User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: New report: Global Warming stopped 16 years ago

  1. #21
    Points: 19, Level: 1
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 31
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Reality1st's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    20
    Points
    19
    Level
    1
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2
    I guess it is not so strange that the bamboozled and deluded AGW deniers would fall for more distorted pseudo-science and lies from the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry. David Rose and the Daily Mail are jokes when it comes to journalistic integrity. Cherry-picking, bogus charts and the easily debunked lies only fool the ignorant and the dimwitted who are politically motivated to fall for this junk.

    Here's the facts - directly from the Met Office whose data Rose is supposedly using.


    Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012
    14 10 2012
    (not under copyright - free to reproduce)
    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 0.03C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05C 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 0.16C/decade (or 0.15C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16C/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 0.8C. 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.


    Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.

  2. #22
    Points: 170,232, Level: 98
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 3,418
    Overall activity: 70.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive1 year registered50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    24911
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    50,777
    Points
    170,232
    Level
    98
    Thanks Given
    3,615
    Thanked 9,127x in 7,143 Posts
    Mentioned
    491 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    302
    I guess it is not so strange that the bamboozled and deluded AGW deniers would fall for more distorted pseudo-science and lies from the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry. David Rose and the Daily Mail are jokes when it comes to journalistic integrity. Cherry-picking, bogus charts and the easily debunked lies only fool the ignorant and the dimwitted who are politically motivated to fall for this junk.
    Only thing worst than a climate denier is a climate alarmist, and reality, you fit the bill to a T, since a sure sign of an alarmist is nothing but ad hom arguments. Just like truthmatters everything you disagree with is a lie.

    Global Warming stopped 16 years ago
    My guess is that is what you wish to debunk by pasting a blog piece in splendid bright colors.

    Problem is the blog piece contradicts your rebuttal:

    Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8C. 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.
    Basically, the blog piece agrees, temps have been for all intents and purposes flat for 16 years.

    And again:

    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.
    Last edited by Chris; 11-08-2012 at 07:34 PM.

  3. #23
    Points: 56,436, Level: 58
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 1,914
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    GrassrootsConservative's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12073
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alliance, NE
    Posts
    9,900
    Points
    56,436
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    5,880
    Thanked 2,762x in 2,058 Posts
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    131
    Lmao Chris, I don't think he read any of what he posted.
    7,500 Drones In U.S. Airspace Within 5 Years:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ss-drone-regs/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZKKNSpV0ME
    :
    "We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counter-terrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside of the United States."
    - Barack Hussein Obama


    That means
    NO safeguards.

  4. #24
    Points: 170,232, Level: 98
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 3,418
    Overall activity: 70.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive1 year registered50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    24911
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    50,777
    Points
    170,232
    Level
    98
    Thanks Given
    3,615
    Thanked 9,127x in 7,143 Posts
    Mentioned
    491 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    302
    More...

    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's one thing to attack a tabloid write, but what about actual scientists:

    Has global warming really stopped, then?
    The scientists the Daily Mail consulted actually disagreed on just what the new figures mean. They did agree, however, that the figures cast fresh doubt on computer models that have been used to project how quickly temperatures will rise in coming decades. "The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming," Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech university, tells the Daily Mail....
    @ Did global warming stop 16 years ago?

  5. #25
    Points: 19, Level: 1
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 31
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Reality1st's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    20
    Points
    19
    Level
    1
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    ....nothing but ad hom arguments.....
    LOLOLOLOL......wow, you really are quite retarded.....you would have to be to miss the complete rebuttal in my post of your worthless propaganda drivel - a rebuttal that comes from the Met Office, the very people the article was supposedly quoting....I mean that's pretty clueless and very moronic of you, little dude.....




    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Global Warming stopped 16 years ago
    My guess is that is what you wish to debunk by pasting a blog piece in splendid bright colors.
    Problem is the blog piece contradicts your rebuttal:
    Problem is, Chrust, is that you're apparently too retarded to notice that the "blog piece" is actually the formal rebuttal of the Met Office to David Rose's twisted bit of lies and misinformation that was quoted in the OP and that was supposedly but not really based on information from the Met Office in the first place. The "blog" you try to denigrate is, in fact, formally called the "Met Office News Blog - official blog of the Met Office news team". The "piece" doesn't contradict "my rebuttal" you idiot, the announcement from the Met Office is the rebuttal.



