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
Still Waters

Global warming 'on pause' but set to resume

184 posts in this topic

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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;

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 (
).
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.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What tends to happens in smaller countries is that if it is possible to get some money out of the deal (such as a study grant), then we become environmentalists, but if it costs money, we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

On both sides of the discussion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On both sides of the discussion.

i really don't understand your point without examples.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inevitable really, Armageddon put on hold again. Bit like the Mayan calender.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inevitable really, Armageddon put on hold again. Bit like the Mayan calender.

If they temp had have dropped significantly over the last 15 years I might start to doubt that climate change was real. As it is using the most comprehensive dataset (the MET) it has contined to rise at a reduced rate. The energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere has remained constant and the deep oceans have measurably warmed.

As I said, this is not significant in the grand scheme of things (thats not an opinion thats a statistical fact).

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think this whole subject is a vicious circle of theories, how does something like this just pause? just confusing to me is all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think this whole subject is a vicious circle of theories, how does something like this just pause? just confusing to me is all

The question is why has heat flow been absorbed by the oceans over the past decade or so? That answer to that is the answer to a whole lot of warming-related problems.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"It's coming please wait... I swear it's coming"

250px-ManBearPig.JPG

Edited by chopmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On pause hahaha

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.