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

I did hear that the climate would result in a cold spike for Europe, but that'd been predicted for years. It's also been predicted that Earth will, on rough average, continue warming in many other places, especially the polar caps.

 

When looked at from a GLOBAL perspective there has not been any warming in 15 years.

 

That's not very useful; what's useful is to look at trends and predictions for certain areas. The temperature by the way would not necessarily increase even if the total thermal energy stored in the atmosphere did increase.

 

That's one of the myths of your cult of AGW denial but it has nothing to do with reality. And like the myths of the flat earthers that claim that all space flights were hoaxes and we never went to the moon, your myth about no warming has been repeatedly debunked. Quite a few times, in fact, just on this thread.

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black Environment correspondent
BBC News
10 June 2011

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not [statistically] significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising. The dataset that Professor Jones helps to compile - HadCRUT3 - is a joint project between the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), where he is based, and the UK Met Office. It is one of the main global temperature records used by bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). HadCRUT shows a warming 1995-2010 of 0.19C - consistent with the other major records, which all use slightly different ways of analysing the data in order to compensate for issues such as the dearth of measuring stations in polar regions.

Shortly before the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Phil Jones found himself at the centre of the affair that came to be known as "ClimateGate", which saw the release of more than 1,000 emails taken from a CRU server. Critics alleged the emails showed CRU scientists and others attempting to subvert the usual processes of science, and of manipulating data in order to paint an unfounded picture of globally rising temperatures. Subsequent enquiries found the scientists and their institutions did fall short of best practice in areas such as routine use of professional statisticians and response to Freedom of Information requests, but found no case to answer on the charges of manipulation. Since then, nothing has emerged through mainstream science to challenge the IPCC's basic picture of a world warming through greenhouse gas emissions.

And a new initiative to construct a global temperature record, based at Stanford University in California whose funders include "climate sceptical" organisations, has reached early conclusions that match established records closely. [the BEST Project]

BBC © 2012

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

The problem with that is you have no logical argument for GW/AGW...take a hike.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL.....yeah right....all I've got is the overwhelming physical evidence for AGW/CC gathered over the last 60 years or so by tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of countries all around the world, and the testimony of virtually all of the world's climate scientists backed by the large majority of the rest of the world's scientists who all support the validity of the findings about the reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes and the dangers these pose to the world's ecosystems and our human civilization and populations. But of course, in the myths of your little cult of denial, the world's scientists are obviously not "logical". LOLOLOL.

The problem with your position is that you have no viable, scientifically valid, alternative explanations for the changes in world average temperatures and climate patterns over the last century or so and no scientific evidence that would refute the AGW theory. Your whole denial-of-reality position is based on the anti-scientific myths, deliberate misinformation, lies and propaganda being pushed by the fossil fuel industry in their desperate attempt to forestall any effective restrictions on carbon emissions (which would drastically reduce their profit stream from selling fossil fuels). You've been duped and bamboozled by experts in the field of bamboozlement (called PR firms and 'think tanks') who are being funded by oil and coal corps to confuse you (and everybody else whose ignorance of science and rightwingnut political delusions make them particularly gullible), influence Congress and delay the vitally necessary actions the USA (and the world) must take to deal with the greatest threat our world has ever faced.

 

Linky?? Evidence? Because if you are taking that idea from David Rose, well, we have already proven he is a liar and his articles are close to outright fraud

 

Actually, if you look at it from a GLOBAL perspective there most definitely is warming. The only people saying otherwise are skeptics/denialists who are looking only at surface temps.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml

We examine the Earth's energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space. Only about 10% of the positive forcing (about 1/3 of the net forcing) has gone into heating the Earth, almost all into the oceans. About 20% of the positive forcing has been balanced by volcanic aerosols, and the remaining 50% is mainly attributable to tropospheric aerosols. After accounting for the measured terms, the residual forcing between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semidirect forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 (1&#963. This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's best estimates but rules out very large negative forcings from aerosol indirect effects. Further, the data imply an increase from the 1950s to the 1980s followed by constant or slightly declining aerosol forcing into the 1990s, consistent with estimates of trends in global sulfate emissions. An apparent increase in residual forcing in the late 1990s is discussed.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...32068-european-cold-spell-kills-hundreds.html

I understand that climate experts of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change informed governments of Europe adout the effects of AGW expected by them? And the governments did not take any measures to meet and follow recomendations of experts and at least inform the public ahead of time? No extra warning, no extra shelters, nothing?
Who are the murderers here?

Re: "Who murdered the vets?" by Ernest Hemingway.

 

You said it yourself, we are talking about GLOBAL temperatures. Why does this change anything?

 

The warmists have already covered their collective butts on that one. It used to be 'global warming' now its 'climate change' so they can account for the 'inconvenient' cooling that is becoming more and more prevalent.

Also, they say that when it is warm, it's 'global warming' then when it is cold it's 'just the weather.'

 

Soory he said GLOBAL not LOCAL

There is a difference you know

And I guess though that this is not climate change

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/russian-heat-climate-change/

 

I has always been known as climate change really

That is because, it is causing a lot of INSTABILITY in the weather

 

In my opinion, the resources of our republic would be better served, by Standards establishing natural public sector monopolies that can be exploited for gain by any form of Capitalism; by the public sector and which can also provide a basis for better governance, at lower cost.