    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Basically, the blog piece agrees, temps have been for all intents and purposes flat for 16 years.
    That's your delusion but it has nothing to do with what the Met Office is actually saying here. They are saying quite clearly that the strong global warming trend that has been observed for some time now in the temperature records sometimes speeds up a bit and sometimes slows down a bit due to other climate factors. They are saying that if you cherry-pick your start and end dates for calculating a trend, you can show either a little or a lot of warming within the same general period of time. There has been a relatively short period recently in which the upward trend in temperatures has been a little less than it was just previously, what the Met office article called "reduced warming" and which you insanely misinterpret to mean 'no warming'. Of course the temperature records are only one of the many lines of scientific evidence indicating that the Earth is rapidly warming beyond the bounds of natural variation. For example, the melting of the mountain glaciers, the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.

    What the Met Office is saying here very clearly (that you want to ignore) is that this lying article quoted in the OP "is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information"
    and
    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 0.03C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05C 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 0.16C/decade (or 0.15C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16C/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.

  6. #26
    Points: 170,232, Level: 98
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 3,418
    Overall activity: 70.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive1 year registered50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    24911
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    50,777
    Points
    170,232
    Level
    98
    Thanks Given
    3,615
    Thanked 9,127x in 7,143 Posts
    Mentioned
    491 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality1st View Post
    LOLOLOLOL......wow, you really are quite retarded.....you would have to be to miss the complete rebuttal in my post of your worthless propaganda drivel - a rebuttal that comes from the Met Office, the very people the article was supposedly quoting....I mean that's pretty clueless and very moronic of you, little dude.....





    Problem is, Chrust, is that you're apparently too retarded to notice that the "blog piece" is actually the formal rebuttal of the Met Office to David Rose's twisted bit of lies and misinformation that was quoted in the OP and that was supposedly but not really based on information from the Met Office in the first place. The "blog" you try to denigrate is, in fact, formally called the "Met Office News Blog - official blog of the Met Office news team". The "piece" doesn't contradict "my rebuttal" you idiot, the announcement from the Met Office is the rebuttal.




    That's your delusion
    trolling, inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, off-topic comments

    http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...itical-Forums:
    Other Discussions are for more serious discussion and stricter moderation. The rules apply but, on the positive side, we will also require that all posts make a contribution be it information, question or argumentation, and on the negative side we will not allow trolling, inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, or off-topic comments.

  7. #27
    tPF Moderator
    Original Ranter
    V.I.P
    Points: 192,021, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Peter1469's Avatar Moderator Representative
    Karma
    42730
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    41,751
    Points
    192,021
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,816
    Thanked 12,857x in 9,371 Posts
    Mentioned
    873 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    472
    Warmists are dangerous. They want you to live in a pre-industrial age and transfer your wealth to the 3rd world. If they can't be ignored they will have to be killed.

  8. #28
    Points: 170,232, Level: 98
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 3,418
    Overall activity: 70.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive1 year registered50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    24911
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    50,777
    Points
    170,232
    Level
    98
    Thanks Given
    3,615
    Thanked 9,127x in 7,143 Posts
    Mentioned
    491 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Warmists are dangerous. They want you to live in a pre-industrial age and transfer your wealth to the 3rd world. If they can't be ignored they will have to be killed.
    Alarmists are dangerous as deniers imo. Both push political agendas and politicize science. And post #21 is just that, one blogger fighting with another blogger.

    The question is not whether man contributes to climate change but how and how much and how much can be done about it. On the latter, we can't solve climate change, if there's a need, and over population and polution and poverty and hunger and peace and a gazillion other politicized problems. Where's the funding going to come from, a government heading over a fiscal cliff?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (11-09-2012)

  10. #29
    tPF Moderator
    Original Ranter
    V.I.P
    Points: 192,021, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Peter1469's Avatar Moderator Representative
    Karma
    42730
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    41,751
    Points
    192,021
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,816
    Thanked 12,857x in 9,371 Posts
    Mentioned
    873 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    472
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Alarmists are dangerous as deniers imo. Both push political agendas and politicize science. And post #21 is just that, one blogger fighting with another blogger.

    The question is not whether man contributes to climate change but how and how much and how much can be done about it. On the latter, we can't solve climate change, if there's a need, and over population and polution and poverty and hunger and peace and a gazillion other politicized problems. Where's the funding going to come from, a government heading over a fiscal cliff?
    Right.

    Current science is working on fixes to fossil fuels. But the Warmists aren't interesting in advancement. They are interested in retrograde. They must be ignored.

  11. #30
    Points: 19, Level: 1
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 31
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Reality1st's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    20
    Points
    19
    Level
    1
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Warmists are dangerous. They want you to live in a pre-industrial age and transfer your wealth to the 3rd world. If they can't be ignored they will have to be killed.
    That's totally insane. You're completely clueless on this topic.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Forum Topsite Critical Acclaim
Top Ron Paul Sites - Ranking the best Ron Paul related Freedom and Liberty Websites
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO