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
OverSword

Global Waming Scam Exposed As A Sham

246 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

From the article;

article-2294560-18B8846F000005DC-184_634x427.jpg

Steadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The estimates – given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty – suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.

But when the latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of falling out of the ‘95 per cent’ band completely.

Varying fears: In 1977 we were warned of the ‘next ice age’, now we are warned that the planet is getting dangerously hot

The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.

The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.

A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.

Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.

But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.

Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.

The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper first disclosed last year.

At the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted.

article-2294560-18B90BF5000005DC-894_634x338.jpg

http://countdowntozerotime.org/2013/03/17/the-great-green-con-wrong-all-along/

Edited by OverSword
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt some crazy Professor will come up with a different theory,to try and make a name for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That can't be right. Global Climate Change is the greatest catastrophe facing Planet Earth, and it's all our fault. These people must be in the pay of the Republicans. I should disregard them and only listen to those who tell us that Blobal Climate Change is real and irrevocable, and it's all our fault.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Warming Policy Foundation:

The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

Useless reference - just wiki it.

Piers Forster - cannot find this quote: http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/icas/physical-climate-change-group/

As for Prof. Judith Curry... it seems that she is just relying on "Blogging".. http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/towards_rebuilding_trust.html

As always Oversword, your references pan out as has - been, sidelined, scientists (or even someone like Lawson) as being true "Bringers Of The Knowledge". You fail every time you try this, because on UM you are faced with people that do not have the Attention Span of a Goldfish

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So this is all lies then? The information shown is not true? That's the trouble with this interminable Global Climate Change industry; everyone has their pet experts to say what they want them to say. One Expert says something, and then another flatly contradicts it. so is this not actually true and it is a lie? What is true? Who can we trust to tell us what is true? never mind trying to discredit anybody who doesn't say what you believe; If someone is a "has-been" or "sidelined", does that mean that they're lying?

Edited by Lord Vetinari
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which IPCC report did you get the chart from?

The date of the projection needs to be the same as the date of the temperature track. Otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always Oversword, your references pan out as has - been, sidelined, scientists (or even someone like Lawson) as being true "Bringers Of The Knowledge". You fail every time you try this, because on UM you are faced with people that do not have the Attention Span of a Goldfish

As always eh? Well you know me, always making outrageous claims about climate change right?

Please note, aside from posting an article my comment was "From the article"

Quick "Q:" Keithisco, did you bother to read the article pointed to in the link for once or did you not get much past the graphics, as per usual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that climate models are not the basis of AGW theory.

Climate models are a way of anticipating what might happen given the known physical relationship between CO2 and the accumulation of energy within the system.

The basic fact is that there is still an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and as a consequence energy is measurably continuing to accumulate in the global system. That is causing climate change and that is what models are attempting to predict the outcome of.

Br Cornelius

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon taxes are too tempting idea to let it go just because the reality doesn't fit the predictions. But I hope they'll at least cancel ideas of putting this or that in the atmosphere to reverse the global warming effect...

Because even if it was real (personally, I’m sure climate is more complex than CO2 factor only, but that’s just me) the worst possible “solution” would be experimenting with crap in the atmosphere.

Not that there are no experiments with weather manipulation, and maybe that should be carbon, or even better, moron taxed.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that climate models are not the basis of AGW theory.

Climate models are a way of anticipating what might happen given the known physical relationship between CO2 and the accumulation of energy within the system.

The basic fact is that there is still an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and as a consequence energy is measurably continuing to accumulate in the global system. That is causing climate change and that is what models are attempting to predict the outcome of.

Br Cornelius

Thanks Br. I'm not a climate change denyer, more of a sh** stirer. That said, to reclarify my POV on AGW, I'm not convinced that humanity is the driving force of climate change. I also believe that we should and are persuing more and better environmentally friendly ways of doing everything, from recycling to better cleaner ways of generating energy. Humanity has heard the call and are responding. Not as rapidly as some would wish but I believe we are not in danger of dying due to inaction.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note, aside from posting an article my comment was "From the article"

I could not find the source of that chart in the link you posted, but it appears to be based on one of the IPCC's publications from the early 90s. Those early attempts were notorously inaccurate and that was obvious twelve years ago. How about bringing the "debate" up to date by posting something more current, like for example, a simulation that uses data from, say 2010?