In that manner, the public sector would more effectively compete with the private sector for labor and thereby establish a new equilibrium that can be less than one percent official unemployment. The infrastructure is already in place in every State of the Union and the federal districts.

From my perspective, we could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy at the same time, merely by being moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws and legal doctrines in American law.

 

I asked 3 questions. I got no answers. I have the 4th - why?

 

I asked 3 questions. I got no answer I have the 4th one - why?

Is Russia global or local? I am getting confused... what do I see on your pic. Local? has nothing to do to global?
No. heat waves in russia has been recorded since XVI centrury, fires around moscow, smoke pumping CO2 into athmoshpere since there was no fire aircraft and trucks... etc.... colds are not so usual

can you show me IPCC experts warning governments from europe to asia about the linked extremes of global warming?
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpr...n-winter-goes-extreme-as-temperatures-plunge/
Oh, it is already 6 questions. I bet none of them will get answered. Anybody? 10:1?

 

Basically you got no answer because you have been on my DBR list

"Don't Bother Reading"

As I said before if you have a point make it but your logic is hard to follow

 

What a silly, silly denier cult myth you've embraced. And so easy to debunk. Both terms, 'global warming' and 'climate change', have been in use by scientists for over three decades. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988.

I suppose this hallucinatory "inconvenient cooling" must be another braindead myth of your cult.

 

Actually the extreme winter weather in Europe fits in with the climate scientists' predictions as to what would happen as the Arctic ice cap melts away and exposes the warmer ocean waters to the air.

Science behind the big freeze: is climate change bringing the Arctic to Europe?
A loss of sea ice could be a cause of the bitter winds that have swept across the UK in the past week, weather experts say
The Independent
04 February 2012
(excerpts)

The bitterly cold weather sweeping Britain and the rest of Europe has been linked by scientists with the ice-free seas of the Arctic, where global warming is exerting its greatest influence. A growing number of experts believe complex wind patterns are being changed because melting Arctic sea ice has exposed huge swaths of normally frozen ocean to the atmosphere above. In particular, the loss of Arctic sea ice could be influencing the development of high-pressure weather systems over northern Russia, which bring very cold winds from the Arctic and Siberia to Western Europe and the British Isles, the scientists believe. An intense anticyclone over north-west Russia is behind the bitterly cold easterly winds that have swept across Europe and some climate scientists say the lack of Arctic sea ice brought about by global warming is responsible.

"The current weather pattern fits earlier predictions of computer models for how the atmosphere responds to the loss of sea ice due to global warming," said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "The ice-free areas of the ocean act like a heater as the water is warmer than the Arctic air above it. This favours the formation of a high-pressure system near the Barents Sea, which steers cold air into Europe." Studies by scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research have confirmed a link between the loss of Arctic sea ice and the development of high-pressure zones in the polar region, which influence wind patterns at lower latitudes further south. Scientists found that as the cap of sea ice is removed from the ocean, huge amounts of heat are released from the sea into the colder air above, causing the air to rise. Rising air destabilises the atmosphere and alters the difference in air pressure between the Arctic and more southerly regions, changing wind patterns.

Professor Rahmstorf said the Alfred Wegener study confirms earlier predictions from computer models by Vladimir Petoukhov of the Potsdam Institute, who forecast colder winters in western Europe as a result of melting sea ice. Dr Petoukhov and his colleague Vladimir Semenov were among the first scientists to suggest a link between the loss of sea ice and colder winters in Europe. Their 2009 study simulated the effects of disappearing sea ice and found that for some years to come the loss will increase the chances of colder winters.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

Calling anyone murderers because of a few hundred deaths in a cold spell, or any weather event, is absurd and pointless.

EDIT: Also, I'm going to take your deflection as tacit admission that you weren't actually talking about global temperatures. Ignoring this further will be taken as confirmation.

 

I'm referring to the brain-dead warmist cult represented on this Forum. First it was 'global warming' now, because cooling trends have been found they call it 'climate change' this way whether it is hot or cold they can claim the 'scientific' high ground and spout the same old tired apocalyptic rhetoric that is their religious dogma.

I don't know why you are not on my 'ignore' list with the other losers, I guess your hysteria is somehow entertaining.

 

You seem impervious to the facts. Scientists have used both of the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' right from the beginning of serious study of the subject. The term 'climate change' was in use for a long time before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. Nobody "changed" anything. The idea that the name was "changed" at some point for political reasons is just one of the more idiotic myths of your bamboozled cult of reality denial.

I am not surprised to hear you say that you have most everyone who disagrees with you "on ignore". Denying or 'ignoring' any facts that would upset the ignorant, dimwitted cultic myths and deranged belief systems that you have embraced, is, after all, what you deniers are all about.

 

I didn't say that...you are projecting that in order to make some ridiculous point. The reason I would put you on ignore is your serial name-calling and empty abusive attacks on those that disagree with you however, your unfounded hysteria is well...hysterical...

 

Well, I find your ignorant denial of reality in the face of all evidence to be very amusing, albeit a rather sad commentary on the failures of the American educational system.

 

I don’t think that anybody has a little bit of conscious doubts that if one does not bother to read one cannot follow logic. It is not hard, it is impossible. It is even impossible to know that I specifically stated that I did not submit any logic in the text you did not bother to read but bother to reply with your only argument #15.