate change) is to blame for absolutely everything. They kept telling us that there'd be hot, dry summers, so it would be like the Mediterranean. It's rained, every year since, all summer. They tell us that that's because of, um, Global change, or climate warming. I, too, wish that they'd make up their mind. :-/

The entire Northern part of EU got the weather you two describe. Planted tomatoes lettuce carrots bunch of other stuff ... passed the lawnmower on the rotten stems... disgusting. But more and more there are talk about carbon tax... and tax write off for buying to crappy little toyota electric thingy that pollutes more than my Citroen Xsara 1.9 D and don't even get as good gas mileage. I get an average 50 miles per gallon and those little junk get 48.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot oceans (think Gulf stream) generate water vapour. The warmer the Gulf Stream the more vapour generated. As soon as it arrives at the first bit of land (Northern Europe) it is compressed by the land - squeezing out the moisture as rain. More water vapour equals more rain. The Gulf stream is more energetic (warmer) than previously and has generally moved further north bringing more storm systems (the Gulf stream stears the jet stream which brings storms). What has happened in Northern Europe is entirely predictable from first principles physics. Meanwhile since the Gulf stream is further north there is more drought in the Mediterranean region at exactly the same time - which is entirely predictable given that they are not strongly influenced by the warm wet Gulf stream.

If you actually tried thinking about these things you would see that what is happening is entirely in conformity with what has been predicted by climate scientists.

For another opinion on the article try;

http://www.guardian....climate-science

I don't have time to deal with every one of the mistakes his article contains – it takes 100 times as long to show why a claim is wrong as it does to make it – but here's a quick breakdown, beginning with the first sentence: (I've been able to pull this together with the help of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, which put me in touch with the relevant scientists and pointed me to the primary datasets.)

Rose:

"A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' – a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961-1990 average."

"A year ago tomorrow" would have been 7 December. The Met Office issued its forecast (not a "prediction") on 10 December.

And there was nothing "confident" about it. The press release said that a record warm year "is not a certainty, especially if the current El Niño was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption." As it happened, El Niño did decline rapidly, and was replaced by a very strong La Niña.

Rose:

"Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met."

Rose provides no source for this claim (or for any of the claims here). The Met Office tells me it was not trying to influence policy, simply to report the facts.

Rose:

"Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere"

I challenge Rose to find a single occasion on which these bodies have said that temperatures will rise "in step" with CO2. As Professor Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research tells me: "One should not be misled by seizing on an individual value or year and citing trends for that, because natural variability such as from El Niño creates ups and downs all the time."

Does Rose expect warming to proceed along a straight line?

Rose:

"Last week at Cancún, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20bn immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5C higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production."

I can find no evidence at all for this. The Institute did release a report last week, but it doesn't even mention 6.5C, let alone predict that temperatures would climb to that point. In fact it makes no predictions whatever about global warming: it simply explains what is likely to happen to agriculture at different temperature scenarios, none of which extend as far as 6.5C. It is not easy to see how Rose could have got this so wrong.

Rose:

"Actually, with the exception of 1998 – a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong El Niño effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) – the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for 10, but for the past 15 years."

All the datasets, including the Met Office/CRU figures show that the current decade is the warmest in the instrumental record.

Rose:

"They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all."

Professor Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia (yes, the Phil Jones), tells me: "The error of estimate of global averages or the forecasts for subsequent years is completely unrelated to the trend of warming. This is comparing apples with oranges."

Rose:

"Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C. That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8C, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat."

In fact 14.52C (which means 0.52C above the long-term average) is equal to the record set in 1998. The Met Office figures show that – for January-October – 2010 is the equal warmest year on record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Nasa databases, which record anomalies of 0.54C and 0.58C respectively, suggest that so far it's the warmest year on record.

Phil Jones tells me:

"The forecast of 14.58 for 2010 was well within the error range if the final number was 14.52. The difference is 0.06 and the error range is +/- 0.10 approx".

