Thread: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

It appears NASA says no warming for last 15 years and we are headed for a mini ice age. This tells me skeptics were right all along man is not affecting climate change


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-again.html

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.

Your post tells me that you would grasp at the thinnest of straws if it supported your faith-based ideas. If the Daily Wail can't even get the source of their sensationalised garbage right, what chance the story itself?

NASA isn't the same as "the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit." The first is the British Weather centre, and the second is a British University department. Neither is North American.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

Your post tells me that you would grasp at the thinnest of straws if it supported your faith-based ideas. If the Daily Wail can't even get the source of their sensationalised garbage right, what chance the story itself?

NASA isn't the same as "the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit." The first is the British Weather centre, and the second is a British University department. Neither is North American.

You show you did not read the article. NASA says we are headed to cycle 25 which will be low solar activity .

The Met Office and East Anglia show we have not been warming.

It shows that some the biggest global warming organizations are proving we are not warming and we are looking at a cooling cycle in the near future.

Consensus?

Settled science?

Doesn't sound like it.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

Your post tells me that you would grasp at the thinnest of straws if it supported your faith-based ideas. If the Daily Wail can't even get the source of their sensationalised garbage right, what chance the story itself?

NASA isn't the same as "the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit." The first is the British Weather centre, and the second is a British University department. Neither is North American.

Your post tells ME that the typical eco-weenie would cling with exaggerated desperation to the past like a Luddite working in a buggy whip factory.

The claim that man made global warming was "settled" has ignored alternative data for 15 years.

And when so called "scientists" heatedly and angrily shout down even the merest question of data with spittle flinging from their lips it is sufficient evidence of at least pig headed closed mindedness if not political ideology masquerading as "science."

More than 25 million people make their living as a result of the global warming hoax....they all have their own manner of living to protect over and above science.

The facts are there....and they are NASA's data....like Ripley said: "Believe it, or not."

Originally Posted by Taxcutter

Consensus?

Settled science?

Doesn't sound like it.

This is what has bothered me about global warming "science" from the beginning. The very concept of science is that it is never "Settled" and there should never be "consensus."

You don't need to look very far nor very far in the past find our "science" was wrong. Remember thalidamyde? It was supposed to be safe. We got thousands of babies born with fins.

Just a few years ago they were treating psoriasis with heavy doses of UV light, slightly burning the skin. Ten years and, wow, they discovered what most psoriasis sufferers already knew...that too much light made it worse.

In biology and farming, almost everything we thought we knew and changed to in the 1970's and 80's we now find out was wrong.

Science is never "settled"...only those who have something to gain will tell you science is settled.

Notice this not from skeptics but from organizations that claimed global warming.

Originally Posted by ptif219

It appears NASA says no warming for last 15 years and we are headed for a mini ice age. This tells me skeptics were right all along man is not affecting climate change


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-again.html

Could you link to where NASA says that? I don't trust info like that from dailymail and similar sites.

Peer-reviewed literature tells us a different story....

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL048794.shtml - Church et al. (2011)

"We review the sea-level and energy budgets together from 1961, using recent and updated estimates of all terms. From 1972 to 2008, the observed sea-level rise (1.8 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 from tide gauges alone and 2.1 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 from a combination of tide gauges and altimeter observations) agrees well with the sum of contributions (1.8 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) in magnitude and with both having similar increases in the rate of rise during the period. The largest contributions come from ocean thermal expansion (0.8 mm yr−1) and the melting of glaciers and ice caps (0.7 mm yr−1), with Greenland and Antarctica contributing about 0.4 mm yr−1. The cryospheric contributions increase through the period (particularly in the 1990s) but the thermosteric contribution increases less rapidly. We include an improved estimate of aquifer depletion (0.3 mm yr−1), partially offsetting the retention of water in dams and giving a total terrestrial storage contribution of −0.1 mm yr−1. Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m−2 for the 1980s and early 1990s. It increases in the late 1990s, as is required for consistency with little surface warming over the last decade. This increase is likely at least partially related to substantial increases in aerosol emissions from developing nations and moderate volcanic activity. "

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

"We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010."

Originally Posted by The Lepper

Could you link to where NASA says that? I don't trust info like that from dailymail and similar sites.

Peer-reviewed literature tells us a different story....

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL048794.shtml - Church et al. (2011)

"We review the sea-level and energy budgets together from 1961, using recent and updated estimates of all terms. From 1972 to 2008, the observed sea-level rise (1.8 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 from tide gauges alone and 2.1 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 from a combination of tide gauges and altimeter observations) agrees well with the sum of contributions (1.8 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) in magnitude and with both having similar increases in the rate of rise during the period. The largest contributions come from ocean thermal expansion (0.8 mm yr−1) and the melting of glaciers and ice caps (0.7 mm yr−1), with Greenland and Antarctica contributing about 0.4 mm yr−1. The cryospheric contributions increase through the period (particularly in the 1990s) but the thermosteric contribution increases less rapidly. We include an improved estimate of aquifer depletion (0.3 mm yr−1), partially offsetting the retention of water in dams and giving a total terrestrial storage contribution of −0.1 mm yr−1. Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m−2 for the 1980s and early 1990s. It increases in the late 1990s, as is required for consistency with little surface warming over the last decade. This increase is likely at least partially related to substantial increases in aerosol emissions from developing nations and moderate volcanic activity. "

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

"We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010."

If you think it is wrong prove it. I am not your researcher

Originally Posted by ptif219

If you think it is wrong prove it. I am not your researcher

It's not that I think it's wrong, I just want to see the source of this info to clarify that they are discussing surface temp and are not including heat absorbed by the ocean.

...And I did just give you a link that shows the oceans have still been warming regardless of surface temp. So to say 'no warming' full stop wouldn't be totally accurate.