[Closed] Global warming update!

Sources?

[img] [/img]

we could debate why temps are rising but not if
Ignoring actual measures of temperature the shrinking of the polar regions should convince anyone as a proxy measure
the last 14 years involves taking the record high of 1997[an el nino year so weather]and would have to ignore the fact that the last decade was the hottest ever recorded. the stable or declining s just not true for the last 40 years.
i assume you could plot a straight line of best fit on this
[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1840 [/img]
it looks like this[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/trend:1840 [/img]

HTH

reducing pollution and reducing the number of deaths that it has caused, a good thing or a bad thing?

Sources?

yeah, I'm not sure if I agree with making the world a better place..

OOoh - graphs!

[img] [/img]

Junky, would be interested to hear why of all the datasets available via WFT, that you chose the HADCRU4 ?

Random i just picked one
here have another it shows something completely different
[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp [/img]

[img] [/img]

Wow look- lots of graphs!

[img] [/img]

At a guess, the OP's source was the Mail on Sunday. Specifically, an article by David Rose.

Firstly, it shouldn't need debunking because it's in the Mail. Stop reading the Mail; it rots your mind and poisons your heart and soul. And probably causes/cures cancer.

Secondly, here's the Met Office response: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

So does this prove once and for all tbat all these 'green' taxes we've been forced to pay have been raised on the back of a fallacy?

Ah, another "I don't want to pay taxes" debate conveniently wrapped up in the global warming issue.

Thanks .....for not linking to the mail

The arctic region is indeed losing a lot of ice in recent years, but apparantly Antartica has more ice at the moment than has previously ever been recorded.

Work that one out!

I'm kind of getting fed up with all this debate over whether global warming is happening or not. What is wrong with reducing, and eventually eliminating, our dependency on fossil fuels? What is so wrong with reducing pollution? What is so wrong with taking care of ourselves and the planet?

I think this is vital, regardless of whether we are causing global warming or not.

The sooner we get over this "have we caused global warming" argument the better.

What is so wrong with taking care of ourselves and the planet?

Because OP and his type doesn't want to pay for it. Possibly?

Well... Antartic sea ice is covering a record area, but that doesn't mean there's a record amount of ice (can't find any figures for volume rather than area, which is annoying).

Ironically, it seems to be being caused by the higher winds caused by antartic warming, which is spreading the ice further.

Buuuut, antartic land ice is still in decline. And that's more troublesome because ice on water doesn't affect coast levels but ice on land, if it melts, does.

The arctic region is indeed losing a lot of ice in recent years, but apparantly Antartica has more ice at the moment than has previously ever been recorded.
Work that one out!

Opposite ends of the planet.

One is a sea

One is a continent.

but apparantly Antartica has more ice at the moment than has previously ever been recorded.

🙄

Gravity innit!

+1 mikey74

I just love the fact that you Guys are franticallyresearching Internet data, in order to post a comment!

BTW El-bent, some mighty big assumptions there!

So RockApe, was it the Mail article that prompted this thread? What did you think of the met offices' rebuttal?

[quote=TuckerUK ]but apparantly Antartica has more ice at the moment than has previously ever been recorded.

Gravity innit!
Of course. It's all sliding down to the bottom.

Surely Lifer, we can have a debate on STW without invoking the 'mail' word?

I'll take that as a yes.

I just love the fact that you Guys are franticallyresearching Internet data, in order to post a comment!

Happy now OP

we're still coming out of the ice age.

I think you mean the dark ages where folk dd not understand science.

I feel sure someone on this forum will come up with an explanation the scientist have not considered or evaluated...

CMON HIVE MIND - we need to be quick as next week we have to cure cancer

I would like to take this opportunity and apologise unreservedly for posting up the [s]actual[/s] homogenised data of what has been occurring.

FTFY

(PS. both the data sets you used above share the same, homogenised, GHCN past data origin, and then both carry out further homogenisation and adjustments to the data before analysing. Hope that helps)

What is wrong with reducing, and eventually eliminating, our dependency on fossil fuels?

Nothing at all.

The fact that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels will take care of it quite nicely though.

[url= http://m.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind?cat=science&type=article ]Meanwhile a climate study, partly paid for by climate sceptics, causes the sceptical scientists involved to change their mind. (Guardian, July)[/url]

Yay science!

Zulu I can only assume you would be happier i they did not do this and then skewed the results due to say UHI.
We have done this to death and you might like to read GrahamS's link

What say ye of proxy measures like glacial regions melting 😉

What say ye of proxy measures like glacial regions melting 😉

I'd point you towards the ease with which people can misrepresent data in respected pseudo-scientific reports ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc )

now what say ye of proxy measures like Bristlecone pine growth rings 😉

respected pseudo-scientific reports

Not interested in a "debate"
For anyone who cares Wiki [ which Zulu loves] explains the rationale for the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_(climate)

Kaesae not seen this yet then.....