Rose:

"Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Niño was at its peak."

This, again, is utter nonsense, and goes to show what happens when you rely on untrustworthy sources. As you can see from all three global datasets (CRU, NOAA and Nasa) all the months this year for which the data has so far been collated (January-October) were anomalously warm.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your opnion

me no speak americano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sixteen years?

Not according to the datasets I work with. You could make a case that warming has slowed since 1998 (That's less than 15 years.), but even then, excluding a slight dip in temps in the early 2000s, GMT has continued to edge upward and is now on a par, or even slightly higher than in either 1998 or 2005.

Who makes up this stuff and whatever happened to investigative reporting?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hottest year on record disagrees with the "daily crapfest".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer review is only worthwhile when the peers in question aren't on the take. Al Gore is a billionaire from global warming. Fatally flawed computer models crunching fatally compromised and corrupted data reported by people on the take to people in the UN who want to be billionaires like Al Gore sounds like just the kind of science an Obama administration would embrace.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer review is only worthwhile when the peers in question aren't on the take. Al Gore is a billionaire from global warming. Fatally flawed computer models crunching fatally compromised and corrupted data reported by people on the take to people in the UN who want to be billionaires like Al Gore sounds like just the kind of science an Obama administration would embrace.

Oh dear, a Wild Republican appeared!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Gore is a billionaire from global warming.

As an aside, it is hard to take a person seriously when they are a hypocrite ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, a Wild Republican appeared!

You know what intrigues me? Anytime anything pops up that says the world isn't burning, the left gets depressed and casts slurs. Why? You'd think they would be happy, as anyone else would, to hear some good news but they aren't . Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Gore is a billionaire from global warming.

And the anti-global warming campaign is funded by existing billionaires who'd like to keep hold of their dosh. Difficult to know who to believe, isn't it? How about a scientist with no vested interest? Oh, hang on. Sorry. No, they all fudge their data to keep the grant money rolling in, don't they?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot oceans (think Gulf stream) generate water vapour. The warmer the Gulf Stream the more vapour generated. As soon as it arrives at the first bit of land (Northern Europe) it is compressed by the land - squeezing out the moisture as rain. More water vapour equals more rain. The Gulf stream is more energetic (warmer) than previously and has generally moved further north bringing more storm systems (the Gulf stream stears the jet stream which brings storms). What has happened in Northern Europe is entirely predictable from first principles physics. Meanwhile since the Gulf stream is further north there is more drought in the Mediterranean region at exactly the same time - which is entirely predictable given that they are not strongly influenced by the warm wet Gulf stream.

So basically wha( you're saying is that the gulf stream is like retired Americans who go North for the Summer and go South for the Winter??? Cause in case you haven't noticed winters are harder in Northern EU.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've enjoyed the snows global warming has dumped on us. I rarely got to see snow when I was growing up and it shuts our part of the world down when it happens. We actually had a couple of very white Christmases lately. I have yet to see the rhyme or reason as to why and where global warming is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the "Average" temperature of the earth and "over a periord of time" climate/weather paterns, sea levels, lenght of seasons, and other changes we a natural part of the earth's life cycle. Most of the data used and correct me if I'm wrong, is from the time of man, (actual civilized, cultures that doccumented their histories. I also thought popular consensus was that the earth was around far longer, and even if you are christian you could argue that it started with 1 man and 1 woman and took quite a while to build up to a civilized culture. So how is this period of time being evaluated. Is it carbon dating, digging and reading it from the earth or is it speculation and theory? I would say both, but my point is there could be a for example, (random made up figure) 22,000 year cycle on all the above mentioned attributes of the earth's life cycle. I am not sure if I am getting this out right, but I would like some feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically wha( you're saying is that the gulf stream is like retired Americans who go North for the Summer and go South for the Winter??? Cause in case you haven't noticed winters are harder in Northern EU.

