Forum menu
Figures released 'quietly' on the Internet this week shows that there has been no descernable rise in aggregate global temperatures for 16 yrs. this means that the plateau in global warming has now lasted for the same amount of time as the previous period 80-96 when temps rose. Before that temps had been stable or declining for 40 years.
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?
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?
The internet, silly! The OP put that in the very first sentence. 🙄
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!
I would like to take this opportunity and apologise unreservedly for posting up the actual data of what has been occurring.
I apologise for my rational approach of being led by the evidence/data and in future shall endeavour to have an ill informed knee jerk reaction in the face of inaccurate reports.
I have seen the light and it has the face of a grinning hippy in sandals counting the taxes from their global windmill enterprise the lieing bastards
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
you have a higher opinion of a Guardian article than i do///Who knew you rated it far better than i do
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.