PDA

View Full Version : DOH!Supposed "consensus" on man-made global warming facing an inconvenient challenge:


JustineTime
Jan 30th, 2012, 10:39 PM
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 yearsBy David Rose (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=David+Rose)

Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012


The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. :tape:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-117F2046000005DC-981_468x286.jpg A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age


Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.


According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A4F1000005DC-28_468x286.jpg

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. :weirdo: Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. [:awww: Indeed! :spit: :haha: ] It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’ :lol:

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A549000005DC-715_468x290.jpg

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid. :weirdo: :help:

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said. :baby:

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said. :hehehe:

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand. :scratch: :confused:

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A572000005DC-276_468x290.jpg

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’ DOH! :tape: :help:

:lol:

miffedmax
Jan 31st, 2012, 12:37 AM
The actual Met Office Report says nothing of the sort. You can read it here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast

In fact, the Met Office was so irritated by the gross distortions and misrepresentations of fact in the Rose article they issued a second press release:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

Global average temperatures from 1850 to 2011 from the three individual global temperature datasets (Met Office/UEA HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC
(see the link to see the charts)

Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.

It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

JustineTime
Jan 31st, 2012, 01:20 AM
Coming Out of the Climate Change Closet

by Matt Patterson (http://www.globalwarming.org/author/matt-patterson/) on January 27, 2012


http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/skeptic.jpg So much for consensus.

For years, climate change cultists have attempted to shut down public discourse over global warming by assuring us that “the debate is over,” that scientists are in lockstep agreement that Man is steam-frying his own planet.

That was always bunk, of course. For one, if the scientific debate was really over, no one would have to say it. There just wouldn’t be any debate. No one these days goes around saying “the debate is over” about heliocentrism. That’s because no one questions the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun – there is literally no debate.

Second, the fact that it was so often politicians and/or celebrities (or a bizarre hybrid of the two like Al Gore) intoning the “debate is over” canard, instead of actual scientists, was a major clue that something was amiss with the “consensus” claim.

(The Washington Post famously reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18) on Gore’s scientific acumen: “For all of Gore’s later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6…and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.”)

Sadly for Gore et al, a growing number of scientists are publically expressing skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, emboldened by a flood of new data that casts doubt on the whole “climate change” paradigm (I address some of this new data in my latest piece (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/01/really-inconvenient-truth-earth-not-melting-after-all/2134091) for the Washington Examiner).

Just last September, Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) over that organization’s climate change orthodoxy. In his resignation letter to APS, Giaever explained (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming):

“I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

‘Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? :weirdo: The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

And this week in the Wall Street Journal, a group of sixteen prominent scientists, including physicists, meteorologists and climatologists, come forward to express solidarity with Giaever, writing (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop) that:

“…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”:tape:

So why do so many still cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe? The scientists offer their own view, again in the Journal:

“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.”

The entire piece is an absolutely stunning rebuke to the whole bogus “consensus” argument. It is well worth reading and sharing. Hopefully it will encourage other scientists who harbor doubts to come forward. The truth is that this debate is not over: It’s really only just beginning.

And that’s a good thing.

miffedmax
Jan 31st, 2012, 01:39 AM
The Wall Street Journal rejected an article signed by 255 climate scientists because it didn't fit its editorial position and went with the error-filled one cited in the article above because it did.

Fail.

Stamp Paid
Jan 31st, 2012, 01:43 AM
:lol:

Dav.
Jan 31st, 2012, 01:32 PM
Dozens freeze to death as 'extreme cold' grips Europe

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46200659/ns/weather/#.Tyf5xWGlDYE

KIEV, Ukraine — A severe and snowy cold snap has killed at least 48 people across central and eastern Europe.

Officials have responded with measures ranging from opening shelters to dispensing hot tea, with particular concern for the homeless and elderly.

Ukrainian authorities said Tuesday that the number of people who died of hypothermia in recent days reached 30.

The Emergency Situations Ministry said on its website that most of the victims were found frozen on the streets. On Monday, officials had put the death toll at 18 people.

Temperatures plunged to minus 23 C (minus 10 F) in the capital Kiev and elsewhere in Ukraine as schools and kindergartens closed and authorities set up hundreds of heated tents for the homeless.

Officials have appealed to people to stay indoors.
Climate change deals with a yearly average. You can't just pick and choose periods throughout the year, particularly saying something like it's cold in winter.