The Gulf stream does indeed move, and you may not have noticed that winters have been getting milder in northern Europe. Even the recent two cold snaps of the last two winters have been exceptional in that the full sweep of the winters has still been milder than historically.

The complicating factor is the melting Arctic ice cap which is pushing back for the moment. Extreme flooding events have occurred in the Med due to the unpredictable movement of the Gulf stream in recent years.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've enjoyed the snows global warming has dumped on us. I rarely got to see snow when I was growing up and it shuts our part of the world down when it happens. We actually had a couple of very white Christmases lately. I have yet to see the rhyme or reason as to why and where global warming is happening.

Snow has all but disappeared from Ireland over the last 20yrs - only a flurry around a week at xmas. Used to be common for people to have to dig their way out of their houses.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the "Average" temperature of the earth and "over a periord of time" climate/weather paterns, sea levels, lenght of seasons, and other changes we a natural part of the earth's life cycle. Most of the data used and correct me if I'm wrong, is from the time of man, (actual civilized, cultures that doccumented their histories. I also thought popular consensus was that the earth was around far longer, and even if you are christian you could argue that it started with 1 man and 1 woman and took quite a while to build up to a civilized culture. So how is this period of time being evaluated. Is it carbon dating, digging and reading it from the earth or is it speculation and theory? I would say both, but my point is there could be a for example, (random made up figure) 22,000 year cycle on all the above mentioned attributes of the earth's life cycle. I am not sure if I am getting this out right, but I would like some feedback!

For a natural cycle to account for current events you would have to identify a forcing agent which has significantly changed. There is something worth spending a week trying to find - since I have never found one in 5yrs of looking.

Natural is not a catch all get out of jail card - it still has to have a cause which can be measured and used to predict outcomes - that is where AGW CO2 comes in as its the only explanation which plugs the gap between what is happening and what should happening if all "natural" forcings are accounted for.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is worth quoting in full the response of the MET office to this article;

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

14

10

2012

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?”

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.

———–

The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

http://metofficenews...ed_combined.png

The highlighted part of the comment is the whole and sole basis on which Rose is able to make the claim. As such he is selecting a frame of reference which is totally unrepresentative of climate.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer review is only worthwhile when the peers in question aren't on the take. Al Gore is a billionaire from global warming. Fatally flawed computer models crunching fatally compromised and corrupted data reported by people on the take to people in the UN who want to be billionaires like Al Gore sounds like just the kind of science an Obama administration would embrace.

First, Al Gore is NOT a climatologist. He isn't even a scientist - he carefully avoided taking math classes and majored in GOVERNMENT!

If he has ever been peer-reviewed, it was for an article on GOVERNMENT, not climate, and I'm not even sure if he was ever peer-reviewed at all. He made his money from "green" investments - something anybody with investment savvy could do.

All you had to do was Google: Al Gore and you'd have come up with more data on the man than anybody would ever want to read. Don't be so lazy; do just a little research. With the Internet at your fingertips, you have no excuses.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Global warming theory does not rest on climate models. You don't need one to undertsand the basic physics. If you want to know what will happen when CO2 levels reach 400 ppm, you look at the geologic record and see what happened last time.

Warming is confirmed by thousands of weather station volunteers working for over 140 years across the US and for longer periods in other parts of the world. We even make use of Thomas Jefferson's diary - he kept weather logs at his home in Mount Vernon. You just called Jefferson a liar. You're trying to say that thousands of people were in on a giant cover-up for more than a century and we just now found out about it? Get real.

And the tree-ring data I work with, is mostly stuff I collected myself. And my chronologoies agree with other published chronologies. So I know they're accurate. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was once called global warming when it was pointed out it wasnt a uniformed warming of the planet they changed the name to the modern day climate change, what does that mean? it simply means a get out of jail free card. one region could be experiencing a milder winter while another part is experiencing a cooler summer. they the soothsayers can give predictions without fear of being held to account.

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.