He'll be researching as we speak, well, by researching I mean using the search function on youtube

[img] [/img]

Post 3 on this thread sums it up pretty well for me.

The arctic region is indeed losing a lot of ice in recent years, but apparantly Antartica has more ice at the moment than has previously ever been recorded.
Work that one out!

Lolz at the pathetic challenge 🙂

Warmer air - more water vapour in it = more snow = more ice over time. Central Antarctica could get a lot warmer and still be plenty cold enough for snow - obviously.

Try harder.

More snow = more ice.

Err.... No sorry, have another go!

BTW El-bent, some mighty big assumptions there!

So does this prove once and for all tbat all these 'green' taxes we've been forced to pay have been raised on the back of a fallacy?

Any mirrors in your house?

i thought it was more area covered in snow which is a very different thing to more snow.

The report was about sea ice, not landmass ice. But you're on the right track- more water surface covered in ice, but not necesarily more ice.

More snow = more ice.

Do go on...

Man induced climate disruption is a fact.
I could understand if you want to discuss extent or scale of the problem, but even then you'd be sticking your head in the sand.
Lifer at post 3 has it right.

Hmmm....

So does this prove once and for all tbat all these 'green' taxes we've been forced to pay have been raised on the back of a fallacy?

So we'll be alright to use the infinite resources of fossil fuels then?

Global Warming aside, we're running out of oil. Sooner or later demand will more than exceed supply and by then it'll be far too lake to entrust "The Markets" to come up with a better solution.

I'm not in favour of the use of taxation to influence social policy at all, in fact I'd go so far as to say that I'd happily see whoever it was who came up with the idea publically flogged, but if we leave it to providence, we're royally screwed.

[quote=PJM1974 ]
Global Warming aside, we're running out of oil.
We've been running out of oil since man first started using it.

And unfortunately the carbon and other greenhouse gases present in the remaining oil/gas/coal will **** us over even more royally than we already are...but hey, don't let that worry you OP...

i love these threads!

rockape; sources and graphs please?

i especially like the graphs that start at 1997/98 - they're hilarious 🙂

It was from a [s]disingenuous[/s] standard article in the Mail on Sunday but he doesn't like talking about it.

+1 for post 3!

the story is from the daily mail, they got some data from the MET office and gave it to a climate sceptic Judith Curry...
http://www.****/home/search.html?sel=site&searchPhrase=judith+curry

The Daily Mail, right up there with Fox News, PressTV, Truther websites and Truther you tube vids as totally unreliable

I see this is still going, www.familyradio.com

I'm not in favour of the use of taxation to influence social policy at all, in fact I'd go so far as to say that I'd happily see whoever it was who came up with the idea publically flogged, but if we leave it to providence, we're royally screwed.

Very few other methods (none I've found but I'm sure someone will tell me there are) will change behaviour more than hitting people in the pocket. It isn't nice, but it works.

Of course, we're all jiggered now that car ownership in China and India is escalating to crazy levels ... all the good we do by recyling our Marmite jars and shopping bags will be anihilated!

What is wrong with reducing, and eventually eliminating, our dependency on fossil fuels

One way or another, what with them being a finite resource and all, that will happen.

The question is: how much are we going to **** it all up whilst pissing them up the wall before that time?

[b]Latest news just in:[/b]

It appears the Met Office 'quietly' readjusted its figures on Christmas eve regarding Global warming. Until then it had been predicting rises of at least 0.2 degrees per decade, with a succession of years exceeding even the record breaking high of 1998.

Its latest chart tells a very different story.......no more global warming until at least 2017.

You couldn't make it up! All the awful predictions they've been making for the past 20 years have come crashing down around their ears. Its almost as bad as their prediction for a barbecue summer last year!!

Rockape63 - Member

Its latest chart tells a very different story.......no more global warming until at least 2017.

all of 4 years away.

meanwhile:

[url= http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ ]cool graph...[/url]

Oooh nice graph! All of 4 years away, but at this rate it will cooling down again! 😯

Climate model forecast is revised

"the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017, as opposed to an earlier forecast suggesting a difference of 0.54C"

"it still stands by its longer-term projections that forecast significant warming over the course of this century"

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224[/url]

So this finally got raised! I saw the Met Office climb down yesterday. Well hidden and hardly covered - and unsurprisingly ignored by the BBC TV news (but was on the web). Good to see that the Met acknowledged that "this is an extremely challenging area of research" and that, "our knowledge is continually increasing and it is therefore not surprising that our models and predictive skill will continue to improve". That will be a relief - not in the rainfall sense though (sorry bad, geographers pun!).

Also good to know that global warming (sic) has stalled/slowed down since 2000 with last year being below the average of the past decade but I would suggest that taking their predictions that there will be no global warming for a period of 20 years probably need taking with a large pinch of salt.

Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office...pointed out that warming has slowed down since 2000, in comparison to the rapid warming of the world since the 1970s.
“Although the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record, warming has not been as rapid since 2000 as over the longer period since the 1970s,” he said. “This variability in global temperatures is not unusual, with several periods lasting a decade or more with little or no warming since the instrumental record began.... {no S*** sherlock]... “We are investigating why the temperature rise at the surface has [inconveniently?] slowed in recent years, including how ocean heat content changes and the effects of aerosols from atmospheric pollution may have influenced global climate.”

But wait for it...

Dr Stott warned that global warming could speed up again at any time, and insisted that [b]the general pattern of warming was not in doubt.[/b]

With their record, its good to know they can still be so categorical (and as equally likely to be right or wrong)

Re the complaints about sources - it would indeed be so helpful if the Met Office made this a little easier to find on their website. It would be too cynical to suggest any motive though!

So if it warms up more crocodiles will be able to breed more effectively?

Seriously, who cares about global warming anyway, we love being on a self propelled journey to destroy the well being of the planet. It's the human way. All this doing the right thing on pollution, energy saving, protecting the only planet we have, it's got to be better to mess on our home. Still I have no kids to leave planet to so no need to care.
As far as oil goes on the finite front, i'd be as concerned about other things also.

Other important questions are: Will this thread go one ages and will someone be booted off for being to clever (the tj effect).

molgrips - Member
Lolz at the pathetic challenge

Warmer air - more water vapour in it = more snow = more ice over time. Central Antarctica could get a lot warmer and still be plenty cold enough for snow - obviously.

Try harder.

Source? Because your post is somewhat at odds with this article from the register
[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/antarctic_ice_growth_investigated/ ]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/antarctic_ice_growth_investigated/[/url]

I couldn't read the full publication as it's behind a paywall, but the abstract doesn't mention snow.

[img] [/img]
/p>

That's exactly how I feel. I'm no scientist so not qualified to comment about global warming but the list is all good shit which we should do anyway. A bit of global housekeeping if you like.

But that's not the point Wrecker. I fully agree with you, but I like many others feel aggrieved that we have had this shoved down our necks, had our holiday flights taxed to the hilt (and beyond) in addition to having to listen to barmy scientists witter on relentlessly.........only to find out its all BOLLOX!

And......don't get me started on carbon footprints!! 😳

Lewis Page of the Register has constantly pressed an AGW-sceptical viewpoint. His opinion alone proves or disproves nothing.

The MetOffice is releasing experimental data based on its open analysis in an open manner. They don't claim their data is everything, nor does a small readjustment in their data mean that a whole branch of science is "BOLLOCKS"

Are you people completely thick or just pretending?

There's no such thing as a climb-down ffs.

The way scientists work is that they keep trying to figure stuff out and they learn more in the process. So when they say 'we think this might happen' they're not making a stand they are telling you what they currently think.

Then, when they learn more, they might change their mind. So it's not a climb down, it's just keeping you informed of current thinking. They can't help it if you're a bonehead.

As George Orwell said

At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. … Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

Oh really....in 2007 its Hadley Centre for climate change research produced a briefing document for the Government claiming its state of the art computer models left no doubt: man made global warning was a very real threat which needed to be urgently addressed by the policy makers.

What if it is all BOLLOCKS? What if caron dioxide isn't responsible for global temp changes? what if all the job killing, environmentally destructive measures we've taken have been a spectacular waste of money?

[i]Oh really....in 2007 its Hadley Centre for climate change research produced a briefing document for the Government claiming its state of the art computer models left no doubt: man made global warning was a very real threat which needed to be urgently addressed by the policy makers.[/i]

and why did the Christmas Eve data contradict that? It's predicting a SLOWING OF THE RATE of warming, not a lack of warming, not a reversal. The decade preceding this one was the warmest on record. 2012 was the 9th warmest year on record by some measures.

The whole thing is immensely complex to model, and there are lots of datasets, and they won't all match up, and using a single one as the basis of ANYTHING is tabloid dum****ery, but a shallowing out of a rate of growth in one set of data doesn't disprove warming, it just indicates an increased amount of uncertainty in where things are predicted to go from here.

[i]The whole thing is immensely complex to model[/i]

Clearly!

To the OP: please explain:
1. How releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere doesn't cause the atmosphere to warm. Please make a reference to the cretaceous period and Venus.
2. Please provide a breakdown of the "green taxes" you pay and how they are spent.

Another patient debunking by the Met Office: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/addressing-the-daily-mail-and-james-delingpoles-crazy-climate-change-obsession-article/

the mind boggles as to why anyone would want to debate this, the point is shirley, who's willing to gamble with THE EFFING EARTH? oh, everyone.

good thing there was never an ice age.

Brainflex, there was an ice age you know! I prefer ice age 2 myself but will watch any of them at a push

I was enjoying Ice Age 3, then there was a power cut and I missed the end.

who's willing to gamble with THE EFFING EARTH? oh, everyone.

Yes, especially all those who are gambling that AGW is the most important issue we face.