Beat
Jan 31st, 2012, 01:44 PM
miffedmax said everything that has to be said. take your propaganda (and your laughable avatar) elsewhere.

pov
Jan 31st, 2012, 02:26 PM
IMO anyone who still thinks "global warming" is confused or has an agenda. There is climate change and it is possible that emissions from industrialized societies do affect that change.

JN
Jan 31st, 2012, 06:28 PM
Blizzard? Chicago flirts with record warmth

G58qdfenWy4 E3hgdf7HVrY

Staff report 8:17 a.m. CST, January 31, 2012

A year ago, the Chicago area was bracing for a paralyzing blizzard. Today, we will flirt with 60 and could even break a record for warmth.

"It's a definite possibility," said National Weather Service meteorologist Samuel Shea, noting that the record mark of 65 degrees for this date set in 1989 could fall. The wild card is how fast clouds spread over the area this afternoon, blocking the sunshine.

"What we're seeing right now is more typical of May than late January," Shea said. Current weather patterns are bringing a quantity of warm, moist air into the area from Texas and Louisiana.

Yesterday's high of 53 missed the day's record by only two degrees, according to WGN meteorologist Tom Skilling (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/weather/tom-skilling-PECLB0017764463.topic).

The latest round of unseasonable warmth comes at the end of a month expected to finish nearly 6 degrees above normal, Skilling noted.

In fact, the opening two months of the meteorological winter season, which began Dec. 1, have been this area's mildest in 78 years and have featured the fewest number of days with an inch of snow on the ground -- just seven of them -- in 23 years.

This is a far cry from last year's blizzard that hit on Ground Hog's Day and dumped 21.2 inches of snow at O'Hare International Airport, making it the third-largest snowstorm on record for Chicago.

Today's forecast calls for a 30 percent chance of rain or drizzle after 2 p.m. and increasing clouds. Winds will come out of the southwest between 15 and 20 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph.

(Source (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-on-anniversary-of-blizzard-chicago-flirts-with-record-warmth-20120131,0,2772800.story))
_____
Anyone for a game of one-on-one at the park? http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z225/dongoliano/basket07.gif

miffedmax
Jan 31st, 2012, 06:45 PM
miffedmax said everything that has to be said. take your propaganda (and your laughable avatar) elsewhere.

Maybe take his avatar down and wave it at this guy.
http://www.oceans09mtsieeebiloxi.org/userfiles/Image/RDML_TITLEY.jpg



http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxPentagon-Rear-Admiral-David

If you have the time to listen to Admiral Titley, you'll find the U.S. military considers climate change a major defense issue for the U.S.

JustineTime
Jan 31st, 2012, 09:08 PM
IMO anyone who still thinks "global warming" is confused or has an agenda. There is climate change and it is possible that emissions from industrialized societies do affect that change.

Of course the climate changes. If it was static, there'd be no need to discuss it. But anthropogenic global warming is by no means proven. It is the height of human hubris to think that mankind can "control" the earth's weather. :rolleyes:

Also, labelling CO2 as a "pollutant" is just :weirdo:ed. The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide between plants and animals is the quintessence of the symbiosis which gives balance to life on this planet. It is, for me, at least, one of the clearest and most demonstrable evidences of God's existence.

Stamp Paid
Jan 31st, 2012, 09:12 PM
Of course the climate changes. If it was static, there'd be no need to discuss it. But anthropogenic global warming is by no means proven. It is the height of human hubris to think that mankind can "control" the earth's weather. :rolleyes:
Why? Because God is in control of that? :lol::lol:

Theodoropen
Jan 31st, 2012, 11:33 PM
Of course the climate changes. If it was static, there'd be no need to discuss it. But anthropogenic global warming is by no means proven. It is the height of human hubris to think that mankind can "control" the earth's weather. :rolleyes:

There aren't many theories that have been proven, as it's in the vast majority of cases impossible to do so. I'm fairly sure that physics is the only field with proven hypotheses/theories, i.e., laws. Other fields, including both evolutionary biology and theology, are built on theories/hypotheses that are non-falsifiable. Being widely accepted is the most that such theories/hypotheses can possibly achieve. Anthropogenic climate change is most definitely widely accepted among both the scientific community and society at large, despite climate change deniers proclamations to the contrary.

