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
BFB

Global warming at a standstill

183 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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;

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.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/addressing-the-daily-mail-and-james-delingpoles-crazy-climate-change-obsession-article/

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I guess you are not thinking deep enough. I am of the opinion that the earth is influenced not just by the sun but by cosmic radiation coming from deep space AND the galactic center. If you look at it from that angle, it does indeed apply. With superficial glance, I am sure that it doesn't appear to apply. The earth is not just traveling around the sun. Our galaxy is traveling about the universe. Our apogees and perigees apply to the warming issue. You cannot ignore the cosmological aspects to this warming period. It is my understanding that the entire solar system is warming, not just the earth.It is easier to sit on the fence regarding this issue. But I cannot accept the anthropogenic cause of warming. The idea that people are causing global warming is just a viral memetic infection that has been handed to the gullible. "Viral memetic infection" is a term I borrowed from someone else. I didn't coin that magnificent phrase.

Edited by regeneratia
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you are not thinking deep enough. I am of the opinion that the earth is influenced not just by the sun but by cosmic radiation coming from deep space AND the galactic center. If you look at it from that angle, it does indeed apply. With superficial glance, I am sure that it doesn't appear to apply. The earth is not just traveling around the sun. Our galaxy is traveling about the universe. Our apogees and perigees apply to the warming issue. You cannot ignore the cosmological aspects to this warming period. It is my understanding that the entire solar system is warming, not just the earth.It is easier to sit on the fence regarding this issue. But I cannot accept the anthropogenic cause of warming. It is just a viral memetic infection that has been handed to the gullible. That is a term I borrowed from someone else. I didn't coin that magnificent phrase.

Got it, you're pretty much making it up while data shows that humans are behind global warming and climate change.

Refute the data, don't just make things up OR prove your data actually correlates with your conclusion, but if you see; it doesn't, your own link says so.

Edited by Hasina
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it, you're pretty much making it up while data shows that humans are behind global warming and climate change.

Refute the data, don't just make things up OR prove your data actually correlates with your conclusion, but if you see; it doesn't, your own link says so.

Actually, Susan Joy Rennison is the woman who got me to thinking about it. But if you feel much better thinking I made it up, it's not a problem with me. I am not in control of what you think, nor do I want to be. And I don't care what you think of me. I am personally empowered and armed with a questing mind. The fact that you have little respect for my opinion is not my probkem. I suspect it might be yours.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Susan Joy Rennison is the woman who got me to thinking about it. But if you feel much better thinking I made it up, it's not a problem with me. I am not in control of what you think, nor do I want to be. And I don't care what you think of me. I am personally empowered and armed with a questing mind. The fact that you have little respect for my opinion is not my probkem. I suspect it might be yours.

I was asking for proof or data of your conclusion. The link you've provided doesn't have any.

Edit: I have respect for data and proof, not opinion.

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it, you're pretty much making it up while data shows that humans are behind global warming and climate change.

Refute the data, don't just make things up OR prove your data actually correlates with your conclusion, but if you see; it doesn't, your own link says so.

You know, there is no data that shows that humans created global warming. I can't find any anywhere. And when I ask for it, no one gives it to me, if it doesn't come from that place the is pushing the viral memtic infection of anthropogenic global warming and their leaked emails.

I was asking for proof or data of your conclusion. The link you've provided doesn't have any.

It was already provided. If you would just read the links.I am going to go now. Your discussion style is not to my liking. Have the last word. You are welcome to it.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, there is no data that shows that humans created global warming. I can't find any anywhere. And when I ask for it, no one gives it to me, if it doesn't come from that place the is pushing the viral memtic infection of anthropogenic global warming and their leaked emails.

It was already provided. If you would just read the links.

So you've read all of BR's links?

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.

From the first link you've provided.

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

As is that.

And digging any deeper, the paper suggests we should be cooling rather then warming if the sun was causing it.

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.

ndeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

It's not to your liking because I'm asking you to explain yourself, your point and why your link doesn't match up with what you're saying it 'proves'.

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've read all of BR's links?

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.

From the first link you've provided.'

It's not to your liking because I'm asking you to explain yourself, your point and why your link doesn't match up with what you're saying it 'proves'.

Who is BR? Was I supposed to read his links? And why should I?Perhaps you can give me a link to them?It appears that the milky way likes to eat? Having all those extra suns, from the newly found starbursts, and from the consumption of little star systems, might indeed warm this solar system a bit. http://www.redorbit....m-102712/  What I am not willing to do is abstract all that may apply into one pushed-on-us idea of why something is the way it is, while eliminating all extremely important, perhaps essential, variables in a situation. Are you willing to do that?Hades, this editing thing is challenging tonight. Here is the real link: http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112721345/stars-milky-way-triangulum-stream-102712/

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is BR? Was I supposed to read his links? And why should I?Perhaps you can give me a link to them?It appears that the milky way likes to eat? Having all those extra suns, from the newly found starbursts, and from the consumption of little star systems, might indeed warm this solar system a bit. http://www.redorbit....m-102712/ What I am not willing to do is abstract all that may apply into one pushed-on-us idea of why something is the way it is, while eliminating all extremely important, perhaps essential, variables in a situation. Are you willing to do that?Hades, this editing thing is challenging tonight. Here is the real link: http://www.redorbit....-stream-102712/

I see. I see. I understand your point now. Saying that a lot of stars being out there must warm up the solar system, understood.

Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

1_GCRsvsTemps.jpg

Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) from the Neutron Monitor Database vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis) from NOAA NCDC, both with second order polynomial fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the general circulation thing. It has rained here for two days, while it should snowing, meaning that there is an unusual circulation event happening, according to the weather channel. As for that applying to my introduction of a few links, not sure I see how you are trying to apply it. Seems unrelated to the links.

In replying to the regional rather than global:

http://www.redorbit....t-earth-011013/

"Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun's output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere."

That final quote is very interesting. where is the link to that.

I am not saying my links PROVE anything. I am saying that there are important variables left out of the anthropogenic global warming issue, and they shouldn't be left out. Since we have put more solar and cosmic science into to space recently, there will be even more variables that influence the global warming issue. Sitting on the fence at this point in the warming issue is the best place to be. Governments think so, which is why the Kyotos have failed for the last decade.

Edited by regeneratia
1 person likes this

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.