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I could not find the source of that chart in the link you posted, but it appears to be based on one of the IPCC's publications from the early 90s. Those early attempts were notorously inaccurate and that was obvious twelve years ago. How about bringing the "debate" up to date by posting something more current, like for example, a simulation that uses data from, say 2010?

Doug

Feel free to post that 2010 data if it pleases you Doug. I'm not the author of the article so I don't know where it came from. In case you missed where I said my only comment when I posted was "from the article" Edited by OverSword
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize that climate models are not the basis of AGW theory.
climate models are the only basis for dangerous AGW.

"there is still an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere"

satellite measurements showing increase in Outgoing Longwave Radiation (the radiation that co2 is said to be trapping).

if co2 was trapping OLR then the measurements would be trending down.

Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B342013%2B72040%2BPM.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm pretty sure the graph is from the leaked forthcoming ippc report, or at the least it looks like it matches it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm pretty sure the graph is from the leaked forthcoming ippc report, or at the least it looks like it matches it.

Unlikely. I'm pretty sure any report they're about to release will have more up to date data than c.2005 as the diagram shows. Good try though.

As said, climate models aren't the basis, nor is addition of CO2 the thought to be the only, or even main, cause. What most people fail to grasp is, it's not amounts that are important. We are destroying sinks to create sources. That leads to an increase. Possibly a gradual one but a long term one.

Leaving all that aside. All the diagram in the OP shows is that actual temperature data is within the 95% confidence interval for the climate predictions (and, therefore, statistically 'correct'). And people are using this to suggest the prediction is wrong. Interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its sad to say but people will say anything for a buck or the attention it brings them. Until this is stopped the conflicting data is going to keep many confused. I do believe we are screwing up this planet a little at a time. Look how much ice the north pole has lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I do believe we are screwing up this planet a little at a time. Look how much ice the north pole has lost."

how cold do you want to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Global destruction of the environment if Global Warming isnt your cup of tea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earth has naturally gone through different cycles throughout its history. It will change again, regardless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes the climate does go through cycles. During the Permian extinction the Earth warmed up by 5 degrees, then the methane release caused by warming oceans warmed it up another 5. 95% of life on this planet died over a period of thousands of years, didn't happen overnight.

Very interesting video if you have 49 minutes.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d572KkFSEg8[/media]

Edited by Hilander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

climate models are the only basis for dangerous AGW.

"there is still an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere"

satellite measurements showing increase in Outgoing Longwave Radiation (the radiation that co2 is said to be trapping).

if co2 was trapping OLR then the measurements would be trending down.

Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B342013%2B72040%2BPM.jpg

Again Little Fish you persistently use graphs without sources so they cannot be put in context or verified.

When you learn how to debate get back to me.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lets look at a graphwhich tells us something useful about the change in outgoing longwave radiation over the period 1975 to 1997;

outgoing-longwave-radiation.jpg

http://blogs.shell.c...ory/antarctica/

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again Little Fish you persistently use graphs without sources so they cannot be put in context or verified.

When you learn how to debate get back to me.

Br Cornelius

you provided nothing to back up your naked assertion.

I provided evidence in the form of graphed observational data to back up my assertion.

....and I'm the one that cannot debate? /sarc

here is another graph showing relation of OLR to co2

OLR%20versus%20CO2%20Global.gif

what it shows is as co2 increases in the atmosphere (x-axis), the OLR or longwave radiation escaping to space increases (y axis), meaning extra co2 is not trapping the longwave radiation, also implying that any global warming is not caused by increasing co2. if co2 WERE trapping the OLR and causing the global warming as you unevidentially asserted, then the red line would be bending downwards not upwards to the right of the graph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Fish - I consider you a liar and anything that you point to as potentially a lie. I therefore cannot comment on anything you say without knowing where you sourced your data so I can verify if it is true or it is from a credible source.

You may not like that but it the place we have arrived at.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is gonna certainly heat up the globe in the next decade more then it already has. Its just invisible. Once that metallic taste is in your mouth itll be too late. This is the ocean and its poisoned. Do you understand how evaporation works...Itll swim through the winds. You cannot escape it. It will reach the tops of our atmosphere and possibly beyond. The damage is yet to be determined. Get off the funk chart and look at what the real science of global warming/climate change/and radiation is causing as for harm to this world.

LOOK AT THE SUM NOT A PART !!

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2012/12/video-distribution-of-cesium-137.html

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.