Anyway, as far as I know, no one has said that mankind can/does 'control' the earth's weather. Control is not synonymous with influence, neither is weather synonymous with climate.

Also, labelling CO2 as a "pollutant" is just :weirdo:ed. The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide between plants and animals is the quintessence of the symbiosis which gives balance to life on this planet. It is, for me, at least, one of the clearest and most demonstrable evidences of God's existence.

Pollution can come in a number of forms, including the addition of any substance, naturally occurring or otherwise, to the environment at a rate faster than the environment can accommodate it by dispersion, breakdown, recycling, or storage in some harmless form. I'm quite sure that CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of fossils fuels meets that definition. Even if you continue to deny that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, you'll find the acidification of our oceans resulting from anthropogenic CO2 is more difficult to refute. And in the case of ocean acidification, CO2 clearly satisfies the above definition of 'pollutant'.

Besides, whether someone believes it to be a pollutant or not is largely irrelevant to the lives of, for instance, Bangladeshis and people living in small island states in the South Pacific. Such people are seriously struggling with the effects of anthropogenic climate change, and it's not getting any easier for them, what with climate change deniers attempting to hijack the debate rather than accepting the fact that we urgently need to start weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and petrochemicals.

JustineTime
Feb 1st, 2012, 12:15 AM
Besides, whether someone believes it to be a pollutant or not is largely irrelevant to the lives of, for instance, Bangladeshis and people living in small island states in the South Pacific. Such people are seriously struggling with the effects of anthropogenic climate change, and it's not getting any easier for them, what with climate change deniers attempting to hijack the debate rather than accepting the fact that we urgently need to start weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and petrochemicals.

Hey, you're not gonna get me to argue on behalf of our continued dependence on fossil fuels, but as of right now, there just aren't any viable alternatives. "Start weaning ourselves off fossil fuels..."? Absolutely. I'm down with that.

But again, you speak of anthropogenic climate change as an established scientific fact, and it's just not. I'm not saying mankind's activities have zero effect on the environment, but where's the demonstrable, irrefutable evidence that it has a significant, measurable impact on climate change, and that we're heading inexorably toward Al Goreleoni's Chicken Little cataclysm? :confused:

Theodoropen
Feb 1st, 2012, 02:32 AM
Hey, you're not gonna get me to argue on behalf of our continued dependence on fossil fuels, but as of right now, there just aren't any viable alternatives. "Start weaning ourselves off fossil fuels..."? Absolutely. I'm down with that.:

I agree that alternative energy sources are not able to provide for all of our energy requirements currently. The thing is that we do need to change from a 'demand driving the supply' to a 'supply driving the demand' perspective. Barring scientists figuring out how to harness fusion power in the near future, we will be compelled to find ways to dramatically reduce our energy consumption. I imagine that it'll be painful, but shit hitting the fan often is.

As much as some may think this is unjustifiably alarmist, it really isn’t that difficult to imagine it happening. In fact, IMO it wouldn’t take all that much for us to find ourselves returning to subsistence living.

But again, you speak of anthropogenic climate change as an established scientific fact, and it's just not. I'm not saying mankind's activities have zero effect on the environment, but where's the demonstrable, irrefutable evidence that it has a significant, measurable impact on climate change, and that we're heading inexorably toward Al Goreleoni's Chicken Little cataclysm? :confused:

Climate scientists have provided the empirical data you speak of ("significant, measurable"), but it's not possible to obtain 'irrefutable evidence', for the reason I outlined earlier (admittedly I was brief). Unfortunately, the climate change deniers are using the lack of 'irrefutable evidence’ as justification not only for our continued use of fossil fuels, but for extracting fossil fuels in ever more destructive (and energy-consuming!!!) ways, thereby accelerating the exact process they claim does not exist. It’s no accident that Imperial Oil, etc. are heavily involved in disseminating misinformation around the issue of climate change in an effort to justify projects such as the Alberta tar sands. By ‘misinformation’, I also mean to include demands for ‘proof’ that human activity is contributing to climate change, demands that they know full well cannot be met (as is the case with any scientific theory, non-falsifiable or falsifiable).

I wonder what such climate change deniers would do if we flipped it around on them, and said that the burden of proof is theirs? In other words, could they provide ‘irrefutable evidence’ that climate change is not at all influenced by human activity? Alternatively, could they provide 'irrefutable evidence' that climate shifts are driven entirely by other factors, e.g., solar radiation?